Are teenage girls the key to the future?

I believe that if you want to see the future, look at the young girls of today. If you want to understand the present, look at the young girls of five to ten years ago. Young people striving to impress each other - the interests, behaviors, and tendencies of these adolescent, confused individuals, define what is taking place and will take form in the future.

Women, or females, are the choosers, the selectors, the filters of our society's norms and mores. Young men try to impress, seduce, and otherwise win the favor of young women...

I should say that this is a general tendencies, in my ignorant estimation. I do not mean to claim that it is alway the young women making the decisions, nor that it is always the young men trying to woo the women. I think it is probably closer to the truth that a slight majority of the mate selection is decided on by the female. Overall, however, this slight majority steers the course of society. The preferences of young women today tend to influence the mentalities of other young women and of young men. As these youth grow into adults, these peer determined mores become societal norms.

The self image I formed as a child and adolescent was heavily influenced by my peers and by the young girls in the social environment of my youth. This is not to say that I blindly conformed to their preferences, but they were a major factor in the social environment to which I adapted. They were my immediate cultural influences. The music they liked, the clothes they wore, the way they talked - influenced everything from the language I speak to the way I comb my hair.

Young women, as far as I understand, are more concerned about what other young women think than about what their underdeveloped peer-boys think. Girls develop mentally at an early age than boys, and therefore set the tone and direction of the peer groups. The role of boys is largely trying to win at the games created by the girls.

As the boys and girls grow up, the games they play become more "serious", but are essentially just a mix of older and more recent generational games. The "real world" is just a decompression of the tight peer group-games played in adolescence. Boys find themselves competing with men who have had more time to play and seem to be winning. Girls find themselves in a similar situation, but most quickly realize that they are the prize. The quality of the contenders seems to increase dramatically as the young girls enter the adult arena, only to find that men, just like boys, are playing by rules set by women.

Why do we think men dominate western culture? Men produce the most works of art, writing, businesses, scientific discoveries, and are leaders in politics, business, religion, advanced education, etc, etc. It seems rediculous to state that men are actually just puppets to the preferences of women. Aren't men in control?

I argue that men are not in control of society; men are instinctively and aggressively trying to win a culture game where the sexual interest of young, fertile women is the grand prize. If women want men to be military heros, sports starts, scientists, wealthy business executives, cowboys, writers, or couch potatoes, then men want to be these things too.

All this instinctual effort to impress steers the direction of society and creates the future. The values and concerns that stay with us throughout most of our lives are formulated during our adolescence when teenage girls rule the roost. These young girls set their own courses and the courses of young boys and thereby create the future in their mysterious, indeciferable ways.

Is a reality without consciousness meaningful?

"If a tree falls in a forest when no one is around, does it make any noise?"

-- Ancient Chinese Thinker?

I take the position that a reality without consciousness is meaningless, but this begs the question of what is so significant about consciousness.

I believe that the interaction of two things, events, points in space, events in time, etc -- that interaction is the key to reality. For instance, a point all by itself is dimensionless. A point is a zero dimension mathematical concept. Another point, however, adds dimension to the first point. In the process, however, a new dimension is created: two points define the mathematical concept of a line. A third point, outside of the line, creates yet another dimension: a plane -- a two dimensional concept.

In each case, a dimension exists in an independent universe until it is connected to another dimension -- even a zero dimensional point -- and, in the process, creates a new dimension.

Extrapolating this concept out, a universe does not exist until it connects to another universe.

Now let's make a wide leap and state that each consciousness is an independent universe. From my perspective, nothing exists that does not affect me. Everything that affect me, exists. I am the center of my universe. I am the center of my reality. Nothing is real except that which affects me. Atoms may move a billion light years away, but until some effect from these movements reaches me, they do not affect me. A person next door may be plotting a bank heist, but until that information reaches me, or some related event touches me, it does not exist and it did not happen.

The interaction of individuals in a social society is the very heart of what is meaningful to humans. Without interaction, babies die, people go insane, or, at the very least, we become depressed. It is extremely rare that a person voluntarily lives as a hermit.

Emotionally there is a strong metaphorical analogy between the idea of interpersonal interaction creating a meaningful existence and two universes interacting to create a greater reality.

When something interacts with a consciousness, whatever that something is, it becomes real to the degree to which it affects the consciousness. If it barely affects the consciousness, then it is lost in the statistical background noise - the probability cloud of non-reality.

The descriptions of events on subatomic levels are dominated by probabilities and uncertainties. Electrons are best understood to exist in probability clouds. The location and momentum of a particle such as an electron is limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. And, moreover, electrons actually behave like a probability wave as well as like a particle, depending on how it interacts with other particles. At the subatomic level, the reality of a "thing" is restricted to a probability cloud or wave until it interacts with something else.

Before the subatomic "thing" interacts with something, it's reality is vague, it does not really exist except as a potential or as a probability.

Yet when something interacts, energy is lost and entropy is created. The act of creating a "reality" has lowered the energy state of the universe.

Extrapolating wildly, we can state that with each "reality" we are one step closer to "heat death", the ultimate total entropy, zero energy state universe. Total entrophy is the ultimate reality.

At this point, each probability wave, each potential, each universe has interacted