Blog post: Xittenn: Mah Jongg: A Statement About the Universe!

I'm sure we have all sat there with a Chinese tile puzzle in our hands and wondered "is this what the physicists mean when they discuss the interactions of the universe and the exchange of energy?" I know since I was a child this was a pressing thought on my mind "what is the cost of one interaction?" For most scientists as they learn and grow this becomes a fairly rhetorical question. As scientist they simply come to see no value in such childish ideas, or maybe they have come to take to heart the philosophies of the Quantum Sciences that have gone so far to prove that in fact such forms of complete precision cannot exist. I am not one of these scientists, and I have not grown past such fallacies, adapting the more observable empirical truths.

I understand empiricism and the ability to explain what we see through adept observation. My only excuse is my ignorance, and my insolence to not accept that that everyone has prompted me to conform. My issues with the legislation however are not so deeply founded that I have somehow lost my way, or have simply denied the truth that has been time proven, again and again. My logic dictates to me that in fact I must continue to assess the validity of all claims and to find the deeper facts that insight the world to its present affirmation.

Without going too far in-depth about the subject--because really I can't--I would like to overview the universe that is currently in my pocket. I would like to set a few axioms that I feel--when applied--in fact allow for the ever more complex and the higher resolution of detail that we have become so familiar with in our life journeys.

The first axiom is really on par with conservation of energy but could simply be more generalized to the conservation of. The conservation of what? Well the conservation of the most basic unit of everything, a single unit, and I will call it one. But one is only relevant as an antagonistic pair and so it must have it's contrasting unit and that will be called not one. Not one is not zero but it is not two, but as the story goes one noticed not one and so there was two and life beget life and so on. As someone once said so adamantly "as scientist we deal with infinity all the time, and so it is trivial." The point here is that in the universe that is currently residing in my pocket there are ones and there and not ones and together they form sets and collections and from the more formal discipline of Set Theory we can derive the rest.

In light of all these ones and not ones we always seem to want to find the beginning of one and the end of one other. Axiom number two says that in fact there was no first one and there will never only be a not one so we will always have a one and the other, not one. The more deeper consequence of this axiom is the randomness that can be incurred during the go betweens. If one wishes to express that the universe in my pocket has somehow become trivialized they must simply note that it has become random. A universe completely devoid is in fact not empty of substance just empty of any meaningful substance.

Meaning of substance is where axiom number three comes into play. Axiom number three tries to place a limit on the size of our sets because as the universe goes if it is not somehow bound it becomes unbound and that can end as a rather ugly mess--occasionally on the floor. This is the axiom of scale and perceptibility. For randomness to be something something must simply recognize itself as is and accept that if it wishes to remain something it must do something about it. And scale here is where our bound existence meets my axioms and my axioms meet the observations that we make today. As scale goes we can zoom in and zoom out and in fact we could even overlay new meaning in how we wish to bind the ones and the not ones as something. This axiom however is very strict in its adherence to the axiom of conservation of in that all interactions cost either a one or a not one.

As the universe goes, I believe we will be sieving through the layers for some time until eventually what we find is just random and this is where many scientists believe we have come in our knowledge today. I don't believe this is in fact the case, I do believe that we will derive meaning for some time to come. What I do adhere to is the emergent properties we observe today, but as a consequence of the utmost of primitive of objects that, as they developed into somethings, they found new and higher meanings that define how we interact and how we are bound within our present state. As a scientist I feel it is necessary to reduce as well as to understand empiricism and the ability to explain what we see through adept observation. My choice here is to make my observations through a lens, a set of axioms that help me make the choices that I feel are necessary to progress through the message that we have written in the universe within my pocket.

Thank you for reading my piece!

Rebeka Fox Read and comment on the full post