Skip to content

Found Newman

I loath drama. Lawlz is fine, drama is not fine. It’s either annoying or stupid or arrogant or all of the above. Obsessing over dramas is also annoying. However, this one exception is most definitely worth it. The Lost finale has an interesting portrayal frankly far better and more poignant than most anything else out there. You can skip through the whole series, and most of the finale, all you need is about the last 45 minutes or so. It gives probably one of the best nutshells to ponder on where and why q’s to life, but the cross/back-flashes remind you to ponder what now really is.

The “why are you here” – “better question why are you here” could very well be a lot closer to the way it works than we may give it credit. At least it tracks with the notion of a persistent consciousness. There’s an intrinsic assumption, that based on a finite now, then must be a discretely different, with a distinct cognitive state change. If the cognitive state though is (for all intents) formed at whatever point into a static state, then the assumption is that the sensory mechanisms are what vary. Of course those are highly contextual as well. A tangent here: at least at shuttle orbital elevations, actual gravity is not massively reduced, instead the ‘true’ context is one of inertial equilibrium in a reduced friction environment. Returned to the philosophical realm, do we have a methodology for logical evaluation of our sensory limitations?

At some fundamental level, all sensory systems within our finite rational model inevitably deteriorate back into proto-Heisenberg/Newtonian-phsyics models abstractly diagrammed in Boolean logic. Consider as a reference coordinate geometry. Because of these limitations in logical processes, there results a millenia-old cascade of limitations in behavior and systems. We have many new novel methodologies for optimization of these classical system, but little serious work is done to identify or develop unshackled replacements. In data models for example, we have constructs such as b-leaf and quad tree databases which provide a method of optimization by filtering ‘clutter’ based on hierarchical models.

What no rational system has however is a ‘self-existent’ system and model where the objects are transformed from data and resources to self-existent, self-referential, and self-authoritative entities. Quantum computing is alleged to begin to provide options, but in all seriousness most effort is is focused at multi-state systems as a concurrent expansion of Boolean models. Stateless systems, where data is self-modeling and self-processing, is very much an (assumed) irrational study.

Other technologies, eg XML, make an assumption that by wrapping the object in additional ‘rich’ data – often at the cost of enormous overhead – that model and processing can become integral. In many cases however, as we’re beginning to see a backlash, this increasing becomes an encumbrance and creates a negative burden on the whole system.

Perhaps clues can be found in studies of fluid systems, where the morphology and dynamics of non-resting dynamic systems results in evaluations of the whole states as opposed to the discrete points, can provide some insights into methods of alternate rationalization.