Third Wave Dong Expansionism: The Case for a Piminarchy

Third Wave Dong Expansionism: The Case for a Piminarchy 

Dong expansionist theories have a long, hard, and elaborate (mostly apocryphal) history, starting from 1886 when it was first theorized by Yama Tamagotchi, in then Feudal Japan. The foundation of the theory was based around the evolving perception of the right to rule in Japan, as a natural consequence of the then dying Feudal society, with serious questions being raised at the time on the divine right to rule, or divine right to lead and manage the people. At the time the right to rule was determined by force, with the right to leadership determined in the glory of open battle, in a somewhat archaic "might makes right" precept, however Yama theorized that while inaccurate, it possessed a grain of truth as to why the powerful were often more revered as leaders. Their powers were justly derived through merit, in a form of meritocracy, where the best rose to the top, although it did not necessarily result in the best leaders politically given the nature of combat. Nonetheless, it was their ability to organize large numbers of men, and woman, in to certain actions that lead to their success, and thus their existing size and efficacy in battle in part represented the organizational skills of the leaders involved, with this reflecting, in part, a general ability to lead, with this translating over to the management of society. Like all conflicts or battles, it was a measure of mettle as much as it was ingenuity of man, but this was in addition to luck and brute force, thus negating some aspects that would otherwise be desired in a leader. A tyrant, too, could rule under the precepts of the right to rule being influenced by force, which while a necessary instrument of governance, could easily be abused. Features which took in not only military success, but economic one's (military success which was in many ways a measure of this, such as the U.S. industrial base being of significant importance in WWII), as well as moral precepts, requiring a trifecta not only of the proper application of force, but the prior accumulation of it, stood as the basis for this new, critically, expanded theory. What dong expansionism took in to account was not only the total presence of force and dong expansion, but also the moral convictions and principles to properly execute it.

Like all battles and many struggles in life, Tamagotchi theorized this came down to in part competition, with the right to rule being an inherent struggle in virtually all forms of leadership, and through reduction was eventually honed to the inherent fundamental struggle all life has to reproduce. The goal of the smallest amoeba to the largest whale is procreation, creating and passing on to the next generation life, continuing this precious state of existence down the line for the next generation to appreciate. The need for male dominance in order to procreate, and resultingly the female deciders to determine what genes would be passed on (male rams butt heads in order to impress females, deer grow their antlers larger due to sexual selection by females, giraffes grew longer necks to impress females and so on), has been an essential part of the evolutionary line for humans, and other animals, for millions of years. Male sexual success among humans has historically, been correlated heavily, with penis size. In accordance with Dong expansionism, it speculates that life is frequently a competition over who has the biggest penis, or big dick energy, resonating from within them, and thus battles are actually an attempt to prove not only organizational skills, but those with the biggest peens. Thus, Dong expansionism speculates that the divine right to rule among the anointed, is often best reserved for those with the largest penises.

Thus while Dong expansionism can be said to be in a way a naturalist theory of philosophy, it focuses intently and specifically on the more human elements that are derived from the collective public unconscious, and projected purposes of humans in particular. While the initial proposal by Tamagachi was primitive, Third wave dong expansionism expanded on this concept by bringing this not only in to effective management skills, but importantly morality, expressing times when dong expansion was both important, and incorrect. 3rd wave Dong expansionism in particular delves more deeply in to the critical importance of controlled Dong expansion, representing not only the importance of force in the application of leadership, but a moral need to avoid violence or other impure acts, cementing it in to a personal as well as governmental rule for the average person. The all important question, "Does this expand dong?", was combined with, "Why, does this expand dong?", thus extrapolating the importance of the moral subconscious which formulates the public superconscious superstructure that innately determines the right to rule. Be it through a democracy or violent dictatorship, to rule one must in some way secure the will of the people, the will which provides a subconscious divides within a people. There is no, objective difference between the people living on the Border of one country and another, other than the internal ideological understanding of their own existence, projected on to themselves which defines their own sense of governance. While nations are often seen as arbitrary lines of map, a nation is truly made up of it's people and it's underlying subconscious will which forms the superstructure of society, which while varying in origin, nonetheless determines the societies own perception of it's self, and thus their determination of features regarding their own existence. A man believes he is Russian because he is told he is Russian and feels it to be so, and is American because he is told he so and feels it in his very being, making him now possess an entity and feature he has created, and adopted, despite solely resting in his own mind, and the mind of others. A government exists solely as an idea, collectively agreed upon by the individual and the collective society, through a subconscious social contract, and thus the right to lead this society is innately derived from that. Like all successful societies, there is an inherent need for competition, through it from elections or brute force, to guarantee effectiveness in their ability to rule. While dong expansionism does consider the ability to implement force as a necessary and important role in this, it evolves beyond the basic precept of violence and force in the traditional sense, and importantly expands the critical role of dong expansion to both moral and philosophical goals.


3rd Wave Dong Expansionist Theory: Moral Consciousness
What separates 3rd Wave Dong expansionist theory from 1st and 2nd wave is critically it's emphasis on the moral implications of Dong expansionism. The question of 3rd wave Dong Expansionism is not just following the simple formula of, "Does this expand dong?", but rather, "Why does this expand dong?". This critical shift in dong expansionist theory not only questions the more fundamental questions of dong expansion, but if it is morally correct, and thus if dong expansionism can be good or bad. Third wave dong expansionism postulates that some forms of dong expansion are bad, such as if inflicting harm on others or watching furry porn, and thus these types of dong expansion may be negative to society, and the individual and specific individuals, and thus should be questioned. Third wave dong expansion expresses self restraint and control, as well as morality, on if it is good or bad if dong expands, and not only if it does, separating it from 1st, and to a lesser extend, the short-lived 2nd wave Dong expansionism.

This question could perhaps be better summed up as, "Should this expand dong?", being that it should only expand dong for empathetic and moral purposes. It is not just a matter of expanding dong, but the reason as to why this expands dong, and the morality of that. Politicians and leaders with bizarre or immoral sexual proclivities, and other powerful people, such as Jeffery Epstein or Harvey Weinstein, indicate that not only they are immoral individuals, but will wield their powers for improper purposes, and thus would not make great leaders. Empathy and morals is introduced as a key faucet of dong expansionism, with not only Dong Expansion, but what expands dong being a prominent moral question in leadership. If people were chosen who did not have these perverted sexual fantasies, they likely would be far superior leaders, and thus not only the size of the penis but the reason for the expansion must be considered. 

Thus why something expands dong has been added to the general base of the theory to determine greater moral consciousness. There is not only a material efficacy to rule but a moral efficacy, that must be determined not only by the success of their actions but their intent, so as to direct and manage society in as empathetic and moral a method as possible. Indeed, a meritocracy itself is fundamentally moral only because of the material results it brings to society and the good this has for other people, and not as an intrinsic value in it's own right. Therefore morality must become the basis for a successful society and is the subconscious basis from which all govern ship is derived, despite this being muddled in the day to day bureaucracy of the system or innate corruption many systems bring. 


The subconscious superstructure and collective unconscious
The right to leadership is derived from the subconscious will eliminating from the people's unconscious, forming a collective superstructure which permeates all society. The conscious and subconscious desires of the general populace formulates the basis for anointment of a leader, or perhaps more aptly put a manager to regulate things they may end up effecting their daily lives. While the impact of a leader often does not effect the average person, it nevertheless can lead to many subtle or in some cases tremendous changes, and thus needs to be filled in a carefully crafted position.

Youngian philosophy deals heavily with the subconscious, but fails to take in to account the superconscious, or the conscious will of society and how it relates to the subconscious will of the individual. The individual is inseparable from society, and thus, the society from the individual, forming a hybrid collection of subconscious will of society and the individual. One generates the other, with the society imparting its influence on the individual and his own subconscious perception of self (I.E. nationality, city or home or origin, sense of self, and to a lesser extent even race or ethnicity), whether realized or otherwise (a Russian still believes he is a Russian because he lives in a territory that other people call Russia, thus imparting on them societies will subconsciously), while the individual is obviously needed to impart this sense of perception on others, and himself. The delicate balance between these two precepts is organic, and determined by instinct largely rather than overt will, and thus is a subconscious structure silently agreed upon by society, but rarely expressed. Language, dress, image, and other issues are also determined by this, which is why a country called Russia is believed to be called this by the people who live there, as one inherits languages, customs, and the national identity of the people of where he is from, whether consciously aware of this or not. Nothing demands that a country possess a certain name or be imagined as a collective entity despite the lines on a map other than ourselves, who, if under other conditions, could have found it going another way. If the words in another language had found itself going a different way, it is possible that the name for a country could be different, and thus is clearly only imagined by the individual, and then impressed upon society, by enough individuals, to create this hyper-reality imparted on to the collective subconscious to influence society as a whole. It is the mere acceptance of society that creates it, forming it instinctively as a society, given a shared series of customs or history, usually geographic in nature, that also were subconsciously agreed upon, many years prior to this. None of these things exist in the concrete, but merely in the abstract, which given the importance of higher thinking among humans, allows this shared reality to continue to exist.


Evolutionary Biology: The Naturalist case for a Piminarchy

By it's very nature, a piminarchy or Dong expanionist society would be based fundamentally on biology, and thus be a naturalist argument for the right to rule. What a piminarchy seeks to establish aside from a moral and just, effective society, derived from empathy, is a society derived from the nature of man. Society exists to serve the needs and desires of man, and not to recreate him in the postulated image of self proclaimed visionaries such as Marx, Foucault or Hegel, who wish in a literal sense to change the biology of man, or brainwash them in to mentally broken heaps to fit their perfect world. Society should be created to advance the natural interests of humans, and is not merely organized in the way most efficient to man's nature so as to be more effective (in a sense, a society based on rolling logs downhill, rather than uphill to try and overcome nature), but due to it being inherently immoral to change the nature of man for arbitrary reasons to fit a perceived perfect utopia. It is not only impossible to change the nature of man and an inefficient waste of time, but barbaric and cruel to try and get them to resist that which is natural to them, which will crush their spirits and minds in disgusting and despotic ways. There is no way to change the nature of man, and attempts to do so by conditioning are as cruel as any has ever seen, and likely to lead to Tyranny when those conditioned are done so by the whims of those in power to serve their own power. It is often been said that Marx simply got the wrong species with communism, that it would work well only with ants. Even this is untrue to an extent as ants still have a hierarchal society with a queen, and thus deny a central core basis of marx's views. There is no where in nature where communistic and socialist societies exist, yet monarchal like systems, hierarchal systems, capitalistic one's and others exist due to the natural arrangement of animals and the universe. Thus attempts to change man's nature are not only inefficient wastes of time and society should be organized like rolling logs downhill or running water, to follow the path of lease resistance, but for empathetic and moral reasons. To attempt to change man's nature is unimaginably cruel and immoral. 

Instead society must be organized by the routes man has chosen and by what they are accustomed to, along the lines and principles of a society that is not ideal in theory but that actually works. Lives depend upon us being correct, and thus this impetus behooves us to ensure we are engaging in logically and factually correct behavior to avoid immoral actions. Justice systems place truth highly as a virtue as imprisoning falsely accused victims is Tyranny in it's own right, and thus we have an empathetic and moral requirement to be correct and help others. Successful police prevent not only crime but Tyranny through improper persecution, as does a society as a whole. Thus it is a moral necessity to be right, and therefore a moral necessity to have a meritocracy so those best to lead or organize society can do so for the betterment of us all. While this can require it would be said an enlightenment, rationalist perspective to logically choose who should be the correct leader, the simple reality is that we must organize the acts of man as if rolling logs down hill, to go along with their better nature and improve their lives rather than force them in to an organization. It can be easy to get lost in one's ego or arbitrary senses of fairness, but what is most fair is to lead a fair and successful society. 

Thus it shouldn't be lost on us that most leaders around the world have been men. While woman should not be denied the chance to rule, it should also be noted that we should not put people in to positions who are more likely to fail out of an arbitrary sense of fairness. Indeed, those who have historically proven to be more successful should be placed in to these positions, be them with dynasties like kings and queens, or families of politicians that have proven to be successful. Indeed we should hope that with the healthy competition that comes from democracy that such a system will result in the best players rising to the top, but we should not be dismayed when these individuals happen to bear a particular demographic resemblance when the nature of biology dictates they will be more successful. We owe it to society for the best individuals to lead, and not to try and force individuals in to positions of power based on arbitrary characteristics. If these individuals happen to be those who possess the big dick energy necessary to leading society, then this is simply a result of the biology of man, and not something to be afraid of or eschewed to keep certain bloodlines in power, or individuals of certain type in power. Indeed we should seek to advance society so that individuals of all stripes have an equal chance to succeed such as via fair education and treatment, but we should not deny that certain individuals rise to the top for a reason, often due to their higher success rate. While we should seek to give each individual a fair chance and promote those who do not have them, we cannot place them in to power if even by circumstances out of their control they have been hampered below their true potential. Indeed reality can be cruel to many and keep them from succeeding, but we cannot allow them to lead out of pity lest we doom society. Be it the poor workers in Zimbabwe who rose up only to fail to farm their own land or the worker's rebellions that lead to Tyranny, simply being an oppressed individual does not give you the ability to lead, an in fact their lack of education and training and experience may all hamper it. This does not mean we should put the rich and naturally powerful back in to power deliberately, but that we must accept that they lead effectively for a reason and seek to emulate it before replacing them. In effect, that reality, that nature itself, that our biology, demands certain material realities before we can lead. And, that if this leads to those with superior traits rising to the top, than we simply let them rather than fear the lack of representation or perceived fairness of it. 

I am right, and you, are wrong.

I am right; unequivocally, undeniably, and verifiably right. The truth itself is proof of my correctness, and the evidence is clear, on the fact, that I am right. How do I know that I am right? Because I am right. And no other proof is needed other than that. It is so obvious I am right that I do not even need to prove that I am right, because I am right, and you are in fact, wrong. It is obvious you are wrong, because you say things that are wrong, while I am indeed, correct, and therefore this invalidating you as potentially being the one, that is also right, at the same time. The truth is the truth, and you just need to face reality and except what exists as true in the real world, for it is me who is right, and you who is wrong. What is it I am right about, and you are wrong about? It doesn't matter, for I am right, and just as importantly, you, are wrong.

Now some of you may in fact believe that it is you, in fact, who is right, and that is me, who perhaps, could be wrong. However, that is wrong, and I am right, therefore proving I am correct, and that therefore you are wrong. This is obviously true, and is so obvious that it's proof in and of itself that I am right, effectively making you wrong. How could we evaluate the reasons why you are wrong, and why am I right, what life choices effectively lead up to this point to prove, that I am in fact, correct, and you are wrong? We could spend all day ad nausem coming up with reasons why, but the important point is that I am right, and you are wrong, and you should know that, as it is true.

One might ask for pesky things like "evidence" or "proof" that I am right, or what it is that I am even right about it, but that just proves further that it is me, who is right, as I do not need to ask for such petty things like proof when I already know that I am correct. Can you, then, too, maybe, be correct by saying the things I do? Perhaps, but it is important to remember that it is me, who is right, and you who is simply stating that which is right of which I have already stated. I do need need to prove anything, and have no burden of proof, while you do have burden of proof of proving that the truth is incorrect. Why should I have to prove the obvious, when in reality, you need to prove that you are in fact correct, and somehow proved me, and the universe, wrong? In my own head, I am right, and therefore as that is the extent of the universe, that proves that I am right. Can anyone refute me on such claims? Doubtful. By merely trying to prove you are right, you have already proved that you are wrong. I am already right, and automatically so, thus making me the victor. Perhaps it is true that one day, I could be wrong, but that is also wrong, as am I never wrong, and always right. It is not even worth bothering with others that are wrong, as I am right, and thus have nothing to gain from the interaction.


And therefore and thusly, I win.

Proving a Negative

Proving a Negative
Technically, it is impossible to prove anything; there is always the possibility that everything we know is wrong, or a lie, that we are part of a collective subconscious creating a reality alternate to that of the true universe, without the same rules and laws of physics; as long as there is still a shred of doubt that we don't possess all the knowledge in the universe, there is always the potential we are wrong. Even if we did hypothetically obtain all the knowledge in the universe, there would always be the question of how we knew, for certain, that we knew all the knowledge in the universe (all the knowledge in the universe could be knowing that we know, although this would still be impossible to prove). In essence, it is impossible to, with absolutely certainty, prove anything.

We can get within reasonable doubts, however. Negatives tend to be very difficult to prove; that is, the absence of something. While one could not for instance, prove the existence of the universe, one could not disprove it either. While it would be easy to provide evidence for it's existence, evidence for it's non-existence could perhaps be nothing, which would essentially provide no proof. It is true that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, evidence of absence is possible to provide.  It is not true that negatives cannot be proven, nor is it true by the same token that a lack of evidence is proof of existence.

How would one prove a negative? To prove God doesn't exist, one would seemingly need to first obtain all the knowledge in the universe, rooting out the existence of God by proving that, in the body of evidence of everything, God was not there. As described above, since this is essentially impossible, it would be impossible to prove God didn't exist unless we had completely knowledge about the universe. However, proof God exists would not require proof of all of the universe; thus, the location, the actions, the current state of every atom, higgs boson, curve in spacetime is not necessary to prove the existence of God, while it is necessary to prove the lack of an existence of God. Some will fallaciously use this as an excuse to state why they cannot prove their point, or even worse suggest that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming the existence of God (although claiming the non-existence of God ironically also demands proof, no less so than claiming cats do not exist). The burden of proof rests on all of mankind; believing in no God without proof of a lack of existence, is just as illogical as believing in a God without the proof of existence. Without evidence, we can make no assumptions. It is incorrect, and illogical then to assume anything without proof, and given that the truth remains the truth regardless of human knowledge, the burden of proof is present on everyone, as no-one is abstained from the truth.


Still, what of Negatives? How would someone prove the lack of existence?

While this is more or less impossible, it is possible to prove within a reasonable shadow of a doubt that something does not exist. How would one for instance, prove something was not the color green? By virtue of it's exclusionary properties, we can conclude that something could not be two colors at the same time, I.E. red and green. Since something can only possess a single color, at least according to the electromagnetic spectrum, only possessing on wavelength and frequency, there is no possible way that something could in fact be green and red at the same time. If a factor excludes information, in that by virtue of being something, it cannot be something else, we can provide evidence for the existence of something, which by that nature invalidates the existence of something else. In physics for instance, two objects cannot take up the same space at the same time; as a result, by the presence of matter, we can prove that no other object could possibly there, thus proving a negative. We can disprove a wide range of qualities by innate truths pertaining to a subject. While this is still impossible to prove (since we cannot prove anything beyond 100% certainty, given that there will always be doubt), this evidence, is considered acceptable, in theory could disprove the existence of a particular attribute. This can be applied to many things; based on biology, a creature could not be both a cat and a dog at the same time. By proving it is a cat, we disprove that it is a dog; by proving for instance, Big foot was actually a man in a suit, or a bear, we prove that, in this particular case, Big foot does not exist. Thus while we can never truly prove any point, it is hypothetically possible without proving everything in the universe first that something does not exist.

Therefore it is within the realms of possibility to realistically prove or disprove a negative. It is hardly an excuse for the lack of evidence for your position, whatever it may be.

Negative Probability

Negative Probability

Negative probability seems impossible; while there can be a probability something will happen, and zero probability of something happening, negative probability doesn't necessarily imply anything. While quintessential to string theory, suggesting that there must be more dimensions since negative probability isn't possible, means that you could resolve a potentially very important aspect of string theory without needing extra dimensions.

But before determining if negative probability is even possible, we have to determine what probability is. Probability is the chance something will happen; if there are different 8 colors, say green, red, and so on, then the chance of it landing on green is 1/8. If there are two greens on another spinner toy, and we spin it around, and it randomly lands on a color, then there is a 2/8 chance of it landing on green, and so on. A chance of it not landing on green would be 7/8 or 6/8, respectively. Probability is more or less the chance something will happen.

According to wikipedia, "Probability is a measure or estimation of likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen). The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen."[1]

Probability, ultimately, is inconclusive, and not an exact science. The chance something will happen does not mean it will happen. Hypothetically, the chance you'll land on heads when flipping a coin is 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you may however, land on heads 10 times, or land on tails 10 times. The chance of this happening is remote, but still very possible. In the same way, you could flip a coin 10,000 times, and have it never land on tails, and so on. Probability is interesting in that it ,by itself, isn't really an explanation for an event, just it's likelihood. This makes mathematical probability somewhat paradoxical, as mathematics is meant to be empirical, or exactly concrete, while probability is still questionable.

This leads to numerous issues in mathematical calculations. In fact, mathematics, in human use, in it's own right, is imperfect at explaining the real world; as mathematics is nothing more than human input, and human input is likely never perfect, the outcome will always be a close estimation to the answer. When we do calculations, say in calculating trajectory, we typically come up with two answers; generally, a negative answer, and a positive one. Since the curved trajectory uses X^2, or X squared, it means that the number could be positive, or negative. The human application of mathematics tells us to throw out answers that seem erroneous, and thus that likely couldn't exist in real life; we take the fact that an upwards arcing trajectory is what we're looking for, instead of the bottom one, since we are trying to calculate for instance, the effect of gravity, which is always pushing down when on earth. In fact, this same type of principle is what makes a negative probability a factor to ignore in string theory.

But what if there was a negative probability; what if, probability, already in it's own right, isn't a mathematical concept. It is impossible to divide by zero within mathematics because zero is merely a concept; it would be like trying to divide 8 by apples, or gravy, it's fundamentally impossible. Or it might be like negative zero, which has no sign to begin with (as it's neither positive nor negative). But what if, then, we as humans are simply doing the calculation wrong; what if negative probability stands for an idea or concept we are simply glossing over?

What would negative probability then, be? The probability something can't happen, or probability something won't happen? So, the negative probability of something landing on green would be 7/8; since the probability something won't happen is the opposite of the probability something will happen, it could just be that negative probabilities are opposites of regular probabilities; since it can be represented in a positive way, probabilities of which are defined as a concept of a chance of something happening between 0-100, then it's still possible to represent this as something concrete.

Since positives and negatives are more or less inverses of each other, such as positive and negative magnetic poles, or positive and negative particles, the reality is that while we few negative and positive as plus or minus, addition and subtraction, the reality is that when multiplying with concepts we are merely inferring the opposite of what an ordinary symbol is. Thus, a negative probability is simply the opposite probability. What this is exactly I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that wavelength and frequency inversed, or perhaps where the wave meets is not impossible to get backwards. Thus, the way the string is vibrating does not necessarily imply more dimensions to vibrate in, but perhaps the opposite way it is vibrating. On the other hand, it may just imply negative mass or energy, which is capable of and likely existing in it's own right.

Questioning E=MC^2

Questioning E=MC^2

To be perfectly honest, E=MC^2 is entirely accurate; well,within it's specific parameters. Although the equation does not fully describe the phenomena, the basic principle of the total energy of the system being dependent on, or relative to, the speed of light, is entirely accurate. Massless particles for instance might have no mass, but this total energy level is more or less the same; determining the actual energy of the system is more complex, but it is still more or less E=MC^2. More importantly however is that it only applies to certain types of energy.

In matter anti-matter annihilation, they both release, more or less, about as much energy as is possible with matter. Thus, antimatter matter annihilation releases, more or less, almost E=MC^2; there is, energy equal to the object's mass traveling at the speed of light stored up within the materials. Thus one kilo reacting with another kilo of matter would produce, two kilos of mass worth of energy. However, what if the particles were traveling near the speed of light; perhaps, just 10% of the speed of light? While actually calculations would involve lorentz, suddenly, we have to consider, how is it possible that matter, which demonstrably already has E=MC^2 stored up inside of it, is traveling at any speed at all; let alone so close to the speed of light.

Hypothetically, it should be impossible for there to be more velocity, let alone something demonstrably close to the speed of light; obviously, matter couldn't possibly have more than E=MC^2; or could it? Within it's context, there is pent up, nuclear energy (and various other types) within the atom, that is released when the atom is annihilated. However, if it is also traveling at high velocity, doesn't that imply a large amount of kinetic energy, as well? The reality is that there are multiple forms of energy, that can be stored or be present, that do not directly interact with each other, at the time, that can exist, within the same amount of matter, at the same time.

But does this imply they can't happen at the same time? Or that something weird would should they collide? Something interesting to consider then would be if anti-matter collided with matter near the speed of light. Perhaps a few dozen particles or pieces of lead traveling in a large hadron collider. What if they did collide; the energy would be released, all at once, both forms, at the same time. Would it be possible then for more energy to be present, per unit of mass, than ordinarily possible; quite possibly, they could come to a stop completely during annihilation, of through changing forms lose momentum and thus stop moving this way; although we know that light does have a small amount of momentum.

Wouldn't this energy levels exceeding the speed of light cause infinite mass, or since neither particles have mass, would it mean that there isn't infinite mass? This would certainly conserve the aspect of mass and energy, and also verify the principle basis behind E = MC^2. Since the atom turns into radiation, it more or less loses mass (as it "changes" into energy), and thus impacting each other and possessing nuclear annihilation even when traveling near the speed of light means that more energy can be present, unit per unit (but perhaps not kilo per kilo, as the mass more or less disappears), but perhaps not in terms of mass. Which might be an interesting concept.

The meaning of life

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.

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.