1. Time is malleable, and when you go back and change it, then you change the results of the future (this is the most common one).

2. The world exists in multiple universes, and when you go back in time, you go to a universe that is identical to yours but is different, and when you go back, you go back into another universe altogether (slightly less common but still evident, nonetheless).

3.  The world exists in the way it is because its course was changed when you already went to the past. Therefore, by going to the past to change it, you’re doing nothing.

The third one, I had not yet thought of. I pretty much just wanted to share. The guy who was playing the game only mentioned one instance in which he saw this theory implemented. I thought it was interesting.

On another note, my friend and I were talking…

We hear all of these Sci-Fi stories about how machines would take over the world. It seems so far off, doesn’t it?

Well, it’s not. It’s already happened. And it’s so subtle. You’re reading this on a machine. I wrote this on a machine. You use a machine to learn the news, whether directly or indirectly. Newspapers are printed with machines. Machines create our music. They play it. They record it. They make our food.

Tangent: The internet controls our lives. Sounds like we’ll be living in it soon. We’ll be tapped into it as soon as we’re born, about a hundred years in the future. Sound familiar?

On another note, I was thinking about the idea of teleportation. It comes down to these two subtopics:

Without machines.

With machines.

If we’re teleporting without machines, then we’re pretty much talking about stopping time, somehow being the only thing that can move, making your moves and then starting time again. Now, there are a lot of things about stopping time. If you stopped time, then everybody’s hearts would stop beating. Then you’d pretty much be the only person alive. Then your heart beats at normal rates, but since your heart is beating multiple times a second, then when you start time again, your heart would probably explode. And then you have the thing about moving in general. My guess is that you wouldn’t be able to, since the gas stops moving mid-air (or mid-vacuum) so you’d be trying to walk through a wall. But theeeennn, if you DID somehow manage to move, then the displaced gas would move aside and there’d be a vacuum behind you wherever you went. So when you started time again, there would be some kind of pull toward your path. Fun stuff to think about, eh?

With machines, one would have to conclude that it would only be possible through the breakdown and reformation of atoms or something simlar. And somehow, when your particles came out at the opposite end, it would have to put you back in order, 100% perfectly or else you’d malfunction or something. Think about it. That’s billions, trillions of cells (including blood and waste) going through a tube connecting two machines together that would probably end up dumping you into a pile at the other end. Wouldn’t that be pleasant? Oh, this reminds me of the near-end of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory:

I have found this to be false. Rather, I have found some sort of middle ground. It’s possible to be self-reliant on the things that society gives us.

Sorry. But take, for example, the Bible. Society gave us the Bible. It handed it down. But through introspection and frequent reading, you can acheieve self-reliance in faith.

However, by the definition of “self-reliance,” society’s help would impede our personal growth, which isn’t necessarily true in this case.

…

My brain is workin’.

It’s come up in Huck Finn: Twain portrays Huck as the individual and Tom as society. It’s come up in A Clockwork Orange, which I saw yesterday: the main character evaded school and went off on his own freely, stealing and raping women. He went to prison and I won’t include the details so I don’t ruin the plot. I think it’s even in the Bible. Why did God create one man and one woman, rather than a society?

Here’s the bottom line (this is our minor thesis):

Society is detrimental to an individual’s moral development and it is nearly impossible to escape its grasps.

Now, we’re still working on it, but we think that it’s true, for the most part.

I’ve begun to notice that people who are heavily influenced by society are very close-minded. Sometimes I stop thinking in the hallways to listen to people chitchat; I’m curious sometimes (or people just like to scream in my ears when they talk). 9 of 10 times I’ve done this, the topic has been video games. This is really hypocritical, coming from me, but… don’t you guys have anything else to talk about? Talk about a test. Talk about the effect of satire in Huck Finn. Talk about how an advertisement you saw was so ridiculously misinformed, it made you guffaw. Talk about ideas you came up with concerning civil rights or politics.

No. Scratch all of that.

Don’t talk. Think.

Think about how society has separated the intellectuals from the ordinary. How each decided to separate from the other, and how it has effected our society.

I think the longest word I heard today was “dichotomy.”  And it wasn’t even used correctly.

Society, conformity, collaboration.

Evil.

(the whole thing is about 50 minutes long.)

But if we trace evolution allllll they way back to the beginning, we have this problem: how did we start? Like… how did the very first cell form?

Some say that we came from nothing. Plausible, yes. Others say that we came from outer space. I think this one is more possible. Why? Let’s go back to the 17th century.

Жили были Louis Pasteur. He’s the person who discovered/invented the process that we now call pasteurization, where you can kill germs by boiling liquids.

In a semi-famous experiment, Pasteur poured chicken broth into flasks with curved necks and boiled some of them with stoppers on (the curved necks were to prevent bacteria from flying directly into the broth). After boiling, he opened them; some without moving the broth, some by tipping the flask so the broth went up the neck and letting it drop back down.

He checked the samples a few weeks later and found that the latter flasks’ broth had all gone bad, but the former flasks’ were all perfectly fine. What he undermined in this experiment was the idea of spontaneous generation–you can’t get something out of nothing. This is what some evolutionists claim happened.

Science tells us that this could not have happened. Therefore we must conclude that we came from outer space. Maybe from another planet, where life exists.

Time will tell.

I’ve changed my views. Not everything is done for money. Most of it is because of reputation as well. Parents of different families fight over their children’s abilities to play music or strive academically to increase their reputation. People strive for college, so they can be seen as the “rich, successful person” who’s all rich and famous. Then they start to donate it so they can be seen as the philanthropist.

People can have genuine intentions, too. Not everything is done just for reputation; don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to generalize people, either.

Here’s a question that popped into mind just now: Does the want for a better reputation cause competition, or does competition cause the want?

Scratch that. It’s a stupid question.  Because….. I don’t know. I’m really tired.

Good night.

I just can’t figure out what it is.

I was in Chem class the other day when I heard a cry of distress. Someone needed a pen to use. I hastily pulled out my ziploc filled with “AMPLIFY” pens and tossed one to her. The teacher happened to notice my big bag, and asked them what they were for. “Church,” I replied. She laughed, walking away, saying, “Yeah, like that’ll do me any good.”

I turned and asked my friend (if we can really be called friends) what she meant. I had my ideas, but I wasn’t sure–I had to clarify one way or another. My friend half-smiled and said, “Uh… that church and science are different?”

I disagreed with her, saying that they were similar in that they were both based on unconfirmed truths. The theory of plate tectonics, of evolution, of the atom… they could all be disproved with a snap of the fingers. And so could The Bible.

You guys can comment your thoughts and stuff if you really want to. I’d like to hear some thoughts.