Path to Enlightened Insanity

Ahhhhhhhhhh! there is a huge mass of fresh-people and their origin carbon based beings around me.

All these naive people who are attempting to discover what they want to do with their life but most likely have a reasonable chance of misstepping and wasting these years in school or getting a degree in something that they have no desire to work in.

At least I stopped before I got the degree, so no one can get confused and thing I’m credentialed in theatre; all they know is that I have a mass of credits floating in the ethereal space of college registrar’s computers.

This decision is slightly more tangible than it was a few weeks back, but I still don’t feel comfortable with it yet.

But I must stop now, time to get my BS filter going, the admissions presentation is about to start, so the BS is going to flow thick and hard.

One of those dangers that I have with writing eJournals offline is that I evaluate and reevaluate them and sometimes they just get stuck and delayed, like this one.

I really don’t want to get into the OS debate. I’m experienced in several operating systems and I’ve actually used many of them, so my opinions don’t come from a lack of experience. Even then this debate seems slightly frivolous given world events and the much more interesting debates of quantum physics.

I’d have to say that really the only things that prodded me into finally getting this done was Steven Johnson’s recent rant on Microsoft Word and an older look at Apple’s upcoming feature Expos

I tried writing with my left hand today. It was a result of trying to eat and program at the same time.

It looks like its written by a first grader, although I don’t know very many first graders with the logical skills to be able to program ANSI C, maybe Basic or Logo, but defiantly not ANSI C.

I’m in a huge muddle with SpamFolderManger. I’ve honestly never dealt with a project of this breadth and modularity. Honestly I’m really a Applesoft BASIC programmer who has just transplanted himself to ANSI C. This is the first time I’ve actually tried programming like a C programmer and I’m well lost.

I’ve got a bunch of functions lying around and well eventually they should be able to be properly stitched together to create a functional program.

I’m reminded of sessions with my mother when she’d have all the pieces for her quilt covering the floor and she’d be attempting to figure out what was wrong in her cutting so she could piece the whole mess of fabric together properly to come out with a quilt. She always used to be so methodical and graph the whole quilt out and figure out what she had to do.

I know I need to create a “map” of this program for myself, so I know which way is up and how I need to proceed. I feel like I’ve been given a hot skillet on a stove without a handle, and I’m having to figure out how to build a handle onto this. Its probably something like molecular chemistry. (Wait, thats redundant isn’t redundant?) I remember reading about buckeyminsterfullerene in Popular Science and how they had to graph a handle on it to take a picture.

Whatever the case I’m stuck feeling really stupid and really lost. Maybe I can learn to write with my left hand and program at the same time. My brain needs a good work out.

Of course I could be boring and take my second class on programming and just stick to my right hand for writing, but that just wouldn’t be interesting.

I was just composing my last entry in Userspace, and I went to spell check it… Apparently the folks at Apple have a sense of humor. Give the image a click for the close up..

If Dante was still alive, and he was a Relay Communications Assistant, he would consider an additional circle of hell, being relaying calls to AOL tech support for the rest of your days. Like I had to do the other day in excess of an hour, in addition I hit the emergency button which caused the fricking computer to beep for the next 20 minutes till the end of the call. (What? It was a CA emergency!)

So I took my aggression out. I got one of those #@(!$@*#% AOL disks in the mail today.. so I took a hammer and pounded the fricking case in.

It was therapeutic.

The Quantum Physics book as caused me to being to doubt scientific truth.

Here is the problem: Science is a pursuit performed by people making a hypothesis and then creating an experiment to test it. (or vice versa, starting with an experiment then coming up with an explanatory hypothesis.) The problem arises in that we can never prove a hypothesis true, only falsify a hypothesis. So since people are constructing the theory and the experiments the hypothesis and/or theory are rooted in the history of that science and the experience of people performing the experimenting and hypothesizing. A danger in this is the possibility that there is a false case floating around waiting to be recognized as such.

While of course a false case is a danger to the theory being falsified, it is also potentially detrimental to theories that have been structured as a result of knowledge gained or theory developed on the falsified theory.

This of course calls into question the whole nature of science. Is there some case that can destroy the fundamental nature of science? Perhaps one of the core precepts that all science is based on is false? What then?

The possible flaw in my reasoning of course is eventually after an unfalsified theory is used and explored so many times does it become truth? When does it cross this line?

I bitched out my friend A earlier today.

He’s got a position at work that gets more pay, but he has less work to do; well no work to do. (Its not his fault, just the Ohio Relay Contract is screwy.) This is his second job, his first being a pretty well paying job.

I’m not sure why exactly I exploded at him.

I’m quite sure part of it is that when he’s here its play time and lets entertain A time. While I don’t mind a good conversation it seems like a requirement and plus he ends up bothering other people who are working and he seems to have no courtesy for others who are working, calling busy supervisors for no reason at all, being loud behind other working employees, etc, etc…

Another possible reason for my bitchiness is that I see him having this job just so he can buy a house, which at the moment I see as an unnecessary luxury. He has a moderate sized four bedroom house for one person and two cats. This really just seems like showing off to me. Of course I’m not enthusiastic about home ownership. I see most houses as a waste of money.

First of all the mortgage payment is usually more than rent, but you get less. Rent includes repairs, property tax, often extra amenities, appliances, among other things. I know people often tout the equity in homes, but if you look at it you have to pay a lot of bank interest and other additional costs that you don’t have with an apartment, as a result your free cash flow should be higher allowing you to invest the extra funds.

I still don’t know why I went off on A. I guess its some of this stuff and just the plain fact that I’m tired.

Dang, do I look like an ass now?

It amazes me how much effort people put into grass.

My dad (at the moment) works for a lawn care company selling services to maintain this man made natural “carpet.” Of course we treat our lawns like bad children, it always needs lots of attention to make sure it is doing the “right” thing.

Suburbia is about the control of nature. (Assuming you can call the bastardized version of plants and animals that exists in suburbia nature.) Whereas urban areas for the most part just displace natural things and confine nature to specific areas, but urban areas make no attempt to look natural. There is no pseudo nature, controlled and contrived into a pretty picture to suite personal or communal tastes, as exists in suburbia.

It is my contention that grass was initially fundamentally like a Timex watch, or a SUV (or even a 17″ Apple Powerbook, despite its inherent beauty.) — It was something that was bought or maintained to show off the fact that you had money. Lawns (especially if you insist on very green lawns) are rather expensive to maintain with fertilizer, mowing, aerating, weeding, etc, etc…

The important thing to consider is whats the alternative? You could let wild grasses and flowers overtake your lawn and enjoy the true nature in stark contrast to the controlled primness of a “proper” suburban lawn. This is of course assuming that your neighbors and/or the city don’t take it upon themselves to mow your lawn and bill you for the trespassing and destruction of property. (Of course in their defense this is in the name of “property value.” Is it amazing how obsessed w are with money?)

Another alternative is to completely landscape your yard leaving no grass, albeit this only replaces on constructed nature scene with another.

You could finally put gravel in. (I’ve seen this in retirement areas in Florida.) Or, just pave the whole damn thing. (Although I can see the city complaining in this case as well.)

I’m also quite convinced that grass is a chosen weed, but I’ll have to research further to support this claim.

Is love only really love when its illogical? Stated differently is love when there is no logical benefit for yourself?

I got on this thread when I was thinking about my past relationships. I’ve been thinking about S, T, G, J, and D. (The alphabet soup lets me leave names out, bear with me.)

I got started on this thinking about when I went on a date with G, who is HIV positive. I know we talked on the phone a few times, and I saw him at work. I was the one to say that, “I like you as a friend but not romantically.” He then basically accused me of not wanting to date him because he was HIV positive, despite the fact that I told him that his HIV status played no role in my deliberations.

This wasn’t just a quick spur of the moment decision. I spent a good few days thinking about it and making sure that his HIV status wasn’t a factor.

But I digress. My point is with G it was a logical process. I’m quite sure I could’ve flow charted my decision process. It was that logical.

But with S, and to some extent with T, it was just a feeling, something that swept me up. I quite remember with S and a bit with T attempting to explain my way to why I felt the way I felt or was doing what I was doing, but I just gave up finding no logical grounds for where I stand.

I think love logically can only be expressed as a tautology. I love ____ because he’s _____. This works fine with family. (i.e. I love my mom because she’s my mom.) It works well with socially recognized institutions. (i.e. Parenthood, Marriage.) But does a shitty job with boyfriends and relationships that don’t fall in this category.

For instance, there is no reason to explain why I love Jenni; you just have to know us and our history, and even then its not quite logical. Whereas I can explain why I love my mom in eight words, most people would expect significantly more words to explain why I love Jenni or S. I feel perfectly justified in saying that “I love Jenni, because she’s Jenni.” Its not conditional, its not logical.

I believe love, when its true, only starts, but never stops.

I love S because he is S. It would be a lot easier if I could attach conditions to this, like I enjoy spending time with S ergo I love him. Because then I could apply logic to it. (i.e. I’m not spending anytime with S therefore I can’t love him. See if that were true, I couldn’t say I love S, but I do love S. (This love stuff is like Quantum Physics, forget about common sense.)

Okay two more letters, errr people to cover. No. I’m not going to cover J and D. Both of those are triumphs of biology over logic or love.

I’ve been reading a book on Quantum physics. This is slightly like deciding to rewrite the rules of logic, mathematics, and English and being told “The experiments support this as the best way to do math, logic and speak.” (Note: The English must be rewritten by something more confusing than just placing it in ASL, American Sign Language, word order.)

I wonder if Quantum Physics was the inspiration for Weird Al’s song “Everything you know is wrong.”

Okay just a recap of some of the strange things I’ve read in the past week:

• Particles that receive photons that from our perspective have not yet been emitted.
• Kittens and even people who are in Quantum Flux (my term) because of an atom’s lack of ability to determine if its on the side of a box with the detector hooked up to the lethal device.
• The apparent faster than light communication due to the atom’s same inability to be decisive about which side of the box it swings to. This involves two space craft, one each with half of the box in question, two lethal devices and one alien. (After reading this I expressly forbid my kittens, George and Shaun, from having any contact with anyone with a PhD in Quantum Physics of the last name of Schrödinger, in addition they are to run and if need be climb up a very tall tree when coming in contact with any of the aforementioned persons. (I will begin holding Quantum Physics PhD/Schrödinger drills for my cats in the near future.)
• Individual particles of light that know if they are being watched and behave appropriately
• Individual particles that go through two holes simultaneously, interfering with themselves and act the same as they would if there were multiple particles.

I know strange shit ain’t it? The thing is these are answers that are accepted as valid. The book I’m reading, Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality states that a major theory of Quantum mechanics “…is the most successful and accurate scientific theory there has ever been.” (p. 90) It goes on to support this by stating one specific measurement is as accurate as measuring the distance between NYC and LA and being off by the width of a human hair.

All I can say is I’m waiting for the paradigm shift to get us out of this seemingly Mary Jane induced Achem’s razor violating, overly absurd paradigm, so we all can get to the stage where we say, “what? They thought that?”

I’m really interested if at this point the paradigm shift inducing problem is floating around waiting to reach a crisis in the quantum physics research community.

Of course I wouldn’t be able to see it if it came speeding at me at greater than the speed of light. (err excuse me, I’m going to rephrase that to spare myself contact with anti-particles.) Take two: I wouldn’t be able to find it even if it was emitting and reabsorbing photons as if it was the hippest thing to do.

My knowledge of Quantum Physics is at the same ability of being able to add the numbers 1-5 together. I really should at least be able to do algebra… But I don’t want to get a degree in this, just study it.

Anyone care to mix a few particles with me and talk about this stuff in depth?