The Atomium in Brussels shot with Nikon D5100 + Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC (OS) HSM | Camera settings: 17 mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/500 sec, 0.00 eV | RAW processed with Lightroom 5 (Brussels, 2017)
I have written several blog posts on the subject of Everything. I have posted them under the category Philosophy. I talk about Nothing versus Everything versus, about Duality, Trinity, the question ‘Where does Everything come from?’, Time and Space, etc.
In one of those posts I argue that Creativity must be a quality of Everything. Another quality is (Self) Consciousness. Those qualities are inescapable because otherwise (the) Everything wouldn’t be relevant.
Creativity in itself does not make sense. These things only make sense as part of a Trinity. Where Trinity is like a ‘coin’. A coin is made of stuff and has 2 sides. Creativity is the stuff, and the 2 sides are Creator and Creation.
So what about π ?
I quote from Wikipedia:
The number π is a mathematical constant, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, commonly approximated as 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter “π” since the mid-18th century, though it is also sometimes spelled out as “pi” (/paɪ/). Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction (equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern). Still, fractions such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate π. The digits appear to be randomly distributed. In particular, the digit sequence of π is conjectured to satisfy a specific kind of statistical randomness, but to date no proof of this has been discovered. Also, π is a transcendental number – a number that is not the root of any non-zero polynomial having rational coefficients. This transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.
I wonder, where does π come from? Who/what decided on the constant of π ? I remember reading Carl Sagan’s novel ‘Contact‘ in the mid 80’s. In that novel, Sagan has a mind boggling passage in which it is discovered that π contains a pattern, a ‘hidden message from the Gods’. Back then all I could think was ‘Wow’, because it was such a mind blowing idea.
But, Sagan’s Contact, is fiction. Not real, mind blowing or not. Yet, the intriguing mathematical constant π kept cropping up in my musings once in a while. Where did the constant come from? A constant is fixed. So what/who fixed it and how? Well, your simple answer could be, ‘God fixed it’. But unfortunately I can not go for that answer. It is too simple and too lazy. It is like saying ‘It is not my problem, God will take care of it’. Sure, but somehow it doesn’t feel right. As said, this way out is simply too easy.
No way out? Yes there is, if you look carefully that is. Because although the definition and the ratio of π are fixed, the number itself, the infinite row of digits, is irrational. And irrational is simply another word for …. Creativity. No matter how many digits of the row we will calculate, the next digit we find (by calculating) is a creative process. Only by calculating we find the next digit. No calculating, no next digit! So we, once again stumble on this ‘Trinity’ namely:
Creator (Calculator) – Creativity – Creation (Next digit)
As π is a center piece of Mathematics, it shows that Mathematics is founded on Creativity
Time is a funny thing. What is the purpose of Time? Well, if there is no Time, then there can not be a functional Consciousness.
Consciousness is not a ‘stand alone’ thing. Nope, Consciousness is a integral part of the Trinity Consciousness, Conscious and Self. I wrote about this Trinity. Trinity is like a coin. With 2 sides being Conscious and Self, ‘made’ of 1 ‘stuff’ being Consciousness. In order to Exist, it needs to know itself, it needs to be Self Conscious. Thus, the 2 sides need to ‘communicate’. The Trinity Consciousness, Conscious and Self needs a messenger. And that messenger is Light. Light ‘travels’ with the speed of light, C. I wrote about the speed of light C. C has an internal and an external quality. The internal quality of C knows no Time, yet the external quality of C does know Time. The internal quality of C is felt by the ‘stuff’ Consciousness. The external quality of C is felt by the 2 sides Conscious and Self. Because Self and Conscious ‘communicate’ with each other through the external quality of C, the communication takes time. Our memory only has relevance because there is Time. We ‘remember’ things from the past, and we ‘wonder’ about things in the future. Time. Without this Time effect there would be no Memory. This principle is the same for Self and Conscious. Being Self Conscious implies Time. And this needed Time is available through the external quality of C. Consciousness does provide the ‘messenger’ Light to the 2 sides Self and Conscious to ‘communicate’, but the ‘stuff’ Consciousness itself is does not need Time, knows no Time. Consciousness does this by using the internal quality of C which knows no Time.
Spiritual Musings :)
At the core, I am a programmer. But I hardly program. 90% of the time I do other things. I listen to people who want things to be done. I ask questions, basic question, starting from zero, to understand everything the people say. To see the large picture, to feel how the data flows. To mold all these things into an complex looking but elegantly simple solution. I don’t make notes. I sketch. Sketch the flow. We brainstorm. I ask and re-ask questions until everything becomes clear. Clear to me. And when it is clear to me and elegantly put into a flow it, seemingly by miracle, also becomes more clear to those people. By taking time and energy to understand the people I ‘get the picture’. And the people get what they want, wrapped in a nice sketch. The sketch I use as a reminder as the thing starts to become alive inside my head. Inside my head is the virtual picture of what the people want.
At the core I am a programmer. I did a lot today but I have yet to program a line of code:)
What my eye can’t see but my Nikon can … The Andromeda Galaxy. Shot with Nikon D5100 + AF-S DX NIKKOR 35 mm f/1.8G, 35 mm, f/1.8, ISO 400, 15 sec, RAW, Lightroom 5 (2013, Castres, France)
During my search for the truth, I have become more sensitive for certain matters. I was always a science/logic/proof guy, with the idea that you could ‘explain’ everything. I studied Physics and Mathematics, just because I was better with numbers and logic than with language and culture. And because of this background I tried to put the world inside my frame of knowledge, the frame being numbers and formula’s. No problem, everybody does this. I’m just normal;)
Anyway, somewhere back in my head (or was it my heart) there were other forces which pointed to a non-science side of things. I always knew this but first I had to reach the ‘limits of science’ to be able to start to accept that other side.
One of the curious things about hard science is the ‘battle’ with the extremely puzzling nature of Quantum Physics. Puzzling, because Quantum Physics is very difficult to understand for the brain. Quantum Physics turns things upside down and redirects everything back to YOU, the ‘Observer’. And there seems no way around this. Quantum Physics is very difficult to put ‘in a box’. Schrödinger tried to put his cat in a box. But as we know, ‘curiosity’ killed the cat:)
But the thing that really stupefied me was an article called Is the moon there when nobody looks? (Reality and the quantum theory) … To me this was ‘not done’. Because I started with university to learn how things worked, not to learn that this is impossible. You can’t even be sure of the Moon? … Damn, it was such a ‘shock’ for me that I just laughed it away.
But, you know, it kept being intriguing. And give it 20 more years, with Reality helping you to give in a bit, and things start to fall in place, like a puzzle. Fun things, not too hard stuff. One of those things was ‘luck’. I started to think about ‘luck’. Now what is ‘luck’ exactly? Or another word, ‘coincidence’. What is that exactly?
If you want to get a real hard scientific grip on luck or coincidence you have to have a ‘formula’. A theory and a proof. A ‘repeatable’ process to proof the theory. In order so that we can decide by definition that:
Happening A is luck
Happening B is not-luck
But … I don’t know of any existing theory, or ‘formula of luck’. Is there a definition? And if so, where does luck stop and non-luck start? Let’s see:
Suppose you lost your car keys …
A. You know they must be in your home. You find them … we call this ‘normal’ or non-luck
B. You had them when you arrived from work (your car is in front of your home). They are not in your home, but in the end you find them just outside your door. Probably fallen out of your pocket when you entered the house … we call this still ‘normal’ non-luck
C. Take B, but with the addition that you walked to the shops nearby and returned home. You can’t find your keys in your home, nor near the car. You decide to walk again the route to the shops and … damn, there you see your keys, just outside the baker shop … we call this? … Well you start to be lucky:)
D. Take C but even with walking/searching back and forth to the shops. No keys. In the evening the neighbour rings at your door. Are these your keys? Yessss! How/where did you find them? The neighbour tells he found them on the street, not knowing the owner. He wanted to bring them to the police but heard your daughter talking to his daughter that her daddy (you) was in a bad mood because he had lost his car keys. The neighbour did put 1 and 1 together and presto … You have your keys back … Now, my dear readers. This surely IS luck:)
But where exactly does non-luck stop and luck start? Somewhere between B and C perhaps. But by what definition? Or in other words, ‘what is the formula of luck?’
You see, when I, with all my logic background, started to think about these things, I couldn’t find an answer, but luck and non-luck still floated around like always. I had good lucky days, ‘normal’ non-lucky days and even bad unlucky days, but there was no formula involved. The idea that ‘no formulas were needed’ gained ground and I became more soft. Add to this my now 10 year active ‘search’ and my gradual ‘acceptance’ of the non-science side and I simply had to leave the path of putting everything in boxes, finding fomula’s for everything. Trying to arrange everything. Seeing ‘Reality’ as work, work to be done because Reality ‘has to be fixed’ (as if God slipped up and I was needed to help him out … lol;)
I became more sensitive for luck, coincidence, etc. and started to see these happenings as little ‘gifts’. And ‘the formula of luck’? … I had to conclude that the only real solution to luck/non-luck is that it simply does NOT exist for real. luck/non-luck only exists in your mind. ‘It’ happens, and sometimes we call that luck;)
You play Far Cry 3? If you don’t you should, because it is a great free roam game. And you love Far Cry 3? But you hate the immersion breaking non removeable HUD? You want more immersion, like me? Well, as it now stands there is no option to turn off the HUD(*) and after some google I found out that lots of gamers ask for a NO HUD option but it could take a while until UBI (not likely) will patch it or somebody will mod it. But hey, you want to play and enjoy Far Cry 3 NOW! And with the best immersion as possible.
Well … I decided on the most basic of tricks I could think of. Just stick a black post-it (self made:) over the HUD radar minimap. It looks dumb, doesn’t it. It looks silly. It looks like the ‘poor men’ solution … but you know what. It WORKS! It actually works wonders. Your brains just do not pay attention to this black square. My guess is that black works best. Black does not contain information so the brain starts to neglect it after 10 second of staring at it. Neglecting a black square is easy, but neglecting a minimap with moving icons and stuff is a pain. Even if YOU want to neglect the minimap, your brains won’t. So you have to help your brains a bit and hide the info. It works, you can fool your brain, and it adepts itself amazingly quickly.
So, you want more ‘immersion’ in Far Cry 3. And you want it NOW? … Just try my little trick. See for yourself.
I play on hard (this settings is actually not that difficult), with as less aid as possible. I decided to only use a few skills. I want to play this game slightly ‘underpowered’ so to keep on my toes. It is a great game. At the moment, I really do like the Bow. You actually need some skill to kill at distance, but very doable.
Anyway, try my litle trick and enjoy Far Cry 3. Happy gaming.
(*) A real fix (albeit pc only) is given by BenderIsPlaying in this YouTube video. He is using a hexeditor to edit the files. I will try this later today myself. I had a little conversation with BenderIsPlaying:
Great! Will try this tonight. Btw, I do like your style. The ‘do it yourself’ approach. Top! (I couldn’t bring myself to burn hours on this, although I skimmed the exe) … lol, I then decided to use a post-it (search google ‘no-hud-in-far-cry-3’) But, hey if this fix works I don’t need no post-it anymore:) Thx
Well if all fails, I can always upload the files – but its always better to do it yourself – I dont know about this game, but in other games, files differ, and if you take a file from somebodies Game, it might be different at certain points (maybe not the Case in FarCry), esp. when you take a file for example from a German Version and apply it to an English Version. But I think its not the case in this Game. Thanks for Watching :)
Btw, with the ‘do it yourself’ I was referring to you:) You (like me and kzillion others) do want a NO HUD solution. But instaed of being a crybaby and waiting for a Ubi patch you decided to ‘do it yourself’ … That is what I really like about your style! (so be proud;)
Oh nice, thanks :) I thought you were talking about the instructions, lol. Yeah, sometimes you cannot rely on the Developers to change something. And yeah I wasnt crying at all, instead I went at it right away – thats how it goes, never give up, impossible is nothing. So thanks again.
Tried it and it works (no surprise for you;) I guess the HideUIElement is for taking screenshots. The HUD is, as you said, completely gone. So imho you have to play it a bit with HUD first to know which key/button (I use 360 controller on pc) to press, like (X) for open door etc, because it doesn’t prompt you anymore. A QTE (like animal attack) is a bit more cumbersome. You have to smash a button. I have seen (B) as well as (X) iirc. Anyhow, thx again very much for the pointer to get a NO HUD.
Yeah – problem is, the Keys might not always be the same – if a Tiger has you in grip, it is “Melee” to plunge your knife into him, but I got eaten by one once, because I pressed a bunch of buttons. I think it mostly is “Action” or “Melee”. I remember ResidentEvil 4, which had a bunch of Buttons which CHANGED EVERYTIME you failed a Quicktime event – so even when you tried to remember the Buttons, they were different each try, that sucked balls. Esp. coz some Buttons were labeled incorrectly.
Despite the always heavy light polution in my home town I was able to catch this Perseid zipping by Andromeda:) Shot from my balcony with Nikon D5100 + AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, 18 mm, f/3.5, ISO 400, 30 sec, RAW (2012, Soest, The Netherlands). You are free to download the full picture.
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam
(Submitted on 22 Sep 2011)
The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5.
So, according to this CERN find http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897, the neutrinos go faster than light? How can that be explained? I have 3 options:
A. An error in measurement
B. The neutrinos indeed go faster than light
Above 2 are the current favourites of people. Option A is obvious. I don’t like option B so much. Sure it is an option but I don’t find it ‘elegant’ that those neutrinos travel only a very little bit faster than the speed of light. I would think that if the speed of light can be broken you break it by a large margin. Just as the speed of sound, once you break it you build Concordes and go mach 2 or 3, you don’t stick around mach 1,000001. So boring. Because why bother breaking the speed of light and not profiting of your freedom? Nope, I don’t find option B elegant.
Sure, most people think it must be either option A or B, but, like in the DSK affaire, they forget option C:
C. The neutrinos take a shorter route
Option C is so elegant. Why is everybody neglecting this? Beats me. Anyway I decided to think it over a bit. The basic idea is that the neutrinos are not bound by the curvature of Space-Time. Hence the neutrinos take the shorter (direct) way. Instead of following the curve they cut it short, a straighter line. I tried to get a grip on the anomaly by toying with some numbers I found on the internet.
I’ve found that the curvature caused by the mass of the sun at the distance of the earth is about 0.99999999 or in other words, it causes a deviation of 1 – 0,99999999 = 1E-08 (I got this numer from here, possibly there is a better number available)
The gravitation at the earth surface is about 1875 times as strong as the gravitation we (on earth) feel of the sun. Thus causing a deviation of 1875 x 1E-08 = 1,875E-05
A deviation of 1,875E-05 over 730 km = 13,7 meters
13,7 meters at the speed of light c is about 45 ns
And 45 ns is remarkably close to the 60 ns anomaly the guys at CERN are measuring:)
Ok, we have to explain how on earth the neutrinos can take that short route, and beat curved Space-Time to it. I don’t know, perhaps they use another dimension for travel, and perhaps that is why those neutrinos are so hard to detect. They are not in our ‘plane’ they just cross it.
Edit: I consulted somebody who I highly respect and regard as a great authority on the matter but who shall remain anonymous. His prompt reply made clear that my basic calculation is off. The effect would be much smaller. Fun thing is that the idea of ‘a shorter route’ had crossed his mind too, so in that way option C is not that bad. I still regard option C a valid option until disproved by option A or B.
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 00:16:46 -0400
Subject: Re: neutrinos
Leuk je bericht te lezen, en ook om de foto’s van toen en nu te zien.
Ik had vanochtend (half slapend, net voor ik wakker werd) even hetzelfde idee, maar kwam er op uit dat het effect te klein is.
De kromming van de ruimte zorgt er inderdaad voor dat de kortste weg niet een rechte lijn is, maar ruwweg een deel van een cirkel met straal R = c^2/g = lichtsnelheid in het kwadraat gedeeld door g. De hoek die de neutrinos langs deze cirkel afleggen is dus ongeveer
phi = d/R = d g / c^2
met d = afstand tussen CERN en Gran Sasso. Dit is een heel kleine hoek.
De resulterende verkorting van de weg is ruwweg gelijk aan het verschil tussen de bijbehorende cirkelboog en een rechte lijn. Een schatting hiervan is
d x (2 sinus(phi/2) – phi) ~ d x phi^3 = d maal (phi tot de derde macht)
Dit is een veel te kleine afstand. Dus de verklaring moet toch ergens anders liggen…
Every rule eventually runs into having exceptions. These exceptions expose the limitations of the rule. Show that the rule is flawed. Can there be an flawless rule? A rule which is always true, a ‘rule of everything’. What scientists refer to as a ‘Theory of Everything’ aka ToE. Or what religion is after when they refer to God. Something flawless.
I have never seen such a rule. Maybe I was looking in the wrong direction. I was searching for this rule, but I start to think, or better realize, that the only stable solution to this is that there is NO rule. No rule telling me what to do. No ToE telling the universe how to behave, and no God ‘looking after’ this world.
If there is no rule then everything becomes an exception. And when EVERYTHING is an exception, everything is normal. So even the weirdest thing is still ‘normal’ because there is no rule to obey. We might say that something is ‘not normal’ but only because we pretend there is a rule. A rule we made up ourselves. Like gravity. An apple falling of a tree does not ‘obey’ the laws of gravity. It does its thing regardless of us thinking there is a ‘law of gravity’. Before Newton, apples also reached the ground without any problem, no training, no obeying, no rules, no nothing. We might think there must be some hidden rules, rules which ARE obeyed but which we have not yet discovered. But my feeling is that we are chasing rainbows. A rainbow is a fantastic spectacular thing to see, but it is an optical illusion. There is no ONE rainbow. Everyone sees his of her own rainbow. And if you want to reach the rainbow you will notice that you can’t, it is an optical illusion, it is not really there.
There is no rule, so how can you break one? … When I drive too fast I appear to have broken some ‘rule’ and I get a speeding ticket. Apples never get speeding tickets:)