"The Next Wonderland" by Andrey Shvets
№ 1
- What’s this? - I asked.
- Fermi- and Bose-doors of your perception or rather your comprehension.
- What does it mean?
- In both your feelings, but in one the time goes back.
- And can such a thing happen?
- Certainly, - an under licked cub answered confidently.
- Isn’t it a fantasy?
- Didn’t you notice that dreams come to an end in the most interesting place whenever you would awake? – He winked the eye which was the greater one at the moment.
- Let’s admit it.
- In some dreams, for example, the time goes back – and their beginning seems to be their end.
I wanted to object, but in both embrasures the images had coincided completely. It was the picture from my childhood. I dropped the sieve and extended the hand to show it to the interlocutor. Suddenly a force seized me by the lifted hand and began to take me upwards. For the first time I raised my eyes to the ceiling and I didn’t look under my legs any more – I made my way to the outer space.
№2
It was not turns. People stood around of game tables. The roulette, the card tables, and in spite of the fact that the purpose of some constructions was not clear to me to it was not necessary to doubt – I had got into a casino. The room was absolutely round with a round pool in the center.
Having followed my sight, the person in green brought me to the roulette placed by the wall to the left of the entrance. Having seen me the croupier cheered up and met me with a learnt, glossing from frequent repetition phrase.
- Fortune-telling, forecasting, prediction!
- What?
- What do you wish to tell fortunes on?
- Don’t you tell fortunes?
- Certainly.
It was seen by his face that the only professionalism helped him to restrain himself from a phrase, such as «no, I’m cleaning potatoes here» or from something like that. However, I needed some time to get used to one more oddity of the given world –one guesses on a roulette here.
- And what do you tell fortunes on?
- On everything, but more often on money.
- Tell fortunes to me then, too.
- How much do you have in your hand?
He nodded to the direction of my right hand, and I was surprised to find out a pack of notes clamped in my fist. Probably my green attendant had put it in my hand. I looked around, but he was not here any more, and I was the unique visitor at this table though there were very many people in the hall.
- Put them all here. What do you stake on?
- Red.
- Let’s see whether they’ll be with you.
First the drum began to rustle wearily, and then a ball banged cheerfully against it.
- Black!
- And what does it mean?
- This money won’t be yours.
The croupier pushed up my money and hid it under the rack. I understood that I had been fooled but in fact everything was all right. Having coped with my emotions I tried to be reasonable in order to charge the croupier with incorrect use of terms if not with cheating.
- Have you already told me what you’d predict?
- Yes.
- As a matter of fact you’ve only said how you’d act.
- But I didn’t know it.
- In fact if you weren’t here there’d be no predicted event.
- Certainly. As well as in the quantum physics, the fact of observation influences the result of the experiment.
- Nevertheless the prediction is understood in another way. The foreteller tells about the events being beyond his control.
- I’m not guilty that you’ve dealt only with charlatans earlier.
The croupier let me know that the conversation was over.
Quotes from "The Next Wonderland"
Re: Quotes from "The Next Wonderland"
№3
- Greetings! I’m the main tautologist of this place! What do you want me to explain? - The vigorous old man in glasses made me to object him for some reason.
- Why are you a tautologist?
- I’m never mistaken!
- It’s possible not be mistaken without a tautology.
- No, it isn’t. The tautology is the truth. And the truth is the tautology.
- Only the truths which aren’t tautologies do have a value.
- Nonsense! Give me an example!
- Here you are. The law of Newton says that the force is equal to the product of weight and acceleration.
- What a remarkable example! The force is defined only through the concept of weight, and the weight is defined only through the force. It’s a classical example of the tautology! So, the young man, if the truth is absolute, not relative and not approximate, it’s the tautology.
- And what about the logics?!
- The logic is my favorite discipline. It’s the top of the tautology! And all that is based on the logic is the tautology. So the computers can make only tautologies.
- What can one do?
- Be happy! In fact the world of tautologies is an oasis in the shadow of which the sense can have a rest from the radiating beams of uncertainty. But it is important to use this opportunity. Never putting out a nose from under the shadow of the palm tree or burning with the sun and not having had the time to go sightseeing are two extremes which should be avoided.
- But what can I do? In fact I’ve come to get an advice instead of arguing on abstract themes.
- Try to become a ball, - He laughed at his own – It’s strange to hear it from me, isn’t it?
The old man disappeared behind the books suddenly as well as he had appeared.
№4
While talking we came up slowly to another table. Unlike the previous one it had nothing on it but a sheet of paper full of figures. An elderly gray-haired man in the dark three-piece suit was studying the sheet of paper.
- For a piece of advice?
- Yes.
- Do you think I have nothing more to do?
- I’ve no answer as I don’t know what you’re doing now.
- You’re saying rude things! – He settled back in the armchair and stared at me. It seemed to me that his anger was a little bit affected and he was amusing himself like that.
- Certainly not! – I answered him in the same tone.
- I move apart the ordinary, - the "professor" declared it loudly rising from his place. – I make holes in it.
- How do you do it?
- I’m looking for irrational numbers. – He answered in a quiet voice and sat down again.
- What for?
- I’ve already told you.
- What about rational ones?
- Rational numbers are tautologies or rephrased definitions. The fact that two by two is four has already been put into the definition of number "four". As for irrational ones they’re just approximate. The numbers are real, and they bring us to the true absolute world.
- Is it the help?
- Not quite. The help is: start up in a circle.
- Thanks.
- Not at all.
I’d already got used to such short dialogues and general pieces of advice so I came up to the next table in the third corner.
- Greetings! I’m the main tautologist of this place! What do you want me to explain? - The vigorous old man in glasses made me to object him for some reason.
- Why are you a tautologist?
- I’m never mistaken!
- It’s possible not be mistaken without a tautology.
- No, it isn’t. The tautology is the truth. And the truth is the tautology.
- Only the truths which aren’t tautologies do have a value.
- Nonsense! Give me an example!
- Here you are. The law of Newton says that the force is equal to the product of weight and acceleration.
- What a remarkable example! The force is defined only through the concept of weight, and the weight is defined only through the force. It’s a classical example of the tautology! So, the young man, if the truth is absolute, not relative and not approximate, it’s the tautology.
- And what about the logics?!
- The logic is my favorite discipline. It’s the top of the tautology! And all that is based on the logic is the tautology. So the computers can make only tautologies.
- What can one do?
- Be happy! In fact the world of tautologies is an oasis in the shadow of which the sense can have a rest from the radiating beams of uncertainty. But it is important to use this opportunity. Never putting out a nose from under the shadow of the palm tree or burning with the sun and not having had the time to go sightseeing are two extremes which should be avoided.
- But what can I do? In fact I’ve come to get an advice instead of arguing on abstract themes.
- Try to become a ball, - He laughed at his own – It’s strange to hear it from me, isn’t it?
The old man disappeared behind the books suddenly as well as he had appeared.
№4
While talking we came up slowly to another table. Unlike the previous one it had nothing on it but a sheet of paper full of figures. An elderly gray-haired man in the dark three-piece suit was studying the sheet of paper.
- For a piece of advice?
- Yes.
- Do you think I have nothing more to do?
- I’ve no answer as I don’t know what you’re doing now.
- You’re saying rude things! – He settled back in the armchair and stared at me. It seemed to me that his anger was a little bit affected and he was amusing himself like that.
- Certainly not! – I answered him in the same tone.
- I move apart the ordinary, - the "professor" declared it loudly rising from his place. – I make holes in it.
- How do you do it?
- I’m looking for irrational numbers. – He answered in a quiet voice and sat down again.
- What for?
- I’ve already told you.
- What about rational ones?
- Rational numbers are tautologies or rephrased definitions. The fact that two by two is four has already been put into the definition of number "four". As for irrational ones they’re just approximate. The numbers are real, and they bring us to the true absolute world.
- Is it the help?
- Not quite. The help is: start up in a circle.
- Thanks.
- Not at all.
I’d already got used to such short dialogues and general pieces of advice so I came up to the next table in the third corner.
Re: Quotes from "The Next Wonderland"
№5
The man was looking for something among the set of subjects of this room. However, it was to be noted that a certain pattern was felt in their position.
- Do you have something for me? – I asked as I was sure that my role would consist of gathering the information.
- What?
- Shouldn’t you pass me something?
- I should find the fifth element for the tableware.
- Just the fifth?
- Just the fifth! Everything should be of five elements, – he straightened himself up keeping for his back. - Imagine that we’re creating the world in which all the phenomena are interconnected and continuously replace each other. Let’s try to find a minimum quantity of the phenomena the interaction of which would satisfy these conditions. For example, the phenomenon №2 can be generated by the phenomenon №1 and be destroyed by the phenomenon №3. That is three phenomena are enough at the first sight. But in that case the phenomenon №1 cannot be generated or destroyed by the phenomenon №2. In fact they’d be mutually generated or mutually destroyed, and as a result it’d reduce to the termination of changes or to the "bad" infinity. It turns out that the phenomenon №3 should generate and destroy the phenomenon №1 simultaneously, and that does not suit us for the same reasons. Let’s add one more phenomenon №4. Now we assume that the phenomenon №3 destroys the phenomenon №1, and the phenomenon №4 generates it. As for the phenomenon №1 everything is all right. The phenomenon №3 is generated by the phenomenon №2 and is destroyed by the phenomenon №4. As for the phenomenon №3 everything is all right, too. However, there is a problem with the phenomenon №4. It can neither be generated nor destroyed by the phenomena №1, №3; and the phenomenon №2 cannot simultaneously generate and destroy the phenomenon №4. In short only five phenomena provide the mutual transformations and the «normal work» of the cause-and-effect relations. Therefore, studying any transformations and processes it is necessary to single out five mutual-generating and mutual-destroying phenomena. All the phenomena can be divided into five groups or "elements" as well. Such a division would allow us to understand the dynamics of changes in our world.
While speaking he went round the five-cornered table and examined carefully each thing which came across him. The cat of mine was watching him all the time and was about to jump on his back from time to time though I had such a feeling that he wouldn’t notice it.
№6
- Let’s consider the paradox of Lennon about Bahille and the turtle. Bahille can easily get to the point where the turtle has been, but it will move to another point for this time. It can continue for a long time and Bahille will never catch up with the reptile.
The wrong conclusion about the unassailability of the turtle is considered to be caused by the absence of knowledge about the operations with the infinitesimal quantities. It is said that each segment on which Bahille catches up with the turtle is less than the previous one, therefore its length tends to zero, but the sum of these infinitesimal segments will be equal to some final distance. Let’s consider the last infinitesimal segment on which Bahille should overtake the turtle. No matter how small the segment is, the turtle should spend some time to go for a distance. It’ll be like that on each segment regardless of its length. That is the reference to the infinitesimal quantities does not allow us to solve the paradox. Isn’t it?
- Probably. – I answered mechanically.
- Let’s imagine the artist who wants to paint a continuously varying landscape. First he looks at the landscape surrounding him, and then he turns to the easel and paints. But when he compares his painting with the nature it appears that the landscape has changed. He takes the brush and the colors again, and the things can repeat themselves infinitely. He will never achieve the accurate similarity because of the variability of the object. Bahille behaves himself like that. He looks where the turtle is at the present moment and aspires to this point. Having reached it he sees that the reptile has gone to another point. And it’s up to the infinity. So it’s impossible to overtake the object if you don’t know where it will be in the future and if you behave yourself as if don’t know it.
- It’s just as you say. – I thought about myself and about my life.
- If Ahille has no suggestions of how the turtle will move, he will have to operate according to the algorithm offered in the paradox, and he will never overtake it. Besides, the turtle can move unpredictably in order to disappear in one point and to appear in another one. In this case even if speed of the turtle is insignificant, Bahille cannot catch up with it. He can appear only in those points where it has been before. If the object of the pursuit moves indefinitely, it’s possible to overtake it only by chance.
The most surprising thing is that Bahille doesn’t change the speed according to the algorithm of the pursuit of the turtle. That is for the casual observer the turtle moves quite definitely, and Bahille’s speed slows down to the speed of the reptile. But for the runner himself the movements of the turtle are unpredictable, and its own speed remains the former. From the point of view of the casual observer Ahille’s time began to go more slowly. The analogy with the theory of relativity is obvious. As the speed of the "cosmonaut" comes near to the speed of light his own time is being slowed down.
Let's assume that the movement of the turtle consists of the number of chaotic micro-movements in different directions and with different speeds. However, while summing up they form the movement with constant speed and in the certain direction. The casual observer is not able to distinguish fine and uncertain movements of the turtle. He believes that it moves in regular intervals and straightforwardly. Therefore the observer has no reasons for which it’s impossible to overtake and outrun the reptile. Bahille tries to catch up with the turtle at the micro-level. It’s subtle and unpredictable for him, therefore he can’t overtake it. If one continues the analogy with the special theory of relativity at the macro-level, the speed of light is constant and the direction is definite. Therefore there are no reasons for which it would be impossible to exceed the speed and "to overtake" the ray of light. However, physics consists of the processes occurring at the micro-level. But at the micro-level the movement of the photons of light is unpredictable. Might the speed of material bodies be inaccessible for this reason? Probably, the weight is a measure of certainty. The particles of light with zero weight at rest possess the maximum uncertainty that makes them inaccessible as the turtle is for Bahille.
Let's admit that the material particle radiates constantly other particles which move with a great part of uncertainty and with the speed of light. These radiated particles could play the role of the turtle if the material particle directs to the place where the particle-turtle appears being radiated by it. In this case the radiating particle could not exceed the speed of light.
The man was looking for something among the set of subjects of this room. However, it was to be noted that a certain pattern was felt in their position.
- Do you have something for me? – I asked as I was sure that my role would consist of gathering the information.
- What?
- Shouldn’t you pass me something?
- I should find the fifth element for the tableware.
- Just the fifth?
- Just the fifth! Everything should be of five elements, – he straightened himself up keeping for his back. - Imagine that we’re creating the world in which all the phenomena are interconnected and continuously replace each other. Let’s try to find a minimum quantity of the phenomena the interaction of which would satisfy these conditions. For example, the phenomenon №2 can be generated by the phenomenon №1 and be destroyed by the phenomenon №3. That is three phenomena are enough at the first sight. But in that case the phenomenon №1 cannot be generated or destroyed by the phenomenon №2. In fact they’d be mutually generated or mutually destroyed, and as a result it’d reduce to the termination of changes or to the "bad" infinity. It turns out that the phenomenon №3 should generate and destroy the phenomenon №1 simultaneously, and that does not suit us for the same reasons. Let’s add one more phenomenon №4. Now we assume that the phenomenon №3 destroys the phenomenon №1, and the phenomenon №4 generates it. As for the phenomenon №1 everything is all right. The phenomenon №3 is generated by the phenomenon №2 and is destroyed by the phenomenon №4. As for the phenomenon №3 everything is all right, too. However, there is a problem with the phenomenon №4. It can neither be generated nor destroyed by the phenomena №1, №3; and the phenomenon №2 cannot simultaneously generate and destroy the phenomenon №4. In short only five phenomena provide the mutual transformations and the «normal work» of the cause-and-effect relations. Therefore, studying any transformations and processes it is necessary to single out five mutual-generating and mutual-destroying phenomena. All the phenomena can be divided into five groups or "elements" as well. Such a division would allow us to understand the dynamics of changes in our world.
While speaking he went round the five-cornered table and examined carefully each thing which came across him. The cat of mine was watching him all the time and was about to jump on his back from time to time though I had such a feeling that he wouldn’t notice it.
№6
- Let’s consider the paradox of Lennon about Bahille and the turtle. Bahille can easily get to the point where the turtle has been, but it will move to another point for this time. It can continue for a long time and Bahille will never catch up with the reptile.
The wrong conclusion about the unassailability of the turtle is considered to be caused by the absence of knowledge about the operations with the infinitesimal quantities. It is said that each segment on which Bahille catches up with the turtle is less than the previous one, therefore its length tends to zero, but the sum of these infinitesimal segments will be equal to some final distance. Let’s consider the last infinitesimal segment on which Bahille should overtake the turtle. No matter how small the segment is, the turtle should spend some time to go for a distance. It’ll be like that on each segment regardless of its length. That is the reference to the infinitesimal quantities does not allow us to solve the paradox. Isn’t it?
- Probably. – I answered mechanically.
- Let’s imagine the artist who wants to paint a continuously varying landscape. First he looks at the landscape surrounding him, and then he turns to the easel and paints. But when he compares his painting with the nature it appears that the landscape has changed. He takes the brush and the colors again, and the things can repeat themselves infinitely. He will never achieve the accurate similarity because of the variability of the object. Bahille behaves himself like that. He looks where the turtle is at the present moment and aspires to this point. Having reached it he sees that the reptile has gone to another point. And it’s up to the infinity. So it’s impossible to overtake the object if you don’t know where it will be in the future and if you behave yourself as if don’t know it.
- It’s just as you say. – I thought about myself and about my life.
- If Ahille has no suggestions of how the turtle will move, he will have to operate according to the algorithm offered in the paradox, and he will never overtake it. Besides, the turtle can move unpredictably in order to disappear in one point and to appear in another one. In this case even if speed of the turtle is insignificant, Bahille cannot catch up with it. He can appear only in those points where it has been before. If the object of the pursuit moves indefinitely, it’s possible to overtake it only by chance.
The most surprising thing is that Bahille doesn’t change the speed according to the algorithm of the pursuit of the turtle. That is for the casual observer the turtle moves quite definitely, and Bahille’s speed slows down to the speed of the reptile. But for the runner himself the movements of the turtle are unpredictable, and its own speed remains the former. From the point of view of the casual observer Ahille’s time began to go more slowly. The analogy with the theory of relativity is obvious. As the speed of the "cosmonaut" comes near to the speed of light his own time is being slowed down.
Let's assume that the movement of the turtle consists of the number of chaotic micro-movements in different directions and with different speeds. However, while summing up they form the movement with constant speed and in the certain direction. The casual observer is not able to distinguish fine and uncertain movements of the turtle. He believes that it moves in regular intervals and straightforwardly. Therefore the observer has no reasons for which it’s impossible to overtake and outrun the reptile. Bahille tries to catch up with the turtle at the micro-level. It’s subtle and unpredictable for him, therefore he can’t overtake it. If one continues the analogy with the special theory of relativity at the macro-level, the speed of light is constant and the direction is definite. Therefore there are no reasons for which it would be impossible to exceed the speed and "to overtake" the ray of light. However, physics consists of the processes occurring at the micro-level. But at the micro-level the movement of the photons of light is unpredictable. Might the speed of material bodies be inaccessible for this reason? Probably, the weight is a measure of certainty. The particles of light with zero weight at rest possess the maximum uncertainty that makes them inaccessible as the turtle is for Bahille.
Let's admit that the material particle radiates constantly other particles which move with a great part of uncertainty and with the speed of light. These radiated particles could play the role of the turtle if the material particle directs to the place where the particle-turtle appears being radiated by it. In this case the radiating particle could not exceed the speed of light.