You ever just let your mind wander?...
Hello! It's me, Science! The anthropomorphic personification of science to be precise. Some people might think it's weird for an abstract concept to write a letter to the massed collective of a specific type of inanimate object, but it's more common than you might think. Or 'they' might think, you probably don't think, what with being a bunch of spoons. Or do you? I'll come to that later.
There was that time that 'Compassion' sent an angry letter to all the plant pots in the world, something to do with stifling growth. I didn't really listen to be honest, it all sounded like new age crap to me. And there was that time that Whimsy wrote to the totality of bulldozers, complaining about the damage they do to natural habitats (I'm pretty sure badgers were mentioned, they usually are when whimsy is involved). Long story short, what I'm doing is based on established principles. It usually is with me, except when it isn't.
Normally I'd give you some background as to what I'm on about before revealing the actual point/complaint, but I can't see the point in spending too much time with the preamble when addressing a bunch of kitchen utensils. I'm sure that would meet the criteria for insanity. Actually, I'm certain, seeing as it's usually me who establishes these criteria. Ergo, if I think I meet the standards for insanity, then I automatically do.
I bet homeopaths never have this trouble, seeing as nobody trusts them to open a jar of homeopathic olives (which is a jar of brine that did admittedly have an olive in it once during the early 14th century)
Anyway, I'll get to the point.
How would like to be classed as a subatomic particle?
Now don't answer immediately (not something I'm worried about, but still...). I know there are several problems with that offer. Mainly, you're not subatomic, not by even the most generous margins. It's clear to see that you are clear to see, so at best would be described as a 'superatomic' particle. Macroscopic, in other words.
Don't worry about that, my classification systems aren't nearly as rigid and focused as everyone believes. Just look at the biological classifications; I'm still baffled as to what exactly jellyfish are, so you'll be in good company.
But you have other properties I'm interested in, which could easily clinch your official status as an exotic particle. For one, you have your own version of the uncertainty principle. What I mean is, everyone who has teaspoons knows where they are kept, but can never definitively say how many they have. Location but not number, and anyoe who knows exactly how many spoons they have can invariably not find them all, like atoms and the like. Well done with that.
Also, you keep getting to the washing up, even if you've not been used. Some form of teleportation? Nice one if so. Of course, it doesn't work with every location, just in the kitchen sink. This suggests some form of ansible link. Do you become quantum-entangled with the sink? Makes a certain amount of sense. Apart form being interesting in it's own right, this suggests incredible commercial and practical use. Would you consent to have one of your number taken to, say, Mars? I'll arrange to have a NASA technician doing the washing up in Houston when it gets there, I'll bet it reappears in the sink instantaneously. Wormholes, faster-than-light communication, properly stirred tea, you have a lot to offer if you come work for me.
Of course, if you are capable of communication across great distances like this, then it's feasible that all teaspoons are in fact interlinked. Rapid communication between elements of such a widespread, complex arrangement of units that have numerous states would result in phenomenal processing power. There's me saying you're just a bunch of inert tools, when you may in fact be an incredibly advanced artificial network, most likely possessing an intelligence greater than that of mankind. I'd advise against attempts to enslave them though, they don't like that. And that Jon Connor is a stubborn git, and so is his mum.
Again, this assumption that you have many different components may also be flawed. With the exception of some different handles mounted around the metal 'core', all teaspoons look identical, and I've never actually heard anyone say that they've made a teaspoon. Does anyone? I have to admit that it is possible that all teaspoons are one and the same spoon, which emerged from the fury of the big bang, travelled to the end of the universe then, with it's quantum abilities, reverted to the beginning again to take a new path, and on an on until the entire universe is filed with teaspoons.
Remember that film where they said 'there is no spoon'? That may be the most incorrect statement ever.
This is all speculation of course, I won't know until we run some tests. Would you be cool with it if I put a few teaspoons in the Large Hadron Collider? Then we'll see what's what. It's mutually beneficial, you get to be the first utensil to travel at relativistic speeds, I get to save a fortune on all those detectors I need to analyse individual particles. Seriously, if you help out I could do the whole thing with a mobile phone camera.
The offers there, let me know what you think.
Love and kisses
Science (BA hons)
P.S. Whether I'm write or wrong about this, I'll still be using you to stir tea. You gotta do what you gotta do
email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
You ever just let your mind wander?...