Man...

Ever have a week go by and every one of those days you stare at your keyboard and think, "I have a million things to write about and not one of them should ever be put into print, let alone be said out loud or in public!"

I can't even say that anything really out of the ordinary has happened either. The mind has just been in over-drive lately - maybe, rampaging is a better word for it.

Rampage is certainly a better word for it than, "certifiable" or "needs sedation"...I'm just saying...

I'm filled with social problems and their solutions, long term outcomes of social issues, screw ups in history, personal crossroads, reanalyzing theories, etc, etc.

As if that wasn't enough, this morning Grant and I had a lengthy discussion about quantum physics that easily could have resulted in a mental fist fight.

Grant called me over to watch this on his monitor:


Let me just say this...

Sometimes literal people shouldn't talk to outside of the box thinking people that love to deal with space and time and stuff you can't see or hold.

There is a natural tendency for those of us that are too literal for our own good, perhaps - to want to find some practical application to whatever bizarre shit you just came out with that you're taking as gospel.

Me: "If "A" is true, then it could conceivably be a factor in examples "B, C and D" this way (I'll spare you the details.)"
Grant: "No, you're not thinking big enough."
stare
Me: "Okay, then it matters... why?"
Grant: "You're not getting it..."
Me: "I understood everything you just said."
Grant: "Yeah, but you want to use it literally."
Me: "Yes, I do... of course, I do!"

Good Lord...
I don't see what the hell good a theory is if I can't apply it literally. We BOTH know this about me - why on earth would you ever expect anything different.
Did I become someone ELSE over-night when you weren't looking?

Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for theories.
Give me your theory!
I'll listen!

I might not take it as Gospel, but who cares if I do or not. It's something else to think about and I'm good with that. I'll even throw out whatever practical application I can think of going on the basis that said theory could be etched in stone as fact.

I'm there!

The above, I'm okay with. Got it. My issue is, it goes on the assumption that there are some kind of holes/spaces/openings that exist in our dimension versus the possibility that all these particles are just trapped in a giant box like container.

That's all I was saying!

Grant: "Everything is made up of particles and this new revelation fucks E=mc² and gravity."
Me: "Okay, that's great - except you can count on your particles plummeting out of a tree to the ground if you go up that ladder and then fall. You don't have to see the particles with the naked eye to know what the outcome is going to be - so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it."

Then this came up:



I said, "That could conceivably explain why twins can be raised separately and in other countries by other families and still have the same idiosyncrasies and know when something is happening to their siblings thousands of miles away" - which I thought was a valid point.

To further that line of thinking, it would explain why we still maintain a sense of tribal togetherness when a world wide crisis takes place.

Building on the surprise that I felt when people all over the world who live in far more horrendous conditions than Americans do, on a regular basis, felt such sorrow over 9/11... I've been trying to reason that out for ages...

Me: "Then you have to allow for figuring out if any of the particles have been diffused over time versus remaining the same or evolving to become stronger."
Grant: "You're not thinking big enough. You're contemplating the little things and not the universe as a whole."

I'm sure I visibly twitched...

Me: "Well, I can SEE people! I can SEE my surroundings! Of course, that's going to be my first thought... have we just MET? It's not like you haven't known me for the last 25 years! And you want me to IGNORE the fact that the universe is made up of ALL THESE TINY LITTLE PARTICLES IN FRONT OF ALL OF US because I'm not thinking BIG enough? There wouldn't even BE a BIGGER PICTURE without those little details."

This is what divides the big thinkers and the people that actually CARE about the details. He is one and I am clearly the other. It really doesn't have to be an argument. You need BOTH sides to figure stuff out.

Throw all the pieces of the puzzle on my desk in any order you want and I'll eventually make a picture out of it. While I'm working on that though, throwing another 6 sets of 10,000 puzzles pieces in the mix is only going to result in me having to sort out what pieces go to which set first.

Then this came up AGAIN. It's brilliant and the series is the easiest way to comprehend the concept. I own the book and I love it. The whole show is worth viewing if you have the time.

That led to us going over what *I* think the limitation is, and that's with our eye-sight. Our eye-sight is our handicap. If we could see with the naked eye these particles, it would change our perception. These particles exist and we know it because we can see them with certain microscopes and were able to track their patterns. The pattern ceased to exist when viewed with the naked eye.

Okay!
Granted!
Then that's our handicap.

And quite frankly, there's no real reason why we can't create contact lenses that allow us to see better than 20/20 if we can make lens for microscopes that can amplify vision down to the kind of level that allows us to SEE tiny particles...please...

Me: "Just like monitors. You see images on the monitor in 72 dpi (dots per inch). We are capable of SEEING more colors than that, but the monitor can't handle it (which is more due to how big the image file would be for downloads too). That makes the handicap the monitor, not your eye-sight.

When you design something print-worthy, you'd use a 600-1200 dpi creation. If you print out something that's 72 dpi, on paper, it will look like a bunch of fully formed dots and a lot of space not filled in. If you print out something that's 1200 dpi, it might look the same as the 72 dpi image on the monitor - but when you print it on paper, it will look as smooth as a photograph (depending, of course, on the paper as well as the printer)."

I thought that was a good comparison!
Which leads back to our eye-sight being the flawed piece.

Grant: "Why do I talk to you..."
Me: "I have no conceivable idea."

We decided we were better off just moving on to a different subject.
laughs

That is, until we were standing in an aisle at the grocery store and he looked at me and said, "The only reason I'm here is because you see me."

That made me laugh.

I want credit for biting the inside of my cheek and not saying, "WTF?! I'D STILL BE HERE WHETHER YOU SAW ME OR NOT!"