Yikes...

Well, it's been quite a while since my last update, so I think we're going to make this a two-fer :p

Time:

A discuss between me and Clay got me thinking about this subject

It all started when I made a comment to @MarsRover on Twitter when it was discussing a sol (a Martian day). A sol is 24 Hours 39 Minutes and 35Seconds. However, this is based on Earth time, which is 1.58 Maritan Seconds per Earth Second.

Now this got me thinking about the nature of time itself. The way that I see it, time doesn't exist, at least in the standard concept of the idea. We as humans see time as flowing, like traveling down a river in one direction, never stopping, not being able to go back.

The way that I envision time, is that it is static, unmoving, constant. The general consensus of time is that it is a dimension that exists within our own, meaning that there are three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension of time that exists within these three dimensions. For the purposes of this argument we'll forgo the in-depth discussion on the tesseract and the actual dimensional construct of our known universe... we'll save that for later :p

So you have three spatial dimensions, which are unmoving, obviously, because they are the world in which we see, and then you have the fourth temporal dimension, which is also unmoving, so you may be asking yourself, how does time move?

Now this is the crux of my argument, the actual passing of time itself. This does not exist, at all. Time does not flow, it does not move, it's static, like the three dimensions that we occupy. The reason that we see time as moving is because of the construct of our human mind which deals with the passing of one moment to another. Crazy, no?

Time as a moving object, does not exist, it exists as a static, constant part of our known universe. Which is how I see our universe, never moving, just static, moments don't pass, we just think that they do because of the way that we evolved.

Ok, I think that's enough on that subject, now we are going to move onto the second subject, which I think is going to cause a lot of controversy amount my readers, well, if I have any that is :p

Faith/Religion

OK, now I that this is big no-no to discuss on these here interwebs, but I've been thinking a lot about this lately and there are a few things that I want to get off my mind and I think you should hear it.

Now, for the longest time, I've been Catholic, well, ever since I was born, but at this point in my life, I really don't see myself as Catholic anymore. This isn't to say that I don't believe in a high being or anything like that, just that my idea of faith is radically different than anything that's currently out there.

I am first and foremost a man of science, I've always been, since my misspent days as a youth where I would enjoy reading about science and mathematics. I've always put a large quantity of trust in science and math, mainly because it's something that verifiable, that you can prove. Now that's not saying that I don't have a faith in any sort, but at this point, I consider myself a deist, that is, I do believe in something, but it's not anything that is currently offered in any sort of organized religion.

Even in my set of beliefs were covered in any sort of organized religion, I don't think that I would want to be a part of it. Why, you may be asking? Well, because I don't put any stock in them, no matter what they are. This is mainly because I don't believe that you should construct a belief system around a certain faith, which is where I think most religions get it wrong.

And I'm not saying that they're wrong, it's not in my nature to do that, nor is it my right to tell someone that I think they're system of beliefs is wrong, who am I to question that? I can't, no can any of you out there, and you know why? Because I dare you to use any argument about how one religion is wrong and your's is right that cannot be used in reverse.

No at some point in this reading, I'm sure that you've asked yourself: "Since this guy isn't Catholic, then he must be amoral, or at least with some sort of skewed morality" That, my friends, is most certainly not the case.

I live my life by a specific set of rules, that I have defined myself, what I saw in my journeys and dealings with the rest of humanity. I define what I do, how I act and what I feel by what I believe is right, which is the complete opposite (at least from what I gather) what any organized religion teaches. This is my main disagreement with organized religion. I have a problem with any system of beliefs that tells you how to act, with some sort of punishment in the afterlife if you disobey. I believe that we, as human beings, have this incredible gift of free will, that we can make our life whatever we want of it, we can choose to do immense good, or do incredible evil, we have that choice, and nothing, no religion, no group of people can tell you otherwise, you have that choice, and no one can take that way from you.

Heh, well, that certainly went on longer that I anticipated :p

Ok, so in closing, I would like to propose a riddle to all my readers out there:

Let's say you have 7 metallic balls, and a set of scales, meaning those scales on lady justice that we see so prevalently in the halls of justice :p In this set of 7 balls, one weighs more that the other 6. Using only two weighings, how do you determine that which ball is heavier than the rest?

If you can answer this question, maybe you should be a programmer :p Or at the very least, you're quite good at problem solving

Btw, this question was posed by one of my coworkers while we were discussing interview tactics, which, the question posed above, is not allowed to be asked, according to state law.

If you like to know the answer, shoot me an email at salazarmike at gmail dot com

That's all for now kids, till next time