Entropy and the Origin of the Universe

Entropy is, as some of you would know, disorder. With our current physics laws, we have determined that entropy will always increase, because for every TU (time unit, what I call the smallest unit of time) the molecules will move until they become more and more disordered, because the chances of something going back to order is so small it's inconcievable.

For example, is it impossible for all the molecules of a ball to vibrate at the same time and direction, so that the ball would move? Sounds weird, doesn't it? But it is totally posible for it to happen, however the chances of every single molecules of that ball to move at the same time and direction is so small that people treat it like it's impossible.

What does this have anything to do with the origin of the universe? At one point in time that inconcievably small chance happened, and planetary order came to be, with perfect combination of forces for everything to work properly. And then in this planet, the order increased again, and life was created. Let us not dwell on how this happens, but focus on our search for the origin of the universe.

The way we currently search for the origin of the universe is to find patterns that will lead us to it. However, if after the creation of the universe there is a point of disorder for an unknown amount of time, then it is impossible for us to even search for the beginning. The best we can do is to search for the Perfect Time where everything is in order.

We must also remember that the chances of that happening is one in a trillion to the power of a trillion. Probably more, but you get the point. However, it is important to be reminded that if Perfect Time happened, then entropy will reset to zero. I would say then a new universe is born, or that this universe is reborn. Because, really, we can't call an unorganised matter, time, and space a universe can we?

So, maybe, instead of defining the Big Bang as the origin of the universe, but the point when the Perfect Time happened.

Artist's Dilemma

There are a number of ways we can communicate our ideas with others. One is sound languages, which includes spoken languages and music. The second is writing. The third is through pictures or paintings, or visual languages.

Writing and spoken languages have rules that limit them. Visual languages, though, are less bound by such rules. There are styles, yes. However there are no restrictions or rules. Let compare modern art and a Victorian painting. While one can be a blue field with a red dot in the middle (modern), the other can be a painting of hell, with people suffering, and yet both could be intended to mean the same thing. The interpretation is different for every viewer.

This presents another problem, though. For example, if a girl was drawn naked, people’s mind would immediately assume that the intention of the artist is sexual in nature, while the artist drew the figure there to represent a pure body that is untouched by anything. I call this the Artist’s Dilemma.

So what is to be done? Well… the artist would not be able to do anything, so it is the viewers’ job to dive through the shallow interpretation of an art piece and into the deeper meaning that the artist intended. Don’t just look and go ‘it’s a naked anime girl with chains = anime bondage fetish’ but notice the way that the chains are connected to a heart, a scale, and a book, and make sense from that. Find all the dots and connect them. You might be surprised what you can find.

For the artist that has been ridiculed by people for their drawings, just remember this. Be proud of who you are. You know what you intended to be there. It does not matter what the other thinks. You drew what you drew, and be proud of it, and the meaning behind it.

Jinx

Reality

What is reality? Are we real? It is a question that have plagued the minds of people. Descartes had a very interesting idea about all of us are dreamt up by an evil genius. Hah, evil genius. More like clueless idiot.

Plato of course has another idea. We are chained to the wall inside a cave and behind us people are creating shadow puppets, so all we can see are shadows, and that the real world is outside the cave. Great...really...where do you think the Matrix idea came from, folks?

Let's go all the way to Locke now. The great Locke. What we experience is what is real. Yay, someone without a pessimistic view.

Me...well, i think it's a daft question. Where are we? In our universe. What are we trying to say is real? our universe. Are we real? you tell me. What do you believe? If you think we are, then we are. If you think we're not, which I'm still not sure how you can say so, then we are not.

What people do is looking our universe from the outside, Plato for one, which is a mistake. It is impossible for us, limited as we are to look at the universe from the outside. We can imagine a very very inaccurate image in our head, but then we are still in our universe, or more accurately, in ourselves. Because of what we are, we will always be stuck in ourselves.

Reality is in ourselves. It is not something physical. Rather, it is more of an idea that we have of what we want our life to be. It is something that every individual experience in life, both of the physical experience (existansialism) and the mental experience (rationalism). That is reality. It is not the question of are we real or not, but what reality is to you.

Jinx

Note: Even though I said such things about Plato, Locke, and Descartes i actually do respect them for having some good thoughts.