This is what happens when you sit down to write with only the goal of 10,000 words. Started when I woke up. Typed as much as I could when I time free from regular other stuff. So in a way this is the stuff that fills the idle time between the routine stuff of living and paying bills.
Preamble on Time
Today I considered myself without myself and without time.
Yesterday nothing existed. Tomorrow the same. No point in even discussing right now as that’s all there is now.
Everything is exactly as it is. No becoming. No end. No beginning. Nothing is sensed, because nothing can be. No thing emits, no thing receives. it is exactly as it is right now.
No cause, no effect. Just is.
No I, no me, no you, no them. No distinction at all.
Is time that powerful that it must exist if anything is to exist? If anything is able to notice that something else exists?
Get in your head the strangeness that is the possibility of existence much less this particular existence. Sure we can have all sorts of theories about evolution and cosmology and quantum physics. We can articulate the sensitivity of the constants of nature and argue about dark energy and dark matter. We can construct elaborate ideas about social order and social functions and social contracts — economics of free willed entities. Phantom arms and cognitive evolution all can be discussed.
It is all very very weird.
To think the spinning, whirling, fluxing of existence is this. We’re all aliens in a non sensical world.
But this is the way it was meant to be! The way it was designed! The Best of All Possible Worlds! This is the one true universe! It should be such that we arrived in the evolutionary flow to be a bipedal, two eyed, ten fingered self aware being that can only breath oxygen and is made up primarily of water but unable to survive submerged in water!
What a fantastical thing. So there is the design god or there is the whimsical gradient descent of evolution. The semi-random trial and error of genetic mutation that accidentally becomes massive experiments in survival! All hail evolution!
Step back from all this. Step back from coming up with some reasonable explanation. Some theory of how this all came to be and why that fits nicely in a 8 min read blog post or in a 250 page best selling pop sci book.
Step back from the two eyed center of the universe and really consider the possibility of humans in the possibility of all possible things that could exist and most likely do.
Consider what could possibly be going on in the 100,000,000,000,000 other stars and galaxies and planets and black holes and multi-verses out there. Consider every other variation of every other thing ever made or dreamed of or accidentally marked out on paper or in a cloud formation.
Consider ALL of that possibility and what all of that possibility could also be considering. Ponder the idle thoughts of a billion billion other social creatures asking why they exist and why they are so alone in the universe or so together or so everything or anything.
Talk to yourself about what it might be like to talk outside of time or in reverse or in any language or to see every possibility. Consider what an alien feels or doesn’t feel. Consider planet full of iron ore creatures bulking and hulking their way around a lifespan that takes eons to unfurl. Paint a picture of a world of a single creature that experiences in 80000 dimensions.
Collapse all this back in to humans and human understanding. What do we know? what do we actually know anything about? Start simply. As simple and common sense as you can get.
What is up and what is down?
What time is it? what time is it 50 miles from me? how is that time oriented? how do others tell time? Experience time? If your mind thinks thoughts faster to you experience more time or less time?
What is your body?
What is your body really like? how do you experience your body? can you do a body scan like the yoga people and feel the insides of your body? how is it possible to integrate all the knowledge of your body when you can’t really feel the lining of your stomach like you feel the prick of a pin on your skin? or maybe you do actually experience it? maybe hunger pains and stomach aches are what the boundary of the stomach experiences? How is that all integrated into how the brain constructs and sense of self? how does all the fleeting awareness of your body get integrated with the fleeting awareness of culture? of all your upbringing, training? how often are you told by others and yourself to get into the flow and lose your awareness and just be in the moment to get stuff done? when you know longer have knowledge of the singular elements of your body and your experience but instead are experiencing a wider whole of your existence? is that even what you are doing or are you paying attention to just a different set of signals?
To that point is the universe discrete or continuous? is it a flow of one thing into another where boundaries are not hard lines but sfumato blurs? is Zeno’s paradox resolvable by a mathematical slight of hand or is it really just a grand illusion that is never resolved?
Can you really experience the universe in a grain of sand? can you experience the other? walk a mile in someone else’s shoes? have you ever considered what it actually feels like to be you in your own shoes? Do you ever wake up wondering if you feel through a worm hole and this isn’t really the universe you were born into? do you feel like you are in a simulation but then think you are going crazy because that idea seems reasonable? that there’s even a shred of possibility to it?
How well do you understand probability theory? do you really understand combinatorics and how to assess all the ways even small systems can be?
We’re all just re-framing the imponderable edges of our awareness into comfortable packages of self narrating. That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever said. Because it’s just some weird self referential thing. Is John Searle wrong about whether humans understand anything? is the Chines Language Room thought experiment wrong in his interpretation? do any of us function differently that being slightly inaccurate copiers of everything we’re given? when you write do you actually understand most of the words you’re writing and the thoughts they become? as you are thinking them and typing them out are they ever the thoughts they end up being when you read them? how can you work any differently? Can you have a coherent thought in the moment? a thought that when you look at a recording of it later it seems the same as when you had the thought? what does it even mean to have a thought? to experience the notions in your head? how do you really know you feel the thoughts you’re having? that they are actual thoughts and not just weird reverberations of other shit you heard?
And Now We Change Course
Yes, you socialize. I’ve switched subjects and objects again. This is what we do, what I do. When I’m writing I often screw up subject verb agreement. Mostly because I’m socializing with all myselves when I write. I’m having a conversation with the many versions of myself wishing to understand what the hell is going on.
It’s funny how others can’t understand you so well when you do that. But you have no problem understanding yourself when you chain together all sorts of concepts through variables (you know that’s all pronouns and other parts of speech are? they are just ways of referring to other things without having to write out each thing all the time. which hilariously adds all the confusion of language but also gives its generative power)
For awhile now, at least I think for awhile now, I’ve been toying with the ideas of randomness and just how powerful that idea is. Literally powerful. That things are random, that aren’t patterned… don’t have order, is the generative power source of existence. Think about it in all that we’ve considered above. That I have considered above. The random flux of language. The mutation of the genetic code in replication and experience. The randomness of computation executed in machines with 32 bit precision. The randomness of algorithms that can’t beat the halting problem. All of it bubbling up.
I suspect black holes are just the randomness boundaries ever present in the very tiny sea of order in existence. Randomness is by far the dominant feature of everything. Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Black holes and The Edge of The Cosmos are all the same thing… just huge but not quite infinite passages of randomness.
Pi. algebraically, numerically and physically.
Consider something you can really get your head around: pi. Pi as a symbol represent a cycle or the turn of dial. We can turn something pi, 2pi, 3pi, 7/8 pi or infinity pi times. We can rotate pi*pi times. Pi is the number of times we go in a circle. We cycle on something. That’s why pi is so everywhere because cycles and periodicity is everywhere. Any time there’s something that can be compressed in means there’s a cycle. Some way to reduce something to a repeatable and duplicative operation. You can literally PI it. Guess what waves are? cycles. sin waves, Electro magnetic waves?
— — INJECT — —
I’m 32 minutes and 1/5th of the way through an experiment. I am seeing what ends up coming out of me if I do nothing but try to write ten thousand words in a single document/single medium.
on any given day across all messaging, documents, notebooks, canvases, white boards, sidewalks, surfaces I write 3500 words minimum. but because I’m jumping between 15–20 mediums a day it’s all weirdly connected aka not connected in any obvious way.
now I do that for a specific philosophic purpose that I have yet to fully understand.
— — REJECT — —
Associative Conception and Time As Computational Distance
Existence is all association. Free association at the root. Ordered association as it scales up. Existence proceeds along a hierarchy of awareness from everything is the same, undistinguished to everything being distinguished. Randomness is in-distinction. Order is distinction. Time is the distance between things… the distinction difference. The time it takes is the difference between one thing and another. a bit is different from another bit by at most 1 bit. nothing is different from a bit by one bit. nothing is a bit. everything, considered all at once is a bit. it differs from nothing by a bit.
the more bits are considered together. many bits as a unit. the more possible difference between another multi bit set. the procession of existence is the scaling up from no thing to any thing to every thing.
The value of such abstract thinking is simply to allow a thing, a human for instance, to consider how it can experience other things. It gives a frame work for assessing the effort to go from one state of affairs to another… from one multi-bit consideration to another multi-bit consideration.
and it provides a non-intuitive way to overcome the appearances of huge distances between states of affair. Once it becomes clear that awareness is the calculation, the computation of distances between configurations of possibility one can often reduce the space by becoming aware of the compressible aspects of reference frames aka observer and what is observed aka cause and effect.
For example consider what about your life is actually unique. What is actually unique about your experiences in the world and of the world? what things are you doing or seeing that you’re very confident are things you and only you are doing or experiencing? Anything that you can’t think of that is unique is effectively compressible. it just doesn’t matter because it’s fungible in the space of human things.
But Consider the Integers
It’s too great a leap to go from bits and multi bit sets to human concerns. So maybe a more abstract example would be better suited to help understanding. Lets just consider the integers. Consider all of the integers from negative infinity to positive infinity. There are an infinite number of compressions available and an infinite number of non compressible things possible. Let’s be a bit more precise. To fully understand the integers it is not necessary to enumerate them all… one doesn’t have to count them all and consider each one independently. The even numbers are very compressible. you can simply consider only 2 or -2 and their multiples. that’s it. which is hilariously infinite too if you wanted to actually consider all the even numbers. that is there are as many even numbers as all numbers. there are as many n+1 as there are 2n’s ahahahahah i love that fact. But in a hilarious way that’s a compression in a couple of ways. If you had only the even numbers you could still have all the numbers. Man, that’s one fucking weird non sensical thought. Let’s get back to the point here. The odd numbers are similar compressible. You can take all the not even numbers, etc. All multiples of any given integer are compressible like the even numbers (which is just the multiple of 2)… which all this compression of the integer leads to a lovely concept that any non prime number is compressible to prime factors. HA! isn’t that great? We can literally reduce any even or odd to the prime numbers…
SO NOW WE ARE SOMEWHERE INTERESTING. Are the prime numbers compressible? is there some formula, some simple way of saying, “here lies all the primes?” no.
— — i fucking love this image — -
the distribution of primes…
— — fuck yes — —
Speed of Thought? Shrinking Thought Down to Muscle Memory
My word generation has slowed down. Or did it? it took me 32 minutes to generate 1600 words. It just took 15 minutes to generate 700. So it’s about the same pace. But has the coherence gone up or down? Well I added some math speak so for many readers that will have greatly reduced the coherence. Oddly for me personally it increased the coherence. Communicating is impossible.
Compression and Integers
The primes are not compressible. Some “types” of primes are. We can generate them pro grammatically.
Wait, let me remind everyone who might actually ever see these words about numbers what primes are. Primes are integers that cannot be evenly divided by any other integers except for 1 and the prime itself. It’s a really fascinating thing when you think about it. How the fuck do primes exist?
The Big Math Question That Says A Lot About Reality
Let’s do a little sidebar about whether math is created by humans (and invention) or is discovered…. consider if its human invention. Literally there is no conception of number or count or arithmetic etc outside of the human mind (whatever the fuck that means, but that is a different issue). So we construct this thing called number. and then we start inventing other numbers basically like this. Here’s one rock. oh look here’s another rock. oh look here’s another rock. OK we have many rocks. well let’s write a symbol down for each rock. let’s use a “tick” mark. a tick, a rock. another tick, another rock, so now there is tick tick. then tick tick tick for rock rock rock. now we can just keep ticking… tick tick tick tick… tick tick… that’s just a lot of ticks. so we can then create a slash when we have too many ticks to look at. and now our ticks can be grouped into slash ticks. You get the point. You can keep using count to add more count. and you’ll eventually just get yourself the entire set of integers aka the set of all ticks aka the set of all rocks you can find. OK so now you want to think about your slash ticks… or your groups of ticks… you want to divide them up to pass them around. you’re trying to figure out how you can literally divvy up rocks to give to people knowing these rocks are too hard to split from one big rock into little rocks. nope you simply have to collect all the rocks and then divvy them up in rock units. and you have the added social pressure that every person must get the same number of rocks from a grouping if you split the group up. (you can think in terms of ticks if you want or numbers!)
it’s sort of easy if there are an even number of ticks or rocks in a group. you know, pairs. pretty easy. 4 people, 8 rocks, everyone gets 2. Oh wait, what if there are 5 people and 8 rocks? not so easy. no even way to do that. what if there are 6 people and 8 rocks… well now you have all sorts of problems. you start considering if you have 7 people and 5 rocks or 5 people and 17 rocks… you basically start considering all sorts of combinations. So of course you do what any ancient mathematician does you start weighing the rocks. so you can now “divide” a rock up not by actually splitting it but giving heavier rocks a larger number… so you are now able to effectively take any combination of rock groupings and even it out for everyone. OR SO YOU THINK.
because in all your combinatoric thinking about fairness and being clever about unit measuring rocks to create more number/more combination you keep running into rock groupings or rock property groups that cannot be divided for ANY grouping of people smaller than the number of rocks you have or just a single person. You literally start looking at groups of 1,2,3,4,5, then 7, 11, 13, 17, 23… and so on rocks and you enumerate out all the possible combinations of people you could split that into. and you find that for 1,2,3,5,7,11… you can’t do it… unless you somehow use the weight property to get the rock grouping to a 4 or 8 or 9 or 20… you just keep running into these groupings of ticks/rocks/groups of groups that can’t be cut up in any other ways.
No MATTER HOW INVENTIVE YOU GET. HOW MUCH YOUR MIND CREATES ALL SORTS OF NARRATIVES AND MARKS ETC. You cannot do it.
— — — — word count 3044 — — THINKING SO FAST ITS JUST TYPING
I generate 700 words in 20 mins. pace with thinking is about 35 words a minute. that’s about 1/3rd as fast as I can type. thinking sucks up 2/3rds of my word generation ability. that’s fucking terrible.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -
eliminating thinking by learning everything so well that writing becomes typing and typing alone is the goal of every good writer. or every maximally efficient writer.
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
so back to the rocks and the issue of mathematics invention or discovery.
There is just no possible way for a human to invent a counting apparatus that doesn’t run into this problem of prime numbers. No possible invention. The only thing a human could do to avoid the problem is simply not count. Literally it starts right from the get go. 1,2 and 3 are primes. that’s a fucking problem. you don’t even get any numbers without the inevitability of the limits of your imagination to come up with a way of counting that allows you or any thing to organize itself or anything without prime number problems.
Pretty compelling evidence that math isn’t a human construction. that it’s out there… it is out there in the fabric of reality. It doesn’t matter how cool your ticks or marks or rocks or language or calculators or quantum bits are.
Well, man, maybe numbers of stuff out there in real reality just skip the primes… like man we never ever experience a perfect circle (a hallowed mathematical construct) so what’s to say we ever experience a prime number?
Go for it. Use everything humankind has ever invented, every tool, every logic, every cognition, every device. Try to account for the world, anything in the world, without 1,2,3… 5… 11… No don’t just account in terms of explaining… literally do the accounting of the world. Try to do anything at all. ANYTHING without the harsh reality of these numbers between other numbers that can’t be divided up.
……………………………………… it doesn’t get easier from here…….
The harsh reality of prime numbers is even worse for the harsh reality of REAL NUMBERS and IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. where we have even harder problems of divisibility and/or compressibility….. which brings us back to PI.
you see PI is curious in that…..
— — crazy i just hit 400 words in 7 minutes — — got on a roll… got mad about math… jammed…. i able to reduce my thinking and increase my typing….. just do.
So PI is curious in that you can consider it like we started to as a tick. ticking the rotations of dial. tick pi, tick tick pi, tick tick tick pi… you can just count all the integers by rotating a dial. you can do that an even number of times. you can do it an odd number of times. you can do it a prime number of times. but now can you divide up a set of full rotations evenly between dial turners? maybe you allow for partial rotations 1/2 rotation (1/2 pi) [yes, I know for math theory sake we normally consider a rotation 2pi, but whatever. pi is just a symbol for “rotation”]. Now can you divide a rotation up evenly? that is can you divide a circle up into even pieces by any number? for example.. you can easily divide a pie into 4 pieces or 9 pieces… but can you divide it into 11 pieces? Pretty weird to think about eh? you’re probably thinking immediately yes…. the primes 1,2,3 work out just fine… 5 works out… does 7? just scratch it out on paper or use a pie or your watch….
— — — — — — — — — interlude about business and supply and demand — — — — —
Business Supply and Demand
The craziest thing about todays world is how overwhelming the need for software dev and networking integration is and how few people and/or machines can do it. it really is crazy. thousands of people start tech businesses every year in America… in addition to the tech businesses already going and the ones that are already worth 1 trillion… the richest people on earth all run or did run software businesses or financial firms that mostly used software to get big… and yet very few people know how to build, operate or use it. literally it’s the craziest ratio of people who have something integrated into their life and see it as EXTREMELY VALUABLE but don’t actually want to make money building it or operating it….
— — — — — — — — — 3779 words. slowed down for hot dog/sausage… for writers where is the “wall”? is it 3000 words? 5000? 10,000? — — — — — — — — —
So let’s think about pi and dividing up pies. how can we abstract this but not get crazy… how can we think about arbitrarily dividing up a rotation of a knob or pieces of the pie. We can just make tick marks on the outside of the circle and use that as like a number line or a ruler or groupings like we did with rock groupings. So let’s do this and just make groupings of 5 ticks… just start from somewhere on the knob, dial, pie, or circle. evenly space them doesn’t matter how far apart… just keep doing it.
how many groupings of 5 do you get? hint, if you really did do it reasonably even you’re going to be some multiple of 60. seem familiar? if you did it about like a clock you’re going to end up with 12 groupings of 5 ticks. you could just call each of your ticks a 5th hour and each of your groups an hour? maybe you have a lot of people to consider in dividing up your time or pie or dial turning and you need smaller ticks. great, just follow that process for smaller and smaller distances on the circle. you probably will end up dividing each hour group into 60 smaller ticks or each of your 5th hrs will now have 12 smaller ticks… so you can play with this a bit… one full rotation will involve 720 minutes or 2 full rotations 1440 minutes or in other units 12 and 24 hrs respectively. You’re probably gonna keep wondering how to divide this circle up into 7 or 11 or 13 even slices…. you might have figured out that the prime numbers of circle rotations or pie pieces are a bit different of prime numbers on the line… or are they?
I should note that we have to be careful to stick within ideas of integers and not yet allow for real number values aka arbitrarily digitized numbers and all that. we are trying to divide a rotation of the circle up into integer valued parts. where PI is consider a rotation so integer parts of PI.
— — — some side tracking about
— — — — — -
Mathematics Are Discovered Not Invented
Hopefully in playing with this even if only in your mind or some piece of paper you’ve arrived where old humans did. Notions of clocks and base 60 notation, etc. When you start trying to “divide” things up you basically can uncover all of the interesting mathematical relationships.
Also in the above goofing off we just did some pretty serious mathematics. but also sort of combined two or three crazy philosophic issues into a silly game of rotating circles.
a) math shows up all over. it’s not just inside your head. the relationships that math is about actually exist.
b) the notation is what’s made up. it doesn’t matter if you use Latin letter, ticks, rocks, circles, different bases etc. you will end up uncovering THE EXACT SAME ETERNAL RELATIONSHIPS. whether you are a computer, frog, alien, planet, space ship… you will relate to the rest of existence in accordance with these relationships of how things can be combined and divided… evenly or not evenly. symmetrically or asymmetrically, etc. (hint this is the basis of fluid flow, wave mechanics, pricing theory, thermodynamics, behaviorism, everything… when you actually decompose the darn notation)
c) Pi is a wonderful little thing… if you consider it first a Number of Rotations around a circle or as a cycle count AND as a ratio between distances/number lines (radius/line vs distance swept out by rotating around the circle with a radius/line) you get a really weird thing. Pi is discreet as a symbolic count of rotations but then continuous as a distance proportion… it is infinite in its decimal expansion (base 10) and for all we know RANDOM in that digit expansion… and yet it’s fully describable and usable as the discrete…
d) again, it is arbitrary what symbol or notion we use for Pi. no matter what you invent to observe and talk about and reason or observe about rotations/cycles and measuring distances of rotations etc you will end up with a thing with the infinite, random, discreet, continuous aspects of pi. And for further thinking… it’s probably not surprising the Pi is a number sitting between 3 and 4 (yes, I know you can use different bases, etc again arbitrary.) The point is there is some special properties of being between the smallest odd prime and first non prime positive number… (and yes you can call that some arbitrary point to consider… but you’ll find its not so arbitrary if you think about it)
We Do Not Live In A Simulation
Simulations would require a system to operate. This system would need to encapsulate all of the order we experience/conceive of as well as all the randomness we experience. A simulation system could not do this because it could not even hold a single large set of the prime numbers or the digits of pi that we know exist.
The counter argument at this point would be that humans or our computers also don’t have a large enough set of the prime numbers or the digits of pi. Us humans also only have crude approximations or algebraic conceptions.
Yes, but this is also damning to the simulation concept because no doubt that the mere existence of a algorithm for generating primes etc would actually continue to do so and effectively chew up the entire bit space of a system that not only has to have the conception of these infinite unpredictable/unknowable things but also a lot of them already enumerated.
The way to think about it is that there is a lot of overhead for a system to encode info about itself, about an internal world/simulation and the actual world itself.
This simulation would also have to be “upgrading” to better “fidelity” which is more expensive computationally. Meaning the bigger machines we make and the more fine our instruments become the more it would require of a simulation.
There’s still the possibility that we’re not fully grokking the power of a quantum computer operating at the scale of the universe. But even then I don’t think you can make a logical, testable or even remotely plausible claim that a simulation could contain itself and everything inside the universe and exhibit any of the boundary conditions of knowledge. A simulation could not keep itself coherent to do all this.
This is the same argument against a god or an intelligent designer. There is simply way too much complexity and randomness and emergent order to plausibly consider “a knowing design” did all this. Which then one could say well an intelligent designer or a really good sim wouldn’t design that way but instead would set the grand evolution in motion. But that also makes no sense. There is no evidence to show that any of that can be done reliably even at small scales much less being able to pull it off at very large scales, of which a simulation would be one.
It is much more plausible that there are a bazillions of little simulations of subspaces of reality that are all interacting and doing things. That’s not entirely different from how humans play and interact and try things out before committing them to habits or routines or laws etc.
There’s a weird weird emerging phenomena that the most complex stuff we see is never the result of giant top down systems. But instead really dynamic loosely coupled networks or ecosystems where change can happen really quickly and structures aren’t maintained at large scale over long distances and time. This is all somewhat unsurprising.
I want to make a claim that large massive objects are simpler. But I’m not quite sure how to best make that argument. Consider the sun. This is a very large object with great complexity. But its a different kind of complexity than say the earth. While the sun has a lot of strange things going on with its magnetic fields and its gravity and nuclear reactions the stuff its made of is much simpler than the earth. The sun doesn’t have nearly the elemental composition of earth. The sun doesn’t have the variation of forms and ecosystems. it basically has hot, fucking hot, crazy hot. hydrogen and photons etc. The earth has all sorts of elements, compounds, atmospheres, fields, creatures, societies, etc.
However, its not quite obvious to say that the sun is somehow easier to simulate than the earth or that large objects are easier. They have different issues. For instance the size of something puts pressure on any model or composition even if it’s fairly homogeneous. Scale itself is not cheap computationally and has to be considered because scale introduces complexity. And if size necessarily meant things were simpler then we would have bizarre arguments about how simple a black hole is.
Which brings us back to the overall argument. it’s highly implausible that a black hole could be simulated at all. What would that even be like? other than “here’s a giant object that we have no idea what’s going on inside but also it has all these impacts” but here’s the “code” for that. Or here’s an evolutionary algorithm that may lead to a black hole but somehow won’t crater the entire simulation?
Very Very Very Unlikely We Live in A Simulation.
— — — — — — — — — — — water break. this is word count padding — — -
A lunch break and errands occurred and then I sat to write again.
— — — -
Evidence, Proof Theory and Knowledge
Having established that mathematics is not invented but is a feature of reality I really should get on with proving and providing experimental set ups to convince people that it is the only reality.
Talking about proving things and convincing and doing experiments to present evidence unlocks and entirely different set of topics to unravel. Proof and Experimental Evidence are really challenging topics. Thankfully they come down to a rather simple notion of robustness. Evidence, whether proof or repeatable experiments, are robust when interpreted or executed or used by other observers they produce similar effects or conclusions. There is a probability distribution under which something is considered robust enough to be factual. Proofs just happen to be probability 1 within their own logic system. they can often be far less probable if the logic system is messed with. However, that doesn’t make them non facts. It just makes them facts within a certain observational circumstance.
There are the rare mathematical facts that are probability 1 in all conditions. The properties of PI discussed earlier and the existence and nature of prime numbers is another one.
Now there’s a bunch of shit like proof theory and tons of philosophy of science that goes into all sorts of weird overwrought thoughts on what justifies a proof or whether falsifiability is sufficient for a scientific claim. It does not matter that much about such claims. It’s actually quite possible to arrive at some fact of the world without proof or evidence. Sometimes “ya just get lucky” or the environment has learned it for you over eons. For example, you know beyond any mathematical proof or theory about gravity. You don’t need to know the name or any mathematical formula you just know that smaller things fall towards larger things. and in our little earth case… everything on earth tends towards earth. That knowledge or experiential habit is as solid as any knowledge.
Proof, evidence and fact do not necessarily produce knowledge and knowledgeable behavior. In fact, the world sort of depends on the attempted violation of fact. This is one weird ass idea. i have a lot of these.
The idea is that if some people didn’t try to challenge facts (wittingly or unwittingly) we would trust the facts less or in some cases we would know less about the fact. Gravity is a good example. Humans have been trying to defy gravity in various ways for a long time. From weird flying machines to really terrible theories about weight and attracting bodies. People creating non functional airplanes and rockets and strange buildings all have helped elucidate more about gravity. Even with our high end physics people are still trying to find the extent or the end of gravity. Does a particle generate it? is it quantum etc?
Heck even I don’t think most interpretations gravity actually explain it. They more or less describe its effects or aspects of its fact but they don’t actually explain it.
My conception is straight forward. Gravity is boundary condition between aggregate functions and their ability to compute distances in the aggregate frame of reference.
HAHAHA. Man, I know what I mean by that but no else would. It’s a pretty funny articulation without a whole bunch of theory I need to explain out. I’ve been trying to write about all this and then flipped into code because code is just much easier to do this all in. Of course, then the code needs explaining and justification. And that leads me into my wider theory about how all knowledge is organized and effectively dada. We have so many layers to get through to know anything that most of it is very unlikely not really knowledge and probably so inefficient in use as to not bother with. Yup, knowledge that isn’t efficient probably isn’t worth bothering about. But man is that a dangerous thought. people can easily twist that into some strange reason to hate on others ideas or to not listen etc.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Detour on Love — — — — — — — — — — —
What is love?
a question of such scope! such perversion! such intrigue! Love is Love is Love!
If you speak of love in biological or chemical terms people go bonkers.
If you speak of love in transactional terms people deny the idea.
If you speak of love politely and kindly and commonly everyone will shake their heads.
if you speak of love As love with the full fervor of love people will run away screaming. He’s gone mad! Mad with love! Love turned him crazy. He loves too much! Too Hard! Too Much Love is TOO MUCH LOVE!
— — — — — — — — — — A short story: born again — — — — — — — — -
Streaks of stalking sun.
It’s not a very good opening. he thinks.
The horizon cracks open.
It’s better but still gives too much action to what is a soft barely noticeable thing, the sun rise. he frustrates.
The sun rises.
Simple is best. Everyone knows what it means. The best thing is to do what people know. To give them just enough to get going.
The sun rises. A dewy feeling slathers the start.
It’s pretty easy to get from something simple to something silly or embarrassingly bad. Slathers isn’t word anyone uses and certainly uses to open a great short story. he muses.
now he’s amused by desperation the word slather and its possibility for morning that could actually be a-slather.
The sun rises. A short sleep slathered them into week. It wasn’t going to be easy this time.
Ah, now there’s an interesting opening. A mystery. Was it a bad weekend? A bad night? who are they? what week is it? do these people work? did they just go on a hit job and have a hit out on them? so many possibilities. Maybe they just have food poisoning.
The sun rises. A short sleep slathered them into this week. A tough week ahead considering. “You missed a call, “ she announced sneaking off.
This time was too specific about repeatability. Or maybe just too plain. Either way that weird dangling considering. it’s now weirdly noir. he says without really knowing what noir means or what he means even by referencing it. The missing a call adds another character without having to just announce the character. that’s sort of interesting. he wishes he was a writer with real writing skills because this would all be much simpler and probably quite good.
The sun rises. A short sleep slather them into this week — a tough week ahead considering. He’d missed a call. She noticed but didn’t say anything. He knew. She was off. He was alone. The sun finished rising.
Now he was on a roll. Very simple sentences. to the point, Hemingway type stuff, he acknowledged. i mean he always said Hemingway but really never really meant anything by it other than if you use small words and short sentences you must be doing Hemingway things. you know good writing. and that’s the whole point of writing — to write good words that people liken to Hemingway.
The sun rises. A short sleep slater them into this week — the two together again — it’s going to be a tough week considering. He’d missed a call. She noticed, silently. He knew she knew. She was off before the sun finished its routine.
Brian sighed and dialed back. The call rang three times and with just that pause where you know the person is on the other end up isn’t answering the call. Clearly the morning tightened tongues. What could be said anyway? She knew, he knew, and he knew.
That’s a lot of knowing. But it’s a fun kind of knowing. Like now the hes and shes and wes are all screwed up. As per usual i’m doing it again. chuckling he types away. writing well is old school it’s the stuff people do to get paid not to communicate. a pleasant fiction puffed out.
Tense he ended the unanswered call. Tenses getting mixed up he ended the writing.
The sun rises. The words rise up. The call to produce is missed again. The muse sneaks off again. They all know what’s going on. The day slipped out again. and then another and another. One day someone would answer after the third ring. But only if she wasn’t there.
— — — — — — — — -
We’re learning of a very strange situation in American governing. Very strange behaviors and very strange circumstances. Someone wrote and sent to the NYTimes and Anonymous Op-Ed. Someone at the NYTimes decided to publish it. The content of the op-ed is a strange mish-mash of anti-Trump stuff and self preservation republican spin. It is sloppy as a move no matter how you think of it. The author of it seems very shady and cowardly. If it is someone that could dramatically improve the political and governing situation by coming forward they should. If it is someone who is using it as some cover for the Republican leadership’s long range plan to cover their tracks it’s a very dishonest move.
No matter what we are in a very strange time. I can’t help but keep thinking that and using that phrase because it’s very hard to figure out where to put all this. How should we interpret any of it? what should we do when things are so outside of our experience? Attend directly to this stuff? or think about something else? working on completely different things?
It seems lazy and cowardly to look away and be distracted. It seems self defeating to not fight back in some direct way.
But in the an art of war kind of way maybe the best course is just to let things run their course and trust that the shady dealings will unravel themselves. Maybe the chaos must devour itself as the only lasting recourse?
we do live in interesting times.
— — — — — — — — -
Context Switching Utility
Amusingly I find myself context switching in so many things. Literally on any given day I’m reading up on weird art history, practicing drawing the human form, thinking about APIs and implementing payment processing systems, writing code for machine learning, trying to pound out essay length writings on topics I want to explore, pondering the nature of space and time and existence and trying to keep up to speed on all of the geo politics. Additionally I am parsing as much of the detail from the school we operate and how my kids experienced the day.
Sometimes the best approach to this crazed experience is to simplify and reduce the context switching. Other times I think it’s actually best to jam my own channel with as much crazy as possible. In some sort of way i think it turns on some hyper-awareness in me where different strands benefit from the higher processing and the similarity of confusions that arise in all these different things going on around.
Besides it’s very likely none of these things is materially that different underneath it all. The facade of the contexts makes them all seem very different but in terms of the overall topology of their contingencies they all are various levels of tolerable complexity and some amount of non-sense. They all benefit from parsing the signal from the noise and quickly assign what is a detail to think about for a longer time. They all benefit from a higher rate of behavior in terms of practiced attention span, re-encoding signal into different mediums and generally trying to tie them together. They are also all bound in the modern condition and in my own condition of being dialed into tech, education, politics and art.
In fact, now that I see some condensation of these things there’s an obvious convergence around pattern matching and finding the interesting detail. Also some of the contexts are trivial to parse. There isn’t that much to think about in terms of various coding details of many APIs and things I’m working on. While they aren’t necessarily trivial I’ve seen enough things in those areas to not be too taxed by implementing them. And as for things like art practice and composition of essays on various things these are more focused practice exercises than breaking new ground efforts.
For example I’ve composed nearly 7,000 words today and its mostly on topics I’ve covered extensively in many different mediums over the years. Only a few concepts have genuinely broken my mind. That said, some things I’m actually trying to come up with interesting phrasing or better writing. Admittedly that may not come across in the volume of things I’m writing.
Context switching can be a very valuable exercise. If anything it certainly shows you the limits of your own bandwidth.
— — — — — — — — — — — -
Panting loudly I finish the load.
Carrying for days this burdened heave
leavened by time and burned in the dirt
my sustenance carries me less and less
the ideas aren’t so much dark as they are tired
slaked of their pride by standard operating procedure
sometimes the game is to exist
sometimes to persist
sometimes nay, never to resist
twisted humor lands flat
failed against a broad barrened horizon
i’m alone with my baggage
the absurdity grows.
— — — — — —
Had a discussion recently about freedom and how to ponder what total human freedom would look like, what it would be. I want to claim it’s an insane nonsensical idea mostly because I don’t believe that anything is so isolated in the universe to ever be conceived of having freedom. There are degrees of freedom though and we can explore the limits of that those degrees.
Freedom can mean a lot of different things. I tend to think about it in two ways. Freedom in terms of an actual definition of freedom — actual existential freedom. And then i think about it in terms of society and how to best practice freedom for the most people. Both are different kinds of things with slightly different concerns.
Freedom in terms of actual, physical freedom to do and be in the world involves the literally limits of what a body can do. What capabilities does a body have within and outside a particular environment. For example, the human body cannot survive in space with out a suit. So the human body does not have freedom to travel in space without assistance. The limit of the human condition seems to fit within some band of the earth and its atmosphere (air, water, gravity, etc). A human does not live beyond 100 or so years, cannot move faster than XXX miles and hour and so on. With tools and other systems a human can expand its behavior and with the powers of imagination/cognition a human to can symbolically free itself in lots of ways. However, a human without aid is fairly bound to moderate earth climates and physical conditions.
It is important to consider the limits in these terms so we can better assess what various technologies, systems, society, civilizations add to the mix and what the costs might be for such increase in freedom. It is also useful to make sure we fully understand the variety of body/cognition in the human as human experience. The extent of deformation and illness of life span and geographic reach and mental acuteness and so on. Not so we can impose artificial definitions of what the right human is or what the average human is but so that we can fully explore the variety of human freedoms.
The second way of thinking about freedom is political or civil freedoms. Consider humans do occupy same geographic spaces and band together into mutually beneficial groupings one must conceive of what freedoms are politically that necessarily will impose limits on some physical limits. For example, in most societies one usually doesn’t have the freedom to physically strike others without provocation while your raw physical freedom certainly does include that. Though in the similar vein as the process above it is useful to think about the variety and extent of political freedom. Freedom to choose leadership? Freedom to economically interact. Freedom to organize. Freedom to talk/express. Freedom to choose when to participate or how to participate? what are the social contracts and the social obligations? what political freedoms are allowed to impose on physical or cognitive freedoms? how do people decide on how to compromise or adjudicate various freedoms?
Political freedoms are incredibly tricky to think about. Political freedoms perhaps are poorly named because of how they actually restrict freedom implicit. In that way it may be best to think about physical freedoms as pertaining to individual human as animal freedoms and political freedoms as social freedoms for humans as societies. That is probably the better distinction and that what is freedom for individuals doesn’t necessarily increase the freedom of societies. This distinction allows freedom to retain the idea of free action, free movement but relocates the unit of that freedom. This is an extensible concept because we can continue to move the locus of freedom to other systems and still talk about a general concept of freedom of action. For example we can consider how humans as societies that exist within the ecosystem of earth can maximize the freedoms of their ecosystems, not just the human species and human societies. Continue to scale that up to planetary systems, all animals, machines and other complex entities and so on.
In a way a calculus emerges about thinking about the space of all freedom and how to maximize that for any person/creature etc operating within a particular set of ecosystems. If one thinks about all the different freedoms of being part of a composition of freedom and assigns some way of measuring the degrees of freedom (possible actions) for each ecosystem then one could get some topological object that can be maximized in relation to others.
Maybe this is too complex of calculus to fully work it out but even as a useful modeling these conceptions of freedom may actually increase our freedom. Sometimes simple awareness is the path to more freedom.
Is This All Happening In My Head
Too much of time in my head passes. It passes with the notion that the universe I’m experiencing might all be in my head. This is a very old bad idea. Solipsism or some such thing. But I’ve had this recurring thought for a very long time. Probably since early child hoods. From my overly lucid dreams that don’t leave me some days to the occasionally bizarre de ja vus or even the rare prophetic dreams or thoughts that I have actually expressed to others before events came to be.
Now I don’t really think the universe is in my head. But man has 2018 made me think I was generating all this crazy shit. The world is currently escaping my own ability as a news, info, political, science, computation junky to connect dots, keep names straight, tie events together day to day. And some of the events and people are so fucking bizarre that the only reliable explanation is that I’m writing this whole fucking script. Like one of those funky dreams you have to tell someone the next day and as you’re describing it it sounds like incoherent garbage.
No way this is a unique feeling right now. No way.
Hello? are you out there?
— — I’m still not quite done with Primes and What It Means To Not Be Divisible — — -
The idea of the primes of a circle, really the primes of rotation is really wild. It’s not new territory but to arrive at an idea like this independently is a pretty fun epiphany. I don’t think I had every made this connection before. In all my math studies and getting Babylonian math tats and pondering computability I never thought about how to think about the notion of primes in any numbering scenario.
Funny how knowledge and patters and metaphor and abstraction works.
As I typed about this earlier I really had to spend some time trying to just think through this without looking it up. It’s really where mathematics lives… in the process of connecting them dots. You simply can’t do mathematics by reading them, seeing symbols on a page or on the screen. You have to Do The Math. Like actually draw the ticks, count the ticks, try to split the ticks up. Swirl em all around and actually make the puzzle work.
The math won’t do itself.
and that’s probably where reality lives and the reality of math. The Doing Of Reality is The Doing Of Math. how do you make marks and unmake marks and split the marks up and categorize the marks. How do you aggregate and redress the giant bog of existence?
But now back to those primes on a rotation or prime rotations. is it possible to divide the rotation around a point into even integer lengths? can we divide 2pi into 2pi/11….
We have to be very careful here. With a mind as tired as mine right now it’s very easy to flip from algebraic concept of Pi as a rotation or radian into a numeric concept. Numerically you’re not going to get clean divisors. But as integers…
how to set this up.
[omg, i just realized people consider the circle as a unit… and convert it to other units like degrees, quandrants, etc. man so simple and so useful. I’m admitting I didn’t think of this because it’s useful to just show the dumb process of mathing. it literally is a series of simple overlooked things/relations that build up over time.]
Considering only pi as an interger rotation or “degree” of rotation how can we evenly divide a circle where the sweeps are “even”… this would work better with a set of pictures but its sort of fun to think out loud on paper.
I found this incredibly useful visual and animation (it brings together all of the stuff I was discussing above): https://focusonmath.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/factoring-a-visual-representation-of-numbers/
And holy shit I’m turning into this guy… awesome
or this guy:
this is more respectable… but only because it’s on wikipedia.
hahaah the prime numbers making you go fucking insane.
i now am wondering if everything I wrote about the prime numbers is completely stupid.
Man, my thinking about the prime segmentation or whatever we are calling the shit I was doing with the circle was not right, or not quite coherent. but it’s not quite as stupid as i thought.
These are classic problems… about cutting pizzas and cakes. and eventually we end in this weird spot:
And of course after you spend your day conversing and trying to get to 10,000 words on paper in a day you see a weird convergence emerge.
It turns out that Cake Cutting fairly leads into all sorts of phenomena about dividing things up. This all ties back into the topics of individual, social and ecological freedoms. Dividing the world up… its space, its resources, its time, its stuff turns out to be incredibly complicated.
It’s so funny how someone made a joke about this pizza cutting on my facebook page a couple of weeks ago and my silly musing and efforts to write today have led me mentally and googly down this rabbit hole:
I’m actually sort of baffled at this point about how some of this didn’t occur to me above. I’m still a bit confused now, like in that way that you say a word so many times you lose its meaning. How the hell is a circle not divisible or cut-table into any N equal parts? let’s take 360 degrees… i suppose this sort of reveals it…. divide 360 degrees evenly… n can be 1,2,3,4,5,6,
And here I see another strange connection between things I’ve been playing with for years… and their of course obvious math connections. https://lifethroughamathematicianseyes.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/origami-and-mathematics-do-they-work-together/
folds, division, circles, infinity, symmetry…
… I have got to figure out what’s going on. This is not only conceptually a mess it clearly confuses the heck out of people.
I fear I’ve brought way too many concepts to bear or the problem did. But really it’s not so much my fault as this is how crazy simple numbering and concepts like circles really are.
Gauss and Wantzel doing work on this lead to these crazy results.
Cutting up a circle evenly is equivalent to drawing these special n-gons that have equal area parts/equal length edges etc. So while there’s not really some clean way of directly relating the prime integers to “prime” divisions or the lack of prime divisions of the circle they are clearly related or the concepts are related.
This all leads into the Regular Polygons, and we’re back to the greeks and all that. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RegularPolygon.html
It’s probably getting lost on people like it is me whenever you get deep inside the math. The circle presents all sorts of challenges. So now that we have this notion of n-gons giving us equal edges and all that you’d think well it’s done. But no the problem you have in actually cutting up a circle is a concept of construction. We need to geometrically be able to do what we want to do in terms of dividing up the circle. And you can think about that just like we did about 9000 words ago… or much earlier in this stream of consciousness… how do you tick things off just using boring old tools of mark making etc. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConstructiblePolygon.html
This opens us up to the more abstract idea of constructible numbers http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConstructibleNumber.html which really has to do with rationality and irrationality (think about it as finite and infinite in terms of descriptions of the numbers) This really does become an endless swirl.
Circle Back Around
This is probably a good way to try to tie things together without really tyeing them together. A random walk around my thoughts from when i woke up to now when i’m winding down to go to sleep comes full circle. Start wildly by considering that time and self hood and causality don’t exist. Then try to build that belief up from smaller, simpler ideas like number and counting. This leads to strange things with numbers like prime numbers that can’t be divided and how they are seemingly randomly distributed throughout the number line. Consider other simple concepts like cycles or circles and how we might reason about them. This leads to base notation issues and doing math with numbers of rotations. This reveals the surprising result that circles are evenly divisible but not by every number. So we have some new notion not quite of prime numbers but some other special set of numbers that is set apart.
These are not merely constructions of the human mind. These relationships apply in any universe and any creatures or objects. These are relationships found in COUNTING or COUNT and ROTATION. Those are not inherently “mathematical” things. They can easily just be considered physical things. Collections of Objects and Rotations of Cycles of Stuff. The math “falls” out of them as you try to do things with them.
There is a reason that you cannot cut a pizza in 17 even slices by just cutting out from the center. That’s just the way it is. Sure you can get crazy and create other geometrical concepts of evenness and other cutting methods but if you want to cut the pizza into 17 slices from the center and make sure everyone gets the same amount of pizza, it just cannot be done.
and that folks is how you know we live in reality. it is weird. it can’t be evenly divided. we are made of math. and writing all day long about whatever you want is exhausting and i highly recommend it.