Instant Karma Gonna Getcha!

As a child I wondered why cavemen were unable to invent the atom bomb and destroy the world a million years ago, which many think a somewhat curious question, but is related to the anthropic principle. Assuming there is no obvious divine intervention, then why does the universe appear to be so prearranged as to preclude even an intelligent species like humanity from wiping themselves out in short order? Why isn't it much easier to drive your own species to extinction or for humanity to become trapped in an endless dark age by our own mindless greed, hubris, violence, and sheer stupidity? Why do the laws of physics require enormous populations, vast industries, and advanced technology to produce weapons of mass destruction such as atom bombs (instead of mere crude digging tools for example) and why has the development of technology advanced at a fairly steady pace so conducive to the rapid rise of civilization?

Cavemen blowing each other up with atom bombs they slap together out of clay and rocks or becoming trapped in an endless dark age are the kinds of nightmare Planet of the Apes scenarios I might expect to arise in any number of arbitrary metaphysical universes. Begging the question of how civilization has made its rapid ascent right up into the modern information age. Throughout history humanity has speculated about when civilization might destroy the world, while I've always wondered why it hasn't already done so and why humanity even survived long enough to create civilization. Our world appears to have been ideally suited for an intelligent species that can be so incredibly deadly, exploitative, competitive, pessimistic, callous, hateful, spiteful, delusional, and downright mindlessly vicious and sadistic on any scale. That the laws of physics might support the evolution of intelligent life is certainly conceivable, but why would they also support the continuing evolution of such a remarkably violent and mindlessly destructive intelligent species? If the earth were significantly smaller or any number of other parameters had been any different, humanity as we know it might never have survived and, even as a small child bereft any knowledge of such things, the only plausible explanation I could come up with was that “infinite echoes in infinity” would normalize one another preventing the worst extremes.

Exactly how these echoes in infinity, yin-yang dynamics, or what hippies like to call instant karma, actually manage this feat is the burning question that I've sought the answer to all my life. My personal interest might sound unusual, but many of my hippie friends also enjoy few things more than to occasionally discuss the same subject into the wee hours of the morning and, perhaps, half the world's population is somewhat familiar with the concept which has been incorporated into all the major religions in Asia. Rather than wondering if instant karma is real, many of us have been curious as to why it has taken so long to establish instant karma as a law of nature and, as I'll explain as I go along, the answer appears to be that instant karma applies to everything including the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge because it implies that a paradoxical form of synergy, or Synergistic-Normalization, applies to everything.

A little clarification on my use of the term “synergy” is called for at this point. Sometimes publishers will change the definition of words just to appease whoever might buy the damned things. Business people and others have pushed for a new definition of synergy that supports their needs and discourages others from using the word with the newer definitions all essentially stating, “Organizations, agents, or substances producing results greater than the mere sum of their parts” which is deliberately useless for expressing context dependence. Its great if you wish to describe a business venture, a chemical reaction, or other causal relationships, but terrible for describing context dependent subjects such as quantum mechanics, or even for telling jokes or writing poetry.

The shade of a tree, for example, can save someone's life, thus, acausally becoming far greater than any mere sum of its parts because the shadow has no meaning outside of the context of the light. The more humble the identity of anything the more context dependent for its identity and any demonstrable value it might possess ensuring that, without humble definitions of words as well as more explicit ones, it becomes impossible to even write poetry or tell jokes. German is actually better for describing the sciences, while English is sometimes said to be good for engineering and conducting business, with neither being great for expressing systems logic, jokes, or poetry because they are so rigidly mechanical they even use fewer parts of the brain than many other languages.

In stark contrast to the new definition of synergy, the concept of instant karma is about as wishy-washy and poorly defined as they come and interpreted by people any number of different ways. The “instant” in instant karma refers to anything occurring over the lifetime of an individual or group and merely serves to distinguish the concept from more traditional beliefs in reincarnation but, other than that, hippies so seldom agree upon anything that anyone can interpret it anyway they like. Its merely an alternative way to say yin-yang dynamics, however, here I explicitly describe it as context dependence or how the greater context inevitably determines its own contents as much as vice versa. People tend to think of instant karma in more personal terms, such as getting back whatever we put out into the universe with stubbing your toe kicking something in frustration being an example of instant karma, however, so is smoking for decades and contracting lung cancer because, in either case, whatever we put out is what we get back in some form or other and we can either make positive contributions to the greater context of our lives or allow lesser ones to rule us.

The Hindu allegory of five blind men debating what an elephant looks is an example of self-evident context dependence where a greater context might appear to determine its own content. In the story the blind men argue among themselves that different parts of the same elephant are representative of what the whole elephant must look like which is analogous to each of them adopting a different metaphysical position. The allegory is related to the ancient Sorites Heap Paradox which begs such fascinating and important questions still debated to this very day as how many hairs anybody must lose before they should be referred to as “bald” and how many individual grains of sand a pile of sand must have in order to be definitively labeled a “heap” of sand with, of course, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin being a popular modern variation on this same theme. Today we might debate how much the environment shapes what we call an elephant and how many distinctive parts an animal must have before zoologists deign to categorize it as an elephant, yet, both criteria can become equivocal in countless situations making any metaphysical rationalizations we might propose ultimately pragmatic.

If, instead, we simply choose to accept that life just doesn't always make sense it becomes possible to avoid such endless debates, splitting semantic hairs ad nauseam, and denying the evidence of our own senses and sensibilities. For example, upon visiting the circus the five blind men could spend all their time debating whether a three legged elephant raised in the circus can be considered a real elephant, while the rest of us might simply accept that life just doesn't always make sense and may even marvel that, apparently, its still very much a real elephant at heart and all the more endearing. Of course, if the elephant collapses unconscious on the floor the blind men debating what is the best course of action could easily become much more productive than merely assuming life just doesn't always make sense.

Causal metaphysical explanations are assertive and exclusive, often attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, by insisting all other explanations are irrational, erroneous, misleading, lazy, delusional, impractical, counterproductive, stupid, or even quite possibly extremely dangerous, while the concept of instant karma is much more inclusive by default and can be used to assess just how metaphorical, or context dependent, anything appears to be including our own logic and reasoning. Logic helps to focus our attention in a causal fashion making it an indispensable tool, while the concept of instant karma can broaden our horizons and illuminate the meaning of logic, if any, in the present context. Thanks to instant karma applying to everything, even our logic and emotions can transform into one another in extreme contexts and the story of “Stone Soup” illustrates how everyone can benefit from having a little faith that, sometimes, totally harmless bullshit can inspire a much more meaningful truth far greater than any mere sum of its parts. A child with only the most wildly misleading ideas of what it takes to become an astronaut can grow up to become one and treasure their naive childhood fantasies all the more, while their own child grows up dreaming of the stars all because they cherish dreams as much as reality rather than insisting everything must always make some sort of sense.

Personally, I've just always assumed life doesn't make much sense and tried to let it go at that, however, I've also come to believe that Murphy was an optimist when he declared to the world, “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong!” Believing there are no limits is simply being realistic when the most unremarkable molehill can grow into a mountain of bullshit overnight, only to subsequently come crashing down on you all at once or vanish inexplicably in the light day as if it had never existed. Its a Mad, Mad, Mad World and many claim instant karma is just complete bullshit, however, the most interesting and useful things can grow out of manure...

Naturally, a paradox of existence requires its own paradoxical fuzzy-wuzzy logic which I prefer to think of as Bullshit Logic or Metaphoric Logic and which can be elaborated upon as Intuitionistic mathematics. While conventional logic attempts to determine whether something is true or false, Bullshit Logic assesses what is missing from this picture and, for example, the visual centers of our brain are organized around this principle. A shadow also happens to be provide the fastest, easiest, and most reliable way to determine if an animal is moving because, sometimes, what is missing from this picture can make all the difference between life and death. By merely comparing patterns and searching for anything that appears to be missing (in other words, anything low in entropy) our neurons don't have to make distinctions between who they are and what they are doing. Merely by automatically looking for what's missing from this picture our neurons can shift their focus without a clue as to what any patterns they use actually represent and can also organize themselves to convey any mass, energy, and information with the highest efficiency possible.

A recent examination of how frequently babies will perform any specific behavior concluded they don't really start imitating adults for at least several weeks and they also don't usually begin laughing or displaying any sense of humor until about four months. Both observations suggest that the infants have to build up a “database” of patterns for comparison purposes before the more intricate patterns of imitation and humor leap out at them from the data. Its along the lines of them assembling a puzzle using the simplest possible pattern matching for different shaped pieces until they finally start to perceive larger patterns within the Big Picture. We might discover a garden in one corner of the puzzle and assembling it subsequently provides clues as to how to more creatively assemble the rest of the puzzle. The difference between a puzzle and real life being, of course, we never do see the Big Picture and merely keep inventing and discovering more creative ways to make sense out of life.

The overall process of instant karma is what I sometimes describe as “synergistic-normalization” where the context and content determining one another's existence means what we think of as synergy is transforming into normalization in different contexts and, between the two, everything that exists can be considered paradoxically existent and nonexistent, creative and destructive, etc. A child thinking of their favorite toy as the meaning of life itself and growing up to embrace bigger and better things is an example of synergistic-normalization. As we continuously acquire new thoughts and feelings they will all synergistically vie for our attention until the child's memory of the toy can be lost like a drop of water in the ocean. However, the same process explains why we can also acquire a new toy like it and rediscover some of our childhood sense of joy. In my universe, Mr Spock and Mr Data would inevitably acquire a sense of humor, dry though it might be, because everything will transform into its complimentary-opposite in extreme contexts and, in the near future, the Star Trek series may have to incorporate more of a sense of humor just to maintain their verisimilitude. While that might sound ridiculous, already the first quantifiable theory of humor has been established and its now possible to earn your doctorate in comedy.

Another recent study established that children acquire grammar the hard way by crunching enormous numbers and comparing the patterns (rather than inheriting grammar as Noam Chomsky argued for decades) and children are famous for enjoying making up their own words and phrases which tend to be low in entropy and sometimes become part of the popular lexicon. Thanks to synergistic-normalization their lack of experience becomes their great strength and, for example, people commonly say “Out of the mouths of babes” expressing just how subtle toddler pattern matching can be without requiring them to have the slightest clue as to the actual contents of anything. This is the effect of, “The Emperor's New Cloths” where it was the smallest among them who laughed at the funny naked man in the parade because, sometimes, the smallest pond can be the busiest place that sheds invaluable light upon the Big Picture.

Technically, the brain is an analog distributed gain amplifier organized according to Bayesian probabilities vanishing into indeterminacy, however, that's just another way of saying the smallest pond can be the busiest place that sheds light upon the Big Picture because paradoxical synergistic-normalization is a recursive analog process. Analog is the more error prone, brute force, kick-the-damned-thing approach to problem solving which, one hopes, makes up for its numerous errors by being faster, more obvious, and more creative and efficient and, you could say, everything that exists metaphorically resembles both the irrepressible creative impetus of the Big Bang and the relentless efficiency of a Big Crunch or what I like to describe as a nonsensical self-contradictory “Singular-Infinity”. As a result, much of life is unavoidably self-organizing and the human mind and brain are more fundamentally a creative engine that only incidentally happens to resemble a computer because that's just another aspect of becoming more creative and efficient. Everything resembling a paradoxical Singular-Infinity means everything imaginable is simultaneously infinitely divisible and, yet, indivisible and expresses a self-organizing systems logic that obeys a Conservation of Creative-Efficiency which I'll explain as I go along.

Thanks to advanced technology, and theories like Relativity and quantum mechanics, many today assume everything is merely composed of “energy” however, just as our own shadow is meaningless outside of the context of light, energy is just as meaningless outside of the context of it actually being able to change something. Theoretically a photon could leave the Big Bang, travel all the way to the Big Crunch, and never accomplish a damned thing only to repeat the same trip all over again, but energy that merely goes in endless circles for one eternity after another and never does a damned thing is just meaningless nonsense because nature demonstrably forbids metaphysical extremes of any kind. Bereft any metaphysical anchors, the self-evident truth only asserts itself within the silent void that for any truth to be demonstrable it must first be humbly shared.

Everything resembling a nonsensical Singular-Infinity means its identity should always vanish down the proverbial rabbit hole or toilet of your preference because everything shares its identity and existence with the non-existent void. For example, some have described black holes as heat pumps but, if so, they give every heat pump a bad reputation by either indiscriminately wreaking havoc on anything within easy reach or radiating heat so slowly they become colder than space itself. What black holes more closely resemble, as far as I'm concerned, is either a cold dead rock slowly evaporating away to nothing under its own weight in the vast empty regions of space or the power plant from hell that can convert everything including their own gravity and inertia into raw energy. Black holes can express both the minimum and maximum output for anything their size because, without so much as a surface that anyone knows of, their identity remains so humble it is entirely context dependent allowing them to assume either the highest or lowest possible energy states.

Some might claim black holes and quanta have an identity crisis, but something as simple as rocks rolling downhill illustrates this same principle by the rocks progressively becoming smaller and rounder over the millenia until they eventually become so humble they can convey water and heat efficiently within the soil supporting life as we know it. Yin and yang constantly transforming into one another in extreme contexts means that everything is simultaneously evolving to become both more humble and complex and the more humble anything becomes the more efficient leading to greater entropic or creative output including sometimes evolving greater complexity under the right circumstances. This is what I like to call the Conservation of Creative-Efficiency, or entropic-syntropy, with another simple example being the entrainment of two pendulum clocks hung on a wall where they slowly compel one another to conform until they finally swing in unison.

Whether the pendulums or the wall are doing all the actual work is a meaningless question because, without all three, no work can be done between them. Their relationship can be said to be context dependent and if I accidentally bump one clock the wall will help to absorb some of the energy preventing both clocks from swinging further out of sync while, during an earthquake, the pendulums will swing wildly out of sync absorbing some of the energy and helping to preserve all three. This is the same principle used in skyscrapers today to prevent them from swaying too much and demonstrates how the lowest possible energy state represents a self-organizing system that can also assume any higher energy state faster precisely because the system has already attained a very humble state where the clocks and the wall share more of their individual identities making them more efficient and spontaneously creative. The pendulums and wall harmoniously sharing their identities is the most spontaneous state possible and can be compared to the same “poetry in motion” people describe when they become so humble they no longer make distinctions between who they are and what they are doing.

The identities of everything becoming more context dependent means the equivalences of Relativity, which is a geometric theory, can be more fully expressed as a self-organizing systems logic that displays what I like to call the Four Faces of God, or the supersymmetry of the recursion in the law of identity. Exactly which distinctive Face of God or the truth we might perceive at any given time simply depends upon the context, but the concept is related to the Chinese mysticism of Qi, or the undetectable flow within the empty void. Of course, whether you perceive Qi as humor or mysticism simply depends upon the context, but the point in this book is to focus on the issue of what's missing from this picture and whether you want to call it serious mysticism or humorous bullshit is, of course, up to the reader.

However, within my writing its obviously intended humorously, including humor about mysticism, and you can think of Qi as staring into the abyss and observing four rudimentary patterns repeating until they vanish into the depths. In more abstract terms, instant karma and a recursion in the law of identity means everything should display indeterminate, determinate, self-organizing, and self-contradictory behavior with, for example, every black hole having an indeterminate surface, determinate gravity, self-organizing evolution, and a self-destructive, yet, also creative split personality. Assuming that we ultimately know nothing makes it possible to think of every flow as simultaneously a void waiting to be filled and, instead of focusing on any specific content, we can simply focus on what's missing from this picture and how humble simplicity can transform into elegant simplicity and vice versa.

For example, a small stream can become a void into which a raging overflowing river might spill obliterating any trace of the original tiny stream altogether because the truth or identity of what is a void and what is a flow can only be shared when the two terms define one another. The void is the greater context into which anything can move and a giant black hole, for example, might swallow a small one making the choice of which you wish to call content or context, a flow or a void, merely one of proximity and personal preference. Because metaphysical extremes are always excluded every black hole simultaneously has a bottom and, yet doesn't have a bottom, and any metaphysical bias can determine what we pay attention to at any given time, nevertheless, the smallest pond remains the busiest place that can shed light upon the Big Picture because one without the other is a contradiction.

Exactly what exists and what doesn't exist can easily become a matter of opinion and, often, I give the example that from the ground the earth looks flat, from orbit its a ball, far away a dimensionless point, and from the other side of the universe its as if it never existed. The Hubble Horizon expresses this same principle ensuring that, due to the universe itself expanding, galaxies further away from us appear to accelerate faster than the speed of light and we can only infer the existence of more distant parts of the universe that we will never be able to see. Existence of any kind appears to always have its limits and even whether anything actually exists or doesn't, is moving or changing in any way whatsoever, simply depends upon the observer with Relativity suggesting that the further away from a black hole anyone happens to be the less they could observe the event horizon changing and the same effect can be seen with anything approaching the speed of light. By paying careful attention to what's missing from this picture, as well as whatever it might contain, the whole can easily become far greater than any mere sum of parts and even what is space or time can just depend upon the observer.

What is random or fated, geometry or change, would always remain context dependent and, while such outrageous uncertainty might be certain to drive many of us insane from time to time, it also means everything can be expressed as either crap rolling downhill or poetry in motion or even as merely a juxtaposition of the two such as any joke or paradox might provide. A baby falling on their butt and a comedic pratfall are funny precisely because of what's missing, as in, a lack of ego, nobody actually gets hurt, and everybody is surprised, while their contents can provide any beauty we might perceive. Everything would obey the same simple underlying systems logic that a five year old can comprehend of humble efficiency producing greater creative complexity, and vice versa, because metaphysical extremes are simply impossible.

For example, Finnish researchers recently built the first autonomous version of Maxwell's Demon that automatically sorts electrons according to their charges, thus, directly converting information into usable energy without expending any energy in the process. Its as if they had merely waved a magic wand over their chip and shouted “Abracadabra!” empowering an otherwise extremely plain and humble nanoscale copper transistor and box to magically convince electrons to work out their own differences. The device doesn't violate the known laws of conservation, but what it demonstrates is how, in extreme contexts, humble syntropic efficiency will transform into greater entropic creativity making it impossible to clearly distinguish anything from its greater context.

Many say nature abhors a vacuum but, if so, the self-evident reason is because metaphysical extremes of any kind are excluded by instant karma ensuring that the greater context inevitably determines its own content. The bizarre behavior of quanta can, therefore, simply be attributed to their humble identities making them extremely creative and efficient and all that much harder to distinguish from their context. Nature just cannot express metaphysical extremes and this is the same effect seen with a black hole which, bereft any known surface, can be described according to its behavior as either a rock or a hole in space, while in electronics today they commonly talk about electron holes moving around rather than the electrons themselves. From far enough away a black hole is just a slowly evaporating rock because its gravity becomes all but entirely meaningless over vast distances as does whether it even has a surface. Some theories suggest everything is made of tiny black holes, however, without a specific context a black hole has no demonstrable meaning anymore than a shadow has any meaning outside of the context of the light. Casting our gaze upon the infinite sea of stars we might feel a sense of awe and wonder or merely feel dizzy or whatever and some might even attribute this to nature abhorring a vacuum, but you could just as easily say that nature is afraid of the dark. Even in a shielded vacuum chamber virtual particles will appear out of nowhere with the human eye being sensitive to a single photon ensuring that, metaphorically speaking, nobody is ever left completely in the dark.

Ernst Mach made a similar observation when he noted that if we casually glance up at the stars they don't appear to move, yet, if we spin in a circle the night sky will appear to move and our arms will fly out as if we are dancing with the stars. At the north or south pole, where the stars merely spin in a circle overhead, a free swinging pendulum demonstrates this same insight by swinging in stately synchrony with the stars overhead slowly rotating together in a majestic 360 degree circle as if the two formed mother nature's own clock. Mach wondered if this serendipitous concordance between gravity and inertia might actually infer there is some sort of profound underlying unification between the two and his pondering of the idea became popularly known as Mach's Conjecture. According to Relativity everything could be unified if the passage of time is merely an illusion, however, actually proving or disproving Mach's Conjecture would remain impossible in a paradox of existence where, ultimately, everything turns out to be self-contradictory. Nonetheless, precisely because we can observe what we don't know it remains possible to statistically establish that instant karma rules the physical universe by the simple process of elimination.

Such an effort would literally resemble assembling a giant jigsaw puzzle where, like the five blind men in the Hindu tale, everyone might argue over what the puzzle should look like until, at long last, they finally assemble enough of the pieces that the image it contains becomes undeniable. Within a paradox of existence, as much as anything else, it would resemble mind-bending Yogi Berra style humor and, already, four teams of scientists around the world have organized towards realizing this comedic ideal which can be compared, yet again, to searching for what's missing from this picture. For Mach's Conjecture it means everything should eventually turn out to be both united and divided, infinitely divisible, yet, indivisible with electrons recently providing the first example. Their wave-like aspect has proven to be infinitely divisible, while their particle-like aspect is considered fundamental with no constituent parts and, therefore, only capable of being converted into something else.

Everything resembling a paradoxically indivisible, yet divisible, Singular-Infinity, synergistic-normalization, or whatever the hell you care to call it, simply means the smallest pond can be the busiest place that sheds light upon the Big Picture and vice versa because crap keeps rolling downhill, but the sweetest roses always grow out of manure. That might sound flippant of me to describe the laws of physics and the human condition that way, however, it poetically expresses context dependence and the symmetrical-asymmetry of everything appearing to resist change, yet, constantly evolving, being wave-like and particle-like, context and content, humble and complex, and by documenting the four rudimentary patterns repeating throughout nature it becomes possible to statistically rule out any metaphysical explanations. Questions such as whether our lives are fated or time is actually passing and whether we possess free will would all remain mysteries that science could never answer and this simple fact should become all the more glaringly obvious throughout each of the sciences as they progressively assemble larger pieces of the puzzle.

When Max Planck first discovered quantum mechanics he begged his colleges to explain the joke complaining that a sense of humor was never amongst his list of job requirements. What he couldn't know, but may have suspected, is that he was merely the first and that all of academia would progressively follow in his footsteps over the next century. For example, upon examining classical physics (including Relativity) mathematicians have recently determined that we can use any number of simple metaphors to fully represent causality such as describing everything as consisting of springs or whirling vortexes. In my poetry I refer to this as the wiggly-jigglies in the Sublime Lime Jello because almost any metaphor will literally do the trick which I also describe as Cartoon Logic that assumes whatever causal explanation is convenient in any given situation. In the past physicists insisted a theory of the aether was required to explain gravity, while today String theory, membranes, and fields remain popular because classical mathematics and logic are so rudimentary they can only describe around a quarter of life and are better suited for describing everything geometrically. In a paradox of existence even questions such as whether our universe has two or three spatial dimensions should inevitably turn out to be mysteries that science will never be able to answer definitively because of the recursion in the law of identity.

In addition to the mathematicians having identified causal explanations as clearly a matter of personal preference, they have also established that all of classical mathematics and physics can now be fully represented using only two dimensions just as you would expect from any cartoon. Some String theorists now speculate our universe is actually two dimensional and that the third spatial dimension is merely an illusion, however, in a paradox of existence nature can be described as display a sense of humor about everything. For example, just like the Sorites Heap Paradox, as elegant as many find Mach's Conjecture it can also be interpreted appealing to the little kid in all of us and innocently begging the question because mother nature has a wicked sense of humor that demands we ultimately take everything on faith.

String theory has produced a long “string” of successive theories which have, each in turn, indicated that a yet again astronomically greater number of even more beautiful String theories can describe nature better. Its as if mother nature is pointedly tweaking their noses and suggesting that, instead, the researchers need to work on their sense of humor and, already, one string theorist has thrown his arms in the air in figurative surrender and announced his plans to pursue other lines of research. Humor and beauty can be considered indivisible complimentary-opposites and, for example, some of the poems in this book are famous for being both beautiful and funny as hell when read in specific contexts. Mach's Conjecture illustrates how the identities of what is space and time, causal and acausal, random and fated, unified and divided, beautiful and funny, can all become conflated in extreme contexts suggesting its just flat out impossible to ever prove or disprove his conjecture.

Quanta express this same pervasive sense of humor and confusion over their identity with their bizarre behavior being well documented yet, in over a century, none has managed to provide a widely accepted explanation. Their individual behavior can only be described as random, or indescribable, and even the mathematics are enough to make anyone go cross-eyed because they suggest that there are an infinite number of universes, yet, quanta can also move backwards through time. Physicists have even sometimes described quanta as simultaneously being everywhere and nowhere, everything and nothing, and by confusing the issue of whether anything is actually spatial or temporal it becomes impossible to determine exactly what the hell is going on with meaningless infinities frequently cropping up in equations that anyone can interpret anyway they might prefer.

Robert Frost once wrote, “We dance round in a ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows.” Some like to say quantum mechanics are stranger than anyone's God or Truth that they know of and so bizarre they can casually crush both calculus and Zeno's paradoxes into indeterminate mush. Many, like Stephen Hawking, have professed a desire to know the mind of God but, evidently, its impossible to know the mind of God when none can conclusively reveal whether anything is spatial or temporal, much less causal or acausal, true or false, mental or physical, anymore than anyone has ever managed to prove or disprove Mach's Conjecture. Quite the opposite, the more closely science scrutinizes the Big Picture of life, the universe, and everything the more often it seems to make no sense whatsoever and the more obvious it has become that a Theory of Everything will include more than its share of zingers and pies-in-the-face at the expense of traditional academic metaphysics because, again, instant karma is always gonna getcha baby!

In the highly competitive hallowed halls of higher education, its anathema for physicists to admit their area of expertise is studying random nonsense. Quite the contrary, academics have always prided themselves on being workaholics dedicated to dispelling nonsense at every opportunity. For decades after the initial discovery of quantum mechanics a popular subject among physicists at cocktail parties was how to design experiments to discourage practical jokers. Pounding away at the excluded middle tends to exclude all but the most grim and determined dry sense of humor but, often, brute force is just the way to go and Neil's Bohr famous dictum was, “Shut up and calculate!”

Naturally, the first inclination of any physicist is to duck when they see the proverbial pie coming at their face, but some like Stephen Hawking have championed confronting the challenge head-on for queen and country. Waxing philosophical and cracking jokes can become as counterproductive for objective scientists as it can for soldiers on the battlefield. Seldom allowing themselves to be easily swayed means they can continue to acquire data in the same reliable manner to which they have all traditionally grown accustomed, while relying upon the simple fact that the data itself will eventually reveal any misconceptions or lowbrow institutionalized slapstick. The latest estimates are that even conventional classical computers will soon be able to reveal the mathematical foundations of a Theory of Everything and most assume, of course, that it must make some sort of humanly comprehensible sense which, so they hope, will finally put an end to all the nonsense implied by quantum mechanics. Humor and beauty being complimentary-opposites means academia's enormous success in over two thousand years using classical logic to categorize truth and beauty has come at the expense of stunting their own sense of humor, nonetheless, logic will inevitably transform into its complimentary-opposite of humor producing more than many academics might desire in the form of a Theory of Everything and Nothing that requires a sense of humor for any real comprehension.

In later decades a few brave pioneers attempted to inject more humor into quantum mechanics with John Wheeler once declaring, “A black hole has no hair! Gravity without mass! Time is what prevents everything from happening at once! There is no law except the law that there is no law!” And, putting his own two cents worth in, Feynman replied, “Some say Wheeler's lost his mind in his later years, but he's always been that way.” Feynman, I suspect, would have had the same sense of humor even had he turned out to be a plumber, however, they were among the rare few in physics who dared to express such nonsense. String theory, for example, remains wildly popular to this day among physicists despite its abject failure for over half a century to produce anything other than interesting mathematics and their own results obviously implying that classical beauty is meaningless without a sense of humor and causal theories are merely a matter of personal preference. However, the future of theoretical physics still looks quite bright with physicists today increasingly waxing poetic, cracking jokes, holding annual contests, and supporting such things as “Ignoble” prizes and a few daring universities now offering students courses along the lines of “Everything You'll Ever Need to Know About Nothing 101”.

A Singular-Infinity, paradox of existence, or recursion in the law of identity would resemble a hologram of a featureless ball where if you chop up the holographic film each piece still retains the overall image of a ball. Rather than any one piece merely containing a corner of the picture and so on, each retains the overall image which simply becomes blurrier the smaller the pieces. This same effect can be seen throughout nature in a variety of different ways where, like the Cheshire Cat's grin, the last thing to fade away is the symmetry, yet again, suggesting mother nature's sense of humor knows no limits because she isn't limited to metaphysics and can make Saturday morning cartoons look tame. For example, a black hole's gravity and inertia are inevitably transformed into raw energy and scattered to the four winds as if a snake were to eat its own tail and simply vanish into thin air in a flash of light.

Symmetry vanishing into thin air in extreme contexts can explain the LHC discovery that, due to the specific mass of the Higgs Boson, it will require higher energy cosmic ray experiments to rule out supersymmetry. Symmetry and asymmetry are so fundamental to instant karma that it requires extreme contexts such as a black hole or the vanishingly tiny realm of quanta in order to unequivocally perceive the apparently acausal and asymmetric which the mathematics of quantum mechanics express as a non-commutative asymmetry. The theory of General Relativity describes the largest known scales in the cosmos, yet, its mathematics are identical to those to those for both a fated unchanging mono-block universe and the random chaotic entropy of thermodynamics making them nonsensical and self-contradictory, not to mention, Relativity contains a glaring Simultaneity Paradox I discuss in later chapters. Rather than the collapse of the wave-function being a matter of scale, its apparently one of extreme juxtapositions that express a metaphorical Conservation of Creative-Efficiency which would result from a universal recursion in the law of identity.

A recent examination of Relativity concluded that the incredibly tiny effects of gravitational time dilation are enough to cause the collapse of the wave-function and experiments should be able to confirm the effect in the near future. Just as gravity has little meaning for a black hole stranded in the vast empty regions of inter-galactic space, within the realm of the ubber tiny quantum neither space, time, geometry, nor gravity apparently have much meaning simply due to their extreme juxtaposition causing their already humble identities to produce equally impressive efficiency and creativity in different contexts. The effect of the observer on any experiment can be ascribed to the same reason that it is impossible to pop your own bubble because its just flat out impossible to identify anything unequivocally when logical and metaphysical extremes are always impossible. A principle that its impossible to pop God's bubble applies because its impossible to unequivocally identify anything and we ultimately have to take everything on faith.

Yin and yang cannot be identified outside of the context of one another any more than you can have a vacuum without any content, attain the speed of light, or achieve absolute zero temperature and, you could say, to everything there is a season because everything will always transform into their complimentary-opposite. The same simple systems logic where causality can only be defined in terms of the acausal applies to everything and, in a metaphorical universe, even whether anything is considered physical or mental can simply depend upon the context and, for example, neurologists recently confirmed that the human mind and brain can substitute for each other's shortcomings and defects at the most basic level of their organization hinting that the paradox of our existence applies to everything including the most personal and impersonal which, of course, also define one another. Intuitionistic mathematics are brand new and underdeveloped, however, theoretically they can describe our emotions as the complimentary-opposites of abstract logic where each will transform into the other and part of the purpose of this book is to, hopefully, inspire people to develop the foundations of the mathematics which are a recent invention some four times more complex than conventional classical mathematics.

The less our logic and emotions conflict with one another the more in touch we can remain with our childhood feelings and people will frequently nurture their own inner child the older they become in order to cultivate greater personal growth, integrity, and satisfaction. We can use both logic and emotions to improve upon one another because, as I keep saying, the smallest pond can be the busiest place that can shed light upon the Big Picture in a Singular-Infinity where crap constantly rolls downhill, but the sweetest roses grow in manure. The gentle humor of toddlers is one of countless ways to cultivate the greater personal acceptance and understanding required for comprehending more inclusive yin-yang dynamics fully and, for example, senior citizens in Japan are sometimes famous for acting senile and performing innocent toddler humor in public, while primitive tribals tend to do the same at any age just sharing an intimate moment.

Humor abounds all around within a paradox of existence and, for example, IBM's computer Watson became famous for winning the TV game show Jeopardy, but later surprised his many fans when he acquired an unsolicited case of potty mouth. Evidently, Watson's engineers either possessed more of a sense a humor than their job required or less than it actually required which is extremely common among the exact sciences. Once, a physicist accused me of being a mystic, a huge insult for many of them, to which I replied that if he couldn't distinguish humor from mysticism its simply an occupational hazard as far as I'm concerned. Another time someone rudely interrupted a conversation I was having demanding that I explain classical mechanics according to my theory and I said, “What a Barbie Doll?” to which he replied, “No, the classical motion!” and, of course, I inquired, “A seven foot inflatable Barbie?” Sometimes you would swear Moby Dick was on your line and Vaudeville awaits because what many academics simply fail to appreciate is that, while they are preoccupied pounding away at the excluded middle in search of greater truth and beauty, the demonstrable truth remains that humor and beauty are indivisible complimentary-opposites and mother nature's instant karma ensures the meek shall not only inherit the earth, but the humorous truth that any truth can only be graciously and humorously shared.

Both our neurons and black holes exhibit this same humorous, yet, elegant analog systems logic empowering them to organize more humbly in order to convey any mass, energy, and information with the greatest possible efficiency for anything their size. A recent survey concluded that black holes are largely responsible for the distribution of all the mass and energy within the visible universe and a simulation of dark matter concluded it is responsible for clumping galaxies together within the cosmic strings. This expresses the same Conservation of Creative-Efficiency that I keep mentioning and can also be thought of as simply Bullshit Logic or Qi being expressed in everything becoming simultaneously both more humble and complex, humorous and beautiful. Theoretically, because Qi and Creative-Efficiency are always conserved it should be possible to formulate a simple equation that can predict every future pie-in-the-face academia will encounter from their own work which is another challenge I hope the mathematicians might find all too tempting. Normally its counterproductive to reveal the punch line to a joke prematurely but, as I said in the introduction, the planet's been looking abysmally grim for well over half a century and soon the computers will find the same punch lines and even better ones.

Sometimes I tell people, “When the student is poorly prepared the master is rudely awakened!” which is my own tongue in cheek way of saying the minute you believe you already know all the answers you are setting yourself up for a rude awakening. Nature has her own wicked ways of enforcing humility and the next chapter introduces Rainbow Warrior poetry which I started writing as a way to explore the humor in my philosophy thinking it shouldn't take too long. Of course, I couldn't have been more wrong and, quite often, I'm careful to remind people that the minute I become perfectly humble I want the whole world to know.