ze big bang

The problem of describing surfaces when only looking at the surface from one particular "zoom" level could be analguous to my pet problem of describing the laws of the universe for a differing amount of "observers". How do the laws of the universe look when there is but one piece of matter, and nothing to observe it? How can the laws of relativity arise from such an arrangement, an arrangement analguous to big band theory?

definition

an idea is a craft not looked upon,

by heavens whose gift we grace,

the times that evolve can only be

moments that we cannot see.

The Flying Catepillar Effect

Mental dump on Butterfly Effect, before i read any further and my ideas are diluted:

Premise: A butterfly flapping its wings in bangkok affects the weather patterns in New York

- there is a maximum speed of information transfer, even in the case where it *defines* (not just affects) the weather in New York there is still a delay for that result. This delay is proportional to the maximum information transfer constant of the universe and occurs in a straight line from effecting media to affected medium. The affect will also change due to the space between these two points. If we take the butterfly flapping its wings to transfer some sort of momentum to the air in a downward direction which then is tranferred to the earth itself which is then tranferred to New York and its atmospheric system that defines the weather around New York then we need to take into account a dispersion and decoherence of the (in this case) momentum. This dispersion will take the form of entropothic reduction of coherence through increased blur of the pure momentum energy into other forms of energy due to the density and composition of matter between the butterfly and subsequent weather controlling medium. This idea can be fleshed out later, onwards!

- the very idea that a weather system would feel a specific tiny affect due to its causal relationship with the butterfly is questionable. Surely any all energy the butterfly could put out would be mutated and morphed with other "butterflies" until this specific effect would not even register? Well essentially, yes. But all i'm pointing out there is that its very very hard to find the cause to a phenomenon like the weather, but that doesn't mean its not made up of tens of thousands of butterflies flapping their wings. I'm also pointing out the interconnectedness of all things, which is what the premise relies on to assure its validity (causality).

- if the butterfly was the only thing to affect the weather, or it were to even have a measurable effect on the weather, than this would be a much simpler problem. But there are tens of thousands of affecting phenomenen which cause results such as how much it rains on a certain day. Theoretically, if i had infinite amount of data then i could give you a prediction with absolute certainty. But it is never possible to know everything without affecting some of it - so its therefor never possible to know everything. (That's a physicists God) In fact i can only ever give estimations based on past events - like what the weather was like yesterday and what the weather usually does. An initial condition and an extrapolation from that through time.

- but this is all academic... i had an idea... what was it... ah! perception modes and chaos.

- no, oscillatory conditions!

- i challenge you to find me a phenomenon which does not, in some way of looking at it, oscillate. Fluctuate about a mean position. The weather definatley does this, because the weather is defined mostly by the rotation of the earth and the associated energy it recieves from the sun due to this. oscillatory systems, in their purest form, are not random. Randomness comes into a system due to a combination of simpler oscillatory systems cause phenomenon such as beats.

Driving

inference of deliverance,

monotonous illusions.

meandering wanderings,

in mind and conclusions.

the snake of the black master,

inverse of the sky.

watchful am i of duty,

piety to blind eyes.

a ruler

How do we measure a man? Is it through his acts combined, his potential or a single act? Is it wrong to measure a man to be evil through a single evil act, when all his past acts have been nothing but good? Or was it his potential to be evil that damned him from the beginning and if so how can you ever judge a man, for a man is capable of almost anything in the right circumstance. A man may lie, but his intent is good - even though you may feel violated and manipulated by the lie, should then you judge him for his intention or for his act? How can you ever know a mans intention? A mans intention can change, and with it his acts - should you judge him on the potential for that change? If not, how can you guard against it? You can never have a static viewpoint, for in that stoic stance ignorance and arrogance are bled into hurt and untruth. You must expect the unexpected; modify your underlying self to bear all outcomes, to see all truths. This is achievable by seeing no truth, by bearing no outcome until such a time as you can see which truth, which outcome would be the best, which outcome would benefit your intentions the most. This is wisdom. This is unjudging. This is truth.

Something Weird

There's something weird happening to my blog... i hope this posts!

Apparently i'm saying stuff thats already been said. :/

I've established that the existence of a soul is given via a projection of your spirit onto the material world.

Your spirit being itself a conjunction of your earthly (or bodily) persona combined with the world around it - its not you, and its not the world around you, its something else.

sanity

a man asks: what is the meaning of life?

to him i reply there is none -

but do not despair;

for this is the greatest gift of any -

the gift to let us choose our own,

and in that choice the truest truth of all.

The man but asks what do I choose?

To him I reply maybe god has clues.

But of course the way will be all

Through thick and thin –

Sunrise and fall

You yourself should be the one you rely in

Abstraction is the enemy of truth

If aliens were to exist, to view humans as they are, they would not be able to decipher us as we do. If we were riding a bike it would view and the bike as one, not as an intelligent biped using a transport device. it would see us as a sum of our energy usages, as a bunch of motion vectors and molecules, of waves and inertia. The chemical reactions which now exist from a multitude of reactions before them would be viewed as an obscure chaos, a result of simple variables. The distance from the sun, the composition of the earth, the abundance of electromagnetic waves. The spin and tilt of the seasons, the sum total mass and its exertion on the particular combination of atoms, and the same thing repeated on all scales, the quantum and the mirco, the nano and pico; and the macro. It is these things it would view; it would leave 'intelligence' to fall under its own logic. Abstraction is the enemy of truth.

Random Head Cases

I wrote this about 3 years ago, just thought i'd add it to my list of crazy ideas ;).

Our nerves are electrical pulses and electrical pulses propogate and change magnetic fields as they move about (more specifically, as they change). Is it not possible to detect the way that magnetic field fluctuates in another person by similar processes within our own head? Does there exist some organ in our own body that facilitates this detection? Is a low level form of telepathy evident in any other species?
For instance, have you ever been able to "feel" what another person is thinking by staring into their eyes? If your answer is yes, and mine is, then this is a very loose hypothesis of how that could come about. Consider the eye to be a calibration tool...

insane

I think the real problem here is definition.

To state anything with any real significance, you need a "defining context". This defining context allows you to define something in relation to other things, thus giving it a viable basis for comprehension.

love is truth

is love logical?

quite a tough question to answer without a defining context on which to reflect it. logic itself is just a tool with which you can validate an argument or proposition from preceding definitions of that proposition, so ergo my earlier point: its a really tough question to answer without context. however, love itself is a choice. so we can ask: is it logical that human life can be lived without love? the answer to that question, then, is a question of perspective. from a purely physical standpoint, it is of course possible. procreation requires only so much kinetic energy .

however, what drives us to live is love - love of life and the myriad things that make up its fabric, from the material possesions to the platonic ideas. this is love, and it is what drives us. who can be bothered to wake from their sleep without loveing - and i mean loveing - at least some part of their life? without something to look forward to, to have hope that something will happen? love is an acceptance within yourself of circumstance or possibility.

there are some people who argue that love is a mystical emotion that can only be reached through the conjuction of certain events and happenings. but what they dont understand is that these "events" and "happenings" are just circumstances in which they would readily accept the outcomes. a girl meets a dream guy and falls in "love". in actual fact, she accepts the situation completely and is at ease withing herself with her choice. she could have loved the boy who has liked her for years, but she cannot accept that choice within herself, she needs to satisfy her barely conscious preconceptions about the nature of "love".

this illustrates my point that love is an acceptance of choice - and without an acceptance of choice - or the hope that an "acceptance of choice" can be possible in the future, no human being would get out of bed, or bother to leave their room. therefore human life cannot be truly lived without love, a love of life.
happy lovin'

Tracto alius quam vos votum futurus tracto

"Treat others how you wish to be treated"

Of course, i dont mind getting yelled at every now and again... :)

on the abuse of tram mirrors

How do people handle being wrong?

Consider that you're in a bad mood and someone has forgotten or just plain not known that it was the etiquette to do something and you've found out about it. How do you feel about the issue? Do you get really angry with them?
Now consider the person who has done the thing thats wrong. If they didn't know they were meant to do it - or just forgot - then they are going to be sorry because it was not their intention to do you wrong. Now how do you deal with them? Do you disregard their intentions or feelings and just focus on the wrong that has been done? Or do you consider their intentions and put it behind you? And should you put it behind you?

I witnessed an altercation on the tram the other day. The driver had stopped and let people off and then closed the doors prematurley (i assume to keep the temperature of the tram correct or somesuch). After the tram had been sitting for a minute, a person came up and tapped on the door, wanting to come aboard. The tram driver then told the person to wait for the next tram - i assume he thought that the traffic lights were about to change or something. The person waiting outside wasn't happy with this, and tapped more forcefully on the window and started to speak harshly to the tram driver. Now at this point the lights weren't changing, and we were just sitting there with the doors closed waiting. The tram driver - and this is where his pride gets the better of him - restates that the dude should wait for the next tram. Further banter ensues with the tram sitting there not letting him on until the person gets fed up, hits the tram mirror out of place and leaves. This results in the tram driver opening the doors and fixing the mirror at the next stop, wasting more time.
This incident illustrates my point. The tram driver, with good intentions, told the guy to wait for the next tram, thinking that we would be leaving any second and not wanting to delay all the other passengers. The man outside then becomes really angry, not realising that the tram driver was acting in good faith, and starts to abuse/harass the tram driver. We then didn't start moving and the tram driver still didn't let him on, not wanting to admit he was wrong in what he said, and not liking the treatment he didn't expect to get. The situation just escalates from there. But bringing this back to my original point, if the man waiting for the train had of considered the tram drivers intentions - good intentions - instead of just viewing the fact he wasn't getting let on as a personal insult; then the tram driver wouldn't have been forced to take a such a strong position (one position being the one he took, which was wrong and the other backing down in the face of abuse - which is never good) and would have probably let him on once he realised we were going to sit there for awhile.

But then up to what point should you consider the other persons intentions and feelings? Some deeds are so completley wrong that even if the person may geniunly come to regret it and renounce it later, their opinion shouldn't be looked at in the face of their actions.

This issue, then, is like many others where caution should be exercised and thought should be applied. This means that a black and white "if-someone-did-this stance" in the majority of cases is the worse possible option that should be considered.
It could result in the abuse of tram mirrors.

goggles are out to get you

This week i've had a really annoying headache. I thought it was from the ever persistent cold that has been haggling me since prosh, but the truth of the matter dawned on me today. It was the goggles i've been using to swim. I swam a kilometre on tuesday - and then again this afternoon - and my goggles must have been on too tight, or something, because its bruised my right eyebrow. Its really annoying. The swimming was good though :) .

Played pool at Jono's on friday night for ridiculous amounts of time. I think i got better, but Pool skill varies conversley with time trying, and inversley with the square of tiredness. This would mean i played worse, but somehow i played better, so i'm putting that down to the more complicated tyson-specific equation; which involves the fact that i play better when i'm more relaxed (increases with beer) and once i'm comfortable with my situation (Time spent playing) and if i start winning i continue to win (confidence).
So in conclusion: P(skill) = Try(t)*Rel(b)*t*[Summation from zero to loss](Wins(g)) / (Tiredness^2)

We had breakfast on brunswick street at 2:30pm at Cafe Nova, which was awesome. Best breakfast ever.

Shout out to jono (and his family) for putting up with us/me for 15 hours after the official ending time, it was awesome.

Today Sumudu and I made use of the sunshine to take a stroll around Berwick botanical gardens, which was really good, because i've been meaning to catch up for awhile. That and the swimming turned today into a good day - the only catch being i *still* haven't done any homework.

Ah, the wonders of fate and all who divine truth.

on planets orbit

Well howdy, its been awhile since i've hit the 'ol blog site. Seems i can only get half a blog out of myself before i give up and just save it as a draft! This is due to having too much to blog...

So it was my birthday yesterday. I'm 20. It doesn't feel that much different from when i was 19, 364 days old - but dont tell anyone, they might drop the whole "birthday" thing. It was a mixed day. The train in the morning stopped at Hallam station, and there wasn't enough buses for everyone so i ended up missing my first 2 lectures, and a tute. Bugger. On the plus side i got to talk to brie for a lot longer. :)
I arrived at uni and semi completed an assignment, then went to qv for lunch. That was awesome; i got cake! multiple cake! cakice! Thanks to everyone involved ;) .
After that we went back to our Software Design lecture, where (matt) proceeded to have a brilliant plan - to ask the lecturer to help finish off the second cake (cakei) with us after the lecture. Wacky hijinx ensued, with the "group of students" and "lecturer" going from being incredibly uncomfortable to a marks gaining position (no, not that sort of position). I think cake would help world leaders solve conflict.

I then drove home, which was awesome - apart from the constant start stopping of the traffic due to peak hour. Me and the family then proceeded to eat dinner (tea?) at the steakhouse around the corner (which i've never been to even though it *is* around the corner) which was very nice. mmmm boags.... :)

In total the loot was mainly:
-A years subscription to Scientific American! w00tz0r!
-Hardcore Electric Shaver (trying to tell me something?)
-Books (various)
-Money
-Clothes
-Frisbee( gEt j00 FrEaK oN!)
-Cd (2-up)

Until next year!
(well, hopefully i'll blog before then ;) .)

sleep is fortitude

Well, flash seems to be overrated. You can see the results at http://web.aanet.com.au/tyson .

Does it seem weird that one moment you'll view a situation with trepidation, anxiety and fear and then change the song your listening to and it'll all be ok? Emotions are worse than fickle, they're downright manipulating. Speaking of manipulating - beer takes the cake, croissants, finger treats and mint slice. Stupid chemical inhibitions that leave at the first sign of alchohol. :/

Oh, and i like dancing. Even though afterwoods i think about it and groan. *groan*

Thats all i have to say about friday night. :P

In other news its Prosh week this week! yay! hopefully i wont get too drunk at uni and be unable to drive my car from the station home... :/

quick as a flash

Well, this very well may be my last blog on this site. Since i've began blogging, a good 22 hours ago, i've set up and ftp and http site and have started making a flash front end. At the moment you can see a crappy intro movie that i made to reinitiate myself into flash; it will be nothing like the final site. Keep checking back or i may post (here) when its done.

Yours in Flash,
::: tyson :::

p.s. the site is here: http://web.aanet.com.au/tyson/aanet_web1.html

thy bloguism

The blog has hatched, from blood and fire; into a new world. Miracles, as much belief as they are, have been called upon to deliver it into its newly minted cradle. With sadness it departs the void of purity.
And sometimes i make sense.

Anyway, i've gotta get up in 5 hours so the inaugural blog is as quick as a bad analogy. w00tz0r!