Success Derived Of Failure

Posted: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 by Nick Cano in
1

"You're a failure," "You will never succeed," "You're wasting your life kid, you'll never make it in this world living like that," "You're never going to be a success at the rate your going." Many teenagers, including myself, hear these claims on a daily basis. It sickens me to the deepest depths of my stomach. I'm here to make a statement to every single person who thinks its okay to say these things to teenagers, such as myself, just because they think we are the pariah of the school or community. Fuck you guys. I will succeed.

I've learned the hard way, time and time again, that you should have no expectations for your life. Take your honest, pure, good intentions, and throw them out the damn window. Do not expect love, do not expect success, do not expect to live a good life. Expect to fail, expect to be lonely, expect to live a life in solitude and shame. If you have no expectations for your life you will always succeed, and you will never be let down.

I'm not telling you to try and fail; I'm not telling you to be a failure; I'm telling you to try your best to succeed, but expect nothing but failure. If you plan to fail at life, and you fail, you've succeeded. However, if you don't manage to achieve your goal of failure, you must have succeeded. Go through your life expecting nothing, but working for everything, and I promise you that your life will be a success.

Theory Of Relative Memory, Part 1: The Fifth-Dimension

Posted: Monday, April 5, 2010 by Nick Cano in
2

Essentially, this entry is meant to create relations between the world of computers, and the theorized fifth-dimension, as portrayed by modern day quantum physics. I have a lot to say in order to make you accurately understand my overall conclusion, so bare with me.

I will start out explaining some similarities between programming and reality. First of all, a well constructed program is coded to where all of its classes, properties, methods and structures all have some sort of internal connection between one another. This means many classes and structures will inherit properties of a lesser, more basic class or structure. Lets pretend we are making a video game. Most likely, the first class, or base class, that will be coded is the most basic representation of anything which can be displayed or utilized in the game. We will call this class Thing.

We have the class thing, but what properties would it have? (Keep in mind, this is an example and I'm not really mapping out what this basic class may really have) Well, everything in the game needs to be located somewhere, so lets give Thing the property Location. We now have this:

  • Thing
    • Location
Now that we have our class thing, we need to build off of it. In this imaginary game, we need, for example, guns. So we would write a class Gun to inherit from the predefined class, Thing.
  • Gun : Thing
Since Gun is a representation of Thing, it will contain all of a Thing's properties, including Location. So our gun already has its location, but how many bullets can its magazine contain when full? For that, we need to add a new property: Magazine.
  • Gun : Thing
    • Magazine
Now that we have the property Magazine, we need to define it. Since a magazine is a part of a Gun, but not the Gun itself, it is also a Thing. This means it has its own location, but it also has own properties.
  • Gun : Thing
    • Magazine : Thing
      • Bullets
So now we define what kind of bullet our magazine holds, by the class Bullet. But since Bullets go in the Magazine, but are not part of the Magazine, they are their own instance of the Thing class, with their own properties.

Now, I can take this on and on, but bottom line is a good program is made from a hierarchy of predefined methods, states, and properties. The question is: How does this relate to the real-world? Well, thats simple. Think of the world around you, everything is made up of smaller pieces, from which they inherit unique properties. Lets look at a simple model:

  • Molecule : Particle

    • Atom : Particle
      • Electron : Particle
        • Quark : Particle
      • Nucleus : Particle
        • Proton : Particle
          • Quark : Particle
        • Nuetron : Particle
          • Quark : Particle
          Now, anyone who has passed their physical science class recognizes this hierarchy of inherited properties and structures. As we can see, the way we code programs relates to the world around us on a molecular level. However, more understandably, it complies seemingly equally coherently with the world we know every day. For instance, think of the concept that every human is a mammal, but not every mammal is human. This would be as if we had the class Human inheriting Mammal, which would then inherit Creature which would inherit Organism, and so on and so forth.

          Now that we understand the relation and coherence between programming and reality, we must figure out how it got there. Did someone one day say "I want my program to work exactly like the universe and everything in it," or did they simply say "I want to create a program in which everything works together and makes sense." I can assure you, the answer is the latter.

          Programming and everything about computers was based on logical assumptions which concluded to make sense and connect in all possible situations. Keeping this in mind,we can make our own logical assumption that the way the world inside a computer works and the way our world works will have some similarities: and I just pointed out one. However, don't you think its possible that there are many more discrete, definite similarities between the two? Is it possible that the logic of some of the most intelligent human beings ever to live, which was put into computers, made discoveries about our world on a quantum level, before scientists studying quantum mechanics ever thought of them? Yes, it is completely possible.

          Now that I have presented the connections between reality and computers, my proof, and my "ultimate question," I will present to you the Copenhagen Interpretation for quantum mechanics. According to Wikipedia, The Copenhagen Interpretation "is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. A key feature of quantum mechanics is that the state of every particle is described by a wavefunction, which is a mathematical representation used to calculate the probability for it to be found in a location or a state of motion." Since the tedious study required to fully understand this interpretation may bore you, I will present to you the basic ideas of the famous thought experiment, which is known as Schrodinger's cat.

          Schrodinger described a situation where his cat was placed inside a steel box, where it sat next to a vial of acid and a small amount of a radioactive element. If one atom of element was to decay during the test period, the vial would break and the cat would die. Schrodinger said according to quantum law the cat was both alive and dead in a super-position of states, until the chamber was opened. The super-position of possible states is known as the fifth dimension.

          Us, our houses, our town, our countries, our world, our galaxy, and our universe all exist in the third-dimension. The three dimensions we live in can be described each in one word: length, width, and depth


           
          Above, we can see a cube, which is a three-dimensional object. In the first-dimension, we can only move two ways: up and down. In the second-dimension, however, we can move four ways, the two additional ways being right and left. Each position we move right or left, presents the ability to move in a one dimensional direction as well. Basically, the second-dimension presents infinite representations of one-dimensional locations. Just as the second dimension presents infinite representations of one-dimensional locations, the third-dimension presents infinite representations of two-dimensional locations, which are located along positions which we can move in two new directions: forwards and back.

          It is very easy for us to understand the third-dimension, because we live in it. However, to move into my comparison of computers to the fifth-dimension, we must understand the fourth-dimension. The fourth-dimension, like the others, can also be described in one word: duration. Also like other dimensions, the fourth-dimension adds two more directions to move in: towards the future and towards the past. The fourth-dimension presents infinite representations of three-dimensional locations, meaning each position in the fourth-dimension represents a different time in the third-dimension. In a nutshell, the fourth-dimension is simply a time line of our three-dimensional lives.

          Now we understand the first, second, third, and hopefully fourth dimensions, so we can finally move on the whole point of this entry: using computer science to explain the fifth-dimension. Now, just as the first four dimensions, the fifth can also be described in one word: probability. This goes back on the theory illustrated by Schrodinger's cat, that there is a dimension containing each possible outcome for every single thing. The fifth-dimension presents two new directions of movements: to the next outcome, and to the previous outcome. Each "outcome" is actually a representation of a four-dimensional figure, spanning infinitely through time. Each of these figures is different, given a new outcome based around the conclusions of an event; that means that there is, of course, a four-dimensional figure, in the fifth-dimension, for each probable conclusion of an event.

          Earlier I asked "is it possible that the logic of some of the most intelligent human beings ever to live, which was put into computers, made discoveries about our world on a quantum level, before scientists studying quantum mechanics ever thought of them?" Well, the answer is yes. Now that we understand what the fifth dimension is, we can understand how it works. As stated earlier, every class in a well-coded program has every single outcome and state predefined. We can think of this class' definition in memory as the fifth-dimension, because even if something hasn't happened in the program, the outcome has already been hard-coded into the program as part of the classes representing any objects effected by that something happening. Now, is it possible that is how the fifth-dimension works as well?

          This makes me think: is our entire world a pre-coded program on a much larger computer of life? If I can only prove the answer to this question to be true, I will have accurately explained the fifth dimension. However, I cannot possibly contemplate all of the logical explanations I will need to lead to a solid conclusion to this question in one night. I also definitely cannot even begin to explain my entire theory, which is why the name may seem a bit asinine at the moment. For now, I bid you a due. Stick around for part two.

          People Call Me Odd

          Posted: Sunday, April 4, 2010 by Nick Cano in
          0

          Its true, many people say I'm odd, weird, crazy, etc. Well, people, I am odd, and its better that way.

          Lets take the integer spectrum into account. We have an infinite span of numbers counting forwards and back from absolute finite nothingness, also known as Zero. Zero in fact has no value itself. When passed doing mathematical operations spanning negative to positive, Zero is discounted from the additive value. This proves that numbers truly start at 1, or negative 1. Either is one in the same as their distance from the number 0 on the number line, also called their absolute value, is the same.

          This brings me to my real point. We all know something, and I'm certain we do. This thing I speak of is the factual proof that numbers cannot lie. If numbers demonstrate something, it is indeed true. Its rather the person interpreting the numbers that makes them seem to lie. Well, I'm starting to get off onto a crazy tangent about numbers, so let me get back to the point.

          We know the integer spectrum starts on 1. We know numbers cant lie. Now there is one more thing we must know before I present my theory: the integer spectrum is infinite. It never stops counting, ever. You cannot count to infinity, you cannot finish counting without setting the intention to stop at a certain integer value. Go ahead, try, you will count until the day you die. Infinity is simply a word to represent what is not finite. (Finite - having bounds or limits; in- (prefix) - not). 

          Now that we know what we must to analyze my theory, lets hear it, yeah?
          Numbers count up from 1, which is an odd number. They never end.

          1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 -8 - 9 -- Going on and on into the abyss.

          Lets look at this in an odd (me) - even (normal) perspective.
          odd - even - odd -even - odd - even - odd -even - odd -- Going on and on.

          Now, if you look at it you will realize something: since we start with an odd number, the ratio of odd numbers and even numbers will always be 1:1 or greater for odds. Counting in sequence, you will never have more even numbers than odd, but often - every other number, in fact - have more odds than evens.

          This is not to say that there is more odd people, but infact we are using the integrity of the numbers to represent value of the odds as a whole. This means, from now and through the times of this infinite dimension we live in, odds (people like me) will always surpass or at least equal those people (the "even" people) who down us for being "odd."

          Numbers don't lie.

          Everything We Know Is Illusion

          Posted: by Nick Cano in
          0

           Before presenting my theory, I will make a few points which you should keep in mind.
           


          Point #1. Our bodies are forever, they are infinite. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, and like all objects we are made of matter.

          Point #2. Time is infinite. Time is the measure of change in matter, a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. So as we have determined that matter will never cease to exist, we can conclude that time will always be needed to measure these changes, so it will never end.

          Point #3. We are all going to die. Science shows that when you die, thats it. Your brain doesn't function, you don't remember, all your memory is gone and all that is left is your body, the only thing about you thats not finite.

          Point #4. We've come to terms with the fact that we are all going to die, I hope. If dying brings the end of memory, it means all the memory of emotion and pain and happiness was not real.

          Point #5. An illusion is something which tricks you. It is something that is not really there, or wont always be there, that for, even if only a split second, makes you feel something or believe something to be true, when its not reality.

          Point #6. We know that only our bodies live forever, that time will never end, that we are going to die, and that we will lose our memories. We also know what illusion is. So, lets think...

          Death is the only reality we face, its the only sure thing in life, its the only thing bound to happen, and the only thing about us that will last forever. Memories and emotions, on the other hand, can be fake; and usually are. One day you feel one way and think your sure, the next your completely opposite. Your mind tricks itself into feeling certain ways. That will all end one day, it wont be there anymore. You'll finally have your one true reality: death. Your emotions, feelings, and living always kept you from the one thing that is a true reality, meaning they are an illusion.