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.


#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.



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, June 30, 2014

Oddities of scientific discovery

It is strange to me that the first mysteries we uncovered were of cosmological evolution (farthest in time and space) and then biological evolution (Darwin)and then cosmological origins (Kruass) and then not yet even biological origins. Lastly, we are uncovering conscious evolution (Hameroff?) and conscious origins (closest to us in time and space). Seems it should be the other way around. That is odd to me.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Nature and the Brain

We have seven sure intelligences according to Gardner. Mathematical, Spacial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Linguistic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal.

SO, it is interesting we can find all those SKILLS in nature as well.

Our brain came from nature, so it is a reflection of nature. It should be able to give us clues into what nature is.

Our brains are wired to perceived random and non random processes. It is not that one side is creative and the other is logical. Both side can be either. The difference is in how they approach the problems and perceiver the world.

We also know nature is both random and non random. We can see in genetics and in mathematics, in biology, and in physics that nature has random aspects but also non-random aspects too.

Nature is also very mathematical! Is this a coincidence? Of course not. Our brains came from nature so of course our brain would be perceiving nature.

Let us look at the seven main intelligences.

Nature is mathematical. Our brains are wired for maths. Nature has space and dimension. Our brains are wired for spacial intelligence. Nature has sounds and our brains our wired for music/sound and patterns. Nature moves and our brains our wired Kinesthetically.

When we look at a particle spinning beautifully it has a kind of kinesthetic intelligence. When we see a dancer circle beautifully she exemplifies this same ability. Particles are also always moving. Movement is essential for nature to function.

When we look at how the universe is arranged we can sum it up mathematically and then we also have people who are mathematically gifted.

When we look at nature we see a universe of space and dimensions and everything around us occupies space and dimension and there are people who are very specially inclined and who can visualize spaces inside their mind perfectly.

When we look at nature we can hear sounds permeating from objects hitting each other or from the friction of something or spin of something and there are also people who are musically inclined to hear patterns of sounds well.

Is it any wonder that our human intelligence also posses these qualities?

What about linguistic, interpersonal and interpersonal qualities of nature?

We can see linguistics on a fundamental level in nature too when we look at the communication of bacteria or when we put a heartbeat next to another heartbeat and they conform to each other or how we have a quark and the majority of virtual particles that pop in are quarks (though some might be photons or gluons). There seems to be a communication on a fundamental level.

While humans use language, we can see all of nature has a basic form of communication from physics to genetics and chemistry.

We can see interpersonal skills in nature when we look at physics and particles having to interact with fields and when we look into genetics and see how the interactions have to interact with each other. Nature does have many inter-relationships on a fundamental level.

Humans have relationships with the outside world, and nature fundamentally has interactions with other parts of nature all the time.

Even with interpersonal skills we see in nature that genes duplicate themselves and even with virtual particles, because the majority of virtual particles pop in according to whatever is there -it seems it conforms-- there is a kind of duplication there as well.

While humans might have a good interaction with themselves, nature also fundamentally keeps a good relationship with itself by duplicating itself.

So, I just thought these correlations were interesting and wanted to share them.

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.)