As it's been longer than anticipated since the previous post until now (the next post), I'll write something uncreative simply to compromise any reader's spare time, much like the post two before this, and in effect continuing with the closing topic. That was, by the way, exploring phrases in English that make no sense if taken literally. So - let us begin!
**
The next phrase - here's a good one - 'it's raining cats and dogs'. If it happens to be raining at the moment, when you're reading this, go and look outside. Look for cats and dogs falling from the clouds. I can quite assure you that you won't find any, no matter how hard you search for the query. Scientifically, then, it can be stated with much confidence that particles of water do not contain the protiens and other organic materials necessary to create life as we know it. Water isn't even living itself. So how did we come to use the phrase?
This I did research, and found that (like much in English), it was borne more out of old things than logic. It can be traced to the 1700s, when torrential rains would cause rapid flooding, carrying the corpses of dogs and cats through the streets. Thus, heavy rains come with the implication that they also rain - not living - but dead household pets, which we've all come to love. I can't determine if the picture evoked by that is more grim or comedic... Perhaps a better phrase (one to replace 'it's raining cats and dogs') would be, 'it's raining hard enough to disturb the dead', because the rain would have transported corpses of the cats and dogs, thus 'disturbing' them. And if that were true, there would likely be a terrible series of horror movies about flood rains that create zombies; so perhaps the phrase is indeed best as it is?
*
'The whole nine yards'. This phrase is used to describe something that is utterly complete. For instance, one might say, 'Leonardo da Vinci really went the whole nine yards in painting The Last Supper.' Research says that the definate origins of the phrase are unknown, but are assumed to be sometime from the late 1930s to the 1970s. The explanation I like best describes the phrase as deriving from World War II combat pilots, because to 'go the full nine yards' (as they would say), was to use up all twenty-seven feet (nine yards) of the aircraft's machine gun ammunition belt. But of course, because the origins of the phrase are uncertain, many explanations have been offered, besides the one above, no one able to comprehensively prove nor disprove any theory. So that takes care of that.
*
And finally, 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'. I used to have a very hard time understanding this phrase, but truthfully it is much more a proverb than phrase. It means, essentailly, that something assured is better than something uncertain - a small, but certain, portion of food is better than than a larger portion that can only questionably be gained (as with hunting.) My explanations of such things are terrible, and as such I offer my apologies. The proverb teaches a valuable lesson, but literally does not add up. A bird in your hand is worth the same as a bird in the bush (the forest), assuming both are the same type of bird. You can't fairly say that just because you touched it you should receive extra for it. That doesn't work. But the proverb is good.
**
And to close the post, I'd like to rant about animal rights. I am aware of animal activists who believe that all animals should be given human rights, and that humans have no right to kill and consume them. Surely the activists wouldn't mind a bear consuming a fish, or a fish consuming plankton. It's all part of nature's food chain. As it is, humans top the food chain currently. Humans, too are animals, and thus have just as much right to eat a fish (or a bear) as a bear does.
It could also be argued that if animals are to be given rights, then why not plants and trees? Surely these too are living, and don't deserve to be killed against their own will. But again, consumption is all part of nature's food chain, and plants play an active role in it, just as other animals do. So that answers that, I think.
**
FIN
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Ranting, Decanting, Panting?
In making fair attempts to float, at the least, on my promise, I'm updating; that is, if you can consider a series of (at best) loosely connected, unintellectual thoughts an update. There's a first for everything, I suppose.
Let me begin with an argument about why, in my opinion, many complex board games - like Risk, War of the Ring, Settlers of Catan, etc., are better in all degrees than the average video game. A 'complex board game' is one that prerequisites a fair amount of thought, and whose mechanics do not lay entirely in luck; such games are not War (a card game in which the objective is to gain the entire deck by comparing randomly selected cards), Candy Land (no explanation necessary), or Chutes and Ladders (see latter explanation), to name a few.
I do not mean to be an advocate of the dissolution of video games, and am myself a rather frequent player. I do mean to say, though, that I think many people should give board gaming more credit. It is difficult to replace the unique pleasure of sitting at a table with friends (who have become temporary sworn nemeses), and uncovering a dominating strategy that only deepens their (temporary) lust for your (in-game) punishment. For wargames, what is more gratifying than physically removing enemies' units from the board, having been trumped by your own? What can replace the release of a handful of dice, the anticipation of the roll's result, the weighted clicking of dice-against-table-against-dice?
Beyond the physical advantages board games have, one must also consider the mental. With many video games, the mind is only being used to process images, a menial task that we have been doing since a few weeks after birth. Board games, however, are far more complex: one must not only initiate some form of strategy himself, but must also acclimate to the varying strategy of his opponents, no matter the degree. The depth of a video game goes only as far as any computer may go; and need it be stated that, at its base, a computer is simply many logic gates that either turn on or off.
And here's one for the Green Party: after having been created, board games use no additional environmental resources! (Reader: 'huzzah' now, please.) Again, video games are great, and are great wasters of time. I simply believe that board games are being under credited, and overlooked with the advent of so much new technology.
**
My next series of thoughts will be devoted to trying to understand why some phrases are used in English, though nonsensical if taken literally.
'Cool'. I believe it was first used to describe temperature.
"How's the weather today, lad?"
"It's very moderate today, sir. Not so warm, nor cold either."
"Hmm... 'Cool' isn't it?"
Maybe that's how it came about, though I think it more likely derived from the same word from which we get 'cold', employed to a lesser degree. But how did 'cool' come to be synonymous with such wonderful words as 'awesome' or 'wicked', or even (the phrase) 'wicked awesome'? Perhaps an English-speaking population living in a temperature-unstable location (like Indiana...) found that the temperature was best between hot and cold. It was 'awesome' or even 'wicked awesome' at such times. And so this temperature level began to be substituted in spoken sentences in place of words with such positive connotations; then, over time, its meaning officially became multi-faceted. Who knows?
Oh! A 'pair' of pants. I've labored over this one for some time, and still haven't overcome laziness enough to simply find a credible answer. The question that arises with pants, is why they must be purchased in pairs: one can buy a single t-shirt, but cannot buy a single pant(?). However, he can purchase a single pair of pants. I'm pretty sure that a 'pant' used to mean the clothing that covers a leg, or for simpler terms, a leg-sleeve. Because these 'leg-sleeves' used to be made independently, and only attached once both were prepared, it was more conventional to title their bonded state a 'pair' of 'pants'. And, actually, the term 'pant-leg' is still used commonly today, to refer to one leg of a pair of pants. I'm confident that the above explanation is fairly close to the truth.
**
Though my opinions on the entertainment value of this post likely cannot be applied to the readers, I entertained considerable pleasure while writing this, and hope (if the readers are not overly disgruntled) to do more similar to this in the future. My attempts at comedy were thus, and creativity in writing marginal at best; but these are the flaws of thoughtless writing. Many thanks!
Let me begin with an argument about why, in my opinion, many complex board games - like Risk, War of the Ring, Settlers of Catan, etc., are better in all degrees than the average video game. A 'complex board game' is one that prerequisites a fair amount of thought, and whose mechanics do not lay entirely in luck; such games are not War (a card game in which the objective is to gain the entire deck by comparing randomly selected cards), Candy Land (no explanation necessary), or Chutes and Ladders (see latter explanation), to name a few.
I do not mean to be an advocate of the dissolution of video games, and am myself a rather frequent player. I do mean to say, though, that I think many people should give board gaming more credit. It is difficult to replace the unique pleasure of sitting at a table with friends (who have become temporary sworn nemeses), and uncovering a dominating strategy that only deepens their (temporary) lust for your (in-game) punishment. For wargames, what is more gratifying than physically removing enemies' units from the board, having been trumped by your own? What can replace the release of a handful of dice, the anticipation of the roll's result, the weighted clicking of dice-against-table-against-dice?
Beyond the physical advantages board games have, one must also consider the mental. With many video games, the mind is only being used to process images, a menial task that we have been doing since a few weeks after birth. Board games, however, are far more complex: one must not only initiate some form of strategy himself, but must also acclimate to the varying strategy of his opponents, no matter the degree. The depth of a video game goes only as far as any computer may go; and need it be stated that, at its base, a computer is simply many logic gates that either turn on or off.
And here's one for the Green Party: after having been created, board games use no additional environmental resources! (Reader: 'huzzah' now, please.) Again, video games are great, and are great wasters of time. I simply believe that board games are being under credited, and overlooked with the advent of so much new technology.
**
My next series of thoughts will be devoted to trying to understand why some phrases are used in English, though nonsensical if taken literally.
'Cool'. I believe it was first used to describe temperature.
"How's the weather today, lad?"
"It's very moderate today, sir. Not so warm, nor cold either."
"Hmm... 'Cool' isn't it?"
Maybe that's how it came about, though I think it more likely derived from the same word from which we get 'cold', employed to a lesser degree. But how did 'cool' come to be synonymous with such wonderful words as 'awesome' or 'wicked', or even (the phrase) 'wicked awesome'? Perhaps an English-speaking population living in a temperature-unstable location (like Indiana...) found that the temperature was best between hot and cold. It was 'awesome' or even 'wicked awesome' at such times. And so this temperature level began to be substituted in spoken sentences in place of words with such positive connotations; then, over time, its meaning officially became multi-faceted. Who knows?
Oh! A 'pair' of pants. I've labored over this one for some time, and still haven't overcome laziness enough to simply find a credible answer. The question that arises with pants, is why they must be purchased in pairs: one can buy a single t-shirt, but cannot buy a single pant(?). However, he can purchase a single pair of pants. I'm pretty sure that a 'pant' used to mean the clothing that covers a leg, or for simpler terms, a leg-sleeve. Because these 'leg-sleeves' used to be made independently, and only attached once both were prepared, it was more conventional to title their bonded state a 'pair' of 'pants'. And, actually, the term 'pant-leg' is still used commonly today, to refer to one leg of a pair of pants. I'm confident that the above explanation is fairly close to the truth.
**
Though my opinions on the entertainment value of this post likely cannot be applied to the readers, I entertained considerable pleasure while writing this, and hope (if the readers are not overly disgruntled) to do more similar to this in the future. My attempts at comedy were thus, and creativity in writing marginal at best; but these are the flaws of thoughtless writing. Many thanks!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Of Dimensions and the Shape of the Universe
This post concerns a branch of theoretical physics indirectly related to the string theory, which offers an explanation of reality. It is hoped that it won't subdue many readers.
Dimensions! The space in which our own reality exists! The definition of space contained within a shape! It is widely believed that we, Earthlings, are able to perceive four dimensions. (Perceive was used because - theoretically - we continue to exist in dimensions above the fourth, but are simply unaware of their existance or how our actions influence those them.) First, imagine a point: a place of infinately small size that has no area or volume, and simply represents space. If one were to imagine a second point, and draw a line between these, the first dimension could be created - length. If from this line another were to branch, the second dimension could be imagined - width. For ease of explanation later, the third dimension will be described as what the second dimension is folded through to get from one point to another instantly in the second dimension. As an example, imagine a second-dimensional creature walking along a flat plane: a second-dimensional world. If we were to take this plane and overlap it with itself (fold), then return it to its flat position, if the second-dimensional creature were to have walked onto the overlap before the plane was flattened again, and sustained its position after the plane were flattened - alas! It would seemingly have been transported from one point to another - instantly. Any dimension can be described as what is folded through in the dimension below it in this way.
The above dimensions concerned physical space, which we all are well-acquainted. The fourth and final dimension we are able to perceive is time. Time is fleeting. Physics describes time as an indefinate number of points every second/(second squared). Thus, we live from point-to-point in time - a literal 'time-line'. If you imagine yourself one second ago, and consider yourself now, you will notice you have changed, and also that you would be able to draw a line from that point to this one fluidly. On a larger scale, consider the universe from the big bang to the present: it could continue to be charted as a fourth-dimensional, fluid line. Physics also says that our existance is waves of probability collapsed by perception, and that every action we take creates a new path of existance for us, leading to one's present existance. The fifth dimension, then, is a branch, or branches, in the time-line. Now, what if you wanted to find one path of existance for yourself in which you were prosperous, or did a marvelous deed for the world? One way would be to travel back in time, influence your younger self in some way, and wait to see the result. Easier, however, would simply be to fold the fifth dimension through the sixth dimension so that you could instantly travel from one path of your existance to the path of your existance that you desire.
The seventh dimension is epic: all possible branches of the universe's timelines, represented in a single point. Anything from whether or not a caveman were to blink at one time instead of another, to whether or not Hitler decides to begin the Holocaust are contained in this point. Thus, the point is infinity - everything. But the eigth dimension is a line connecting one infinity to another. How is this possible? Different starting conditions, which would create a totally different universe with varying natural, physical laws, etc. So... as said, the line connecting one infinity to another (in time) is the eigth dimension. As you could probably imagine, then, the ninth dimension is a branch in time from one infinity to another, leading to yet another infinity. Finally, however, the tenth dimension is a point representing all possible timelines with all possible starting conditions... What I like to call 'absolute infinity'. *Whoah* The string theory says that matter derives from subatomic strings vibrating in the tenth dimension.
Now, to the shape of the universe. This has been, and is still being, debated, because none have left the universe (obviously) to photograph it, or document its shape. Some believe that the universe will eventually collapse under its own gravitational force, but I don't think that is very likely because in other dimensions in the universe gravity may not exist. Others, then, say that the universe is infinately expanding, and only a divine, all-powerful being should decide when it ends, if ever. Let us consider a moebious strip. To create one, take a strip of paper (representing a plane in the second dimension), twist one end 180 degrees, and attach the two ends as they are. You should have, then, a ring of paper with an odd bend in it. If you were to draw a line around the ring, you would notice that the line covers both the inside and outside of the strip before returning to its initial position; thus, it is a two-dimensional (one-sided) shape, existing in three-dimensional space. Wow! I believe this to be the shape of the universe. Because it is infinately expanding, we shall never see it from the outside. Similarly, if a two-dimensional creature were to walk along it, they would believe themselves to be walking in two-dimensions, while in reality they would be existing in three. Thus, if there are dimensions above our own that we are unaware of (as detailed above), then we very well could be like those two-dimensional creatures on a 3-D moebious strip, but with higher dimensions. We would be forever unable to see the outside, because we would be unaware of it entirely. What fun!
Dimensions! The space in which our own reality exists! The definition of space contained within a shape! It is widely believed that we, Earthlings, are able to perceive four dimensions. (Perceive was used because - theoretically - we continue to exist in dimensions above the fourth, but are simply unaware of their existance or how our actions influence those them.) First, imagine a point: a place of infinately small size that has no area or volume, and simply represents space. If one were to imagine a second point, and draw a line between these, the first dimension could be created - length. If from this line another were to branch, the second dimension could be imagined - width. For ease of explanation later, the third dimension will be described as what the second dimension is folded through to get from one point to another instantly in the second dimension. As an example, imagine a second-dimensional creature walking along a flat plane: a second-dimensional world. If we were to take this plane and overlap it with itself (fold), then return it to its flat position, if the second-dimensional creature were to have walked onto the overlap before the plane was flattened again, and sustained its position after the plane were flattened - alas! It would seemingly have been transported from one point to another - instantly. Any dimension can be described as what is folded through in the dimension below it in this way.
The above dimensions concerned physical space, which we all are well-acquainted. The fourth and final dimension we are able to perceive is time. Time is fleeting. Physics describes time as an indefinate number of points every second/(second squared). Thus, we live from point-to-point in time - a literal 'time-line'. If you imagine yourself one second ago, and consider yourself now, you will notice you have changed, and also that you would be able to draw a line from that point to this one fluidly. On a larger scale, consider the universe from the big bang to the present: it could continue to be charted as a fourth-dimensional, fluid line. Physics also says that our existance is waves of probability collapsed by perception, and that every action we take creates a new path of existance for us, leading to one's present existance. The fifth dimension, then, is a branch, or branches, in the time-line. Now, what if you wanted to find one path of existance for yourself in which you were prosperous, or did a marvelous deed for the world? One way would be to travel back in time, influence your younger self in some way, and wait to see the result. Easier, however, would simply be to fold the fifth dimension through the sixth dimension so that you could instantly travel from one path of your existance to the path of your existance that you desire.
The seventh dimension is epic: all possible branches of the universe's timelines, represented in a single point. Anything from whether or not a caveman were to blink at one time instead of another, to whether or not Hitler decides to begin the Holocaust are contained in this point. Thus, the point is infinity - everything. But the eigth dimension is a line connecting one infinity to another. How is this possible? Different starting conditions, which would create a totally different universe with varying natural, physical laws, etc. So... as said, the line connecting one infinity to another (in time) is the eigth dimension. As you could probably imagine, then, the ninth dimension is a branch in time from one infinity to another, leading to yet another infinity. Finally, however, the tenth dimension is a point representing all possible timelines with all possible starting conditions... What I like to call 'absolute infinity'. *Whoah* The string theory says that matter derives from subatomic strings vibrating in the tenth dimension.
Now, to the shape of the universe. This has been, and is still being, debated, because none have left the universe (obviously) to photograph it, or document its shape. Some believe that the universe will eventually collapse under its own gravitational force, but I don't think that is very likely because in other dimensions in the universe gravity may not exist. Others, then, say that the universe is infinately expanding, and only a divine, all-powerful being should decide when it ends, if ever. Let us consider a moebious strip. To create one, take a strip of paper (representing a plane in the second dimension), twist one end 180 degrees, and attach the two ends as they are. You should have, then, a ring of paper with an odd bend in it. If you were to draw a line around the ring, you would notice that the line covers both the inside and outside of the strip before returning to its initial position; thus, it is a two-dimensional (one-sided) shape, existing in three-dimensional space. Wow! I believe this to be the shape of the universe. Because it is infinately expanding, we shall never see it from the outside. Similarly, if a two-dimensional creature were to walk along it, they would believe themselves to be walking in two-dimensions, while in reality they would be existing in three. Thus, if there are dimensions above our own that we are unaware of (as detailed above), then we very well could be like those two-dimensional creatures on a 3-D moebious strip, but with higher dimensions. We would be forever unable to see the outside, because we would be unaware of it entirely. What fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)