a lesson learned through a hard head...

As it is, I am a person who prides himself on the fact that I don't rely on many people to live; thus it is difficult for me to accept that sometimes people are worth the chance to trust them. I learned over the past few days subtle facts of life, and relationships, that mean trusting someone with my reliance and that it is okay to ask for help when you need it.
Living the life that I have and getting as far as I have so far has lead me to a few quirks about my character and have impacted my world view in numerous ways. One way being, I have always felt that asking for assistance was synonymous with my lack of ability and ending in a resultant failure. I just recently found this one woman who, as amazed as I am, seems to really like me. I convince myself every time that I am with her that I should brush logic aside and my emotional connection is real and emotional thoughts are actually right this time. I sometimes forget that when I am not looking into her eyes that she may actually care about my wellbeing and wants to help me any way she can whenever I need it. She write things that make it seem as if she were idealistic, I’ve never had the chance to relax and just hope for the best so my idealistic nature has been whittled down to a microscopic size. Whether she knows it or not, she is changing me making me into a better person. She says that I am “awesome,” once even commented that I am “…a god among mere mortals, in intellect, finesse, and skill.” Whether or not she was simply trying to hype up my own ego, as if that needed any more inflation, I took her for her word that she truly thinks this highly of me. She doesn’t realize the impact she has on my composure and will when I am near her, she probably has less understanding of how much her words mean to me. I push my emotional attachment to the back of my mind and hope I don’t blurt out something that my lower mental framework is trying so desperately to push above my intrusive cerebral foundation. I wish I knew a way to convey the utter astonishment her existence throws to me. For someone to honestly convey those kinds of thoughts about me, makes me believe her world view is possible and that that rosier outlook on the world may not be so contrary to my realistic point of view. I hope she read this and sees that it, in this short time I’ve known her, she has helped change my life with such simple acts as telling me that she thinks I am a great guy. As selfish as this is, I hope I do not mess this up.

insecurities...they just get in the way

I have learned a few things about myself in the last few days. I was coming down with a head cold and mild fever, and started to feel the symptoms, very slightly, on this past Saturday evening. Sunday was when it really hit me mentally and only mildly physically with slight discomfort and minor aches. Mentally, however this "bug” got the best of me. In the moments of introspect of my own subconscious, where my deepest insecurities live freely and uncontrolled, I lost hold of reality. It may have been the minor virus, or the mass quantities of DayQuil and Excedrin I took to fight the head ache and the onset of the symptoms from the plague (plague here meaning head cold); but I lost myself in a deep state of depression. Emotions and thoughts I had not felt in a while came to surface and ran rapid; my almost instinctual personal security against emotional quandary was slow to react. This led me to think things that I thought I had buried. Everything from aspects of my personality that lay dormant to attitudes toward people and friends in general.


I have recently found myself incorporated into a series of events that I've not been in many years. Safe to say, this is the first of its kind as far as maturity of the condition. In my state of a sleepless dream, I committed acts that lead me to believe that the wonderful new predicament I have found myself in has become a mere ruse, in the sense that it will become a rote set of actions leading up to the finale, where little if any actual intent or interest can grow and become more than it was. The loss of this connection with another human being is troubling. I felt that I found a special person that understood a majority of my particular brand of crazy, but also shared a few of my own quirks and idiosyncrasies; yet they were different enough to have varied opinions on anything from literature to political ideals. It was nice to meet someone strong enough to stay their ground in debate, and not take it personal. All the same, it was an awesome ride, regardless of its fleeting nature. Until this point, all of my personal contact has been in the forms of conjured personalities from which minor aspects are taken from my own true self. They had no idea, who I really was. I, however morally corrupt as you interpret this, had no desire to know them either. Purely a biological aspect of release to save my own self from the torment being the "thirsty man in a desert," I sought simple targets, applied learned behaviors and techniques that both satisfied and left without harm. 


She tells me that I am much like many of her friends, I am "uncommon" in so many ways that I never dreamed of that it seems like there may be another similar of her as well. If and when this current state ends, regardless of its means, I will attempt to find these people. Of course, I would love to find them either way, if nothing else then friends of course. Still it would have been nice for this to last longer than a few weeks of bliss and uninterrupted happiness. I was genuinely happy. Now, I am unsure what is next. I suppose it is solely up to her and her actions as whether or not this will continue or dwindle to friendship. 

first four chapters of my book summerized

Chapter 1:

                This chapter focuses on the beginnings of religion as an entity. Its analysis is taken from many disciplines such as Archaeology, Anthropology, Psychology and early metaphysical writings. It explains that religion has been apparent in early forms of art and oral tradition, for example evidence of ritual burying of the dead and symbolism via shapes and colors.  My assertion in this opening chapter is to give a brief background on the roots of religion in early human societies, what role is served and why that role later helped develop cultures and societies.  I also want to make clear, monotheism did not evolve from polytheism, and there are similarities in stories but that the idea for one god over many was not an evolution of religion. 

Chapter 2:

                Early Christianity has its beginning with the new testament, so that is where I start. I discuss the origin myth (as presented in the Bible) and delve into a few others which have similar elements, such as Epic of Gilgamesh, Islam Creation myth, Norse, Native American, Greek…I also go into the etymology of the words used to denote god in the Abrahamic texts; i.e. Elohim and YHWH. My point with this chapter is to merely show the parallels among elements in early creation myths and show how early creators of religions and beliefs used what they understood about the world they live in to create stories which explain origins. I will get more into parallels later in the book, but this does touch on the parallels of thought given the human experience at the time, regardless of geography. I attempt to only show ideas crossing between the myths at this point. *My goal for the reader is to open the mind to similarities amongst varying stories*

Chapter 3:

                My case here is simple, to give a historical account of the Abrahamic religions and the divergence between the three. I want to show how Christianity and Islam evolve from Judaism, and the evolution of Judaism itself from oral traditions of the region. This will be split into three sections

A.      Judaism Origins

B.      Christianity branches off

C.      Islamic branch off

My goal is to show that the three Abrahamic religions are all able to be linked back to common village stories spread across the Middle Eastern population. Also, I was to show that since the three religions can be traced back, why was there a split in essential ideologies that make the three so vastly different today? 

Chapter 4:

                Alternate reality sequence, what if Christianity had not become the dominant religion and Constantine had not converted from Pagan religion to Christianity. Also, run down the sequence for how difficult it was prior to Constantine to become a Christian and why if Constantine had not converted Christianity would have probably never left the Middle East, much like Islam. This chapter will touch on a few pagan symbols that made it into popularized Christianity, such as the cross, the fish, and even “Amen,” since they inevitably helped the spread of Christianity by seeming a bit more familiar…it was a great advertising campaign “look a new religion that is just like the old one but completely different join now!!!” 

preface to my book

Religion/ Reality – What is religion, really?

Dedication:

To my father, who always made me figure it out for myself.

Preface:

                You can say this book is about Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I would venture to say, it is about much more than those three as I delve into the root of these mythos and discover the origins of the stories repackaged into these faiths. I draw parallels, conclusions and irrationalities amongst all these religions and then some to show the root of the belief structure and to point out its faults.

                I feel the need to point out a few key ideas before you begin. I will not say that I am debating the existence of god, as that is topic for another book. Religion and God are separate entities and must be dealt with as such. All religions worship deities, not everyone who worships deities subscribes to a religion. Spirituality is not Christianity just as much as it is not Judaism or Islam; spirituality is the search for a path to enlightenment, whether your path included a deity of some sort in entirely up to you. This book is not about spirituality or god, but I felt that it should be acknowledged as separate from religion as well.

                What is this book about then; a fair question, to say the least?  This book is split into two parts. The first half of the book will relate to what makes up these religions. I dare use the word evolution, a bit ironically I suppose, in saying that religion is the evolutionary byproduct of thousands of years of oral tradition, questions, postulations and a desire for reason/ purpose as well as an understanding of origin. To say these things would imply that the religious texts that are held in high esteem in religious circles today reiterate stories and philosophy historically found in other cultures and time periods which predate the writings of these “modern” biblical texts.

                The second half will deal with philosophical implications, some of which have changed human history, that were derived from the previous oral stories and traditions. I will make note of many popular myths about Abrahamic religions that are apparent in western culture such as homosexuality, dichotomy murder and killing, righteousness vs. morality, ambiguity of beliefs among the believers ect. . Many of the stipulations I put forward into this part of the book will be drawing from varied disciplines, from metaphysics, physics, philosophy, psychology and many more.

                Who should read this book? Have you ever wondered where the narrative in the bibles around the world came from? Did you even know that most came from somewhere other than the authors pen? This is not a book that is supposed to make your mind up for you but rather, I hope a book to help you rationally decide where you stand in the issue of religion. I feel the need again, as with many of the debates I have had, that I am not arguing the presence, existence, omnipotence or power of any deity; I am not arguing for a lack thereof either.  

                The title for this book is Religion/ Reality, it is meant not to say that religion isn’t a part of reality, which is clearly the case. Rather it is meant in the sense that what people believe about religions may not be reality, or truthful for that matter. My reason for writing this book was to help myself clarify why I myself am not a religious person. I have always been taught to seek out my own answers and after years of research, thought and debate on this particular topic, I have answered a question I have had since I went to Lutheran school as a boy; “Is religion for me?” This book goes well past that, but from that mindset I set off to learn as much as possible about religions of the world, their histories, philosophies, traditions and biblical records.  This is a book about what religion really is, and because of what it is, I will never be subscriber to any of it.

I have faith in logic!

Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Logic: the science of reason.
Reason: statements conforming to/ agreeing with fact or known truth offering explanation or justification.

Given those definitions, it seems contradictory to say "I have faith in logic." But when a family member said the following:

...You've lived long enough to know that some things just don't make logical sense. If it can be figured out, why would you need faith? When you come right down to it, everybody has something, or things, that they believe "by faith". Even you..."

Of course, I use this blog as a tool to counteract such statements without offending anyone and without the fear of completely alienating relatives with my objections and rationalizations. Thus my rebuttal...

The first thing that came to mind after reading that was “I have faith in logic." After further thinking about it on the way home and throughout the evening, I have concluded that that statement is a contradiction, but the English language as I know it does not allow me to quickly and clearly express how my sentiments toward Logic.

Logic is undeniable and always correct. You (as the person using logic) may be wrong, but it is not the fault of logic, it is your use of the science, you are the human error behind the format, this is called a fallacy.

I do not know of anything that "...(doesn't) make logical sense." Perhaps my understanding and application of the logic is incorrect, but that does not make the topic of debate in discord with correct and accurate logical analysis.

As my family member correctly states "If it can be figured out, why would you need faith?" That is indeed the question to ask. I do not need faith, I do, however need logic to base my opinions and conditional statements on! Faith itself can be based on a logical need for understanding in cases where the capacity for that understanding is lacking. It is why magic shows are so fascinating to children, they see the rabbit come out of the hat where they were sure there was none before, and they have faith that magic just happened! Their understanding of the trick is not there and thus the faith what makes up for the gap between what they originally saw and what happened next. If all children were shown logically how it is done, it would ruin the trick for them since now they have an understanding and do no longer need of the faith to believe in magic. If I showed you how the universe works and how life was created, basically the magic of the universe, you would no longer need faith, just like that child you now know how and why that rabbit came out of the hat.

Just because science and logic \does not know the answers all right away does not give reason for faith just to fill the gaps in knowledge. If anything, it should be a reason against faith since science is showing to be correct, the fact that I am writing this on a computer, putting it online and you are reading it is a testament to logic and science.

A popular argument is that I have faith in the scientist, as if the scientists were the magician and what they are showing me is their brand of magic. This is a fallacy in the sense you are assuming that I think every scientist is correct and I would take their word right off the bat without regard to experimental analysis and debate over findings. I admit, some of the science goes over my head, but that does not mean I have faith that they are correct in their theory or findings. It means I am relying on those who are professionals that have studied and have been taught the intricacies of the science in question to criticize and try their best to prove false, using science and logic, what the other scientist said. If enough of the scientists that know what they are talking about agree then I consider it, try to understand and make my own personal assessment given the data presented to me. If you want to say that all scientists are in cohort with each other then you have resorted to conspiracy theory and have just excused yourself from debate.

Debate between Jack Levy(JL) and Brad (BM) on a quote.....

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. - Stephen Jay Gould

Debate:
BM: Should string theory be taught then?

JL:Of course! Its a theory! The possibility of string theory being accurate or leading to a more accurate theory is highly probable. Compared or a theory that an apple will start to rise rather than fall, the two have no basis of comparison.

BM:How is string theory more likely to be true? A theory is developed based on testable hypotheses. String theory was not developed based on experimental observations. It's just a story to help tie certain perspectives in physics together. Science is supposed to be based on skepticism and string theory proponents are acting opposite to that approach.

JL:Any theoretical physics would suffer under those parameters. Even relativity begins to falter and, according to that standard, shouldn't be taught if we follow that logic. For that matter the theory of gravity should not be taught either, since our current understanding of it falls to the waste side once we get into the quantum state. Theoretical physics is full of thought experiments, minute (comparably) amounts of data and varying degrees of accuracy and is mostly based on mathematical computation and models based on observations.

Stephen Hawking would be out of a job if we followed that criteria as his landmark hawking radiation can not possibly (yet) be tested. Skepticism is great if you got the math to back up you postulation. String theory is a mathematically a plausible road to take...an apple rising on its own has little (i'll give it a little) to no plausible mathematical basis.

BM:That's why I'm wondering what the difference is between thought experiments in physics compared to any logic-based viewpoint? It seems like our understanding of the world can be completely different. The strings of string theory are just as likely to be seen tomorrow as an apple rising upwards. My frustration is that the filter for what is merited as physics is based on who you are in the field of physics rather than what you say.

Gould's quote that "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to without provisional assent" can negate so many viewpoints in physics. Yet, physicists use that argument to debunk other "unscientific" theories that were not created by reputable people in the field.

Physics is going through an identity crisis. People used to say "we are the hard science, the science of the observable and measurable." Now they realize that the scope of that science is limiting since it cannot explain all of the questions we hope to answer regarding our universe. So now it is more acceptable to think in a more philosophical framework about the physical world. Now people can have valid beliefs in physics without it needing to be tested.

Physics, just like any other type of knowledge-seeking, is a social activity. An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. The physics of the world doesn't change, but our perspectives do.

JL:Fact is extremely different than theory. What is theory cannot be accepted as fact scientifically speaking. Gould's quote is good for factual basis but can not be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics.

I will grant you the point that theoretical physics is leaning towards the realm of philosophical thinking to an extent; however we can not neglect the mathematical aspect which is the defining chasm between the two. The mathematics, models and data are what give the direction to the thought experiments and lead to better equipment for discovering truth. I disagree with the idea that physics is going through an identity crisis simply by understanding the intent of theoretical physics. its intent is to not say this is true and this is not, as you mentioned earlier the idea of any science is to be skeptical and experiment to show truth. As technology advances theory will move out of this field and into the field of observation and experimentation. Unless you are suggesting that we stop creating newer ideas simply because out technology is not as advanced as our motivation for thought?

Logic based view points would be the famous Schrödingers cat thought experiment, where logical deduction of obvious facts are interpreted to imply a reason for observed behavior (double slit experiment being one). However, we can not say why the particles behave the way they do other than to speculate theoretically and further research ways to measure the seemingly immeasurable i.e. the point where the particle becomes a wave and vice versa.

"An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. "

That statement is incorrect, as it would take serious mathematical computation and many models to postulate otherwise. At the time Hawking came up with the theory it was yet to be able to be tested and experimented (I am guesstimating in the mid 70's is when this was theorized but I may be off a few years). However recently experiments are showing this to be a real possibility, so almost 40 years later we have just begun to be technologically able to observe. Theoretical physics is the hypothesis of the greater scientific process which takes, as we have seen, many many years to follow through.

My point is that it is not simply "oh i changed my mind" it is more like "i think this, math supports me, let me check my math, yes its good, lets see if others can find a problem with my math, nope okay this is my theory!.....years later ok we have this new measuring device lets see if the theory was right, yes we see what my grandfather predicted the theory is now tested hypothesis and put through skepticism and repetition of experiments to validate the findings."

BM:Gould's quote is the opposite of being good for a factual basis. Gould even admits that scientific facts are not truths. “Facts” only state that we think an event is more likely to occur because we have observed it occur a certain way in the past. Gould even implies that there is a possibility, although not a probability, that an apple can rise upward.

I feel that you put too much faith in math and that math rules lining up is a sign that something is a law of nature. Math is just a bunch of rules based on symbols that we have assigned values to. Just like language and the rules of logic. Yet, the rules of logic can be flawed just like the rules of math. Mathematics is a logic game and the history of math has shown that the rules of math can change and the values we assign to mathematical concepts can change. Math is a human endeavor.

Physics, like any science, is just a certain way we assign values to what we observe. A good science allows multiple viewpoints so there is a larger discussion in the field regarding how we interpret the world around us. Saying an apple can rise upward is more valuable than saying “an apple always falls downward” since it challenges conventional viewpoints and leads to questions of “why can’t this happen?” rather than statements saying “we are fairly certain that the next apple to fall will fall downward since the apples we have observed so far have fallen downwards.” The “why can’t this happen?” questions have led to the most advanced scientific revolutions.

If the history of science is any indicator then the physics we currently study now, with all these complex math proofs, will be inadequate and wrong in the eyes of future physicists. Science needs to come to terms with what is it--a human process. We observe with our human senses and interpret with our human perspectives. We are the tools of science and we are terribly horrible at accuracy.

JL:Gould places the term fact in the reference of science and that is what I was referring to, his definition is a good one when referring to "fact" in science. I should have clarified that, I meant that Fact cannot be used to be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics. Sorry my mistake there.

I am not sure what you mean by the rules of math has changed? Rules have been added and new maths created but when has it actually changed. Math, form my understanding, is the only thing that has not changed since its initial inception, it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate and has become an integral part of everything we know. If you are considering additions to math, like the evolution of algebra into calculus and such, as change then I would disagree on the basis that the rules are the same for advanced and mediocre math, it is the difference of scope and analysis of the problems at hand. I put a lot of as you call "faith" in mathematics as it has never been wrong. Point out one time when correct math, with all the data, has been wrong (not statistics, thats a low blow)? Logical foundations give mathematics more than just certainty-they are a tool to investigate the unknown.

I disagree, you can say all you want that the apple will rise, however facts and proof of the phenomenon needs to be present for it to be valid to be taught. It would be like me bringing up the idea that you are going to turn the apple into a frog because you waved a wand. Should Harry Potter effects be taught in physics because someone thinks that it is possible but with no proof of the phenomena, either mathematically of via observation?

I agree that the "what if?/ why not?" questions most certainly drive science! That is the heart and soul of any science from social to physical ect. However, simply asking the question does not warrant the teachings of it until it has been through at the very least its first trial of research.

For anything in physics to be taught it has to be real physical science. Thus it has to be predictive. What matters most in science is not how you explain something, but how accurately you can forecast the outcome of an experiment. Theoretical physics, to that end, can not satisfy that prerequisite until it has been put through a proof. As technology is adept at the moment, mathematics and models are all we have. Show me a model that has an apple rise and I will say that its mechanism should be taught and researched until understood and replicated consistently.

Logic and math is the only basis of proof we have. Our own senses can be of hindrance to us so even observation is flawed. You said "Math is a human endeavor." True, however would you believe something you saw over logic? If you would, then you are saying that a magic show full of illusion is real, where as logic tells you that, there is no way that man just sawed her in half and put her together again. Thus logic would trump any observation made by out sense, as you said we are horrible at accuracy. You mentioned your frustration was with what was the "filter for what is merited as physics," that filter (for theoretical physics) is mathematics/ logic at least until we can experiment futher.

I challenge you to find a logical argument that is wrong, not a logical fallacy mind you. Find a real argument that follows the rules of logic that after verification proves to be wrong.

BM:You emphatically say that "what if?/why not?" questions drive science but then you say those question do not warrant teachings of those questions. What is science but a series of questions in search of answer? We should absolutely have our students challenge every theory, concept, and "fact" in a science for it to evolve successfully instead of just proselytizing them with rules which we believe to be true.

Even in math rules have changed. Just look at the history of infinity. Mathematicians believed that infinity could not exist. Both Plato and Aristotle wrote books defining the limit of numbers. Then the need for an infinity became apparent by Newton when creating rules for calculus. This changed both rules and major perspectives in mathematics.

Mathematics is just a language that humans have created to symbolize the world. It is a human creation. The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system.

Even within the science of math there are hypotheses that cannot be proven. For instance, the Continuum Hypothesis which has actually been proven to not be approvable or disprovable. If math is the language of nature and there is a complete set of laws that can be described by math then we should be able to use math to describe everything. Except, ya know, some math hypotheses.

Math and physics are just as limiting as any set of logic or language rules humans create. Our best thing to do is to remain skeptics of current knowledge. If anything in the history of science teaches us it is that rules and theories change. Scientific perspectives are modified. And often, we are proven wrong. We want to teach our students to be the most bad-ass critical people possible. To see if we can see things from other perspectives, even if that means questioning what is up or down in their world.

The concept that there are concrete laws of nature in both physics and math is the worst mental state to put our students in. We want them to test new ideas, challenge current ones and we cannot do that by telling them that this is how the world works because symbols that we assigned a numerical value to proves it is so with rules that we created. It is wonderful when a set of human created rules can fit some people's perspectives of the world around us. It's not great for us to say that those rules are the default state of our world.

JL:There is nothing implying empathy on my part in relation to the "What if/ Why not?" questions. They are truly and absolutely the foundation for the area we have come to know as science. I still proclaim that they are not something we should teach. We should teach the asking of the questions, of course! Without teaching students to ask those questions we will become scientifically stagnant. However, we should not be teaching questions like "Why don't jolly ranchers grow on trees?" Does that question really deserve equal time in the class room as say the question “Why do germs make us sick” or “What is the magnetic poles shifted here on earth?” We would never get anywhere if every single question ever asked was taught to every student. My point is that simply asking the question does not merit scientific teaching, you must first as the question, conclude that it is a valid question by understanding the implications, and then explore via the scientific method. My jolly ranchers question sounds more like an advertisement for the hard candy (which are awesome) than as a suspect phenomenon, and thus should not warrant teaching to a student in biology.
Your example of infinity is flawed, in the sense that just because the concept was not known worldwide, does not negate the mathematical implications that had already governed the laws of nature. Of course we had to learn the concepts, us learning the concept does not mean that the math has changed, it just means that we had not learned that idea yet. For example, god as the prime mover, as a scientist you cannot ever say with 100% fact that there is not god. Just because we do not understand the concept and its implications does not mean that some day it won’t be discovered, as the Mayans implied god might be in the numbers. But just because we do not know that math yet, does not mean that it is not acting on the natural world. As you point out, math is just a human created symbolist system, but that system is what allows us to share and logically deduce the actual phenomena that we see.
Your point is a epistemological, do we know that our math is right, is the nature of our math the same as natures math. In that respect math has “changed” in the sense that sometimes our math is inadequate to describe the universe around us. “The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system. “That line is without a doubt wrong in every way. The maths that you described are following every single rule the same exact way. I can make the same computation, come up with the same exact and precise answer with either system. The only thing that makes them different would be that I can do ten based usually in my head and binary I need to write down. For example, when you figure out on a binary clock what time it is, you are simple converting between two systems but the answer is still the same.

Your example of the CH is a logical fallacy, as you say that it cannot be proven or not and that since math should be able to describe everything, and yet it can’t describe its own hypothesis. It is a fallacy because as I previously said, math sometimes needs new maths to adequately describe the universe, and your misconception is that to prove or disprove anything we need accurate math to describe the conditions, and because it is unable to be proven, we obviously do not. I am not proficient with the CH concept, however, I am pretty sure it has to do with set theory (don’t quote me) and if that is the case then our current understanding of sets just do not satisfy, in analogy we need to learn to understand infinity for that new math to be invented so that CH is then proven or disproven. However our current set theory suffices for most calculations. Just like algebra suffices for most everyday computation but to figure out how to launch a shuttle you need calculus. Calculus isn’t even the end of it I am sure, as some of the computation that we may need for interstellar travel, or worm hole creation or some other really cool thing, we may need a new math which can more accurately describe the conditions that we encounter. Let’s call that math Jackulus! Jackulus will follow the same logical barrier that cal and algebra do, that does not make it a change to the basis of math, just an addition to the way we commutate and understand nature. There is not one argument or example shows a change in how new maths operate different than old ones. Just like me may need new words for new social interactions, when Webster’s dictionary added the text phrase “LOL” did that change English in its foundations, no or course not. It merely added to the existing framework to allow for better communication of ideas. That’s what happens when new math is added.

If any teacher ever says this is how the universe operates and that point is final, I want to kill them. However, when a teacher says this is how physics works, this is what you need to learn how to do then that is what the student should learn. If they find a problem with the science, then yes ask about it, and if you can show (with proof) that something is wrong then the kid gets a nobel because he furthered the science to better understanding. However to question physics by saying for example, the law of entropy is wrong, and not show, that does not say that everyone should now learn that entropy is wrong simply because some student questioned it. That’s preposterous! However if one day our current understanding of entropy is shown to be wrong either through models or observations and experiments then yes now it should be proven wrong. Don’t discourage the question, but if someone is saying something is wrong demand some sort of proof that we can all analyze and see for ourselves.

Humans did not create the rules; we weren’t even around when the rules happened! Humans try to understand the rules, and that’s where your argument falters, in thinking that we somehow have a say in the rules is saying that we are the prime movers. If we made the rules then we should be able to break them…just like social laws…man made them and man can break them. We can only look at the laws of nature, and describe them to the best of our ability and as ability and mathematical vocabulary grows we understand it better.

Something that a friend wrote and I added to on Facebook...i thought it sounded pretty cool.

2:00pm - 2:30
Somewhere in that interval, I am cruising in my vehicle, across Bearrs Avenue. The sky is azure. The humidity seems to be on a short vacation. All of a sudden, I get this feeling like my truck is going to blast off into the stratosphere. For a few seconds, I felt as if I was really flying above the clouds. Transcending space and time may not be science fiction after all.

Reality had for that brief moment trespassed into a skewed surrealist depiction of the cosmic elation. Then as if the singularity of the moment bursts into its Big Rationality Bang... reality hits and I realize that its just a stop light impersonating that red dwarf and that empty intersection is having an identity crisis masquerading as a black hole. My voyage across the unknown has diminished into a cosmologically insignificant blip in the framework of my mind...But the ride was fucking awesome!!!