25 April 2009

Multiverse comes to worst

This man's father invented the idea of Parallel Universes.

How proud would you be if your Dad had been the Quantum Physicist who developed and created the idea of Parallel Universes? Mental!

To make matters worse (in 'furiously jealous already' terms) he (the man in the picture) is also the man behind one of the coolest bands in modern music.

But we're not here to talk about him. Except in a parallel universe where I am writing this exact message at this exact moment, but about the guy in the picture and NOT his Dad.

And in another one where I am the guy in the picture, and he was MY Dad.

And another one where the Dad never existed and neither did you, but the blue Polar Bear is your Dad anyway...

I could get lost in the parallel universe thing. But how cool would THAT be? Lost in a parallel universe! Except in a parallel universe where you wouldn't be lost in a parallel universe at all. Lost and not lost at the same time! How cool is that?

Except where it's not, obviously.

I have a colleague who argues that restructuring of our organisation at a Quantum Level is the easiest way to realise efficiencies. Her basic position is that we would and could get more done if we harnessed the parallel selves that exist in the parallel universes - or the multiverse to be more precise - and (given that we now know that electrons, photons and the like can be in more than one place at once) travelled within the multiverse, thereby allowing more than one of our selves to conduct our work affairs in any given reality. Inevitably that would mean only an infinitesimally small number of our infinite selves would be required. That would certainly get things done.

Although it's also true to say I'd get more done if she stopped spouting that hippy shit at me as well.

I have also pointed to her that such free movement of an infinite number of pseudographs (NOT actually the name I'm known by at work! ) would in fact cost a fortune in accommodation and desks. And phones. And similar stuff.

No comments: