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

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

It is all ONE and God is everything and NoThing

Below is all about ONE;)

What appeals to me most about this quote is that it was written in 1287. Moses De Leon (who also wrote the Zohar) wrote this, along with some other interesting words.  Stay with me...

"God is unified Oneness. One without two, inestimable. Genuine divine essence engenders the existence of all of creation. The sublime, inner essences secretly constitute a chain linking everything from the highest to the lowest, extending from the upper pool to the edge of the universe. There is nothing-not even the finest thing-that is not fastened to the links of this chain. Everything is linked in its mystery, caught in its oneness. God is one, God's secret is one, all the worlds below and above are mysteriously one. Divine existence is indivisibleThe entire chain is one. Down to the last link, everything linked with everything else, so divine essence is below as wells above, in heaven and on Earth. There is nothing else."

He also said, "Everything is mysteriously one and there is nothing not connected to this chain."

What is more interesting is that everything in modern day science is more and more pointing to that exact point, that everything is really one.

When we examine the biggest -Biology, we see evolution shows us everything is one, down to the finest creature, even on the microscopic scale...linked, and there is nothing that is not linked, not related.

When we examine something smaller- Physics, we find that everything is also made up of the same stuff, all linked, from living to non-living. We are all connected through the matter that makes up our physical forms.

When we examine the smallest-Quantum Physics, we find physicists saying very similar things.

"The whole is in every part." 

You would think that the whole would be made up of parts and a part can be taken out of the whole, but it doesn't work like that in nature. In every part Is the Whole. You can't break it up into smaller parts. It is more like a web. 

"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." -Erwin Shrodinger (I think his cat agrees.)

"Quantum physics thus...shows us that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated "building blocks" but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between various parts of the whole." -Fritjof Copra

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." -Sir James Jeans

When we even look at Time, one of our greatest scientific minds namely Einstein tells us that that the past, present, and future are all one. "Time separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion , although a convincing one."

Many physicists are embracing a once ridiculed notion of timelessness.

In Literature we can find John Steinbeck telling us..."all things are one thing and that one thing is all things. Plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time."

In Music of course we have Bono. "We are One, but we're not the same. We get to carry each other, carry each other. One love. ;)  

So, then that only leaves consciousness... and as scientists try to unravel the mysteries of consciousness I bet they may very well come to the same conclusions. It is one. 

And maybe that is why Schrodinger's Cat and other quantum experiments like the double slit lead us to contemplate whether our observation really does effect the outcome of the observation itself. But how is where we stumble up.

If consciousness is really one as well, entangled with everything else like a web, just like everything else is a web...then simply observing would effect the outcome of the observation...because consciousness, though an immaterial thing, would be pulling on one of those strings inside the web--changing it.  

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 anempty 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). 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The Tree of Life and Darwin

The Tree of Life in the Genesis account reveals an eternal life or inner life. 

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. 

Layers to Reality. How many do you think there are?

I tend to think there are many layers to reality.

I would say the one we dwell in and experience most is the Physical Visible layer. However there is a Physical Invisible layer underneath this layer which includes molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles, virtual particles.

Underneath this layer I think there is a Spiritual Visible layer and underneath this the Spiritual Invisible layer.

Above the Physical I think there is a Conscious Visible and then a Conscious Invisible layer.

Above the Conscious Invisible layer I think there is a Soul Visible Layer.

7 layers in total.

Sometimes consciousness experiences the other layers and sometimes not.

Soul Visible Layer———————-immaterial
Conscious Invisible Layer———immaterial
Conscious Visible Layer———immaterial wrapped in material
Physical Visible Layer————-immaterial wrapped in material
Physical Invisible Layer———immaterial
Spiritual Visible Layer——-immaterial wrapped in material
Spiritual Invisible Layer——immaterial

I think that reality is born out of the absence of (random/chaos/darkness) and existence of (non-random/order/light) the Spiritual Invisible Layer, and gushes outward like a geyser gushing of water forming all the other layers.

*Because of the absence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it closed) the random/chaotic/dark physical world emerged and is an EXTERNAL quality. This is the illusion of Separateness, externally.

*But because of the existence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it opened) non-random harmony/order/light manifested within the physical. An INTERNALquality. This is the truth of Oneness, internally.

I think the Spiritual Invisible Layer closes and opens like breathing.

I think that the spirit existed prior to all the other layers. However the soul exists because of the consciousness layer. The Soul Visible Layer then circles back around to the bottom or the Spiritual Invisible Layer, where it once again becomes invisible and unites again with the spirit.

For myself, highest consciousness like that of a human (scientists say biological life can not become any smarter than we are now based on the fact of energy needs) can connect to the Spiritual Invisible Layer and in that sense we also have a Spirit (umbilical cord) to the One.

All animals (consciousnesses) in my view have a soul, however only humans have a spirit.

This reality is then linear and circular.

Consciousness Visible is the layer where we see the brain and the actions and words of a living animal. The Consciousness Invisible is the harder problem, the energy/image formed from the brain’s chemistry/electricity/memory/experiences/choices…which in my view form the Soul.

The Soul Visible layer is where we find ghosts. But they always return to the Spiritual Invisible layer.

The Spiritual Invisible layer is where everything is ONE, the grand mystery. To where everything returns and gushes. This is "God". This is the "System of Energies", which I think has ethical values embedded into the very fabric of being. This is more of a pantheistic view of things.

However, the Spiritual Visible layer is where we might see “God”, or a “prophet” or “an Angel” or “Messiah” or a Miracle. It is the manifestation closest to the Oneness and therefore most truthful, most loving, most hopeful.

Because the soul manifests from the consciousness which manifests from the physical, our own soul is trapped in this physical world for as long as we live and therefore can become disillusioned, weary and deceived or denied. The soul is our horizontal walk where as the spirit is the vertical walk, direct contact to the Oneness.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

In answer to a blogger's question of why Genesis has stars, sun made after the Earth

Because this blogger rejected my comment to leave on his post in answer to this guy's question, I have posted it here instead. Apparently, to most Christians my ideas are still witchcraft and I shall be burned at he stake.

zuma August 4, 2013 at 8:48 am
Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.
In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.
The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:
a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.
b)The creation of sun:
According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.
As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.
c)The creation of stars:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.
As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.
The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.
How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

I think Christians come in three groups. One is the group where they take the moral teaches, but don't read many passages literally. The other group takes the moral teachings and the passages literally superficially (which is what you have done above). The other group takes the moral lessons and the passages literally with deeper understanding.

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 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

Where did our numerical symbols come from?

Does anyone else find the symbol of numbers fascinating?

The shape of the zero was very clever indeed. When you draw 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)

How did Morality happen?

Morality is not absolute in detail because it is not the same for all living things. We see morality altering from species to species in how they behave. But, some kind of morality evolved to sustain life.

It may be an absolute part of a conscious being, but varies in its detail.

Can energy achieve higher order without life? without consciousness? without morality?

Was morality an accident that let us survive? or was it inevitable so that we would survive, into higher consciousness... so that energy could reach fuller entropy? 

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

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.)