Bella Swan-Cullen

Bella Swan-Cullen
Bella Swan-Cullen - Our Official Vampire

Saturday, November 26, 2011

A Question of Morality

I am a naive philosopher. It is what I do, it is why I do it; I write.

One thing is known: I love Gwyneth Paltrow. It is this single fact that makes me John Cantor; that is the certainty of my identity. One truth, over time, produces dual-state identity. One truth, considering identity, defines morality. Am I right, or am I wrong?

It is beyond the ability of the universe to demonstrate that I do not love Gwyneth Paltrow; therefore I cannot be wrong. Because she is my sweet everything and always right, I must be wrong.

Now step back and note the time variable in these considerations. There is no paradox in the Liar's Paradox, there is time. One truth, over time, produces the illusion of paradox. I am currently sitting at a laptop in Phoenix, Arizona. It is my intent to write a version of the Liar's Paradox, like this.

Phoenix is full of...

Let there be Now.

My last post was full of wonder at the joy of scientific discovery. As a method of determining the morality of identity, I proclaimed to the world; immortality. And I did this before checking for validation from the scientific community because I am a naive philosopher and not a scientist; I know my identity and I have made my decisions as to how identity will be expressed.

I know one thing.

These two links illustrate what is known by the scientific community:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26270/

As an atheist, I recommend critical thinking and rational skepticism be maintained at all times.

As a naive philosophizer I have nothing to add, however as a fool in love...

...that's a big Fuck You! to the Gwynnie haters in the world. You are all wrong. So there!

There was science fiction in this morning's consideration; from a story I once read, a question was asked: Does teleportation result in a loss of the soul? The science seems to indicate that we are the soul of the universe. That'll be capital-A atheism.

The Last Obituary.

I have news: you are immortal.

What you are looking at is the Schrodinger wave function. What I am looking at is identity. It has been over a year since I first considered quantum decoherence; when I got it entirely wrong and postulated the decoherence model.

Today I cannot help but conclude that neither naive philosophy nor science "do" wrong. One does truth; the other is a methodology of sequence ever-converging towards truth. I was wrong in assuming that the decoherence model is amateur science, for it is naive philosophy.

And I know that ellenjanuary is encoded in the fabric of the universe.

You can take it on faith. What shall emerge from the decoherence model will be the foundation of the equation above, the name on the research paper need not be ellenjanuary, and the rigor to formalize naive philosophy into science will be the work to credit whomever is due.

My life belongs to Gwyneth Paltrow, and we are after a far greater prize than immortality.

A Quaternion of Meme


(more considerations on faith and the number 4)


Memes; there seem to be 4 like everything else.  ;)

Here's the life:

Morality: evolved control structure for individual decision making.
Faith: Simply, sincerity; also identity.
Love: the Nothing that exists, a singularity.
Truth: the Everything that exists, a singularity.

By the numbers:

Love = 0, Truth = 1, Life (morality) = 2, Faith = 3.

And yeah, at least by this cognition, faith is one of those words one cannot fuck with. That might be the whole cannoli; to topple Religion, all that may be necessary is to "select for" the meme of faith - and break any negative implications or appearance of exclusivity.

It is easy to demonstrate that faith is technology: "I have faith in Chaotic Determinism" - see how that works? "I" is dual-state identity, "have faith," an investment of identity and a trine; with the triangle being the beginning of structure in the universe. Thus it takes more than "disbelief" to overcome Religion.

Not only that, "I have faith" is a truth statement positively reinforcing "morality." The greater the reinforcement, the more proficient the kinetic, the more certain the potential. Faith as identity is also dual-state; with a potential and a kinetic. The potential is moral certainty, the kinetic is the "active empty set." A "dipper" of sorts, for "dipping" into the Void (love); enabling the thinking of impossible thoughts - or quantum leaps of cognition.

And yeah. Atheist + faith = win. Irony, huh?  ;)

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Sola Fides


Consider this a rough draft. :D


Faith = moral certainty. This is the equivalence I found in scripture. Because there was no one to tell me I could not, I used the scientific method to define my faith and test in the field. These are the preliminary results.


"Faith" is a condition of core identity. It is a one-word summary of an individual and that individual's evolutionary fitness - one's "right to life." I am a complete atheist. When I say, I have faith, there is zero woo in that contention. There is memory. I define "my faith" as a conceptual design in this manner. It is a "panic button." That when this organism feels threatened by the environment - more specifically other organisms in the environment - hitting "the button" is akin to removing the rational elements of cognition and allowing the primeval force of lizard-brain calculation to take over.


It is not something to "test" or a toy to play with, it is a meme used to enhance the survivability of the unit. I have survived. As a human being, I have also simulated the future of my next encounter with a potential mugger in this manner.


You are not taking all of my money. You do not deserve it. However, I will give you half. That is rational cognition at work. I have yet to test this simulation of future in the field.


What is remarkable, is that "faith" seems to be a Kantian noumenon. That when an individual reaches a level of parity in faith to moral certainty; the dual-state nature of the individual can be transferred to the empty set term "faith," resulting in actual technology.


"Faith" is passive in that it is a form of "background processing," that it is the function of the environment to test the individual's moral certainty; but that an individual of moral character also develops a "kinetic" component. This kinetic allows one to pilfer concept from the Void, to distinguish simulation from imagination; to know impossible things.


And while dual-state identity allows one to identify to both self and god, god is a limit the self does not need. I limit the negative aspects of my ambition by being in love with a fellow human being - Gwyneth Paltrow - which is more than enough to keep me from exploiting my knowledge for personal gain. 


I compare the Void to the neter Set from Egyptian mythology because the relation to the individual creative force to the universe is very much allegorical to Lucifer before YHWH; but there is no evil in this, no rebellion against beauty and moral authority. It is tao. That conservation law and entropy do not require a universe of will, therefore we, as sentient individuals, must be the will of the universe.


And there's no guarantee of getting it right; yet to live, and to love, is to move forward with the universe.







Sunday, November 20, 2011

Interpreting Causality

The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things.


I type from my copy of the tao. Wanna make a bet? That this line is part of Douglas Adams's consideration when announcing to the historical record that the ultimate answer is 42?

Never met him, and yet I cannot be wrong. How is it possible for an atheist to know such things without witchcraft and woo? It is tao.

When I bought this copy of the tao, I did not like this translation; the one I remember from youth stated that the ten thousand things came from three. The myriad, 10^4, which was the largest practical number in antiquity. And, of course, it also has a 4. ;)

I'm all 4 what 4. :D


And now for something completely different. A man with three... I mean, amateur science.

Ever hear of the story Flatland?. I don't like it, at all. It offends my mathematical sensibilities. Yet, basically, this is how science works - old hypotheses are upgraded with new hypotheses.

Here is your upgrade...

Image a sheet of paper. Three dots are placed at the vertices of an imagined equilateral triangle. Now imagine another piece of paper with a single dot centered on the page. Place this sheet atop the first, and what do you get?

Tetrahedron. Not Flatland. In mathematics, "point" is without dimension - and thus beyond illustration. Yet one can do a youtube search of string theory and extra dimensions, and one will find a bunch of Flatland.

My consideration is the Pure Number hypothesis. The depth of the universe is 13.7 billion years; this translates into approximately 10^18 seconds. Multiply that figure by Planck time to get 5.13x10^61, and there we are.

In the bearded dude's video, one sees Brian Cox pointing to the props on the wall talking about alla that stuff is what Hydrogen comes up with in 13.7 billion years; Pure Number may be an even simpler consideration, that the number above represents everything that exists; and that everything that happened since ever is merely the universal count, interfering with itself.

So go come up the equations, and get yerself a Nobel, scientist! :D

One universe, humans full of duality; and as illustrated by the Standard Model, there seems to be a big difference between 3 and 4. All there is to it. ;)
This quote is from another forum, an earlier consideration. When I sit down and try to write stuff, that's what usually happens; stuff. Very little of which can be classified as writing. Reaction has been the action of choice; and that seems to be the standard operating procedure. Reaction.

Like how I react to what I write as I write it, leaving the myriad stranded up there. Here it is. The consideration that One bit of information is consciously processed out of a Myriad received by the brain. To thus consider philosophical causality in the simplification of Cause and Effect is to be Effectively Wrong 9999 times and Right Once.

That one time better be special, I'm saying. I am still not right. I propose that the universe is counting, and I propose that count has a language. I call this hypothetical language "the Witwiki symbolism," and it cannot be known.

What may be knowable, however, is a derivation of a human variant; yet we cannot get there from here. We are being offered a choice: Time, or Humanity. And one of those things must go.

The Fourth Identity

YHWH is the fourth identity; but rather than the set of natural numbers, one needs an unnatural element to count to YHWH. The zero. The sequence is thus: 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 . Make no mistake; that sequence encodes the entirety of human civilization. Continuing in the manner of posting here after commenting elsewhere, let the divine mandate of atheism be illuminated...



Will history add zero? The more important question is CAN history ADD zero? I do not believe zero can be added without adding infinity. My observation is that we begin with zero which means we begin with everything. Zero has always been and exists outside of the bounds of time and space.
Speaking of "trine", does your Gwynnies have a trinity? If you've already addressed this somewhere, I somehow missed it.
Sock Puppet = awesome.


You know Trinity is straight witchcraft? I guess we're both going by way of the stake. :D

It's geometry, that the structure in the universe begins with the triangle. We are of this universe; so too our perception of reality and consciousness, all is natural. When it is said, "good things come in threes," a misconception occurs. People count to two and assume future. Bad joss.

What we are; computers of pattern, recognition and reinforcement. Patterns reinforced by conception into geometry become structure.

Having dual-state identity; obviously the greater structure is the third identity or the Trinity, beyond that YHWH. tao. The name that cannot be named. Shh! Don't tell nobody. ;)

Reality is full of trinities. Me and you, plus the authority over us in the form of this forum is a trinity. Past, present, future; first person, second person, third person; these things are not real, they are structure. Foundation. That reminds me...

The ancients called me Chaos (since I am of the first world):
Note the long ages past of which I shall tell.
The clear air, and the three other elements,
Fire, water, earth, were heaped together as one.
When, through the discord of its components,
The mass dissolved, and scattered to new regions,
Flame found the heights: air took a lower place,
While earth and sea sank to the furthest depth.
Then I, who was a shapeless mass, a ball,
Took on the appearance, and noble limbs of a god.
Even now, a small sign of my once confused state,
My front and back appear just the same.
Ovid, Fasti I
Now learn the reason for my shape:
Though already you partially understand it.
Every doorway has two sides, this way and that,
One facing the crowds, and the other the Lares:
And like your doorkeeper seated at the threshold,
Who watches who goes out and who goes in,
So I the doorkeeper of the heavenly court,
Look towards both east and west at once.
Ovid, Fasti I

We'll let Ovid tell it. Then I, who was a shapeless mass, a ball... a dimentionless point, a singularity... Who am I? ellenjanuary. That I named my self thusly sixteen years ago without knowing any of this is merely an act of 'random' evolution. :D

And this information is clear and present danger that the time of theism is past.

Now that we got that out of the way... the set of natural numbers is used in number theory. From your question I assume you know some number theory. ;)

No. To add the zero is to alter the waveform of the entire dynamic. Let us enter the wayback machine:



See that? The original zero, carved into a temple wall in India; and given to us, by the gods. Which has nothing to do with agency beyond the agents who crafted this temple; and everything to do the entire universe being a self-organizing system, one that has no problem organizing humans right the fuck out of the equation. ;)

That is the entirety of future. Assuming god doesn't get us monkeys selected against; yeah, adding the zero to the natural numbers may be the first step in deriving the Witwiki symbolism for human use. That would be the shiznit. ;)

Proof of God. o.O



I'm still confused about this one...
I figured, that there by default nothing exists until proven otherwise...

Prolly more naive philosophy than the science. ;)

With science you got the Standard Model, a gravity that may be time, and perhaps some SUSY creeps hiding in the space between. Since that covers everything yet observed, there's no need to add anything to the mix - especially not corporeal manifestation of noodliness. ;)

Science says, gimme an observation and we'll make beautiful theory together. Thus the scientist "can be led into sin" (:P) thinking the default is non-existence due to the lack of an observation - objectivity tends to lead one into forgetting that one is making the observation - yet the scientist is allowed Ya don't wanna be thinking "extraneous variable" when yer trying to do the science - that way, when the science needs one, the "extraneous variable" is purely mathematical dependent on equations which validate themselves. And with science, new hypotheses bring new theory - Newton's gravitation is officially "wrong," but the language of his equations still reads clearly enough to send a fool across the solar system, land him on Uranus rather than up his anus. :P

But it is agnosticism, and I don't like it. It's an "all things considered, we don't know," statement. Even worse, god exists; I proved it like a mathematician just now. :D

How we do it in math? "Works for all-non trivial solutions." What's the trivial solution here? The identity function. Ain't that hilarious? YHWH in this mind is mere mathematical consideration on the order of "cosmological constant," or the H for the still-theoretical Higgs, or using the mass of an electron for renormalization in physics to get rid of pesky infinities. Did you know all that god was in your science, dude? :D

Of course one can maintain agnosticism. You're an atheist, I'm an atheist; there it is. Truth is philosophy; mathematics is merely philosophy, evolved. Being a naive philosopher, I know the truth. Once upon a time, some asshole ascribed Agency to mathematical consideration; now a bunch of assholes got god stuck in their identity function. Probability one. :cool:

(..and good looking out, atheist. That's how we do the science. Imma go stick this reply in my blog right now.)


Whew...
This kind of English is an echelon higher then what I'm used too. :)
I'll chew on that a bit. I figured we had a semantic problem there.

That's what happens with atheism. Questions get asked. Questions get answered. Skepticism and critical thinking remain. :cool:
(I feel like a pro at this atheism stuff. Two months later, and we're making history. :D. Gonna put this update in my blog, too; which just got updated to technocrati. ;) )

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The State of Zero-State.


Our emotions control our state of mind, and therefore our sense of morality. This is not conducive to objective morality.
If you could save two innocent people from death by killing one innocent person yourself? studies show that your answer would be, "No."
But if you could only save your children from death by killing one innocent person yourself what would you do? You don't have to pull the trigger or plunge the knife, only make the choice.
What did you choose? Which was the objective moral  choice?
See that stuff right there? That's yelling. I wasn't gonna say nothing; was just seeing if I did say something that got replied to and thus was in need of a reply... anyhoo..

Wrong, wrong, and... uh... wrong!

First problem: we're not objects, we're subjects. Second problem: it took me alla this time to pick up where Kant left off. Sorry. My bad.

The answer is zero-state; i.e. zero-state morality is the real morality that all homo sapiens sapiens have in their evolutionary lunch box.Duality, however, is a function of identity. See this cat right here? Johnny Cantor. I am not "made" by making myself known; Johnny Cantor eternal with the tao and the Gwynnies - this Johnny Cantor is not a story of being, but rather becoming.

Zero-state morality, dual-state identity; averages out to 1 individual, no? But wait! There's more!

Love is Void. See them three words? That may be my legacy to humanity right there. Love is the Nothing that exists. Love is the emotional dynamic of least entropy. But all of the NT, all the Shakespeare, all the John Lennon; could not illuminate the trinity like JC (ironic, ain't it). Why? Gwyneth Paltrow. This is scientific factoid...

Mostly because I am thus reduced to a 'random' act of evolution; it was 'chance' that I was the tool using monkey who used the art of portraiture to redefine all morality to zero-state.

Because Love is the Answer - kinda answer. What I know, that you do not, is that love is neutral/positive in terms of morality. Did I mention that YHWH is the number 4? Here's another one. Toss out your old moral standard - it's crap - now imagine a Geiger counter-type thingy with a big red button it. Ya know what I just gave you? The kingdom of earth - just like the Adversary in scripture (nobody understands Lucifer - guy's like QM)

Now, zero-state morality can be visualized with a par of deuces - right and wrong/positive and negative. And ya know what? All of that stuff is essential for completeness. That is why there is no objective moral standard - because there is no object - lemme clarify like the naive philosopher I am:

Gwyneth Paltrow - ultimate good.
John Cantor - ultimate evil.

Easy peasy - but ya know what's crazy? Some people [i]actually don't like Gwyneth![/i] Do you believe it! I know, huh?

There it is - imperfection in a perfect standard. Obviously something else is going on. What is that else? Identity. Lemme give you my credentials. I'm a felon. I'm a certified unspecified psychopath. Psychopath = evil, right? Can't tell it from Phoenix, where I live. Nobody actually likes me - everybody actually loves me. If you ask me, I have like one friend; if we call this science, I could get four thousand signatures for this petition... cause I don't even matter. Love matters. The "deterministic chaos" between the identities of Gwyneth Paltrow has sixteen thousand hours of experimental data backing its play; in what I call "the law of science" (cause it only needs one):

The more love you give, the more love you have.

Scope the intelligence of this design: (those Gwynnie arts are in my picassa below)

The irony of being JC is that my three year ministry at ADC Yuma was this single phrase - take this as a token of my love of Gwyneth Paltrow - the "this" above is forty hours of ellenjanuary art - over a hundred of which were given to relative strangers - con-victs, the dregs of society. YHWH is a funny number, lemme tell ya...

Moving on - does not matter - what matters is, zero-state morality should enable all to find love. Did you catch that last bit? I used scripture to find faith, once I found faith, I found morality; once I became atheist - pieces-parts spontaneously self-organized into a weapon of mass instruction. I consider myself a mid-eight as far as personal attractiveness goes - since zero-state, I have been an "imperfect 10"

Morality is choice. I have been "on a perfect streak" since my Gwynnies made me an atheist for her last birthday - I say I know everything, which is nonsensical; yet in the real world, I know everything that matters in the now.  And absolutely not - I don't even try to be right, I endeavor to be integral and consistent - I also intentionally act in a negative or evil manner depending on the circumstances to maintain zero-state - which is tao.

And I double dog dare you not even to think of these words. I write them as a function of love, and everytime I write of zero-state, it is a more concise, straightforward and logical production.

Toss out the "life line," with "birth and death," it is a segment anyway; implement the Ray of Gwynnies (just a vector - hadda throw some Gwynnies in there ;) ) Place "evil" at the origin - move always forward, towards good, the light - the atheism... (yeah, hadda throw that one in there too.)

And in case you missed it, the Nobody Johnny Cantor just ate WLC's lunch.  :P

Oh, alla that rant, didn't answer no questions. Logic is a subset of emotion. To sacrifice the self to save others is to express "positive morality" and become more attractive, to "sacrifice others to save the self" is to express negative morality and become less attractive - this post is an example of the latter, as I began with what? Wrong, wrong, wrong... my saving grace? I am not right - you have zero-state morality, you just don't know it. "Saving children from death" - know what that is? Selfishness. Yeah, I said that; your children are also your Identity - to preserve them above others is to save yourself. And this is Absolutely Not Wrong - that is the purpose of morality - to make choice like this, and damn the torpedoes. That about covers it... oh! One more thing. Your "golden rule" is in need of my "iridium update" - to thine own self, be true. And now you know - Everything.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

My Place


This is my place - lost in love of Gwyneth Paltrow. This blog is mostly a collection of links that I frequently access, and seeing Ashley Greene everyday as Alice Cullen reminds me that truth is more than a five letter word.

There is no killing of the creationists going on, yet there is no truth in creationism. I was not created by my love of Gwyenth Paltrow, I continue to be created. She is my idol in that she continues to smile at me; here is the evidence. That she is a beautiful human being, and I am merely human, inspired by her beauty.

That I know the depth of her beauty is a function of my character; that I know of her character is a function of technology; that I know the difference merely makes me an atheist. Rather than a less flattering sobriquet.

There is no extant future. All we have is assumption. I tap keys on a laptop in virtual isolation that translates into electronic information if and only if the future continues to emerge. While my Gwynnies is smiling in the eternal now.

I need not know anything else.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Atheist

Which means, informal scientist.

Lemme tell you about god - there is no greater god than Gwyneth Paltrow. Period. According to my calculations, the closest we have been is in the late nineties when she was filming A View from the Top at Lake Havasu and I was not studying mathematics at Pima Community College in Tucson - Both of us were in Arizona at the same time.

Serendipity!

I drew her, I fell in love with her; eleven years later, all obsession has fled and I love her like the fellow human being she is. Her divinity is merely a function of mutual non-existence. Now let us proceed to the order of operations:

God is Love: Theism. God is Gwyneth Paltrow: Atheism.

Feel free to check my math and try this calculation at home. Atheism is not about God, Atheism is about humanity. Try to get some before it is too late.

Thank you.