STPT - and understanding

The level of understanding that can be conveyed about the multidimensional effects of STPT are in proportion to the level of pre existing knowledge of fundemental relativism, to the allotted amount of time, both of which are undermined by my inability to communicate within your specific terms of reason.

Basically, an oversimplified inaccurate summary would be: You will from me anything that

• you wish to hear
• and give me time to explain

those above effects in relation to (MY):

• ability to explain
• within a given time frame
• in the terms most suitable for your learning.

to a limit of:

• the time we are allotted in life
• your ability to comprehend multivariable problems

which may allow us to communicate to the maximum amount

• all of my knowledge on the subject matter to the [(total variablesof my knowledge) - 1] degree.

An application of STPT

sub titled "why my theory of everything is so Stupid"

the "simple" reason I call my theory "stupid" is because I am taking into account a select few social habits of our complex world. These would be:

it has been a habit of those in the same working field to use their own specific "lingo". This helps increase the speed and decrease the energy required to convey messages based on complex layered systems by not explaining the full name of the underlying system.

• Plumbers say I need "PVC",
• My old job had a couple of mainframers (jargon for cobol programmers whose primary platform was an IBM "Mainframe" computer) who insisted on calling the entire mainframe systems "kicks" which was a loose translation of CICS, which is a system that builds...etc etc etc. All of that was brought down to say kicks. I didn't know what the hell they were talking about for a good three months.
• short order cooks can give any order "legs".
• ikea seems to think we all know what a flange is, even though it can mean other things.

Jargon fits within the STPT theory in that, the intended message of "flange" is not complete, only within the given context of its usage will it truly be understood. I.E. if I believed flange only had one meaning and context, and I said it to someone else who knows otherwise.

The complete energy transfer of My(thought to words) ideas to You(ears to
thought) does not properly represent the word "flange". Actually without the aid
of greater degrees of communication such as:

• pre explanation of the context you are currently discussing
• pre acquired knowledge that all parties (us, you, me, I, we, everyone) general agree on a given use of "flange"
• a grunty stubby finger pointing action towards a physical item or
  diagram

you might as well have said word "gumby" or "bananan hammock".

So, in conclusion. Acronyms (jargon) such as STPT helps energy-economic (lazy) people like me write without having to retype the entire title of the theory "The Simpson Theory of Projection and Transformation". But that doesn't mean it works in all cases, the rest of the world makes fun of the people who use jargon when they themselves do not understand it. Soooooo, realizing the majority of the world wont care what "STPT" is, the lesser interested of our species may try to say it in a method more interesting, if for any reason just to make themselves laugh at their own wit. And I am guessing some will think when you say "STPT theorem", it sounds like you are saying the "stupid theorem".

And seeing how the transfer of knowledge is most effective when generalized and expressed in a method that the general population will remember (remember, simplification is just communicating a generalized understanding of x^nth degree where n is the smallest number possible). I have taken the liberty to add to my description of "STPT", the stipulation that we should ALL call it the "theory of Stupid", or "the Stupid theory". In hopes that in better or worse, if for at least the reason they wonder why someone would call their own theory stupid, they then remember the name (its what very overpaid spinmasters call brand marketing really).

...a rose by any other name.

The Simpson Theory of Projection and Transfer

also titled: "The Stupid Theory" or "The Theory of Stupid"
sub titled: "the theory of everything"
sub subtitled: "there is no spoon"

the below work is an inadequate explination of the STPT, "Stupid", or STOPAT theory. It is a unifying explaination that ties together the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of mass, dimensional representation, invention, creation, limits of human capibilities, and all subrules of social behavior. A very large population will not like its implications.

Every piece of this theory if a combination of current accepted subtheories for individual fields. My work is to show the interelated laws that govern everything, yes I do mean everything.

I hope wikipidea doesnt go down or my links will start dying. I know wikipedia is not an accepted source of 100% correct information, however 100% correct information doesnt exist (keep reading) so it will have to do until time provides the necessary materials for further explanation.

All works published here are sworn the sole theories of the author to the best of his knowledge until proven otherwise or modified. Anything here may have been written before, however it has not at this point, to my knowledge, credit will be given to whom it is deserved upon learning of others merit. I am not a learned PhD and so my written skills are extremely subpar-this will affect the message and limit my intended audience as dictated by STPT, I know. It is a point of improvement for me.

(Summation: if you wish to teach/create/communicate/trigger an affect with magnitude x, you must understand x to a higher degree than that which you wish to express. Because the projection of conception always equals a sum less than the original conception-no matter the act or medium. This is true for all human behavior and the perception of our effects relative to our universal footprint).

September 12th, 2009 7:00 p.m.

The Simpson Theory of Projection and Transfer (referred herein as “STPT"-pronounced similar to the USA Midwest language of 2009’s interpretation of the word "stupid") is a description of my observations of my known world. As you will read later in the article it is flawed in its scope due to the realities of STPT, the true understanding and scope of my world will never be known outside of me. However as I extrapolate in as many degrees as possible, I hope the similarities of pattern will emerge to your understanding.

The basic concept of STPT is this:

the transfer of anything through projection, creation, communication, or explanation will never be reproduced greater than the degree of x^(n-1) where x^n generalizes the conception of the original artifact.

1. For example, want to draw a 2D object that someone will recognize as 2 dimensions? You will have to understand the object in some sort of contextual, technical, or explicated form greater than that which you are trying to convey.

2. Want to explain to your boss why you need a raise, you have to understand to a higher degree the situation you are trying to create i.e. your bosses wants and needs, the company’s performance, your coworkers performance. If you do not understand anything beyond the scope of you. You will very quickly be replaced, or taken advantage of.

3. You want to display your affection or disdain for another person. If you don’t understand anything greater than your emotion you will not be able to communicate it to others. Also, the increased understanding of involved degrees of complexity and social interactions will increase the effectiveness of your message.

this is a generalized theory that so far has proven its virtue in every practice it has been properly applied.

1. There are infinite variables (degrees) in any given real action (not theoretical).
2. Only a computation of infinite variables will give a true representation of a real action.
3. Simplifying the representation of a problem will simplify the computational complexity but decrease the accuracy of presentation.
4. There is no device or person capable of computing anything to the infinite degree.
5. Therefore there will not be any real truth as understood by humanity, only degrees of accuracy to our guesses.
6. The creation of a computer that can calculate at x^infinite degree would require its creator to understand the algorithms, materials, and construction to the x^(infinity+1) degree at the very least.
   
7. This will not happen...ever. It is a mathematical impossibility.
   

Assuming this description of the 4 dimensional concept of our universe (1st dimension a point, 2nd dimension a vector, line, or collection of in a plane, 3rd dimension adding depth to the plane, 4th dimension the interaction between matter and energy over time-this is all my own simplified explanation but it will do)

1. In order to project from conception to reality a representation of an object to the third degree, such as a a cube on your monitor screen, you must understand the cube to at least the fourth degree.
2. You cannot display the cube in three degrees of accuracy if you only understand it in three degrees yourself, this is because you have to apply the fourth degree (time) to the other degrees (single point, vectors on a plane, depth) in order for another viewer to understand that you are indeed trying to show them a cube in the third degree. Consider this example:
   

some would consider this to be a three dimensional cube. However it is not. What you are looking at is a visual depiction that is actually a 2 dimensional shape with shading added to help visualize the vectors. In order for me to make this representation I had to "think up" a cube shape in my head, and then move it on two axis to find this specific pattern. Even though a thousand people before have created this shape, the same process is required to confirm to ourselves that this given representation is a simplified version of a true three dimensional cube.

You may be saying:

"but wait! The stupid - err STPT law says the transference of that shape from conception to projection will only cause a decrease of 1 degree (n-1). You said you created a 4d* image in your head in order to create this 2d representation??!? WTF?"

That is a fantastic point; however the STPT is relative for every single level of transfer. Ever play the phone game, the more people you add to your circle the stupider the original message sounds. In order to create the above shape I had to visualize a cube spinning in space, then transfer my general image to my computer through the mouse (n-1), which took its perceived mouse actions and created a digital repression of my movements (n-1 again total loss of 2).


* truthfully I am using another "dimension" to create this shape, and that is shading. It is one of the reasons the above explanation of the 4 basic dimensions are argued over so really that is a 5+ dimension visualization being transferred to a 3+ dimension. But that just makes things more confusing right?).


And I am tired, I will correct this flawed example when I have had more sleep.


Also I am using Windows Vista to write this, so I may have to subtract another degree of accuracy, but I will let the astro physicist weigh in on that discussion).


Want to see a true 1 dimensional image? In my opinion it looks like this:















And a true 2 dimensional image? In my opinion looks like this:















All clear?


So the final result after two degrees of loss is a 2 dimensional (x^(4-2)) representation of the cube I had in my head. All we have is white space and black space, for all we know it is a collection of two dimensional lines that happened to connect end to end and find some sort of equilibrium.

Ok, so you may be wondering "but it looks like a three dimensional cube to me..."

Yes, that is because during the projection of that shape I took into account the standards, and tricks played by the brain, of the human race and devised a 2D pattern that may look like a 3D shape to you. So in reality, I conceptualized a x^(4+1) degree of this shape, the +1 being the understanding of the human brains depth perception and how to utilize it to make a point. Now, that is not to say that a 5th degree drawing requires understanding of the physiological and psychological interaction of the human mind. No, each degree of "projection loss" merely suggests the number of factors required to properly communicate a generalized idea, and or the limit of your ability to turn thought into some other form.

So why am I so obsessed with thought? Well, our world is relative (just ask Einstein). Everything that matters in this world is what and how you perceive it to be. The way your eyes transfer light waves into an energy your brain likes determines what colors you are seeing. The way your hearing anatomy translates sound waves into energy for your brain to use defines how you perceive sound. My thoughts, actions, or lack thereof don't mean a shit to the world unless you decide does. Our truths, beliefs, measurements, opinions, titles, and possession are all dependent on the rules we believe and how we apply them to the space that is within distance of our actions. Do these sound familiar:

* "one mans trash is another mans treasure"
* "it is better to have love and lost than never loved at all"
* "its a parent thing, you wont understand"
* "youth is wasted on the young"
* "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
* "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
* "Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas. "
* "I never did very well in math - I could never seem to persuade the teacher that I hadn't meant my answers literally. "
* "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
* "Be a good boy, remember; and be kind to animals and birds, and read all you can."
* "42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot."
* "Renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting that they pass away."
* “For every beauty there is an eye somewhere to see it. For every truth there is an ear somewhere to hear it. For every love there is a heart somewhere to receive it.”

Alright I am done with the quotes, want more? Google quotes like I did. The above are famous boiled down quips of knowledge that expresses the concept that the world is how you make it, see it, believe it, or experience it. Really, it’s all about you and what you can convince others of in the process.

Bask in that for a second.

No, we are not talking about that think positive and your energy will move to other people so positive things happen to you shit. There is a little practical information there but it is so convoluted and lacking in contextual scope that it is worthless, if you read the book you know what I mean.

Anyway, the point is we do not have control over this world. Only over our actions in as much as we perceive their changes to the world around us (“there is no spoon”). That is an important fact to always keep in mind. Do you think you built something cool? If your a programmer turn off the power, a carpenter: leave it outside for a couple of years, a welder: throw what you made into the ocean, a machinist: see if you can make your idea without any machines. Pretty soon we will all realize that in the grand scope of things our time and affect on the space around us is limited-so maybe we should maximize what we can.

So we can't change the world permanently, what’s the point? Well the point of your life is whatever you make it. The scientists of our known history have had a blast building off of each other’s perceived knowledge to disprove or confirm each other’s perceived notions. Some have entertained, projected their voice, or displayed their bits and pieces in order to gain popularity, financial gain, or just express narcissism. Some work hard because they value work, "that’s something to be proud of". I am not making light of these choices, those who decide what is important to them and live it are the highest examples of our race-no matter the path chosen.

So back to STPT (the theorem, remember that? It is pronounced “stupid” stupid.), I drifted off into quotes and porn stars because it truly applies to every known action that is perceived through our individualized relative realities.

If you want to communicate, in any given form, any idea at all...you are working within the STPT theory. If you are hungry and would like a hamburger you have to conceptualize what you want to at least one degree higher than the creator of hamburgers needs to understand. Otherwise your message will be "lost in translation".

If you want to teach students that 4-1=3 (not accurate but a truly accurate guess), then you have to explain the higher concept of subtraction, roman numerals, current accepted order of operations, and so much more before a student can transpose that learning to 5-1=4.

If you are to express your love to your spouse, you have to understand not only the action, but the chosen context, location, speed, strength, hygiene, and social implications of a hug before you can effectively use that method of communication.

I have a thousand more examples but anymore in the context of this portion may seem a little like grammatical self felatio.

So, we know that transferring an idea, the basis of our universe as relative to our understand, to any other form, whether paper, carved from wood, spoken to your neighbor, shot from a gun, or being propelled through space, will net you a loss of some degree of the original idea.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Law of Conservation of Energy-rough translation.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. First law of thermodynamics – rough translation.

I would like to thank Newton, Einstein, and all others who have discovered these simple concrete rules. Matter is not destroyed, it is moved, compressed, broken apart, or transferred to another form. Likewise energy, same rules apply. No new stuff, just collections of it pooled and radiated from areas where it is concentrated to the rest.

Oooh, so if you can’t make energy. Then it is impossible to change energy from one form to another completely because it requires a process-and a process requires energy…

So in every conversion of energy or matter, some is lost/transferred/radiated/leaked etc. So transfer of a set amount of Energy 1 to another type of Energy2 will result in the total Energy 2 being less than it was in 1. Sound familiar?

So we know energy and matter follow pretty closely the same basic rules and interact with each other, some may even think that matter is just energy in a condensed form-but that is out of the domain of this entry.

So it looks like we are made of matter, that uses energy, to rearrange the matter around us using that energy.

You cut down a tree and build a toothpick, you lose energy and matter in the process and end up with something smaller then what you started with.

You want to tell your neighbor something funny that happened to you at work today, even if they have the patience to understand all the contextual implications it will not sound as funny as it did to you. Unless they apply their own degrees to your joke and make it something it was not.

Your wife says get some bread, what she means is use whatever mode of transportation you have to go trade whatever item of value that is in your possession for a loaf of bread and then bring it here. All of that work just to ask you to get something you don’t have and bring it to where she is. There are obviously an infinite number of factors one must consider to understand her exact meaning but we simplify to make communication easier.

My point is in every situation, in every place, you cannot communicate an idea with n degrees of complexity without first knowing at the very least, (n+1) levels of understanding of that idea. Every time, every place, or the message is incomplete and the response will not be accurate to your request.

A lot of words to get here…Why does this matter? And who cares? Well, if you want to increase understanding, communicate an idea, build something, modify something, or go somewhere, you can use this concept to improve your chances of success. And in the end, if someone doesn’t understand what you are saying, it means you are unable to explain it well enough, and within the correct social and physical expectations in the given situation. If you posses the correct amount of understanding, maybe your audience is not capable of computing what you are communicating, and that means it is your fault for not recognizing this. In order to continue and be successful you need to simplify it more, or build a better base before they can understand what you are trying to say.

Now to get on my soap box… A good communicator, teacher, lover, builder, politician, navigator, explorer, doctor, ambassador, parent, or preacher, must have the technical ability to formulate their thought, contextual understanding of the idea , action, or item, and the ability to explicate the other two factors to the highest n’th degree that the audience is capable of understanding. This will maximize your message.

Want to solve a math problem; you have to understand the laws governing the problem before you can understand how to solve it.

Want to build a bridge, you have to understand the greater theories of engineering, materials, and available labor before you will successfully build that bridge.

A doctor needs to listen to their patients and interact; the more information a doctor has the greater the likelihood that the doctor will be able to properly guess what, if any, your condition is.

Want to look good in front of your boss; you have to understand your job, your bosses job, what your boss wants, what your bosses boss wants, your bosses personality and communication traits if you ever have a chance to project a positive image to your boss. You may be able to guess some of these, but knowing them will increase the chance of success (interpersonal relations are not my specialty, but the rules apply to everything that is made of matter or uses energy).

Want to explain the three dimensional model of an atom? You have to understand its behavior to a degree higher than the three dimensions in order to have any chance at all of your audience understanding.

This is vital information. It says if you just understand it you will not be able to explain or reproduce it. You must push your knowledge to a level above or it will never come out of conception, be created, or communicated.

It also means, the speed of light will never be reached by anything we conceptualize, build, or trigger. As long as the speed of light really is the highest speed achievable we will not be able to reach it because we cannot compute x^infinite degree’s of accuracy.

Robots will never be intelligent. We cannot create an equal to what we are. ..Never, ever..there will be true perpetual motion machines at the same time we create true artificial intelligence. Because, in order to create something our equal, the creator must be one step above in understanding…and that my friends opens up a can of worms that can be discussed later.

We will never travel in time; altering time itself requires an understanding to the +1 degree. And unless we can master points, vectors, depth, perspective, scale, repetition, and time to a higher level we cannot bring into reality a method of traveling through it. Plus, if ever someone created a time machine, the act of going back in time will alter the future in a way that changes the act of creating the time machine. Thus deriving itself out of existence by the very nature of its function. If there is a time machine that doesn’t cancel itself out you and I will never hear of it because that action will trigger an action that will void its creation. Sorry to bust anyone’s bubble-South Park’s jobs are safe from one less threat.

These points may be trivial to sum, but the general pattern of this theory can improve every aspect of our life. A few examples I thought of in the last twenty four hours:

1. Why, when given a box full of colors, do teachers rarely use more than one when lecturing. At your fingertips lay the potential of x^n+y (y=number of colors greater than 1) greater levels of communication and accuracy. All that is missing is universal rules for color use, and markers that work (if you teach you understand what I am talking about). You heard it here first, the decimal system to color of notes please? It will, if used by the standard, improve the quality of the human race by increasing the contextual understanding for those who practice it. Someone call the decimal system; tell them to hurry up before Americans try to invent some sort of Hexadecimal governing body for increased written note bandwidth. This will happen someday, if we work together, you heard it here first.

2. The brake lights on our vehicles are wholly inefficient and actually serve to increase your commute time to work. A single light bulb is binary: I am stopping with my brakes, I am not stopping with my brakes. With a clearer instant understanding of the intention of the driver ahead of you, you can be more efficient in the control of your vehicle, closing safe (or unsafe) following distances, and increasing the average velocity of your vehicle over a given trip. Three brake lights that light up sequentially for hard, medium, and soft braking would be a giant leap forward. Three more levels of green lights for hard acceleration, medium acceleration, and light acceleration would increase the efficiency of our roadways to the x^(N+something big) degree.

Any time you increase the degrees of communication, you increase the opportunity for more information to travel quicker, better batteries to be built, better distribution of medicines, more specialized alloys, better social coping skills, higher exam scores, more effect treatments of disease, a bigger raise…etc. etc., etc.

However this also confirms the suspicion that increasing degrees of negative traits, subsequently lowers your ability to project an idea into form-sometimes by a very large amount.

You have been warned.

another thought

(I hope I do not look vain for writing my thoughts. It is so difficult to put into words, the hard won experiences. If it is of meaning to someone else, I will take the risk.)

Refusal to lean anything-no matter how trivial, guarantees you will learn nothing.

Today I stared at the indignation of my instructor at questioning what he thinks is for sure, and shriveled under the hate of my students who blindly believe. And to think, the audacity of asking a question that I am paying so much to ask?

The greatest business professional I have ever met, is the man who sells newspapers at the exit of 35th and 90/94 across from US celluar field. There is an aura of pride and dignity he carries about. A certain grace in his movements and learned behaviors that instill trust. A ritual that is carried through that creates a haven for commerce. Somone practiced in the grace of performing one's duties no matter how trivial is worth many times more than the seventy five cents I pay-the newspaper is just a perk. If only some of the doctors I have known had that kind of eligance.