UChicago+Promptemplation

=A thought stream for my UChicago personal essay. READY GO!!= My original idea was to propose that Descartes's demon is the victim, not the thinking self. But that wasn't enough for me. Last night I thought about it for a bit. Searched in my mind for a better idea. I have somewhere to start, at least. My new proposition is that there might be more senses, or if not different forces or objects or waves to interact with, different ways to perceive the world. I thought about how sound is just a pulsation of force, or waves of force. You can hear sound, and feel sound. Feeling is a reaction to force, normally normal (heh...). Chemicals that pass through the nose are understood as smells, and chemicals that pass over the tongue are understood as tastes. Light particle-wave-photon-thingymabobbers enter the eyes through the iris and register as colors and light, an image. Almost any of these things could be versatile. Especially waves. Just think about everything that can be sent over a wireless internet connection. Those are just waves, and yet here we are transmitting

And yet, all the senses are "touch" sensitive and local; that is, something is triggered by something first acting upon it. Something happens, and it causes something else to happen, which is locality. Direct "contact", interaction. Our eyes are light-sensitive organs, the other senses based on physical interaction, "mass"-sensitive. If there is another way of detecting things without waves or particles being detected, I do not know. Maybe forces in their fluctuations and influences in modes we may not comprehend. I think that would be a proper start for such an endeavour.

There is no way. //MAYBE// if we had such a well-tuned sense of it, we could sense gravity and therefore sense objects in that way, with the ability to focus on certain gravitational forces much like we can with everything else... Everything else, you're right, requires locality.

Maybe with time we could find a way to associate certain sensual experiences with certain bits of information. For example, when you taste strawberries you think of the letter "A". Or when you taste garlic you think of the letter "B", and so on. We would have to develop very picky palettes, and I feel a lot of people would go into the food critique business. "This Mushroom Soup spells GFHDK. Do you think maybe it could spell a little bit like a GOHDK instead?" I did, however, once read an essay in SciAm about whether Einstein was wrong concerning nonlocality and other spooky actions that happen in quantum physics. Somehow they showed that the world is nonlocal after all. Must read up on it sometime. And I wonder how we could syncscribe certain forces in ways other than particles or waves...hmmm...

SOMETHING ABOUT TIME I THOUGHT ABOUT
Time is but a compilation of, not moments, but of frames, shall we say. Let us suppose for now that life and existence are a computer program, in a computer with limited RAM memory and processing speed. This may cause the computer to run slowly, depending on how much work is being performed. The speed of time wherever this computer resides is constant, and the speed of time inside the computer program is also constant. It must be clearly defined **[Sorry, Cisco. Gotta leave the wikispeak out of this...]** that at the moment, as far as we know, the universe is infinitely expanding. That is a ton of particles and a ton of space for a computer to handle. If this computer must calculate the position and state of every single particle in the universe, it would either have to have an infinite amount of time or an infinite amount of processors. That being said, if we are supposing that the universe is a computer program, it would either take a few milliseconds or an eternity to calculate one frame of the universe. This does not matter to a sentient body in the universe, such as a human like me. To a sentient body viewing the computer program from the outside, it would take time to get from one frame to the next. But for a sentient body that is actually being calculated himself, sure, it takes time for photons to travel to the eye, smells to travel to the nose, tastes to travel the the tongue, and even time for signals to travel to the brain, but the mind is what perceives these things, and its state would also need to be determined by the computer program, just like the universe it is experiencing. So, the amount of time between when a moving particle travels from one position to its next position may not be infinitely small, as one may think it would be, but to a viewer inside the computer program it would seem so. Now, a reader may ask, as he should, "What if the universe is //not// a computer program? How can something earthly be the driving force of the universe?" It probably isn't. After all, it was only an analogy. There may be a higher-order sentient being that moves the particles like clay models, and then skips to the next frame, by something that could be represented by a camera. Maybe there is absolutely nothing driving the universe, and it's just there, for no reason. This thought experiment only provides room for wondering. We may not be alone in "existence", or wherever we are. Everything we can see or interact with may not be all there is to "existence", or even truly "existent" at all. There is no reason to fear, only reason to wonder: What are we? Where are we? How are we? Why are we?

SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT HE SAID THAT I SAID CONTRADICTS IT
There cannnot be wondering, as to wonder would be to imply that thinking and us exists, which is probably not true, which then implies it is understandable to only nonreal beings, which means it is all pointless. Even in our own nonexistent dimension we may not be able to comprehend the workings of our observable universe. The idea-chains spawn, procreate and mingle with eachother, leading to an infinite series of null-loops revolving around the nonexistence theory and the uncertainty principle. Remeber the noninherent value-associations, Waldo! I was kidding. My stress levels are at an unusual peak, and I felt like shooting at some thought-birds. Your thought-experiment holds water, in that you are contemplating the nature of the Ticktock Choo-Choo, and its quantum workings that confuzzle us all. Although it needs more expansion, though. Think like me! Dog it down until you're exhausted, or passed out! Oh and it's always fun to throw ideas under the waffle-bus, Wood-God. But yes, I do understand the purpose of communication, and coherent ideas [hehe, I'm being a hypocrite, the people at SAIC said my cohesiveness sucked, as well as variety], so I'm apologizing [for now, until I really feel like applying my mind, which at this moment is being blocked by rage-remind me to tell you of the discussions of my "characteristics" with Mannus]. Toodle-oo!

Yep. I want to try to consider what this could mean beyond the analogy. Like what really could be happening between "frames".
 * SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT HE SAID ABOUT WHAT I SAID THAT SOMETHING SOMETHING I DON'T REALLY WANT TO THINK THAT HARD ABOUT THIS TITLE BECAUSE THE TITLE IS MEANINGLESS CONSIDERING I'M JUST DEVELOPING IDEAS AND BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH**