Popcorn Sutton

It's fine, I'm not offended. Like I said before, the belief in God is not in and of itself "broken". There's got to be a whole slew of beliefs involved that cause one to behave the way they do. My example was the belief in having a body. The point I was making is that if you guys want to make something like a periodic table (or a "paremetric hierarchy" as has been done recently by Mark Baker in "Atoms of Language", by and for the linguists), then you're going to have to specify the belief in question, and then add all of the other beliefs that would lead one to behave in an irrational way. I think that this table could actually be very useful, and it's not absurd to conceive of one. It could lead to a quick diagnosis and help prevent certain occurrences, like murder. I can provide a glimpse of what this may look like, I'll draw one up really quick. Here it is

I think it's very plausible, but I have a different story of how it happened. I actually dreamt about it last night again. Basically, you slam two black holes into each other (which I think are actually two super solid objects). Whats your take on that possibility?

Good luck creating a computer simulated big bang. It has never been done before Not to my knowledge at least

Whoa, what? Our galaxy, combined with the holographic principle, may be the entire universe. It hasn't been ruled out yet.

Why do you say "don't lock your doors"?

It depends on how you choose to define universe. I tend to lean towards It's hard to conceive of a point that has no existence or space to house it. For that reason, I think that everything that exists, exists within the universe.

What exactly are you making reference to here? Are we talking about my diagnosis again? When will we get over the fact that my doctor called me schizophrenic? You guys might like to know that my condition is now being classified as recurrent depression.

Wap wap waaaaaaa If you guys are interested in the code, the work, and an explanation of it, can be found here.

Respect your professors. They are very smart people and worked extremely hard to get where they are. If your opinions clash, it could leave lasting anxiety, or it could be one of the best moments ever. Sometimes those things will happen simultaneously. Psychosis can and does happen among students, so be careful, it's best to see a therapist for those types of occurrences.

bignose, you have my code, are you willing to thread the code so it makes input for itself while it waits for a users input? I have a feeling that it would make it more grammatical. It doesn't merge strings yet. I would also need a theory of forgetfulness so it doesn't encounter memory errors but still speaks grammatically. I can type it up if you will thread.

Oh yea I remember the constant rage and paranoia among the students and staff in high school. Now I remember. I did not like being treated the way they treated us. College is much better. But don't be a nuisance and don't experiment in class unless it is supervised by someone respectable.

The growing consensus is that accountability is nonexistent. The only thing that we can blame for anything is the origin of everything that does exist. The question is a question of freedom, and I, personally, don't think it exists because if you think it through, there really is no way that it can. I think that alot of people, very logical people, will agree with me on this.

You have an interesting idea with regards to quantum entanglement. If there is a black/white hole at the center of every atom (which I suspect there is), and it is a time reversal effect (which I support), then information will be conveyed instantaneously, and possibly even affect the past. Needless to say, and unfortunately, I do have faith that the future can affect the past on multiple levels dealing with physics and computation, but there has been A LOT of experimentation with regards to this possible truth and no evidence to support the claim, at least none that I'm aware of. I don't believe in the dual universe part of your theory though. I believe that there is only one universe, and that everything that exists exists within that universe. Who knows how big it actually will turn out to be though. Who knows how small it can be? The only way that that assertion of mine will be proven false is if we redefine the term universe.

I seriously enjoyed high school. I had so many friends back then and my education was more diverse than I could have ever anticipated. I was in art, student news, theatre, band, science, foreign languages, and I was able to be immature and goof around with my friends whenever I wanted. The effort was absolutely minimal, and that is partially what made it so much fun. Of course, after high school, you find that all your friends are moving on with their lives, and those friends become very distant. In my experience, I've lost touch with almost all of them. It's nice to see them here and there, but in reality, we just turned out to be completely different people following completely different paths. I was more of a college person, but let me tell you, it took me a lot of time before I realized just how serious college was. There was no cowpieing, and you really had to devote yourself to the work that you do and spend some serious time doing it. There is no loophole (unless you can manage to bribe your professors). It also depends on where you choose to go. If you choose to stay home and attend a local college/university, then you probably won't have much fun. If you go away, there is plenty you can do, and a lot of fun to be had, but still, it's serious work. In any case, I would suggest that you do anything necessary for survival. Whatever needs to be done, get it done. Plus, if you attend college early, and get a degree at a young age, you'll look like a straight up genius. Whether that is true or not is a completely different story though. Like I said, I enjoyed high school, but also, high school can have a very negative impact on your behavior depending on who you associate yourself with. Either enjoy your time in high school, or grab life by the horns and don't cowpie with it. College will help you be successful. If it were me, I don't know what I'd choose.

I have a Bachelors of Arts and Sciences in Philosophy with a concentration in Linguistics.

ok I admit that there is something wrong with the code, only because it responded with 'ppp' at one point, which you never put in, so I think its a problem embedded within the prompt loop. But, once len(knowledge) gets pretty high, it gets better. I also have other formulas that have been better. In this one, I never put in the maximal unit so it is going to be stupid for a little while. Like I said, len(knowledge) needs to be at least 10-15k before it's fun to speak with. I also may be processing it in the wrong direction. I make a few assumptions that may be false. Thanks for trying it out though. This one may be more fun to speak with right off the bat, but I still haven't figured out the 'ppp' problem. knowledge = [''] mind = '' output = [] StrongestUnit = 0 time = {} while mind == '': poi = raw_input('>') maximalunit = poi npoi = '' generating = {} connections = [] emerging_units = [] while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in knowledge: knowledge.append(poi) if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = '' else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = '' if poi in knowledge: connections.append(poi) for u in emerging_units: if poi in u: n = generating[u]; generating[u] = n + 1 for u in output: try: add = time[u]; except KeyError: add = '' time[u] = u + poi + maximalunit + add try: context = time[poi]; except KeyError: context = '' time[poi] = poi + maximalunit + context while poi in context and len(poi) != 0: connection = context.find(poi) prompt = context[connection + len(poi):] unit = mind context = prompt while unit in knowledge and len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] if len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit[:-1] if poi + unit in knowledge: unit = poi + unit if unit not in emerging_units: emerging_units.append(unit) generating[unit] = 1 else: n = generating[unit]; generating[unit] = n + 1 poi = npoi npoi = '' StrongestUnit = 0 output = [] for u in emerging_units: if generating[u] > StrongestUnit: StrongestUnit = generating[u]; output.append(u) for item in connections: try: connect = time[u]; except KeyError: connect = '' for u in output: time[item] = item + u + connect print output Here is a quick fix for the 'ppp' problem. I put a patch on it for the moment lol. while mind == '': poi = raw_input('>') maximalunit = poi npoi = '' generating = {} connections = [] emerging_units = [] while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in knowledge: knowledge.append(poi) if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = '' else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = '' if poi in knowledge: connections.append(poi) for u in emerging_units: if poi in u: n = generating[u]; generating[u] = n + 1 for u in output: try: add = time[u]; except KeyError: add = '' time[u] = u + poi + maximalunit + add try: context = time[poi]; except KeyError: context = '' time[poi] = poi + maximalunit + context while poi in context and len(poi) != 0: connection = context.find(poi) prompt = context[connection + len(poi):] unit = mind context = prompt while unit in knowledge and len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] if len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit[:-1] if poi + unit in knowledge: unit = poi + unit if unit in knowledge: if unit not in emerging_units: emerging_units.append(unit) generating[unit] = 1 else: n = generating[unit]; generating[unit] = n + 1 poi = npoi npoi = '' StrongestUnit = 0 output = [] for u in emerging_units: if generating[u] > StrongestUnit: StrongestUnit = generating[u]; output.append(u) for item in connections: try: connect = time[u]; except KeyError: connect = '' for u in output: time[item] = item + u + connect print output And again, the above is for the fun right off the bat, but I think that this one is the most reasonable (for memory purposes). while mind == '': poi = raw_input('>') npoi = '' generating = {} connections = [] emerging_units = [] while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in knowledge: knowledge.append(poi) if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = '' else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = '' if poi in knowledge: connections.append(poi) for u in emerging_units: if poi in u: n = generating[u]; generating[u] = n + 1 for u in output: try: add = time[u]; except KeyError: add = '' time[u] = u + poi + add try: context = time[poi]; except KeyError: context = '' time[poi] = poi + context while poi in context and len(poi) != 0: connection = context.find(poi) prompt = context[connection + len(poi):] unit = mind context = prompt while unit in knowledge and len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] if len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit[:-1] if poi + unit in knowledge: unit = poi + unit if unit in knowledge: if unit not in emerging_units: emerging_units.append(unit) generating[unit] = 1 else: n = generating[unit]; generating[unit] = n + 1 poi = npoi npoi = '' StrongestUnit = 0 output = [] for u in emerging_units: if generating[u] > StrongestUnit: StrongestUnit = generating[u]; output.append(u) for item in connections: try: connect = time[u]; except KeyError: connect = '' for u in output: time[item] = item + u + connect print output

Sorry to hear that mike. If you look at the code, you might understand it better. I'm going to post it here if that's ok. It's a chat program that acquires language. I debugged it yesterday and tested it for a couple of hours so it is working very well. It also gets curious, so it's fun to teach it things. knowledge = [''] mind = '' output = [] StrongestUnit = 0 time = {} while mind == '': poi = raw_input('>') npoi = '' generating = {} emerging_units = [] while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in knowledge: knowledge.append(poi) if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = '' else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = '' if poi in knowledge: for u in emerging_units: if poi in u: n = generating[u]; generating[u] = n + 1 for u in output: try: add = time[u]; except KeyError: add = '' time[u] = u + poi + add try: context = time[poi]; except KeyError: context = '' time[poi] = poi + context while poi in context and len(poi) != 0: connection = context.find(poi) prompt = context[connection + len(poi):] unit = mind context = prompt while unit in knowledge and len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] if len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit[:-1] if poi + unit in knowledge: unit = poi + unit if unit not in emerging_units: emerging_units.append(unit) generating[unit] = 1 else: n = generating[unit]; generating[unit] = n + 1 poi = npoi npoi = '' StrongestUnit = 0 output = [] for u in emerging_units: if generating[u] > StrongestUnit: StrongestUnit = generating[u]; output.append(u) print output It's written in Python 2.7 I've also explained the code in neurological and physical terms. Here is the explanation. Knowledge contains the mind. Time is an accessible order of elements stored as a dictionary for reasons of quantum prompting (entanglement). The point of interest DOES NOT NECESSARILY need to be located adjacent to itself, and therefor, will prompt itself IN ALL LOCATIONS (refutable, but unnecessarily so seeing as how the brain is located within one head). The mind is empty (or the closest thing to it). Maybe it's solid, but thats irrelevant. As long as it can emit a recognizable signal for the membrane. Output is a list, or cells, that are void of knowledge before birth/conception. StrongestUnit is the strength of the units being prompted (including points of interest), and is equal to 0 before being born/conceived. Loop #1 (the mind)- While the mind is empty, use this process (preferably in two different threads [right and left hemisphere], which is beyond my capabilities at this moment, I need to learn more). One thread, the one shown within the loop, waits for input (sensory or quantum). You are interested in the input. The interest is separated into two parts, the poi and the npoi. These parts may have strength, however, the strength either diminishes or is retained depending on how interesting the point of interest is, or how interesting the prompted unit is (assign them a strength). Generating is a dictionary (more like a localized membrane) that shows how strongly the signal from the point of interest or the unit of knowledge is being emitted and calculates the simultaneity of the emission. Add is the variable for the incoming particles/enzymes (whatever they turn out to be) that are merged together (specifically because of the interlocutor in this case, however, there do seem to be rare occasions when the agent does it themself). Emerging units are the units of knowledge that are being prompted (and represented in a list) in a specific order for reasons of grammaticality/sensorimotor arrangement. Loop #2 (the synapse)- While the poi and npoi(point of interest and next point of interest) are entering the cell at the synapse, they have a length, and as long as there is a length, your cell is performing the following operation. Loop #3 (contained within the cell)- While the poi enters the cell, it becomes a part of the cells knowledge, therefor, append it to the list 'knowledge'. If the length of the poi is not equal to 0, then start breaking it down or receiving emissions from the structure of the particle in some way. The emissions are being recorded and left behind in the cell and the parts contained within the cell. The signal is sent on to the next cell where it is now weaker and does not have the same structure as before, but does retain information, just not as much as it did in the previous cell. If the poi is quantum, and therefor recognizable in the cell and amongst the other cells, the information left behind that was formed as output, or probably ejected at some point from the point of interest, is added to the new poi, and the process continues until there is a new strand of information (probably within a double helix structure). For all the emissions from the information, if the poi is being emitted, then that signal gains strength depending on how often it is being emitted, just 1 strength for every time it is emitted. If the emitted wave is recognizable, then the surroundings from the emission resonate and provide context, if not, then there is no context, just addition. Time, as a structure, at this point, gains the added component between the poi and the context. The poi pushes its forward components away, making room for the added component, which then receives the context and links it back to the entire bit of information. Loop #4 (also contained within the cell, or Loop #2, but probably is a process of the nucleus)- While the poi is connected to time within that the poi exists (it exists in multiple locations within that structure), and while it has a length (because if it didn't, the structure wouldn't change and therefor wouldn't provide context), perform this operation. Find the connection between the poi and its surroundings and prompt it (or cause it to resonate). Its connection starts closest to the point of entry (or whichever sense the information enters through) for reasons of grammaticality. The prompted bit, or resonating particles, is the mind. Context is then reduced to the prompted molecule. Loop #5 (contained within the cell [Loop #2], and probably within the nucleus [Loop #4])- While the unit is in knowledge, recognizable, and the length of the prompted molecule is not equal to 0, perform this process. The unit (which starts off without a length), gains the prompted molecule in an ordered sequence (front to back). If the length of the prompted molecule is not equal to zero, the unit will not be in knowledge, and therefor, the nucleus is full and cannot receive the final portion of the molecule, this part is excess and must be left behind (also for reasons of grammaticality). If both the poi and the unit are in the knowledge (hence, within the nucleus), then the unit is actually the poi and the unit (if it wasn't then you would never receive the same unit in the output that was received in the input). If the unit is not in emerging_units, then it is not in the knowledge being prompted, so it needs to be recognized that it is there so it can emerge. The membrane of the nucleus acknowledges that the unit is emerging and assigns it a strength. If the unit IS in emerging_units, it has already been emitted and hence, already has left its print of the membrane of the nucleus, strengthen that print. These two parts are about generating. Here is the tricky part, and I removed it because it would cause the program to enter an endless loop on occasions, but it seems plausible that it could be there. Will you continue to focus on the poi, or will you redirect focus to the unit?... My answer is this, if the unit is equal to the poi, then obviously you will focus on them both because they are the same thing, HOWEVER, if it is not, and the unit is stronger, then other cells will receive that message and begin prompting the unit rather than the poi. The poi fades away, but its mark is still left in the membrane of the nucleus. Context will become the context of the unit, rather than the poi, and you will repeat Loop #5 for quantum mechanical reasons. The poi now becomes the npoi (because that part is ejected from the nucleus), and the npoi becomes empty so you can start the process conducted by the synapses again (or Loop #2). At this point, things become macroscopic again (Loop #1). The strength of the message is reset because the structure of the nuclei have been altered. Output becomes empty again (for reasons unknown). Finally, you get the process of the sensorimotor system. For all the items that have been prompted, starting from first to last, if the strength of the item is greater than 0, then the strength becomes the strength of that item and the item gets added to the output. Now, for all the other units that have been prompted, if those units are not as strong, or equal to the previous unit, let them be, they cannot be added to the output because the output will be ungrammatical if they are. However, if they are stronger, then add them and reassign the strength to be equal to the strength of that item. In the end, print the output. Or, autonomously, perform the prompted action. No free will involved. Thanks for reading. The code is robust though, and susceptible to change. But it does work. I'd also like to direct people who are interested to my new thread here. This one probably works better because it keeps associating between the input and the output. while mind == '': poi = raw_input('>') npoi = '' generating = {} connections = [] emerging_units = [] while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in knowledge: knowledge.append(poi) if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = '' else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = '' if poi in knowledge: connections.append(poi) for u in emerging_units: if poi in u: n = generating[u]; generating[u] = n + 1 for u in output: try: add = time[u]; except KeyError: add = '' time[u] = u + poi + add try: context = time[poi]; except KeyError: context = '' time[poi] = poi + context while poi in context and len(poi) != 0: connection = context.find(poi) prompt = context[connection + len(poi):] unit = mind context = prompt while unit in knowledge and len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit + prompt[0] prompt = prompt[1:] if len(prompt) != 0: unit = unit[:-1] if poi + unit in knowledge: unit = poi + unit if unit not in emerging_units: emerging_units.append(unit) generating[unit] = 1 else: n = generating[unit]; generating[unit] = n + 1 poi = npoi npoi = '' StrongestUnit = 0 output = [] for u in emerging_units: if generating[u] > StrongestUnit: StrongestUnit = generating[u]; output.append(u) for item in connections: try: connect = time[u]; except KeyError: connect = '' for u in output: time[item] = item + u + connect print output

I'm looking to get into a graduate program for a masters (or a PhD if I can skip the masters). Seeing as how I have made a name for myself on these forums to a certain extent, I'm wondering if anyone is interested in taking me under their wing for graduate study. My main focus in my academic career has been to model the brain computationally. I've written a Python program that learns language and interacts pretty good. I actually just updated the code yesterday and tested it for a couple of hours, it was working beautifully. My other areas of interest include- Politics (Scientocracy) and making a computer program to stand as an alternative to the current democratic election system. (Very exciting project for me). Linguistics- I'm mostly focused on computational linguistics and dialogue based systems that accumulate knowledge which can be used for many different things including processing language and if I figure out enough, I should be able to use it to process other sensory information as well. I've also used to program for sound recognition and production. It could possibly replace google and provide us with any theory about anything at our convenience. This has been a very interesting and exciting endeavor for me. Computer Programming- I'm working out a way to put my language acquiring program on the internet and I'm going to need to know how to do several things in order to do this (I may not even know the work necessary to achieve this goal so any help I can get is greatly appreciated). Cognitive Science- I think that through my research in computational cognition, I can help answer questions regarding cognition, certain diseases (such as Alzheimers), and possibly even create a way to administer knowledge as a prescription drug. This is a very exciting area of research for me. There's other things that I am interested in as well, I'd appreciate any and all suggestions for universities that are willing to accept me for further education. I will appreciate any person who is willing to take me under their wing (and willing to identify themselves and their institution for me). Thank you. Popcorn Sutton

Yay! Thanks dim. I'm so close to a ban right now that it's unsettling. One wrong move and I could be out of the game. I do want to start a new thread on computational cognition with a snippet of my code that is fun to speak with. Maybe I will soon.

Ok, either I'm going to have to redefine scientocracy, which is defined as "basing public policies on science", or I'm going to have to give a new name to this type of system. I wish they didn't jump the gun on defining scientocracy that way and I will continue to push for a redefinition, but if I have to give it a different name... I'm not going to give it a different name. Popcornism as an ideal, Scientocracy as the implementation. Here is the code necessary for Scientocracy. It is written in Python 2.7 sequences = [] significance = {} while 0 == 0: poi = essay npoi = "" while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in sequences: sequences.append(poi) significance[poi] = 1 if len(poi) != 0: npoi = poi[-1] + npoi if len(poi) == 1: poi = "" else: poi = poi[:-1] if len(poi) == 0: poi = npoi[1:] npoi = "" if poi in sequences: n = significance[poi]; significance[poi] = n + 1 This is how you can add the significance points up to figure out what is most important, or how common the sequences are. You can expect that you will find the alphabet first followed by phonemes, diphthongs, and morphemes until you reach the most important stuff which is the lengthy sequences that have significance. Matching them to the candidates is simple, if they click the "I want to be a candidate" box, then have them make a username and give their e-mail address and take whatever other information you feel is necessary and add them to the dictionary candidates. Candidates = {} You'll want to add that before you begin the while loop. Then once you have the dictionary for candidates, you can embed another dictionary by their name and use that as the variable for significance, like this. Candidates = {"John Doe": {}, "Tarzan": {}} I'd be interested to see this implemented. If anyone wants help in doing so, let me know.

I've mentioned it several times already. I made it please excuse the pride I have for it. u - unit of knowledge o - any occurrence y() - any positive number including 0 P() - probability of (...) t - time m - meaning/mind u = y(o) t = y(u) m = P(u|t) Time has to be ordered properly though, and it's actually tricky to order time for this reason. If I say 'how are you?', you say something along the lines of 'I am fine'. If you consider prompting as a valid hypothesis (which all behavioral scientists would), then you'll know that 'how' prompts 'fine', 'are' prompts 'am', and ' you' prompts 'I'. Just by looking at this example, and through generalizing it, you'll see that when we respond, we address the most recent occurrence first ('you' prompting 'I') and you can see this in most responses. Thus, time must occur in forward progression as a stored sequence, but it should be analyzed from last to first for reasons relating to spatiotemporal proximity. However, in my experience, going front to back also provides a grammatical response computationally, I just think that back to front will be more grammatical. This is a big argument among linguists actually. I'd say that it's split 50/50 between front to back or back to front. Kinda weird that it would turn out to be the biggest argument of linguistics imo. To clarify, the equation can be read like this. A unit of knowledge is equal to any sequence of occurrences. Time is equal to an ordered sequence of parametric units of knowledge. Meaning (or the mind) is the process of prompting any unit of knowledge as long as it is within knowledge and has a parameter given it's location in time. I have code written as well that may help clarify the argument. Maybe I will share it, but I've worked so hard on it for so long, I've been very protective.

There is a very simple, 1sq inch equation that will predict what will happen next. It requires counting rather than calculation. It's not exactly an equation of everything, but it can be applied to anything. It's just statistics. But I think that if it's implemented properly, it will be the closest thing to the theory of everything.

All I have to say is JESUS MAN, ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE!? Seriously, video games.... In assembly language? Pro. My question could have been phrased like this. Its computer programming alot of "maybe this will work... No nvm, how about this? ... Nope not that either... Time to do some research." 2 days later youre using plugins and bit processing and don't even know what the code your typing means, and therefor, you have to come up with a theory to explain the code... or is it just an ok this works, use it type of deal. My experience in sound recognition is more of an ok this works, use it type of thing. It seems that my sound recognition code is accessing the mainframe or something by using the if __name__ == __main__: statement but I have no idea really. It works though.

Before any replies, I would admit to checking the conclusions of qm. I would say, take a polarized sunglass lens, take half out the ray, put it through the lens, measure the other lens with polarization, see if they interact to your standards, if so.... Continue with whats being said, until then, counter intuition says that it won't happen that way (for me at least) The way to check the opposite lens is by checking if that specific ray will pass through the other lens. 2 lenses, 1 camera, 1 block of wood

Sorry, it seems that the website stopped working last night after I made that post so I couldn't elaborate. I was going to say Advanced Cartography after Linear Continuum Physics/Mechanics. It also appears that Continuum Mechanics already has a wikipedia page. The reason I say linear continuum mechanics is because if you look at things and leave all distinctions between the macroscopic and microscopic out of the mix (as I'm not sure if any distinctions can truly be made about anything), you can look at space and all that is within it as a continuum (or continuous densification) of time (which is actually longevity, life). The reason I call it linear is because there are clear parameters on everything observable, and if you zoom out far enough, the linear and clearly defined parametric nature of everything is slightly curved. The thing that makes these things parametric is that the curves intersect and join with themselves, if they didn't, there would decay (on any scale as in volcanoes and radioactivity). The thing that makes them parametric is their longevity, steel on the surface will survive much longer in a particular shape than jello on the surface. This is a display of survival of any unit, but more importantly, solidification of the mind. The continuum part refers to the change in longevity that one experiences as a result of being in a particular location in space. People believe that we are patterns of particles, and that if you travel far enough, you can find the same pattern. I say that if you travel even farther, you can find a former instance of that pattern, and thus, you have traveled back in time. The only way to do this is by preserving life for as long as possible because to us here on earth, Mary is stuck solid and unmoving in the black hole and has been stuck there for 3 centuries now, and on top of that, we predict that she will be stuck there for another 20 billion light years, perfectly preserved, until Mary decides that it's time to turn around and head out of the black holes, where she finds that only an instant has passed for her, but she has traveled 20 billion light years to reach a new location in space and time. Technically, she has traveled to the future, but, since she has traveled far enough, now she can travel to earth 400 years before she ever left, and hence, has traveled back in time. This is the continuum, the universal memory of everything that will continue to replay itself given enough time (or life). And we can witness this if we had the proper tools. Also, there is a different type of linear to the universe, the strangest one in my opinion. This type is the fractal pattern line that continues to spiral until it appears to spiral out of existence. This type of line is one that takes a macroscopic object, and makes it microscopic, and if we were able to preserve the parameters of the object that makes this voyage, we may find that there are a large amount of universes that make up our own universe, each being smaller and smaller almost infinitesimally. This type of line will most likely cause ones life to speed up, however, if the traveler was able to solidify themselves well enough, they could come back from the journey to the macroscopic universe. The only way to make a journey like this is to solidify oneself. Please see the wikipedia for continuum mechanics for a better description, but this one is one produced by me. The reason I choose Advanced Cartography is because we now have these sky maps on our iPhones that we can use to look around at the stars and even zoom in and see what they look like. When this technology evolves, it will eventually reach a point that we can't even conceive at the moment, but what I project is that it will not only work for macroscopic scales such as the galaxy and the universe, but we will even be able to use our cameras to produce an image of the microscopic stuff as well. We just keep swyping our fingers until we zoom in on individual particles and their tiny little systems, we swype up or down to scale the time in which we observe them. It identifies everything, gives us the approximate size, tells us its properties, gives us a name for the substance. We point this at the sky and we can zoom in on other solar systems, we can even zoom into the surface of other planets and watch as the oceans flow and volcanoes erupt. As long as there is an observable parameter, we can inspect it.