An Open Letter to the Multiverses!

dear imitator_101,

greetings! i don't really know how else to start this than by saying the usual.."i hate you!" or that "i'm running a police blotter on you!" for ruining the poor, sedentary life of a philistine. but, yeah.. i have been mauling your argument for days now in my head and i figured i might as well lay down everything (i think) i've understood from it and our conversation and the things that have been plaguing me about the whole dealeeyo, so that the next time we do talk about it you can really stick the things i left out or overlooked to me!and what better way to share my thoughts than by posting them on my own blog? in a very informal letter. i hope you don't think i'm exploiting you and your genius, but this is the only thing i've written in weeks after all. and im pretty sure whatever i write would fall short to whatever else you intend to write about anyway.so it's also kinda like three-year-old taking on a 300-pound bully--not that your a bully or that your 300 pounds, but it's an idea you could look into. did i mention your argument is quite trenchant? and that you should run for president of the world? that's the genius three-year-old in me talking. plus it's 2 o'clock in the morning and i'm on a coffee binge, so the posting of this blog is inevitable.

stroking egos and binges aside, i figured it's also fun for everyone(hmm..that would be for the 5 people, maybe even less because everyone else seems confident i'm not getting myself in any trouble) who reads my blog coz they could cross-reference to your blog(http://tuste-pagtataka.blogdrive.com), and vice versa(http://..yeah..not really) and will unwittingly partake in this "intellectual" feast. also, they have options to treat this as a.) a semi-plagiarised research paper--disguised as a letter--minus the tedium of footnotes, the attention to grammar rules, syntax, spelling and sentence construction,and everything else resembling structure and coherence found in a research paper, because really it's not--i'm just running low on battery; b.) a surf between two local TV channels(i'll take Net 25, you take GMA 7) if only in a parallel universe where they're the only two channels battling it out for the viewers' approval ratings; or c.) a 2-ton bullcrap. so it's win-win-win for everyone. but you know...we can always move on and leave this all behind us..but i realized i'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet. and neither should you. so for whatever it's worth, here's...

What's Been Established in the Argument:

1.set up: heisenberg's uncertainty principle(i think the implication you were talking about is the concept of quantum mechanics)/entropy--"walking through walls"; establishing "the right states" considering space and time--lots and lots of it..

2.chance of creating life is like a tornado ripping through a junk yard creating a 747..

3.tornado exists/governed by laws of nature/is a law of nature(or is it force of nature)..

4. tornado rips through junk yard, creates a 747--for that to happen would require "crazy number" of tornadoes ripping through a corresponding "crazy number" of junk yards..yadiyada..

5. humans are much like tornadoes in a way that it "acts" upon creation but has the ability to reduce randomness of events; increases chance of certainty; increases probability*..

6. reasons for reduced randomness: consciousness(supposing it's a prerequisite to intellect, certain cognitive abilities), physical capacity/capabilitiies,"purpose" for doing so(putting meaning into it)..

7. if we are like the tornadoes but "better*", and tornadoes are laws of nature(forces of nature), we too are the laws of nature(forces of nature). possible implication: there is meaning to our existence(excluding the concept of a higher calling; concept of the "divine"--it just complicates things i think at this point, or no..i think it might do the opposite)..

8. we exist, accidental or not, because we serve or act out a specific purpose of increasing chance of certainty, reducing randomness; man is essential but only as a "reason-driven catalyst" of sorts(hmm..which kinda made me think of the LHC particle accelerator all of a sudden)..

9. the possibility of consciousness in human beings as a law of nature..

Concerns/Conundrums/Suggestions/Whatevers(or as many Ateneans I've come to know like to say, "The What-Nots"):

1. laws of nature vs. forces of nature
both humans and tornadoes are governed by the laws of nature, as well as forces of nature(considering force-carrying particles). suggestion: distinguish laws of nature and forces of nature. there are four forces of nature(this is based on what i remember anyway..so..hold your horses!):gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces; laws of nature could encompass much more...so maybe forces of nature could be classified under this. another suggestion: stick to just laws of nature.

2. tornado rips through junk yard, creates a 747
for that to happen would not just require "crazy number" of tornadoes ripping through a corresponding "crazy number" of junk yards..it would happen because of laws of nature governing tornadoes and laws governing the "act" of ripping through junk yard(the junk yard essential to creation as well) and creating a 747 down to its molecular/subatomic level(like 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy)..not physically impossible but has less likely the probability to happen(statistically impossible because it's "infinite"?)..has to have the "right states"--position, velocity, space, time, etc.--to happen...i think you pointed this out though with "other sets of probabilities"..so dammit..this isn't wholly original!

3. oh..and...is it possible that we've cast too much light on the chance of creating life and the "tornado" analogy? and the "tornadoes" to humans? i think there is something we're are not looking that should have been established in the beginning that makes the logic true and compelling(like the tornadoes being laws of nature, if man is like a tornado..then he too a is a law of nature..is tornado a law of nature? not quite. it existed because of them, is governed by them..so that follows suit with humans? can a distinct law of nature be governed by or dependent on other laws of nature?). yeah..and you mentioned that it's possible everything could create everything, and make certain outcomes more certain. in that case tornadoes with consciousness and humans aren't all that special. something could have something other than consciousness or intellect, something far more extraordinary, that could make things 99.999% certain, all the time. not God though. maybe a human could accidentally make something like that--an extraordinary "machine" or "entity", with no real purpose or meaning..or maybe the original intent was abandoned. i dunno..i must be losing my goddamn mind. is this where science, philosophy and science-fiction meet and have tea parties? must call George Lucas.

4. assuming man as a natural law because of consciousness(taking into account what man is relative to the expanse of the universe,unknown variables, etc.): possibility of bordering on baseless speculations/oversimplifications?...but which i think is good platform to lift off from given the right data..

5. are we human beings because of consciousness? or is possible to be human beings without it? because if it is, human beings could possibly be just vessels of consciousness..so yes, perhaps you were right on separating man from consciousness..and there could be many others like us. fast-tracking evolution to 700 million years from now on earth alone..other species could have consciousness or a semblance of it..after all, animals seem to be capable of emotions..are those to prerequisites to consciousness? this is the reason why i pointed out the octopus(with their enormous brains) and the bonobos(who we are just a crosshare from being our genetic equivalent)..it's possible they just lost out on the genetic lottery for consciousness..it's possible it's not even a law, but a genetic trait...but first we have to ask--what is consciousness?

6. is consciousness observable, measureable? an infallible generalization? encompassing time and space? could we really put consciousness up there with Newton's Gravitational Law? a truth in all given circumstances? in another universe? and another? and don't laws undergo rigorous "tests" before being considered as laws? theories are always a good way to start. i think i have more stocked up in my head but i'll leave those untouched for now. or perhaps you've already figured something new out and beat me to it--i won't be surprised. i'll be angry, probably create maelstroms here and there; but no surprises. this is the part where i should quote a seminal philosopher, like this friend of mine who quotes philosophers a whole lot in his own blog..hmm..wonder who that is?..

The greatest happiness of a thinking man is..

"...to have explored whatever is explorable and to revere silently what is inexplorable.."
--Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

...i never could understand that! haha. we need a new line of attack. or a new hobby.

strongheld to the loonie bin,
yanihahaha