FA+
Shop
A logical progression of facts. (ramble)
16 years ago
The stars shine each night...
I've heard this term used a lot lately in my classes, and felt like rambling on about it.
The physical world is governed by laws. These laws are set in stone and cannot be broken, however they can be negated. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, while two opposites cancel each other out; by this logic, everything,, the world, solar system, an ant, a super nova, a tornado, cancer, love, kindness, the stars,, everything, must come to an end,, an end which would, by logic, be the exact opposite of it's creation.
Yet, not once that I've seen, is this the case;, there is another variable to factor into account: energy. This part-way falls under the afore mentioned 'equal and opposite',, the moment an action occurs, it must counteract itself; this occurs in the real world via a 'cost', that is, for every action performed, the mass performing it loses the same amount of energy the action itself generated. That idea is the basis for something called a 'perpetual motion machine.' Such a machine would take a single charge; that to 'start' it; then continue operating by harnessing the energy created by whatever action it performs and re-iterating it into the machines power supply.
The whole hypothesis however, is hindered by one little factor: loss. Allow me to explain. A car engine's job is to propel the vehicle it's attached to forwards; it does this by driving pistons up and down at the expense of fuel. In the real world, this constant up and down motion of the pistons creates friction, which in turn, costs and produces energy (again, in equal measure). Friction slows the pistons down, costing energy as the engine must work harder to keep the pistons going, however it also creates heat; a form of energy. To return to out perpetual motion machine, the same issues apply; there are numerous factors that drain energy, without outputting an equal amount in the desired manner; that's very important to remember, they do output energy equal to what they cost, just not in the manner, or form, we wish them to (a.k.a. the simplest to harvest).
Assuming however, that we found a way (in space perhaps?) to overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and could create a 'perfect' engine, a.k.a. an engine that works with zero lost energy,, what possible purpose could it serve? In order for it to power anything at all, it would need to drive an additional reactor (additional being in addition to it's own); an action that would cost energy - making the machine non-perpetual. A possible use would be the 'conversion' of matter to a specific kind of energy; or extraction, moreover. That being said, we neither know of any such energy, nor of any specific matter that would benefit from this method of conversion; yet the perpetual motion machine, not to long ago, was thought to be one of the biggest creations that will ever be made. Following a logical progression of facts, this should not be the case; in fact it should be lumped with some of the most useless designs ever.
Science is meant to be, in all cases, hard solid logic; no not fact, logic. Facts are what science produces, they're the end result of the process that is science. In the best of cases, science would be an imperfect art; seeing as until we have all the facts, any logic progression will be based upon only half truths,, and when we have all the facts, science will be obsolete, as there will be nothing new to discover. This means, however, that at the worst of times, there should be one set 'correct' and one (or more) 'incorrect' hypotheses - some of which would be 'completely incorrect', meaning there is proof against them,, and some would be 'incomplete incorrect', meaning they are incorrect but cannot be proven such until more facts are refined. In any case, it should be a simple matter to discover when a dead end is reached, to allow valuable time to be spent on non-dead research, until such a time as the old research can be revived.
But once again, there is a variable not being taken into account: perspective. Perspective is every sentient races greatest blessing, and their worst curse. At best, perspective is the entire basis for our personalities, it's what makes us unique; you can allocate several other reasons to that as well, but in the end they all come back to perspective. At its worst, perspective is the cause for every non-natural problem that has ever, or will ever exist. If perspective didn't exist, war wouldn't exist, differences wouldn't exist, polar opposites such as happiness and despair wouldn't exist, and we would have a 'perfect colonisational society'. If you think that sounds like a good thing, let me take a minute to explain it. What that means is we would all be working to the same ends, in the same manner, for the same reasons,, with less difference between us than ants have now; we would be mindless drones, except there would be no 'master'.
In this world, ruled by sentient beings, no matter how hard you try, no matter how perfect your 'logic', you will never be able to create a perfectly logical progression of facts. You will always see only what you understand, you will always be different, you will always disagree, you will always hate; and yet, for the same reasons, you'll know there's more than what you see, you will always have something no matter how different, you will always learn so long as you're willing to admit when you're wrong, and you will always love. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, human psychology is no exception.
If anyone read that I want you to answer me a single question: how does anyone know if someone is 'insane'?
The physical world is governed by laws. These laws are set in stone and cannot be broken, however they can be negated. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, while two opposites cancel each other out; by this logic, everything,, the world, solar system, an ant, a super nova, a tornado, cancer, love, kindness, the stars,, everything, must come to an end,, an end which would, by logic, be the exact opposite of it's creation.
Yet, not once that I've seen, is this the case;, there is another variable to factor into account: energy. This part-way falls under the afore mentioned 'equal and opposite',, the moment an action occurs, it must counteract itself; this occurs in the real world via a 'cost', that is, for every action performed, the mass performing it loses the same amount of energy the action itself generated. That idea is the basis for something called a 'perpetual motion machine.' Such a machine would take a single charge; that to 'start' it; then continue operating by harnessing the energy created by whatever action it performs and re-iterating it into the machines power supply.
The whole hypothesis however, is hindered by one little factor: loss. Allow me to explain. A car engine's job is to propel the vehicle it's attached to forwards; it does this by driving pistons up and down at the expense of fuel. In the real world, this constant up and down motion of the pistons creates friction, which in turn, costs and produces energy (again, in equal measure). Friction slows the pistons down, costing energy as the engine must work harder to keep the pistons going, however it also creates heat; a form of energy. To return to out perpetual motion machine, the same issues apply; there are numerous factors that drain energy, without outputting an equal amount in the desired manner; that's very important to remember, they do output energy equal to what they cost, just not in the manner, or form, we wish them to (a.k.a. the simplest to harvest).
Assuming however, that we found a way (in space perhaps?) to overcome the aforementioned obstacles, and could create a 'perfect' engine, a.k.a. an engine that works with zero lost energy,, what possible purpose could it serve? In order for it to power anything at all, it would need to drive an additional reactor (additional being in addition to it's own); an action that would cost energy - making the machine non-perpetual. A possible use would be the 'conversion' of matter to a specific kind of energy; or extraction, moreover. That being said, we neither know of any such energy, nor of any specific matter that would benefit from this method of conversion; yet the perpetual motion machine, not to long ago, was thought to be one of the biggest creations that will ever be made. Following a logical progression of facts, this should not be the case; in fact it should be lumped with some of the most useless designs ever.
Science is meant to be, in all cases, hard solid logic; no not fact, logic. Facts are what science produces, they're the end result of the process that is science. In the best of cases, science would be an imperfect art; seeing as until we have all the facts, any logic progression will be based upon only half truths,, and when we have all the facts, science will be obsolete, as there will be nothing new to discover. This means, however, that at the worst of times, there should be one set 'correct' and one (or more) 'incorrect' hypotheses - some of which would be 'completely incorrect', meaning there is proof against them,, and some would be 'incomplete incorrect', meaning they are incorrect but cannot be proven such until more facts are refined. In any case, it should be a simple matter to discover when a dead end is reached, to allow valuable time to be spent on non-dead research, until such a time as the old research can be revived.
But once again, there is a variable not being taken into account: perspective. Perspective is every sentient races greatest blessing, and their worst curse. At best, perspective is the entire basis for our personalities, it's what makes us unique; you can allocate several other reasons to that as well, but in the end they all come back to perspective. At its worst, perspective is the cause for every non-natural problem that has ever, or will ever exist. If perspective didn't exist, war wouldn't exist, differences wouldn't exist, polar opposites such as happiness and despair wouldn't exist, and we would have a 'perfect colonisational society'. If you think that sounds like a good thing, let me take a minute to explain it. What that means is we would all be working to the same ends, in the same manner, for the same reasons,, with less difference between us than ants have now; we would be mindless drones, except there would be no 'master'.
In this world, ruled by sentient beings, no matter how hard you try, no matter how perfect your 'logic', you will never be able to create a perfectly logical progression of facts. You will always see only what you understand, you will always be different, you will always disagree, you will always hate; and yet, for the same reasons, you'll know there's more than what you see, you will always have something no matter how different, you will always learn so long as you're willing to admit when you're wrong, and you will always love. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, human psychology is no exception.
If anyone read that I want you to answer me a single question: how does anyone know if someone is 'insane'?
ozfurs
According to your own rhetoric you can't.
Still there is an old saying that a madman does not know he is mad.
However, there is a great debate of logical break down of enculterization to that degree as well.
Yet well presented thought.
I've heard that saying many times (and all to often as the only reason my friends think I'm sane; heh) and that was half my point, in his perspective he is sane; as true as the fact that no one thinks themselves the villains.
Thank you, for reading it, and for the comment; it's always nice to know that someone has read what I've written =)
what youve said sounds resanable. hmmm
Thanks for reading and for the watch!