Reality cracking

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Softice
by Pantheon

Courtesy of fravia's pages of reverse engineering

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Softice... such a title! Of course I liked this essay! BTW, soon or later any reality cracker will have to swallow Heisenberg's cats (and everything correlated), so you better start right now, dear readers... have a good trip in the uncertainity of science, will take quite a while till you'll be back... see you here in a couple of years :-)

Is immortality the lack of events? I don't believe this: immortality is A LOT of events... it is also, maybe, the simple satisfaction that you believe in what you are doing and learning because you see that it works... at least in my -admittedly biased- opinion

If I may add a personal note about our friend Pantheon's 'signing out' line... well: Nietzsche was right (it happened at times) and God wrong, of course...

I just now, after about 2 years of visiting this site, managed to
read articles from your "Reality Cracking" section, and I admit, I 
think I read most of them.  So... here is my own candidate for publication.
(I wrote this with, so there'll probably be some funky CRs)

                        The exact science of guessing.
                             Futility of argument.

        It is comforting to know that some things in life are certain;
Milk does a body good, Diamonds are forever, and the universe is rapidly
and continually expanding.  I pause a moment to let the reader convince
himself of these thoughts.  To truely crack reality, one must put aside
what is "known" -- I used the quotes to signify that we know for certain
absolutely nothing.  Confuscious said "To know that we know what we
know, that is true knowledge"; I disagree.  
"To understand that we cannot know what we think we know" is a more 
enlightened statement.
        We "know" that time passes at a constant rate.  Siddhartha may
have summed up this argument with a single phrase: "time is not real"; the
concept of time is distorted, it's new meaning has evolved from circular
reasoning.  Time is generally considered to be an interval that
perpetuates life into the future.  Life is measured in time.  Time was 
created by the thought that events happen in an order, not all at one.  
The sun rose, I ate Lunch, the sun set.  The idea of order required an 
event to seperate the other events of daily life.  From the rather 
simplistic example above, the notion of infinite events was born.  
I woke, the position of the sun changed a little, it changed a little infinitum.  In this sense, life was measured in events. Each 
time a set of events repeated, man marked off another portion of his 
life gone.  Where is the guarantee that the sun moved across the sky 
at a constant rate?  The only indication would be that man felt roughly 
the same ammount of fatigue at the end of each cycle.  From this
view it would be indiscernable whether the rate of the sun's travel
influenced the fatigue of the man, or whether the man had accomplished
roughly the same number of events, of course whether or not he started
each cycle with the same ammount of energy was in question, as well as the
nature of energy itself.
        It is possible to take any event or "truth" and find where an
unjustified assumption was made, merely because is fit the current
Let us not forget that fire was once believed to be the release of a
substance called "phlogiston" from the "burning" material, solely
because there was a visible trail(smoke) and the weight of the object was
decreased by burning; this held until a material was found that became heavier
once burned.  Now we believe that fire is the bonding of oxygen to another
substance, even though fire is hot, and heat is generally considered to
be from the breaking of molecular bonds.  Also some materials become
lighter once burned, thus the combination of oxygen must cause a molecule to
become less dense, while other burned substances become more dense.  This is
explained by the theory that "bonds" (also a theory) are of different
lengths because the "electrons that are bonding" (also a theory) are located at
different heights from the nucleis (another theory).  

Even experimentation is invalid based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 
which basically states that through examination of any subject, we modify 
it's behavior.  A familliar example: Softice.  We use Softice to follow program 
flow, by setting a break-point, we actually alter flow to another program, 
never being 100% certain that the program we were previously running had not 
altered the breakpoint handler to point to itself, giving us a bogus set 
of data.

Here we believe that we necessarily are in softice, just because we've never 
seen a program do such things before.
        We may assume whatever conventions make our tasks easier, but
when we find our selves stumped by an apparent impossibility, we must not
hesitate to toss what we "know" out the window.  An important principle in
discovering the Theory of Relativity is the constancy of the propagation of 
light in vacuuo.  Light moves at a constant speed no matter what the velocity of
it's emitter.  I made a reference earlier to the "fact" that the universe is
constantly expanding.  This was determined by the frequency of the light
emitted by far away stars.  Doppler shift is a principle easily
detectable by the ear, a train whistle approaching has a higher frequency 
than one travelling away from you, the electromagnetic wave is shifted by 
the motion of the emitter toward one end of the spectrum.  

The frequency of light from far away stars is also shifted toward one end 
of the spectrum -- thus, they are rapidly traveling away... correct?  
Not according to the law of propagation of light in vacuuo; which, by the 
way was upheld by the man who did much work with the aforementioned atomic 
theory, Albert Einstein.  It should be noted that the propagation of light 
as such necessitates the Theory of Relativity, which makes such bold claims 
as to say that a man on a train travelling at 40 mph, if walking in the 
direction of the train's travel at 5 mph, has an overall speed NOT equal 
to 45 mph.  

This is due to the slowing of time for accelerated bodies...So much for 
time as a constant.  Thus is it valid to revert our measure of life to 
a number of events before death?  And then is immortality the lack of events?  
I think not. Humans ultimately are arrogant creatures, claiming to control
even that which they cannot possibly understand.  We can afford to take
nothing at it's face value.  Reality crack where you believe necessary,
compromise at only what MUST be cracked, lest your quota of events expire before
you can jot down your findings.

Forgive me for having been longwinded,
Seek Enlightenment, therein lie some truths.

P.S. I like the new artwork on the site...classy.
God is dead.  -Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.  -God

Reality cracking

redhomepage redlinks redsearch_forms red+ORC redstudents' essays redacademy database
redreality cracking redhow to search redjavascript wars
redtools redanonymity academy redcocktails redantismut CGI-scripts redmail_fravia+
redIs reverse engineering legal?