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.
#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.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
What is interesting is that there is a another tree of life...this tree is not a manipulation or hijacking of the tree of life from the Bible.
This is Darwin's Tree of Life revealing biological life.
This was called a tree not because of the Bible, but because when one literally diagrams biological life one literally draws a tree.
This diagram could have taken any shape, but it does not.
A TREE shape then is very significant in understanding the PHYSICAL layer, but also the SPIRITUAL layer.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
I fall in the last group, but I would also call myself a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sufist, a Hindu, a Kabbalist, and a Naturalist as well as a Spiritualist. I think there are truths in many teachings and BS as well.
For the explanation, I will give summed up version of what took me four years of study and of which I consequently wrote a book about entitled The Ancient Genesis. Now, the book could have been inspired by a higher power, by just men or be complete rubbish. I will not argue that point. What I will say is that when one reads, one needs to read carefully, be it of any literature to understand context of culture, context of history and context of intention.
Basically the jist is this. Learn some Hebrew and Phonetician and also ancient and modern day Hebrew culture.
When you do you will understand these basic principles:
1-Yom which is defined as a day in Genesis can mean A Period of Time. (There is a lot of references and support for this in my book). Further common sense might lead one to ask how is a day defined before the Earth or Sun are said to even exist...in Day 1 and Day 2, and some of Day 3.
2-Bara is for spiritual creation only in Genesis 1. Period. This word is translated in the English as created (s). After much much study I have come to realize this to be the true case. This occurs in Day 1 when the building blocks of everything arose. This occurs in Day 5 for the life of water animals. This occurs in Day 6 for the life of humans. (There is further understanding of why it only happens for water life supported in my book and notes, but basically land animals evolved from water life and so what was given to them in Day 5 eventually evolved into the land animals in Day 5 later.
3-Asha is for physical processes in Genesis 1 only. Period. This word is translated as made in English.
4-What Asha means than is to take the parts and build. Example. I have a hammer, nails, and wood. I now can build a house. There are scientific mechanisms that can explain every Asah process, because Asah is a physical process.
5-God does bring about many things in Genesis 1 Without the use of made or create, without the use of Asha and Bara.
Why use Asah and Bara then if God's words alone can bring about plants from the ground, etc. This is because those words give us more insight, more information, into what is actually happening. The focus is not that something is coming ....or has come, but how and its relevance.
So, with some basic understanding let us go back to your question....
Why is the sun and stars mentioned in Day 4 when the Earth is mentioned in Day 3, clearly a day earlier.
Not only does that not make sense in terms of cosmological evolution, it doesn't make sense in terms of common sense. If a day is in fact the sun going up and down in accordance to the Earth, which clearly these people would see ....then how can you even have day in Day 3 for the Earth BEFORE the appearance of the sun?
So, either the writer was very stupid, or he did this deliberately. I chose to think the later.
The basic answer is because before the Earth, the stars and sun did not have relevance, they would not have been seen. The word MADE which is actually Asah brings additional understanding as it means to give purpose, to give direction to give .
It means natural processes used to guide, form, make, command, and direct information...using, guiding, preparing, maintaining, making
What the *intention* of this passage is is that: In this period of time, the sun and stars were now given purpose and relevance to the Earth, are being maintained in relation to the Earth.
*It does not mean that the sun and stars were created from nothing spontaneously and instantly in this moment and appeared suddenly right after the Earth.*
The rabbi Nahimandies (he lived 500 years ago so is not informed by modern day science) calls asah, ‘creation by in-formation’ and he calls bara ‘creation from nothing’. (As seen in his commentaries and in the back of my book)
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The shape of the zero was very clever indeed. When you draw it...it starts as nothing, becomes a point and then takes a shape and then the point returns to nothing, the point at which it came. The numerical shape returns to itself, returns the shape of zero, returns to nothing.
Now, I find it confusing that eight uses the zero doubled up. That number really should have been another symbol.
I find it more confusing that the number ten, twenty, and so on use the number zero at all. There is no zero involved in ten or twenty. There is a one involved in ten. One row of ten. There is a two involved in twenty. Two rows of ten. But why zero?
Then we have infiniti. The horizontal figure eight. This makes sense as it is zero. It is nothing, becoming something and returning to nothing again. But because it is infinite, it does it again. Like a cycle. This makes a lot of sense.
So, who was behind the symbol of zero and infiniti and who was behind the symbol of eight and ten, and twenty, and so on?
Well, as it turns out the symbol we use today for zero came from the Hindu symbol of zero. This is interesting, because their concept of nothingness is still relevant today, especially given the new developments of what nothing means in quantum physics, in the true reality of nature.
Hindus only, within the context of Indo-European, have consistently used a zero.
But we can see that the Hindus did not use the two-zero format for the eight originally. That evolved later during Medieval times. I have to say that was a mistake. The symbol doesn't make sense.
What about ten, twenty and so forth?
Even though it doesn't make sense to me to use a zero, because there is no zero in the number quantity, of course this makes sense so that place values are used and therefore we can write any number using just ten symbols.
But it may have been better to isolate zero as its own symbol, and use a different symbol for ten, twenty. Perhaps like this 1~ or 2~ to mean ten and twenty. 11~ would mean one hundred and ten.
I just don't like the combination of something and nothing I guess. But, the place value was an important step.
What about infiniti? The symbol apparently came to us by John Mallis in 1655.
Wallis did not explain his choice of this symbol, but it has been conjectured to be a variant form of a Roman numeral for 1,000 (originally CIƆ, also CƆ), which was sometimes used to mean "many", or of the Greek letter ω (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet.(wiki)