Eleven Random A’s

A friend and fellow blogger recently posted Eleven Random Qs. Most of these questions are in the “neither here nor there” domain, in the abandoned grey area which owners of minds love to stay away from. However daunting, some require answers; others—dare I say—have answers… but these, at best, may be subjective. This is an attempt to give Eleven Random As to these questions.

  1. Many Worlds Theorem
  2. The Race against Racism. Bryce, the Black Male Feminist, answers this beautifully.
  3. No question here (:
  4. Yes!
  5. There is always new music. There is always good music.

These, so far, are the answers to the best of my knowledge. This post will be updated with answers subsequently.

Many Worlds Theorem

Time—as perceived is linear. It goes from “here” to “there” one time-slice per… … how OR in what, do we quantify the movement of time when time is the only thing which quantifies movement? But times goes linear to perception. But this is not the only “time” which exists. If you are asked…

In how many times have you existed?

Your answer will probably be along the lines of past-present-future. But did you know that — according to the Many Worlds Theorem — there are true simultaneous occurrences of your present now? According to Einstein, the word “simultaneous” may not exist in reality as its true sense. Reality which is bound by perception is prone to relativistic judgement: I wrote, only because you can read; the tree fell, only because you observed; I am only because you are—and so on. The “you” can be replaced with an “it” too. Then: I wrote, only because it read; the tree fell because it observed OR it could be observed (with “it”, the linguistics of existence becomes flexible and confusing); and I am, only because it is. Reality has a objective relative observer. And as long as perception is concerned, in order for things to “make sense”… “linear” is the model best suited.

However, many worlds will always escape this observer. According to the theorem, there is a probabilistic possibility that the I who writes this blog is seated right next to1 my grandson’s first child during his first university exam who is seated beside one of your ancestor’s daughter during her second marriage as she walks past the one-year old me who is still pissed of at the doctor for spanking my ass. Everything that has and will happen is still and already happening, respectively—each world, here and now. Is there is a separate observer for a separate world? This would smoothly dovetail into a “Many Observers Theorem” where each observer is king in his own relativistic world. But we are blinded—a necessary blindness—from the existence of the other worlds which our constraint individual perception shuns.

Turn down your individual and up your imagination for this part → Mathematically, this theorem can only begin to work from the 5D-space and up. This is where physics can “bend time” and “fold time”—in a sense. This allows under the assumptions that:

  • 3D deals with the axes: x, y and z. Imagine yourself at your house. Now imagine yourself at your work. Those two spaces, albeit the same and constant without you in them, are quire different when you’re there. These are two different “space-state”s (i.e. states of space).
  • 4D is space time—all transformations of space through time. Remember our two “states of space” in 3D? How did the space in your home get from how it was with you in it to how it is with you out it? You could have walked, disintegrated, gotten adult-napped, or your work place would have literally slid into your home space—who knows? However this happened, this is one transformation. And this will be one point in 4D.
  • 5D, call it “the time bender” OR… more technically, “space-time-possibility”—a state-space of all possible permutations of all transformations of space through time. This is a mouthful, yes, and unfortunately, it’s already in our mouths. But if we can train our teeth to chew one segment at a time, we shall swallow this monster before it chokes us. Consider the point we created in 4D. This was but one of the many possible ways 3D was transformed. A point in 5D is all the possible ways 3D can be transformed. This will mean there are many “lifetimes” in 5D. This means in 5D, you could be moving from your house to your work and from your work to your house at the same damn time! Cool, ain’t it?
  • We aren’t done yet. The many worlds, as I know it to be an answer of the question asked, exists in 6D—don’t get overwhelmed now, these Ds go up to 11!

So yes, there is a possibility that “you’re here, reading this, and you’re also in the past, wetting your nappy, and you’re also in the future, gnashing your three teeth and hobbling with your gnarled cane”. It’s the Many Worlds Theorem.

  1. The italicized are not movements in 3D space as we know them but, for the sake of explanation and understanding, one could assume that. Beware though, this act collapses events in higher dimensions into 3D. Considering them sans thought may prove radical, confusing to say the least. 


Originally posted on Sally V's desk:

Create create create

till you spew out something

that can make order out of this chaos

or at least rearrange it 

make it into a mess worth looking at

consume – voraciously

share, don’t be afraid

at best they will love it

at worst they won’t

but it will still be

you will have created

from nothing something will be born

pick up your axe

make yourself a table and a chair

a bed if lying makes it easier

don’t ignore the voices

speak louder than them

scream until your lungs give out

shine – bright and blinding


fall and stand 

dust yourself off 

patch up your holes

or make a new dress altogether 

do until you can’t do anymore

then do more

soar until you can’t tell

down from up

View original


But there is a moment in life when one thinks about the legacies one leaves as they exit the world. How could one join this pollution—it’s only acceptable form—of intelligence, existence’s “cognitive database”.

Let us consider the dead at this moment. Of this, I would focus on the distant read—those who have been dead a long time but have their histories imprinted in popular culture. Once in a while, however, I will consider the recent dead. Humans, poor1 in spirit, consider the last words of a great to be his legacy. This is not the legacy left by people and should not be taken as a legacy as there are many factors which surround the last words of a human; one and the most obvious being his realization that his/her time as human is coming to an end—consider the emotional mayhem! So, for purposes of this write-up, I shall term this act—rather ludicrous in nature—of assuming the last words of a human to be their legacy as LWegacy—i.e. L. W. Legacy i.e. Last Word Legacy.

Einstein: His theory of relativity2 has left the world in shambles. It broke the ground on which modern day physics was studied. Science, you see, is only but a means of understanding. But to understand, one must assume3. Therefore, it can be said of science that it is merely an understanding of assumptions. Einstein’s last words fell on deaf ears ears which were not properly attuned to his speech and a mind whose understanding is not trained in his linguistics. Thus Einstein’s lwegacy was lost. But his legacy, that which opened this paragraph, not only stands, but runs; thanks to the feet of recent geniuses.

Steve Jobs …or as he is better known to me: “the one who took the bite off the Apple”. Some called him a shrewd businessman, others called him amoral. Apple fanatics know him as the face of the company, and because of this, the WWDC speeches slowly rose to power levels of ancient religious rituals. Steve, while laying on his bed, according to his wife’s account, uttered these last words before he passed on: “oh wow… oh wow… oh wow…”. Now, there are many theories which this can give rise to. But I am not in the business of closing minds to assumptions. You may leave whatever you think his lwegacy was in the comment below. His legacy however, in my opinion, is a brand whose—in look and feel, usability and theatrics—is ever so intricate that it needs no functionality to sell.

Jean Blaise Pascal. Another mathematician hailing from the Christian church. The Christian chur… the Chri… hmm… the Christian church reeks! of this disgusting!! habit of looking down on the select group of its people who happen to be intellectuals, then raising their hands to God asking for intellect while wallowing in disgust rooted in the illusion that the church, in its sacrosanct-ity, lacks intellect. Phew… sorry about that very necessary tangent.

Jean Blaise Pascal was an intellectual from the church. He is known, among many other things, for his wager: a reason to believe in God regardless. Many interpretations of this wager float around the internet, alongside many adulterations; I choose not to add to these. Pascal came off as a misfit: described by T. S. Elliot as “a worldly man among ascetics and an ascetic among worldly men.” Pascal also contributed in developing the probability theory—the keen-eyed will immediately see why his wager was to believe in God regardless—although his Pascal’s original application of his probability theory was in gambling; what better? Shortly before his death, after a violent illness which perturbed his emotions alongside his physical wellbeing, his last words were “May God never abandon me”. From inference—remember my tangent on the mundane, blindly religious Christian folk?—his lwegacy is one of acceptance, community and togetherness. His legacy on the other hand will be in the areas of mathematics, and the probabilistic nature of the occurence of worldly events; their categorization as chance events.

Bruce Lee. Growing up under the teachings of Ip Man—creator or the Wing Chun martial art style—Bruce learns the antiques of martial art from a very young age. With a curious mind, he quickly grows bored of the “styleness” of the martial art industry and goes on to create a science of fighting, sans style—called it “The Fighting Method”. He objectively studied why we hit, how we should deliver the blow, where the blow will cause the most damage, how to evade blows, and so on. There is no known lwegacy of Bruce. Sources have it that he died in his sleep after taking a pain-reliever: Equagesic. But his legacy lives on in his “Fighting Method”.

Cleopatra: Seduction—that’s all I can say.

Genghis Khan: To begin on Genghis, I must first assert that I know little about this man. All I know is he was a warrior extraordinaire and a conqueror of many lands. I also know of his habit with women which dovetails into the rumor that there is a 5% chance that you are related to Genghis Khan. His last words are unknown; but it cannot be ruled out that a man of war may have died in war. His lwegacy is unknown but his legacy, from history, bellows “Conquer!”

Voltaire: Writer famous for his Philosophical Dictionary—a ginormous epic colossus of a project spanning 2408 ePub pages geared towards defining words in their philosophical essence instead of using quickfire words to define words i.e. dousing flame with flame expecting cool—he was known to observe and share his observations in writing. He is also known for the famous quote below this paragraph. As was the custom in his time, a priest is assigned to a dying man to ensure the soul of the dying man goes to heaven—this is an act that is not unique to Christianity, other belief systems do this in form of rituals and ceremonial burials. When the priest asked Voltaire to renounce Satan, Voltaire replied, “Now now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies.” Thus was his lwegacy.

All that I know is that I know nothing.
— Voltaire

These humans left legacies in the world so deep—some contemplative—that humans with life, humans of the now, still mull over their words; irrespective of their death and decay. Some of these legacies have gone on to shape the world view for men, others creeds, others cultures and even nations. At this point, if this was a self-help blog post, I would be trying to answer the question: “how did these people do this?” Simple: there are multiple answers but here are a couple answers you may find useful.

  1. I couldn’t care less about the “how” as long as the human phenomenological capabilities still encompass their possibilities.
  2. I am bound by causality to probe and infer—two acts which are in-themselves insufficient in producing concrete answers—only to play around in circles of uncertainty.
  3. Sorry…?

Just thought of this — “He is who he says he is”, said the onlooker. “But who I say I am is never who I am” replied the observed. Thus should be the nature of every man. Matter of fact, this is the nature of all men. But the necessary forgetfulness is what allows us to play the role of ourselves as we know assume it to be.

  1. by poor, I do not mean wretched, but “less”—sufferers of a certain myopia—either in the life of the deceased or in the gospel of his work. 
  2. Explaining Relativity in a very high and less technical abstraction boils down to “this exists because of that”. A variation of that statement, being “there can be no that without this”, gives rise to the very complex phenomena like The Butterfly Effect, Doppler Waves and Quantum Entanglement amongst others. 
  3. Such is the flaw of our scientific prospects; the bind onto forever refining the knowledge we already know and have. One may argue that insight must come from the external because its enlightenment is necessarily orthogonal to every mode of knowledge hitherto known to the human. This is but a consequence of individualism.