c or c++ WHY?... not WHAT?...
An Essay by lublou
After I read
the Disjoint
application on beliefs by -Pantheon. I got so excited I had to read
it again. I will try to introduce a brand new theory, developed from -Pantheons
essay and highly influenced by IcE's essay. So if this all seems confusing,
it probably is.
I wish to
agree with -Pantheon, but say it differently. I believe TAL ("theoretical analysis level")
is a subset of RLL ("real life level"),
that is why TAL will never describe RLL fully. When saying TAL is a subset of
RLL my definition of RLL is as follow. RLL is what really happens, whether you
can percieve/understand/measure it or not, and TAL chooses certain known ways of
interpreting/percieving/measuring that which is really happening. In defense of
this, the following. -Pantheon's marvelous example of the library states the
following.
"When a book is left in the library, the
force of the bond causes the book to draw nearer to its proper place. Left for
enough time, the book will settle into its final place. Using our theory, it is
possible to predict the behaviors of books within the library. Let's do an
experiment to verify: Remove a book. I have chosen Aristotle's Categories,
translated into English. We will refer to this book as "the subject". I removed
the subject from its proper place, noting the energy required removing it from
its position between two other books. I exerted a force on the subject to
transfer it to a table across the library. I left the library determined to
return in two days. On my return the book had transferred itself back to its
proper position, exactly as our theory had predicted. This did not require any
addition of energy on our part, so it must be a natural process of the
library."
In Real life what happened was the librarian took the
book back. But why didn't TAL pick that up. Someone in defense of the TAL way of
life may say that the parameters laid down by the TAL process were
insuficient "left the library determined to return in two
days". If you hid in the cupboard and spied the book 24/7 you would have
seen the old lady doing her thing. So what am I saying. With TAL you can only
prove what your test parameters allow you to prove. There is a saying that
statistics has proven that 49% of all statistics are incorrect. But not to lose
the point -Pantheon tried to convey. Let us say the librarian's penpal from Xeon
came to visit, saw the book laying there and put it away. Even if you were in
the cupboard you would not have seen her since beings from Xeon constantly move
at the speed of light-2n, and you would have believed books have bonds, and
never have knew that the librarian had a penpal from Xeon. So what am I trying
to say, it seems like were back where we started. Just hold the thought and have
a look at the following.
I critisized the TAL test parameters and showed
that by increasing the sampling speed, the correct observation could be made,
but -Pantheon intended the example to be understood in terms of atomic theory,
so I imediatly refuted my argument by changing the speed of events, to prove his
initial point.
IcE wrote in his piece on reality
reversing that "What about a fifth or sixth dimension? Is
there such a thing? "NO! Absolutely NOT!, you scream at me."I know there cannot
be any more dimensions because I can't see them". Where does this other
dimension start, the dimension which explains events happening in this Reality
we live in.
On this point I wish to divert even further. It has been
said
that "he who knows what will always be the slave of he who knows why". I am
not going to elaborate on this because it could easily develop into an essay on its own. But what it
means in this sense is,
Q:"What is wrong with me doctor?"
A:"You have
Influeza"
You are content, you pay the man his dollars, buy the medicine and
off you go.
Once a thing is put in a box and labeled, most people merrily surrender to
the flow.
Q:"What is energy"
Einstein said E=mc^2. where c is the
speed of light, the upper limit of everything, the constant which is used to
explain most we know about atomic theory. And most people nowadays are content
and go forth and create theories based on this. I believe the question "Why is
there energy?" would be more appropriate, because it will answer all, but lets just
stay calm and walk down one road at a time. So lets ask, why is the speed of
light constant. Im not going to answer that directly, but rather continue with
my point made earlier.
I said by increasing the sample speed, that TAL =
RLL, and by increasing the event speed TAL once again differed from RLL. To
explain this better I wish to use the example of a stroboscope and a turning
wheel. If a spoked wheel is turning at a certain frequency in a dark room, and a
stoboscope is flashing at the exact same frequency at which the wheel are
turning, the wheel will appear to a normal person to be stationary. If the speed
of the stroboscope is increased, and wheel speed is kept constant it will appear
as if the wheel is turning slowly in one direction, which is exactly what will
happen if the stoboscope speed were kept constant, and the wheel speed
increased.
This process of looking at the freeze frame of a condition is
called sampling, and in digital systems it is proven that the lowest frequency
at which you may sample to still have an adequate representation of the real
signal is called the Nyquist frequency and is equal to twice the frequency of
the system under investigation.
Back to the strobo example. Paint a dot
on the wheel and spin it at n revolutions per second. Set the strobo to n flashes
per second. In the dark room the dot will appear to stay in one place, and we
know that the strobo speed is the same as the wheel speed. Now instantly
increase the wheel speed to 20n revolutions per second, the dot still stays at
the same place, and you will not see any difference, you will think that all is
the same, when in fact the wheel speed is twenty times faster.
As the
speed of events increase, so must the speed of perception, otherwise there will
be a discrepancy in interpretation. Now after all this I want to say that I
believe that the speed of light is not constant, but in this dimension the "speed
of perception" is limited to c. How will we ever measure/calculate a speed
higher than c if our world around us, our dimension only allow the perception of
speeds up to c. All speeds higher than c constitutes energy not part of this
dimension.
Since our dimension is a subset of the higher dimension, we
will never understand this dimension till we are part of the higher
dimension.
Maybe then we will understand that although our chances of
winning the lottery are 1:400,000,000,000 on some TAL interpretation, it becomes
1 in your own real life if you are wearing a green jersey which your dead grandmother knit, on a rainy
Wednesday, but only if you surname is Yankovich and telephone number ends in 24,
and your birthday is a prime number, else......
To conclude, TAL will
never describe RLL fully in this dimension, our path to freedom should rather be
to never stop asking ..WHY!..
Cheers
lublou
(c) 1998 lublou All
rights rescinded
(c)
Fravia 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. All rights reserved