I've been having the following ideas for a very long time now and cannot figure out if I am making any mistakes in my modeling. I would sincerely appreciate thoughtful feedback.
To set the stage for my thinking, I'm in a graduate social work program, and so I naturally get beat over the head twice a week with the culture-and-oppression bat. Discussing "ethnic pride" and "cultural identity" for three semesters is really starting to piss me off. Pride in itself is a dangerous concept, and ethnic pride shows why. People should have pride in their actions, NOT in their identity.
So, I started thinking about identity and what specifically allows for identity. Physically, everything is in a constant state of change (note the irony of constant change
). If a tree is always changing, why are we still able to identify it as the same tree?
I started thinking about a way to model this relationship between the permanence (identity) and impermanence (change) of objects in reality. I used language to help me out. Reality is linguistic anyway, right? Syntax (law), content (physics), and grammar -- this is all that is needed to be a language. Beginning with language, this is what I came up with:It is(x) + It is(all-x) = It is(all)
So, you may be questioning what the fuck that is. Good question, thanks for asking. I noticed that things are identified only in relation to what they are not. So, for example, that tree is a tree because it's not a duck. More specifically, that tree is a tree because it's not anything
else, not even another tree, and not even nothing. So, we form one half of the equation using the variable 'x' which represents any conditioned event/thing, and by using 'all' to represent the largest set containing 'x' (invariably the set of all sets).
The 'It is' is where I grabbed from language. We have the objects (all, x, all-x), but now we needed to include a subject in the equation, or the 'identifier' that determines what something is. Because 'it is,' or the identity aspect of a thing, is distributed to all conditional events (again all, x, all-x) , it appears syntactic. Identity is a distributive property.
I decided to make it prettier:Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)
where Θ = Identity Principle or the distributive quality of identity
where x = any given identified/identifiable conditional event/thing
where Σxlim->∞ = the sum of all identified/identifiable conditional events/things
This equation seems to imply many things given that human beings are both identifiable and capable of identifying. Specifically, a couple things are of note: First, the whole equation reduces to 1 = 1. Second, 1 is also the identifying number in mathematics. Anything multiplied by 1 is itself. And, 1 substituted for theta satisfies the equation, thus 1 and 'identity' seem related.
Theta can also be stricken from the equation:x + (Σxlim->∞ - x) = Σxlim->∞
Perceived this way, the conditional events become separated from identity altogether. The equation also no longer means what it used to mean. There is no identifier. But yet the values of the two equations are equal.
By now you may be wondering what the point of this equation is regardless of whether it models accurately. Well, to me I think it could have significant implications for how an individual should live in terms of maximizing utility at a universal level. I also tried taking the equation and fucking with Einstien's E=mc^2. I tried to create some formula for universal energy:
(mc^2) / x = U / (Σxlim->∞)
U(x) = (mc^2)(Σxlim->∞)
U = ((mc^2)(Σxlim->∞)) / x
Where U = Universal energy
Where Σxlim->∞ = the sum of all conditional events/things
Where x = a particular conditional event/thing
Since 'E' in E=mc^2 is at a relativistic level and therefore a conditional one. So, I did some cross multiplication, solved for U, and I got the equation you see above.