Condensed Equation:
Hard Work Leads To Success
Elaborated Equation:
Hard Work Leads To Frustration. Frustration Leads To Insanity. Insanity Leads To Taking Big Risks. Taking Big Risks Leads To Success.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Why Hell is Inescapable
Reading Dante's Inferno really opened my eyes to something. I don't think the Bible gives any justification about why you can't get out of Hell once you're in there. I think it implies that you're there because you were bad, and you can't get out because you only get one chance to not be bad.
But Dante's Inferno gave me another idea that I felt was interesting enough to post. It gave me the idea that people in Hell never want to stop sinning. That's why they can't get out. If they suddenly decided to repent even in the depths of Hell, God's all powerful love would free them in an instant. But they don't want that. They want to continue to sin MORE than they want to be freed from the tortures of Hell. That's how much they love sin. And their afterlife is nothing more than a continuation of their life on earth. They sinned on earth more and more as they aged, craved it more and more, so much that before they even left earth they were already too wrapped up in it to ever let it go. They don't even need an external source of pain like flames to punish them. Letting them continue in their own sin is punishment enough. That's very clear in many cases of the TV show Intervention.
One may ask "God, why'd you create them then? Why didn't you just let them never be born so they wouldn't have to go through so much torture?" But if God in his mercy asked the Hell-dweller, "Hey, you want me to reverse time so you're never born, or give you a second chance or something?" They'd say heck no. They don't want God's help. They want sin's help. They trust that their own sin gets them out of Hell. That's why they keep pursuing that path indefinitely. And they refuse to be persuaded otherwise. They are exactly where they want to be. They don't want paradise because there's no sin there.
But Dante's Inferno gave me another idea that I felt was interesting enough to post. It gave me the idea that people in Hell never want to stop sinning. That's why they can't get out. If they suddenly decided to repent even in the depths of Hell, God's all powerful love would free them in an instant. But they don't want that. They want to continue to sin MORE than they want to be freed from the tortures of Hell. That's how much they love sin. And their afterlife is nothing more than a continuation of their life on earth. They sinned on earth more and more as they aged, craved it more and more, so much that before they even left earth they were already too wrapped up in it to ever let it go. They don't even need an external source of pain like flames to punish them. Letting them continue in their own sin is punishment enough. That's very clear in many cases of the TV show Intervention.
One may ask "God, why'd you create them then? Why didn't you just let them never be born so they wouldn't have to go through so much torture?" But if God in his mercy asked the Hell-dweller, "Hey, you want me to reverse time so you're never born, or give you a second chance or something?" They'd say heck no. They don't want God's help. They want sin's help. They trust that their own sin gets them out of Hell. That's why they keep pursuing that path indefinitely. And they refuse to be persuaded otherwise. They are exactly where they want to be. They don't want paradise because there's no sin there.
Why Evolution Vs. Creationism Isn't a Big Deal
When I first came upon the idea that light travels at the same speed no matter how fast you are uniformly traveling, I thought it was complete nonsense. Worse than I thought the study of cardinality was. Only this time, there was hard scientific evidence that this constant observed speed of light was true. It wasn't just a thought in someone's mind.
As futile as the task seemed, I sought to disprove the evidence for light's constant speed for a good solid amount of time before gradually coming to accept the truth of the evidence through personal library book research. But even though I accept it now, and special relativity was derived to explain how it can happen, it still shocks me to no end. And since then even crazier scientific truths have been found that still haven't been explained from what I've been told.
The double slit experiment with electrons comes to mind. You want to talk about tough to explain natural phenomena? That's it right there. That is much, much crazier than BOTH evolution AND creationism being 100% true. No matter how much those two ideas contradict each other, they still don't contradict each other as much as the one observation made in the double slit experiment with electrons contradicts itself. And no one, including me, has any reason to question the validity of the experiment. It's true, true, true as something can be. But it makes less sense than any fantasy the human mind can create.
So if reality is capable of contradicting itself that much, evolutionism and creationism being able to coexist in the realm of truth is nothing in comparison.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Wave-Particle Duality and Smearing
The other day, I thought that matter may perhaps not be confined to particles with a hard edge. Maybe electrons are more in the form of a 3-D smear instead of a 3-D sphere. I think that would explain why they have to be located statistically rather than through plain old extrapolation of the classical rules of physics. And the faster they move, the more they smear. In some ways a smear may resemble a wave. Maybe not in all ways, but some. I like the idea of a smear more than a string anyway. I think it makes more intuitive sense. Also it brings back the old debate about whether matter is continuous and infinitely divisible or not. Too bad this is just speculation and not a true mathematical model or real life experiment.
Characterism
If I recall correctly, I believe Martin Luther King Jr. stated his wish for a place where a man could be judged by the content of his character. I guess somebody somewhere would say he had a bigoted viewpoint because he condoned a form of judging. Rather than being a racist, he was a characterist. He advocated favorable treatment of those who had good character. I wish everybody was a characterist. But sadly, characterism seems to be frowned upon. I think many people may actually equate it with racism. What a sad mindset that is.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Easiest Way To Prove Primes Are Infinite
This may be more of an implication than a proof, but I think it's worth sharing because it's so easy to do and may provide a potentially useful algorithm. Certainly much easier than understanding the traditional proof of the infinitude of the primes in my opinion.
I call it counting by primes. Was I the first to invent it? Who knows.
Start with 2 and 3. Call 2 by the name P1 and 3 by the name P2.
Multiply P1 and P2 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 2. So you have everything from P1^0 times P2^0 all the way up to P1^2 times P2^2.
So in this case you'd have a combination of numbers like 1 x 2 = 2, 2 x 2 = 4, 3 x 2 = 6, etc.
Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes. Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates. When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers. Find the gap in between the lowest values. In this case, it should be the gap between 4 and 6. What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap? It's 5. Call 5 by the name P3.
Multiply P1, P2, and P3 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 3.
Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes (not just in this most recent step, but in all steps of the algorithm thus far). Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates. When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers. Find the gap in between the lowest values. In this case, it should be the gap between 6 and 8. What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap? It's 7. Call 7 by the name P4.
Multiply P1, P2, P3 and P4 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 4.
Wash, rinse, repeat, as I've heard the gamer Aqualung say. You'll find out that there's nothing to keep you from doing this forever, since even if there was no gap in the list, you could just pick the lowest number you haven't used yet as PN.
If there are typos here, or I messed something up, feel free to criticize. But I think you can get the general idea and that's what is important. Perhaps there's a flaw in the idea, but I don't see it. I'm definitely not the best mathematician. I remind myself of Winnie-the-Pooh. A bear of very little brain, but darnit, he likes to try and think. By the way, did you know Winnie-the-Pooh was created by a guy with a degree in mathematics?
I call it counting by primes. Was I the first to invent it? Who knows.
Start with 2 and 3. Call 2 by the name P1 and 3 by the name P2.
Multiply P1 and P2 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 2. So you have everything from P1^0 times P2^0 all the way up to P1^2 times P2^2.
So in this case you'd have a combination of numbers like 1 x 2 = 2, 2 x 2 = 4, 3 x 2 = 6, etc.
Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes. Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates. When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers. Find the gap in between the lowest values. In this case, it should be the gap between 4 and 6. What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap? It's 5. Call 5 by the name P3.
Multiply P1, P2, and P3 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 3.
Look at all the primes you have and all the composites you've generated with those primes (not just in this most recent step, but in all steps of the algorithm thus far). Generate an entire list, eliminating duplicates. When you've generated a list, you may see several gaps in between the numbers. Find the gap in between the lowest values. In this case, it should be the gap between 6 and 8. What's the value of the lowest missing number in this gap? It's 7. Call 7 by the name P4.
Multiply P1, P2, P3 and P4 in all possible combinations including repetition up to powers of 4.
Wash, rinse, repeat, as I've heard the gamer Aqualung say. You'll find out that there's nothing to keep you from doing this forever, since even if there was no gap in the list, you could just pick the lowest number you haven't used yet as PN.
If there are typos here, or I messed something up, feel free to criticize. But I think you can get the general idea and that's what is important. Perhaps there's a flaw in the idea, but I don't see it. I'm definitely not the best mathematician. I remind myself of Winnie-the-Pooh. A bear of very little brain, but darnit, he likes to try and think. By the way, did you know Winnie-the-Pooh was created by a guy with a degree in mathematics?
Monday, November 4, 2013
Walt Disney Variation
Walt Disney is quoted as saying, "If we can dream it, we can do it." I agree. But I'd also like to add, "Dreaming it is more fun than doing it." A lot of things you dream about doing are a real pain in the behind to accomplish. So much so that at times you may be tempted to just live in your imagination and not actually fulfill your dream. This isn't always a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)