SCROLL DOWN THIS INTRO TO GET TO MY BLOG POSTS, THANKS.


Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.


Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


FYI:


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information


Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.


All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.


Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.


FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Joke

Joke

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Monday, April 28, 2014

Dawkins and Hitchens -Get Real!

On Hitchen's/ Dawkin's Rants -Get Real!

Don't get me wrong, I like these guys. I criticize everyone, religious people too.


1) Christianity and religion is the cause of all evil and other stupid rants by Dawkins...

He says Stalin is atheist and what happened had nothing to do with atheism
Yet, with Hitler, somehow his romancing Catholicism was relevant and his Christian soldiers and is somehow relevant to what they did. After all, the Jews killed their Christ —as if this is how it is taught or understood to any intellectually honest Christian—

It’s not intellectually honest of him frankly. 


How come when Stalin kills, it is not because of Atheism and when Hitler kills it is because of his Christianity. 

Religion is not the cause of all evil or even most of it!

Get real!

If religion disappeared tomorrow, people would find another excuse to kill each other. 

It is simply a TOOL, or an EXPRESSION of something deeper within human nature.

Frankly, you can see that dark nature in Chimpanzees as well and by eradicating religion, Chimpanzees wouldn't be all peace and love either.

GET REAL. 


2) Abortion and other ridiculous notions...

He says killing a human fetus at the first or second trimester is okay, because it has no nerves, no feelings yet. However killing an animal is wrong, because it has nerves and can't understand the stance anti-abortionists take. 

I myself am pro choice, however I fail to see his conviction as being justified. An animal is killed before it is eaten!  If it is killed in a humane way, it does't feel much of anything at all when killed, and when eaten...well I think we can safely say it has no feelings then.

The real issue would be the cruel conditions animals have to live in before they are eaten. This is where I have an issue with eating meat. But the only reason this problem exists is because of big corporation and their greed to make money, Which is the same reason why we have so many cars, so much pollution, and such a poor public transportation system. 

And all of this fails to consider the fact of when a fetus acquires consciousness and when it actually does have an emotional capacity to feel. Scientifically we do know that a fetus gets its nerves in the 8th week and these receptors are transmitted to the brain in the 28th week, but its body does move to pain before that and so we can't be really sure! This only addresses issues of physical pain however. 

Get Real Dawkins!

3) We are not unique? But we are. 

I believe it might have been Krauss and possibly Dawkins as well who said that we are not unique and that there is other life out there. My argument is that we know through probability that other life is out there most likely, we haven't actually come in contact with it as far as mass acknowledgement though I think it is possible a few have.

Aliens in my view would not be this militaristic army wanting to destroy us and unless we had something they desperately needed to survive, why would they kill us? I'm sure they could find other planets that are habitable out there and food on other planets. No, if aliens come to Earth they will be the teachers and intellects and scientists and the curious minded. They would investigate and observe us and maybe even conduct a few experiments on a few of us.

However, they would not be like us. We would all share the same basic building blocks, sure.

But how these building blocks express themselves would be very different planet to planet. What is the likelihood of other planets having the same conditions of ours, having the same random mutations, the same accidents, and living the same length of time as us so that they would be just like us?

Aliens would be completely different from us. Their evolution would likely have taken a different course altogether!

Now, I've heard one of them argue that a scientist friend says it would likely be that a meteorite from our planet would have hit another plant and so the life we meet would be like our own. REALLY!

In order for this to happen, not only would a meteorite from our plant have tosurvive its travel through space and find a habitable plant on the brink of its biological evolutionary period in order to mix with it, Then this life would have to succeed and survive. Then for this to be the kind of life we would likely find,this would have to happen a whole bunch of times!

Sure, maybe it has happened a few times, maybe not. But I doubt at all this is the kind of life we would run into. If this life is anything like us it surely destroyed itself before it even advanced to the capability of interstellar travel.

Once again, GET REAL GUYS!

4) On Hitchens and his comment about tyrannical Rabbis

Hitchens said it was Rabbinical tyranny before Spinoza - does he possess some supernatural power that enables him to know the thoughts and emotions of the millions of Jewish people before Spinoza? That they felt their rabbinical teachers tyrannical? I doubt they would. I bet most of them would be glad to have someone who cares, listens, and offers help.

I would say a tyrant is someone who comes into a group of people to dictate to them what his perception of life and reality ought to be and if they don't agree than they are somehow inferior, intellectually dishonest or lazy. Cuz that must be what religious folk are, right? Then takes a bunch of money he is paid and leaves never to see those people again. 

He asked what can a religious person do that he can't. I'd say he can't stay with us for years to help us through our troubles, our emotions, our financial strains, and our personal needs.  But the man on his right can, why? because he is a rabbi. That is his purpose. 


The atheist agenda loves to say things like the "religious authority controls you". As if people who go to temple, church or synagogue do so because they fear otherwise. They make a choice every week. Most continue because it serves a purpose in their life. It works. 


The religion they speak of is that of a mad man, Not the average man. 

Get real Hitchens!

5) On Hitchens calling religious people liars

Hitchens say the Jewish man is lying because he comforts them with the idea of god, and afterlife. He says he has no information to know this. But isn’t he lying too to say there is nothing after life and you have no soul or spirit that will continue. That there is no god, but you lived and good. Where did he get this info? What info his he privy to that we don’t have? Has he been there to the other side and back to report?

Get real Hitchens!

6)  

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Nothingness takes a lot of work-

I agree the universe came from nothing, but what supplied the energy of nothingness? Because nothingness actually takes a lottttttttt of work.

The reason I say this is we can see that protons get most of their mass from the empty space, not the quarks and so obviously a lot is happening out of nothing, more so then out of something. In fact out of nothing we are guaranteed something, anything because nothing can't stay that way for very long.

So, I also agree nothing does not really exist. It is temporary. It is always trying to become something. It seems to be very unstable. So, Something is eternal. The question is what? Is it nothing? is it something? What we can say is all of this seems to have a common factor- --Energy. I'd say energy is eternal.

The problem though is that we are only seeing one facet of this energy. We are seeing the energy of our universe, of our four dimensions, and of "real particles". We are not seeing the truest nature of energy, because the uncertainty principle shows us that a part of nature will always be unseen. I would say we do not experience all the forms of energy.

Because energy is eternal in my opinion, this doesn't mean though that universes are eternal. Universes to me are an end product.

Maybe Quantum Fluctuations popped out of nothing because of the uncertainty principle and this formed a kind of space-time-gravity. But nothing formed until Higgs Field solidified evolving forces and particles with mass.

BUT more important you'd have to explain how the uncertainty principle applies to the energy of nothing?
 (because the uncertainty principle applies to smaller energies like electrons and virtual particles and when you take away space-time, energy no longer has limits and the energy density becomes infinite from my understanding.) And you know longer have time which is needed to measure the uncertainty principle? but maybe I've got that wrong. Instinctively it seems like the uncertainty principle could work on absolute nothingness (meaning without space-time-gravity) but then who knows?

I don't think energy needs a platform like space-time-gravity to exist....but then is it really nothing? it seems like in fact it is everything- just in another form.

The work of keeping nothing present, the work of keeping a vacuum of empty space actually takes a lot of energy. This is why there is sooo much mass in empty space.We see virtual particles popping out of nothing all the time. ALL THE TIME. So, how is nothingness doing this? This is fascinating stuff.

It seems as if this infinite amount of energy is just there waiting to be born and constantly trying to pop.

So, we have a lotttttt of empty space, but this empty space requires tons of energy to remain empty. But what kind of energy is it? The closet view we get of it before it pops into our known particles, is when it takes the form of virtual particles.

Before space-time, there was nothing .........BUT what is important here is HOW this nothingness exists? The Energy to keep it present seems to have to be infinite and it would be much more difficult to maintain than keeping something in existence. And maybe this energy would even need to be eternal. What kind of energy that can do that? which makes nothing present, this is vital in understanding more fully the nature of reality.

The question becomes... are we experiencing all this infinite eternal and very fundamental, simple energy?

Or are we only experiencing a part of this energy?

Is part of this energy hidden or unseen from us?

What is the true reality of this energy?

I think our understanding of it is essentially limited and might always be. I think we will only experience a part of it.

I don't agree "God" is a complex idea and so this complicates things.

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality.

Complexity adds limits--
Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful...

Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

Friday, April 18, 2014

Conversations about Virtual Particles

Conversations of Virtual Particles

Person A:

I don’t think we know enough about this cutting edge topic yet to understand.
Is it really popping in and out of existence?
Is it really just a higher dimension particle passing into our three dimensional space?  (i.e. it was always present)
Are they actually just a new particle that we have not yet understood
Is it part of string theory manifestations

I still struggle to understand what it means for empty space to have mass….
Unless it is just a bias (or relative) for everything…  sort of like:

If you are on earth, and walking down the road you are moving at about 5 miles and hour
but actually the earth is rotating so you are really moving about 1000 miles per hour 
but the earth is orbiting the Sun so you are actually moving 67,000 miles per hour
but the earth is actually spinning around the galaxy so you are actually moving about 480,000 miles per hour

So how fast are you actually moving?

Similarly with the mass…. if everything in space has mass then perhaps it sort of cancels out and looses practicality?

Me:
All good questions. Yes, this is new in some respects, but there actually is a lot of information out there to learn on it as well. Scientists have done a lot of work in this area of dark energy, empty space and electrons. (Arguably empty space makes up the electron cloud and dark energy of outer space is empty space too...but we need to define what it is this exactly means otherwise details are lost in glossy language)

I do think it is really going in and out of existence...but I could be wrong. But it depends on how you define existence? To us existence is the physical. There are things. But is this true existence? True reality? or is true reality something else? And the physical is just the illusion?

For myself, from what little I know -lol- I imagine that ghosts have a similar problem, lol.

In a way it kinda sounds like when we say this is a species A and that is a species B, but where do we draw the lines and is anything really this or that, because in time it will all change. It seems like it is a photo of a particular time and The particle seems like this. Nothing is a solid A, but always becoming or decaying and transforming...  

I think though that HeisenBergs UP is based on emptiness of space though, so even if other dimensions existed (I'm pretty sure they'd have to be lower dimensions though not higher mathematically?) the empty space of those dimensions would demand virtual particles too. 

They are not a new particles, as far as my reading goes. They know what they are. They are a virtual photon, a gluon, etc....they are just not quite a photon yet or not quite a quark or not quite the particles we know just yet---they are unstable, they are becoming or going back into non-existence in a sense.

They are not even particles. This is a bad name. They are more like bubbling waves? Maybe not even that, I've heard them described more of as a wave function only. 

I'm pretty sure photons don't have mass. 

The way I see it is all space is really a field, a gravity field and then other fields....so like a big checkered patterned -but a lot of them. (This space came out of the void in the very beginning of Genesis--or the "singularity" of big bang) 

And virtual particles are like breathes coming from god...breathing into the space. ..This breath offers all kinds of potentiality or probability and it grows sometimes into our space and becomes a particle, but more often then not it returns .... 

And the fields allow these particles to have mass- or to be "seen" (light of genesis) and then the light separated in genesis from the darkness so that it remains in our "space"

Void/Vacuum of empty space is akin to the void/darkness of Genesis 1 line 2. 

The Higgs turned on is kinda like when God said let there be light, LOL and particles gained mass, because this gave them distinction/order and each there own kinda name.

And then particles were able to intermix and combine and build from there and separate from the empty space and occupy real space and this is kinda like when God says, lets separate the light from the darkness. 

......

But it isn't so much the space that has mass, but the particles or virtual particles that interact with the fields that show mass. But it is because the space is empty. So it is kinda like a chicken and egg problem maybe. Virtual particles are there because it is empty, and it is empty and so we will have virtual particles. 

BUT in the early universe Higgs was off and so we didn't have particles with mass through Higgs. But I'm not sure if we still had the gravity field (I kinda think we did always but I need to look it up) and so some particles may have had mass through that field? But virtual particles may have not? That is interesting to find out. 

Currently, we have Higgs, so every particle and virtual particle (I think) will show mass...unless it is a special particle like a photon.  

But the physicist said in that long video --all particles are massless, but because of Higgs (think of your hand is a particle going through air, but now Higgs is like water and your hand has to travel through this same space, but it is effected now because of the interaction with the field).

So, you could say that space doesn't have mass --but that space doesn't exist just as space. It always exists with the water and filled with millions of hands moving through it. 

So, there is no such thing as empty space. 

Even without Higgs and in the early universe, virtual particles would still be doing their thing, we just wouldn't see any mass. So you could have massless space maybe, but not true empty space. ?

I'm just trying to work through all of it myself :)

BUT- it does seem to me that nothingness take a lot of energy and a lot of work to maintain. More so than something does. 

It seems like nature would have to work very hard to not have something pop out of it. 



Wednesday, April 16, 2014


 
I agree the universe came from nothing, but what supplied the energy of nothingness? Because nothingness actually takes a lottttttttt of work.

Yes, I agree nothing does not exist. Something is eternal. The question is what? Energy is eternal, I would say but I would also say we do not experience all its forms.

This doesn't mean though that universes are eternal. Universes to me are an end product.

Maybe Quantum Fluctuations popped out of nothing because of the uncertainty principle and this formed a kind of space-time. But nothing formed until Higgs Field solidified giving particles mass...although u'd have to explain how gravity came out of the quantum fluctuations, and then the Higgs.

BUT more important you'd have to explain how the uncertainty principle applies to the energy of nothing (because the uncertainty principle applies to smaller energies like electrons and virtual particles and when you take away space-time, energy no longer has limits and the energy density becomes infinite from my understanding.) But maybe you know something here to inform me?

The work of keeping nothing present, the work of keeping a vacuum of empty space actually takes a lot of energy. This is why there is sooo much mass in empty space.

It is kinda like to keep your room clean of dust bunnies, a lot of sweeping must take place.

So, we have a lotttttt of empty space, but this empty space requires tons of energy to remain empty.

Before space-time, there was nothing .........BUT what is impotent here is HOW this nothingness exists? The Energy to keep it present would be infinite. And maybe eternal. And it is that energy that can do that, which makes nothing present, which is vital in understanding more fully.

.
The question becomes... are we experiencing all this infinite eternal and very fundamental, simple energy?

Or are we only experiencing a part of this energy?

Is part of this energy hidden from us?

What is the true fullness or true reality of this energy?

I think our understanding of it is essentially limited and might always be. I think we will only experience a part of it.

I don't agree "God" is a complex idea and so this complicates things.

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality.

Complexity adds limits--
Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful.

Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)