Mental processing and speed reading

I want to think quickly. I want to be able to read books as fast as I can while comprehending everything. How do I learn to do this? Well, I need to train my brain to process information more quickly. This is tricky because there are many different types of information. To understand information, I need to develop a practical model to understand how information is processed.
--
The simplest type of information comes from direct sensation. We see an object and then we identify it with a term. Nouns are the easiest to categorize. Action verbs come next. We observe actions performed by and on objects so we develop terms for them. This requires prerequisite nouns. Adjectives, intransitive verbs, helping verbs, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions all follow from this.
--
The words that come from direct sensation combine to form ideas. Ideas require subjects and predicates like a regular sentence. Ideas reveal additional information about a certain term. There's the term 'dog'. There's the idea 'the dog is outside'. Simple enough. Ideas often convey why certain terms are important. While there are often very few words to describe a specific object, there are many words one can use to convey an idea.

To leave behind

When one's work is eventually destroyed and their body is long dead, what is left of him? One's work creates works so no one is ever completely destroyed. When a man dies, he lives on in thoughts, memories, and works that reveal the information that comprised him. When these works thoughts, memories, and works fade, they only fade to leave a legacy of themselves. This infinitude of legacies may be the only afterlife we have, but it's the only afterlife we need.

Algorithms, Algorithms, and...recursion?

The ultimate goal in math, science, and really all of learning should be to develop a comprehensive theory that connects and explains all of science in such a way that one who knows the theory can derive all other formulas that fall under the rubric of Physics and Chemistry. Think about it kids, you'll just have to learn one theory for class and you'll be able to wing and improvise your way to perfect scores. How do we come up with such a theory?

Science ultimately asks one question, "what is the cause of measurable phenomena?". This gets garbled into a whole bunch of other stimulating questions such as "Why won't my TV work?", "Why isn't there anything interesting on TV?", and "How come Twitter isn't working?". Oh, my favorite one of all time is "How come I'm on fire?". Such inquiries inevitably result in the developments of algorithms to build a TV, program Twitter, or start/stop a fire.

That's boring enough, but it gets interesting when you think about how we come up with those algorithms. Naturally, we examine how effectively the algorithm functions. What if it doesn't function properly? Obviously, we keep trying solutions. However, we don't just try solutions at random. That is, we don't arbitrarily test algorithms. We come up with procedures to find algorithms for specific problems.

For example, take the equation x^2+5x+8. We apply an algorithm(the quadratic formula) to solve for x. To derive the quadratic formula, we apply other algorithms! One usually either applies the algorithm to complete the square or Lagrange resolvents of Galois theory to derive the quadratic formula. Either way, one uses algorithms to find algorithms to find algorithms and so forth. It is the goal of all empirical and deductive learning to find a fundamental cause to everything to facilitate the development of an immensely complex procedure to potentially find any value of any phenomenon in existence. Link everything to a common cause then one can develop a universal algorithm. This leads us to better understand what society once called, and this blogger still calls, God.

This holds as we try to master and perfect ourselves to the highest ideals. Find patterns to find patterns to find patterns...Find patterns to refine patterns to find patterns to refine patterns. Confusing, isn't it? I take comfort in its complexity to know that there's always HOPE.

Never Forget Recursion

All problems are solved through recursion. Through proper recursion, one can see how to derive problems.

Lets say that one starts logic by suggesting that knowledge results from applying deduction to sensation. Through sensation, one is presented with axioms. Through deduction, one can use the axioms. Simple, right.

No. The problem arises when one develops a postulate relating how to develop postulates. This is the first recursion. This makes thinking hard. To make empirical judgments, one must use a method that is also based on empirical judgments. This produces a mathematical situation where probabilities are based off of probabilities, which in turn are also based off of other probabilities, ad infinitum.

Mathematics comes down to representation

There are a fair amount of difficulties with people learning some math at one point. I've certainly experienced it. It comes down to symbolism just like learning a vocabulary word. This is a topic to be explained in greater detail later on, but for now, lets look at it from a very rudimentary perspective. One instinctively knows that he can group objects into sets. However, in order to characterize the set he needs numbers. This idea, that one can take two objects to be identical in a certain respect, is the origin of all mathematics. So if one has a lot of objects and each object looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, smells like an apple, etc, he deems them all to be apples. He might perhaps, put the apples in a barrel. This is a set. Now how does he describe one barrel of apples as opposed to a different barrel of apples? Well, if he only cares about the number of apples he's got, he will surely describe them in terms of the quantity of apples. So, he invents numbers. He uses symbols to describe numbers(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,F'for full'). Then, he notices that each barrel of apples fills at ten apples. Then, for the eleventh apple, he needs another barrel. So, to keep track of how many apples he has, he should also keep track of how many full barrels he has. So, he can count full barrels with the same symbols that he counts apples(1,2,3,etc.) Here's the really interesting part that I consider the first great innovation in mathematics. The guy realizes that he can use the number of barrels he has to keep track of the number of apples he has! So if each barrel holds ten apples, and he has four barrels, each of them completely full, then he can say he has 4 full barrels. This represents forty apples. To make it easier to write, he decides to make a sequence of digits. The last digit at the right represents the number of apples in an unfilled barrel. The digit to the left of that represents the number of full barrels. Say he had two barrels. One barrel had ten apples and the other had zero. Rather than writing 0F, he can eliminate the F(for ten) digit altogether and make ten a two digit number, 10. The one representing the number of full barrels, and the zero representing how many apples are in the unfilled barrel.

There is a key assumption here that is related to the "Pigeonhole Principle." Since all of the apples go into the same barrel until it is full, only one barrel is ever allowed to be full.

That is the foundation for our entire society. Simple, yet important.

Reductionism, will it ever end?

Intuitively, I'd answer this question with a resounding, "No!," if I were ever asked it....But, do I live as though that were true?

Everything is made up of other things. A car is made up of many complicated parts. These parts are made up of other parts, and so forth. We know this instinctively, yet if someone had a tire, they certainly wouldn't claim to have a fraction of a car. A leg doesn't constitute a fraction of a person, does it?

Such is a synergistic intangibility. If you have 8 pairs of identical socks, and then you throw half of the pairs away, you have 4 pairs. Throw half of the socks away again and you have 2 pairs. Throw half away again and you are left with 1 pair. Throw half of the pairs away and you have zero pairs, not one half of the pairs. Although naturally, Zeno's paradox is correct and nature appears continuous, our unnatural vocabulary prerequisite to conceptualize the world around us is discreet.

Where's the logic in this world?

Everywhere I go and in everything I read today, I see the absence of logic. There's a chaotic blur of facts. Look at the news:


On Yahoo there's usually news headlines that generally use stories written by the Associated Press and Reuters; it's really good and I love it by the way so don't take this the wrong way. Most articles, especially during the day, cater to office workers. They talk about jobs that pay during "the recession." They talk about Obama's latest minute goal. They also write a lot about climate change. So it appears that Yahoo samples a wide variety of news articles. In this wide variety of articles, there's a major consistency, mumbo jumbo.

In many of the articles, whether it be about science, business, law, or a combination of those categories the writers frequently just use technical terms and numbers without explaining their practical value that might not even be explained in fancy technical jargon. For instance, if GDP growth is -3%, no one cares unless they know what that means. For practical purposes, say it means that the country can only 97% of what it could before. The problem is that commodities don't uniformly depreciate/appreciate in value. So even though a lot of people owe money on their homes, they might be able to buy cheaper cars and buy other homes for even cheaper prices. Numbers of dollars only matter when you know how it relates to getting healthcare, paying tuition, and buying commodities. So rather than reporting just with numbers, they should write if it's getting easier or harder for Americans to buy houses and cars. Plus, stats can be extremely misleading.