poke poke, rambling!

Dear Diary,

Erwin Schrodinger's cat enigma could be solved with a simple modern invention.

Plexiglass.

The description of Schrodinger's Cat:

"In 1935 Schrodinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in a brief paragraph in this essay he described the cat paradox."

"The cat finds itself inside a box along with a technical gizmo that sends a photon towards a filter and records whether the photon passes through or not. If it doesn't, nothing happens. If it does, the photon trips a device that breaks open a vial of poisonous gas, and the unfortunate cat dies. The experiment is set up so that there's a fifty-fifty chance of the photon passing through the filter. Accordingly, once you open the box and look inside, there's a fifty-fifty chance the cat will jump out. "

"That's all very well. The difficulty arises, as Schroedinger pointed out in 1935, when you start wondering what was happening inside the box after the photon measurement was made but before anyone lifted the lid. It's simple enough to say that the gizmo delivered a photon, the photon either passed through the filter or it didn't, the vial of poison was broken or not, and the cat died or stayed alive. "

"Once the photon hit the filter, a quantum measurement was made, and subsequent events ensured that after that time the box contained either a dead cat or a live cat. But that assumes that the photon striking the filter was enough to constitute a measurement. What if, on the other hand, it takes human observation to trigger the measurement? In that case, it would appear, the cat must have been in some indefinite quantum cat-state, neither dead nor alive but potentially either, until someone opened the box to see. But what can it possibly mean, if anything, for a cat to be in some undefined half-dead, half-alive state? "

End quoting.

So at the very worst of the worst scenario, where it is the whatif the cat must be observed yaddah yaddah, make the box out of plexiglass or glass. Problem solved. Altogether, a ridiculously easy paradox, and the crux of the problem is thus: What Schrodinger was saying, at least from what I can interpret, is that how can we know what reality is if we can't precisely measure exactly every property of it? What I say is we make assumptions, not uneducated but educated assumptions on what reality is until we have perfected the measurement techniques to define it.

But let me say this. Sure, reality isn't readily defineable in all aspects. We don't know exactly what makes gravity work. But say I adopt the belief that gravity doesn't apply to me. Because what's true for you doesn't have to be true for me. And say I sincerely believe this with all my heart.

I think we all agree that I will probably hold true to that belief up until the time I hit the pavement after I've stepped off the 9th floor balcony here at work.

I can sincerely believe things, and be sincerely wrong.

I cannot say simply because I don't fully understand something that it can't be accepted as a reality that applies to all people. To do so is folly. There are inalienable facts about this universe that apply to all people. I don't know all of them. I know a couple of them. I don't understand all, nay, even a fraction of them. But I'm willing to bet my life they exist and willing to admit I maybe wrong about a few.

But based on the evidence I see, I draw what I see to be safe conclusions about certain facts that I hold true. Among these are a) If I fire a bullet into my skull, there will be a hole thru my head where the bullet traveled thru it b) If I try to break the law of gravity from the top of a building, I will die c) the way I interpret things of a spiritual nature are correct in total, all these things based on the evidence I have observed.

If I don't believe these things, it will be detrimental to me in the end. These are all my subjective perceptions of reality. Based upon objective evidence. If I based all my perceptions of reality my beliefs would be a) I can fire bullets into my head and they might bounce off b) I can leap buildings in a single bound if I want c) everybody is right about what they believe concerning God and spirituality.

But you see, I hold a belief that I am right, and someone who disagrees with me is wrong. I don't hate the people who are wrong, just that they drew different conclusion based on the evidence they see or didn't really observe the evidence.

Naturally, I think it would be a better world if everyone believed my way, but that's just a panacea in my mind. I know I can't convince everyone to think the way that I do. All I can do is offer the objective evidence that a) reality does exist b) what I think about crucial aspects of reality is actually true and c) now doesn't that feel better now that you are right for a change?

Hehheh

Anyways, enough rambling. I'm actually just trying to avoid staring at my cube walls for hours endlesly. Send me some email! I'm bored!

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry: "poke poke, forkface!"
- celine

No Box!

The great pumpkin is really satan.

Dear Diary,

Read my email:

 Wrote: 
>dear rizzn,
>oh, for about forever!
>do you live in texas? i don't live in texas. thank you, texas.
>- celine.
>-
>http://celine.nodata.org
>>
>> Dear Celine,
>>
>> It is amusing that you thought I was a girl, but praytell
>exactly .how long you have thought that I was a girl?
>>
>> I don't hate you. :)
>> --
>> Rizzn.
>>>dear rizzn,
>>>
>>>it is funny (i suppose.), all this time i thought you
>>>were a girl.
>>>
>>>please don't hate me! i didn't mean it.

Crack is great.

Malkavia wrote today about the bottom of the literary foodchain.

People in the world always targeting comics as the bottom of the literary foodchain. I never get it. Comics are great! I mean look at all the great things about Batman!. Batman is from a comic. Batman can teach us great things! Why are comics so bad then? Hrmm?

But seriously, Malk's big point was that Jack Chick, this fellow behind chick.com that apparently writes Christian tracts is a liar. I must admit, I'm one of the most ardent Christians I know, but I'm not familiar with Jack Chick's great works, and this comic about halloween was the first bit of work I've seen of his.

From reading this entertaining work of fiction, I am honestly able to say that Jack Chick is not guilty of lying about witches, of which Malk acuses him of being. Let's analyze his comic for a bit.

(note: for those getting pissed off, skip to the last paragraph if you just can't stand it anymore before you send me hate mail. but read the whole thing, trust me on this, you guys know how I am. :)

What Jacky-boy says is "To satanists and witches, Halloween is no joke."

Truth. It's an actual event for both groups.

"As we get closer to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ ... Satanism will increase. So will human sacrifice."

If you believe what's in the Bible literally (specifically Revelation), yes, that's a truth. Along with a lot of other bad things for Christians.

"Halloween started with the Druids in the British Isles."

Kindof right. He obviously didn't do a whole lot of research, or he really really oversimplified his research into one sentence. There are actual accounts of the Druids in the dawn of the Roman Empire coming to the British Isles practicing human sacrifice however this was not common practice, however, but a new strain of thought among the celts. If you read through the many different accounts of the Legend of King Arthur, you'll find some of these accounts mentioned in there. Usually these human sacrifices were volunteers however, at least from the accounts I've read. (Don't try to peg me down on this, it's been a long time since I've read about this and if you try to argue me on it, I'll likely just concede the point -- it was from a reliable source where I read it, not just propaganda however).

"These guys were really spooky."

An opinion. Hey man, maybe they were spooky to Mr. Chick.

"Halloween ... glamorizes the powers of darkness, drawing in little kids."

Truth. When else do you see kids dressed up as what would usually be considered things of evil (i.e. undead, satan, etc).

"Satanic sacrifices are a slap in God's face."

Umm... to say the least.

Mr. Chickacola talks about some facts about getting to heaven which are generally theologically correct -- they are straight from the bible and really can't be disputed by any real theologan.

Note: this is the paragraph I was talking about to read if you skipped any of the above part that you need to read before sending hate mail.

NOW, the problem in Mr. Chick's logic is that he groups witches and satanists into the same camp.

The logic that Mr. Chick tries to use to put human sacrificers, ancient and current, is flawed. He puts true facts about both groups together to indicate that what society today considers a witch still practices human sacrifice to play on societal fears. And he also falls in to a common theological trap that many blind Christians follow into, and that is fear of the unknown. Read on.

Granted, in Leviticus, there is the verse where it is mentioned in Hebrew law "..suffer not a witch to live."

From this verse alone, a God-fearing Christian might think that we are to stone or not talk to our pagan friends because it might keep us from going to heaven. Christian friends, I say to you, please don't think this and let me tell you why! (hee hee, I shoulda been a preacher).

Something that is essential to know as a Christian and that many people don't bother to learn is that many of the things written in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible don't apply to us a Christians. Granted, most of the general principals do, but in the Old Testament, there are a number of laws and regulations that were broken upon God's gift of the Christian covenant.

In this case, the law God gave to the Hebrews by way of Moses saying "suffer not a witch to live" no longer applies in the same way the commandment "Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy" no longer applies to Christians.

"Huh?!?" I collectively hear. Yes it's true. Think about it. Jews, the Hebrew, were commanded on a stone tablet actually written by God to keep the seventh day holy in remembrance of God's original rest on the seventh day in the creation story. That's Saturday. Do we go to church traditionally on Saturday? Hrmm? No, I bet if you go to church, you go on Sunday. That's a tradition brought about by the original 12 deciples and Jesus himself.

What does that mean? It means nothing except to demonstrate that we as Christians are no longer bound by all the rules and regulations set forth originally by God. Instead, God gave us the most important commandment, "Love the Lord God with all your body, spirit, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." If you follow that law, that pretty much keeps you in line with all the important stuff. (i.e. stealing, killing, etc.)

So, keeping that law in mind, does it make sense to shun, kill, maim, persecute, run out of town, either by hand, proxy or assistance witches or other non-believers? No, people, that is not the way to win friends and influence people.

That's more or less why I get sick when I read stuff like this, because any chance I have of making intelligent friends and them not thinking I'm an idiot for being a Christian is pretty much gone because they think I believe like this Jack Chick guy or many Christians who will actually force pagans and witches and stuff out of their town altogether! And think about it, if you really are a Christian, don't you want to save everyone's soul that you can? That includes witches and pagans, and if you treat them like sh!t, they ain't gonna like what you have to say.

For those of you who were totally bored by what I had to say, please just humor me and don't tell me I'm boring. I went to seminary after I left highschool for a while and I get into talking about this sort of thing. Plus, education isn't a totally bad thing. The less stupid people in the world the better, right?

Keep that in mind and happy halloween.

Love, Rizzn

Quote of the Entry: "I don't want the cat as my sacrifice! I want Carrie!
- the Great Pumpkin played by the Debil himself!

Meaningless drivel of the Day

Dear Diary,

I am guesing that Uncle Bob is having his kid this morning or something. He didn't update, and he told us what that means.

Yay for Uncle Bob! A Halloween baby!

I'm thinking I want to set up a search engine program for Diaryland. It would be useful. And fun. And a good exercise.

I have a bunch of projects I need to be working on though. We'll see. I'll announce it formally if it happens.

We met with our Chicago client again this weekend. He came down from Chicago and had real Texas marguritas with us. And boy were they good.

I downloaded a bunch of really cool skins for winamp. I love high speed connections.

Speaking of which, our DSL is supposed to be installed today. I hope that goes well.

I'm going to go do some work and come back with a meaningful entry. :)

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry: "Recently I've heard indications that there are OTHER domains like Diaryland out there. Oh no! "

- uberhamster

Absolute truth about company pep rallys is they suck

dear Diary,

Have you ever thought about reality? Not Reality but the concept of reality (but if you'd like to think about Reality, I'm sure she wouldn't mind).

Free thinkers seem to have the common thread that reality is this tenuous idea that it is some fluid thing that can't truly be defined. It is this common thread that devolves most philosophical arguments down to semantics.

What is reality?

The quality or state of being actual or true; one, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual; the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence; that which exists objectively and in fact; that which has necessary existence and not contingent existence.

Reality is based upon fact. Not subjectively on fact. Objectively. That means reality is not up for interpretation. Reality doesn't change from one person to another. Reality is the same for every person. It isn't something you can just make up. It is hard; concrete; essentially -- you don't determine what reality is.

But Rizzn, you say, what's true for me isn't what is true for Jim Bob, my neighbor!

And I tell you that you are wrong, and let me tell you why.

What you are telling me what is true for you isn't true for your buddy is in actuality the statement: "What I percieve as truth isn't what my neighbor/buddy/arch-enemy/dog's lover perceives as truth."

So does perception equal reality. I think the obvious answer is no. The definition of reality and the definition of perception of reality are completely different.

So how do you make the distinction?

Well, one can make the judgement of what reality is based upon what he/she observes, but in truth, this is just relying on your sense, making your perception of reality purely subjective. To truly get an accurate perception of reality, one must consult a third party, preferably reliable. If one can do this and verify the perceptions, than one's perceptions can probably be verified as fact. (see definition of fact for more information on verifying your reality).

All this to say that there is such thing as absolute truth, and there is no way around it. You, me, your dog's lover ... all of us have perceptions of reality. We all have subjective ideas of what reality is.

The truth of the matter is that we are in each and everybody's own right, either absolutely right or absolutely wrong on each facet of what we percieve as reality.

But out there is the absolute truth. It exists. Otherwise there is no such thing as existance or reality as we know it. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then everything you know is wrong. Or right. Or actually doesn't matter. You might as well not know anything if everything you know is useless and void.

But if you admit that you know the correct answer to, say, 1+1, then you know something. Absolute truth dictates that 1+1 in a simple adding equation will always equal 2. Absolute truth.

By the way ... if you write me and tell me that the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth I will only laugh and post your name for public ridicule. Surely any logical mind will see the inherint logical folly in such statements.

Anyway, I've got to go to a company pep rally. Don't ask. It's dumb.

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry: "And this is the attitude I adopt when I don't feel like I've had enough sleep. Midol? What's that?"
- kat

You heard right, sister!

Dear Diary,

You know, it's bad when you see that you are doing three entries a day. It means the projects you are working on probably aren't getting done.

But I read kat's entry response to be humorous. "Today is a shut up and take it however they wanna give it to me day." Ha hah haheheh.

Ok, it was funny to me, I guess.

And then I read here that "..last night i dreamt that i said to somebody, "my family is so dysfunctional that my younger brother is two years older than me."

Fun day. Non-productive day. Day of many entries.

Oh, I guess it's mention-worthy that my ex-girlfriend that I think I wrote about a long time ago who's handle is Z.. wrote me today. I haven't talked to her in nearly 2 years. She's a programmer now. Or at least she's learned how to program. Which is sexy to me.

You know, of all the girls I've ever gone out with, she's the only one I wish we were still together. She didn't fsck me over. She didn't screw up my life. In fact, while we went out, it was the most blissful time of my life.

Seriously I felt more spritually in tune than ever when we were a thing. This probably has to do with the fact that shortly after our breakup I fell into a deep depression/self-indulgence thing that took me 3 years to recover from (i.e about 7 or 8 months ago).

Nonetheless, it was a good time, and that is about 7 or 8 months of my life I wouldn't exchange for the world. I hope that one day I can attain that level of happiness and communion with God and a significant other again.

Whew. This entry got all heavy in a hurry.

At any rate, in her email to me she mentioned that she knew someone from our hometown that goes to school with her who said he knew me that had been spreading rumors about me and she wanted the real story behind it (I have no idea who this fool is, but the rumors he supposedly spread are most likely true).

This is part of the reason I didn't keep close contact with Z.. as well as many of my other Christian friends. I was and still am to a certain extent ashamed to admit to the public of what exactly happenned during that time of my life.

Why do you think I never use my real name in this diary? Sure many people already know that rizzn and my real name are synonomous, but most of the people I hide those years of my life from don't know.

Z.. knows, but I hope she hasn't found this diary. That would suck.

Ok, enough pining about the past.

Here's my plan ... my dastardly evil plan.... should I not find the perfect woman by the time I am a rich business owner (which is coming very soon, by the way -- different story, but not a joke), I'm going to call up Z.. and offer her a job programming for me (a thing she has taken up and apparrently enjoys doing, partly because of my enthusiasm for my computers, so she tells me) and my company with a salary she can't refuse. Then I'll do the Bill Gates thing and marry one of my employees. Or at least take her on a date or something. She can't refuse. I'm her boss!

Hrmm. I wonder if she has a boyfriend now. She didn't mention it, but one wonders. Actually, it doesn't matter.

Why am I dwelling on this? I have work to do. Besides, I'm already promised to two other goddesses from a different plane of existance.

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry: "god made everything, i heard. "
- perception

I am too good to be true

Dear Diary,

Your photo has been deactivated from amiHotorNot.com because 
we received a number of complaints about it.  Your photo was 
deactivated because of inappropriate content. The following 
are not welcome here: ads, copyrighted material, porn, 
nudity, celebrities, models, group photos, children, 
animals, fakes, etc. As a rule, if people don't think the   
picture is of YOU, they will complain!  To reactivate 
your account, you must submit a new photo.

This was the picture:

I think the problem is that I look too good to be true, so they automatically assume I'm a supermodel. Hell, I don't know.

/rizzn