The Problem with Paradoxes and Coincidences

The problem is that they occur and sometimes coincide. Such was my day. I had been thinking about the pentagon discovered in our universe that some scientists think represents the shape of the forces acting on the microwave background. It would appear that if you leave our universe in a cosmic sense, that you may enter it at the same time. The shape of things is five side and can be conceived in three dimensions, but that is only the start. The dimensions bend themselves around and come back at you in a strange way.

The points I wish to make in this blog are not to discuss the recent discoveries, but to discuss the mathematical coincidence and paradox that has just occured. It would seem that I have been selected to ride a crest of coincidences that I do not understand. You won't either, but here goes.

I was thinking about the large picture and the five sided object because I wanted to illustrate a level of abstraction for the higher organization of the big entity. I swear what happened should not have happened. It would seem that my law of association became operative. Why I do not know. Can you help? Perhaps!

The thing is I was drawing not thinking about mathematics, but my drawing was to conceive of the big everything, which I shall build from the universe. There are many universes that fall into categories of magnaverses and miniverses. These make up the multiverses and all the multiverse make up the omniverse. The College of Light that Wuh attends is located somewhere in the omniverse. Likewise there are pods: unipods, magnapods, minipods, multipods and omnipods. Associated with the universe is a big bang, but there are many big bangs and as I said before many many universes making up the magnaverse and miniverses of the multiverses. Its all very confusing to you perhaps, but makes sense to me! I explain more in my Wuh Lax series of books.

What does a creature of the omniverse look like I asked myself. They exist, but how do you draw one. I am still not sure, and for several hours tried to draw one. I have never seen one though I sense them. Now you think I am being rediculous. Well no more than Zeno, it would appear. I did not know anything about Zeno before an hour ago, but thats the personal mystery. Zeno and I share similar ideas, and these are described in the book by Joseph Mazur entitles 'The Motion Paradox'. I had completely forgotten that I had this book and there is no reason why I should pick it up and start reading it. Some process, perhaps from the College of Light drew me to it and I opened it and started reading it. Let me go back further in time.

Earlier my drawings of the omniverse focused on a five sided figure. I drew one and worked out the angles as being 72 degrees, five adding to 360. But I wanted a three dimensional object so I was playing around with the numbers. If you do, you will find that 72 is divisible by 12 going into 72 exactly 6 times. Now what I had thought would be better would have been a six sided figure, but that is not the way the universe seems to be organized, at least at the microwave background level and what happens to originate from the 'big bang', which I don't think was an event anyways, but that is another story.

My question was how does one get a five sided figure like a cubic. Possibly, our universe is packed tightly together with a host of other universes, or even other 'our universes.' Why five sides. I still don't know, but that has not eliminated six and twelve as we have seen the number 72 can be factored. My preference is for multiples of three. I do not like the metric system very much. Too illogical! Or, is it. We note the five sided figure.

Pressure and number are involved in the resulting five-sided cubics of our universe, or universes. Strange all this. In any event, I must try to close the circle, by saying that I started reading Mazur's book and by page sixteen, I was into a discussion of a pentagon five side figure with 72 degree angles and the like. The cosmic figure that was familiar to the Greeks results in a five pointed star. My earlier questions regarding what the universe may look like are contained in the notion of the mathematics of the cosmic star. I still ask the question, why not six sides, but have a feeling that both five and six are connected to cubic figures density, pressure, mass in a very specific and interesting way.

The coincidence for me was the linking of art, mathematics, science and books into a short time frame. I was surprised that I found page sixteen in Mazur's book and it discussed the very issues I was challenged by in my search for a representaive drawing.

You will recall that I have claimed that light is stationary and everything else is moving. Well Zeno shows that motion is impossible, hense the paradox. We sense that everything is moving, but in reality nothing in our universe moves. As Mazur discusses, the world is either made up of one thing or an infinite number of things.

Horses for Courses, Courses for Horses

A former boss often used the phrase 'horses for courses.' The idea is that not everyone will find that a particular environment or a particular situation suits them. If you find yourself in such a negative or slow paced world, perhaps what is wrong is that you are misplaced in some way.

Moving to another place or situation may improve your ability to perform. Hoever, an alternative to that may be that you need to change your environment in some way so that you perform better, or you are happier. Such a change is 'courses for horses.' You are building a course on which you will have greater chance of winning.

Knowing which type of course, you will find better suited to your skills is often an enormous task. It is increasingly difficult for people to see into the future with confidence that they are following a long term strategy that will lead to success. As the world matures, it is becoming a maze of opportunities and potential dead ends.

One thing is certain and that is the need for balance in one's goals. It is increasingly difficult to pick the horse and the course for that horse. This is because our world increasing requires specificity in processes and goals.

Specificity

In the past, nations and people made mistakes that now seem weird. For example, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Italy fought the first world war. We look back on this history and find it puzzling.

Why would rational nations do such stupid things?

Why would so-called intelligent human beings go to war and destroy so many lives and so many things that they had worked so hard to achieve?

Was the world so bad that war was necessary?

When we examine the past, it seems that peoples and nations stumbled into destruction. We can't say that wars were productive, we can only say that they happened and that because of them much that was good was destroyed for ever.

We can see that wars and fighting are a consequence of historical events, but we cannot clearly see the processes that led up to the events that produced the wars. We live with the consequences of war and destruction, but we are not free from them.

We may agree that war is bad, that it should not be a solution, but we are very poor at working out a strategy that will avoid war. If ever the mathematical butterfly effect has potency, it seems to be evident in process of moving towards the imbalance that teeters the world into war on a regular basis.

What can we Learn from Our Unnecessary Wars

The first thing that seems to emerge from the experience of war is that it does not lead to a better world relative to what would have been possible without war. War is like the slide. War pushes the world down and makes the climb up more difficult. Although war may change the lists of people active in the world and may change leadership of events, it does not mean that the world overall has improved over what could have been. War leads to a disconnect from the past as if the past did not have a contribution to make.

The alternative to war is housekeeping or reorganizing. In fact, the alternative to war is what Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction. It is a realization that humans are creative entities and that they can produce very rapid change for the betterment of all mankind, and they can do it very quickly. What they do not need to produce change and improvement is a destructive war.

Creative destruction is a peaceful process of reorganizing. It produces the change that wars are faught over, but it produces the cahnge more effectively and with less total stress in the world environment. Underlying creative destruction is the notion that all change is a result of disequilibriums in the world arising from its nature. The nature of the world is non-linear and potentially destructive. In order to achieve creative destruction and at the same time positive change, the world needs to understand the role of work and the fuller dynamics of investment.

All people that are born into the world can have a role to play in building 'courses' in which they as 'horses' can run. The thing to realize is that there is enough space and places for everyone should we as a world decide that maintaining our world in balance is our overriding goal. We can all share and live in a greater world, but we need to participate and have an effective role. Where the leaders fail us now, is in not telling all of us that we are important and giving us 'all' the hope that we all need to be significant.

The world needs to have goal setters that will create the dynamics of investment into areas that we think are impossible. We know intiutively that all things are possible, but we need to have investment of time and energy into processes and ways to make all things possible. First of all, we need to raise everyone's level of living, not just the levels of people who are lucky enough to be born into specific communities.

Being Specific About Process and Why Things Fail

We are all guilty of taking shortcuts. It is economy to think that there may be a cheaper way to accomplish something and much to gain if we find that alternative. In our thinking we do the same, we follow a heuristical approach to problem solving using a subset of what we intuitively know is the full process. These acts of economy may have the appearance of being successful, yet at the crucial time fail to satisify all the criteria originally established as the formula for consistent success. Thus, our search for economy can lead to failure. It may mean that we are never successful even though we could be.

Failure as a Weakness in Processing

In life, we set goals that will move us to a different situation level of achievement. For those that would think of themselves as successful those goals are beyond what they have already achieved. Such people ratchet up their goals a knotch to reach a higher level of success from that which would be experienced in the normal course of things under an existing regime. Each time the goals are set higher, the processes needed to reach those goals become ever more specific and additional processes are added to avoid or eliminate failures.

This does mean that some people are very successful almost all of the time. The reason is that they set their goals at a lower level and engage in processes that will have consistent success and involve little risk. Nevertheless, for those willing to set higher goals, there is the possibility of defining goals differently or being more specific as to the quality of outcome that is to be regarded as success. Only by setting more specific goals can one establish the more specific demands on the processes and inputs that are needed to reach the more specific goals.

Longetivity or the Goal of Living to be One hundred Years Old to be a Centinarian

An example, would be the setting of a goal for exercise. One would rarely achieve a higher target of exercise without thinking about how that higher target were to be achieved. The goal of increased exercise may be part of a larger program in which a higher goal might have been set, such as a goal to live to the age of 100 years. Thus, within one goal there may be other goals that are necessary milestone to the success of the overall goal of living longer. The fact is that some people may seem obsessed with minutiae because they have set very high overall goals that others can't even dream of.

We may even poke fun at people because they seem peculiarly fussy about details. What we may not know is that such behaviour is indicative of higher goals, or goals set well above the norm. We may also be aware of people who seem obsessed or distant. Again, we may not be aware that such people are likely to have hidden goals, private goals that they do not discuss with us. Perhaps, such goals are due to an illness that they are struggling with or a fear that they have which dominates their thinking. It is very awkward when we think we understand people, but have no idea od their goals nor the circumstances within which they must struggle.

National and Nationalist Goals

History is full of stories where some nations pursued goals that set them apart from others by being beyond anything that had been previously achieved. When nations behave strangely they engage in specific activities to such an extent that the composition of activies seems biased or specialized. Specialization of a consequence of setting higher goals for achievement. We may ask what the goals are and be suspicious if we are not told. Like in the case of people, nations led by governments set goals. These goals are for the community or for people within the community and may, or may not, be evident to neighbours. In working towards new goals, people and nations establish strategies that they feel will be successful. These strategies may or may not be declared openly.

As a country, we may become aware of strategies when we see evidence of change that seems premeditated. For example, we may assume that a group has adopted a new strategy were we to see increased use of very specific resources that would not normally be used, or when we see greater care being taken to achieve specific goals, such care being evident from new standards or different ways of doing things.