Operation: Wizard World

The world as we know it is a place of rules. Of laws. And I don't just mean laws on illegal firearm possession, but natural laws. For uncounted centuries we have known that this world - nay, universe - was ruled by the laws of physics, and that we were in control of our own destinies...but is this true? Or are we just living under a regime of strict governmental controls, much as we have done for thousands of years with implanted memories of a past? In short...is this the *real* world? Or are we just lab rats in a horrible experiment by unseen masters, ruled by beings we can't even see, bound by chains we can't feel except through their effects? In short...are we the unwitting subjects of...|drumroll, please|...OPERATION: WIZARD WORLD?
(for the record, no, this isn't a rip of the Matrix)

In the early 21st century, a two-man investigation team(names withheld to protect identities) began to uncover evidence of the above. They discovered, in short, that physics is just a Government creation, used by them to rule us for countless years, and that we were actually living in the early 32nd century. The Government had been controlling us for hundreds, maybe thousands of years through physics, and most of our past(including the age we're currently living in) has already happened. Physics wasn't around for the ancient egyptians; it's how they could build the pyramids. Every great physicist who's led us to believe in physics; Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Feynman and the like; were all Government plants, placed where they were to increase our belief in physics. That actually explained a lot for me. Like my physics teacher.

The team also found that the Government is not the highest rung; they answer to the wizards. The wizards are the true masterminds of this plan, the shadowy architects who are never seen for the simple reason that they're invisible. They also look like giant furry Mice, which might be why they want to stay invisible. That's why the government keeps creating(that's right; not discovering, creating) smaller particles in an atom; it's so people won't start trying to figure out the wizard parts. It's also why you can't reach or go past absolute zero or the speed of light; you'll be able to see through the illusion if you do.

However, the length of time and sheer size of this illusion means that there must have been some innocent ones, both wizards and physicists, or humans who tried to get in on the wizard-act. And in fact there were. So what became of these rogues, you ask? Why aren't they striving to free us from this bondage? Well, to answer that question, they aren't around anymore. What happened to them is widely known as the Salem witch trials. Scary how it all fits together, innit?
(no, i'm not crazy, and no i'm not on drugs either)

Aliens Ho!

I wonder why we haven't been contacted by aliens. Unless we have and don't know it. But proceeding on the assumption that we haven't, I have to wonder why. I mean, the fact that the galaxy is huge and that maybe they just don't give a sh*t about us could be one thing, but then every advanced alien race has inscrutable motives and always needs a race of guinea pigs. Discounting the possibility that they just don't give a sh*t about us, and that maybe they have better stuff to do than keep messing with us, I've figured out why we haven't seen any aliens with really cool futuristic shyte and funky superpowers - they're scared of us.

I mean, imagine yourself in their shoes(or whatever they have): You're an advanced alien race with nothing better to do than mess with the heads of pathetic talking monkeys who're dominated by Mice, which will give you valuable scientific data that your advanced-ness and superior-ness hasn't already given you. Besides, it's a kick. You head over to their little green-and-blue planet and what do you find? You find that they're a lot more than you bargained for. They're a race that inflicts the mindless stupidity of Hollywood on themselves, their most powerful grouping(nation) is ruled by some jackass with an IQ so low it's a miracle in itself he can walk, talk, and breathe at the same time (let alone try to run the world), and they subject their progeny to stupidity, titchy desks, and unfair workloads that they call a "skule sistum", or some such. This is the race you're going to mess with. Hnh, good luck there, pardner! They're so f'd up already it'd be impossible to take one onto your secret-mothership-orbiting-Uranus (lol) without risking the complete destruction of your ship because the damned talking monkey drove your scientists insane, and now they're tearing their hair (or whatever they have) out and running around in purple shorts that smell green, convinced that they're being chased by an evil monster called "Jacko"(the whacko) who wants to sodomize their kids(or something like that)! And that's not even mentioning 90's pop and the Spice Girls...*vomit*

Honestly, what do you think are the chances that aliens of the universe are going to try talking to the species who could allow something as lethal as the Spice Girls come into existence? Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't blown us up for that alone...I'm pretty sure that they've at the very least issued some kind of warning: *ALL YE WHO GO TO EARTH...DON'T!!*

How do we correct this grave situation? I mean, after all, no aliens means no really cool futuristic shyte or funky superpowers. So we need them on Earth. My solution:
1) Destroy Hollywood with pony stampedes. That'll serve those f*ckers right. Besides, the Brits are good enough with english movies.
2) Depose Bush, and install a chimp in his place. He/She'll do a better job, and legalize weed and 'shrooms while he/she's at it.
3) No more school. We have to think of the future, after all.
Oh, and
4) Finish off the Spice Girls. We've got them scattered and disorganized, let's finish the job and eliminate them permanently before they can do any more damage.

We do this, and we're bound to get plenty of alien visitors. I mean, they're gonna wanna get in on the fun and get high themselves, right? And if not, we can drop summa that ourselves and think they're here anyway ;).

Stupid title links...

See, here's my problem: I can't figure out to to make title links just be a number, instead of the word-word-word. Plus, I can't quite figure out how to set it to link untitled posts by their date and number, at the very least. Even if I can't get the first thing, the second'd be really nice. Y'know, instead of this being "/See-heres-my-problem-i", it'd just be "/12-03-06/1", or something. I mean, if this was untitled.

It would be a lot better though if this ("/stupid-title-links...") could be changed to something like "/14". Y'know, posts linked on the basis of serial numbers? If anyone has any idea as to how to set this up, lemme know.

*echo* If anyone has any idea as If anyone has any idea If anyone has any id- *echo*

Ah well...

The Real Nature of Jack's Third Wife

Recently, I’ve found myself spending more and more time in front of my computer(no small feat, in my case), engaged in activities intended to pull ones mind into realms of fantasy. By which I mean video games and e-books, so don’t be getting any ideas, buddy. In a rather desperate attempt to return to the real world, as it were, I tried to refocus my attention on my studies – something which has never worked too well before, but it had to be tried. Needless to say, I’ve met with miserable yet consistent failure. I think I’m beginning to understand how junkies feel (damn Call of Duty 2…) – I’m practically addicted to the 17-inch TFT screen on my desk, beaming its contents out in glorious 32-bit color. I mean, it’s pretty hard to tear myself away for such trivial items as showering and hygiene, and return to normal, dull, reality.

But then, what is reality? All of this got me thinking about the nature of reality, as we call it. We all assume that the world we live in is, indeed, the world – it’s all reality. Many people – especially these “positive thinking gurus” – repeatedly tell us that the world is what we want it to be, and going by the notion that the world is reality (and/or vice versa), we find that reality is what we want it to be. While it’s true that this is regarded as a more extreme view, it’s also true that it’s also often criticized (IMO) out of hand.

(as an aside, when I say “world” during the course of this rambling, I’m referring to not only this planet, but the universe as well)

Let me back up a little, and try to see if I can organize my thoughts somewhat here. As far as I know, there are 3 widely recognized (not necessarily accepted) views as to what “reality” is –
1) that “reality” is the world, as it is, and that the laws of this world are unbreakable. The laws of humanity may be breakable to varying extents, but not those of the world itself. (the first idea)
2) that “reality” is what we make it, and subjective, either entirely or in part. (the second idea)
3) that “reality” is something non-existent, and that everything is an illusion. None of it is real in the slightest. (the third idea)
There are probably – in fact there are bound to be – more viewpoints than this, but for the purposes of this piece, I’ll confine myself to working with only these three. Now, all schools of philosophical thought believe in one of these three, or some combination of any of the three, or all, or none. Or they just say that they don’t know, and that the answer is unknowable. Realistic Agnosticism, I s’pose you could call it. Then again, you could call it Jack’s third wife too. Wonderful.

Returning to the unfinished bit above, what, then, is the true nature of reality? Does/Must it even have a “true” nature? The first idea is something many of us have been brought up to believe, and as such, I don’t feel it needs any further explanation. If the world truly is reality, and its laws are inviolate, then we know precisely where we stand. It’s the second and the third ideas which lead to other, more interesting (again, IMO) possibilities.

If it’s all an illusion (or beyond our comprehension), then there’s no point in speculating as to its true nature any more than there is to a bacterium speculating on the death penalty. A crude analogy, but I think it conveys the message. But what if reality really is what we make it? What if it’s all entirely subjective? Many toss this idea out the window saying that if it were, then why isn’t that nut over there floating? I mean, he’s high and he believes he is, doesn’t he? So why isn’t he? At this point, we are left to turn to the first idea. After all, if the second holds no water and the third is beyond our grasp, what else is left?

One thing which critics – and, to a large extent, supporters - of the second idea never seem to add to that pot is social inertia. Consider, if you will, a case often made regarding morality. A man commits a murder which he genuinely believes to be right. Society disagrees. The poor slob gets the chair, or maybe the gas chamber, or maybe just 10 to 20 – whatever it is, he’s punished. Since punishment only follows a crime, and since a crime, by definition, is something that’s wrong, our man – the murderer who really thought he was right – has actually done something wrong. Why? Because society – read: the majority – says so. A clear case of social inertia defining morality (and there are loads more).

You see where I’m going with this – what if the world is the way it is simply because society thinks it is? What if the laws of physics are what they are simply because the majority believes they are? But then, who defines the majority? Is it numerical, or is it those in power who decide? Who defines power? What if there is no majority, and there are only mutually conflicting views? Again, in order to make this idea work, let’s add another concept – that reality isn’t necessarily the same for everyone.

At this point, it all becomes much clearer, in a roundabout sort of fashion. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Because I say so. So what about that guy over there, who says the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun at all, that they both revolve around the moon, which is made of pink cheese and has a core of green eggs and ham – what about him? Well, that’s true too – to him. In my reality (if I may use the term), he’s a nutcase; in his, I’m the nutcase. While this is oversimplifying the idea, it does give rise to a question (and certainly more than one, but I can’t think of the others right now): Why aren’t we all in realities where we’re happy?

To this question, there’re only three words I can answer with – I don’t know. Well, four if you don’t like contractions. But does the fact that one doesn’t know exactly how it all works mean that ones ideas are impossible? Did Copernicus know the precise workings of gravity and the solar system when he proposed his Heliocentric model? Did this mean that his idea was impossible?

As AmiLEan Questions says, all too often we confuse criticism and a critical attitude. All too often we neglect possibilities out of hand, when the reality (there’s that word again) of the situation is that we simply don’t know – we may believe from the bottom of our heart (and then some), but that isn’t quite the same as knowing.

That’s not to say that only one idea must be true. Where’s it written that reality is unchangeable? Maybe it keeps changing. And I don’t mean to say that I think any particular idea about the nature of reality is true – I just speculate, I don’t know. So I guess I subscribe to Jack’s third wife, I mean, Realistic Agnosticism. Surprising how dirty that sounds…

I’m sure that many people would say that the truth of the first idea – and the nature of reality - isn’t widely accepted dogma, it’s just common sense. To them I respond – Is there really a difference between the two?

(I actually wrote this post a couple months ago, just forgot to post it)