Legacy Blog 12: 1 + 1 = 1 (Sadly not a sequel to 2 + 2 = 1)

Sunday, December 31, 2006

We have tackled the idea of Identity in previous entries, and shall dive into further detail today, boys and girls. Recently, I have been appointed “Soda Jerk!!!!1!”. Perhaps Soda Jerk!!!!1! makes a nest in my toes. Ah! and we shan’t forget AHOV Inc., whom many know as my AIM screenname. Today’s discussion focuses on what true Identity is as it applies to the World we know, and the Indentity of the author of these blogs.

To begin, take a moment and ask yourself, “Who am I?” Simple question. You may answer, “Insert a Name Here” or “Insert First and Last Name Here”. I would answer that way too. You may also have dozens more points worth of IQ than I do (that rhymes!) and tune out now. If so, good-bye. If neither option applies to you, keep reading anyway. The first option I listed corresponds to a name. Most children’s parents give them a name, unless of course they are Adam Sandler in Big Daddy. Most would say the name suffices as the identity of a person. To all English majors, recite with me how characters are described by

1. What they do,

2. What they say, and

3. What others say about them.

True to form, if Reality were a book for, say, Colonel Sanders in Heaven, I would appear a subversive and confusing character. Reader, you may also make Colonel Sanders cringe as he leafs through the pages of the Book.

A character with several names will not confuse a reader. A character’s hypocrisy will. I shall only speak for myself when I say, “I am a hypocrite.” Ah, but if I am a hypocrite, how can you hold that I will not act differently from what I say? In declaring “I am a hypocrite,” I must not be one. Great! Then again, how can we follow the pattern to say that I will act differently from what I say if I am not, in fact, a hypocrite? I preach no self-confessional, reader, I only give you a prime example of Identity beyond our understanding.

I borrow Douglas R. Hoffstadter’s terminology of Strange Loops to procede. You may recall from my previous entry my three guidelines for selfhood. Realize that “self” is as much an abstraction as “number” is. The title of this blog has no relevence to “2 + 2 = 1” at all. The popular 2ge+her song “U + Me = Us” can be subsituted to 1 + 1 = 1. If you’re a stickler and count characters in a string, we’ll work with 1 + 2 = 2. Either way, neither is true by the laws of Set Theory and Number Theory. That is, of course, if we hold numbers to be numbers. Such a trivial idea slips under the noses of most practicing mathematicians, and likely presents a waste of time to everyone else. After all, how can we develop entire fields of knowledge and thousands of years of practice of mathematics if the underlying ideas are false? It might turn out the idea of the number has no substance in our world. Even if it did, it would need the dreaded units to go with it. My theories and readings tell me that a seperate reality may host pure and simple numbers, whose markings on our reality are very weird. Consider 2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995…, the number of natural exponential growth. Inasmuch as many apparent contradictions but actually Strange Loops result from an “Abstraction” (notice the quotation marks) like numbers, the same also occurs with an “Abstraction” like selves.

“Abstractions” are really contructs unavailable to full human processing. That does not nagate their existence. Only contradiction would arise if ideas were false. Strange Loops result when something is weirdly true. Sadly I cannot fully describe my Identity without using Ninth-Dimensional HyperWords. I can claim all my aliases as myself. My chosen name is Exxor. You may know me as the guy who writes these lengthy entries every whoknowswhen. You may know me as a former student of Waverly High School. You may know me as a current student at the University of Michigan. I could list adjectives for myself, but people generally deal me those. What do I think of myself?

Legacy Blog 11: i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1 (This relates to the previous title. Can you see why?)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Readers, to begin, my sincerest apologies for such a break in time between this and the previos blog. The 32nd dimension just has higher degree manifolds (including 64-D manifolds if we take into account configuration space!).

As our first exercize, consider the mind. Plainly, you, the reader, have a mind or else you couldn’t read this far. What is it, though? Can you touch it? Can you smell it? Your mind can sense all sorts of stimuli… but can it sense itself? A large question in both philosophy and cosmology (which should be intertwined anyway) is the idea of matterless minds. That’s right, minds that exist without technically “existing.” The idea may also appeal to theologists, who carefully study the idea of God and his presence among human beings. God, according to some points of view, is the omniscient, omnipotent force that governs all, and sublimes all material nonsense below Him. It is indeed humbling to think that a person has no complete control over his or her life. I shall not state my point of view on God, but I will venture to say that He is a prime example of a matterless mind.

All humans have brains, and therefore have minds. I suppose this is the reverse of a famous quote by Des Cartes, “I think therefore I am.” To the best of what I know, the mind is a form of self-referring energy. It calls itself “I.” “I” has no meaning beyond a person’s self-reference. My brain may be subconsciously calculating all my actions, but my mind continues to loop the calculations inside itself. I would exist with only a brain. But without a mind, I cannot write this sentence (or at least it won’t mean anything to me). Notice how the previous sentence refers to itself. Notice how the previous sentence referred to the sentence before it. Even though these sentences are products of my mind, they have become their own loops as soon as they were typed. They are very simple “selves.”

I dare to use “I” even in non-self-reference. On planet Earth, there are well over six billion Is. Each I is independent of every other I, in that is an I. By its own definition, it makes itself. Such begins a “strange loop” (Douglas R. Hofstadter, GEB). The fact that I refers to itself implies that it exists. Consider the following:

The following sentence is false.

The previous sentence was true.

Now how in the Hell does that make sense? Notice I just referred to the previous set of sentences as “that” implying at the very least it is its own entity. By the fact that it encloses itself and will not allow any further information (if you don’t believe me, go through the two sentences again), it is a self.

Here are some principles on selves:

1. Each self is independent.

2. Each self has its own perception of reality.

3. Each self is eternally self-referring.

Perhaps this leads into what some call “souls,” i.e. what lives on past the body. The brain may die, but the mind has no beginning or end, just like a Mobius Strip (see A x B = -B x A). To conclude, reader, consider how I refer to you as “you,” whilst technically you are an I.

Legacy Blog 7: pi and 2^(1/2) were also born on day omega…

Saturday, February 04, 2006

This is an update to my previous blog. Another ninth dimensional construct that weighs down on us is oppositivity. I am not sure if that is a word, but it shall be used as one now. Oppositivity, obviously, is an object’s quality of being the opposite of another object. Oppositivity is hardly seen in the human world. No human is completely opposite from another. Even if they act very differently, they are not opposities. Positive versus negative charges and matter versus antimatter are the only true opposites known to man. Note that we are discussing opposites in terms of objects. It is trivial that axes of graphs have opposite directions, as well as vectors. Because the ninth dimension is of linear truth, only true opposites compose it.

So far, we only know of identity and oppositivity in the ninth dimension. Though impossible to type, but for simplicity object A’s identity shall be written as A. The opposite of A shall be written -A. Using our simple notation, a positive charge and negative charge can be written + and -+ (or just – for more simplicity), respectively. Matter and antimatter can be written as matter and -matter, respectively. As best we can, we have just written the ninth-dimensional constructs of identity and oppositivity. If you, the reader, discover something that is the true opposite of another object, please show it to me. For instance, assume an apple is the true opposite of an orange (it isn’t). We can write an orange’s idenity as orange, and an apple as -orange. Or, because the relation is true either way, we could write apple for apple and -apple for orange. I will update my blog as soon as I discover more.

Legacy Blog 6: And then on day omega, e was born…

Sunday, January 29, 2006

I must be crazy. I don’t forward chain letters. There were a few times where I have (why should I lie about that?). In general, though, I don’t. I do not see how re-transmitting a stream of data conveying oftentimes useless information will bless me. I find it harder to believe that my non-participation will damn me. I believe my life will go as it is without some internet voodoo getting in the way. People who create chains are powerful, though. They create a virus and let it infect the public. It must be a game.

On to more important business–issues that may in fact change the outcome of your life. (I have just addressed you in the second person, reader. You are likely my friend.) I may have a small grasp on the mysterious ninth dimension. This dimension is of linear truth. The ninth dimension weighs down on our three and the other five via identity. Identity is a construct of the ninth dimension. Humans find it incredibly difficult to prove why something is itself. Common sense simply tells them it is. Common sense, for this matter, may be a sense like touch and smell. It feels the weight of the ninth dimension.

Identity is immensely complicated. Questions often rise in human minds along the lines of, “Why am I me?” or even, “Who am I?” I don’t know the answers. I ask these questions frequently. In the ninth plane lie the answers. All dimensions below the ninth begin to tell how something works, why it works, where it is, etc. The ninth tells what it is. Humans believe the question, “What?” is the most trivial, when really it is much more complicated than any other question. “Lines” that form in the ninth tell what I am.

I am afraid this new train of thought has brought many more questions into my head. For instance, what are the tenth and eleventh dimensions? If “lines” in the ninth tell what things are, then what do “planes” of the tenth and “solids” of the eleventh do? Probably some crazy shit. I leave full of thoughts, and I ask that you stay tuned should I make more progress in my theories.