Monday, January 29, 2007

Blasphemy

Catastrophe blasphemy!
The open ended slight
Your retributive might
As you beckon in the night.
Destiny entropy!
Bloodthirsty warcry
Watch the martyrs die
Salvation's pligh' spy I nigh awry! "Fie ally!" my decry.

Masquerade parade!
Ablated constitution, threadbare
Slaughter for the fanfare
Fed propaganda sans-care.
Risibility civility!
Consummate your new world
Jingo hegemony unfurled
By messianic presidential churl.

Ad-hoc decimation,
exacerbation,
no emancipation.
Your fascist nation's
fascination,
come irradiation,
fuck conciliation.
Now confederation,
face annihilation
and die!

emotion

how quickly it descends
and my heart, embraces.
as mind defines new trends,
while love-sick blood races.

Friday, January 12, 2007

On the Nature of the Relative-State


The infinity of particular-states (individual manifestations) are born from the potential of the Nihil-state much as virtual particles are born from vacuum energy in perturbation theory. As the Relative-state is the Nihil-state manifest, all particular-states aggregate to the Relative-state. As the Relative-state is axiomatic, conceptual reduction is complete. Essentially, Relativism is (as the name implies) the reduction of all concepts to the atom of relation.

It is only within particular-states, free of totality and axiomity, that pseudo-concepts (non-atomic concepts) such as absoluteness are present. Consequently, it can be seen that semantics result from the fracture of the Relative-state.

Dualism: Semantics or Truth


In recent months I have reviewed my hypotheses thoroughly; in the process I felt it necessary to question every perception that lead to Nihilism. By my own standards, a hypothesis must be the result of perception, otherwise it is simply a belief. I identified two issues on the path to Nihilism: the second half of the axiom of Nihilism (which I covered in a previous post), and my perceptions that lead to Dualism.

When I initially articulated Dualism on this blog, I offered as proof the truth of the contradicting statements "Strength is in Weakness" and "Weakness is in Weakness". I must now, however, question whether such an action is valid, or simply a device of rhetoric. Before I can answer this, I must better articulate semantics and the patterns behind them.

Semantic mapping is the attribution of concepts to communicable patterns. Words are meaningless in themselves, understanding is only gleaned from them due to this mapping. Often these mappings are performed poorly: mappings are incomplete, mappings overlap, mappings don't exist, etc. Homographs and homophones will not be discussed here, as they are artifacts of our mapping of sound patterns to character patterns. Similarly, discussion of homonyms is unnecessary as conceptual ambiguity is an artifact of contextual use, not semantic intent.

An example of an overlap are the words tall and large. Tall describes a disproportionate exaggeration in the physical dimension perpendicular to an external origin. Large describes the proportionate exaggeration in all physical dimensions. Both words contain the concepts of relation ("-proportionate"), more ("exaggeration"), nature ("physical"), and attribution ("dimension"). Tall also contains the concepts of relation ("perpendicular"), entity ("external"), and absoluteness ("origin"). Considered together, the words contain the concept of opposition ("dis-").

These concepts are interrelated, and some even overlap. In the case of overlap, the concepts should be reduced to their atomic forms. For example, "more" can be separated into measure and relation. Curiously, "less" could also be separated into measure and relation; however, considering both "more" and "less" we find the concept opposition.

It is likely that you will describe the words "tall" and "large" differently, and as a consequence end up with different atomic concepts. This is because each of our semantic mappings differ. Even if each of us were to read the same dictionary definitions of "tall" and "large", we would still end up with different atomic concepts. The reason for this is that the words we use to describe these concepts are themselves open to semantic interpretation (different mappings within their own definitions). Unless each of our complete semantic maps were the same, we would inevitably interpret some words differently.

Consequently we can see that semantic interpretation is relative to perspective; but is this grounds for Relativism? No. This establishes that the meanings of words are relative, but demands that concepts are absolute. Consequently it is established that my original proof is a play on semantic interpretation, and, as such, a device of rhetoric: invalid. I will now take a step further, however, and establish Relativism through two other means.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Inconsistencies in Reasoning [Incomplete]

[date written: 2006-04-27]

To some extent I attempt to skip over the inconsistencies of my perceptions. I'm worried that if people see my perceptions as incomplete they will dismiss them, rather than attempting to finish the work that I have started.

Last night I was laying in bed reading, when I realized that it was pointless for me to accrue more data, when I had not finished reconciling the data that I already had. For a reason that I have not yet discovered, I have been delaying work on my philosophical perceptions. In part, I convinced myself that I did not have time for them currently, and I would make time for them once university was complete; I know that this was just an excuse, however.

Possibly the true reason lies much deeper: a fear that I will be unable to finish what I have begun, or a subconscious anxiety that a conclusion may be in sight.

Whilst laying in bed I considered the brick wall behind my bed, and I could not reconcile this with my philosophical perceptions. I understood the human reason for the brick wall (the support that it granted the roof, the ensuing shelter the room provided), but my dilemma was at a deeper level. I understood possession as being no different to how ants sort food, waste and corpses; I understood action to be mechanical and necessary, even if it is non-deterministic (more on this in a later post); but, I could not reconcile these things with nihilism.

Here stood my dilemma: if this is the only reality, then its manifestation acknowledges an external will; if this is not the only reality, then how is it that this consciousness (my ego) is bound within this object (my body)?

When I state nihilism, I always say "there is nothing, not even the possibility of there being", but have I truly perceived the last part of this statement, or is it simply a belief?

Reconciliation of Perception [Incomplete]

[date written: 2006-04-27]

It is necessary for me to speak of my perception of spacetime and alternate realities in order for the subsequent posts to make sense.

There are clues in existence to how things work. Often we see puzzles that we believe to be solvable, but that seem to lack enough data to be solved. When we encounter these puzzles, we need to look inside the data that we are given to find the clues. This data has hidden information in it, sometimes redundant information, that when combined creates new data and sometimes precludes certain outcomes. Sometimes we cannot solve a puzzle directly, we must simply identify all possible solutions, and eliminate those that are not viable. Sometimes a puzzle has multiple solutions, but I believe that the reason for this is a lack of further data that would eliminate some of the solutions. Where there is a lock, there is always a key.

Simply put, many of the concepts of the spacetime element of our existence fail to prevent contradiction. I have avoided this subject until now as the following is not science, it is simply a reconciliation of my perceptions with science. This is not to say that it is pseudoscience, although I am certain that some stalwart followers of contemporary theory will label it as such. I am not personally looking for verification of this perception of mine, although I would suggest that others do so before expounding it as a theory.

There is a principle in contemporary science known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (also the principle of complementarity). Put simply, it states that there are complementary physical observables in existence (such as position and momentum) that are intrinsically linked. Further, it is impossible to measure both of these precisely and simultaneously. This imprecision is not a fault of our technology, it is inherent in existence.

As a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, there are phenomena such as quantum tunneling. Perhaps it is not conclusive enough to say that "it is impossible to measure both the position and momentum of a particle precisely and simultaneously", rather it should be said that "a particle never has both a precise position and momentum". This may seem indifferent at first, but consider yourself to be that particle: you are not in a precise position; you are not going at a precise speed; you are not going in a precise direction; you do not have a precise mass. Because of the imprecision in position, an electron can be both inside the pull of an atom's nucleus' electromagnetic field, and outside of it; in fact, electrons are. Here again exists a subtle but profound semantic difference: particles are not just in an imprecise position, they are in multiple positions simultaneously.

This lead Bohr to postulate that particles have a wave nature. Consider turbulent water: a wave does not exist in a single position, rather it exists in a great number of positions; we recognize the crest to be the wave, but we also recognize the raised water around the crest to be the wave. Now consider a flat, two-dimensional sheet to be existence; like the wave, a particle is not a dot on that sheet (a precise position like the wave crest), but a fuzzy-circle (a great number of positions like the raised water). In fact, the wave nature of a particle extends through all spacetime. It is because of this nature of particles that electrons can escape the pull of an atom's nucleus' electromagnetic field, even though they lack the energy to escape this field otherwise; this is quantum tunneling.

When we measure the location of a particle, we do so at the cost of not knowing its momentum; the more precisely we measure the position of that particle, the less we know about its momentum. The Double-Slit Experiment has established that if the position of a particle is measured twice (as it is when leaving the source, and when passing through one of the slits), the wave nature of that particle in the time between the two measurements is destroyed by the second measurement. More precisely, in observing the slit that the particle passes through, we move from an indeterminate quantum reality, to a less indeterminate alternate quantum reality.

Scepticism

[date written: 2006-04-27]

I have noticed a fault in myself in recent years; a growing scepticism. I am simply not as willing to accept what others now say, especially when it does not correlate with what I believe. I am worried that this will lead me to become obstinate, which in turn will lead me to hold less holistic views of the world. I understand the causes of this problem, they are egotism and arrogance (I will address the ego in detail in a later post).

My belief that my philosophical perceptions are beyond those held by contemporary humanity has led me to believe that I am beyond contemporary humans. I recognize this fault, I admit to this fault and I am trying to rectify this fault. It seems almost ironic that I can believe that I am beyond others, when I am incapable of fixing such a small problem. I must learn humility, and if I cannot learn it, I must be taught it.

Perception

[date written: 2006-04-27]

There are three simple concepts that describe our cognition: belief, perception and knowledge. To believe something is to accept it as true, though without solid reasoning for doing so. To perceive something is to accept it as true from our experience, based on the patterns that we perceive in the world. To know is omniscient.

We tend to misuse these words a lot. Often we say "I know" or "I believe" when what we should say is "I perceive"; it is a habitual problem, and to some extent one embedded in language. Whilst I will attempt to use these words correctly, there will be times when I succumb to the poor habits that my years of misuse have reinforced in my brain.

A Call to Arms [Incomplete]

[date written: 2006-01-03]

For too long we have sat, ignorant and apathetic, watching the world around us act and counteract on what we are told are reasonable motives. As children we held belief in the factual nature of this world, in absolute truths and in the dichotomy of good and evil; these beliefs have haunted us into adulthood. It is not enough to simply accept a maxim because the majority agree with it - the majority are sheep. The creators and proponents of these maxims invariably act out of a desire to manipulate the public; whether one consider Benito Mussolini's Fascism and its desire to manipulate through propaganda, or Jesus of Nazareth's Christianity and it's desire to manipulate through instilling Christian values, this remains consistent.

For many who have faced this bleak reality, the solitude of dismissed trust in society has been overwhelming. We are essentially social beings and we have a need to share our lives with others.

If we cannot establish something for ourselves, then we must accept that it is inherently fallible.

Definitions and Destinctions

[date written: 2007-01-04]

Nothing is Absolute.
Everything is nothing manifest.
Everything is Relative to Perspective.

Subjectivity is perspective orientation.
Objectivity is absolute orientation.

Perception is subjective observation.
Knowledge is objective observation.

Belief is unfounded postulation.
Hypothesis is postulation deduced from perception.

Data is perceptive measurements (absent of context).
Information is data given context.

Intelligence is the retention and comprehension of perception.
Wisdom is the retention and comprehension of hypotheses as they approach knowledge. Wisdom is attained by abstracting patterns from perception.

As existence, we are incapable of knowing, only perceiving.

vision lost

[date written: 2007-01-05]

humanity's hope
your fisher king
bow to her
my time is passed

Intranecine

[date written: 2007-01-05]

Expired chances lost to time;
Beats painful solely, heart's repine.
Phantasmal barriers confine;
An anguished soul intranecine.

Update

It has been over a year since my last post, but this blog is not dead. I haven't had a great deal of time to work on philosophy or poetry in the past 12 months, but I intend to start posting again (semi-regularly).

Most of what I have worked on in recent months is incomplete, but rather than waiting until I have time to finish these posts, I will post some of what I have written and later edit the posts to complete them (with a header stamp to say when I last updated the post).