Category: Reality

Enough Silence: 100,000 Preventable Deaths, Incited Violence, and Police Brutality Are Appalling and Shameful

arthurhovinc

I don’t know if you’ve seen the news. You probably won’t like it. Look only if you plan on not be able to function for the rest of the day. I just did, and I am useless.

I wrote an email to my mom and dad a little bit ago on my feelings of “current events”. Summary: the racial disparity that has been present in this country (United States of America, I admit I live there) for 400 years, especially exemplified by the astronomical deaths by COVID-19 and police brutality, is unacceptable. Rage felt by being told to stay indoors and wear masks is impossibly incomparable to the rage Black people have been feeling for literally centuries.

To further my point, here is a list of deaths by COVID-19 and list of deaths of Black people by police brutality. Thank you, New York Times and Chance The Rapper, for these lists. See also detailed pandemic obituaries by the New York Times and https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/.

The email is below. It was written in a fever, so there are probably inaccuracies. It gives Joe Biden a bit too much credit, but I’d take Biden any day over what we currently have here. In any case, I wanted to share these feelings with you, dear readers.

Dear Mom and Dad,

[Name withheld] and I had received our absentee voting applications, and we’ll be sending them in the mail today. Just as for the presidential primary in March, I hope you’ll send applications (if applicable, ha) and vote absentee in the upcoming elections. So much depends on it.

Although it’s no fun to stay indoors and wear masks, it really isn’t that bad, all considered. Privileged white people with automatic weapons decided that being told, “You have to stay indoors and wear masks,” meant that they could openly carry their death machines and storm public buildings. They want to be “LIBERATED!” They have never faced tyranny in their lives.

In Minneapolis, by contrast, another horrible death by police brutality against Black people has caused a far more righteous protest. Although burning a building is extreme, the rage is palpable and understandable. The rage privileged white people feel for being told to stay indoors and not get haircuts is incomparable to the 400 years of being treated either as property or human capital stock that Black people face. Let alone being gratuitously killed by the officers who “swore to protect them”. Compare the Biden response of staying calm to the “Too Hot for Twitter” take of “the shooting starts”, and we see what kind of moral leadership is completely absent at the top.

There will no doubt be backlash for the protests, just as there have been since 2014 when police brutality against Black people became widely publicized via Black Lives Matter. However, there is a call to be on the side of justice. “Law and Order”, the motto of the beloved Richard Nixon, is not what we need. We need justice. Please support the candidates who will align the moral compass of this deeply wounded nation, support the lives and rights of Black people, and get us back to a sense of calm.

You were probably going to vote for the Democrats anyway, but, I just to share how aghast I am at the complete lack of virtue exemplified by the other party.

Love,
[Art]

Please do what you can to support elected officials and potential candidates who stand for real justice for Black people, and who will hold police officers for their atrocious acts. Please do what you can to comfort people you know who have been directly or indirectly damaged by the horrific events of this year and this pandemic and everything leading up to it. Please support food banks and medical resources for especially underprivileged areas.

It’s hard to imagine what the future looks like after this. I’m trying to, even though my default reaction to the events of our present time is horror. I’m trying to read more on “visioning”, also called “positive futuring”. Maybe these resources can help you imagine a better future, too.

Yours,
Art

Legacy Blog 18: A New Lecture

arthurhovinc

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Halloo, Halloo! I’m Dr. Poo! And I’m here to tell you that school has begun! What school, say you? Why, Dr. Poo’s Seminar of the Disection of Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe and other readings! Not to worry! A more comprehensive look at each subject will only improve your understanding. We will begin soon with an entry on basic but fascinating properties of mathematics. Our text for this course will be The Road to Reality, and I may assign other readings, but if I can find at least samples of the books through Google Book Search, I most certainly will post the links. At the time, there is no book scan for the textbook of this course. Provided I don’t get in trouble, I will provide you with all the graphics and equations you need to see. I look forward to seeing you in class! (Remember that Dr. Poo likes apples: they are good for his colon.)

-The Mellifluous Dr. Poo

Legacy Blog 16: A x B = -B x A

arthurhovinc

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Hello, gorgeous readers! To begin today’s blog, let’s start with the Mobius Strip. You can make your own! It’s easy! Take a simple strip of paper. Normally, one could fold the strip around to make a ring such that the end corners of the strip would align so:

A__________________C

B__________________D

Just twist one end to create the arrangement

A_____/……………\_____D

B_____/……………\_____C

and make a ring.

If my explanation makes no sense (which it normally will not), Google Mobius Strip. Some genius will make it seem like arts and crafts. In any case, you’ve just made a one-sided object, reader. Make sense? If it doesn’t try drawing a line along the Mobius Strip down the center. You will cover all of it without taking your pencil off the strip or going around an edge. Now, on to business.

I have made a wondeful discovery. It seems farfetched, but it could be the answer to many problems in physics. First, consider the Zero Dimension. How does it work? It’s an infinitisimally small point. The reader should be able to recognize a point, and that its expansion to another point creates the First Dimension. First dimensional constructs called lines can be expanded to other lines to create planes. Planes can be expanded to form volumes. Volumes can be expanded to create what we will call “shifts.” And so on. Those are all familiar concepts. Now consider going the other way from the Zero Dimension. That’s right: negative dimensions. I prefer the term “Antispace.”

Much like how negative numbers had to be accepted as the numbers that counterpated positive numbers to produce 0, we should treat Antispace as the form of spacetime that combines with traditional spacetime to produce points (The Zero Dimension). Let’s start small. Consider a line and an antiline. Say that a particle could travel either path. At this moment, the particle will collapse to nothing. Keep in mind that nothing exists. Well, that’s a nice concept, but how do antilines work? They expand on the Zero Dimension, as geometry would tell us, except they are arranged the “other” way. This is called hypersymmetry. The “other” way is clearly impossible to imagine. The reader should view the situation like the Electromagnetic Spectrum, where the are wavelengths above and below what he or she can see. Now that we’ve established antilines, we can make antiplanes, which have “another” orientation. In fact, for every traditional spacial-temporal dimension, there is a “negative” counterpart. Keep in mind this idea could (and indeed will) involve the other kinds of opposites as well, such that there can be ^-lines, <-lines, >-lines, etc. (C.. 1.) For the best physical example I can give of negative dimensions, consider what you did above with the Mobius Strip. Of course you didn’t travel into “other” space, but you still reduced the sides of the object, similar to reducing dimensionality.

As much as I hate to admit it, PrinceJonathan Pruitt may have mentioned something credible. He once asked in my class about the 2.5 dimension. Everyone laughed, especially since the idea spawned from his playing Viewtiful Joe. I, as well, thought, “Proposterous!” Today I have come to reconsider. A 2.5 dimension is simply the “bending” into the third dimension. While it is true that dimensions are dimensions and are much like integers (Ha! We can say integers now that there are negative dimensions!) in the instances where travel breaks into higher spacetime, the transitions are fractional dimensions. Imagine the 0.5 dimension for a second. Along a 1-dimensional line, we could travel two ways. In the 0.5 dimension, we could travel only one way. Never the other. This leads me to believe the Universe as we see it should be labeled 3.5-D, as we can travel through time, but in only one way.

These ideas open up the field for not only imaginary dimensions, but also ethereal dimensions. As some of you may know, ethereal numbers have the property that when multiplied by 0 they do not equal 0. The first ethereal is u (the Arabic symbol noon, if I could type it). 0 x u = 1. Let’s dive into our memory banks and pull out the old formula F = ma. Say a force of 1 N is applied to a massless object, such as a neutrino. What happens? Typically, we would say it doesn’t move, but by this classic formula, we see that it moves with an acceleration of u. This is into an ethereal dimension, mind you, and since the ethereals behave like 0 in some regards, it appears no acceleration occured.

We now have an interesting model for our Universe. It resembles a giant “cone.” Well, that is if we use only binary oppositivity, but you get the idea. At the center is the Zero Dimension, and from it frow 11 dimensions both ways (or 26, or infinite, depending on you dimensionality theories). When creation of a universe occurs, it inflates both ways. This explains why we don’t see antimatter naturally. It exists in Antispace! We have the power to artificially “oreint” matter to go the “other” way, so as to create antimatter. It is well known that matter and anitmatter obliterate each other upon contact, but what really happens is the return to the Zero Dimension.

Today, we united many new ideas with old ones to give ourselves a reasonable new idea about how our Universe works. If something puzzled you about this blog, post a confused comment or send me a message and I will explain. Until next time, thanks for reading my crazy ideas!

Legacy Blog 15: Glossary

arthurhovinc

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Here is the Glossary. All terms are in alphabetical order.

Antimatter

Anything with mass and volume that has a configuration of negatively-charged particles with orbiting positively-charged particles

Borderspace

The plane of all zeros and ethereal numbers whose projections produce all complex numbers

Construct

Any matter, energy, idea, or otherwise entity in the Multiverse

Dimension

Any measure of Space-Time

Matter

Anything with mass and volume that has a configuration of positively-charged particles with orbiting negatively-charged particles

Space-Time

The continuum of all spatial and temporal dimensions that houses every location, event, or mixed geometry of the two

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

arthurhovinc

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 10: I <3 U (The construct I has less presence than three times that of the construct U)

arthurhovinc

Friday, May 12, 2006

Hello, readers! A few of you who bother to read my math-related, witty titles may wonder what presence is. Presence is sort of like mass in higher dimensions. We’ll go deeper into that concept later in this blog. I appreciate all of you who have waited so long for the release of a new blog. After they throw me in a looney bin one day, you can say you knew me when I was sane.

On to important matters. Many of you may be familiar with the idea of looking at a person in the distance, placing your fingers in front of your view, and pinching the head of that person. It’s an old Kids in the Hall joke. Picture this if you will: you can actually pinch that person’s head from that distance, and quite possibly flatten his or her skull (I wouldn’t recommend doing this). The reason it appears you can’t is because you don’t “believe” you can. Notice how the verb “believe” is in quotations. “Belief” is the abandonment of current-dimensional thought. For a simple example, consult Blue’s Clues. Steve or Joe (Steve is way better) can jump into pictures hanging around his house because he forgets about his 3-D form and “believes.” To keep children’s brains from exploding, Nick Jr. still makes Steve appear 3-D, when really he should look like the projection of Steve on to a two-plane. Using these ideas, “believe” there is no distance between you and your friend. Only then do your pinching fingers and his or her head lie on the same two-plane, and crushing it becomes possible (but your friend may not enjoy it). Similarly, 2-D constructs may bend into the three-plane. The perfect example is DoodleBob on an episode of SpongeBob titles “Frankendoodle.” SpongeBob eloquently recites how DoodleBob was trapped in the 3-D world.

Now picture 4-D beings (like Tralfamadoreans) pinching their friends’ heads in the distance by only “believing.” The same applies for 5-D, 6-D, 7-D, 8-D, and (God forbid) 9-D beings. The Head-Pinching Theory (as it will now be called) only requires a subtraction of the highest dimensions. Notice how this falls perfectly parallel to the ideas uniting M-theory and string theory, in that cutting the equator of a higher-dimensional equivalent of a sphere leaves a string of one less dimension. As for an idea like time-travel, which is adding a dimension of travel instead of subtracting one, “belief” also is the way. Reader, please do not make the foolish assumption that if you believe you can travel 20 years in the future, you will. That’s just silly. To time travel, a person must recongize the four-plane. You must “believe,” not believe. I have tried many times to see the four-plane, but came up short. Please let me know if you see any folds or bends in the four-plane. If you do, all we need to do is tug on them a little and we’ll travel through time. Neat.

Now for the idea of presence. Presence is a less-than-ninth-dimensional construct desribing how much of something there is. For example, in three dimensions, objects have presence measured in kilograms. This makes presence equivalent to mass in three dimensions. How then is presence measured in other dimensions? We first need to identify what a kilogram is. The traditional definition of mass is the amount of matter an object has. But mass can be converted to energy and vice-versa using the ideas of Einstein and that really ugly guy, de Broglie. Citing string theory, particles with mass are really just strings vibrating at certain frequencies. Objects, then, are trillions of notes from of strings with well-built harmonies. Mass is therefore a simple way to obeserve presence. It is the third-dimensional impression of the string vibrations.

Let us now define the basic unit of inter-dimensional jump, the hovinc. Starting with 1 kg x 1 hovinc^0 = 1 kg, for three dimensions, presence in the first dimension is measured by the unit kghovinc^-2; in the second, kghovinc^-1; in the fourth, kghovinc; in the fifth, kghovinc^2; and so on. Let’s say I have a mass of 50 kg (I don’t) in three dimensions. I have a presence in the fourth dimension of 50 kghovincs. Easy. What’s your presence in the other dimensions? (Ladies may keep their answers private.) This train of thought allows us to develop mathematical models for higher-dimensional physics.

Before we define forces in other dimensions, we need to redefine motion and acceleration. The Universe can be best modeled by a massive orchestra (we’re talking MASSIVE). The songs and symphonies are all there, except every note and rhythm is played at once. Non-metaphorically, this means there is no such thing as motion. Motion is the passing of measures in the music of the Universe. The players are so sophisticated, however, that they can play every note at once. Motion is the apparent phenomenon of the Universe changing position. Human eyes can only read note for note in the music, and do not understand what really occurs. When it comes to looking at the Universe as a whole, everything is everywhere and everywhen (everywhern for short). Humans simply can’t tell this because they are only aware of their note in the song. Newton defined force as the product of mass and acceleration. Acceleration is really just the way the notes are written. In three dimensions, 1 kgm/s^2 = 1 N. In four dimensions, where acceleration is in the units s/m^2 (the amount of time per meter in the fifth dimension per meter in the fifth dimension), the unit for force is kghovinc x s/m^2. I would seriously like to rename this unit. Send me suggestions.

That’s all for now. This blog has really inspired me to think even more outside-of-the-box. You may now call the psych ward and have them take me away. Fare well!

Legacy Blog 9: 2 + 2 = 1

arthurhovinc

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Greetings, readers. I haven’t released a blog in a while, and today seemed like a superb day to do it. I have made a breakthrough. Oppositivity is much more than what I originally conceived. It turns out that trinary opposites may exist. At that, quaternary, quinternary, hexanary (if that isn’t a word, it is now) may also compose many contructs in the field of R.

Allow me to explain. In trinary oppositivity, each of the three objects is the complete opposite of the other two. In quaternary, each is the complete opposite of the other three. The reader may question how this works. Plainly, the convention of and – can no longer be used. Let us instead develop symbols of oppositive orientation, beginning, for simplicity, with tertiary. Say the construct A is the complete opposite of B and C, while B is the complete opposite of A and C, and C is the complete opposite of A and B. So, then, what is one with respect to another? In binary oppositivity, A = -B if A and B are opposites. But -A = B. A construct’s identity is defined as A (or A). In a tertiary system, the first construct is labeled A, the second B, and third C. The system will use <,^, and > to differentiate the oppositivity of the system. The symbols do not mean less than, to the power of, or greater than in this notation. The symbols shall be known as left (<), up (^), and right (>).

The identity of the system can be a number of equations

<A = ^B = >C

<B = >A = ^C

<C = >B = ^A

Wowsers. What a neat little trick we have. The reader may wonder why such a method would ever be needed. Trinary oppositivity can occur throughout the membranes of reality, but there is no clear example of it in three dimensions. Once I dicover more exciting properties about higher base opposites, I shall post them. I will edit this blog with new information. Stay tuned!

Legacy Blog 8: i^i is real

arthurhovinc

Thursday, February 16, 2006

I bring great news, readers. I returned to THE SPOT WHERE EVERYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS the other day. Please note that whenever mentioning this place, all letters must be capitalized. Though it was not as powerful as my previous visit, it still excited me to be there. The last time I was there it was a cold, clear February day, and I had just sold two dozen Walking Tacos during a cheerleading competition. When I stood in THE SPOT WHERE EVERYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS, I espcaped reality for a minute. At the time I had no idea what happened. Returning to THE SPOT WHERE EVRYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS the other day made me realize that selling Walking Tacos at a cheerleading competition on a cold, clear February day rips reality enough for one person to slide through, but only under those circumstances.

While I was outside reality, I had no form. I regret not being outside reality for longer… I could have learned so much. Maybe I couldn’t have. I didn’t really have a brain. That explains why I can’t recall anything. I conjecture that I must have transcended even the eleventh dimension into, dare I say, the twelfth. Dimensions beyond the third of truth may not really be dimensions… but planes of non-existence. How then did I return from a place outside the eleventh? Who knows? In any case, we can picture reality as an enclosed “sphere” (or it’s eleven-dimensional equivalent) and things that exist are contained in it. If a thing doesn’t exist, it is not in the “sphere.” If everything exits, everything is in our reality. Try not to lose me after this next thought. Nothing is still something. The fact we can call it nothing indeed implies it is something. Something is contained in everything (which we will denote as E[S]). To the best that we can, we will label that which resides outside reality as < >. It cannot have a name or else it is something. We should not even address it with the pronoun “it.” Henceforth, it shall always be called “< >.”

So, to wrap up:

E is the contruct of everything. The opposite of E is < >.

S is something.

e(X) is the existence function. If e(X) = 1, X exists. If e(X) = 0, X does not exist.

R is the whole field of reality. The opposite of reality is -R.

Def: For all X in R, e(X) = 1. For all X in -R, e(X) = 0

Theorem 1: e(S) = 1

Proof: I exist.

Theorem 2: If e(X) = 0, X = < >

Proof: < > does not exist.

Theorem 3: E[S]

Proof: See Archimedean Principle

Theorem 4: R[S]

Proof: See Theorem 1

Theorem 5: R[E]

Proof: Because S falls into both, there is no place in E that could be outside of R.

Yay! We proved everything exists! I may discuss in later blogs things called < >, which are elements of < >. I have to think for a while about those, though. Stay tuned!

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

arthurhovinc

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.