Reality cracking lab

courtesy of fravia's searchlores.org ~ November 2000

Reversing Reality, first stab at the second phase

by lublou

slightly edited by fravia+

Here you'll be able to read "a second stab", by lublou, an interesting essay, which is imo dangerously moving on a path that could easily trod into the same well-trodden field where during the last 5000 years (at least) all kinds of philosophes (and religious nuts) have being discussing the frontiers of human Weltanschauung :-)

Enjoy...

Snow is in the air! It's reality cracking time! Watch, work, send your findings...

**c or c++ WHY?... not WHAT?...**

An Essay by lublou

After I read the Disjoint application on beliefs by -Pantheon. I got so excited I had to read it again. I will try to introduce a brand new theory, developed from -Pantheons essay and highly influenced by IcE's essay. So if this all seems confusing, it probably is.I wish to agree with -Pantheon, but say it differently. I believe TAL ("theoretical analysis level") is a subset of RLL ("real life level"), that is why TAL will never describe RLL fully. When saying TAL is a subset of RLL my definition of RLL is as follow. RLL is what really happens, whether you can percieve/understand/measure it or not, and TAL chooses certain known ways of interpreting/percieving/measuring that which is really happening. In defense of this, the following. -Pantheon's marvelous example of the library states the following.

"When a book is left in the library, the force of the bond causes the book to draw nearer to its proper place. Left for enough time, the book will settle into its final place. Using our theory, it is possible to predict the behaviors of books within the library. Let's do an experiment to verify: Remove a book. I have chosen Aristotle's Categories, translated into English. We will refer to this book as "the subject". I removed the subject from its proper place, noting the energy required removing it from its position between two other books. I exerted a force on the subject to transfer it to a table across the library. I left the library determined to return in two days. On my return the book had transferred itself back to its proper position, exactly as our theory had predicted. This did not require any addition of energy on our part, so it must be a natural process of the library."

In Real life what happened was the librarian took the book back. But why didn't TAL pick that up. Someone in defense of the TAL way of life may say that the parameters laid down by the TAL process were insuficient "left the library determined to return in two days". If you hid in the cupboard and spied the book 24/7 you would have seen the old lady doing her thing. So what am I saying. With TAL you can only prove what your test parameters allow you to prove. There is a saying that statistics has proven that 49% of all statistics are incorrect. But not to lose the point -Pantheon tried to convey. Let us say the librarian's penpal from Xeon came to visit, saw the book laying there and put it away. Even if you were in the cupboard you would not have seen her since beings from Xeon constantly move at the speed of light-2n, and you would have believed books have bonds, and never have knew that the librarian had a penpal from Xeon. So what am I trying to say, it seems like were back where we started. Just hold the thought and have a look at the following.

I critisized the TAL test parameters and showed that by increasing the sampling speed, the correct observation could be made, but -Pantheon intended the example to be understood in terms of atomic theory, so I imediatly refuted my argument by changing the speed of events, to prove his initial point.

IcE wrote in his piece on reality reversing that "What about a fifth or sixth dimension? Is there such a thing? "NO! Absolutely NOT!, you scream at me."I know there cannot be any more dimensions because I can't see them". Where does this other dimension start, the dimension which explains events happening in this Reality we live in.

On this point I wish to divert even further. It has been said that "he who knows what will always be the slave of he who knows why". I am not going to elaborate on this because it could easily develop into an essay on its own. But what it means in this sense is,

Q:"What is wrong with me doctor?"

A:"You have Influeza"

You are content, you pay the man his dollars, buy the medicine and off you go.

Once a thing is put in a box and labeled, most people merrily surrender to the flow.

Q:"What is energy"

Einstein said E=mc^2. where c is the speed of light, the upper limit of everything, the constant which is used to explain most we know about atomic theory. And most people nowadays are content and go forth and create theories based on this. I believe the question "Why is there energy?" would be more appropriate, because it will answer all, but lets just stay calm and walk down one road at a time. So lets ask, why is the speed of light constant. Im not going to answer that directly, but rather continue with my point made earlier.

I said by increasing the sample speed, that TAL = RLL, and by increasing the event speed TAL once again differed from RLL. To explain this better I wish to use the example of a stroboscope and a turning wheel. If a spoked wheel is turning at a certain frequency in a dark room, and a stoboscope is flashing at the exact same frequency at which the wheel are turning, the wheel will appear to a normal person to be stationary. If the speed of the stroboscope is increased, and wheel speed is kept constant it will appear as if the wheel is turning slowly in one direction, which is exactly what will happen if the stoboscope speed were kept constant, and the wheel speed increased.

This process of looking at the freeze frame of a condition is called sampling, and in digital systems it is proven that the lowest frequency at which you may sample to still have an adequate representation of the real signal is called the Nyquist frequency and is equal to twice the frequency of the system under investigation.

Back to the strobo example. Paint a dot on the wheel and spin it at n revolutions per second. Set the strobo to n flashes per second. In the dark room the dot will appear to stay in one place, and we know that the strobo speed is the same as the wheel speed. Now instantly increase the wheel speed to 20n revolutions per second, the dot still stays at the same place, and you will not see any difference, you will think that all is the same, when in fact the wheel speed is twenty times faster.

As the speed of events increase, so must the speed of perception, otherwise there will be a discrepancy in interpretation. Now after all this I want to say that I believe that the speed of light is not constant, but in this dimension the "speed of perception" is limited to c. How will we ever measure/calculate a speed higher than c if our world around us, our dimension only allow the perception of speeds up to c. All speeds higher than c constitutes energy not part of this dimension.

Since our dimension is a subset of the higher dimension, we will never understand this dimension till we are part of the higher dimension.

Maybe then we will understand that although our chances of winning the lottery are 1:400,000,000,000 on some TAL interpretation, it becomes 1 in your own real life if you are wearing a green jersey which your dead grandmother knit, on a rainy Wednesday, but only if you surname is Yankovich and telephone number ends in 24, and your birthday is a prime number, else......

To conclude, TAL will never describe RLL fully in this dimension, our path to freedom should rather be to never stop asking ..WHY!..

Cheers

lublou

(c) 1998 lublou All rights rescinded

Reality Cracking

(c) Fravia 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. All rights reserved