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

How is God Nothing? What is all this talk in about Nothing?

I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say God is everything and nothing.

When one says nothing, often what people think of immediately is when you close your eyes and there is nothing there, complete non-existence. When I say God made everything out of nothing (one might think complete non-existence and as discussed with Ryan once in the details of the Hebrew language that I remember, creation was not made from nothing --as in what people typically think of when one says nothing.

However- my nothing is very different. So, let me explain. 

#1- There is nothing which is of no information. Absolute non-existence. Personally, my view is that this quality is never so, meaning that something is always in existence. 

#2-There is something, which has some information. That is where we exist. EVERYTHING we know is at this level of something, anything really.    (This is what I think Asah in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

#3-Then there is NoThing which is infinite (unlimited) information. This is eternal existence (because existence must alway be, it never is not), this is what I mean when I might say God is everything and nothing. God is infinite information. But this does not make God a Thing. (This is what I think Bara in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

For God to be a Thing, God would have to reside in the #2 level of something. But God is not something. God is everything and nothing. (#2 and #3)

However that does not make the inverse true. Everything is not God. Because Everything is a finite number, and God is an Infinite One. Everything we can describe and measure and quantify. It is Something, it could have been anything.

However even if you have a zillion bits of information of comparison to an infinite source of information, that tells us very little about what/who it is, because really we are only seeing the fingerprints--not the one who made them.

It tells us some things, but then it really tells us nothing. 

I would say God does not exist. God is existence.  Nothing (#1) would exist without God. We exist, because we are something.  I think it is a very important distinction to understand, for myself anyway. God is not a separate quality, distinct from everything else, but is everything. Understanding God is also NoThing, #3 is also very important in my view as well, because God is out of the bounds of description and definition. 

In researching more about quantum physics, learning more about how 'nothing' in nature works is also very interesting. 

What is also interesting is that in physics they have determined that despite what Stephen Hawking thought to be true, that information would be destroyed into nothing (#1) in the black hole,  is in fact not correct and that information is not destroyed. Information is not destroyed. That is a very significant aspect of nature. Nature doesn't allow information to be destroyed into nothing (#1).

 Because nothing (#1) never happens.

In nature, we see that in quantum physics the popping of 'virtual particles' which we understand to be more like a fluctuating wave are ally popping, they never just stop, they never just let nothing (#1) be, they always pop to try to become something. Virtual particles are almost here, but not quite yet. On the other side of our something, our not nothing (#1), but NoThing (#3).

It takes far more energy for nothing to exist in our level of existence than for our something to exist. Did you know that? It is true, scientifically. Nothing works very hard to keep itself hidden from our existence. 

That tells us that whatever this nothing is, it has an extremely high level of energy. It is not nothing (#1) of no information. Since, we see that even black holes do not destroy information. That question is resolved. 

Energy may very well be the simplest form of information and as we know, information is not destroyed. So, this nothing from which the virtual particles pop seems more to me like nothing (#3) of infinite information. But as they bind with other particles and conform to this existence and become one with this existence, drawing itself into our existence, they then become something, anything. 

But then they are no longer in the infinite, they are in the finite. But they are still "fastened to the infinite-to the chain above as well as below." 

Articles like this are fun, but the problem with them is that they always like to say "we got something from nothing." However defining this nothing seems to be the issue. 

If it really is nothing, then the empty box would be just that an empty box. That is nothing (#1). 

But it never is an empty box, it is always popping and spewing with virtual particles of extremely high energies. When time is shorter and shorter, meaning the closer we get to no time...the energy levels get higher and higher. Extremely high. They have done this again and again. We can infer that in no time, the energy would be infinite, but we don't know this. I think it is though. 

This popping energy is energy, not nothing. It is information, not nothing. At least not in the sense that people are accustomed to thinking of nothing and not in the sense that articles like this always use the term nothing, without defining it. 

Now, mathematically I've heard that since the particles annihilate each other, a positive and a negative, they equate to zero. While mathematically that is, in my view, should not be erroneously equated to be nothing (#1). Zero and infinity have a very interesting relationship. And zero is not nothing, it is a number that helps us to understand what is happening. 

I think this is a injustice, because when people read articles like this they think of nothing (#1), and I don't think that is correct. It is nothing (#3). 

I see Nothing as eternal.

I agree virtual particles pop in and out of existence from this nothingness under HUP.

(My speculative view) --From this nothingness everything evolved (though we don't have all the details of how yet). From a single pop, Space-Time was formed and thus so was Dark Energy, Higgs Field, and Gravity. (DE is a property of G and G is curvature of ST. Higgs is what happened when particles separated in inflation over space.)

I think there are many other universes and many of them did not succeed.

If one says quantum fluctuations are eternal (As I've heard Krauss say), I would say they are  a result of nothingness -or the absence of everything. This 'absence' is very unstable. Therefore, really what is eternal is nothingness, but it can never stay nothing. However as I understand nothing is in fact very dynamic, powerful, possibly infinite energy, full of potential. I don't see it as a blank slate but as a child comes to the world with his specific potential already, evolving into his does nothingness. 

If one says multiverse is eternal, I'd say our evidence shows us that our own universe evolved, had a beginning and so it seems likely that other universes did too and that the universe itself is not eternal, the multiverse is not eternal, it is the byproduct of the eternal nothingness.

I would agree that HUP is interesting and important in two vital aspects.

One, it shows us we can never fully see the true nature of this energy that is the most fundamental form of reality. We can know the momentum or location, but not both. Like an electric glass ball that we touch with our finger, we can only see that which we observe and in the process change its true a nature, while the rest of this energy remains hidden.

Second, the higher the energy level of the virtual particles, the shorter its life and because of this these virtual particles never violate the laws of energy conservation. Additionally, we can see how much energy these virtual particles have by the mass they carry when they interfere with our fields. Mass of atoms are 99% empty space, so modern physics shows us. This mass is from the virtual particles.

This tells me that nothing-where virtual particles are popping in and out of existence- has a very high energy, more energy than our somethings. Additionally, we are not even seeing or experiencing the full nature of this very high energy.

What we do know of this energy is that it is seemingly illimitable, because it pops out of nothing and can form everything we have in existence. It is seemingly infinite, because virtual particles draw from this source of nothingness time and time again at various high levels of energy and can theoretically take as much energy as they want out of this nothingness as long as it is returned within a short time-short enough that our reality doesn't notice.

How does the universe get this energy? How does nothingness get this energy? It would seem it is a default of the universe itself. 

If we apply quantum mechanics to Space-Time and it warps into a gravity field (As some physicists have implied) or disappears, then we no longer have limits. Energy would seem to have become infinite (As some other physicists seem have implied).

So, this all seems like this this nothingness is eternal, infinite and illimitable. I would agree.

I would differ from atheists in that I would say this infinite, illimitable and eternal energy is in fact a spirit. This spirit, is in fact, the most simple and most fundamental form of reality. I would say "God" is not a complex thing at all. In fact complexity adds limits --we see this in nature! Simplicity eliminates limits. We see this by observing and understanding better the electron, virtual particles and the nature of nothingness --empty space.

But this nothingness is not as simple as nothing. It is No Thing and yet Every Thing. It is both zero and infinite. It is a paradox.

Or in the words of Albert Einstein, "My religion consist of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

Of course, our universe now consists of the Higgs field and so our empty spaces are never truly empty because the field is always there. But having Higgs means we have our universe as it is, and it also means we can see the mass of these virtual particles, which show us how much energy nothingness actually has --which is --as it turns out--more than anything else.

Gravity is always there as the curvature of Space-Time, I would say as well. But, in the early universe Higgs was off, and so we just had nothingness (or the void to quote Genesis).

As Space-Time expanded in inflation, I would say curvature of Space-Time took effect and Higgs evolved and turned on.

To use Genesis...we can see this is not in contradiction either, because the very first thing we see after the first sentence in 1:1 is VOID. Next we see DARKNESS. Then we see WATERS. Then LIGHT. Then Division. This is practically what happens in the modern science version as well. 

"Genesis 1 is written such that a child could understand creation easily in pictorial form, such that a genius could spend his life studying it in all its depth, such that the superficial would miss it entirely." -Ami Blackwelder 

To use Genesis 1:1 in parallel to modern science:

VOID-Nothingness or a chaos of virtual particles

DARKNESS-Dark Energy

WATERS- Higgs on -Gives particles mass (except photon)

LIGHT- Particles are all identifiable now. Differentiating masses gives them a kind of identity. They are now visible. 

DIVIDE Light from Darkness- Inflation and Gravity do this

So, how does the spirit fit in? How is this not contrary to Genesis?

Because the infinite, illimitable eternal -therefore all encompassing- energy had to close itself for anything else to exist. This is only logical for anything other than itself to exist. This was the first act of self-sacrifice. This was the first act of creation. This was a spiritual act.

This is also the first line of Genesis.

Genesis uses Bara in the Hebrew whenever we see create in the Bible/Torah. This is used for three purposes only.

We see this word in the very first sentence of Genesis, when the spirit closed itself to create everything else.

We see this at the first appearance of animal life (they are given the soul) and we see this at the first appearance of mankind/Homo Sapiens (they are given the spirit).

This is because there are three spiritual acts of creation. EVERYTHING else is physical!

The physical creation can be seen with the use of ASAH which is translated -made- in the English and we see physical/natural creations when God says, Let There Be... Both of those are physical creations, what we can see and measure and what would be called natural.

SCIENCE cannot see BARA. The study of the natural world will never see the spiritual. It cannot be measured by natural means, at least not as science currently is.

But Science can see the ASAH and the Let There Be.

This is why science can see all the way up to the end of the very first sentence of Genesis. But science can't see the first sentence of Genesis. They end with the void. Which is why nothing is all they see. But the first sentence shows us something very vital! 

This is the very first part in understanding that Genesis doesn't contradict science, and in fact embraces it.

As we progress through the rest of the chapters and verses in THE ANCIENT GENESIS you will come to see how the rest of science -namely cosmological and biological evolution - do not contradict scripture either.

Every THING is natural. The only unnatural things are not things at all. They are spiritual.

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.)