I’ve never met a person who drank “diet” soda who was loosing weight: in fact, the opposite. Not only does obesity seem to be on a rampage but diabetes as well. The commonality might be aspartame. Anyway, this is the basis for my hypothetical and it would be ironic if proven in that aspartame is considered an element in the treatment of diabetes.
Aspartame has three basic components, phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol all three are neurotoxins and appear to cross the brain/blood barrier. This “excitotoxin” concern and resulting cancers and Alzheimer’s is the basis of most study. All three can pass directly through the stomach into the blood stream as well. Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid one of its uses is in the production of peptides in the pancreas. It is similar to and metabolizes to tyrosine with the addition of a hydroxyl tail. Aspartic acid is also one of the 20 essential amino acids and is used by the body in glucose production during gluconeogenesis primarily in the liver, though mitochondrial gluconeogenesis occurs in certain cases including diabetics. Methanol is an indirect toxin which breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde. In addition to the toxicity, formaldehyde causes proteins to irreversibly bind to and adulterate DNA, a probable cause of cancer in the US and a known cause of cancer to the rest of the world. All three are “natural” ingredients found in most food sources, though methanol is not found naturally without mitigating ethanol present.
Curiously, aspartame, being a series of amino acids and methyl alcohol that are relatively common and of known toxicity (especially toxic overtime), studies are extremely rare and secretive. We do know that the FDA originally did not wish this product approved and much has been written about the flawed process that brought it to market (Talk about conspiracies! You’d almost think Don Rumsfeld pushed it to destroy Cuba’s economy??). The studies that exist appear to concentrate on cancer and brain chemistry. I believe that more studies need to concentrate on gastrointestinal, specifically, pancreas/duodenal effects of aspartame and its by-products. It is this chemical relationship that maybe the issue with the current epidemics.
In general manufacturers of these sweeteners say the quantities and concentrations used are so small as to be inconsequential. To this I would say, first, the sweeteners work, that is you actually think you are consuming six tablespoons of sugar in your sixteen ounce soda, second, when dealing with amino acids and proteins a little goes a long way. New exenatide drugs used to combat diabetes use injections of .02 ml or 1/3 of the .06 ml of aspartame claimed to be in a serving of diet soda. So I would presume the quantity arguments are simply romantic interpretations for the uneducated.
Another issue of safety is the “naturalness” and therefore obvious safety of the products. Most poisons are natural, radiation is natural, nature is far from harmless, though it is totally unaffected. Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid and found in proteins produced by plants. Phenylalanine is not produced by animals but is acquired by ingestion. An argument for the safety of aspartame is that eating any protein food would have a person ingesting hundreds of times the phenylalanine found in the artificially sweetener. I think this is a poor argument; it does not take into account what is required to isolate the phenylalanine from the protein if indeed the protein is metabolized to that degree nor where in the digestive process that isolation occurs, the safe guards present at that point, and the body’s purpose for that isolation. Conversely, we do know that radioactive iodine l-phenylalanine is used in cancer treatment of the pancreas because it enters the blood stream directly and is absorbed immediately by the pancreas. Phenylalanine absorption by the pancreas appears to be part of the glucose cycle, in that, from what I have read phenylalanine enters the blood stream after proteins in the duodenum are broken down. The phenylalanine is then picked up by the pancreas where it is quantified resulting in more or less insulin and prephenate enzymes as the digestive process continues. However, in the case of aspartame the amino acids are already “digested” and bypass the digestive system. In electricity this would be called a short circuit.
While phenylalanine is disrupting the pancreas, in this hypothesis, aspartic acid maybe rampaging at the liver and possibly at the cellular level in the mitochondria. I would propose that the quantities of free aspartic acid may signal starvation, flooding the system with glucose and disregarding normal gastro-intestinal signals, another short-circuit.
For some who have genetic dietary requirements this over excitement of the pancreas and liver might result in Type II diabetes. It may not be so much flawed genetics that presupposes certain flavors of diabetes but simply that the genes can’t stand up to the punishment. Type II diabetes covers a number of ailments but in general it is not insulin production but insulin tolerance that is the problem with glucose levels. The possibility of aspartame poisoning contributing to diabetic conditions certainly seems logical within my very limited understanding of chemistry and experience with pre-diabetes and diet soda.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Hypothetical #3 Global Warming, Man and Water
Hypothetical #3 Global Warming, Man and Water
I have no doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. I have personally and anecdotally observed local warming trends from the Keys of Florida to the Northwest Arctic, from Mazatlan to Gander, Australia to Chukotka and from sea level to nearly 14,000 feet. But the numbers are huge and unwieldy and proofs have yet to be seen; not that of warming, but of man’s causal relation to that warming.
I think one of the problems may be that we are looking to the wrong place. Because we burn stuff and create some 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year and graphs seem to show a correlation between CO2 and warming trends science seems to favor this as the cause. A few years ago it was deforestation of the Amazon basin and lack of winter snow cover. Probably all are contributors.
I was high in the Sierras one summer contemplating water as kinetic and thermal energy storage when the question popped out…Where is the battery for global warming? The difficulty with the CO2 model is that the infra-red reflectivity required for the model to work really requires clouds of dry-ice, like those experiments from 7th grade. It also seems to suffer from some reality problems, in that CO2 quantities are predictive in current atmospheric models as compared to actual quantities in ice core samples. The ice core samples also presume a homogeneous atmosphere rather than the climatic soup we are familiar with. Also, 9 billion tonnes a year from human sources seems like a lot, especially if you think ozone and sulfurous haze over Denver is what science is talking about, but compared to natural sources for CO2 , it is a fractional percentage. When those numbers are compared to the vast increase in biomass in the northern hemisphere, some estimates are close to 10 trillion tonnes of new growth, direct CO2 contributions to global warming seem slight. The atmosphere is also a crummy place for storing energy.
I would be the first to agree that the natural system is so complex and may be so delicate that these changes in atmosphere could indeed create the problems we see but I think there is a more insidious and counter intuitive man-made cause and that is: water works. For several thousand years we have slowly been altering the water-cycle, slowing it down and adding vast amounts of solar energy to it. I believe enough to change the balance of nature.
Today, every major river and most minor rivers and steams have been dammed, channeled and “tamed” producing solar energy “batteries” of trillions and trillions of kilo-calories of solar energy. Curiously, in northern climates these batteries are self-insulating. It is true that the fresh water part of the water cycle is just a drop in the bucket but compared to atmospheric mass it is actually significant.
This warm water has also helped warm the oceans, warmed the atmosphere, and created more “warm” biomass. It has converted “kinetic” water in glaciers, ice caps and mountain snows into more “thermal” water. Irrigation for instance is not benign; it enhances solar thermal absorption through evaporation. Similarly, we also take “kinetic” water in thermally stable aquifers and “heat” it by bringing it to the surface. As a final measure more than 90% of our energy use is involved in heating water, even non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear energy. Did you know that in your car more energy is used in heating water than in producing motion? Thermal maps of our coast show the impact of human induced warming of our oceans.
But it is probably the lakes that are the biggest change. Without a lot of help I can’t provide the numbers but here is a mental picture of just one man- made battery. At one time the Colorado River passed through Boulder Canyon. It was fast moving, a couple hundred yards wide at best and a few feet deep. It probably gave off more energy than it absorbed. Even in the middle of the desert it was really a mountain stream, clear and cold. Today at Lake Mead it is a dark deep energy sink absorbing daily billions and billions of kilo-calories of solar energy. The evaporation from the lake is millions of times greater than the historic river further disrupting the water cycle. When the hot salty remains of the Colorado reach the Sea of Cortez it further heats rather than cools the ocean. Evaporation from the heated ocean is greater as the warmed air can hold more moisture in raised saturation points and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased. The denser atmosphere does not cycle as readily to higher levels and less energy is released to space.
I believe that human disruption of the “water-cycle” is large enough to create the kind of changes we see. It even contributes to the “greenhouse” effect in that water is a “greenhouse” gas only slightly less reflective than carbon-dioxide. This new cycle would be enhanced by carbon-dioxide in the creation of more biomass. The biomass “frees” more water and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased.
If I am correct in this assumption the atmospheric temperatures will increase at a substantially faster rate than the CO2 model. I think we are seeing that already. In 1999 when I proposed this idea the CO2 folks model showed global temperatures significantly less than they are today. It is still my contention that substantive change will occur in years not the decades they propose.
The cure is just as hard to swallow, maybe harder because we have always assumed clean and benign with water, as giving up burning. I think results would be quicker, maybe only a generation or two to cool the planet if we blew up all the dams, stopped irrigation and pumping the aquifers.
One benefit might be a whole lot less people running around.
I have no doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. I have personally and anecdotally observed local warming trends from the Keys of Florida to the Northwest Arctic, from Mazatlan to Gander, Australia to Chukotka and from sea level to nearly 14,000 feet. But the numbers are huge and unwieldy and proofs have yet to be seen; not that of warming, but of man’s causal relation to that warming.
I think one of the problems may be that we are looking to the wrong place. Because we burn stuff and create some 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year and graphs seem to show a correlation between CO2 and warming trends science seems to favor this as the cause. A few years ago it was deforestation of the Amazon basin and lack of winter snow cover. Probably all are contributors.
I was high in the Sierras one summer contemplating water as kinetic and thermal energy storage when the question popped out…Where is the battery for global warming? The difficulty with the CO2 model is that the infra-red reflectivity required for the model to work really requires clouds of dry-ice, like those experiments from 7th grade. It also seems to suffer from some reality problems, in that CO2 quantities are predictive in current atmospheric models as compared to actual quantities in ice core samples. The ice core samples also presume a homogeneous atmosphere rather than the climatic soup we are familiar with. Also, 9 billion tonnes a year from human sources seems like a lot, especially if you think ozone and sulfurous haze over Denver is what science is talking about, but compared to natural sources for CO2 , it is a fractional percentage. When those numbers are compared to the vast increase in biomass in the northern hemisphere, some estimates are close to 10 trillion tonnes of new growth, direct CO2 contributions to global warming seem slight. The atmosphere is also a crummy place for storing energy.
I would be the first to agree that the natural system is so complex and may be so delicate that these changes in atmosphere could indeed create the problems we see but I think there is a more insidious and counter intuitive man-made cause and that is: water works. For several thousand years we have slowly been altering the water-cycle, slowing it down and adding vast amounts of solar energy to it. I believe enough to change the balance of nature.
Today, every major river and most minor rivers and steams have been dammed, channeled and “tamed” producing solar energy “batteries” of trillions and trillions of kilo-calories of solar energy. Curiously, in northern climates these batteries are self-insulating. It is true that the fresh water part of the water cycle is just a drop in the bucket but compared to atmospheric mass it is actually significant.
This warm water has also helped warm the oceans, warmed the atmosphere, and created more “warm” biomass. It has converted “kinetic” water in glaciers, ice caps and mountain snows into more “thermal” water. Irrigation for instance is not benign; it enhances solar thermal absorption through evaporation. Similarly, we also take “kinetic” water in thermally stable aquifers and “heat” it by bringing it to the surface. As a final measure more than 90% of our energy use is involved in heating water, even non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear energy. Did you know that in your car more energy is used in heating water than in producing motion? Thermal maps of our coast show the impact of human induced warming of our oceans.
But it is probably the lakes that are the biggest change. Without a lot of help I can’t provide the numbers but here is a mental picture of just one man- made battery. At one time the Colorado River passed through Boulder Canyon. It was fast moving, a couple hundred yards wide at best and a few feet deep. It probably gave off more energy than it absorbed. Even in the middle of the desert it was really a mountain stream, clear and cold. Today at Lake Mead it is a dark deep energy sink absorbing daily billions and billions of kilo-calories of solar energy. The evaporation from the lake is millions of times greater than the historic river further disrupting the water cycle. When the hot salty remains of the Colorado reach the Sea of Cortez it further heats rather than cools the ocean. Evaporation from the heated ocean is greater as the warmed air can hold more moisture in raised saturation points and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased. The denser atmosphere does not cycle as readily to higher levels and less energy is released to space.
I believe that human disruption of the “water-cycle” is large enough to create the kind of changes we see. It even contributes to the “greenhouse” effect in that water is a “greenhouse” gas only slightly less reflective than carbon-dioxide. This new cycle would be enhanced by carbon-dioxide in the creation of more biomass. The biomass “frees” more water and the temperatures of the entire cycle are increased.
If I am correct in this assumption the atmospheric temperatures will increase at a substantially faster rate than the CO2 model. I think we are seeing that already. In 1999 when I proposed this idea the CO2 folks model showed global temperatures significantly less than they are today. It is still my contention that substantive change will occur in years not the decades they propose.
The cure is just as hard to swallow, maybe harder because we have always assumed clean and benign with water, as giving up burning. I think results would be quicker, maybe only a generation or two to cool the planet if we blew up all the dams, stopped irrigation and pumping the aquifers.
One benefit might be a whole lot less people running around.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Hypothetical #2 Against Mathematical Certainty
Universe, Mathematics and Physics
To even postulate on this subject requires acceptance of the veracity of certain "givens" that I am not certain are true at all.
The first is the presumption that this is a "physical" universe: it may be a meta-physical one.
The second is "universe", what a strange, meaningless term. This term is as anthro-centristic and self limiting as most explanations of existence.
The third is "mathematical certainty" upon which I base my contra contention.
It is my contention that mathematics, that language constructed to describe the physical universe (universe being a mathematical construct) may be hopelessly faulty. It is like most special languages constructed for the perpetuity of various professions and presumes to hold some, or in this case, all innate truths. Each profession holds its own special language and truths, chemistry, engineering, music or even the language of the medical or legal worlds. For mathematics that truth is the constants and laws that it applies to itself and those it applies to the physical universe.
The difficulty with accepting the constant nature of mathematics is that we must observe two things in this universe that are purely alike, or purely different if you chose, not just similar or disimilar. That is, absolutely equal not predictively equal. So far that has not been done. It may be harmful that mathematical descriptions appear to cover gross generalities, equalities, and balances of our existence. It is also a problem that the notions of proof used in mathematics are a somewhat circular argument in that to be valid the prescibed rules of the language must be followed. You can not form a mathematical proof outside of mathematics.
Logically, if the language can not be validated by observing the two purely identical existences necessary to prove the languages own notion of constant or "truth" and proofs must be limited to what may be an erroneous presumption of language; we should presume that mathematics is a faulty tool. It may like a wrench of the wrong size still loosen the bolt but at the same time cause irreparable harm to the construction.
In order to create our destiny we may need to invent a new language. This may be extremely difficult. Those that protect the sanctity of the status quo will try to belittle us or kill us. But we, our species, may die anyway if we continue down this path if we are trying to prove ourselves against the wrong model.
To me the issue is our idea of technology which is based on this mathematical model. This form of technology may actually be our demise rather than our savior, a bright lure in a bubbling stream. We need a new alternative and more precise language than mathematics to test the validity of the mathematical model and assure future generations.
Off Balance
At a time towards the end
but not nearly the end
of the last century
In the way life time is measured
two still excitable
but not quite young men
sat in the bright but dusty Ear Inn
known for its beats and poetry,
It was a Stairway to Heaven certainly,
that filled in between raucous chorus
at the moment my crayons drew
the new altar
and the new god
and, yes,
the scene filled with
acolytes and priests,
such as you and I,
in bright primary colors
and waxy black.
While you could believe,
all I perceived,
was religiosity
not mathematical certainty.
Not willing to fall upon my dagger
but doomed to be defrocked
for failure to recite the mantra.
I suspected mathematics
deals in great generalities
not in precisions and facts
And if the universe
is not meta-physical?
Then the physical has no constant
simply predictive equality
nothing proven Absolutely,
as needs be,
neither you nor I,
not dull colors or white,
not even purest black
To even postulate on this subject requires acceptance of the veracity of certain "givens" that I am not certain are true at all.
The first is the presumption that this is a "physical" universe: it may be a meta-physical one.
The second is "universe", what a strange, meaningless term. This term is as anthro-centristic and self limiting as most explanations of existence.
The third is "mathematical certainty" upon which I base my contra contention.
It is my contention that mathematics, that language constructed to describe the physical universe (universe being a mathematical construct) may be hopelessly faulty. It is like most special languages constructed for the perpetuity of various professions and presumes to hold some, or in this case, all innate truths. Each profession holds its own special language and truths, chemistry, engineering, music or even the language of the medical or legal worlds. For mathematics that truth is the constants and laws that it applies to itself and those it applies to the physical universe.
The difficulty with accepting the constant nature of mathematics is that we must observe two things in this universe that are purely alike, or purely different if you chose, not just similar or disimilar. That is, absolutely equal not predictively equal. So far that has not been done. It may be harmful that mathematical descriptions appear to cover gross generalities, equalities, and balances of our existence. It is also a problem that the notions of proof used in mathematics are a somewhat circular argument in that to be valid the prescibed rules of the language must be followed. You can not form a mathematical proof outside of mathematics.
Logically, if the language can not be validated by observing the two purely identical existences necessary to prove the languages own notion of constant or "truth" and proofs must be limited to what may be an erroneous presumption of language; we should presume that mathematics is a faulty tool. It may like a wrench of the wrong size still loosen the bolt but at the same time cause irreparable harm to the construction.
In order to create our destiny we may need to invent a new language. This may be extremely difficult. Those that protect the sanctity of the status quo will try to belittle us or kill us. But we, our species, may die anyway if we continue down this path if we are trying to prove ourselves against the wrong model.
To me the issue is our idea of technology which is based on this mathematical model. This form of technology may actually be our demise rather than our savior, a bright lure in a bubbling stream. We need a new alternative and more precise language than mathematics to test the validity of the mathematical model and assure future generations.
Off Balance
At a time towards the end
but not nearly the end
of the last century
In the way life time is measured
two still excitable
but not quite young men
sat in the bright but dusty Ear Inn
known for its beats and poetry,
It was a Stairway to Heaven certainly,
that filled in between raucous chorus
at the moment my crayons drew
the new altar
and the new god
and, yes,
the scene filled with
acolytes and priests,
such as you and I,
in bright primary colors
and waxy black.
While you could believe,
all I perceived,
was religiosity
not mathematical certainty.
Not willing to fall upon my dagger
but doomed to be defrocked
for failure to recite the mantra.
I suspected mathematics
deals in great generalities
not in precisions and facts
And if the universe
is not meta-physical?
Then the physical has no constant
simply predictive equality
nothing proven Absolutely,
as needs be,
neither you nor I,
not dull colors or white,
not even purest black
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Are we all idiots?
Whenever I hear our dear president speak I think about Lincoln and his foolin' folks. Now, here is one of the ideas being run around that has got to have the oil companies smilin' and sure has the "greenies" fooled.
First, farming is the most energy intensive of all the industries. Farmers burn and chemically use more oil than anybody else. Oil runs tractors and combines, heats kilns and water, and makes the pestisides and lubricants. Oil fuels the transports that bring food to market and seed and feed back to the farmer. Oil even packages our food and is used these days to make the feed bags.
Now the oil industry wants us to "grow" our fuel? Is this ridiculous? Somebodies perpetual motion machine?
The other weird thing I heard was that somehow these non-fossil fuels were "green". Now don't get me wrong if we have to burn stuff I think burnin' french fry oil from McD's or fish heads from the cannining plant is well and good...but if those that say CO2 is the #1 "greenhouse" gas are correct; you are probably gonna get even more CO2 burnin' less efficient fuels. That is, where there is fire there is smoke, to reverse an old adage.
Stop using burning as the method of generating energy if you want to stop CO2 as a greenhouse gas...from a global stand point Willie and George there isn't anything "green" about "bio-diesel" or ethanol in fact it may be the opposite, except the "green backs" for certain constituents.
First, farming is the most energy intensive of all the industries. Farmers burn and chemically use more oil than anybody else. Oil runs tractors and combines, heats kilns and water, and makes the pestisides and lubricants. Oil fuels the transports that bring food to market and seed and feed back to the farmer. Oil even packages our food and is used these days to make the feed bags.
Now the oil industry wants us to "grow" our fuel? Is this ridiculous? Somebodies perpetual motion machine?
The other weird thing I heard was that somehow these non-fossil fuels were "green". Now don't get me wrong if we have to burn stuff I think burnin' french fry oil from McD's or fish heads from the cannining plant is well and good...but if those that say CO2 is the #1 "greenhouse" gas are correct; you are probably gonna get even more CO2 burnin' less efficient fuels. That is, where there is fire there is smoke, to reverse an old adage.
Stop using burning as the method of generating energy if you want to stop CO2 as a greenhouse gas...from a global stand point Willie and George there isn't anything "green" about "bio-diesel" or ethanol in fact it may be the opposite, except the "green backs" for certain constituents.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Another try...
It is the six month anniversary of my last rejection for a grant from the Rasmuson Foundation. I am a firm believer that art like gold is where you find it. But I continue to mine this hole regardless.
Anyway...here is my idea for this terms bi-annual rejection...here cruel world:
Title: Barista!
Project Type: photographic essay
The coffee ritual in Alaska has transcended the mundane and become art. It may be because we have longer and shorter days or perhaps more emotional vampires than other locales, but, I believe truth is because the under-class, composed primarily of young single woman who have chosen this profession, have made it “full of art”.
Not so dissimilar to the mythical geisha of Japan, though success is based on raw talent rather than elaborate training and tradition, the Alaskan Barista fills a social and cultural need without which I truly believe Alaskan society would stumble. Obviously, it is not the coffee, a staple available in one’s home, nor the curious and quaint huts and shops, perhaps artistic and worthy of study like the “Doors of San Francisco”, but like those doors, if they could be opened and blossom, would allow the flowing fragrant souls behind them to be seen. We would have a truly valuable insight into the ceremony of daily life. It is the same with the trailers of joe: the enacted sacrament.
We know that the art is no more the java than to a Japanese tea, rather, it is the control and gift of the interaction between patron and patroness. In this project I capture that moment of emotion that our danzarina has tailored for that particular client that leaps across the bar or out the sliding window and fills the brief encounter, much as Mozart fills a measure or Gauguin fills a brush.
As a photographer, my art is indeed secondary, but like grand Henri, to chronicle artistically the artistic interaction (and I have chosen M. de Toulouse Lautrec specifically because the subjects and issues are so related and the faces nearly of the same family!) that a meta-art of intertwining beauty is created.
Anyway...here is my idea for this terms bi-annual rejection...here cruel world:
Title: Barista!
Project Type: photographic essay
The coffee ritual in Alaska has transcended the mundane and become art. It may be because we have longer and shorter days or perhaps more emotional vampires than other locales, but, I believe truth is because the under-class, composed primarily of young single woman who have chosen this profession, have made it “full of art”.
Not so dissimilar to the mythical geisha of Japan, though success is based on raw talent rather than elaborate training and tradition, the Alaskan Barista fills a social and cultural need without which I truly believe Alaskan society would stumble. Obviously, it is not the coffee, a staple available in one’s home, nor the curious and quaint huts and shops, perhaps artistic and worthy of study like the “Doors of San Francisco”, but like those doors, if they could be opened and blossom, would allow the flowing fragrant souls behind them to be seen. We would have a truly valuable insight into the ceremony of daily life. It is the same with the trailers of joe: the enacted sacrament.
We know that the art is no more the java than to a Japanese tea, rather, it is the control and gift of the interaction between patron and patroness. In this project I capture that moment of emotion that our danzarina has tailored for that particular client that leaps across the bar or out the sliding window and fills the brief encounter, much as Mozart fills a measure or Gauguin fills a brush.
As a photographer, my art is indeed secondary, but like grand Henri, to chronicle artistically the artistic interaction (and I have chosen M. de Toulouse Lautrec specifically because the subjects and issues are so related and the faces nearly of the same family!) that a meta-art of intertwining beauty is created.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Infinity, Chaos, Randomness,and, of course, Ignorance
My first hypothetical, the one that has been driving me crazy since childhood is:
Infinity, Chaos, and Randomness
It is my contention that these do not exist except as markers of ignorance, and, that is their only value. In essence, as understanding increases the bounds of infinity are moved to new borders of superstition. There aren’t an infinite number of grains of sand on the beach at Genoa, nor, an infinite number of stars and, doubtfully, an infinite number of angels on the head of a pin.
To accept any of these concepts as mathematical certainties converts the law of “cause and effect”, to theory. Thus, it should be unacceptable in practice in Newtonian, Einsteinian or quantum physics, to refer to these concepts as other than place holders. Only in certain irrational numbers such as Pi is infinity observable in the natural universe and even here intuition holds that a culminating number exists; since we continue to search for it.
Similarly, chaos and randomness can not be observed in nature, rather systems are invariably proven to be sequential results of cause regardless of size or scale, though we may choose to call them random or chaotic for convenience. This may be a disservice to both current and future inquisitors in that accepting such convenience may preclude or ignore reality delaying truth: as in accepting the will of God precluded finding a cause and therefore a cure for Black Death.
Infinity, Chaos, and Randomness
It is my contention that these do not exist except as markers of ignorance, and, that is their only value. In essence, as understanding increases the bounds of infinity are moved to new borders of superstition. There aren’t an infinite number of grains of sand on the beach at Genoa, nor, an infinite number of stars and, doubtfully, an infinite number of angels on the head of a pin.
To accept any of these concepts as mathematical certainties converts the law of “cause and effect”, to theory. Thus, it should be unacceptable in practice in Newtonian, Einsteinian or quantum physics, to refer to these concepts as other than place holders. Only in certain irrational numbers such as Pi is infinity observable in the natural universe and even here intuition holds that a culminating number exists; since we continue to search for it.
Similarly, chaos and randomness can not be observed in nature, rather systems are invariably proven to be sequential results of cause regardless of size or scale, though we may choose to call them random or chaotic for convenience. This may be a disservice to both current and future inquisitors in that accepting such convenience may preclude or ignore reality delaying truth: as in accepting the will of God precluded finding a cause and therefore a cure for Black Death.
What I am gonna do....
I have wondered how to make use of my “blog” and have come up with the notion of publishing my hypothesis.
Now for those of you who don’t know what a hypotheses is…well it’s an unproven argument based on logic or an observation. It is not a theory but all theories start with a hypothesis to which is added a little bit of proof.
Best, a hypotheses is like magic in that they begin with wonder, or that is, I wonder?
I have a lot of hypothetical questions that rattle around in my mind. I can never answer them. But what, like the alchemist of past days, no one else knows the question exists? With out question the path to discovery never begins.
So I’m going to throw these notions out on the world and hope the Stephen Hawking or some other player with the universal balls of string will answer these arguments. At least come forth and tell me why they are silly so that my brain could be put to more useful purposes like weeding carrots in the Matanuska soil.
Now for those of you who don’t know what a hypotheses is…well it’s an unproven argument based on logic or an observation. It is not a theory but all theories start with a hypothesis to which is added a little bit of proof.
Best, a hypotheses is like magic in that they begin with wonder, or that is, I wonder?
I have a lot of hypothetical questions that rattle around in my mind. I can never answer them. But what, like the alchemist of past days, no one else knows the question exists? With out question the path to discovery never begins.
So I’m going to throw these notions out on the world and hope the Stephen Hawking or some other player with the universal balls of string will answer these arguments. At least come forth and tell me why they are silly so that my brain could be put to more useful purposes like weeding carrots in the Matanuska soil.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Your New Year
I don't know why but January 1st has never been my New Year. I vacillate between Solstice and St. Stephen's day, depending on my mood, as the beginning of the next year. It is a sign of my Age that I even know what St. Stephen's day is, or my view of the language that it has nothing to do with boxing though a goodly number of English speakers would disagree.
My New Year's greeting for December 22 this year and your New Year this day:
The bent shoulders of sacred Matanuska
seem relieved of trial and tribulation
as they begin to glow
first bloody red
then bolder and golden
in the auspicious first light
of our sun’s northern new year
That moment in the revolution
most filled with promise and prospect
where the expression of time
past, fleeting, and to be
is re-equated in the glory of it all
Hearts beat anticipation
not regarding the eons
that visited the mountain
with new light
And so our friends and loves
…and your friends and loves too
…and most especially those not befriended
and perhaps unaware of love
It is our deepest desire
that the light finds you,
peace and understanding
furthers our kind,
that potentates, prophets, and rulers
bend and bow to love and truth,
disarm their warriors,
refuse evil ways
and trade their unwise power for prosperity and charity
for all the worlds
with new light
Love to all,
My New Year's greeting for December 22 this year and your New Year this day:
The bent shoulders of sacred Matanuska
seem relieved of trial and tribulation
as they begin to glow
first bloody red
then bolder and golden
in the auspicious first light
of our sun’s northern new year
That moment in the revolution
most filled with promise and prospect
where the expression of time
past, fleeting, and to be
is re-equated in the glory of it all
Hearts beat anticipation
not regarding the eons
that visited the mountain
with new light
And so our friends and loves
…and your friends and loves too
…and most especially those not befriended
and perhaps unaware of love
It is our deepest desire
that the light finds you,
peace and understanding
furthers our kind,
that potentates, prophets, and rulers
bend and bow to love and truth,
disarm their warriors,
refuse evil ways
and trade their unwise power for prosperity and charity
for all the worlds
with new light
Love to all,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)