spacetime inverses and 1-to-1 mapping

[labelwench]

For that we can blame it on a planet that allows clear nights for its inhabitants to gaze and to wonder the moon and the stars. If Earth was a planet with perpetual cloud cover then no Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, or Newton would have became historical figures of science. In China, there are more babies born 9 months after period of blackouts where after sunsets people stay indoors for lack of natural light. Incidentally, the perpetual cloud cover can also protect a planet from harmful radiations and consequently living things live longer and healthier as any deep sea creature would agree.

Blame it on the planet?

Now that's a most intriguing application of 'circumstantial evidence', and I grant you bonus points for that one.

Human nature arises from nature itself, and the options offered are those from which we may select our 'electives'.

I'm off to work for the present, and shall ponder more upon your reply.

Later......

[AntonioLao]

Thanks for the bonus points taken. Unfortunately, perpetually cloud covered planets have their own drawbacks. For example, it's impossible to view the surface of planet Venus since it is perpetually cloud covered and Venus is a good example of a runaway Greenhouse Effect. The temperature on its surface can liquify the metal lead. The best we can do is to understand the awesome power of nature and maybe work it to our advantage but never to change or to alter its natural course of action. The one I'm working on now is to make artificial rainfall and hopefully not harming the immediate surrounding natural ecosystems.

[Bogie]

Before we contemplate the universe, perhaps we should begin our ponders closer to home, if we hope to prolong such musings?

You have a sound natural wisdom if you ask me. I will offer the argument that by contemplating the universe and its forces we can do just that; it might just help us find ways to prolong our musings.

[AntonioLao]

the argument that by contemplating the universe and its forces

Since contemplation is synonymous to the primary basis of any form of religion, you have more than 5 billions people to backup your argument.

[Bogie]

Since contemplation is synonymous to the primary basis of any form of religion, you have more than 5 billions people to backup your argument.

That is comforting.

In addition to the religious who have contemplated their religion, contemplation can also be performed independent of any religion. The contemplation that I am referring to would be regarding forces that man can put to work to help us survive those things we do that are not helpful to our best interests.

[AntonioLao]

much of what you say remind me of the 'FORCE' in all episodes of Star Wars double trilogies. May the 'FORCE' be with you, always.

[SteveA]

You have more faith in our species than do I, Steve. Consider the fate of the buffalo and many other species now extinct.

Yes, I have a bit of faith in the general good intentions of people. I don't have as much that people can see past some of the manipulations they're exposed to in the name of the "common good".

You gave a great example of how "public" property tends to get trashed. Notice that buffalo are not extinct and why is that? Because private individuals, such as potentially yourself, have had interests in preserving them. If the fate of buffalo had been left to a democratic majority decision or some government committee to decide, then probability that buffalo would have become extent would have been even greater as you'd be balancing their fate on a collective 'die roll'.

Water and air pollution are inherently communal issues that need arbitration, but without someone asserting some value (I think the general rule of thumb for this is 'prior vested interest') then there would be no reason to even address these as they would damage nothing of value.

So it takes individuals with private interests and an ability to individually act and protect their own interests in order for any of this to work in the first place and that's actually the most effective target to shoot for. From there, people have the freedom to work together collectively (for example to establish a private preserve if that's what they deem most valuable)

It would obviously cause problems if we tried to protect all animals from being killed. For example, in Australia, should there be a national declaration as to whether or not everyone can or cannot take a kangaroo home for dinner?

I seriously doubt there are many people who would enjoy seeing every last kangaroo killed (ok, maybe there are a few with personal grudges LOL). The primary issue is one of arguments over resources that are in many ways - public. Two people can disagree as to what's a pollutant or not, though a lot of the conflicts are resolved when the public sphere is reduced and replaced with greater private diversity. I think we should spend less time worrying about the conditions which others prefer to live in and instead focus more on assuring individuals are free to form a greater diversity of collective endevours in this respect. If someone wants to see kangaroos or buffalo etc. running around and that's something they consider valuable enough to work toward, then they should do that, but we also have to be careful about such labor similarly intruding and becoming a problem for others who might have different preferences.

Yes, I do believe things work out quite well that way.

We may possess the intelligence to conduct ourselves otherwise, yet we seem to lack the will or capacity at the level that counts.

I think people have the desires, but part of what appears to incapacitate people is the manner in which people appear to rely on others to change things for themself. Noone knows better than oneself what's ideal, yet if we're always suppose to wait for a communal/government/"official" (whatever that is) response in order to do nothing more than we were already capable of doing, it's just stagnating - the left hand waits for the right and visa versa.

I believe it's often presented that governments have been trying to resolve a lot of these issues, but I'm much more skeptical of the good intentions of places that are focal points of power because of the natural manner these tend to attractive corruptive and controlling influences. Many public projects are "sold" via. some assumed benefit, but those selling it aren't the ones burdening the costs and oftentimes it just adds more power to that bucket and walks over lots of private/individual interests and via. force. The "feedback" mechanism (the police and courts) are part of the same entity (especially with what appears to be a push toward removing or apply very selective jury representations).

I don't believe I place the same level of faith in such collectively enforced institutions as you do.

Many individuals are making life-style choices based from a planetary impact perspective, while industries work from an economic bottom line viewpoint using resources that are not appropriately evaluated as to their 'true' cost.

Well if there are damages to the (prior vested) interests of others then those should be included but this requires a manner to determine what these are. Also, there don't solely exist damages, there are benefits as well and those should also be included. I don't expect all these influences would either easy to derive nor would there be complete ageement, but that's part of the reason why transactions should remain as local and private as possible. For example, if people in one area of a country, or from a different country altogether decided various cultural details of another area, well we might as well begin WW III and get it over with.

People should instead look at what their true interests are and especially those areas they already have a vested interest in. When someone elses actions become detrimental to this, then that's how we include those costs and keep things efficiently balanced and have those influences considered in the overall picture indirectly.

It's trying to place individual involvement/control over interactions and activities beyond their own interests that causes conflict as we have many chefs trying to cook each others stew.

[SteveA]

How may a can of mushrooms from China sell for 68 cents, when one factors in the cost of processing and transportation?

Impressive huh?

The impacts of the refining of the fuel and it's effect after combustion in both processing and transportation are nowhere factored in.

Actually a lot of these costs are already included. I'm certain it's not all there, but if there's some legitimate problem do you have specifics?

Notice that in many ways the "problems" are not real but socially conditioned and manipulative. (I personally see it as part of the push for greater global domination in fewer and fewer hands. Individuals, privacy and independence have become dirty words as these oppose globalizing influences. There are a lot of large industries - automotive, aerospace, energy, medical etc. and much of these have become to a large extent controlled via. government agencies. Notice that such control was forcibly acquired and not arising from an inherent benefit produced - it's basically military conquest on smaller scales. As this influence has increased, so have the levels of inefficiency and waste we have to tolerate. It's interesting to see how a continually greater quantity of work and sacrifice is required to suppose these "parasites".)

I love the manner in which most government services are provided - the usual "salespitch" for a problem is that the reason there's some scarcity is because people are consuming something. The private realm has the opposite view - for example, people working to have a restaurant don't tell customers that instead of eating, they should become less hungry, whereas many forms of tyrannic government use this approach and try to convince the populace that they can only blame themselves - (which is partly true as they allowed themselves to be subjected to that form of cultural/social abuse).

Additionally, it seems rather perverse that we import cheap food from nations where there are far more hungry people than in our own countries.

Why should we tell someone else that they can't work for a living as well? In a normal exchange, both parties are (or at least should feel) compensated. This is just the normal private everyday life of people. I don't see why poor countries can't exchange goods with other countries as well. Likely a large part of what they have to offer is agriculture.

I've seen similar (il)logic applied to minimum wage and arguments along the lines of "noone can raise a family off minimum wage" (somehow implying it should be increased) - but anyone who doesn't have an ability to take care of a family shouldn't get themself into that position, and additionally it can require more than a single person working to support one (imagine if a few people in a family wanted to work but none of them could because laws denied them working for less than minimum wage?! There we go, yet another drain on society and social injustice - yet commonplace and it appears to be continually drifting in the wrong direction ...)

The main problem I see more specifically related to your comment is that with the paper/plastic/virtual currency system we have physical resources can be exchanged for nothing valuable at all!! They get paper, we get food, but that's not because of private pressures (which have generally not been for fiat currencies) but because of, once again, enforced government institutions that restrict the freedom of people to exchange in ways they feel are most valuable (I wouldn't be surprised if someday even bartering becomes illegal ... at least not without a "license" LOL ... as if people had to ask permission to simply live or work ... and probably they'll want that one too - you must get permission to work and a "right to work" will be considered a social priveledge)

Maybe I'm just biased, having known lean times in my youth and not finding the experience one that I would care to repeat or wish upon another. We are such a wasteful society that it boggles my mind.

I actually agree on most all accounts and I do empathize. I also feel that there are many solutions but that it takes getting out of all the brainwashed stereotypes and seeing reality first-person centered. If people base their actions upon what they imagine some virtual social structure would desire their actions to be, then unless they both have incredible insight, good intentions and a lot of intelligence they're likely going to be either easily manipulated by propaganda or often acting contrary to others interests simply via. ignorance.

If instead people concentrate on their own 1 on 1 interactions with others, the influences are clearly seen and any need to coordinate these on larger scales still never goes beyond those local interactions (Here and Now).

Yes, politics is definitely one of those subjects that I have lots of sensitive spots regarding (as you know ).

I'm not trying to be mean, it's just frustrating seeing the way things are and watching the way they continue to head and how many people appear to be sheep being led in a direction that doesn't appear to be very good.

Then again, who knows, maybe I've got it all wrong and I'm just missing something. I recognize there are gray areas where it's not easy to draw a clear line, but for many issues we're not where near that and if we managed to get things back to where it was just those gray areas, that would be great.

The issue of intellectual property has ever been an interesting one to me, for more than one person may arrive at a similar understanding simultaneously, and then to whom should the benefits accrue?

Also consider that noone really derives the entire thing - things are oftened layered and derived from previous work.

In your specific example, notice that with patents someone can just sit on an idea and do little with it, whereas without them, it's important to not only release the idea soon, in case someone else comes up with it, but you couldn't impede others via. government patent laws by not releasing it - if someone else discovered it after you, but you were trying to hold on to it and squeeze the most you could out of it, too bad, it provides no "service" to other people by constraining them.

Notice that patents in themselves only directly impede things. There is no direct benefit to them at all - police, courts and lawyers don't build or invent things beyond paperwork, hassles and captivity etc. The only imagined benefit is indirect in that it's conceived such artificial treatment of concepts and information as property that should not be duplicated/learned/utilized (not that such duplication/copying is not "theft" in a physical sense at all and does not remove any ability for someone to utilized their own ideas - the label as "theft" and "piracy" I believe is encouraged by the institutions that desire these informational constraints exist and so they analogize it with something physical being stolen. Ones belief that there exists a future market and profits etc. for ones ideas does not create a reality in which those imagined future markets and transactions are actually owned/controlled by oneself - there are a lot of other people out there. For example, if someone patents an idea, do they ever bother to check if others are working on similar ideas first? Realistically they couldn't and the person trying to get the patent should actually be the one to pay for the priveledge of having others not compete against them. There's no benefit to others in having police/government actions taken against them.)

[SteveA]

Anna and Steve, much of what said show vividly the human mind interaction with the external world. Fundamentally, this interaction might not be in a 1-to-1 correspondence in the sense that if we give something we expect to get something back and hopefully we get more than what we gave never to get less of our efforts. Nonetheless, life's experiences have shown just the opposite. The external world expect more than what we can give but it never tells what it really wants just like a passive aggressor. We have to guess all of the time. For example, the law of gravity. As a child would realize too late that it can hurt or get killed jumping over a great height but still human daredevils would do the stunts.

Regarding the Hadamard matrices, they are just extension of the rotation matrices of classical transformations (translation, reflection, dilation, contraction, etc.) to describe double rotations at the infinitesimal domain of spacetime. Relativistically, imaginary complex domains were used by Einstein and others but I replaced them with only real components for the elements of the matrices and there are no zero elements except for the null matrix of all zero elements used to describe certain states of dynamic equilibrium such as mass zero and charge zero.

I agree with you very much!!! Thank you for saying it!

We imagine what the "dictator" wants (when it's just a social construct that we can't even physically see) and then may attempt to appease/satisfy that, but a lot of the actual dictators in history may have been almost involuntarily put into a position of power simply because people want to feel as if they're being led.

Of course a tolerance for aggression doesn't help a culture much in avoiding tyranny. Notice that most the time someone pulls a gun on someone else we'd consider that a threat and one that could prompt a response, whereas if it was an icon of authority, such as a uniformed police officer, then it's often left as "must be something justified" (and often the details show it's not).

I'm not trying to say that people don't need manners to collectively coordinate but this should be directly "Here" and "Now" and 1 on 1 in the typical local/private environment that people naturally live in. Trying to extrapolate about imagined crimes (or justices) somewhere else is just asking for problems unless someone truly has some incredible intelligence and insight to truly know all the details going on everywhere in the world (I'll leave that for something else).

So, yes, in a sense we follow the equivalent of physical laws influencing our actions, yet they're largely just imagined (but with a real influence on actions - hence they become physically real due to beliefs and mental inertia).

[SteveA]

Thanks for the bonus points taken. Unfortunately, perpetually cloud covered planets have their own drawbacks. For example, it's impossible to view the surface of planet Venus since it is perpetually cloud covered and Venus is a good example of a runaway Greenhouse Effect. The temperature on its surface can liquify the metal lead. The best we can do is to understand the awesome power of nature and maybe work it to our advantage but never to change or to alter its natural course of action. The one I'm working on now is to make artificial rainfall and hopefully not harming the immediate surrounding natural ecosystems.

Venus isn't really a runaway greenhouse effect. It's atmosphere is dense and it's much closer to the Sun. It never cooled.

I did some calculations before and if we had an atmosphere like venus, ignoring the fact that we'd likely die within a minute from the extreme acidity and pressure, the poles would actually likely be at livable temperatures!

The amount of CO2 it would take to do this though would require that we increase CO2 production by about a factor of 250,000 (which means human influences would have to increase by about a million to 1 ).

And then in order to actually make that happen (if for some reason it was a great game plan!) we'd have to additional stop a lot of the carbon sinks from growing.

It might be easier to just move Earth closer to the sun.

Oh, BTW, this summer has been especially cool ... too bad we're already on a runaway course toward global warming (I've noticed they changed it to "Climate Change" now ... is it unusual that the climate changes? I always thought that was a natural component of climate)

It's just the latest scam over controlling energy (a large part of the military actions taken in WW II were over controlling oil production ... it's still going, just on larger scales).

Then again, it's interesting to consider how much of this could be made possible by beliefs in it as well (if people didn't know that they weren't suppose to use various energy resources ... well then the controls effectively disappear. In a similar sense, someone could write a law on a piece of paper, but if people simply didn't bother to learn it ... what do you know ... its "real" influence simply disappears )