A bell curve is a math figure, represented as a graph. The rise and fall of the graphline represents, in this case, the rate of increase in scientific knowledge. How fast the world is learning about science. Now, as you go farther to the right of the graph- in this case, farther into the future - the curve rises sharply, often at an exponential level. Now as you reach the top of the graph, the height of our learning, the curve begins to sway the other way, and begins dropping just as fast.
But again, how deep is this ocean? We won't really start slowing down - hitting the top of the bell, as it were - until we have a clear view of the universe and can't find much else TO learn, logically. Either that, or we'll be presented with a problem so complex, it holds all of science back... which doesn't seem likely.
As far as 'more controlled' methods with regards to cancer go, however, the most likely, and one of the most far fetched, ideas out there would be some kind of retrovirus. Now understand that the concept is not far fetched by any means. It's going to be an applied medical science in every day life not too long from now. But the kind of specified control we're looking at is dampened by the human body itself. We're DESIGNED to be integrated. All of our systems were built to work together, especially in our blueprints- DNA. Affecting one part of the DNA code affects hundreds of others at this point, so until we have a much deeper understanding of just how DNA plays into our existence, it's far fetched. In the end, however, an RNA coder retrovirus is the optimum idea for medical applications of all kinds, not just breast growth. Because, in theory, we could have absolute control over the bugger.
At this stage, hormonal therapy, of the very specific and very expensive kind, has a MUCH greater degree of control to it, but will ultimately fall short of demands. Hormons, like veins, run all through the body and have different reactions in different places. So while we have a greater present understanding of hormone therapy, it will quickly reach it's control limits. Not much we can do about that either.
So lets turn the conversation, erstwhile, back to MY area of interest. Quantum theory. Now, for those of you who have no idea what that refers to, if you're interested, I'll include These:
Quantum Theory 101: Schroedingers Cat This is the base story, and introduces "The Observer Effect"
Quantum Theory 110: Schroedingers Cat This is heavy on math and theory.
This gets you to a place where you'll have an expert grasp of what I say next: It is, in theory, possible that an infinite number of universes exist, did exist, and will exist in an infinite number of ways and our observation is one of the keys of an infinite number of them.
Including our own. The whole point, philosophical, of ol' Doctor S and his cat, is a question of observation. Does something happen and cause us to see it, or does seeing it cause it to happen?
Lets take it back to that old problem, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?
Physically, yes, it had to, right? A moot point. If nothing observes the phenomenah, it neither made a noise, nor was silent. UnTIL something SEES the fallen tree, which goes to say that it must have made a noise when it fell, then no noise existed.
We tend to confuse the issue of cause and effect. Seeing the effect of something, we can often infer its cause. Knowing someone, for example, was killed by a high speed bullet, implies the bullet was fired from a gun. But cause and effect are, thusly, interchangeable. Switch them. You see the gun fire, with a straight and true aim and no possibility of obstruction or dodging, but not the person die- you look away before it hits. Did he die?
By all laws of physics, he must have. If NOTHING could have stopped that bullet, and he could not have moved from its path, he must have died.
But the key isn't that there is a cause or effect! The key is that there is BOTH! In our universe, effects are onlu observed because something CAUSED them to be. They go hand in hand. But not until we see them. I bet ninety nine point nine to the hundred quadtillionth place of everything that happens in the universe goes unnoticed by us. And in our minds, it doesn't exist, does it?
Does its existence depend on your observation? Point and case, if you don't observe, how can you be sure?
Back to tig ol' bitties! Physicists have gone so far as to say that observation is the sole mount of existence. And in truth, it accounts for a lot of the more... incredulous things we see but cannot explain. Suppose you were to witness a yogi master levitate using nothing but the power of his mind. It is not YOUR observation that allows this to happen, because you are seeing an effect without a cause. Our logical minds reel away from it- there has to be a trick to it! Gravity works, it's a definitive effect (although still lacking a definitive cause, I should add). So this man cannot be floating.
But if his own frame of mind were so altered that he could observe a LACK of gravity, would that not give it existence? I'm not talking mere imagining. I'm talking absolute observation.
Whether or not you see the cause, after all, you ARE in fact observing the man float.
Now we have to talk about collective free will. If you observe something- and for the rest of this argument, the 'something' in question is like our floating yogi. Seeimingly without a cause - and I and twenty others do not, its existence is proven, if only to you. This, we call a dillusion. If twenty people see something, and the rest of the world does not, it is mass hysteria or superstition. If two hundred people see something, it is legend. If two thousand people see something, it is an unexplained phenomenon. If two million people see something, it is fact.
I go back to the collective **62**. If you were to get two million people to observe a womans breasts, growing before their eyes - let us suppose through mass hypnosis - perhaps this thought would be like a blast of sound into the collective **61**. Perhaps everyone would then see her breasts as massive. Are they really? Well, that brings up a whole new debate about reality. What IS real, folks?
I've, for YEARS now, challenged every fellow philosopher I've met with a simple contest. PROVE to me something is real. Or unreal. Prove ANYTHING to me, and I'll give you everything I own... it's not much, but I DO have a nice computer.
On that mercenary note, I bid you all good day.
~FlashBiggerfromthetwentythirdandahalf CEENTURRYYYYYYYYYY!!! ~