Unified Field Science

Se missä määrin media on massatunteiden rakentamisen ja missä määrin niiden purkamisen luonnollinen toiminta-alusta: se on kuin hengitystä, eli riippuu milloin kysytään.


© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Hi there,

Are you in the market for a practical answer to Unified Field Theory, the practical part being important in that it turns the theory into the science?

Well – you’re in luck! For it is I who has an answer for you, and it is this:

Media.

Whatever form they whenever and wherever take then ultimately it is them, which object-subjectively connect us all. They are an all-forces-gathering external object that we subjectively interpret, thus forming the living nature of the object, and telling us something about ourselves as the subject.

Be it a table in a room (or the room itself, or the Universe within which the room resides) or an email chain in the cloud, then media:

It is.


Working with IT.

A lesson to people that is worth sharing as a general vaccine against intelligence-loss: the Smartphone, which they carry, is like a magic wand used to consume and exert mental force from and into the Field. First lesson in “Wand Control” – the news, whatever it might be: most of the time it’s not a race to share unless all information is wanted to lack in value, which is dumb. So avoid excessive inflation, which you can do by choosing to hold it in if it isn’t worth being given the light, which more often than you’d think: it’s not. By holding some of it in, you raise the value of the information that you do deploy, and make yourself a higher-quality person, which we should all aspire to keep-on becoming, for our acts as one are what make us a better people, in turn setting the preconditions for living better lives:

Obviously.


The Flow of the Forces. Remember that you are always in control of being able to pull back the money: at the least by ultimately not having any.

Life in Finland.
2019: Life, spotted in Finland.

In case You’re wondering: a Gryffindor and an Otter, which just happens to be a very special Animal for me in real life, so yes – I do believe there is something very magical about
J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World, as experienced digitally on Pottermore.com.

Science knows all about this failure thing.
Working media: a media for work. Let it be known that I consider the Silver Chambers as equatable to the Mines Of Moria: Hard Drive Relativity, as in us building the state of the Internet. Whenever you have a bug in your code, there is Failure in the Mines of Moria. Let’s not create too much clean-up work for the dwarves. If you don’t know what this Moria Business is all about, then consider yourself somewhat uncivilised: Lord of the Rings is some well-required stuff.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Consciousness, Done.

Two Worlds, Lived as One.

“Aikamme ylivoimaisesti tärkein asia tiedostaa aktiivisesti on se, kuinka tämän Nokia-johtoisesti alkaneen ja edelleen meneillään olevan puhelillistumisemme myötä me objektiivistämme* arjen kieltä: ensimmäistä kertaa Ihmiskunnan historiassa, tai vähintään merkittävästi kovemmalla tahdilla – valokuidun valonnopeudella – kuin koskaan ennen. Arjen kieli, joka loppupeleissä kiteytyy kavereiden, kotien ja perheiden sisäiseen kielenkäyttöön, objektiivistyy pilvessä eläville kovalevyille jossa Messenger-, Whatsapp- ja muut vastaavat ryhmäkeskustelualustat säilyttävät tietoaan. Ennen Internetin aikaa eivät ainakaan kovin monet lähettäneet objektiivistettyä kirjepostia toisilleen ilmoittaakseen arjen reaaliajassa milloin mistäkin hetken höpinästä. Entisaikojen kirjeitse objektiivistetty kielenkäyttö oli lähestulkoon aina arjesta etäisempää viestintää varten, kun taas nykyajassamme – Internetin ajassa – on normaalia objektiivistää viesti “OK” ilmoittaakseen objektiivistyttävällä viestinnällisellä toimenpiteellään aktiivisesti sisäistäneensä tiedon jostain arjellisesta asiasta.”

*objektiivistää: tämä sana voisi myös olla objektivoida. Tavoite on ilmaista tunne siitä, kuinka kieli esineellistyy sen ylöskirjoittamisen – sen tallentumisen – myötä. Suusta korvaan menevä puhe ei objektiivisty/objektivoidu, sillä emme voi olla varmoja toisen Ihmisen pääkallon sisällä tapahtuvan tiedon vastaanottoprosessin tarkkuudesta. Pidän objektiivistymisestä sanana sen myötä, että siinä kieli tiivistyy syntyvään viestinnälliseen objektiin siihen verraten, että se olisi esineellistymättömän keskustelun tuotos. Tällainen tuotos ei mielestäni ole “yhtä tiivistä kieltä” kuin objektiivistetty kieli, sillä sen tulkinnan potentiaaliset muodot ovat äärettömästi suuremmat sen myötä, että viestintätapahtuman jälkeen ei jää tallennetta jota tutkia, Ihmisestä ulkoisena objektina, jättäen tulkinnan ikuiseen epävarmuuden tilaan – ohimenneeseen aikaan. Objektiivistetty kieli jää tutkittavuudellaan elämään, eikä siten automaattisesti valu ohimenneeseen aikaan.

Kielitieteilijöille on tässä tarjontaa työnteolle: tämän sanan osuminen oikein on mielestäni äärimmäisen tärkeätä kielemme kehitykselle tulevaisuutta varten, jossa nojaamme kieleemme kovemmalla voimalla kuin ennen, sillä sitä elää objektiivistettynä/objektivoituna merkittävästi enemmän, kuin koskaan aiemmin.

Kiitokset ylläolevan tekstin tähänastisesta seulomisesta rakkaalle tyttöystävälleni, jonka kielelliset taidot taitavat ainakin toistaiseksi vielä päihittää omani: mutta katsotaan, miten keskinäinen kielenkehityksellinen kilpailumme tästä kehittyy 😉

EDIT:// Päivän pohdinnan jälkeen olen enenevissä määrin kallistumassa objektivoitumisen puolelle, oikeana sanavalintana. Objektiivistymisestä havaitsemani ongelma on se, että se yhdistää kaksi eri asiaa samaan sanaan: esineellistymisen ja tiivistymisen. Objektivoituminen keskittää ajatuksen tallennuksen myötä syntyvään esineellistymiseen, kun taas tallennukseen liittyvä kielen tiivistyminen on eri ilmiö kuvattavaksi, eikä sitä tarvitse sekoittaa tähän soppaan. Jätän ylläolevan tekstin alkuperäiseen muotoonsa, jotta oman pohdintani vaiheet jäävät tutkittaviksi.


A more active version of what Thomas Carlyle and Finnish President Paasikivi have said.
Avaimet Kaakkoa Kohti.

“The Big Bang: a long time ago a bunch of tiny-ass shit did stuff together under immense pressure and then here we are. So – you know – next time you’re in bed: think about it.”*

“What is the meaning of science? To me, at least, the main meaning of science is the ability to have a modern quality of living. Thanks, science!

Dear Oxbridge: this is my idea for the New PPE”: Physics, Psychology and Ecolonomics (ecology & economy, which by definition includes all the Politics and its underlying necessity for the mentally-strengthening practice of Philosophy). It is my personal opinion, with an extensive professional background as a Salesperson, that this would be the perfect way to educate the Captains of the Societal Ships of the 21st century, flying around the Sun.


The text below the line is a bit of a joke, but it makes the same point regarding consciousness in an opposing manner. The better proof of consciousness is this: the application of the restraint of power, the application of anti-power (which, paradoxically, is a power in itself), is the ultimate proof of a conscious act for, by its definition, the choice of lack, inherent to the nature of applying the power of anti-power, must include the conscious knowledge of the benefits of letting go of a potential path ahead. If you beat addiction, you wake up to a higher version of yourself for then, by definition, you are more in control of yourself than you were before. The best proof-in-practice of consciousness, thus, reduces to seeing the potential of alternate paths ahead (or behind, or somewhere in between – as the deliberation is going on).

Might I suggest that one addiction we should work to control is that of Physicists attempting to all-in on the quest for “One Final Solution to the Start of Everything” because, when you apply some anti-power and stop to think about it, given the absolute impossibility – impossible as defined in so many ways – of objective proof for such a solution, the entire quest is something altogether different than science, and the quest for being the bringer of such a solution is thus, by its very definition, unscientific. Therefore, such acts are to – in my humble opinion – be constituted as an incursion into a realm of thought not belonging to Academia and, for Academic Morality to be maintained, such excursions conducted under the guise of Academia are to be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I propose the commencement of a rather more philosophical – yet extremely practical – discussion about the “Nature of Absolute Objectivity & Why It Matters as Considered From a Variety of Perspectives”.

I’ll start: Let us define our Selves as x = One. Now allow us to consider the meaning of the intelligence-function i(x) = x/0 from as many and as varied perspectives as we can think of. Ready, set… Go!


How to solve consciousness:

Give a person a 1€ coin. Allow them to buy a chocolate bar for 1€. If they do not want the chocolate bar, they must give the coin back, at risk of physical pain. Whatever the answer, the person will reveal one of four preferences, displaying the form of consciousness that they have had during the moment of decision

  1. Chocolate
  2. NOT chocolate
  3. A beating
  4. A race running away from the beating

Whatever the outcome, consciousness will have been proven for you will have proceeded to prove its being, using another person, by showcasing your theoretically projected intent to remove it, from the other person, if the person were to not abide by the rules of holding the coin (which boils down to respecting the sanctity of ownership*). If you’re ready to remove something, then you must know it is there to begin with, and you know this is as it is, because you’re not an unconscious zombie: you’re a human being.

*obviously easier to respect if you don’t shove the coin into the person by force, which is why advertisements are a good thing! The ad for this little skit could be Don Draper offering out a hand, holding the coin, saying:

“Come on over! Let me show you a little game to prove that you exist. You can’t lose because: Existence – You’re worth it.


Ultimately, it comes down to self-belief. The choice to see yourself as One is the Primary Equity, objectively given to You by Society due to logical & practical necessity: as proven by your mandatory holding of a State-provided identification.

So, at the end of the day, I guess that – to be One – we must all have a bit of Hermione Granger within us, as it is she herself who said to Harry Potter, in their seeking of the Deathly Hallows:

‘I’m highly logical – it allows me to look past extraneous detail.’


*To those grappling with the consideration of the origin of consciousness, then it is my warmest delight to provide you with a hint in the form of a time-function t(x) = x + 9 where the variable x is defined as One’s age as measured in months.