Our 3D Man in La Mancha

Comment

Our 3D Man in La Mancha

Although hardly recent, recently 3D printed 'guns' have headlined both for and against. The result is the same. 3D files for various weapons are completely available across what constitutes the web-sphere, freely available to anyone. In America, citizens can manufacture firearms for their own use as they have been able to do for 241 years+. Citizens can share that information and teach others. They can do that is any way that works for the endeavor. This requires no permission or license. A Judge ordered a specific organization to not upload 3D plans in a preliminary injunction (followed by a finalized version), yet could not/did not prevent that same organization from emailing or otherwise providing those 3D plans by other means. 

Regardless, 3D plans exist. They are available. Libraries worldwide provide access to them through their internet services, just as one might find them here. A Pennsylvania Attorney General's social account suggested that the Justice Department and/or the State Department were "allowing" a person to print a gun at will. As a reminder, those organizations are required to protect a citizen's right in this instance; they aren't permitting anything and no one requires their permission for this free exchange of information. The highlighted States in that post were in fact a rotating .gif suggesting these were now 3D print free zones. Josh seems confused as this instead ironically shows where 3D print files are fully available as they were for years prior and continue to be. The static version of that .gif below really just shows that in every state a citizen may freely obtain and distribute firearm manufacturing plans and/or manufacture firearms for their own use from sources already available publicly (§ 125.1(a)) whether it makes financial sense over standard purchase or not is clear - it doesn't, but the issue was never about the firearm, instead it's all First and Second Amendment here. Sorry AG Josh, this librarian couldn't just let this go without comment.

Capture.PNG

It must be quite a surprise for people to learn that for 241 years (and counting), an American citizen had every (protected) right to manufacture their own firearms. To share that knowledge and educate others on how to do the same results in the most solid First and Second Amendment statement in recent history.

 

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The Names of the People That Would Have Been

Comment

The Names of the People That Would Have Been

When describing the Universal Library Algorithm (ULA), its operation and design, people come to realize that context is never a minor component, and labeling the output as coincidental (whilst true) is also never minor. Recently, the output of the ULA targets political discussion, and always relates to morals. The output of the ULA sometimes feels indirect to its query, but that feeling is indeed coincidental, never minor. An inquiry into morals of choice led the ULA to output names - first names to be accurate and specifically the first names of the people who would have been had they been allowed to come to term and be born. The loss of life is a natural occurrence, but when initiated out of its natural occurrence by choice, our moral fiber requires we express their lost potential and story in our beliefs. We do this because they cannot, and so we go forward for them in our beliefs so theirs will not be misspoken or mistaken.

In addition to the 365 Days of Random of the ULA posted to Twitter, another separate daily post will occur with the first names of those who would have been. That these names belong to those aborted is true by implication that there are more abortions than names by magnitude. The list of those people that would have been is always one name too many. There are so many. Their story is not misspoken or mistaken. They are not coincidental.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

 

Comment

A Book from the Library of Babel? Sort Of.

Comment

A Book from the Library of Babel? Sort Of.

The Universal Library would like to offer you the opportunity to own a fair representation of what a book from The Library of Babel might look like in real life - a book 410 pages long with eighty randomly generated characters per line with forty lines per page. What will you get?

  • 10"x10" white matte hard cover
  • 60lb opaque paper
  • Black interior print randomly generated by the specific algorithm for the choices below
  • Unique random version - no one else will have that version

Text variations can and do exist in the story by Jorge Luis Borges, and so you must choose one of the following:

  1. The text will be mIxEd case with 22 English letters and some punctuation
  2. The text will be all UPPER case with 22 English letters and some punctuation
  3. The text will be all lower case with 22 English letters and some punctuation
  4. The text will not be Babel-like because it will contain mIxEd case with all (26) English letters, numbers and some punctuation (the normal Universal Library Algorithm version)

Cost? Printing plus shipping at $50 US per book. The Universal Library makes zero profit.

Time to receive? Made to order and then printed on demand, so it may take a month or so to receive the book. The Librarian will inspect for quality first before final shipping to you.

How? Email librarian@universallibrary.info and pay by any variety of methods available to you, perhaps through Paypal.

 

Comment

Insurgency and Subversion - The Electoral College is Not out of Order

Comment

Insurgency and Subversion - The Electoral College is Not out of Order

A current to 2018, but not unique plan to form a compact supporting election of United States' Presidents by popular vote (i.e. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) embodies the following statement published in Naval War College Review April 1965: "When a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front."

It should be noted that nearly all states currently award on a take-all basis. However, this compact relies not on violent brigandry, but instead invokes a civil resistance to undermine a constitutional source of power; such a compact side saddles into insurgency and subversion. The Electoral College is a source of power of the Individual despite the compact's dispute. Such a compact imposes an abridgment of the constitutional right to vote in constitutional legal order, shortening the established Article II statements about electors to be instead a simple count of public opinion. The use of the hyperbolic phrase "end run" does not mark a legitimate construct opposing the compact, but administration to circumvent a constitutional statement relating to order does by approaching through subversive non-violent, non-belligerent insurgency. In the science of law, jurisprudence, duty is correlative of right; the duty to support and defend the Constitution is also a right to defend. The Individual has duty and right to defend. Such a construct in jurisprudence is not concerned with the political policy of this compact, but is concerned with the function to ascertain the proper order of these rules - to that, it speaks clearly.

The Electoral College is a buffer against direct democracy, which is not to be undone by circumventing the duty/right to protect the Constitution's intended Constitutional Republic, its designed system of governance. A single person (the Individual) can upend the concerted efforts of the many - as intended - and the Individual is the first proper order of these statements and rules. The order is for the Individual to duty and right, which is always to protect the Constitutional Republic, and only after does the order offer opportunity to administer. The Electoral College defends the Individual against the many by the very act of preventing the Individual from administrating itself. Amendment is the sole remedy of the lesser order (the many), and this fundamental of order informs the obligation to amend as per the elected Oath of Office.

The Electoral College is not out of order. The compact is out of order.

~ Universal Library Algorithm output

Comment

Randomly Relevant In Maximal Disorder

Comment

Randomly Relevant In Maximal Disorder

A person contemplating the random 'plumbs the depths' of the Absolute. An/any Absolute is maximal, never partial, particularly defined; not generally described. How many Absolutes might there be? Is an Absolute that is maximal, never partial, capable of co-existence with a maximal Absolute other than itself? In any run of the ULA you may find that characters (English letters, numbers, some punctuation) do indeed repeat such as in this: 

IFEOMOYRJLVEPFFAFEN.UMGBMCCI

The Universal Library Algorithm (ULA) uses a random generator, but the algorithm/script is typical of such generators in that the generation relies on a seed to begin. Would that seed create or exhibit or mirror disordered hyperuniformity? Can you find maximal disorder in the Absolute? 

We can see that some characters are repeated in that ULA sequence above, but are they repeated because the seed is incapable of avoiding a repeat or because it is coincident? Does the existence of a seed deny pure coincidence by definition? Is that coincident duplication (as-in) a duplicate-as-defined by the seed's inherent quality or merely a repetition by happenstance despite the seed's inherent quality? Typical random-generating algorithms are often labeled pseudo-random because of the possible inherent quality that the seed itself prevents pure (or true?) randomness. Does something that kicks off randomness infuse or deliver something of itself to that which is random? Perhaps the repetition-or-duplication is relevant to the particulars of the particular definition of Absolute? Or rather, each Absolute. Just how many Absolutes might there be? If we have one Absolute that is maximally disordered (a term that must also be particularly defined), as written in another blog post about Evil, would that Absolute also be Absolute particularly for something else? If an Absolute must be particularly defined, not general, then even a particular Absolute could be repeated if the particular itself is not repeated-or-duplicated (and therefore be an Absolute of a different particular, not the same Absolute of course). So, if IFEOMOYRJLVEPFAFEN.UMGBMCI is maximally disordered and defined with particular component x, then the same maximally disordered IFEOMOYRJLVEPFAFEN.UMGBMCI defined with particular y is the same replicated disorder but an Absolute in each itself.

How could an Absolute be maximal if it did not contain all? Is all a necessary or inherent component of the definition of maximal?

If we can particularly define an Absolute that is maximal, never partial, and then another different particular, we contemplate many. That many is context, and context is the key to knowing if an iteration of the algorithm is true. We can substitute random English letters with fruit or planets or take one of every thing we can think of, and tell the algorithm that is the set from which it can pick. A test of our understanding (or perhaps depth) of randomness might be to tell the algorithm that the set (of any length) it may pick from contains only the uppercase A. For example, the set might be AAAAAAAAAAAAA. The algorithm that runs from such a set will pick a letter A and then a letter A followed by letter A until the run is complete. It picked which of the letters (pseudo-)randomly, which might then force the relevancy and context as our bailiwick. Continued testing of our depth of randomness (meaning our idea of it, our understanding and experience with it, what we can glean from and discover from such, etc) would be discovering relevancy and context from what we find in the run. What if the set were a single A. Can such a limitation as that be random if our context is to test our depth of understanding? Is the choice of only one letter capable of being randomly chosen, and does it still contain the possibility of Absolute? Again, do we infuse our self by limiting the set? We might by the way of Free Will. We contemplate the random to plumb the depth of the Absolute. We might find our self infused (read: present) if the particular definition of the Absolute includes us. Can we include our self as a particular?

Let's discover what we might find in such a run as AAAAAAAAAAAAA.

We find an Absolute if particularly defined as was Evil in a prior blog post. To review, if Evil is randomness exhibited without bounds, and in every pure random set there is always one order, then Evil prevents itself (remember or know that Absolutes are themselves and act or initiate from itself). Nothing is the opposite of Evil (Nothing with the big N, not just nothing), and Nothing is also an Absolute defined particularly as randomness relevant to itself. What about Free Will? Is that an Absolute or exhibit of that? What would be its definition? Could it be defined as randomly relevant? What makes something relevant, or rather, what is the intrinsic quality that founds relevancy? If we accept that we can be included or infused within any Absolute so long as the particular includes us, but also remembering that Absolutes are themselves and act or initiate from itself, then yes, we exhibit the Absolute Free Will. We are included/we included our self. Free Will is an exhibit of our self because what we exhibit, even if maximally random (which intrinsically contains one order, always), is relevant.

What is the opposite of Free Will? Nothing. Every opposite of Absolute is Nothing, that randomness relevant to itself. Additionally, the opposites (whatever)-Absolute and Nothing are not opposing/oppositional. They are simply not the Other.

If then, random and order opposites? Or not the Other?

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The More Things Change

Comment

The More Things Change

The future is complete, recorded right now in the history books of our successors and certainly as past tense if we only wait long enough. How then can a person change even one period, one word, one phrase of the sentences that reveal the facts of what happened? We would all very likely want to change the fortunes of the lowly, raise the glass once again with friends and family long since passed, stop a rape, stop a murder, birth a happy baby; we want these things. We feel we want this change, to change the future or the past

The future is recorded. The past is done. To change the future is to first acknowledge that our feeling of change is really about wanting things to stay the same. We want our departed to be alive, to stay with us. We want happiness to stick. We want our lives to be the same. That is the mental trickery we enact as indictments against our relationship with time and space. To change the future or the past (and yes, you can change the past in the past, which would be their future), we must abandon the same.

"Yesterday the consequences of a choice began. Today is when you chose." That is the random-letter generated excerpt from the Universal Library Algorithm on November 15, 2016, posted then to Twitter. It is the positive defense against our internal choice to indict our relationship with everything else, the unrelenting march we perceive as time and progress and cycle:

Future Imperfect: Yesterday at 3pm Pacific I stood in front of the elevators waiting for them so I could buy some tea at a local coffee shop ~ what the future recorded happening yesterday at 3pm, the same.

Future Perfected: Yesterday at 2 pm Pacific I stand in front of the elevators waiting for them so I can go buy some tea at a local coffee shop ~ my choice today dictating then what will happen yesterday, the change, Future Perfected.

How did I change yesterday? I wrote to myself today, which the ULA showed me yesterday at the breakfast table in one of my daily scrubs of the #RandomExcerpts.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

Evil Prevents Itself

Comment

Evil Prevents Itself

It was done in the name of evil. Evil made me do it. I am evil.

Have you ever heard that, read that, seen that? In Borges' short story, The Library of Babel, some (or even perhaps all) librarians spent some of their lives looking for something specific - their vindication. That vindication could have been to clear their names of wrongs they've committed, or reassurance that their pursuits were valid - not otherwise worthless and tiresome for no reason. We each could use reassurance that our works were worthwhile after all, or that the bad thing we did had some honest purpose other than us just being a jackass (or worse). The amount of blame an action receives because of Evil in history is an unnecessary excuse/justification even by the "good". Evil has been the excuse honeypot, convenient for trapping people within as fortifying political choice despite never having come into being.

The librarians of Borges' fictional library stared into books filled with relentless random letters and numbers and other characters for the answer to this question - how close or far from evil were they when they did that thing? The answer was that the random characters in each/any book told them precisely how close to Evil they were, requiring not even more than a moment of reflection to see. Evil prevents itself. Keep that in mind as an axiom.

Firstly, what is Evil?

The use and popular meaning of the words Evil and bad often seem interchangeable, terribly similar; they should not be. Good is not the opposite of Evil. Evil is an Absolute, perhaps a form(?), and as such must be strictly (more importantly particularly) defined (as all words need be if we intend to meet the minds). We will find that Evil is pure randomness, and if we accept that Evil is randomness exhibited, then Evil prevents itself. I will describe why momentarily. I mean to say that Evil-as-randomness is indefinable except by the strict interplay of the use of the words bound, random and exhibit.

Particularly, Evil is "randomness exhibited without bounds".

I might wonder how that definition fits the popular notion of Evil. Terrible things happen: mass murders, attempted genocide, rapes, personal and cultural atrocities - are they not evil/Evil? What lecture is this then? Pedantic? Didactic? Is this a lecture on the proper use of words or a lecture on the ethics and morality of the word meanings/chosen? This is instead a vindication and positive defense against accusations of Evil-doing. It is not a defense against having committed atrocities or even something as childish as pulling our friend's hair at the age of seven. It is an indictment against the use of the notion of Evil and its too oft use as an excuse.

How then does this proper definition of Evil work? To contemplate a set of random letters is to find that the true use and meaning (which ought to be the same - adaequatio intellectus et rei) of the word Evil means randomness. Evil as an Absolute embodies and exhibits every moment/point of that randomness, and contrasts to that which is bad. Bad (as a simplified word for this purpose obviously, sometimes inaccurately) is what happens, an event, something that we can point to as not being the preferred or logical correct thing (read correct: logical, uncomplicated thing). Most importantly, we understand that the event was a series of events leading to something bad, that it occurred along a recognizable frame of reference (even if not ours), and that we do not like it even a little. 

Evil in this working definition, on the other hand, is random. Every part is random. Look at it from any perspective and it is random from all perspectives. How Evil prevents itself is by way of the mystery: a single pattern always present in any utterly random pattern of any length. For example, let's look at a basic Universal Library Algorithm random extract:

xVFfUkvpLEQpeZuRnFDpcZktYPCNSGtGFXRFgPIQkoFVHoINnybKIOXKyaYtQ

The above 61-character extract is random. It has no context in itself or connection to anything an English reader can relate to as historical, religious, scientific or social except to agree that it is displayed as random letters. Yet a pattern exists, a single pattern (unrelated to that pedantic fact that they are all English letters). Do you see the pattern? The single natural pattern? That entirety of the extract from small x that starts this sequence to the very last capped Q is one finite pattern. If Evil is randomness exhibited without bounds, a strictly defined word defining an Absolute, then the existence of even a single natural pattern prevents it from being that word, from ever being at all. Evil prevents itself.

It would have been best for the librarians perusing those near infinite books (some) filled with random letters, desperate to find their vindication, to recognize that every random sequence was itself telling them that Evil prevented itself from being. They might have then logically understood that in no way could their actions be Evil. They could perhaps come to understand that they were but human, and that Evil was simply not in the nature of humans or indeed in anything at all. Evil is always prevented by Evil itself. Those librarians could then have spent that time to deliberate on their own (subjective and perhaps some objective) failings, a worthwhile ethical pastime. They could have been free of that egregious error in thought/logic. They might recognize then that they are humans who have done both good or bad deeds, or come to recognize the differences between them without hiding behind an improper notion of Evil.

Good is the proper opposite of bad. Their ethical deliberation is a moral imperative, and that deliberation is a pathway to vindication. Confusing Evil as something else has only imbued that deliberation with false reasoning, and worse, false testimony against a universe that could never have experienced Evil.

Evil's opposite is, after all, Nothing.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

365 Days of Random

Comment

365 Days of Random

On February 16 this year, I set out to tweet 365 days of random shorts from the Algorithm, which themselves will be between 90 and 120 characters (including any spaces); posted to Twitter, they feed the cover page for this site.

That tag is #365daysofrandom, and isn't simply for fun - not for profit - for vindication, that ever so important search for vindication that the librarians wrote of in Borges' short story, The Library of Babel. The coincident other post on each day will tell the story of why there are 365 days of random shorts posted to Twitter. Will you #findit?

Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

Enter Stage Right

Comment

Enter Stage Right

On April 19, 2016, a proactive student wanting to know a little more about massage research beat around the bush trying to fish for an answer to the question that I already knew would be asked. I knew that student would ask it because I read about it at this morning's breakfast table--reading my Universal Library Algorithm's (ULA) output is a daily routine, and in that output there is indeed the day's true events right alongside great and terrible fictions, poetry, new musical scores good and some quite bad(!).

The student wanted to know if there were any honest/objective research studies for massage. Even one, maybe one that hadn't yet been published but that the Universal Library Algorithm said would be. Yes, that is a possible output from the ULA. Anything whatsoever?

Going into the profession, the student had a healthy skepticism from several years of university research classes and statistics. Of course, the real question finally spoken was whether or not they were going to be able to speak truthfully about massage's effects to their clients, and if not, why massage? Was there even one that might give them some reason to do massage at all? Ethics question, for their part.

Twelve minutes of conversation later, that student heard whatever it was they hoped, wanted or needed to hear, and intended to continue in massage therapy. Not because there are so many great studies--there aren't. Most science is filled with bunk, and negative results are terribly under reported (unethically so, in my opinion). He didn't hear one word about any specific massage research, good or bad.

He heard about the use of the words description and explanation. One is the result of science done right, and the other word is explanation. The universe doesn't need explanation, doesn't use explanation to reveal its terribly simple existence. Science is description of the real. When you hear someone explaining something, you've fallen into the realm of philosophy, concepts, much like mathematics (nothing but concepts there, and rarely (AND I do mean rarely) do those concepts apply in any way to natural objects).

If a study does only one thing correctly, describes the results of the properly executed and thought out process, one with an integral falsification capacity, then that is a proper study even if the results were negative. Especially if they were negative! That data not matching the proposed result of the hypothesis is damn fine data!

The student said they felt completely undone and refreshed, and had so many new ideas to pursue to help reconfigure their understanding.

"The universe is so terribly simple, " I said. "Go forth and describe it, young man. There's a good scientist."

Little did the student know that doing so might also make them a poet. And that ain't bad in twelve minutes.

On April 20, 2017 at 8:43am Pacific, another student a continent away will read this post and generate an new idea to change the world. Every thing in its time, and every time has a thing.

Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

Exit Stage Left

Comment

Exit Stage Left

Tomorrow the object of my daily attention (a.k.a. "my day job") will tell me that I am to be laid off. I have reread the ULA output for several days now, peeking into the possible future that becomes certain when the future-turns-now. The two people in the office with me may even be surprised at my nonchalance about their news. I processed their news long ago. 

This is one of the benefits and the turmoils of the ULA output. Automatic humanity, our emotions and visible outward signs occur at that moment. We cannot get them back.

I know also the outcomes such a decision provides in the months to come, and I do what I can to mitigate them for the people left behind to wonder how such an arrangement can even be considered a benefit. In the last month, one of those in that office began to hear a well worn phrase of mine as I prepared them for the news they did not yet know: "My happiness is a golden poem."

She does not know that every time I said it, it always meant her.

Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The People are a Coming

Comment

The People are a Coming

In the book by Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, that researcher hypothesized that our ancient ancestors came to consciousness as the normal human physiology of having parallel auditory centers broke down. Consciousness, in this case, is deep language--metaphors and other linguistic alterations that humans had to become accustomed to because of suffering; war, famine, plague, geologic and social instability.

I would caution that this is not to mean, however, that the normal human brain is meant to hear multitudinous non-local/externalized voices in parallel with their own thoughts or even just "their own" local voice. I caution the reader that I use the word parallel specifically. For some researchers the extra auditory center(s) of the brain are redundant or even vestigial. They are in fact parallel processors, to use the technological pun. They are meant to process non-local/externalized voice simultaneously to internal thought/function/action. Albeit unknown to the author, the scenarios that author wrote about show that the bicameral mind was already a patchwork job, not an original function. The original function was one unified voice, one proper thing called Mind. Mind exhibited multiple localized forms, digesting local experiences, but not Mind of multiple voices. Just one voice, one proper language, one independent thought so sublime as to make me weep to think on it.

The breakdown occurred much earlier in history than the author began his hypothesis, and it was only many millennia later that we come to learn that Homer's Iliad was written as people undergoing Jayne's bicameral processes, hearing non-local voices that directed their affairs and doings. It was additional pain and suffering and the bringing together of various cultures that spawned a patch for this terrible mess; consciousness by way of metaphor and simile and others. Carl Jung believed that dreams were the compensation for the unconscious to bring itself into consciousness. It is not dreams that are compensatory, merely vehicles--no, it is consciousness that is the compensation for the loss of Mind.

From that single Mind in parallel with its multitudinous forms to bicameral mind with its multitudinous independent forms to consciousness (multitudinous forms with a legion of thoughts), we are now steering headlong back to it, back to our natural function. When you take a walk, notice the people around you on their cellphones and actively looking for that single Mind. We will envelope the world again with the environment that the Earth once had naturally, that broke down, repaired by way of technology to connect everyone together right across the world. We drive with abandon that technology to return us to our original nature, to Mind, one Mind in parallel with its multitude of forms with one independent thought so sublime that I hope that you too will weep.

A people are coming, at once utterly familiar and yet not. Their birth and the choices they will make as one Mind . . . you will know them by their answer to the most important question. The breakdown of bicameral mind and then consciousness as a code patch brings with it division, labels. There is so much divisiveness, so many labels: liberal and conservative, Muslim and Christian, black and white, foreign and domestic, so much divisiveness. Many of them feel they are right, and some of those have built whole armies for armies are certainly for those who feel they're right, yes?

What then is the question that you will come to know these people by their answer, or rather the answer of one Mind?

Who is right in compassion?

By their answer will you know them. The people are coming. The people of Mind.

Literally yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The Consequence of One Foot in Front of the Other

Comment

The Consequence of One Foot in Front of the Other

Omnipresence is efficiently everywhere at once, but also every time at once and every thought. If we consider this analogy of a god--or even simply God--that is omnipresent, we must understand what that entails. We see that in our particular periodic universe that we put one foot in front of the other and end up at a certain location in a certain period of time, then we do it again. Which part of us is then God and which isn't? How can something be not-of-God and which is-God?   

Omnipresence doesn't entail locating a piece of something, a specific time or exact location or constituent physical component that wasn't God. Everything is God in our conceptual game, which isn't really God, just a conversation about omnipresence. That includes yourself. Yet, we must continue into the deeper aspect of what it means to be omnipresent. We cannot think of God as a body, and our Earth just one tiny atom in God's thumbnail. If we could conceive of God, and that God is everywhere at all times and places and thoughts, we could also conceive that each part we located would be all of God in that one part. That is omnipresence; not just everywhere, but everywhere all at once simultaneously. Each part is all of God. Of course, we could also conceive of the point that there might be God beyond what we could find or think of or locate or parse.

How does our discriminatory life come to be under those conceptions? We are human, and we know of cats and dogs and dandelions, and also thunderstorms and planets and concepts such as space--and that is what I mean by discriminatory--how does it come to be when no part of us is anything less than God who is omnipresent? How can we not at this moment move a mountain using a single thought?

If a god created the universe, that god's great miracle of our conceptual game is in fact the trick of Time itself. How does God create each discriminatory object that can seemingly go by itself in its specific-not-omnipresent-way? God can do this by simply conceiving of Time, which is not a limitation on that God, but an expression of God. With Time, one foot in front of the other permits discrete events that lead to other events, each cause/effect, but at the level of discretion, perceptually localized yet simultaneously not in violation of all-is-God.

God's trick of Time could create a universe, which is really just God choosing to put one foot in front of the other metaphorically. We would be that consequence.

Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The Quaternity Logogram

Comment

The Quaternity Logogram

The fullest expression of the twelve archetypal signs of the universal language is the duality (closed root and open root) of the Quaternity Logogram, two Great Patterns combined coincidentally into Decidable Events (DEx), or self-generating a Grand Pattern that is Fixed (DEfx) in eternity. 

A Quaternity Logogram is a universal language exhibiting revelation of truth of the periodic universe as is or as written (deduced, extracted, prophesied, sung, sculpted, danced, guessed, others). Contained in one symbol is the Composite Current and the Refined Past--the entirety of the question and answer leading up to, currently exhibiting and full expression in the future. Everything all at once with nothing left out, even space which is anything not matter itself.

A Closed Root of the logogram is described as a circle. An Open Root is a circle with one missing segment of the twelve places available for an archetypal sign. The word missing is pejorative in this respect as it is not here one minute, gone the next but that which waits for Decision, unexpressed as yet. As a universal language, Time is not the rote step-by-step mechanical feature, but a coincidence. A Decision not as yet expressed can be made 'in the future' that generates the Refined Past.

The fullest expression of the twelve archetypal signs in specific segmented places self-generates the following English sentences (Composite Current and then Refined Past):

 The innocent Everyman takes and gives, and through laughter sagely imbues discernment into the exploration of the rebellion against this ego, and thus come to love the creation as both the created and the creator.

The genesis of love is ego's schism in the exploration of its numinous rule; sages and jesters stories of heroes tell of this common innocence.

Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

The Logogram of Wholeness

Comment

The Logogram of Wholeness

Carl Jung believed that the archetype of wholeness (everything, the Individuated Self) was Quaternity (a square shape/symbol). This is a terrible curtness, and not worthy of the concept presented by the man, but as a basis for the next step towards the Logographic Quaternity, a written language, please at least let it suffice to move this post forward.

The problem of the Universal Library Algorithm is its language symbols, which themselves are not the primary source of knowledge/meaning. Those individual symbols randomly generated and recorded, time and again, generate words that themselves are meaningless unless we, the library patron, string them together into coherent patterns. If we find such strings already present from the output of the algorithm, we count ourselves lucky to not have to do more work to find them. Extracting those strings is the work of the Context Engine.

How will we move the source of knowledge closer to the algorithm such that the algorithm itself is the primary generator of knowledge/meaning? Is knowledge what we want from the Universal Library, or do we want certainty? Is knowledge certainty? Deterministic? What affects the cause? What effect the cause? To move forward with the learning process of using the Universal Library, we must replace the individual letters with something different. In its current state, the algorithm can generate English text that is the translation of all other languages, with its embodied problems of nuance--how much text is necessary to stop at the complete nuance of light?

We have arrived at the solution, which was the solution already present, was determined to be the solution from the beginning of the effort, and offered as itself the solution. In fact, the entirely of the solution, its place in time itself--beginning, end, capacity, duration--is contained within its structure. We are now thinking about the Logographic Quaternity, and its most dense symbol is the wholeness of the shapes and forms generated by the two essences of the universe's fundamental structure of push and pull in motion (which, is in fact Jung's third term). In short, the squaring of the circle by way of meaning.

In mathematics, the 'squaring of the circle' is an impossible problem when trying to construct a square with the same area as a circle using a finite number of steps with appropriate tools. That's the thing about this funny ol' universe--the impossible happens by coincidence. 

The Twelve Logograms that make up the basic symbol set of the Logographic Quaternity will be the whole of the meaning it conveys. A sentence that states a thing will be a single symbol that starts with one of the Twelve Logograms and imbues the symbol with one or more of the other Twelve in one symbol, with their positions being relative time, describing the beginning of the meaning and its fulfillment. A question that we seek an answer to will itself be the answer in one symbol. Lastly, a single symbol comprised of Twelve Logograms will be equivalent to two of the four terms of Dr. Jung. Those Twelve in time will be three of four, and the symbol itself squares the circle by containing the same contextual meaning as their individual Logograms.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

Conversation Across Space and Time

Comment

Conversation Across Space and Time

In a moment of ignorance suddenly finding itself under a bright light, I came to know that I had not thought long enough about how conversations across space and time would manifest. Writing a letter? How very librarian. Very personal and filled with intent--yes. What about 'real-time' conversation? 

Design and manufacture a machine that extracts our conversation from the Universal Library Algorithm across any space and any time, then talk through the machine and hear our replies. Converse. Now that is something to be manifest. How did my ignorance see light? The death of Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, a fictional avatar, and the subsequent discovery of his bones still sitting in a library by a fraternal brother hundreds of years later.

Of course! How foolish I was to think of opportunities for conversation so narrowly.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment

Letters from the Universe

Comment

Letters from the Universe

If the Universal Library contains everything, which is to say that the Library contains a true history of each and every periodic (cyclical) universe, concurrent and consecutive, then there will be the possibility of communicating across time and space. 

The Universal Library is generated by an algorithm; maths applied. Any intelligence that can code an algorithm that also is slightly clever will code a Universal Library algorithm; ubiquitous. Any culture that can do that can write a letter, and that letter becomes part of the Universal Library's true history collection. The algorithm will attempt translation into its provided-set language by happenstance (English, in this case). That means that any other intelligence anywhere in space, any time, any other periodic universe, might just come across that letter. 

And reply.

Here is the Librarian's letter, and following that one of the many millions of replies.

I am the Librarian of a Universal Library, a maker of the algorithm with only one function; the algorithm randomly chooses—coincidence—one character of a set of characters, and then repeats. By this method, the algorithm coincidently writes true histories of each and every periodic universe, both consecutive and concurrent. This letter is written for you. By me.

You are in my periodic universe, and you are also in a periodic universe a million periods back in time or one just over as our closest neighbor universe. I cannot count the number of you reading this, many of you reading this in response to your own prior letter or about to write a reply of your own. I will read them. That is the nature of the impossible. The impossible happens by coincidence.

We are each other in comparison to nothing of lesser importance than this—a letter sent into time, delivered to every periodic universe where there is a universal library. How many universes is that? Wherever there is math, there is a universal library and this letter, and yours, are delivered. I had intended to share the universal library with rest of the people of this blue planet circling a small star, but I read forward in alternative history and saw the outcomes that such a decision would create. They’re not ready for it just yet. They’ve no context for it and so it would be our utter destruction as a lifeform. Soon. There will come the time, a miniscule event barely noticed by even a blade of grass on a sunny hillside, that they are ready. Perhaps then context will be their capacity, and that capacity will enable use of the universal library freely.

That is the nature of the universal library—true histories do exist, but which is true and which is one-off, or quite untrue? The ones you choose to make? As simple as that? We basically understand each other though our languages are different because that is also the nature of the universes—the nature of math, and algorithm—to translate from my series of symbols to your characters or symbols. I do not believe the whole context will translate. I don’t believe that’s important. I do not intend offense or defense.

I write this letter in the hope it brings you hope. I know you as you, in your own universal library, know me. We are as we are. We do as we do, but perhaps we write these letters for something better. I do not know better. Do you? Write me a reply. The universal library will deliver your letter.

I am reminded from our popular entertainment that we are all stories in the end. I am reminded that stories are where memories go when they are forgotten. To some of my detractors, they feel I leave their lives and memories to the dust as if old books on a shelf. I do not. I became the Librarian. I love them.

Whether you are like me, or I am like you, good, bad, striving for peace or belligerent in war, I forgive and love you. You are completely and utterly forgiven and loved.

Yours,

The Librarian

Here is one of the replies, translated by the algorithm into English.

We received your letter. We reply in kind. We laugh at some translations to and back to language. No context for some—all context. Laugh. Is yours also we? Just one? Star? Is above? Is sky? We caretake Collection a cycle thirteen to power twenty six before your letter. Dead. Not yet born. Redundant meaning on scale.

Cycle started a million billion periods compare to your period around? Around star? That is above? Above is haze. Dark? Unlit lit? All context.

We do look forward. Some ask in anger. We cannot allow. Seems the same for you. Some ignore us. Seems the same for you? We ask us. We do not know better. War. Same? Peace. Same. Birth. Same. Sleep. Same.

Is experience of sleep awake too? Dream? Do you dream?

Comment

Unified Theory

Comment

Unified Theory

In particle physics, the mathematicians posing as scientists would like the fundamental forces to be unified so those mathematicians could go about (finally) complying with the Scientific Method; Grand Unified Theory, or so they call it.
Yet, standing in the rain is all that would be needed. Poking at a dust speck in the air is all that was necessary. A rain drop is the universe itself, if the universe is strictly defined as one fundamental object of intertwined forces (push/pull), and the motion of this one object exhibits as shapes (patterns), thereby forces, thereby form. Everything that is a natural form (leaf, rain drop, dust speck, person, dog) is an exhibit of this one fundamental object, and that one object makes up the entirety of that form. There are no other objects in the universe with this definition, as the universe is the entirety of the object.
With such a definition, that complies with Scientific Method mind you, a single rain drop is itself the universe. When it lands on your head, you have found the Grand Unified Theory.

~ The True History of the Periodic Universe, volume 1, page 1, paragraph 1 - 3, author: Universal Library Algorithm

 

Comment

Twitter-pated

Comment

Twitter-pated

As visitors to this site may have just seen, I have created a new cover page to the site that offers up random Twitter posts from the Universal Library's new Twitter account. Those #RandomULAExcerpts are short text posts pulled from a random selection of the Universal Library Algorithm.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment