The question.

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action." -Hamlet's soliloquy, Shakespeare's Hamlet

To me this rings truer than ever.  How beautiful the words sing out, I do not only contemplate the content of this silioquy, but it's existence.  These words are as real as the substance of the universe.  It is an organization of its substance and thus is a real entity of the universe.  In its creation William Shakespeare was the agent, the agent of creation.  But was he the creator?  The answer to that question is the answer to this:

"To reduce or deduce: that is is the question:
Whether 'tis more fitting to point
Downward or upward in the levels of science
Or to take arms against the very methods we hold so dear
And by opposing end them."

Reduction is the method we use to describe systems.  Starting from the highest 'softest' sciences and always pointing downward, from sociology to psychology, from psychology to physiology, from physiology to biology, from biology to biochemistry, from biochemistry to chemistry, and (ultimately?) from chemistry to physics.  Yet we haven't the methods yet to deduce the emergence of human beings from chemistry.  We have yet to deduce the Navier-Stokes equations from quantum physics.  However, there must be a connection.

The connection: complexity.

We often ignore complexity during reduction because we assume there is none... we assume only verifiable determinism within the system.  However, in a complex system such as a human being, reducing to time zero would require an almost unfathomable permutation of possible initial state spaces, each point known along the path recorded and traced until we ultimately find the individual origin - the specific state space.  Similarly, in the method of deduction, we must take into account fully the unpredictability of a complex system when deducing from a lower level science.  An almost infinite number of paths leading to the current state of the human being.  Generally speaking, the variables of any system must always depend on the variables of every other system.  While we assume that we have a rock-solid control within most well designed experiments, there is always information leaking into our system other systems, and into those from other systems, and so on.  This informational noise, the chaos, is often considered negligible, and so science has in the past, and for a long time in the past, turned a blind eye to implications of variation within experiments.

There is a profound implication of this: Deductively, complexity arises from order.  Reductively, order arises from complexity.

I think an important note to make here is the distinguishability of chaos from complexity.  Chaos within a system often occurs periodically on the path of time.  Small convergences of order come from chaos.  The inverse is true as well.  The scale dependency of chaos also traverses this periodicity.  Complexity is more often described, as my interpretation holds, as the magnitude of chaos involved in the evolution of a system.

Complexity becomes the glue of assumption.  The bond between the generalized laws of the universe.  In a sense, complexity is the creative force of the universe.  And I intend, whole heartedly, if it takes my whole life and perhaps a thousand others, to show the existence of the glue of natural creation, the continuity of the sciences, or as Richard Feynman once put it, "the inconceivable nature of Nature!"

I am fuming!

I picked up a copy of The Origin of Species 150th Anniversary Edition with Special Introduction by Ray Comfort today after reading online about the planned book release.  The introduction disturbs me greatly.  His arguments are laughable at best and pale in comparison with the scientific rigor that Darwin's theory has endured.  Mostly his addition personally attacks Darwin's character.  Typical of the circa 1800s ignorance he so graciously included and cited!  My only objection to the book is its deceitful nature.  Comfort could have easily handed out copies of his own book, as his introduction is just a series of quick summaries of his past work.  However, he hid them in a great work of scientific discovery.  Evolution Theory has come a long way since Darwin.  It would have been nice to see him argue against one of the newer comprehensive works out there.  A good look through his citations at the end of the introduction shows that very few works on evolution were cited; the ones that were cited were obviously limited in depth and breadth.  At least, very few in contrast to the many citations comparable to "Christian arguments against evolution" and "The Scientific Method for Dummies."

Religion is a memetic virus.  It's only purpose is to reproduce.  Look at these people's tenacity.  It an inherent property of these viral dogmatic ideas.  The problem with it is that it reduces people to replicators of an idea, rather than creators. 

Some of Darwin's opinions expressed in The Origin of Species should be taken as that - opinions.  Opinions stemming from 1800s level scientific ignorance.  And these opinions have no relationship with his scientific theory.

Whether accepted or not by the reader, Comfort's information should not be published within the covers of this book.  Too many readers are not educated enough to realize that reason, not only that but scientifically rigorous reason, is required when comparing the two ideas - and sadly most will not read past the first 60 pages (the intro).

I believe very strongly that Darwin's theory, as it is improved on in time with parallel ideas such as complexity, non-linear systems, chaos and self-organizing systems, will prove to be an epiphenomenon of an underlying principle law of nature.

"A deceitful witness speaketh lies" Proverbs 14:25

It works.

pi = -i * ln [ phi - phi^2 ]

Look closer.

If I ask "What is mathematics?" most will answer: "The manipulation of numbers and structures."  But if I ask you "What is music" most would not answer: "The manipulation of notes."

It's essential to take into account the beauty of a subject when considering it.  It's joys will naturally come.

For Chris.

This is a graph of the convergence of 'my' formulation in the case that a = 1 and n1=1.

What does that remind you of? It's an alternating series, converging to phi. Okay...take it in...
Think electrical... got it?  You got it.
Take 2 and call me tomorrow.  We have much to discuss with what we can do with this.

Discovering for yourself is the most exhilarating.

For some reason my friend and I have both been obsessing lately about the Fibonacci sequence and it's relationship with the golden ratio phi.  Last fall I played around with the numbers, trying to find patterns and relationships.  I came up with two:  F[12] = 144 ->  a case where the value of F[n] is n^2.  Somewhat interesting.  I remembered finding another relationship between numbers of the Fibonacci Sequence which provided phi other than the ratio of sequential Fibonacci numbers.  I thought I had found something unique so I went to the library today to do some research to see if my formulation was unique.  Alas, it wasn't, so I feel comfortable posting here.  Here is what I came up with:


My formulation:
-----------------------------
lim(n -> inf):  (F[n+a]/F[n])^(1/a) = phi   for any initial value of n.


This means that if n is very large, then you can approximate phi from any two numbers in the sequence.  'a' is difference in location in the sequence of the two Fibonacci numbers.  By taking the 'a'th root of the ratio of the two numbers, you get phi.

-----------------------------


The above is a more general case of the well known solution (where a=1):

lim(n -> inf):  (F[n+1]/F[n]) = phi for any initial value of n

Finding Sources.

I'm finding many sources for the ideas I have.  It's a nice feeling to know that you're not delusional.

We are nature's Rube Goldberg machines.

I've been up all night doing homework.  I feel really blank.  I ordered some books off of Amazon that I am very excited about.  Until those come in I'll keep pulling the lever.

A Beautiful Mind

Carl Sagan

(1934 - 1996)

You should know about this man.  You should hear what he has to say.

Too Much Structure.

Here's a bit of organix to help smooth all this out for a while.

Growth by Creation.

I've felt an undeniably rapid growth intellectually that past month or so. I have been neglecting school religiously in order to pursue more artistic endeavors. Maybe artistic isn't the best choice of wording. Perhaps aesthetic would be a better adjective. I have been creating and experiencing, experiencing and creating: sharing things with people I have recently connected with. I feel that with every small thing I create, I add a new dimension to the concept of myself. As I manipulate the things around me, I manipulate my own point of view. I realize at this time in my life I am changing rapidly. I feel confident saying that those who believe people change more slowly as adults, nearly to zero change, are completely wrong. I wake up feeling like a new person every day. I feel like a stranger stares at me in the mirror. I find myself carrying conversations with myself from an outsider's perspective - testing the waters as to who is awake and active today. Not to say I feel vastly dissociated from myself, more amused at my ability to reprogram myself so quickly.

My responsibilities taunt me subconsciously. Tasks must be completed. Grades must be satisfactory. It all seems so ridiculous. I haven't the slightest clue who I will wake up as tomorrow. Why the hell am I devoting so much time to this? To be a cog in the economic system of the US? I know I have to feed and clothe myself. I know I need medical care. Why can't I be productive in my own ways and reap the benefits? I suppose I can. This most certainly will be an option I will keep open. Regardless of what I do, I suppose I'll never go hungry.

Intellectual growth has never put food on a table, I guess. It's time I figure out how to integrate functionality with this growth.

Blinded by Fall

It had never occurred to me

That through the breeze of burning leaves

Our eyes were open to wasps and weeds!

I cursed the fire – the weeds – the trees,

But the embers were not at fault,

It was the bees.

Network Map of the Internet

www.opte.org

Book ideas

Thus far, these are the ideas I want to connect and relate.
A basic outline of the book I want to write.

Preface
Information
Physical Networks
-Interactions of Matter and Energy
Biological Networks
-Neurological Networks
-Cellular Networks
--Viral Information
---Viruses
---Viroids
---Plasmids
Memetic Networks
-Information in the Human Language
-Viral Ideas
-Abstract Ideas
-Evolution of Ideas
-Importance of Logic and Reason
Social Networks
-Communication Channels
-Convergence of Languages
Chaotic Systems
-Evolution of Dynamical Systems
-Cycles of Chaos and Order
--Time dependent
--Scale dependent
Cyclic Networks
-Firework Networks
-Implications for Inertia
Interconnectedness
The Human Macro-organism
-The Cell
-The Tissue
-The Organs
-The Organism
The Human Super-machine
Utilizing the Universal Network
-Realizing the Connections Required to Learn More
-Innate Nonsense: Filtering out Informational Noise
-Partitioning Matter & Energy for Computation of the Universe
To Be Human
-Building Connections
-Integration of Technology and Machines
-The Redefinition
-Universal Indistinguishableness: We are the manifestation of the contemplated universe. We are the projected observations of the universe. By the connections we make, we begin realize the indistinguishableness between us and the universe.

Maybe.

I'm feeling it again. Feels like I've been woken up from a really good dream. The kind of dream where your day has gone perfectly, all the things you wanted to happen went directly your way. You find that wallet you lost a week ago and have been stressing about. You go buy groceries to fill the fridge. The tests for the week are studied for and passed. Then you wake up to realize everything is undone and life is about to re-roll the dice, the day will most likely end up less favorable.

I suppose my apathy has its limits. I just wish I knew how not to fall into that loop again.

But I guess the real question is do I wake up and take hold of life or continue to flow with the natural state of things. No one told me being intelligent would end up being such a burden to life. I always thought I would have the upper hand when looking for happiness.

I'm tired of people holding me against me.
I'm tired of being stretched in 50 directions.
I'm tired of this fucking cycle.
There is no quarter in this place.