Introduction

• Blogs!
• Myself
• Patent 6,628,304
• Contact me

Science & Math

• Second Life
• MGGS Fractals
• MGGS Wikipedia
• MGGS Softology
• Fractals for kids

Literature

• Poetry

Philosophy

• Skeptical Arena
• Atheism
• Religion

Politics & Sarcasm

• Me Anti-Government?
• Politics
• Freedom

General

• Films
• Other Sites
• Resume

Special

• Finance
• Chaos Hypertextbook
• Prosperity
• Tree of Life web project
• FreeThoughtRadio
• IndustrialTips
• SearchBorg
• Dumb Laws
• Singing Mice!

I, Fred Mitchell (and the music I love)	Ye olde favorites	Today's tastes
	Yes Pink Floyd Led Zep CSN Rush Starcastle	Philip Glass Klaus Schultze Kate Bush Michael Stearns Jean Michel Jarre The Flower Kings Gentle Giant Spock's Beard

After you read this page, feel free to add your own comments below!

About Myself

I have a strong interest in mathematics and science, that has been with me since childhood. As a child, science and math represented an exploration of fun and wonder. Today, I call it 'autodidactic', but back then it definitely felt like charting the unknown much more so than 'teaching'. Nonetheless, the crowning moment in my childhood happened when I was 13, when I finally began to understand what those elongated 'S'es' meant in this one book I had been banging my head against for about a year -- Calculus. At the time I didn't think it was so unusual for someone so young to accomplish this -- especially all on his own. Later, much later, I not only realized that I was unusual -- but actually unique. I have yet to run into another person who has accomplished the same at 13 or younger -- on his or her own, not being tutored. Even the great Einstein, whom I greatly and deeply admire, only got as far as analytical geometry by that age. Shortly afterwards, I learned about special relativity and took great charm in understanding that which went completely against commonsense. I would've done general relativity, too, but I kept running up against a barrier -- finding good material to learn from. You see, all the good books I needed were to be found at the university libraries and bookstores, and I simply had no access to them -- or knowledge of them, at the time.

I have a patent on a fractal GUI for representing and navigating heirarchial networks of arbitrary depth and size -- Patent No 6,628,304. The irony is that I have always been against the notion of software patents, and yet I have one and am seeking others. I strongly support Open Source. Alas, we must protect our efforts now that software patents are allowed.

My current interests are in Networks, Number Theory, Complex Dynamical Systems, and Self-replicating mechanisms. I have a dream of building self-replicating robots -- Replicons -- someday. Such devices would have an impact on the human race on the level that the transistor had. All hunger can be wiped out, no one would have to work 80 hours a week anymore just to get ahead, and resources and goods can be provided in such abundance that there would be no want - anywhere. We can then spend our precious time on this planet pursuing the finer things of life, and leave all the menial tasks to the machines. When I say 'networks', I don't just mean 'computer networks', but networks in a much deeper fashion, of which computer networks are only a subset. Any system of associated 'nodes' that involves the exchange of information, that also evolves over time interests me deeply. The 6 billion nodes we call "human beings" form a very large, dynamic, complex and complicated network. Humans exchange vast amounts of information in many different contexts across many different media formats, all of which evolves over time. In fact, I will be so bold as to state that human nature cannot be understood without an understanding of the vast, rich, changing dynamical networks that connects all of us. There is co-evolution going on among the apparently disparate networks, so even they cannot be fully understood in isolation.

Speaking of such, I am currently working on a new mathematical system I call either Transcendental Sets or Hypercells (still have not decided on the name yet). Hypercells basically is a superset, or hyper generalization, of graph theory, network theory, and set theory. Information theory and semioitics are also involved. Hypercells has many deep things to say about complexity and emergence. If I may be so bold, I would say it is a type of a "theory of everything". But, humility keeping hubris in check, the old adage of "time will tell" applies here.

What is an atheist? Good question. The naive assumption is "one who does not believe in God". But what does that mean? What is "God"? The truth is, "God" is many things to many people, and there are many Gods as well. To some, Gods are what I call "trans-universal beings" -- beings like you or I, but exists at all places in the Universe -- or perhaps even outside of the universe. Others hold "the Gods" to be a personification of the nature of the Universe itself, and not a being as such. And there are other notions that grow even deeper and more philosophical. To me, the question of God, Gods, or what have you, is pointless to assert outside of one's own personal sentiment.

A hint for those with the brains to understand: There are no deities; just Transcendental Sets. If you understand what I mean by that, you must be just as crazy as I am!

I am a Libertarian. I think that government is way too involved in all of our personal affairs, and government needs to butt out. There is something to be said for self-reliance and responsibility. Also, the government is much too involved in our family life -- to proportions that would make Orwell turn over in his grave. The public school system, the doctors, day care -- all have become "kid police", looking for and reporting even the slightest suspicion of foul play -- real or imagined -- to the government. The government has the power to take our kids away without evidence or due process, based solely on hearsay or false allegations. This, my friends, must come to an end. Also, we pay way too much in taxes, and the government does not use our money wisely. I am convinced that the government can get by quite well with just 10% of our money -- and I mean federal, state, and local taxes combined. Our money should stay in our pockets, and the government should trim itself down and find lean and mean and efficient ways to do more with less. But there is no incentive on the part of our bureaucrats and policy makers to do this. And much of the public have been conditioned to buy the lie that "we need government." Well, we do. We need government, at its current level, like we need a hole in the head. Let's get government out of our bedrooms. Let's get government out of our family life. Let's get government out of our wallets. Let us do for ourselves, and let's roll government back To simply fulfilling nothing but the essential roles needed To maintain our country and our nation.

Speaking of the world, networks, and governments -- I am seeking understanding of the world of humans from this network perspective. Struggles for power -- as well as resources, etc. -- definitely involve networks, acquisition and distribution of political power travels along network paths. Nodes cluster in this power network in certain ways, and understanding how this clustering takes place will aid greately in understanding how these power networks are established, thrive, and also how they can be themselves controlled, modified, or eliminated. It only takes a single match to bring down a forest, and knowing where to place that lit match for greatest effect is 99% of the problem. The rest, as they say, will take care of itself. It's all in the clustering dynamics, my friends.

I have looked upon the face of humanity, and I recoil in abject horror... Lo, the planet is overrun by Mindless Vessels of Beliefs, executing belief patterns mindlessly, ebbing tides amidst the winds of change...

Divided, we stand. In any complex evolving system, the system benefits most from a diversity of viewpoints, not from homogeneity. This, of course, involves human beings, and we should all seek more diversity, not more homogeneity. The latter is OK -- nothing wrong with that, but we become stagnant without the former. Being "united" is dangerous, because then single-mode ideologies can take over and drive the mass -- using giving control to a few who then push their own agendas without regard for the welfare of the whole. Divided, we stand, because only in the struggle that results from our differences does the better approaches emerge. It forces us to constantly question where we stand, as individuals, on any and all areas, and I deem that a Good Thing.

United, we stink, for reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph. I hope you are not put off by my sibboleths, but take pause to understand the wisdom within. Witness Nazi Germany and the US under Bush. Witness the many uprisings, mobs, tribal conficts that has led to countless and needless deaths. Witness our history. Consider our future. Mindless devotion to any cause is a very dangerous thing. Keep those neurons firing!

You are allowed (!) to disagree with everything on this page. In fact, I hope you do disagree with at least one thing I've mentioned. Got a comment? Wanna vent? Or lavish praise? Contact me here. If you DO agree with everything here, welcome clone! :-)