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

Create, Make and Form of Genesis

In Genesis 1 we find 3 interesting Hebrew words.
Create= Bara
Make=   Asah
Form=   Yatsar

I do not see bara and asah and yatsar as having the same meaning. They are similar, but they are not the same.

Bara is mentioned the first time in reference to the first spiritual act in Genesis 1:1, God bara -everything-. From NoThing to everything. In my view for this to happen at the very beginning there needs to be a first spiritual act of self sacrifice, self closing. 
The second time of bara is for the soul of animals (starting in water life and evolving into land life and so it is not needed for mention with land animals, but understood) with God bara the great whales and every living thing in the waters. The third time for bara is for the spirit of humans with God bara male and female. 

Asah is mentioned for the non-living firmament, and non-living sun/moon/stars, but not for living plants. It is later also used for living land animals and humans, but not living water life. In my opinion asah is used for humans/hominids/apes because of their added intellect and land animals get asah because of their added emotions. (This is with exception to animals that were once on land and returned to the seas of course, like whales and dolphins). 

Plants don't get asah because they don't have any emotions or intellect and they don't get bara because they don't have a living soul or what I would call consciousness. 

The earth as it is gathered also does not get asah or bara, because this is not a spiritual act and everything is in relation to the Earth, not the Earth in relation to other things. 

Sun/Moon/Stars get asah because there is a relational relevance here to the Earth where humans evolved, but the star/sun/moon don't get bara because there is no spiritual aspect here.

The Firmament gets asah, because it too shares a relational relevance to the Earth, but it also does not have any spiritual aspect and so the writer refrains from using bara.

We can look at the differences between create and make in English to see this simply. A creator of a new design will create. I created a story. It is something original, no one else can do or have done and it is something new. 

However, I will make a house or make a book. This simply means using the processes familiar to everyone. Nails, wood, hammer and I can make my house. OR with paper, a type writer and binding material I can make my book.

If I create my own house design, then it is new and original and only I can do it and did it. 

I agree Bara is unique because it is something only God can do, but while I agree this is for significance I feel the significance is found in the spiritual side of things. It is significant because of its spiritual significance. 

Create is to create out of nothing, so it results in something new (When we go back to the origin of the word we see there is linkage to this meaning) 

Make is to create, but out of information we have already, so it results in a copy (A copy or a match. Match is also the linkage for the origins of this word)

But what is nothing? It doesn’t necessarily mean nothing as people traditionally think of nothing as in non existence of everything. Because when you think about it, that cannot exist. Why can’t it exist, because in the absence of all Things, we would still have the Spirit of God and that is something!

Further, current science shows us that nothing is never the non existence of everything, but a chaotic random bubbling of virtual particles. So in either sense non existence does not apply. There is always something, but that something doesn’t form anything yet. Nothing and everything are the same thing, just in different forms!

So, what is meant by nothing? No Thing, everything that we know did not exist, but there was God, but simply God is NoThing. 

So, Bara, in my view, is something created NEW, ORIGINAL, that did not exist before God. 

However, Make is not something new, not original…it copies. It uses information already in existence. 

This is how I see it. This also seemed to be the view of Rabbi Nachimandies. 

I also find it very interesting three verbs at once Bara and Asah and Yatsar are used for animals and humans. This is not the case for anything else in Genesis 1. Bara and Yatsar are only used for land animals. Asah and bara are used for water animals. Plants use only the Earth.

Why not for the plants, the lights, the earth, the waters? Because they don’t have a soul or spirit.  

BARA is not used for anything else other than water animals, humans and then in the first line of Genesis. For myself this is for the spiritual importance, but also as the first spiritual act.

This makes sense logically to me because before the Physical world existed, what existed? I would say the Spirit of God. So, if only the spirit existed, then how can anything else occupy its space?

Space has to be formed for the physical world to exist inside of it. So, the question becomes how?

For myself it is simple. The spirit must perform the first act of self sacrifice and close itself and in this closing a void is formed to allow for a space for the physical world. This void to me I would call literally nothing —but what I mean by nothing is not the non-existence of everything, because I don’t think true non-existence or absolute nothingness exists.

What it is, is Chaos———the chaos of all the natural energy. Not the spiritual energy. 

What I think is that this “nothingness” that was formed in fact is the bubbling chaotic mess of virtual particles which scientists have detected. Yes, nothingness doesn’t exist, but this in fact what nothingness is. 

What is essential to me in chapter 1, verse 1 is that we do NOT see God making or creating or even using His words to bring this CHAOS -TOHU- into existence. It already was. It just is in the very first line. WHY?

For myself it is clear, because it is the consequence of the first spiritual act. 

Everything goes from a lower energy state of random chaos into a higher energy state of non-random and ordered appearances. 

We also see the word evening also meaning Chaos in Hebrew. the Hebrew of ‘evening’ (VAYEHI EREV) and ‘morning’ (BOKER, BIKO- RET) can be understood as ‘chaos’ and ‘order’. Everything is going through a process of chaos first and then order. From invisibly into visibility. 

Bara is the spiritual act. BUT, in a sense it is nothingness too! Just not as you and most people think of it. When we say nothingness, and I think when God creates from nothingness, what that means is in fact from NO THINGS. Which means it is spiritual, it is unseen, it is not natural.

The other way to create is by using things, or information. So Nothingness in this sense, is a physical nothingness, thus spiritual. I see this in a similar way to Rabbi Ramban. However, he does not make the distinction between the NoThing of the Spiritual and the physical nothingness as essentially the natural energy of everything -just in its most broken down fundamental form. But to me this is very much what nothing is. All the natural energy broken down into its most simple form. 

So this to me is the major difference between Bara and Asah. To create is to create something new, original and with spiritual significance. It is to form from nothing, because the spirit is NO THING. However, when we start seeing things, the natural, the physical is when we see ASAH appear. This is because to make things, you need things/information.  (Look at Information Theory). 

Things are built from Simple to Complex. From Random to Non-Random. From Physical Nothing (which is a chaos of virtual particles) into Something. This is the process.  

When you run into No Thing, you also find the Spirit.

How I see it:

The way I see Genesis 1 is that yes it was a story written at a certain time from people interpreting their world around them, and likely during the time where waters from floods (ice caps melting and coastal waters) receded. They were explaining how their world came to be, from an OBSERVATIONAL point of view. 

But I think they not only looked at the Earth, but also looked into the sky. What they saw would have been “waters above” different from waters below. The sky above is blue and water -rain- falls from it. This, to me, shows the people could have easily have considered it “the waters above” and this is why it is mentioned in Day 2. 

When we look up into the sky and the sun descends, we then see space- darkness and stars or light— for myself this easily could have been what was referred to In Day 1.

So, for myself, it is very likely that the people were in fact contemplating the above- the darkness, the waters above them, and this became part of that “creation story” as they experienced the floods. 

However- The text is like a seed, and the people who wrote it planted the seed, but as time continued, that seed grew and as people gained in knowledge they can see the seed unfolding as well and harvest it. 

The ideas that differ from a concrete observational understanding are not new. They can be found not only with rabbis of 500 years ago, but within the Talmud itself from 1500 years ago. Orally much longer. This shows that well educated men who know their language, religion and culture well thought differently about it as well. Also- this shows that it is not modern science influencing these ideas. Many of these ideas existed prior to modern science.

Further, we have various interpretations from Rabbis, not just one. This is because the Hebrew words are not so absolute, they allow for diverse opinion and thought. 

Personally, I think the Genesis 1 was also inspired by the Spirit to reveal future truths as well as past truths, and so Hebrew is a good language to allow for this because of its ability to expand. 

However- I also feel spiritual truths are shared in other religions as well. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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.)