tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74582382024-03-07T01:35:53.865-05:00Tj's ThoughtsThe insane ramblings of a disgruntled genius.Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-54676853202622449292010-06-29T23:15:00.000-04:002010-06-29T23:15:04.870-04:00Nature of reality - Part II: Nothing Well sorry for the long wait. Finally I decided to suck it up and finish this. It’s not that I did not want to, but merely that my mind wanders and I find it difficult to keep it in one place for a long time.<br />
<br />
Today I shall follow my post on Infinity, and explore a similar yet very different creature, nothing. Most people would imagine that the concept of nothing is not that new, in fact even to me it seems rather ridiculous that the number 0, was not something people used until the Indians thought it up. However much like infinity, there is a vast difference between 0 the number and the philosophical concept of nothingness. If we were to truly understand reality, I think this is a very important concept, so here is shall explore it.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The concept of zero </span></span></h2><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Curiously the best place to start, is the start of the use of the number zero. Why was it that only during aryabatta's time was 0 a number. Why was it that of all the cultures and civilisations before that, no one decided to use 0 as a number. The concept of 0, came about in philosophy and math, due to the Buddhists, who saw it as a requirement to truly describe reality. This is the concept of sunyata शून्यता (shuunyatha; -tha is basically -ness), nothingness. (The number zero is now even in Hindi and other languages some derivation of the word शून्य (shuunya)). The concept of zero at the time was essentially "what do you get when you take something from itself" or in other words "the result of subtracting any given number from itself". In mathematics, this seems to be an obvious concept you will encounter once you start subtracting. This also lead to the use of negative numbers as we know it. Of course the main use of zero was as a place holder in the number system. And up until very recently its true nature was never analysed</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. However I shall not go into the mathematical details about the exploration of 0 as a number in set theory and calculus. However wikipedia, I am sure can enlighten anyone who wishes to know more. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At this point however I must explain that there seems to be at least two kinds of nothingness, much like infinity (perhaps more).</span><br />
<br />
<ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Zero: The number 0, usually described as (x - x) in mathemematical terms. This concept has, some say, the property that, x/0 is infinity. The concept of x/0 being infinity comes from calculus.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">शून्य (shuunya): This is the concept of void. As I shall describe below is a little different from the concept of zero above. shuunya cannot be divided, there is nothing to divide, for one.</span></li>
</ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The latter concept is the one I shall talk about from here on, the former has pretty much been explored to no end by mathematicians.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A brief note on SPEAKING OF NOTHING</span></span></h2></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></h2><div>So how do we speak of shuunyata? It is usually spoken of as a negation, as in "no-thing". Meaning if i do not speak to you at all, i am speaking nothing to you. (This is an odd way of putting it but you will see why in short while). I feel this is a rather grievous error made by our minds, that are unable to cope with the concept of nothingness. Whilst people may disagree, I shall speak of nothing as a positive concept. Think for a minute about the previous example about speaking nothing, it doesn't make sense to say that i spoke nothing to you, that is different from not speaking to you at all. For example I have not, as of yet, spoken to Barack Obama, can you then say that i spoke nothing with him (this seems to convey the message that I did indeed attempt a conversation but no words were exchanged). </div><div><br />
</div><div>This becomes important when you consider the concept of universal nothingness. Do we simply keep saying, not this not this, as the later upanishadic writers did? (नेति नेति - neti neti = not (this) not (this)), or do we begin to explore nothing as a concept, very much like infinity but very different at the same time. I chose the latter, the reasons for this will become more and more obvious by the the end of this post or even the next one, but for now, let us just say that it is not usually done, so I decided to try it</div><h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></h2><h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">THE UNIVERSAL NOTHINGNESS</span></h2></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The interesting thing about nothing, is that it is...well nothing. As such, it is no-thing. Thus no concept of a finite thing can ever be satisfactory, because, after all, nothing is no finite thing, by definition. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let us now consider something that is not usually delved into, the universal nothingness. Nothing is solely defined, since the time of the buddha, as a lack of things. This is very much akin to the concept of zero (c.f. above), as such a localised nothingness. No apples, means a lack of apples, no humans means a lack of humans. Now what happens if i simply say nothing..simply "No *" (* is computer terminology for anything), this is the true nothingness, the universal nothing. First off, we know that no amount of talking can ever describe "No *" since well, it is not anything we know. However, consider this, how do you divide this universal nothing? In mathematics we say that 0/X = 0; however i feel that this is not appropriate for the concept of universal nothingness. Arguably if you have nothing and you are dividing it between 5 people each will not get anything. But this seems to be a mistake people make. As I said before, I shall be considering nothing as a positive concept, and not one of negation. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Consider also, the fact that if we have a void (universally nothing), there is nothing there to give it dimensions (a concept of space, which is a thing), no time, since time is a thing. And essentially nothing that can be divided, how do you divide something that is not even there? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All in all the confusion arises from the fact that, nothing, being not-thing, cannot be aptly assigned a property, since well a property must be assigned to something, and there is nothing to assign it to. This is not a hard concept or one borne out of complex philosophy, merely a common sense definition of the words property and something.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nothingness, has no dimensions. Clearly, like i said, there is nothing there, not even dimensions, it is a 0 dimensional object. It can also be not divided, as i said. However this seems to be similar to the interesting property of true infinity from last time. The plot gets thicker if you consider that neither infinity nor zero are truly finite numbers, they both seem to come up time and time again when you work with the other, and frankly anything that is zero dimensional is pretty much infinite in weight, by mathematical standards. (c.f. division by 0, in modern math). </span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now what will really mess with your head is this: if existence is defined only for things that are finite, and as such, things that are "things" and more specifically things that exist, then nothing does not exist, since it is none of these things that exist. If we take a set of all of that which can be described as a "thing" then nothing, is by definition none of those (it is also none of a lot of other things that may not be included in that set, depending on how you define existence of course, the set could differ), but in order to exist there has to be something to exist.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18px; text-transform: uppercase;">THE BLACK HOLE </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-large; line-height: 18px; text-transform: uppercase;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A true glimpse at nothingness, in my opinion, is a black hole, for at the centre lies something that is unimaginable, a singularity. What is a singularity? A point in space time that has infinite density and 0 volume. Now most people would consider 0 volume to be enough to describe nothing, in the end it is, but a singularity is a rather dramatic example, and dramatic concepts are often nice to use to convey a point. A black hole is simply that, a hole in space-time. No amount of things being put in there, is ever going to change what it is like. However, this seems to be too close to the concept of true infinity, which, as i demonstrated in the previous post, cannot be changed by addition or subtraction. However it is, something that people think of when thinking of nothing. The singularity, has no dimensions, and as such, can only be (for the most part) be detected by a lack of objects, but a presence is felt(for example there is a gravitational field there, but seemingly nothing to exert it), much like nothingness or even the concept of zero, which is usually spoken of in negation, but still used every single day.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444;">Next Time</span></span></span></b></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444;"><br />
</span></span></span></b></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I shall leave you today with this, and come back next time, to describe in more details the mysterious connection between shuunyata (universal nothingness) and aditi (true infinity). The whole black hole thing will prove useful then, I am sure. So, please excuse my delay while I once again prepare for another post; "The infinitely nothing".</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-29622844104862812412010-06-06T15:25:00.003-04:002010-06-17T12:54:46.980-04:00Nature of reality - Part I: The Infinite<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">For a while now the concept of infinity has been bothering me. Not because I have encountered it in my studies and unable to get rid of it, as is sometimes the case with physicist/meta-physicists (c.f. the history of Quantum Electro Dynamics for example). But, rather, specifically because others have, and decided to circumvent the issue. In this first in a series post, I shall try to explore the nature of that which is seldom explored out of fear and uneasiness...</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7458238&postID=2962284410486281241" name="more" style="color: #0000cc; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;"></a></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><a name='more'></a></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Most people, including scientists, the so called leaders of knowledge of our time, feel uneasy when talking about infinity. I know some of my fellow philosophers who are usually unafraid to delve into deep philosophical rants about anything, are wary of infinity. This leads to a rather interesting effect, wherein infinity becomes more of a legendary creature that no one dare approach or stay with for a long time, lest they loose their sanity. Most believe infinity to be an ugly side effect of our ever increasing mathematical field and thought. And even worse, is the fact that, today unlike before, the leaders of knowledge are the scientists and not the philosophers, which means that the ones who are at the forefront are NOT those who are unafraid of overstepping thier boundaries, or being a little insane in order to try and find out the truth. Science, as we all know, is a rather controlled dogmatic version of philosophy, nothing wrong in that, thats probably why science can get somewhere (computers technology etc) and philosophy cannot, but that might be our undoing, for no scientist in his right mind would try to analyse a concept so crazy as the nature of the non-finite. How can you, science is all about finite mathematics...</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><h2 style="color: #333333; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Types of Infinity</span></span></h2><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Of course, as a concept, it was not merely a side effect of certain mathematical calculations, an inevitability to our ever growing thoughts. Originally it was a rather deliberately constructed concept to describe the ultimate reality as an ancient culture saw it. (more on this later).</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Regardless a lot of people I fear, misunderstand the concept of infinity. And whenever it is encountered even within math formulaes it is usually ignored (c.f. history of QED). Most of what is said in this and the next posts in this series, is my own personal opinion, formed from studying both physics as well as metaphysics of those cultures who were unafraid to go beyond the framework set by logic and science.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Infinity comes in many varieties, anyone who studied it agrees on that much, from the ancient indians who gave us modern numbering system and 0 and the infinity, to modern mathematicians and number theorists. At least this much is agreed upon, here are what i feel are the basic kinds:</span></span></div><div><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 2.5em; padding-right: 2.5em; padding-top: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">असंख्य (asankhya): means ennemarable, however असंख्येय [asankhyeya] (another form of the same root word) is actually 10^140, in Buddhist mathematics (Basically an improvement on vedic math). So this can be seen as essentially a very very large number. Not truly infinity of course, but usually what you would encounter when I am talking about infinity in say Optics. An infinite distance in optics is often just a very very long distance in comparison to the size of the lens.</span></span></li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">अनन्त (ananth): the endless, this may be closer to what we think of as infinity, a number that is endless. And could be possibly taken to represent the concept of a mathematical infinity. In mathematics infinity is usually used to denote a unbounded number (i.e. a process that keep on growing).</span></span></li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">अदिति (aditi)/पूर्णम (purnam) : aditi originally means boundless and unbroken, and purnam means "full-(ness)". These two concepts are slightly different from a modern mathematical defenition of infinity, since as far as I know modern mathematics does not strictly define infinity in any way. However depending on you interpretation and field or mathematics, this can be taken as a mathematical infinity. However the thing with this number, that makes it different from all the rest, is that, this number is an "open infinity" i.e. it is boundless both ways. This gives rise to this rather interesting formulae:</span></span></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">पूर्णमद: पूर्णमिदं , पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदाच्याते</span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय, पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(That is) whole (This is) whole, (From that) whole (this) whole arises/comes out of</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">when (this) whole is (thusly) taken from (that) whole, (what remains is still) that whole.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 2.5em; padding-right: 2.5em; padding-top: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.25em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is basically the following mathematical concept:∞ - ∞ </span></span><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">≠ 0. </span></span></span><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Where 0, is defined as the number that the result of subtracting any finite number from itself. However (i feel) that the last form of infinity would suffice for this concept of a number or idea that when taken from itself, would still remain as if untouched. The last numeber is better defined, as the buddhists did, by negation rather than an actual defenition, i.e. it is NOT a finite thing, take everything you know and can know, the true infinite is none of those.</span></span></span></li>
</ul><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There are of course many other kinds of infinities, by the 4th centuary AD the indians had at least 6-9 different kinds/words floating around to describe infinity, in conceptually different ways.</span></span></span></div><h2 style="color: #333333; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7458238&postID=2962284410486281241" name="TOC-The-truly-infinite...." style="color: #0000cc; font: normal normal normal 18px/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;"></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">The truly infinite....</span></span></h2><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The most important one is the last kind, the truly infinite. A rather interesting side effect of being boundless, is that by definition it is boundless, which means that there can be no boundaries or conditions (since conditions set a limit on the conditioned) of any kinds set on this concept. The Vedic sages, called this "unconditioned", in other words, any condition put on the boundless/true infinity would yield it being less than truly infinite (or boundless). Which in turn means that there is nothing greater. The concept of greater come from the lesser being lacking in some way (i.e. it is lacking something in other words is bound in some way). For example, I am bound by my young age, whereas the earth is not. But both are bound by age, i.e. both will at some point perish, the fate of anything finite.</span></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Now the funniest thing about true infinity, comes from the fact that it is unlike any finite number, i.e. it does not, no matter how many times you divide it, yield anything lesser than itself. Infinitesimally diving up the truly infinite will do you absolutely no good in terms of getting you somewhere. The other interesting thing comes up when you consider an object with such a property, of being truly infinite.</span></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">A finite object has a finite number of properties, and as such, MUST have a finite number of possibilities and properties. There are only so many ways of thinking about it etc. Being a finite object we are bound by its finitude. One simply cannot have a finite object that is infinitely big, or infinitely good, that is bogus, since then the object would be infinite (not necessarily truly infinite though). Interestingly enough, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">a</span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> truly infinite object</span></b>, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">is bound by its infinitude. Since a truly infinite object is necessarily boundless and infinite (by definition), as a whole it must retain such a state, putting conditions of any kind on a truly infinite object will yield in it becoming less than truly infinite (for example a truly infinite object with a beginning is merely endless not truly infinite). </span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Note here that there is "infinite object" and then there is "truly infinite" object</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. keeping in line with the definitions of the different kinds of infinity above.</span></span></div><h2 style="color: #333333; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px;"> <br />
<br />
<h2 style="color: #333333; font: normal normal bold 1.5em/normal Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 7px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">What it all means</span></span></h2><div><br />
</div></span></span></h2><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Why does this matter? Well it doesn't for now. But this is often an overlooked thing about the nature of infinity. For example how can God (assuming he exists) a truly infinite being, be bounded by the nature of good? That would make him less than truly infinite. Akin to Descartes' own argument about the necessity of the existence of an infinite being, a god who is not bound by good is greater (in a way) than one that is, for the latter is smaller at least in that the latter cannot do things that the former can (for example things that are outside the realm of "good"). So while the latter (god that is bound) may be considered to be infinite (using the loose definition of the term, he may be endless and without beginning etc.), he cannot be considered to be truly infinite, since there can by defenition be nothing outside/greater than the truly infinite, since that would imply you found something that bounded the truly infinite, making the thing that is greater greater due to it not having said bound. This becomes even more important when you consider the possibilities of quantum superpositions for an infinite object. More on that on part 3, or possibly part 4.</span></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></b></i> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444;">Next Time</span></span></span></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444;"><br />
</span></span></span></b></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For now I shall leave you with this. Next time: the possible anti-thesis of today's topic....and an even more misunderstood creature...NOTHING.</span></span></div></div></span></div></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-51027831039104037582010-06-03T20:24:00.002-04:002010-06-07T21:52:48.505-04:00My lessons in sanskrit, and Google IMEFor those of you who are not yet aware, I am slowly learning sanskrit. The reason for the speed (or lack of speed as it were) is due to the fact that, I suck at learning languages the school way. Give me a bunch of TV shows and music in that language, and I will learn naturally. Kinda hard to do for a dead language though... :(<br />
well there is good news though....<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The good news is however that iit madras has a nice website up with some lessons, however these lessons are not even close to the "school method" of learning. For one, the sandhi (which is "how-to-join words") is taught much later, and sanskrit is like german, you construct sentances by joining words together like a train....<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Another good news is that Google IME is now available for Windows7 (64 bit). IME means Input Method extender. It is basically something that sits on top of your basic typing stuff and pops up with a little thing as you type (think auto correction from your cellphone), the good thing about this is, it is very useful to type in other languages, since Google's IME (as seen from translate.google.com, a site embedded with their IME for non english languages) is completely transparent, meaning if i want to write 'Tejas' in hindi i write 'T''E''J''A''S' and ' ' and it will change to तेजस.... cool huh? Try it if you want to enter stuff in non english scripts and are tired of trying to memorise new keyboard layouts (as is often the case for such languages as they will change the layout as is convenient for that language: for example in hindi the home row would have no need for ; and ' but instead will have a "ya" sound or a "ta" sound). </div><div><br />
</div><div>Well thats it for now, just wanted people to know about google's IME and translation services. try it out, it is now available for all version of windows. Simply google "google IME" and choose your language. Unlike keyboard layout changes, you are transliterating english into the other langauge so just type what you want in the roman script and press space. Downloading the IME has the additional advantage that there is a pop up (much like the auto-correct thing on cell phones nowadays) that has a list of words in the target language close sounding to what you typed in english, and you choose. </div><div><br />
</div><div>So here is my first post with devanagari in it: (means, this post is in hindi).</div><div><br />
</div><div>ये विज्ञापनपत्र हिंदी मे है |</div><div><br />
</div><div>That second word means post (as in something that is posted on notice board etc.) </div><div><br />
</div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span">P.S: From here on out, any post with #Posts_With_Devnag tag has devanagari script in it somewhere, usually all devanagari script can be ignored if you cannot read it, it will be translated as above.</span></b></div>Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-33006886326095165022010-03-30T08:14:00.000-04:002010-06-03T21:10:39.560-04:00Profiles and AppearencesIn proposing his transcendental idealism philosophy Immanuel Kant, had come to face with a small little realisation: Our minds do not in fact simply present us with what it receives through the senses, but rather places it in a neat framework so we better understand. Many philosophers before and after Kant have agreed with this, perhaps our mind is ill equipped to deal with reality without this framework, perhaps we can never see reality without this censor in the way, some still believe that with reason and thought we can however, experience reality for what it is, and see beyond the frameworks of our minds.<br /><br />The truth of the matter is, anyone who has thought about this even a little bit will start to realise that our minds DO tend to put things into a framework, the most obvious one is categories. Leibniz and Kant themselves dealt with this, and so did many others, "categories". It simplifies things, and helps us go about our daily routine without so much as an extra thought for the discrepancies in these categories. We all do it; "all chinese are bad drivers", "all fat people are unhealthy", I've even heard "all teenagers do drugs" and "all boys are sex addicts". The greatest minds of our age have struggled with the fact that all our minds tends to work categorically, divide things into generic categories and deal with the categories, whenever there are large number of things to deal with.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />In fact this is a common tactic used in video games or computer animation where one has to animate a lot of objects (say a large army) in one screen, of course the need to do this rather than animate every object singularly dies down as computers get more and more capable and powerful, but it is still done. The objects are divided into types, you have the "guys on a horse" the "archers" the "foot soldiers" and all the objects of the type are animated singularly with one script, there are usually 4 or 5 types in a small group so you wont notice, and most of the time one would expect a large army to move as a singular group, so this gives you that illusion as well. <br /><br />But where does this get us? I mean sure this is useful for animation, but should we carry this to other aspects of life? Most of us do without even realising, we call it by different names "racism", "sexism", "stereotyping", "discrimination" or more officially "profiling"; the latter word is used officially since the other ones have a bad connotation, but let me tell you my dad is an expert on this and I've seen him do it since I was a child, it is nothing but an educated form of "judge a book by its cover" (do you remember being told very specifically by your mother to *not* do precisely that? I definitely do... I wonder what happened!?!)<br /><br />Personally I try to avoid people who do this for a living, who judge by appearance. There is a very subtle difference between reading visual cues to ones personality (such as what you would read about in Sherlock Holmes, or see Dr. House doing) and actually basing your treatment of an individual wholly upon how he looked the first time you saw him. Most educated people I know things love at first sight is BS, so why should hate at first sight be a true thing?<br /><br />I'm not sure if any of you readers have seen my pictures, I tend to look a little, shabby (for a lack of a better word). I am really not, in fact my computer is exceedingly ordered, and so is my desk in its own way, if even a single thing is misplaced in my desk I will know it (yes it looks like a jungle, but everything is nevertheless in a specific place, at least as long as I don't absent mindedly misplace them). My roomies joke around telling me that when I grow my hair I look like a terrorist. Most people ask me, why it is that i don't cut my hair, why it is that I almost intentionally look shabby, after all, I am told by many, I clean up good. I usually tell people that its because i dont like having my haircut, or because my hair keeps me warm. The real reason is that I don't care for people who judge by appearance, my shabby appearance ensures that those who I interact with are at least mature enough to speak to me before they judge me as a druggie or a homeless guy or a terrorist. <br /><br />The strange thing is people are so fake, You can never tell if they are indeed OK with the way you look and are dressed, for their entire lives people here have been taught to smile and nod politely, that it is rude to point and stare, or tell people off simply because of how they look. However all they are taught is not to 'not judge people' but to judge people but keep it to themselves and never let the person know. So I can never really say with certainty that most people my age and my colleagues don't have a problem with my appearance or attire, but as far as I can tell the only ones that Do seem to are my people from my parents' generation, the generation who are at the top of the ladder today, the CEO's of companies, the 35 year old who interviews you for a job. Of course the lowly worker will have no problems, he probably has seen worse, he's probably done some occasional drugs and has some buddies that are pretty rotten, but they are his buddies, and he cannot afford to push people away due to his social status.<br /><br />But again where does this leave us? It leaves us with a society of people who judge solely by appearance who are so hypocritical as to profess deep meaningful relationships and conversations, but judge without straying their eyes away from a face. We live in a society where the those in power have all the power to make or break a new comer, but they are not wise as you would hope from someone in such a position. We live in a society where everyone is forced to wear pretences, forced to hide their true selves under masks of uniformity for the fear that one little hair out of place might get them judged forever as a sinner, as an outcast. We live in a society where a perfectly happy middle aged woman trying to get to her children in time for the holidays is made to wait in a small room at the airport with no communication for 1 hour, simply because of her skin tone and the perhaps the fact that she got up on the wrong side of bed that day. We live in a society where, the petty and shallow have the power to make it so you have to pay 700 of your hard earned dollars to simply take a valid flight out to see your own parents simply because you were too busy with studies to remember to cut your hair. We live in a society where materialism and corporate greed is second to none and the idiots are the ones who answer to none, while the ones with experience and wisdom know better than to meddle in the affairs of a dying age, and thus they disappear into meaningless jobs, into jobs where they do not have to worry about such things as the state of humanity and of people, we live in a place where those that can make a difference are either so tired trying to, or have basically started to ignore the issues of the world at large and live out their meager lives as far away from societies grander problems as possible, shoving everything under some carpet somewhere knowing that they only have to bear with this nonsense once in a while for 50 years or so, and after that they will have the sweet victory of death. Those of us that are philosophically inclined enough to be unable to ignore these issues either go insane and kill ourselves, kill others, or in some way become anti social, perhaps psychopathic.<br /><br />I once talked about this to my step sister, and she told me something that has struck me as a rather interesting train of thought that seems to permeate all of society; "yea I recognise that its fucked up, but there is not much one person can do, and besides there is no other way for society to function". I guess most people are drilled to accept societies unreasonable rules and function just like everybody else, riduculing the different, so much so that, as we grow up it becomes an inseperable part of our natures.<br /><br />This world is a rather beautiful place, sadly we as a society tend to complicate it, and corrupt it in a manner of speaking, we have unnecesarry institutions, unneeded stereotypes and oversimplifications which only make things more complex, we have an education system that teaches a child to be an unquestioning robot for society. Ever notice how philosophy - the discipline know to be one that raises radical questions and fosters creativity and critical analysis of everything, is rather dead?<br /><br />I ask those of you to read this to realise this and other flaws in our system, every system has flaws, it is something you learn as a programmer, the job of a systems admin or a programmer is to maintain the system, and fix any flaws that crop up, keep it to the minimum. But there will always be flaws, always be ways to better the system. Realise this, and stand up. The next time you see someone being unjustly stereotyped, explain why it is wrong, don't just accept it is a part of life and move on. The next time you have to stand in line for 3 hours to fill out a form for something you should have to begin with, do not think of it part of life, but question it. Maybe just maybe, if enough people realise, we can change before it is too late for us or our future generations.<br /><br />-TjTjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-83874841501548569252010-02-10T23:50:00.000-05:002010-06-03T20:45:31.231-04:00The little robot that could.....<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(176, 176, 176); line-height: 16px; font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p>So i recently got into the android craze, google fanboy that i am. Got an <a title="HTC Hero" href="http://htc.com/hero" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(253, 90, 30); text-decoration: none; ">HTC Hero</a>. LOVE IT. So far. SenseUI is just beautiful. I only wish that they would come up with 2.1 fast… DAMN YOU HTC. That being said I now have more online presence. Follow me on twitter @TjPhysicist… <img src="http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" style="margin-top: 7px; margin-right: 7px; margin-bottom: 7px; margin-left: 7px; " />. Or just click on the "About me" page, for a link to my google profile/Google Buzz.</p><p>Keep you posted more about Android as the days go by.</p></span>Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-62583122055800549812009-07-15T22:21:00.000-04:002010-06-03T20:48:49.221-04:00A little storyIn the tradition of all the eastern philosophers and guru's, here is a nice story to explain the concept of God, and reality.<br /><br /><blockquote>A little cell was floating by on a river. It was very young, and like anything that is young, it was full of wonder. Now this wonder caused it to explore the entire place and it found there were things just like it in shape and manner, it called treated them as fellow travellers. There were also things that were greater than it, and it recognised the greatness and worshiped and idolised it, like all other little cells, it wished to be bigger and greater, but it also feared those who were greater and thus worshiped it. These it called God.<br /><br />It felt after a while a presence, in the universe, a sort of uniting force, an intelligence of a sort, that makes everything the way it is, and makes things run, this force is what caused its friend to die, it is what caused him to become alive.<br /><br />Suddenly the whole universe shook, as if protesting to protect its very existance...and then nothing.<br /><br />A fish is eaten... </blockquote>Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-52070283953324187482007-11-12T06:41:00.000-05:002010-06-03T21:13:08.301-04:00Pagan-Dao-ist--->Shamanic Daoism.This is just a matter of clarification. I have recently found that "Daoism" can mean a host of different things. Like any religion it is not just singular, you christians should know that most of all.<br />And one form can be VERY different from the other. SO I got to thinking, if i go to japan and tell that I am a Daoist, I am going to be SEVERELY misunderstood. And a LOT of people from the west misunderstand Daoism as well. Well, as luck has it, there is a kind of Daoism which is not misunderstood. Daoism as it was practised before Lao Tzu, before the western civilisation, before china was even one country.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br />Before I go any further I would like to mention one other thing, ever since I have encountered Shamanism, I have always had an affinity towards it. You see, Religion has 2 sides to it, Philosophy and Practice. Or Theology and Worship. I had the Philosophy down with "Daoism". Just to distinguish from Daoists of China and Japan, who are very much influenced by buddhists: I called myself Pagan-Daoist.<br /><br />But it seems to me that Paganism doesn't even begin to cover the other side of the coin, practice. For a while I have wondered, how do I go about practicing what I believe now that I know it? This is where Shamanism comes in. Shamans by nature are very Daoistic. In fact Daoism started out from the Shamanic Practices of the ancient east.<br /><br />So here it is, the final draft of my religion and way of life: it is called Shamanic Daoism. The Daoism tells you specifically what my philosophies are and it is needed since Shamanism is just such a broad term, and I in no way will fit in with the shamans of Native america for instance, our beliefs are quite different. The Shamanism clarifies the label as not just purely philosophical, or anysuch thing, and gives the much needed Practicalness, I find it avoids misunderstandings that I have had every time I just say "i am a daoist".<br /><br />-TjTjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-89918238552543955852007-08-20T00:52:00.000-04:002010-06-03T20:48:41.507-04:00Pagan-DaoThis is what I officially call my path, it's just sounds kind of sing-song like (at least I think so). I recently read "Dao Te Ching", and also some other articles about Daoist philosophy from <a href="http://www.taoism.net/">Taoism.net</a>. Just search it on google there are lots of free texts hosted on the internet. Anyways, a LOT of what it said in there made sense to me. A whole bunch of the conclusions arrived at in the texts I had arrived at by myself. Of course I have a Pagan twist to it, since I AM mainly a pagan, or at least consider myself to be. The "common inteligence" or whatever it is, that I mentioned in the previous post (see below) is in simple terms the concept of the Eternal Dao, of course like all Dao Sages say, one cannot put the Dao into words, to truly understand it must be experienced. .But otherwise, it fits quite well, I have apparently been following Dao for so long, I did not even realise it. Well, it's just nice to know that there are names for my own personal philosophy in life, names are not that important I realise, but having a name means that people recognise it, and most of all that, someone else at some point of time has ALSO arrived at the same philosophical conclusions about life as I have. YAY!!!Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-56393256129277262612007-08-04T01:28:00.000-04:002010-06-03T21:14:01.371-04:00sorry for the absence. and what i have been upto so long.Well i have not been posting for long. Who cares, i'm the only person who seems to read these anyways. Well, My spiritual journey has finally come to an end. I FINALLY have a name for all my philosophical, and spiritual beliefs. Paganism. Well, since its such a broad and often misunderstood term here is what i believe:<br /><a name='more'></a><br />1. All things natural or otherwise have a spirit, a sort of innate "intelligence" whatever it is you may want to call it, and is a part of it as much as our intelligence and consciousness is a part of us. (aka Animism). And all these spirits be they living, dead, human or otherwise are connected in a very profound way that is not clear to me as of yet.<br /><br />2. This connection makes for a "common intelligence". This is probably a bad term to use but, think of a bunch of your cells, each have their own purpose, each is as important and dependent on the next as any of the other cells, they ARE each a living, "breathing" organisms (and each AS IMPORTANT AS THE NEXT). But they ALL together make up YOU. Similarly all these spirits or "intelligences" I talked about in point 1, together make up something larger. This is NOT to say that the that "thing" is any more important that any of those spirits or creatures, since without 1 the, "thing" (or mother nature as i like to call it) will suffer and may even die, as much as if one or 2 of your brain cell dies you suffer the loss, this may NOT be noticeable in small numbers since the others WILL compensate (as is the case with nature) but if its gets to too many dying or going missing in some way then you will notice a definite loss, again as is the case with mother nature. This is my version of a deity, NOT quite what you could call a "God" by today's concepts of the term but as close as my beliefs come.<br /><br />This is NOT to say I think my mother who is a Hindu is wrong, but to me the fact is simply that, for any polytheistic religion, the "gods" that they talk about are simply what I call "spirits" that are experienced by some as "gods". Monotheistic religions, on the other hand " (at least according to me) either only experienced ONE of those spirits more than others, OR have somehow experienced and interpreted what i call "mother nature" as an external being rather than a sort of "collective-effort-kinda-being" (which is a vague term i know but it is the best i can do).<br /><br />Anyways this is MY interpretation of the world, if you have a problem with it simply ignore it, after all i am not compelling my beliefs on you. If you disagree in some way that is not too problematic you are welcome to comment, AND most importantly if you agree with it whole-heartedly then: "what the hell are you waiting for get in touch with me NOW!"Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-1155172915642364082006-08-09T21:07:00.000-04:002010-06-03T20:46:12.617-04:00To be or not to be, a leftie? (yes that IS poetic, thank you!)So,<br />I recently learned (actually i knew for a while, but now i do for certian), that i am a born leftie, i.e. i am one of the very few individuals who are left handed. Sadly enough, i was forced to switch at an early age. I now am finding a SURPRISINGLY many ppl with said problem. A lot of them experaincing a lot of cunfusion due to the fact that their naturally preferred side is not their dominant (stronger) one.<br /><br />well there are very few sites out there though, telling ppl wat to do under situations such as these, so if any of u readers are in this situation, tell me what do you think? should i go back to leftie? Has anybody out there actually sucesfully gone back, if so do the problems such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dominance"><em>"cross-dominance"</em></a> and right-left confusion (i have that A LOT), go away once your naturaly prefered hand is dominant, after over 10-15 years or so?Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-1154662573394554382006-08-03T22:30:00.000-04:002010-06-03T20:45:50.679-04:00The News, and my opinion...As someone who does not believe in the distinction between Good and Bad, when it comes to big/important things such as people, or what they do - I sometimes find the focus of many news programs rather annoying. No one ever mentions the other side of the story. I remember there was a big thing a while back about a bunch of guys and basically a whole community that promoted multiple marriages, and marraige involving "minors".<br />Here's what I say, any event that occurs mutually IS NOT A CRIME. Ok, so a bunch of guys married minors, as far as i could tell it was mostly mutual. They did show a bunch of interviews of the families, and they seemed pretty happy. And from what i heard on the news the main crime that the 2 guys who were convicted were charged with is that they married these people (or smthg like that). Well, that's what i think at least.<br />There are a lot more examples of news hiding the whole truth, most of you have that news incedent that they personally knew someone there or was actually there, and you hear the news and say "wtf? this is NOT what happened!". Well thats it for now, I lost my train of thought, so...i shall wrap this up!Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458238.post-1153611289666808632006-07-22T22:40:00.000-04:002006-07-22T19:35:33.180-04:00First BlogWell, this is my first blog...YAY! I have been really busy. What with the summer job and such. Its kinda nice i guess, but i hate how everyone is so fake there. If someone is bieng nice i dont know whether they are actually being nice or not. Its really hard when i think i might have done smthg wrong, or smthg that could be looked at as wrong, but no one actually tells me smthg like "hey you might not wanna do that" or smthg. Why can people not be straightforward and accepting. I guess part of it is due to fear of what others might think. Well, it is rare to find someone who you can tell the truth to like say ANYTHING TO and they will jut take it as a part of the package. I hope everyone finds at least one friend like that, it really is nice to not worry about deciept and lies, esp. when u know the other person is also not hiding anything! Well i go to go have dinner now, so i'll be wrapping this up.Tjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00092466901929311264noreply@blogger.com