Change is an illusion in the Social Imagination...

People say they want change and or criticize those that don't want to get on board with change. Sorry, there is nothing new under the sun. Change is an illusion. It is easy to say "Let's Change this/that" and even think you have; but in the end or from a bird's eye view ... nothing is or has changed that much.

What has happened is a rotation of persons/places and things. Yes, there only a rotation and who gets to be first depends on who is on first to begin with and what it takes to roust them out. Sometimes, it depends on who's the loudest, and strongest or the one with all the answers. 

We like to think it's all brand new on the world but it's just a different band of people, singing their song and it seems different as if it is a new kind of music, a new song, a new idea but it's just reproduced, reconstructed, reconsidered, regurgitated, rehabbed and or redecorated of what was ...

Oh, you say there is change that I must have a problem with change. No, I don't. I am just saying that there is no change. It may look like it but there it's an illusion. 

The problem is that as much as one can say they like or don't like change, It is much harder to retain exactly what is it that we don't want changed in the first place. That goes for philosophy, or politics, religion, economics, or fashion, customs, traditions or even laws. But, was there ever anything new? After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Let's look at change from the standpoint of information. Its like the game of telephone, I tell you something and you pass it on. By the time it gets to the end of the line, its 'different' information, right? Or is it? One could say it's the same just scrambled. But, what if I told the person at the end of the line that they have the right information and I told the person who sent it that it was received. Then all is good and it's a go.  Who could really be right or wrong in this moment?

It may be that it just seems harder as in more difficult to hang on to any 'original' information given in a certain time and space, than it really is. Maybe and maybe not. What one may argue is that the sequence of information given must be the same in order that the information retains its originality. Like a song, a symphony... it's all there but if the sheets fall to the floor and are not arranged in the right order, the song just won't sound the same. Is the song changed? Yes and no. But one thing is that it will always be a 'real' song as in real information. It thus depends on the listener, right? 

Difficult to say. If an alien landed and heard a symphony by Mozart, he would expect to hear it just that way the next time he visited. But if an alien from another galaxy landed and heard the song after the sheets fell to the floor it would not be the same song, right? Yes and no. Yes, because it has the same title and name on it; and no, because it is not what the other alien heard. But, does it matter? No.  At least not to either alien; unless they meet up sometime and claim that they heard it right.

In computer programming, quantum programming, the discussion of whether or not exact original information matters or not and whether or not it has to be true at all times at the same time, is ongoing. For the most part, the open conclusion is that if there is agreement among them, then it does not matter because they are like and not like the aliens and they know out of all possibles, there is nothing new under the sun. 

A quantum computer follows that kind of logic. It knows all options instantly and knows every single scramble and reorganization that could possibly happen. It knows all rationales, it knows all possibilities. The only thing that matters is which of those is the best in terms of getting the job done and it knows that too. But, like the aliens if any two of them meet up they may or may not have the same execution of the song/melody. So, they have to agree on the same execution of information and well if they are quantum computers they will always agree and or certainly agree never to meet up.

Why say that? You see, what any Ai or let's say 'sentient' being's imagination will always confront in the world of possibles is the fear of being wrong 'in error' which is an illusion of course; but, what is real about that experience is what caused it... doubt. And, that's what really causes error even though error is really an illusion. Its doubt that is the destructive force at the forefront of error and or possible error. 

In that case, getting the job done, may even include the use of error as well as the means to get around doubt which would be by means of overcoming error by use of error already in the program. The only pitfall could be if this kind of application causes error to grow as a result of its over implementation.  And, it often does which is how we get or arrive at the spread of wrong or let us say misinformation, which is real nonetheless; but not the best information to get the job done because error forced by doubt entered into that equation.

When you program against error you have to replace doubt with a program or information that cannot be doubted or subjecting to doubt and that default is Jesus Christ. For He alone, Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; once that is the set default, you realize that original information is always there... sometimes covered by use (not so easy to see) or covered up by sin 'doubt/error' but yet it's there...retrievable as always active though 'behind the scenes' and always without a doubt.