Travel so far. First, I am slipping through a small window of fair weather for this trip as shut down the airport level bad weather is right behind me. The bus ride to St. Louis went well, peaceful, and I don’t mind riding with people and playing “who’s the serial killer” game. The plane flight was fantastic. I sat next to David Baker, the head of the western Division of American Water, which is the largest private water utility in the US! What a great connection and I hope I made a good impression. Annnnnd they’re based in St. Louis. This seems like a career potentially right up my alley, where most of their corporate leaders are business minded people who have law degrees, but science backgrounds. What luck, I think I’ll save that for later.
So I get into Philly, and it seems like there is a vicious fight at every terminal. And the Euro exchange rate absolutely sucks right now. Thievin’ Europeans, I will exact my vengeance on your “union” when I arrive!
It gets even luckier though. The plane to Dublin has me sitting next to Paul, a young PhD synthetic organic chemist for Bristol Meyers Squibb who is designing a new drug right outside of Dublin. He shared his grad experiences with me, told me what he would do today, and then after hearing my situation etc helped me chart another viable route to a career. And he recommends the materials inorganic field that I am interested in as the best choice because he sees it as the only field where America will maintain a competitive advantage. Maybe I’ll tour BMS’s facilities while I’m in Dublin.
Well I’m almost there and I haven’t slept at all. I mean, why sleep when The Devil Wears Prada is on with no sound? But really, I am glad that I am getting to witness the sunrise. Seeing the first pale blue is exciting not only because it’s beautiful but because it is illuminating the edge of the cloud deck, upon which rests a warmly glowing sliver of moon.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Weird Faith Rabble
Intro: The first time I really verbally tried to explain my belief in God, which is in the opinion of others, a totally weird thing, was as burdensome but rewarding as climbing up a mountain. The second time I really tried to explain my beliefs, I was literally climbing a mountain with good friends. This time, I went further with my explanation, mostly because they pushed on my beliefs instead of dismissing them as awkward and put up with a back and forth dialogue. It was even more rewarding. So, while I won’t make this my life’s work, I want to reflect from time to time on my beliefs, because admittedly they are different, even if the difference is that I’ve taken some contrived and or scenic route to reach my conclusions.
So theoretical physicists will likely suggest that parallel universes exist. That multiple universes exist. Imagine the culmination of all physical particles that make up yourself, the world around you, the past and present and future experiences that will effect you. These could be the exact same, you could be the exact same in another place. Or could you. I mean, you wouldn't point to this replicate idea and "that's me" in any more significant a way than that appears to be me. Point being, is that you are unique. There is something, unreproducible about you according to your understanding. And what I mean by understanding is not that a person may develop an understanding, or evolve past this understanding. To be human, to have a self, and all ideas of perspective and connection etc have been derived from this foundational notion of "I am" (I'm sill not sure about the I think part).
This is God. Let me elaborate (and while I do, imagine fractals) and forgive the spiritual juxtapositions. I think that no religion is perfect, no description is accurate, and yet the attempting is perfect. Because God is infinite, and beyond our understanding or comprehension. Deep deep down in your search for knowledge, in the fractal, as you keep going with no end is something and absolutely nothing at the same time. Like the concept of infinity in math it is indescribable, and yet we have managed to describe it as infinity and say what is is for our utilization, and we have also applied it, and drawn addition concepts from it. But it is what we'll never get to, never know, and so for the uncreatively pragmatic (a group which encompasses many, but not all atheists by manner in which they reach their conclusion), God is not real! And in the confines of the way they may think about God, I see their point, but if I thinking outside of their boxes, they surely must see the smallness of their thinking and can then be only irrational atheists (not that there is anything wrong with that-but it is probably less honorable.)
Implications: Religion has no weight in society, in government, and really, no place outside of its right to exist as individual spirituality and exploration which may come to organize. Our morals, I would argue, have come from beyond religion. Of course, you cannot deny millenia of influence on society and gene, but we could have these rights now without religion either way. It is tricky whether or not we could say we would have these without God. Because God is most likely that infinite concept deep within each of us which gives respect.
Now expand this hypothetical even further. You have considered yourself in the parallel universe and meeting your equivalent. Now consider meeting someone close to you in the other universe, as if you have made a seamless transition and exchange with your equivalent. Are you able to come to the same conclusions about them as you are for you? Would you be able to tell that this isn’t your unique best friend? Isn’t your spouse? Isn’t your mother? It is doubtful.
Implication: If you believe in soul mates, and I have described the unique spot in each of us, which might be described as the soul, you should answer that yes you could tell the difference if of course the person you imagined in the parallel universe, you also imagine as your soul mate. I would think, that soul mates as understood in this deep a sense, are not real and that your soul is at its root, that God concept of sorts that we all inherently have, and that thus is indistinguishable from another’s. This does not contradict what I have said before, that essentially each soul is unique, because it is, in itself, but is non-unique outside itself, just like the answer to this hypothetical.
Now what if you knew that you had just been transferred to the parallel universe, by exchange with your counterpart there? Now would you say the loved ones you run into are the same? This is more difficult to answer. (Try not to imagine/distinguish this like in Inception). I think you would say that that person is not the real person, and yet, there would be no evidence to support this. You would just know. Moreover, the others here would not distinguish you from your previous equivalent. If you accepted the rules of the multiverse, you would understand that nothing different would happened here, your free will, your pleasure, your interactions, nothing would change. So why not just live with it? There is no reason I can think of other than the eerie feeling associated with your genuine displacement from your home universe/reality. There is something recognizable about your reality then, is there not? Something unique about your reality, much as there is something unique about you.
So this is where my mind goes from here: as thinking goes, we distinguish the external from the internal. (Yes there are grey areas which I will not attempt to make clear like the body, but that immaterial for this thought experiment.) What is the relationship between your unique external and your unique internal? If they are different, then how? If they are the same, how can we reconcile my intuitive presentation of external vs. internal.
If they are different, then how? Is it space? Weird. Imagine this. In the seamless exchange scenario, you would never know the difference. So these two different universes, which occupy different spaces, now seem non-unique even though one has been suggested as unique to you, and another is foreign. My point here is that the difference between the internal and the external unique cannot be space based because you can be tricked into thinking the unique and non-unique external are the same. Your internal relation to the external, your feeling, is the same even though they are two, or millions of separate spaces. If the relation of A to B is space, and the relation of A to “B” is a “space”, this is clearly not the genuine relation of A to B. (At least not coming from an internal understanding. It is kind of unfair to talk about this from an omniscient birds-eye view, and then switch perspectives to an internal looking out view)
Is there a difference? I initially I say no. The same uniqueness inside of us, our infinite depth (God), our soul of sorts, is the same as everything on the outside. Not like some holy spirit permeating everything, but as simply a representation of the infinite!!!!! Look, we cannot reach our internal depth. We can only speak of it like a curious child pointing to something in the park. This is a common bond to the “external.” It is external, which signifies to us that it is separate and on some level unreachable. Don’t think superficially about communication or physical contact. You just can’t get there.
Now I think of genuine connections. When I think of God, I start to get a physical feeling deep in my heart. Have you even looked into someone else’s eyes, like when you’re in love, or just a friendly moment of understanding, and felt the same spot? Have you looked upon a suffering stranger and felt the same on occasion? Maybe at certain moments, we cease to exist enough to feel this infinitude exist.
So God kind of exists. Not like bam exists, but its also more than me just saying God exists because humans created the concept. I think I recognize a difference in my mind for what types of God I believe in. Often when I talk about an active God, like when I reflect on cheesy versions of Karma, I start saying He. Then I get pressed about my beliefs in heaven, Jesus, etc. Well, I grew up with some of this. But I also grew up very secular, with a different approach and I don’t know, but detect a difference in my thinking between the “He” God, which is based off outside impressions, and this weird infinity I’m talking about.
Feel free to think about this and respond. Point of interest, this sounds like I am high. I am not, and that was not the facilitation for such an oddly explained reflection. This is late night tired talk at most.
So theoretical physicists will likely suggest that parallel universes exist. That multiple universes exist. Imagine the culmination of all physical particles that make up yourself, the world around you, the past and present and future experiences that will effect you. These could be the exact same, you could be the exact same in another place. Or could you. I mean, you wouldn't point to this replicate idea and "that's me" in any more significant a way than that appears to be me. Point being, is that you are unique. There is something, unreproducible about you according to your understanding. And what I mean by understanding is not that a person may develop an understanding, or evolve past this understanding. To be human, to have a self, and all ideas of perspective and connection etc have been derived from this foundational notion of "I am" (I'm sill not sure about the I think part).
This is God. Let me elaborate (and while I do, imagine fractals) and forgive the spiritual juxtapositions. I think that no religion is perfect, no description is accurate, and yet the attempting is perfect. Because God is infinite, and beyond our understanding or comprehension. Deep deep down in your search for knowledge, in the fractal, as you keep going with no end is something and absolutely nothing at the same time. Like the concept of infinity in math it is indescribable, and yet we have managed to describe it as infinity and say what is is for our utilization, and we have also applied it, and drawn addition concepts from it. But it is what we'll never get to, never know, and so for the uncreatively pragmatic (a group which encompasses many, but not all atheists by manner in which they reach their conclusion), God is not real! And in the confines of the way they may think about God, I see their point, but if I thinking outside of their boxes, they surely must see the smallness of their thinking and can then be only irrational atheists (not that there is anything wrong with that-but it is probably less honorable.)
Implications: Religion has no weight in society, in government, and really, no place outside of its right to exist as individual spirituality and exploration which may come to organize. Our morals, I would argue, have come from beyond religion. Of course, you cannot deny millenia of influence on society and gene, but we could have these rights now without religion either way. It is tricky whether or not we could say we would have these without God. Because God is most likely that infinite concept deep within each of us which gives respect.
Now expand this hypothetical even further. You have considered yourself in the parallel universe and meeting your equivalent. Now consider meeting someone close to you in the other universe, as if you have made a seamless transition and exchange with your equivalent. Are you able to come to the same conclusions about them as you are for you? Would you be able to tell that this isn’t your unique best friend? Isn’t your spouse? Isn’t your mother? It is doubtful.
Implication: If you believe in soul mates, and I have described the unique spot in each of us, which might be described as the soul, you should answer that yes you could tell the difference if of course the person you imagined in the parallel universe, you also imagine as your soul mate. I would think, that soul mates as understood in this deep a sense, are not real and that your soul is at its root, that God concept of sorts that we all inherently have, and that thus is indistinguishable from another’s. This does not contradict what I have said before, that essentially each soul is unique, because it is, in itself, but is non-unique outside itself, just like the answer to this hypothetical.
Now what if you knew that you had just been transferred to the parallel universe, by exchange with your counterpart there? Now would you say the loved ones you run into are the same? This is more difficult to answer. (Try not to imagine/distinguish this like in Inception). I think you would say that that person is not the real person, and yet, there would be no evidence to support this. You would just know. Moreover, the others here would not distinguish you from your previous equivalent. If you accepted the rules of the multiverse, you would understand that nothing different would happened here, your free will, your pleasure, your interactions, nothing would change. So why not just live with it? There is no reason I can think of other than the eerie feeling associated with your genuine displacement from your home universe/reality. There is something recognizable about your reality then, is there not? Something unique about your reality, much as there is something unique about you.
So this is where my mind goes from here: as thinking goes, we distinguish the external from the internal. (Yes there are grey areas which I will not attempt to make clear like the body, but that immaterial for this thought experiment.) What is the relationship between your unique external and your unique internal? If they are different, then how? If they are the same, how can we reconcile my intuitive presentation of external vs. internal.
If they are different, then how? Is it space? Weird. Imagine this. In the seamless exchange scenario, you would never know the difference. So these two different universes, which occupy different spaces, now seem non-unique even though one has been suggested as unique to you, and another is foreign. My point here is that the difference between the internal and the external unique cannot be space based because you can be tricked into thinking the unique and non-unique external are the same. Your internal relation to the external, your feeling, is the same even though they are two, or millions of separate spaces. If the relation of A to B is space, and the relation of A to “B” is a “space”, this is clearly not the genuine relation of A to B. (At least not coming from an internal understanding. It is kind of unfair to talk about this from an omniscient birds-eye view, and then switch perspectives to an internal looking out view)
Is there a difference? I initially I say no. The same uniqueness inside of us, our infinite depth (God), our soul of sorts, is the same as everything on the outside. Not like some holy spirit permeating everything, but as simply a representation of the infinite!!!!! Look, we cannot reach our internal depth. We can only speak of it like a curious child pointing to something in the park. This is a common bond to the “external.” It is external, which signifies to us that it is separate and on some level unreachable. Don’t think superficially about communication or physical contact. You just can’t get there.
Now I think of genuine connections. When I think of God, I start to get a physical feeling deep in my heart. Have you even looked into someone else’s eyes, like when you’re in love, or just a friendly moment of understanding, and felt the same spot? Have you looked upon a suffering stranger and felt the same on occasion? Maybe at certain moments, we cease to exist enough to feel this infinitude exist.
So God kind of exists. Not like bam exists, but its also more than me just saying God exists because humans created the concept. I think I recognize a difference in my mind for what types of God I believe in. Often when I talk about an active God, like when I reflect on cheesy versions of Karma, I start saying He. Then I get pressed about my beliefs in heaven, Jesus, etc. Well, I grew up with some of this. But I also grew up very secular, with a different approach and I don’t know, but detect a difference in my thinking between the “He” God, which is based off outside impressions, and this weird infinity I’m talking about.
Feel free to think about this and respond. Point of interest, this sounds like I am high. I am not, and that was not the facilitation for such an oddly explained reflection. This is late night tired talk at most.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Amurican Rambling
I was reading over a high school English project that intended to use the year’s literature to arrive at conclusions about America, its founding, and its development and it has given some perspective that might be useful in conjunction with my experience abroad. I’ve been having trouble dealing with my global attitudes and being American lately. Having hosted a foreign exchange student in high school and having family from abroad with an immigrant parent has given me one fuzzy side of the issue, while my ever exploding ego, family history in the military, and frontiersman roots have given me a different side. I resolve these by coming to a basic conclusion that America at its heart has to be just an idea and nothing more. Whatever you can say of the population, historical development, and influences of so many other factors like geography, all of which have merit, America really is just an idea. It should be, and in a way is borderless, and open to everyone, the opposite of exceptionalist, etc. And though it’s clear that America was founded with many exceptionalist ideals, I think this whole idea of providence, or whatever makes America an exception, is our ideals. Regardless of who “we” are, if we are Americans in spirit, we should support our ideals to the best of our ability.
The popular point of reflection, frustration, etc is how or why this country is atrophying. But the talk is all two sided, and each side has its own double talk. This is of course forgivable, but really we all need to just chill and know that we are fallible, that there is at least something in what another says, and that even those who cannot be reached by logic or whatever you might depend on to reach your conclusions deserve your respect and their ideas deserve your deeper consideration.
Debate taught me a few things. One, to truly and deeply analyze an idea, sometimes the round must be long and focused, but most likely, you will need many focused rounds, each in front of a new audience, with new consideration put into your own arguments, and even more focus put into creativity that will guide your opponent in a new direction. You simply cannot keep hammering an idea into others and expect real progress. You may persuade more to your point, but this must only be a secondary objective of the sharing of ideas and opinions. You should work to build a consensus amongst those who think about things most. And you should be persistent about it.
The Panama Canal was built by America, and it was by no means built in a perfect way, but it is a significant achievement in history and it was built by persistent men, some of whom ran out of steam. But because the idea was important enough, others were there to pick up the torch, knowing they may fade, because the idea was so promising.
The popular point of reflection, frustration, etc is how or why this country is atrophying. But the talk is all two sided, and each side has its own double talk. This is of course forgivable, but really we all need to just chill and know that we are fallible, that there is at least something in what another says, and that even those who cannot be reached by logic or whatever you might depend on to reach your conclusions deserve your respect and their ideas deserve your deeper consideration.
Debate taught me a few things. One, to truly and deeply analyze an idea, sometimes the round must be long and focused, but most likely, you will need many focused rounds, each in front of a new audience, with new consideration put into your own arguments, and even more focus put into creativity that will guide your opponent in a new direction. You simply cannot keep hammering an idea into others and expect real progress. You may persuade more to your point, but this must only be a secondary objective of the sharing of ideas and opinions. You should work to build a consensus amongst those who think about things most. And you should be persistent about it.
The Panama Canal was built by America, and it was by no means built in a perfect way, but it is a significant achievement in history and it was built by persistent men, some of whom ran out of steam. But because the idea was important enough, others were there to pick up the torch, knowing they may fade, because the idea was so promising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)