Sketch of Christmas present for JoJo

I want to address here some commonly held beliefs about the core substances claimed to be the known building blocks of our reality. Philosophy has long held that our knowledge through perception is deeply flawed so here I would just like illustrate this and other epistemic problems that occur when attempting to talk about how things really are “in and of themselves”.

Below I have listed three commonly cited substances of reality all of which hold the impersonal and unknowable status that our material science says they should have. I am making some big leaps in scale with each item but will not be referencing the problems of getting each substance working with each other as for the sake of argument I will be accepting that, at least in principal (even if I don’t personally believe it), they can be made to fit together perfectly.

Accepted things-in-themselves :

1. Stars and galaxies :

Einstein’s favourite. We know/perceive these things exist by looking up and through telescopes. Like the old classical view of atoms we hold them held in space and time with certain positions and speeds at all times regardless of observation or measurement.

2. Neurons / cells :

The atheists favourite. We know/perceive these things exist by looking down through a microscope. Darwin is often quoted in relation to this by giving this layer primacy through evolution, thereby accounting for observation itself, however like the other layers this just amounts to a recitation of the anthropic principle – it does not, and cannot, reveal any new substance in-itself – only a process.

3. Atoms, strings and beyond :

The classicists favourite. We know/reason these things exist by observing secondary physical phenomena. With perception impossible due to the size we have to rely on pure reason here with constant reference to secondary phenomena we predict and observe/perceive from our current understanding.

—

The problems now with accepting any of the above as known, or near known / “probable”, things-in-themselves is that we do not account for the actual observation itself. Current thought holds that we are missing a layer somewhere between the stars, neurons and atoms which would account for this phenomena (as it would be just as silly to try and describe world economics in terms of atomic interactions) but as shall be argued this idea, in and of itself, is just as problematic.

Beginning with the substances based on perception (the anthropically necessary stars and neurons) the three main epistemologically based objections to these being known things-in-themselves are based around our ideas of space, time and sensation. The space objection, much like the time one, focuses around when and where you made the observation as these two variables give you only a conditional view of the substance at hand (by determining the speed and perspective of the reality around you). The sensation objection, following on from the space and time ones, raises the points that color, warmth and, most importantly, illusions, are completely observer dependent which goes on to deny any clear connection to a knowable/perceivable thing-in-itself.

The rationalistic objections now for both the atomic world and the consciousness layer, as mentioned above, focus around the deductivity and dogmatism created by the attempts to patch up the perception based objections. The classical way to describe the world from here is to ‘zoom out’ from the problematic first person perspective into the ‘wider world’ which we can then agree gives us a method to account sensibly and in goodwill for other things like ourselves as we imagine everything holding roughly the same shape as we know it (via anthropically necessary platonic ideals of substances already listed).

This ancient and very egalitarian idea (called materialism/physicalism – which I will now be spending the rest of the text focusing on and criticising due to it’s central status) holds that ‘all that exists is matter and we are all equally generated and subservient to it’ but the problem with accepting this conditional explanation and creating make believe perspectives is that it is a deference to rationalism and a priori reasoning which has stifled progressive thought, through various guises, for centuries.

Accepting the deductive belief that “things look more or less as I know/perceive them when I’m not knowing/perceiving them” couldn’t be any more anti-scientific yet it forms the central tenet today of ’scientific sKepticism’ which accepts a conditional, impersonal and unknowable reality as standard and rejects any criticism of that as ‘radical’ (i.e. arguments that state you do not know what you do not know).

The materialist belief, which created a supernatural and faith based substance to live in accord with (that which is beyond experience/perception and without evidence) has never been so popular in our democratic, pluralistic society but this multiplication of the good and true has seriously damaged our academic institutions with them now using the same process, but opposite content, as religious dogmatism in disseminating their views.

Today any phenomenon or claim which directly challenges the unknowablity or impersonal nature of academias favourite faith based substance is immediately attacked and discredited, much in the same way heliocentric model was, on these institutionally derived reasons alone. Unfortunately without any serious inductive belief towards these opposite ideas materialism is at a dead end as, although it is one of the two possible hard ’substances’ of reality, it remains the king of faiths and the ultimate dragon in my garage with it’s verification deemed impossible (past unjustified lucky guesses) through it’s very definition.

I have talked about the opposite side of the coin in my other posts so I won’t digress on that here as I just wanted to point out some flaws in accepting the existence of things-in-themselves which I think I have done. In ending however I will address perhaps the most common objection to this whole train of thought – “why exactly does it matter anyway if there is a external substance or not?”. My direct answer to this is that substance goes to ethics and ethics goes to purpose. If there is only one unconditioned substance, that is both knowable and personal, then all substance, knowledge and will (i.e. good) would be bound up in it’s base experience which perception and reason rest upon. Being in harmony with this experience then is by definition the way to lead the good life which in turn minimises pain and increases pleasure towards an unbounded amount. The exact physical/rationalistic background of this will be the subject of my next post which is a subject I have ignored for far too long.

It’s that time, boys and girls (okay, who am I kidding, boys), when not only the year is coming to a close, but so is the decade. We might call the aughts the Era of Introduction, a decade where we became familiarized with the harbingers of coming technology. This decade saw the rise of the internet, mobile phones, mp3 players, and DVR (to name a few), and that’s the beginning.

Here’s a look at some cool stuff from around the web, including looks at the past ten years in film and gadgetry. Enjoy, and happy holidays.

1. Dr. Richard Wiseman teaches you ten awesome party tricks using nothing but science. Don’t travel back in time and do these tricks or you may be labelled a wizard. -via Cracked, via College Humor
2. Learn about the 10 Dimensions in eleven quick minutes. -from Gadjitz
3. New Inception trailer only in French. Very odd that they’ve already re-dubbed it for Francophones. Why the frogs can’t deal with subtitles, I’ll never know. -from io9
4. Get your game on in 2010; these 20 games will blow your mind. -from Mania
5. Kick-Ass looks like it’s gonna be…well, kick ass. Here’s the red band trailer for Hit Girl, which is rather shocking. Let’s just say dudes get shot. More action awesomeness from Mark Millar. – via Screen Junkies
6. 20 Best Sci-Fi movies of the past decade, most of which I agree with, and some of which I need to add to Netflix when I get it again…
7. And 10 of the Most Disappointing Sci-Fi stories of the past decade, which indeed, were so low-points for a lifetime, let alone a decade. – Both from io9
8. The 50 Worst Gadgets of the Decade. Not a single redeeming item on the list. Some, like the TweetPeek, are too stupid for words. -from Gizmodo
9. Science in the coming year; medicine, entertainment, the environment, and travel. Of course, this is -from Popular Science and they’ve been wrong before
10. Sometimes eras end with dignity. Sometimes that’s that’s not at all possible, like in the instance of 80’s metal. Steel Panther makes waves and ruins the coming decade too. – from Scumbag Style

Who knew you could go to McSweeney’s for advice about women? Or about physics? Or about how physics, that field of nerdly-thick glasses and dry symbols, is apparently a lot like women, at least to physicists?

I didn’t, until one of the most promising female poets of our time (and yes, she happens to be a personal acquaintance, so I’m biased, but her publishers agree with me) pointed me to this, which is one of lists in their list section that I overlooked and shouldn’t have, by Simon Dideo:

Which is about as astute an assessment as I’ve seen, ever, I think, even if I’ve never thought about higher physics or women at the same time, nor am I likely to do that again.

Also, I admit that my over-analytic mind then started thinking about whether this applies to guys, too, in which case I know where I fall on this list… but do you? (Don’t tell me. Thanks.)

Click on the image to go to the actual page so you can actually read it, unlike this picture, which is probably tiny on your laptop screen. The rest of McSweeney’s is pretty good, too. And, you know, influential and entertaining and all that. (Speaking of which, their response to the much-announced death of newspapers is great.)

The author Simon Dedeo, by the way, is an incredibly brilliant fellow who works at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for the Physics and the Mathematics of the Universe, which sounds a lot like something out of Douglas Adams, but is actually a big deal in the real world, too. He does this writing stuff on the side.

h/t the marvelously talented s.l.

A few months after we got our first microwave, I realized that something had happened to me. The microwave was counting down three minutes, the time it took to boil a cup of water for tea. As I watched the digital display measure the seconds, I was impatiently casting about for something to occupy me, but there was nothing to do. The paper hadn’t arrived yet, the dishes were all done, and it was too early to call anyone.

When did seconds become so slow? When I was a child, my father taught me to count seconds: one-one thousand, two-one thousand… Back then, we had to slow seconds down. We boiled water on a stove, in a kettle that whistled when the water came to a boil. That whistle always seemed to interrupt me just when I was getting absorbed in something. Time zipped by.

Microwave ovens have slowed down time.

I am not making this up. Scientists have observed the same thing, though they have not yet made the connection to appliances. They postulate (a word that roughly means ‘guess’ if you’re a scientist) that it has to do with string theory, accelerating expansion, and something called dark energy. (Dark energy is also why small children keep getting out of bed at night. Parents have no dark energy; children have a lot.)

I argue that it was History that has caused the wheels of time to slow – History class, I mean. When I was taking Modern European History, we learned that the Industrial Revolution took place between 1760 and 1840. In Mr. Sizemore’s class, it took twice that long. But I’m sure that was mostly because the class was after lunch, when time always moves more slowly.

Generally speaking, time moves more quickly for children than for adults (probably a side-effect of all that dark energy). After Thanksgiving, they perceive it slowing, even as it speeds up for adults. Whatever they plan to do just barely gets done by December 24. This would seem to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity. In January time slows again, especially for those starting a diet.

Digital clocks and speedy appliances are partly to blame for the instability of time. Those inventions have changed life a lot, and mostly for the better. Who really cares if children don’t know how to read an analog clock? It’s like Roman numerals – which some analog clocks still use – not really necessary for counting or telling time. And who wants to wash and dry dishes by hand, or spend hours doing laundry when you can impatiently wait for an appliance to do it for you? I will keep my appliances, even if they one day cause the universe to grind to a halt.

If I were to postulate (though I’m not a scientist) a reason for the deceleration of time and the end of the universe, it would be three things: television, the internet, and cell phones. These inventions have been blamed for cancer, but as far as I know only a few scientiest have postulated that they will cause Armageddon. There are plenty of us who remember life without the internet and cell phones, and a few who even grew up without television, but on a normal day, we don’t think about how they have altered time.

It’s bizarre, really. Time is slowing down, but we seem to have less and less of it. People complain that there is much less time than there used to be. An analysis of how people spend their time shows just the opposite – there is more time than there was a generation ago. So why aren’t we all writing novels, learning a foreign language, curing diseases, training for a triathlon?

It’s obvious: we’re all flipping channels, surfing the internet, texting our friends, telling them, nmh, hbu?

When I started writing, doing research took time. It involved going to a building – the library. Sometimes I had to talk to an actual person, a librarian, and persuade him/her to have a book sent over on Interlibrary Loan. I still have my Encyclopedia Britannica. When I paid a couple thousand dollars for all those volumes, I was sure I would never need to visit a library again. They even sent me a new volume every year updating the knowledge already bound in those pages. I wonder how often online encyclopedias update. Look it up — it’ll only take a minute.

I have an Oxford English Dictionary – the unabridged one. It’s the version you need a huge magnifying glass to read. My bookshelf is full of references – Roget’s Thesaurus (not the alphabetical one), Bartlett’s Quotations, Funk and Wagnall’s, Fowler’s Modern Usage, Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, Hammond’s World Atlas, and many others. Now, I don’t even have to go upstairs and take them off the shelf to look something up – they’re all online. Research takes less time now; yet, students complain about having to look up and read information, even when it appears after a few clicks. Information you don’t have to work for is far less interesting than a book that takes weeks to arrive.

There are a lot of other things I can do now without budging from the couch: I can tell what the temperature is outside (I used to open the door to do that), I can find out what I’m not watching on television, download books, see how level my coffee table is, do my Christmas shopping, and look at a satellite view of the house where I grew up. All this information comes to my on my phone. It wasn’t so long ago that you could make the excuse, “I couldn’t call – I was stuck in traffic.” That time stuck in traffic was golden; I could spend it thinking about anything or nothing. I didn’t have to get on the phone and start getting stuff done.

Lawyers make money off of time. When I worked for a law firm, I had to bill my time in 15-minute increments, which meant that I had to write down everything I did during a day and how long it took. Good days were those where I had a lot to keep me busy; having nothing to do was deadly slow.

If I write down everything I do in a day at home, I can immediately see why I don’t get things done. There are too many distractions eating up my minutes. I watch little television, but I do spend time reading Wikipedia, following one link after another, fascinated by all the information there. I don’t spend time in chat rooms or emailing people, or texting them. Nor do I play video games.

But I do spend hours staring at my macbook, twiddling around the words I’ve written. You can’t do that on a typewriter, which requires correction tape for twiddling. It can take me an hour to write a paragraph when I get into this mode. When I finally look at the clock, I’m amazed at how the minutes have flown by.

I used to feel guilty about the number of hours I spend writing stuff that doesn’t get published, but now that I realize what’s happening to the universe, I’m going to take advantage of slow time. While the microwave boils water for my tea, I will finish my novel – even if I have to write it on my phone.

This guy has proposed a new unified field theory based on information. Now, I kind of understand the basics of information theory, where literally everything is information (even spacetime), it is not just a mental construct we use to understand our surroundings (as most people may see it). However, articles like these always bring to light my shortcomings in scientific knowledge, specifically physics. I can barely understand what he is proposing, I think it is that at the smallest possible measurable level there is information that is the same in all sampled instances, and that would in turn unify all of the Standard Model and gravity and essentially everything. I could be wrong, but that’s what it seems like to me.

Anyway, its pretty awesome that we have another theory to go along with string theory, superstring theory, M theory, and the holographic principle. Someone’s going to get it right. Eventually.

Physicist Brian Greene explains superstring theory, the idea that minscule strands of energy vibrating in 11 dimensions create every particle and force in the universe.

Brian Greene on string theory | Video on TED.com.

Summary Click to down load the essay Relative Gravity is explained as the potential energy of bodies that is purported as amplitude in kinetic energy; and is expressed in the form of a resonant frequency between them. This consists of a shared fundamental that is related through superposition. It is subject to the disposition of the bodies uniquely. The question could be posed – ‘what actually does not work this way?’. As a principle, described, it could be considered essential for life itself.

It ’s view is considered to apply to relative weights of planets, but should not be understood as limited in scope.

It is also intended to apply in range to the relationship of black holes to particles where both can be seen as a uniform relative force.

Relative Gravity here is a paradigm with four laws consisting of observations that describe a relative force that is common to all the four known forces.

Its four laws are meant to be based on observations of truth. But not considered absolute truths themselves. For that matter, all scientific law referenced in this essay is regarded in this manner.

The theory of Relative Gravity originates from another manuscript by the author. Its theory is intended to remain symmetrical with the views of Kepler, Newton, Einstein and Faraday. It is mostly based on interpreting, or in fact interpolating their work and described as abstract properties.

Considered observed as abstract properties that are referred to as a relative force,they are exhibited in practical application in their own way for the four known forces.

There are many direct and indirect references to Kepler, Newton, Einstein and Faraday. This is with out specific footnoting of sources. They even could be considered by the reader to be misinterpreted by this author. The essay assumes that the reader is familiar with these scientists and their works; and can discern differences in how thought about here.

Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
| Cosmology
| DISCOVER Magazine:

One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven’t yet discovered.

by Susan Kruglinski; photography by Oliver Chanarin

“Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry. He reinterpreted general relativity to prove that black holes can form from dying stars. He invented twistor theory—a novel way to look at the structure of space-time—and so led us to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity. He discovered a remarkable family of geometric forms that came to be known as Penrose tiles. He even moonlighted as a brain researcher, coming up with a provocative theory that consciousness arises from quantum-mechanical processes. And he wrote a series of incredibly readable, best-selling science books to boot.”

(Via .)

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=/

By Bunker Pundit Wilhelm Blitzkrieg

Recently I was on Andrew Sulligan’s website The Daily Dish. After navigating through all the bear on twink porn, I got to an article proclaiming that Palin is lying about providing Trig’s birth certificate. Mr. Sulligan, maybe you need to make sure that your blog is fit for American audiences before you go into your leftist frenzy. Oh, I know, you’re one of those “new” conservatives. Those kinds of new conservatives that like to wipe their ass with the Constitution! Mr. Sulligan, you and David Frum should go join the Taliban, where you guys really belong.

Look, unlike some of those crackpot conspiracy theorists out there, I am pretty satisfied as to President Obama’s citizenship. I wasn’t at first, of course, and only after I had inspected the original document myself and captured/tortured/interrogated at least 3 witnesses to this supposed birth did I finally become convinced.

Now what I am worried about, and what Obama can and must address, is the grassroots concern that he is in fact a clone from a parallel dimension intent on leading an invasion through the portal to his foul universe.

Check out this compelling video evidence:

For all we know, everything is opposite where he comes from. That’s why we are so opposed to health care, folks. Universal Healthcare must mean Universal Illness Distribution. I also think this explains how he talks when he doesn’t have a teleprompter. It’s all stammering and discombobulated, not unlike Bizarro Superman.

And by the way Mr. Sulligan, Trig is actually more Palin’s kid than her other children. He was actually the product of a virgin birth (I asked Todd) and therefore is not merely half Sarah Palin but rather 100% Sarah Palin. That kind of punches a hole in your argument right there, doesn’t it?

Update: My (Liberal) Lymphnode Wallace “Che” Crandall posted this response in his blog Che’s Corner. I think you’ll find it to be offensive filth.

These ‘Pan-dimensionalers’ Are a Bunch of Wingnut Idiots

By Wallace ‘Che’ Crandall

First of all, there’s not any evidence that Obama is from this supposed portal in the New Mexico desert. I know it looks like there are people emerging from the blindingly bright portal according to satelite photos. But the fact remains that it is simply alarmist to say that just because you aren’t smart enough to understand President Obama’s brilliant plans, he must therefore be some kind of pan-dimensional traveller.

Credit to thechestertonreview.blogspot.com/ for this recent photo of the President!

I have to say, I am disappointed that Daily Kos and Moveon.org haven’t taken these Pan-dimensionalers to task yet. Maybe Kos has been replaced by a pan-dimensional double and he just doesn’t want to draw attention to himself.

But really, would it be so bad if they were? I mean, there’s no problems associated with opening up our borders to everyone so why not open up our fabric of space-time to foreigners too? If you are against parallel duplicates coming into our universe via some kind of singularity, then you sir are a racist.

And as to Trig, you are being way too dismissive about this controversy. There have been at least three women that I’ve talked to that claim that they are Trig’s birth mother and that Sarah Palin forcibly chopped up their wombs to remove Trig and dash off into the woods. This is a pretty traumatic story. People wouldn’t just lie about that.

Free agents,

Has the whirling vortex of philosophical thought and chaotic strings of verse reached a maddeningly deafening level as of yet?  Do these words ring true to those who happen upon them?

Does one believe in the potentiality and possibility of every imaginable thing? Does one believe in an onion-layered universe, whose “dimensions,” or membranes, if one will, overlap ad infinitum through a myriad of conceived and unconeived realities?

Is there more than one universe – is it set up like that, so that it will never end, but continue on in similar, parallel paths?  Are we safe?

One only knows.

That’s it for now.

Truly yours,

Rice Cutgrass

Full of Awesomeness (watch via Vimeo if you’re at school since YouTube is blocked):

8th Grade Students at Spartanburg Day School tackle the ideas and implications of string theory… 1 minute at a time.

YouTube Link

Here are a few video highlights from today’s session… enjoy!

And so, dear friends, it begins.  The End of Days?  The destruction of space-time as we know it?  None call tell.  At least not so far.  What we do know is this: today the European Organization for Nuclear Research, AKA CERN, AKA Bad News for the Human Race, finally launched its $9 gazillion-dollar Large Hadron Collider, the most powerful atom-smasher on earth. 

Designed to blast beams of subatomic protons through miles of tunnel underneath Switzerland and France, the collider will reputedly emulate conditions in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang.  After months of delays and technical glitches, it’s finally up and running, raising heck and smashing protons.  But this is just warmup.  Come early December, CERN will really show us the business when they kick off the main event: some boffo proton collisions. 

And that, of course, is when physicists and experts fear the LHC might potentially unleash heretofore unknown havoc on our plane of existence.  Here’s a primer of what to expect in the coming months:

• The opening of a gargantuan black hole which will swallow the earth and all of its inhabitants.  This is the most popular and/or likely outcome.
•   A tear in the fabric of space-time, resulting in the unleashing of strange, macabre nether-creatures from one or more alternate dimensions.  Monsters will likely include, but are not limited to: A) giant primeval insects, B) dinosaurs and other ancient beasts, C) molemen and squid-people, D) vast and omnipotent Lovecraftian Elder Gods, who may or may not smite our fragile civilization and enslave the human race. 
• In a probable worst-case scenario, the LHC might collapse together two or more parallel dimensions within the “multiverse” predicted by quantum physics and string theory, likely introducing into our world alternate “shadow-self” versions of every man, woman and child on earth, resulting in either: A) mass confusion as regards who is who (how do we know WE’RE not really the shadow-selves in THEIR dimension???); B) a bizarro civil war, pitting regular-verse people against our mirror-image shadow-selves; C) large-scale identity crisis between you and your extra-dimensional doppelgänger, leading to widespread moral digression and existential paralysis (i.e. if you mess around with the other-dimensional version of your girlfriend, does that still count as cheating?)
• Did I mention dinosaurs?  What about squid-people?  In all probability, there will also be squid-people who’ve evolved to ride on dinosaurs.  But you think those dinosaurs are going to let YOU ride on their back?  Think again, fella!

In the interest of good science, we should reassure you that these outcomes, though likely, remain “theoretical.”  At least that’s what our legal department makes us say.  Personally, we think this shit’s a lock.

Lucy Campbell, Libertad

Someone recently gave me the Eckhart Tolle book with the Oprah book club sticker on the front. I’m not finished yet, but I read in the beginning that a bird, a dove specifically, is the symbol of enlightenment and the evolution of human consciousness. So when I came across this piece of art my knees buckled. The image of the closed eyed dove and the bleeding heart brings together the concepts in the Tolle book and what I believe about string theory.

I’m a Virgo, so I don’t have much patience for theories. I like to think about things in a practical sense, so this is how the string theory translates for me. It’s a fluid connection between one point in time and space and another point. To take it one step further, it’s the connection of you at one point reaching around and connecting with you at a different point in time and space. I’m sure there are scientists out there itching to correct me, but I’m okay with this understanding; it’s comforting.

I like to think there is some alternate version of me that I am connected to that makes me a more enlightened person. The girl’s expression in the painting says to me that she was cut off from that other part of herself in that other space in time. How did this happen? How will she come back from here? She’s so utterly alone, cold, and lost without it.

It’s important to connect with others, but imperative to stay connected with ourselves. No matter how tenuous the string, don’t let go.

video page updated
Creation & Science
click here

Legistorm

LegiStorm launched in September 2006. Our web site is dedicated to providing a variety of important information about the US Congress.

Based on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, LegiStorm’s first information product was a database of congressional staff salaries but we have now added other valuable information, such as the most comprehensive database of all privately financed trips taken by members of Congress and congressional staffers.

The information is provided in a strictly factual, non-partisan fashion. We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible. We expect this resource to be useful to journalists, researchers, lobbyists and current and would-be staffers – as well as regular citizens who simply want to know how their representatives spend public money.

You can be sure that there are more such legislative resources to come from LegiStorm. You may register for updates by subscribing to our newsletter to learn when we launch major new features on the site or when we update our congressional salaries data.

Degerming your gym bag

Hello, and welcome everybody to the physics napkins blog! It will contain random coffee chat on physics, maths and other cool stuff. Or, in other terms, about the universe and the funny things it contains… (or does not contain, if anything)

Without further ado, let’s start!

Writers always start if “what ifs” when it comes to new ideas. What if Hitler reigned victorious? What if men continued to evolved and now have super powers? These “what’if” scenarios gave birth to parallel universes, forking worlds of untold possibilities.

Nicholas Gurewitch (of my favorite defunct dadist webcomic) came up with the soundtrack of Wes Anderson’s next film called The Cloud Photographers. If you’re familiar with Anderson’s oeuvre in regards to music, there’s always an element of whimsy and nostalgia and Gurewitch manages to reflect that in this “fiction[al], but yet so plausible” soundtrack.

Another what-if was a website that recently popped up about a man who claimed to have been to and have returned from an alternate universe where the Beatles never broke up. He came back with proof of an album, a cassette tape, called Everyday Chemistry. I downloaded the album, listened to it. There’s a Beatles-esque quality to it but it’s more… electronic, I guess, to reflect the changing style in this day and age. Whether this be a shrewd ploy to pimp one’s demo or an art project remains to be seen but the idea of the Beatles still together is compelling.

In fact, with all the speculative fiction out there, I like to think there are other worlds out there.

And sometimes, I wonder if this really is the best of all possible worlds.

###