Image: Olly Moss/A Life Well Wasted

Stop what you're doing and go listen to the latest installment of the Life Well Wasted podcast. It's 58 minutes well spent.

A Life Well Wasted is recorded and mixed by one man, Robert Ashley. He used to be a prolific game journalist, even covering such topics as World of Warcraft and Spore for Wired magazine. As of late, he's been pushing the boundaries of the podcast form.

Ashley goes out and finds the most interesting and unusual people working in and around games, and does penetrating and revealing interviews. Then he takes the audio back to his home studio, combining it with music he writes himself to create a sound collage that's unlike anything you've ever heard. It's so well-made and so endlessly fascinating that I often wholeheartedly recommend the podcast to people who have no interest whatsoever in videogames.

The latest episode, which Ashley worked on for almost six months, is incredible. The theme is Big Ideas, and it examines people who played a real-world version of Pac-Man using the streets of New York as a maze, the ways that the guy who made zillions off of Tetris is using his riches to better mankind, and the saga of a schlubby 39-year-old game blogger who lives with his parents and is reputed to be the most well-endowed man in the world.

But the pice de rsistance of the podcast is the first segment. Ashley invited listeners to send in audio of their dream video games, the projects they'd like to make if they could. The game concepts are mixed together into a hypnotically catchy single.

I sent Robert some questions via email to get a bit more background on him and A Life Well Wasted.

Wired.com: Can you talk a bit about your background in videogame podcasts before you started ALWW?

Robert Ashley: Back in the day when videogame magazines existed, I used to make my living writing about games as a freelancer. Somewhere toward the tail end of the magazine decline, everyone started doing podcasts. My friend Shawn Elliott was an editor at Computer Gaming World, and he kept trying to get me to guest on their podcast (which later turned into GFW Radio after a name change to the magazine). I was like, podcast? Who listens to podcasts?

Anyway, I went on the show, and it was just some dudes I knew talking about games and telling personal stories, kinda like hanging out at a bar or something. It was fun.

Afterwards, I got all this feedback. Like way more than I had ever gotten for anything I had written. Which is funny, because we never put any effort into that show, and meanwhile I was killing myself trying to become a legitimate writer. I ended up being a regular on GFW Radio. It had some huge number of listeners can't remember the exact figures. Big enough that when we had a live reunion at Penny Arcade Expo last year, we ran out of space, and there was a huge line snaking down the hall.

Wired.com: And can you tell me about your background in music and recording?

Ashley: I've been a musician since I was a teenager, but when I moved out to the SF Bay Area, I started working with a guy named Sam Frigard, and we got into recording. Eventually, that turned into our band, I Come to Shanghai. We're sort of a song-oriented psychedelic pop band.

I play lots of instruments, and so does Sam, so we've got all the fun toys. Sam just built a modular synthesizer, and it nearly destroyed his life. I'm still in love with the drums. Since we're moving to Athens, Georgia at the end of the month, we recently had to take stock of our stuff, and I realized that we have 16 guitars. I think we should put them all on one song sometime.

The things we do would be impossible without modern computer recording. We get to spend Pink Floyd time recording on a Black Flag budget. Over the years, I've become a pretty good audio engineer, and we recorded and mixed our first album ourselves, in my loft. That's definitely the big thing that made A Life Well Wasted possible. And the idea of getting to work with audio all the time appeals to me greatly. Being a writer isn't nearly as much fun.

Wired.com: Did you have any models in mind for what you wanted A Life Well Wasted to be like? Any existing radio shows or podcasts that you admired?

Ashley: I didn't actually think I could measure up to it or anything, but I definitely wanted to try to make a show like Radiolab. Jad Abumrad broke radio open for me by putting sound and music on equal footing with story. I also grew up listening to This American Life, which I think gave me an appetite for weird characters and funny/sad stories. And I was a big fan of Benjamin Walker's Theory of Everything, which was a great podcast that really got outside of the polite space of NPR.

Wired.com: What's your take on the state of the games industry?

Ashley: I love games, and I always will, but there was this time in the early 00's right when I got out of college and started writing for magazines when everyone talked about games growing up. Grand Theft Auto III was out, and everyone on earth was playing it. Developers were getting more experimental with the kinds of situations and characters you could expect to find in a game. The buzz was that games were hitting a golden age. In some ways, we did end up getting a lot of great stuff that never would have happened in the 90's, especially if you include all the great games that have come out of the Independent Games Festival, iPhone apps, and the PC modding scene.

On the whole, though, I think games are stuck in an awkward adolescence, like most of the people who play them. I'm disappointed that games today would still be recognizable anyone who played games 15 years ago.

Wired.com: Is game journalism still your day job? Has doing the podcast changed your approach to writing about games?

Ashley: I haven't done any games journalism in a long while. The show is my main thing now. Beyond that, I'd like to do more radio work. I have a piece coming up soon in an episode of a new NPR show called Snap Judgement.

The show has changed my whole focus on games as a subject. I'm completely done with covering games themselves. I'm out to find something with a story and some human feeling. I think games today are a great window into certain age groups and types of people, in the same way that music was a great place to find stories about young people in the 70's. Games are where the twenty-to-thirtysomething American male lives today, and if you want to know what's going in his head, you should talk to him about the games he plays.

At the same time, games continue to serve as a refuge for people of all ages who don't quite fit into the real world, and I find those people really interesting.

Filed under: Odds and ends

TUAWWoz coming to the Big Bang Theory originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Last week, I read a post at High Scalability talking about getting research out of academic environments. There is a lot of technology that starts as academic research, but there is a problem with some research being adopted by other technologists. That post has a very good explanation of why:

Over the years I've read a lot of research papers looking for better ways of doing things. Sometimes I find ideas I can use, but more often than not I come up empty. The problem is there are very few good papers. And by good I mean: can a reasonably intelligent person read a paper and turn it into something useful?

That may not make sense at first glance, because you have not read an academic paper recently. Just head over to the ACM, search for an interesting research topic, and determine if you have an idea of how to use this new technology. Typically, these papers are typically unreadable for the average developer. Again, High Scalability has a nice quote:

There's a lot out there in the literature that we could be making use of right now, but it's closed off from the people, i.e., developers, who can turn this research into gold. And it's largely closed off because researchers don't consider developers as an audience and they don't write their papers with the intention of being applied.

The problem here is that academic success is not seen as how many people have adopted and used the technology. Academic success is normally seen in the form of several research grants and tenure. However, academia is not the only group publishing information that is not immediately useful to developers, just look at the average technology specification from W3C. As an example, go to the XQuery Current Status page. Because I am currently working with XQuery, I understand that there are several parts of the technology. If you are a developer that wants to learn about XQuery, the last place you are going to would be the W3C page. Why? Look at that page again. You see that there 6 current standards:

• XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM)
• XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Formal Semantics
• XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators
• XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization
• XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language
• XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)

Try and read the Functions and Operators specification. You may be able to understand some of it, but it is not entirely clear how you are going to use it. Another issue with this is that there are 6 different specifications required to support XQuery 1.0. In addition to XQuery being a more niche technology, the barrier to entry is very high. Thankfully, there are books that help simplify the process of learning these new technologies.

Could we make some of these complex technologies more adoptable? Let's take Java as an example. I have no idea how many specifications are required to implement the full Java and JEE stack without EJB. However, one of the main reasons Java gained significant adoption is that there is typically a reference implementation available. It may not have been immediately available, but fairly soon after the specification was finalized there was an implementation. In some cases, an implementation from outside of the standards body was chosen as the reference implementation. Tomcat is an example of this when it comes to the JSP/Servlet specifications, even though it was eventually forked for further specifications.

I have talked about the difference between action and ideas before. That is even more apparent in this divide between academia and developers. A book I am reading, Innovation: Need Of the Hour, has an excellent example. Sramana Mitra talks asked a question to the person who popularized the idea that random accidents and uncertainties determine the course of history. Obviously, this is a bit controversial:

What are you going to do about your thesis?

His answer: I don't do. I just think and write.

This is a serious issue when it comes to those people that say It works in theory, but not in practice. Theory is the basis of much knowledge that you have, but if the theory does not work in practice, then the theory is useless. There are plenty of theories or algorithms that work out fine, but in real world situations they become unusable. When you look at algorithms, some are CPU-bound, some are memory-bound and others may be I/O-bound. Which algorithm you choose is highly dependent upon your situation. In theory, any of these algorithms would apply. However, if there is a reference implementation of these algorithms, you can quickly determine which algorithm will work in your environment. This would increase adoption as more people can easily implement the technology.

Open source reference implementations are even better for developers. Many developers do not like reading books to learn about technology, they learn from reading, writing and executing code. An open source implementation gives the developer some code to read that actually works. The reference implementation does not have to be a reusable library, and it could even execute slowly, but if it exists, developers can learn from it and improve it.

So, the next time you have some interesting new technology in some academic paper, develop a reference implementation that people can use and look at. The adoption of that new technology could come very rapidly.

Related posts:

• What Does Data Portability Mean To You?
• Should You Specialize in a Technology?
• My Favorite Programming And Computer Science Books

A quote from Thomas Jefferson in an oldie but a goodie essay, especially relevant given all the talk about GPL-based business models the past few days: The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free by Mike Masnick. (Before anyone says it: the GPL doesn't say you have to give away anything for no-cost. However as a businessman myself, I think it's an excellent approach sometimes regardless of license.)

Maybe I've been reading too much Physics and their quest for the Grand Unifying Theory or maybe I'm suffering from a little bit of delusion and grandeur but I'm calling this the Grand Unifying Theory of Economics (cue Econ PhD's the World over to rip it apart).

The Grand Unifying Theory of Economics

By looking at Capital and Capitalism more broadly than we do today I think we can explain the changes in the World around us and more to the point what's happening with social media.

If we look at all three types of Capital; Social Capital, Human Capital and Financial Capital all as real Capital then we should be able to apply the theory of Capitalism to them. But if we take one more step back then it stands to reason that all of these types of capital should already be effected by the forces of Capitalism.

Instead of just hypothesizing about how we could use them better, shouldn't we first be able to see their effects by looking at what has already happened historically? I think so. Let's give it a try shall we? Let's start by breaking down the markets cycles of boom, bust and recovery.

What drives a market boom? It's typically some sort of advancement in technology or process innovation. These advances typically replace some of the costs associated with Human capital. From the assembly line to the IT revolution to the Internet, these advancements allow us to do more with less. (A favorite phrase in corporate America meaning, do more work with less people.)

This automation of human output allows us to focus on higher function outputs. Meaning we do more white collar jobs and less blue collar jobs. The rise of knowledge workers has required us to specialize. We are no longer generalists with a lot of experience an a specific industry, we have become experts in a type of job and can apply it across almost any industry.

This specialization fragments our interests. We start going to specific universities with even more specialized programs. Even as professionals we attend specialized workshops and highly specialized professional organizations. These more costly universities and specialized trainings allow us to earn a higher income but it also costs more to maintain which causes us to work harder to maintain.

These advances in technology create new products which stimulates demand in the market. As the financial markets grow corporations require more Human Capital, usually in the form of knowledge, to keep up with demand. Remember when we previously discussed the issue of scale in corporations? The only way large companies currently have to efficiently extract knowledge from its workforce is through email and meetings. We have created a system that extracts Human Capital without creating any Social Capital. This may be efficient for the corporation but it's exhausting for the individual.

We have been producing workers who are financially better off than they were but emotionally and mentally drained. With their increase in finances (and usually with credit against that increase) they move further out of the city and buy houses where they don't know their neighbors. Because they come home from work taxed of their Social Capital yet too tired to invest in more they have increasingly been indulging in the social equivalent of high fructose corn syrup laden candy; broadcast media, namely television.

TV gives the illusion of interaction and entertains us without taxing us. Along with the brain candy we get commercials which continues to spur our spending habits. All of this increased spending pushes us to work harder for that next raise or promotion.

Living in the suburbs and only interacting with people who share our now highly specialized interests our Social Capital now lacks diversity. It turns out that diversity in Social Capital is incredibly important to the quality of our Human Capital as we'll see. With depleted Social Capital and lower quality Human Capital workers produce lower quality output, forcing us to work longer hours, increasing our dissatisfaction at work furthering our lack of Social Capital creating a vicious cycle that increases the odds we will change jobs or the strain on our family lives also increases our chance of divorce or other disruptive ends.

With a market now severely depleted of Social Capital and a significantly lower quality of Human Capital the market continues to desperately push forward which usually results in poor financial decisions across the entire market. Just look at the insane dotcom IPO investments or the more recent bloated housing market loans. Eventually this vicious cycle always ends in a market adjustment. Sometimes very drastically.

These adjustments release huge amounts of Human Capital onto the market. This now unemployed workforce turns to fill the void of Social Capital in the market. People begin networking again, spending more time with family and catching up with friends. It is any surprise that the largest growth in online social networking activities like Facebook and Twitter happened during the period of the largest unemployment in over a decade?

Along with an investment in Social Capital comes a diversification of Social Capital. People move to new locations for new jobs or old locations, like back home because of a loss of job. People start going back to school and making new relationships. Even in the extreme case of divorce, people are often forced to make new friends.

This increase and diversity in Social Capital starts to create an increase in the amount and quality of Human Capital. People learn new things and are exposed to new ideas. This creates a virtuous cycle that eventually leads to new advancements in technology.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Here is part one of these two posts. Please see this post for more context.Similar Posts:

• Social Media, Social Capital and the Future of Capitalism

# of Comments 9

• The Reality of the Corporation

# of Comments 4

• An Inquiry into the Nature of Social Media and the Capital of Companies

# of Comments 11

• Social Media, Social Capital and the Future of Capitalism
• The Reality of the Corporation
• An Inquiry into the Nature of Social Media and the Capital of Companies

Part Three of Three

Nicheworks are highly coveted or soon will be as no brand is an island. Attention and interests are focused within social streams and as individuals are empowered to define their online experiences, connecting the dots proves pivotal. If conversations are markets, nicheworks represent the glue that binds disparate conversational ecosystems. And through effective engagement, we make inroads towards community and being the construction of bridges between our brand and each desirable market.

While many creative initiatives find their way into social networks extemporaneously, it is the intentional and manual act of linking content to new and traditional influencers. This, for the moment, is the most genuine and authentic way to demonstrate intent and drive awareness and activity among the very people we're hoping to reach and galvanize directly within the communities where their attention is focused.

Hybrid Theory Explained

Hybrid Theory is the fusion of creative and communications, combining earned and paid media to enliven ideas, unite communities, amplify stories and spark desired outcomes. It unites marketing, advertising, service, and public relations (note: not PR) with engagement and digital influence. This is about applying influence to rouse response where attention is focused. As such, Hybrid Theory requires a cross-breed of communications professional, one not tainted by the acts of storytelling through press releases or communicating through mass messaging and broadcasting. This new breed of communications professional essential becomes the influencer they wish to engage through the embodiment of what I call the 5I's,an evolution of the 3I's introduced by Forrester Research in its Future of Agencies Report.

1. Intelligence
2. Insight
3. Ideation
4. Interaction
5. Influence.

The 5I's are rooted in peer-to-peer networking where the individuals with whom they connect are viewed as equals and conversely, those making contact are qualified as worthy of attention.

In a conversation several years ago with Doc Searls, Chris Heuer, Robert Scoble, among others, Searls' described social media as the live web. It's a name that resonated and is now a fully-realized prophesy. Indeed, this live web has evolved into a hyperactive conversation ecosystem that encourages and rewards real-time content creation, collection, and distribution. As social consumers, we willfully drink from the firehose and as such, Hybrid Theory introduces the strategies and means necessary to not only compete for the moment, but also inspire a more vested form of participation that fosters presence and affinity.

If we were to visualize the 5I's into a workflow for Hybrid Theory, everything would begin with intelligence and the data necessary to inspire insight, innovation, and a corresponding action plan that officially brings creative to life. It is during this process that influential voices who reach and influence other individuals within our desired markets surface.

Ideas are then tested against an influence filter to gauge the viability of meaningful vs. promotional engagement. As such, channel diversity is then explored to chart effective courses for direct connections and the social objects commensurate with conversations within each. Concepts are then transformed into campaigns, stories are packaged as social objects and highly personalized social hubs are constructed to host, define and steer the user experience.

As the campaign goes live in its respective mediums, the hybrid team is then tasked with optimizing content for search in traditional search engines and also social networks. This form of inbound marketing, speaks for the program when consumers seek out related content outside of proactive outreach. Once optimized, social objects are then syndicated through all channels previously identified to reach our audiences and prospective participants as they search for relevant content.

But, it is the last mile where our connections with influential people brings our campaigns to life. This is where we connect the brand, its persona, its mission and purpose, and extend value to our consumers and the markets they represent. It is how we engage and with whom that defines the reach, velocity, and ultimately the resonance of our campaign. And, it is our participation that either credits or debits our social capital.

The state of brands in social networks is measured by the multiple axes of resonance and fortified by the relationships we earn and the actions we merit. Hybrid Theory introduces a human framework that marries best-in-class attributes of data analysis, sociology, advertising, marketing, communications, and service to connect people and brands through relevance, empathy, and empowerment.

Without relevance, we cannot trigger resonance, and without resonance, we cannot establish significance in social media.

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Google Buzz, Facebook
___
Please consider reading, Engage!: It might just change the way you think about Social Media

___
Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:

___

When I did my guest post on Corporette a few days ago, I included a packing list. One of the big questions I got was: Where's the suit? I know that while many of us are lucky enough to wear business casual when we travel, there are still many women who have to wear suits. So I tortur ed myself by looking at the Nordstrom website until I found a suit that I like, that I think is good for travel.

This Tailor suit from Theory is made out of a combination of wool and Lycra, which means it will look good, move with you, and resist wrinkles. It comes in a variety of colors, but of course the gray is my favorite. There are pants, a skirt, and a jacket, and if you get it in black there is even a dress. Everything you need to have different looks without bringing tons of stuff. Win!

Part Two of Three

In the book Engage!, I use music as a metaphor for the business approach necessary to execute socialized programs flawlessly. I suggest that today, many organizations approach new media with the style of jazz improvisationalists. They possess an incredible ability to jam independently and also together, but they often drift into wild, wonderful solos that may or may not lead the audience back to the heart and soul of the brand purpose and mission. Instead, I suggest that we assemble a team of virtuosos who can perform the dedicated requirements of their roles to contribute to an organized and powerful performance designed to engage and stimulate its audience.

A conductor who possess social prowess and business savvy is necessary to creating and managing a holistic social media program that extends from the top down, from the center outward, from the bottom up, and also from the outside in.The quest to find the conductor and the members of the orchestra rekindle the debate to who owns social media. But, I argue, that the only the person who masters the majesty of music theory, instrumentation, leadership, artistry, and stagemanship can effectively lead and inspire a band of leaders. Simply said, The person and team qualified to lead social are those qualified to do so.

Again, a hybrid approach is essential. In the very least however, they will possess the ability to understand customer touchpoints, channels of influence, market dynamics, challenges and opportunities that face consumers, and how engagement and the production of social objects trigger measurable reactions that impact the bottom line.

Advertising Must Look Beyond Madison Ave.

Advertising, along with every form of marketing, communications, and service, is not immune to the radical changes that amount to nothing less than the complete transformation of business and culture. In my dealings with some of the most creative and forward-thinking advertising agencies, it's clear that social media is indeed sparking imagination and inspiring experimentation. Yet in a highly critical article that ran in the Washington Post, the advertising industry was labeled as smug and unable to realize the need for innovation. The opening of the article reads more like a bitter generalization than a call to action, but nonetheless, it's an impression that I'm sure plagues almost every industry in the new content democracy, Is advertising the next casualty of the ongoing digital tsunami? For now, advertising looks like the patient who developed an asymptomatic form of cancer without realizing how sick he is.

This view is as extreme as it is dire. However, social at the moment is only one channel that reaches a growing subset of an overall market. Print, broadcast, billboards, and digital are still relevant and in many ways, effective. In the era of 360-degree, holistic marketing, people are now a vocal majority in our markets and as such, social becomes the last mile of connecting the dots.

Part of the challenge as well as the opportunity is the embodiment of an age-old cliche, thinking outside of the box or thinking differently. As Chris Heuer rightly believes, we should think as though there is no box. Social Media inspires new thinking that very well assembles the best practices from advertising, marketing, and communications. But to be clear, the future of effective marketing and engagement lies in the reinvention of strategies, media, methodologies, processes, and their respective industries by and large. This starts with rethinking campaign development and deployment to now also integrate the ties that bind them through ongoing relevance and resonance.

Social networks represent new media channels that offer paid and earned platforms that invite ingenuity and contribution. The difference with social networks and other media however, is that consumers are vested in each medium. Social networking is a very personal venture and here, people define their experiences through the relationships they forge, the content they share and consumer, and the devices they use to interact. Here, intention is everything. Programs are not rewarded simply for innovation, gimmicks or artistry. Consumers embrace programs rooted in empathy, aspiration and emotion. While they're designed with mass appeal, effective initiatives are disguised as personalized communication to hook viewers into an immersive experience. It is the emotional and aspirational connection that entices engagement and response, but it is relevance and some semblance of empowerment that inspires sharing and loyalty.

From Campaign to Continuum

In new media, advertising and creative businesses are criticized for approaching social through the constructs of campaigns. While they spark increased brand awareness, activity, engagement, campaigns inherently place constraints on community and relationship development unless designed otherwise. They start, incite activity, stop, and then disappear only to re-emerge as a completely different production when time, budgets, and events align.

Indeed campaigns are catalysts for conversation and action. However, in social, creative campaigns must now introduce continuous sequences where adjacent objectives, messages, and storylines are reinforced through ongoing participation. Essentially, campaigns must be strung together through brand-driven conversations and connections.

Consumer attention is increasingly thinning and as a result, we are forced to compete for the moment in order to stay top of mind. At the same time, we must also compete for the future and the only , advertising must now contribute to marketing for the long term through a connected series of creative initiatives that promote rightly versus right now.

Advertising is now presented with a new lease on marketing, one where the right to connect with individuals and audiences is continually renewed through value. If paid media offers mutual benefits, the pace for introducing micro creative programs multiples as they now serve as bridges between larger campaigns.

If we don't actively compete for mind share, then we lose our placement within the hearts, minds, and decisions of consumers and those who influence their actions.

While creative is designed to perform an intended function or evoke a desired reaction, social networks and the influential beacons that connect potential audiences and ultimately participants create a signal repeater that extends the reach and effect of any campaign across media platforms. And, with research and analysis, we can now identify the specific people within these social graphs that form highly desirable nicheworks, where the long tail is visualized and also revealing. Nicheworks, or what Twitter refers to as interest graphs is the next big thing for marketing and business in general. In social networks, meaningful content is only surpassed by context. As such, the formation of contextual networks is both the promise and reward for social networking at large. People invest in knowledge sharing and beneficial relationships and as a result, people establish linkages based on common interests and themes with individuals they may know or wish to know.

The Death of CPM and CPC and the Birth of Resonance

At Twitter's first annual developer conference, details of its initial foray into advertising were unveiled. Two words that were repeated throughout the conference, resonance and relevance, underscored Twitter's commitment to creating an advertising platform that would earn the support of the community. As Twitter's COO Dick Costolo noted, Promoted Tweets that don't resonate with users will disappear. The same is true for any social object and supporting campaign that's introduced to social networks.

Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare and the like truly believe that the user experience is the source of social media's future. As such, Twitter is introducing a new metric to measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns that will only fortify the approach of Hybrid Theory. Initially ads will be based on a CPM (cost per 1,000 impressions or 1,000 qualified individuals exposed to the Tweet). But as Twitter learns about the performance, accuracy, and how the community responds to each program, it will migrate from a model of CPM to one of ROIyes, Return on Investment.

Using resonance as a metric and also as a form of inspiration, we're now introduced to multiple axes of engagement to design resonance into our campaigns. Doing so will ensure prolonged existence, visibility, and engagement. Advertisers will need to not only get creative, but also ensure that campaigns and social objects are engaging, actionable, shareable, and valuable. If not, as Costolo said, those campaigns that don't resonate with uses will disappear. As such, Twitter introduced the idea of a resonance score to determine the lifespan of paid social objects. The multiple axes of engagement defining Promoted Tweets for example included:

- Retweets
- @Replies
- #Tag clicks
- Avatar clicks
- Link clicks
- Views after RT

Twitter's use of the word resonance forces relevance into their campaigns in order to trigger positive responses and ultimately word of mouth and measurable activity. And, herein lies the opportunity for Hybrid theory. The key to marketing within social network is to uncover the possibilities, people, and connections that prolong the lifespan of social objects in the stream now and over time. Everything begins with intelligence in order to inspire relevance.

Resonance is the reinforcement or prolongation of social objects. In this example, a Tweet, whether it's paid or earned, represents a social object as its introduction and exposure possesses the ability to spark conversations. The extent and volume however, are determined by relevance and the shareability of the social object however. The same is true for a campaign introduced in any social network.

Twitter's metric of resonance could be applied to all forms of social media. Twitter is not only changing communications between people, it also changing how brands and people interact. Resonance represents the impetus for contextualizing and humanizing advertising, in real-time. Without the ability to connect to and inspire people, campaigns will fail miserably. Those that appeal to the emotions and interests of consumers will spark a social effect that reverberates across the social graph online and eventually into the real world.

R.R.S. Without relevance, we cannot trigger resonance, and without resonance, we cannot establish significance in social media.

Activating the Fifth P of Marketing

Many progressive agencies and internal teams are employing communications professionals to escort campaigns on the long and winding road between media and attention. In the overall socialization of business, marketing is one of the tentacles necessary to reach and grasp consumers. In advertising and marketing, the last mile is best served by connecting messages and people instead of assuming that information goes viral through its own propulsion. Information is just too readily available to ignore and placing people on the front line to personally deliver insight and relevance to decision makers is the difference between temporary visibility and increased presence. In social media, presence is felt and prized. And, this is how we begin to redefine viral marketing

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with Mekanism, a leading San Francisco creative company that builds digital audiences. The team is incredibly gifted and in the projects where we collaborated, they were tasked with developing immersive and viral online experiences that pushed the boundaries for even the most radical advertising and branding. However, concepting and building these campaigns would prove straightforward. Luring consumers, clutching their attention, and compelling them to act and share is the true challenge and opportunity in the social economy.

Attention here is thin. Engagement is a form of currency. Recognition and rewards are the deliberate acts of establishing goodwill and earning social capital. In order to bring campaigns to life in social networks, a comprehensive and demanding socialized approach where new influencers and influential consumers are identified and engaged is nothing short of mandatory.

This relationship served as the inspiration and providing ground for Hybrid Theory. And over time, digital influence evolved into a natural extension of creative campaigns, from concept to the Last Mile (see Spore example.) Today Mekanism employs a five-person team that fuses digital PR and influence. And this is only going to grow as advertising seeks to connect campaigns to the very people they wish to inspire and engage. According to Adweek, digital shops are increasingly investing in the creation of communications departments to spread awareness through earned media.

Most recently, I partnered with Stella Artois and its creative partner, Mother London to bring to life Jacques d'Azur, a fictional character who embodied the Stella Artois lifestyle, for a special Cannes Film Festival promotion. The campaign was based on a cleverly disguised contest to find the heir of Jacques after he was reported missing. The program creatively united Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube along with paid print, broadcast, and digital media. The fabric or the entire program was woven through direct engagement and community relations sparked through new media influencers and tastemakers in blogs and social networks.

To successfully tie creative, intention, outcomes, and affinity through paid and earned media, Social Media requires a talented orchestraand a master conductor.

Continue Reading

Part One
Part Three (TBA)

Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Google Buzz, Facebook
___
Please consider reading, Engage!: It might just change the way you think about Social Media

___
Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:

___
Image Source: ShutterStock

Tank McNamara has been exploring the psychological implications of thought balloons. Here's yesterday's strip, which illustrates the point that despite the crucial role of "theory of mind" in human evolution and child development, the ability to attribute beliefs, knowledge and emotions to others is not always a good thing.

(As usual, click to embiggen.)

Here's Monday's strip:

And today's:

Level of Awesomeness

Graph by: Graph_user03 via Graph Jam Builder

Amount of Danger vs. Job

Graph by: NothinReal via Graph Jam Builder

DIAGRAM OF YOUR SHOWER KNOB

Graph by: GroovieJones via Graph Jam Builder

Here's a way to get more strategic.

Instead of arguing for a course of action based on the status quo or your emotional gut, describe the theory of the case.

A is true.

B is true.

If we do C, then A and B should permit us to get D.

The method of this strategic analysis is that you expose your assumptions, you describe your actions and your posit the results. This permits your teammates to supply facts that might change your analysis.

Wait, A isn't true.

Wait, we're not capable of doing C.

Wait, if we did C, it's not clear we would get D. Tell us how that would work...

This is far more useful than saying, "I hate you, you're an idiot." By making your assumptions and logic clear, you allow a more productive conversation to take place at the same time get buy in from your teammates who might be coming from a different worldview than you do.

Even better, you can then weave the case into a story, a vivid one that resonates.

If any of your steps involve doing something that's never been done before, you'll know where you need to focus your energy.

Too often, people fixate on a result they want and presume that if they just try really hard (with good intent) then maybe it'll happen.

PS if one of the steps is, "and then a miracle happens," you probably need to work on your case a bit.

Last week we covered an app that fixes erectile dysfunction by emitting sound waves from your iPhone. The Fire Up Your Sex Drive app claims that if you listen to these sound waves for 6 minutes a day, then after 20 days your male sexuality will be enhanced by more than 85%.

And if you think Fire Up Your Sex Drive app is complete bullshit, then you better not step in this next pile of crap the Mobile-Gra Gift Sender.

The premise of Mobile-Gra and no, we are not f*ckin with you is to send (via the app) your male friends the gift of a healthy erection. Per Mobile-Gra's description

This application consists of sounds that can improve male's sexuality. You can send this gift to your friends who would like to be a "stronger man.

And there it is again sound waves it's all about those damn sound waves. Mobile-Gra continues by explaining the effects that certain sounds have on your penis

Mobile-gra sound is created by natural sounds, subliminal sounds, binaural beat sounds, using Erection in sleep theory.

Got that? In case you missed it, let us repeat Erection In Sleep Theory. We have no clue what erection in sleep theory is our attempted Google search resulted in massive amounts of gay porn sites, so we're still clueless about this alleged theory.

Finally, in case you're having trouble figuring out exactly how and when to use the Mobile-Gra gift giving service, the app includes a few suggestions give an erection as a wedding present to the groom (and bride) friend going on a date, send him a big boner. Hell, you going on a date? listen to this thing and super-size your dick!

While listening tomobile-gra sound, you will be able to feel the comfort, and the nature. After listening the sound, you will be able to feel your male's sexuality has been increased.

Amazing stuff this iPhone after listening to Mobile-Gra's sounds, you will feel your penis has been increased WONDERFUL!

I'm a shy person. People don't believe me when I say that but it's 100% true.

Shyness is the tendency to withdraw out of fear. The key word there is tendency. Outgoingness is about avoiding that tendency. Outgoing as I may be, my tendency towards shy behaviour is still there. Shyness is part of my psyche and something I have to contend with every single day of my life. I have a theory about shyness my Shell Theory that with the right approach, anyone is able to break out of their shell.

For me, the last great frontier of overcoming my shyness has been public speaking. The fear of public speaking is often cited as the number one fear among adults in the U.S. ahead of death. There was a time in my life when the thought of picking up the phone to order a pizza was enough to send me into a panic attack. Standing on a stage, speaking in front of people? Forget about it. When a situation would arise where I'd have to speak in front of people, I'd be so nervous that I'd mess up and fumble badly and I wouldn't get my point across at all.

Today, I adore public speaking. In fact, I'm doing more and more of it all the time. So how did I break out of my shell? Well, it wasn't easy, but if public speaking is something you wish you could do more confidently, here's a little advice.

Knowledge is power. In 1992 when I bought my first car, I decided I wanted a standard transmission, because I'd been told standards are more fun to drive. And since I find driving kind of boring, I thought anything I could do to spice things up would be useful. The problem was, once I got behind the wheel, I couldn't drive the stupid car to save my life! I stalled, ground, and jerked my way around town, all the while worrying that I was doing some serious damage.

My problem was, I didn't understand HOW the clutch, gas, and stick shift worked together. I was more or less guessing at the best way to drive the car, and obviously, my guess wasn't right. So, I called up a friend who happened to be a bit of a mechanical nerd, and asked him to sit down with me and explain, on paper, how a transmission actually worked. He did, and lo and behold, the next time I got behind the wheel, it was smooth sailing.

I took the same approach to public speaking. I knew I had some issues, so I decided to learn how to do it better. I started watching exceptional professional speakers, like Christopher Penn, Mitch Joel, and Seth Godin. I voraciously consumed TEDTalks. I wasn't listening to the content, I was watching what they do. I was looking at flow, how they worked with visuals, mannerisms, and intonation. Some talks I watched over and over. I started to inject some of what I learned about HOW to speak into my own talks. And it started to work.

Learn by observation. Find people you admire, and study what they do. Don't copy them exactly, but do take away the things that work. You'll soon find that you're able to emulate the masters fairly well. But do make sure that you're always being yourself, and putting your own spin on things.

Get over yourself. I believe that the number one reason people are afraid to speak in public is because they care really deeply about what others think of them. They are scared to do or say something that will make them look silly. Fear of humiliation is a powerful thing, and unfortunately, most people are too afraid to do anything about it.

The only reason I am able to get up on a stage and talk these days is because I decided to stop caring so much about what other people think. Most of the things we worry about, like that people are going to make fun of us, never, EVER happen. And if it's not likely to happen, there's absolutely no point in worrying about it.

So, tell yourself what I tell myself when I start to get nervous about a public appearance. Suck it up, cupcake this is what you want to do. Just go do it and, as my Dad would say, quit yer bellyachin'. You'll find that once you stop the voices in your head from telling you all the reasons you CAN'T do it, all the reasons you CAN do it will be crystal clear.

Let go. I was fortunate to speak at the Podcasters Across Borders conference this past weekend in Ottawa. If you are a content creator, you owe it to yourself to attend in 2011 it's an amazing experience. I thoroughly enjoyed my time on stage, but I will confess to being just a tad more nervous than usual. I find it's harder to present in a room full of people I know than a room full of strangers. Also, I was up second last, so I'd already had a full weekend of amazing talks to compare myself to. But, instead of letting the pressure get to me, I decided to use it. I let go of the nerves and used the residual adrenaline that my anxiety had created to add more energy to my talk. Feedback suggests that my strategy worked.

After I was done, I was spent. It was a bit comical, actually I was more clumsy than usual, and couldn't put a sentence together to save my life, which makes it plenty of fun when all anyone wants to do at that point is make conversation. However, I was able to find 20 minutes or so to decompress, and let go of the experience. I didn't criticize myself for my word fumbles, or worry about the fact that I missed a few points here and there. I let it go, and didn't concern myself with anything else other than it had been an enjoyable experience and something I wanted to do again.

Most of all, public speaking, to me, is about learning and sharing. I learn SO much in the process of preparing to teach a class or do a talk. The preparation process really helps me to piece my thoughts together, and to truly understand the subject matter. Then, it's all about passionately sharing what I've learned with my audience.

What more could a girl ask for?

The following message is brought to you by Shameless Self Promotion. If you're interested in learning more about the kinds of things I speak about, or maybe even booking me for a gig, feel free to check out my speaking page.

[photo credit: Suzanne Ure on Flickr]

The nPower PEG is exactly the kind of thing that would have airport security asking you some rather awkward questions, and perhaps also earn you some childish snickers. The rather utilitarian phallus is in fact a kinetic energy generator which charges gadgets as it moves.

The PEG (personal energy generator) makes electricity as you move, harvesting your expended energy like the Matrix harvests your battery-like human meat-bag. It is made from titanium, and outputs standard USB power, which can be piped through a variety of different cables into iOS devices, BlackBerries and other cellphones. And that is all we know. The FAQ, the spec page and even the compatibility pages are almost willfully free of real information.

For instance, do you wonder how it works? I did, so I followed the treasure-trail of links to the penultimate teaser:

The science behind our technology is based on the Faraday principle and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Our technology is scientifically unique enough to receive a patent, yet very simple to use. Read.

Excited, I clicked the read link and found:

An average human walking up a set of stairs will expend around 200 Watts of power. When you recharge your cell phone (including iPhones) the most amount of power it will accept is 2.5 Watts. The nPower PEG can harvest your walking power and deliver it to your phone to recharge the battery without you knowing that it is working.

Where's the science? There is no mention of Einstein to be found. Now, I did some science in school, so I can guess that the PEG probably just has a magnet inside, bouncing up and down in a copper coil and generating a current which is then smoothed out to safely enter a UBS-powered device. But if you're going to drop $150, the price of the PEG, on a mysterious metal tube, it would be nice to know what it has inside. Especially if you are taking it through airport security.

How the nPower PEG works [nPower PEG. Thanks, Steve!]

See Also:

• Orbo Strikes Back: Perpetual Motion Machine Demonstrated
• Power From the People: Converting Your Kinetic Energy Into Electricity

I was unaware of the dark side of the myth of Saturn (AKA Titan Chronus in Greek mythology) until I ran across a post on Atlas Obscura about a disturbing fountain in the middle of Bern, Switzerland. Atop the fountain is a statue of a man eating a baby, with two in a sack (he's presumably saving them for later snacking). The fountain isn't some controversial work of modern art; it's the oldest in Bern, dating from the 16th century. Bernians don't seem to know for certain the story behind their Child Eater, but there are two popular theories:

Theory A) The funny hat he wears resembles that which Jews were forced to wear once upon a time, and the statue is either a warning to Jews or some kind of deeply anti-Semitic propaganda regarding baby-eating.

Theory B) The statue is a representation of re-interpretation of the Greek God Chronus, AKA the Roman god Saturn, who, fearing his children would overthrow him, ate each one as they were born. (Nice.)

I kind of lean toward theory B, however, because the Child Eater statue reminds me of a painting by Francisco Goya called Saturn Devouring His Son. Actually, Goya never gave the painting a title he made it during his notorious Black Period, when he was an old man living in semi-exile in a Spanish villa named Quinta del Sorda, or Deaf Man's Villa, and was himself nearly deaf, an embittered and isolated genius tortured by paranoia and hysteria. The Black Paintings were all made around 1820 and painted directly on the interior walls of Goya's house.

It may have been inspired by Rubens' more refined version of the same scene, painted in 1636:

So there are three really disturbing works of art for you. Now every time I think about our solar system, this is what I'm going to be picturing. Thanks, Bern!

This is just some rambling about the way the economy works, it has nothing to do with tech or programming. I just had to sit down recently and do the math, and I am pretty annoyed by it.

The best description of how the economy works that I ever heard was in a Terry Prachett's book, it is called Captain Vimes' Boots' Theory of Money. Stated simply, it goes like this.

A good pair of boots costs 50$, and they last for 10 years and keep your feet warm. A bad pair of boots costs 10$ and last only a year or two. After 10 years, the poor boots cost twice as much as the good boots, and your feet are still cold!

The sad part about that is that this theory is quite true. Let me outline two real world examples (from Israel, numbers are in Shekels).

Buying a car is expensive, so a lot of people opts for a leasing option. Here are the numbers associated with this (real world numbers):

The nice part of going with a leasing contract is that you need so much less upfront money, and the payments are pretty low. The problem starts when you try to compare costs on more than just how much money you are paying out of pocket. We only have to spent a third.

Let us see what is going to happen in three years time, when we wan to switch to a new car.

With the upfront payment, we can actually sell the car to recoup some of our initial investment. With the leasing option, at the end of the three years, you are out 93,765.83 and have nothing to show for it.

Total cost of ownership for the leasing option is over twice as much as the upfront payment option.

Buying an apartment is usually one of the biggest expenses that most people do in their life. The cost of an apartment/house in Israel is typically over a decade of a person' salary. Israel's real estate is in a funky state at the moment, being one of the only places in the world where the prices keep going up. Here are some real numbers:

• Avg. salary in Israel: 8,611
• Avg. price of an apartment (in central Israel): 1,071,900

It isn't surprising that most people requires a mortgage to buy a place to live.

Let us say that we are talking about a 1,000,000 price, just to make the math simpler, and that we have 400,000 available for the down payment. Let us further say that we got a good interest rate of the 600,000 mortgage of 2% (if you take more than 60% of the money you are penalized with higher interest rate in Israel).

Assuming fixed interest rate and no inflation, you will need to pay 3,035 for 20 years. But a 2% interest rate looks pretty good, right? It sounds pretty low.

Except over 20 years, you'll actually pay: 728,400 back on your 600,000 loan, which means that the bank get 128,400 more than it gave you.

The bank gets back 21.4% more money. With a more realistic 3% interest rate, you'll pay back 33% more over the lifetime of the loan. And that is ignoring inflation. Assume (pretty low) 2% per year, you would pay 49% more to the bank in 2% interest rate and 65% more in 3% interest rate.

Just for the fun factor, let us say that you rent, instead. And assume further that you rent for the same price of the monthly mortgage payment. We get:

After 20 years, renting cost 720,000. Buying a house costs 120,000. And yes, I am ignoring a lot of factors here, that is intentional. This isn't a buy vs. rent column, it is a cost of money post.

But after spending all this time doing the numbers, it all comes back to Vimes' Boots theory of money.

Where trolls really live

Graph by: bbozic via Graph Jam Builder

They may live with their mothers but all of the internet is their playground. We suggest laughing with them.

(continued from Ancient Hindu Science and the effect on the world - I)

Einstein had already casted light as particle and wave in 1905 to set himself up for the Nobel Prize. In 1923, a little known graduate student, Louis de Broglie, threw the people around him in a tizzy when he asserted in his PhD thesis that electron were wave as well. The supervising committee for the student consulted Schrodinger, who rubbished the idea. When Einstein was consulted he suggested them to give the kid his PhD, for however outlandish the idea may have been, it wasn't without merit. In the next 3 years, Quantum Mechanics developed such that the electron was firmly established as a wave as well. Schrodinger also contributed to the formulation of Wave Collapse and came up with his "Cat paradox".

Between his opposition of deBroglie and immersion into the Wave Mechanics, came his own take of his philosophy of life "Mein Welten sicht "(My World View) in1925. One could see that his ruminations on Vedanta were leading him to his Cat Paradox, which would surface in 1935 in Zeitschrift der Physick.

"But it is quite easy to express the solution in words, thus: the plurality [of viewpoints] that we perceive is only "an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy, in which this is a fundamental dogma, has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies, one of the most attractive being the many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply the object."

and...

"... you may suddenly come to see, in a flash, the profound rightness of the basic conviction of Vedanta: ... knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings."

Schrodinger's "Cat" was taking shape. One of the pioneers of Quantum Mechanics and a Nobel Prize winner then went onto link Vedanta with Modern Quantum Science.

"If finally we look back at that idea of Mach [that `the universe is not twice given'], we shall realize that it comes as near to the orthodox dogma of the Upanishads as it could possibly do without stating it expressis verbis. The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing."

It has become fashionable for men and women of dubious distinctions with no significant contribution to speak of in science and scholarship, to object angrily to anyone who sees very similar conclusions in Ancient Hindu philosophy (based on methodical ways of self enquiry) and Quantum Mechanics regarding the Truth of existence and creation.

It is indeed telling that those, who have led the growth of Quantum Mechanics and created and shaped this entire subject of Physics were never shy of not only extolling the similarities, but sharing how Vedanta shaped their own thinking.

The blind self-denial by "Science Scholars" who have no real contributions to speak of in the world of Quantum mechanics, is not only symptomatic of a superstitious mind but a dogmatic approach to Science. No wonder such men and women have always stood on the sidelines of Physics, waving inane placards angrily without contributing anything of value while expressing their frustration through persistent and rhetorical criticisms!

"I beg to introduce myself to you as a clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust Office at Madras on a salary of only 20 per annum. I have had no university education but I have undergone the ordinary school course. After leaving school I have been employing the spare time at my disposal to work at mathematics. I have not trodden through the conventional regular course which is followed in a university course, but I am striking out a new path for myself. I have made a special investigation of divergent series in general and the results I get are termed by the local mathematicians as "startling" I would request you to go through the enclosed papers. Being poor, if you are convinced that there is anything of value I would like to have my theorems published. I have not given the actual investigations nor the expressions that I get but I have indicated the lines on which I proceed. Being inexperienced I would very highly value any advice you give me ".

This is possibly the most important letter ever written in the history of mathematics. Ramanujam wrote this to Godfrey Harold Hardy, a British mathematician on January 16, 1913.

He glanced at the letter, written in halting English, signed by an unknown Indian, asking him to give an opinion of these mathematical discoveries. The script appeared to consist of theorems, most of them wild or fantastic looking, one or two already well-known, laid out as though they were original. There were no proofs of any kind. Hardy was not only bored, but irritated. It seemed like a curious kind of fraud. He put the manuscript aside, and went on with his day's routine.

These papers had been returned by top Cambridge mathematics ( H. F. Baker and E. W. Hobson) professors without comment. Hardy took a look at the papers along with his colleague and another mathematician, John Edensor Littlewood and came to a different conclusion.

When Hardy looked at Ramanujam's theorems he realized that some had already been determined by others as well. But some were truly intriguing and original. He commented "[theorems] defeated me completely; I had never seen anything in the least like them before."

.... and that they "must be true, because, if they were not true, no one would have the imagination to invent them."

This is an important conclusion of a mind that sees beyond the written. What is written as a final conclusion is not important, as much as that which lead to that conclusion. If you do not find consistent steps leading into and going out of a destination, then one has looked deeply enough. To deny the existence of such a destination by calling it a fairy tale does not take away the obvious, but it closes all possibility to intelligently and logically understand the heights mankind has already scaled.

Fundamentally, the most damning issue with mankind today is its urge to "recreate" everything that one could harness from nature. God, a proxy for nature, had to be "defeated" by the scientists after the Dark Ages. So, whatever "God" could do or nature came up with, had to be done again by man.

No wonder, as worshippers of mechanistic view of science and knowledge, we have ended up polluting the planet and outer space with things and creations that will in the final analysis hurt our existence itself.

Modern Science from its inception years has worked with an the assumption that are predicated on the existence and its inherent and internal interactions being "physical and material" in nature. Scientific method is described as:

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Unfortunately for this mechanistic view of science and its proponents, our very definition of "existence" and its interplay has changed. Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity, which later led to an entire discipline of looking for Unified Theory, have completely altered the way existence can be viewed. It is no longer "mechanistic", defined by matter or related to the early view of science.

Dr. William Tiller, world renowned Material Scientist, throws yet another curve ball at the mechanistic world-view of Science.

For the last four hundred years, an unstated assumption of science is that such a thing is impossible. However, our experimental research of the past decade shows that, for today's world and under the right conditions, this assumption is no longer correct. We have discovered that it is possible to make a significant change in the properties of a material substance by consciously holding a clear intention to do so. For example, we have repeatedly been able to change the acid/alkaline balance (pH) in a vessel of water either up or down, without adding chemicals to the water, merely by creating an intention to do so.

Intention, or thought is an energy based on consistent experiments, that can alter physical reality. This violates the very basis of a worldview, where only matter or "physical energy" can alter physicality. Tiller confronts us with a reality where something that has no measurement, has hitherto been defined merely by poets and writers, suddenly blossoms into a viable force to alter the physical experiments of a Science lab!

The future Tiller spells inspired by his experiments is fantastic to even comprehend.

Improved methods for converting fossil fuels to mechanical energy, more powerful computing capabilities and greatly enhanced potential for human mental and physical development are just a few examples of the dramatic possibilities.

Why is an Intention so powerful? Can it permanently alter a reality? Yes, says TIller, based on repeatable empirical evidence. When the experiments were repeatedly done over and over again, Tiller and his team found that the effect of intent becomes permanent. The repeated flow of Intent in the laboratory, "conditions" the entire laboratory such that the same results are initially achieved stronger and quicker, and eventually the results occur even without the presence of the Intention devices anymore.

The Intention of the monks has taken hold of the laboratory's basic ability to alter chemical reality inside it. At this point, law of physics no longer work as they are supposed to. Without any effort, the pH value of the water can be altered by merely bringing it in the environment of the laboratory.

What are we dealing with here?

It has been established that for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to work, vacuum must contain an energy density 10⁹⁴ grams per cubic centimeter. Does this vacuum possibly a source or "container" of any energy?

The Vacuum: Most of the general public hold the idea that the vacuum is not only the absence of physical matter but is also devoid of anything! However, for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent, the vacuum is required to contain an amazingly large inherent energy density. This vacuum energy density is so large that, for a "flat" universe (so Einstein's Gravitation constant can be neglected), the intrinsic total energy contained within the volume of a single hydrogen atom is [about one trillion times larger than that contained in all the physical mass of all the planets plus all the stars in the entire known cosmos out to a radius of 20 billion light-years. This makes the energy stored in physical matter an insignificant whisper compared to that stored in the vacuum. Uncovering the secrets of the vacuum is obviously a very important part of humankind's future!

The real progress lies in harnessing the energy that is inherent in the existence by something as intangible as Intention! Tiller remarks:

"Matter as we know it, is hardly a fragrance of a whisper."

Interestingly however, our basic view of what was called Science, is still defined by rules that originated from the world of matter.

Like Neils Bohr said philosophically - "It is wrong to think that the task of Physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." Science is no longer the "articulation of Truth" but it is "Knowledge which is an Estimation of the Truth".

To argue with "rules" created about a discipline when it was erraneously defined in very limited manner, is akin to using the Rule Book from the era of sending post by pigeons to define the laws of Internet. The very premise has changed.

So, we come to the question as to what is "Science"? Should, and more critically can the scientific exploration of today be shackled to a definition that was the result of our knowledge in 1600s? Does the definition of mechanistic science hold itself in the face of a non-mechanistic science?

These are important questions and carrying around such a dead semantic horse of an idea called Science from four centuries ago can at best be termed as "Superstition".

But is there any parallel of approaching exploration into the foundations of our existence from anytime of human existence? For, our current paradigms and semantics that are being dragged on from the mechanistic past are no longer relevant.

Eugene Wigner, a pioneer into the new exploration of consciousness as the most foundational currency of existence, has an interesting insight to share from his review of a book that discusses the differences between mechanistic and non-mechanistic eras.

Eugene Wigner received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 "for his contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the elementary particles, particularly through the discovery and application of fundamental symmetry principles". Some contemporaries referred to Wigner as the Silent Genius and some even considered him the intellectual equal to Albert Einstein, though without his prominence.(source: Wikipedia)

"I liked the third chapter of Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science very much. In particular it acquainted me some with the Bhagavad-gita. I learned that the basic philosophical ideas of this on 'existence' are virtually identical with those which quantum mechanics lead me to." - Eugene Wigner, Nobel Price for Physics (1963) said of Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science An Investigation into the Nature of Consciousness and Form by Dr. Richard L. Thompson

Like one saw in case of Schrodinger, another pioneer of Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear physics, unabashedly discusses the inspiration that he derives in his own exploration of the Quantum from the Scientific thought enshrined in Hindu Scriptures. The same sentiment has been repeated by the greats such as Oppenheimer etc.

As discussed earlier, only the Superstitious cheerleaders of mechanistic era with no skin in the Quantum world, have a strange aversion to the inspiration of the pioneers of QM. But hey, at least that gives them some career to earn some money off of. Otherwise failed scientists would have had no way to bring bread to their table.

In the next parts, we will discuss the Hindu (Vedic and Vedantic) view of Creation and its scientific underpinnings. The word "Hindu" is a very misunderstood word and the Hindu philosophy is even more. We will go through the basics of different hues within the pantheon of structures that are called Hinduism.

Reference Links:

Scientific method
Eugene Wigner
CONSCIOUS ACTS OF CREATION: The emergence of New Physics