The fact that light propagates through vacuume as a wave is a sturning evidence that there is more in the vacuume than it meet the eye. Nature did not leave us to merely fantasise about spiritual realms because we want them to be there. It left us with convincing evidences that apeals to the mind. The mediator of noncontact forces of nature being the towering ones.But when physicists tried to understand light in terms of undulations in an interveining medium, they encountered a seemingly unsurmountable barriers. One of them is that light displays transverse like properties demanding that the interveining medium be a solid of orders stiffer than steel! This seems ridiculus to the physicists of the 19th centuary. How can objects move through such without generating sparks? Or better yet, how can motion be possible at all if we are welded to such a medium?However, even though physicists now understand that the 19th centuary conception of 'solid' as a continuous impenetrable was flawed, they turn upside down and use the flawed agurment to argue against the 'solid' aether. Ask yourself this way: if steel is 99.999999% empty, what is it that makes it impenetrable? The answer is 'empty space'! So yes, 'emptiness' can misbehave and pretend to be a solid!! Actually, 'solid' is not SOMETHING. It is SOMEBEHAVIOR. Solid is not how something IS. It is how something BEHAVES!The intrinsic property of aether can be taken to be only elasticity and the ability to fill space so that no other stuff can ocupy that place. However, aether is highly light and densless. Fundamentally, it hardly prevent anything from moving freely through it. Solidity is an illusion created due to tricks performed in the aether.RELATIVE SOLIDITYSo then if 'solid' is more of what an hammer does to your nose than what it is in itself, we can easily intuite a selective way in which the solidity behavior can be realised. If I do A to something, it doesn't mean that I will do it to everything. Solidity will only be relative. You can even use the electricity. Electric current find it hard to pass through air and yet it ease through steel. To electrons, air is harder than steel! It is the insight of electrical conductivity that we will use to explain how day to day objects ease past through aether which appears solide to the electromagnetic waves. All matter is composed of negative and positive charges. Matter is electric in nature. So the principles of electric conductions works as it ease through aether.From here, I use hydrodynamic analogy to explain electrostatic forces, which are responsible for creating solidity. Actually, it is simpler than you can think. If two objects, A and B, mediated by air vibrates coherently, longitudinal waves will emanate from both A and B and radiate in all directions. The waves from A, moving towards B will chase the waves from B moving away from A, never catching them. Same applies to the waves from B moving towards A. However, the waves from A, moving towards B will indead catch waves from B moving towards A. The waves will add up so that the waves in between A and B are of higher amplitude than the waves outside. This creates a repulsive force between A and B. However, If A and B vibrates out of phase with each other, the waves between A and B will cancel each other, creating an attractive force between A and B.So there are two ways in which another set of such vibrating objects, C and D can easily behave like electric charges to themselves while they are not feeling the forces of A and B.a)The waves of C and D can vibrate out of phase with those of A and B but not exactly 180 degrees out of phase.b) C and D can simply vibrate at another frequency other than that of A and B.MECHANICAL SPIRITUAL REALM!Many are farmiliar with the idea that layers of spiritual realms are seperated from each other by levels of vibrations. But here I have explained in details why it is so. The idea is that another reality should easily pass through the spaces in between our objects and that it should not interact with our photons. To do that, that other reality simply has not to interact with our electrostatic forces yet should have its own electrostatic forces. It is a quite simple trick though that can even be understood MECHANICALY!
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 29, 2015 at 5:00pm
When you ask a modern biologist to define the word life, he describes a leaving thing. That is to say he whinks to you the meaning of the word. Or in short, he does not take the definition that seriously. Perhars we should not. It seems obvious what a leaving thing is? May be it is because you were indoctrinated to identify some things as leaving things and others as non leaving things. Maybe everything is the same when we zoom in the lense.What drives me to seek a definition of the word 'leaving' is my worry that we may be mising the true essence of what we call 'leaving thing'. So I ask how you say of a leaving in a simple sentence. I will summarise it in a sentence:LEAVING THING: Anything that can, by its own volition, take energy from its surrounding and use it at its own pace.This is the true essence of what we call a leaving thing. This means that to leave is just to take in energy and using it at own's pase. Complexity is not the essence of life, rather it is a means of sustaining life in a chaotic enviroment. Reproduction is not the essence of life. It is a means of continuing life. Locomovion is not what a leaving thin IS. It is what it DOES.Such definitions are good as it creats a notion of 'measure'. Rather than seeing the question of life as a black and white issue, we can think of the measure of life in an object. How alife is a crystal? How alife is a man? A rock? Etc. A magnet is more alife than a rock etc. A demagnetised magnet is less alife than a magnetised one, or if you like, the latter is more awake etcQ: What is the gist of using energy at own pace?A:AmplificationThe amplification is the process by which lesser power is used to control the flow of more powerfull energy. This is a characteristic of leaving things and infact, this is what it means to leave: to switch on and off various energy pumps. We can picture a fractal scenario. The lesser power in turn is controled by even lesser power and so on ad infinitum. You can define 'own's volution' as the limiting control as the ultimate energy neaded to switch the chain reactions tend to zero. This is to say from without, it appears as though the switching of energy is ultimately causeless!It may be challenging to regonise a rundimentary amplifier. However, infact in physics, a chaotic system can be seen as an amplifier. Such is how a flapping butterfly in Japan can create tornadoes in America! Moreover the equation that measures chaos is closely similar to that of modelling fractals. It involves the natural logarithm. But can it realy be said that the chaotic amplification is due to smaller energy somehow controlling bigger energy? Maybe yes. I can only illustrate to you that it is possible. Then in an infinite chain of causes like we saw above, we can eventualy blame the unpredictability of a chaotic system on the existence of own volitions in the system and hence life!To illustrate a very rundimentary amplification, consider a river flowing. Up there on the hill, there is a huge stone. The stone is about to role down to the river. However, a smaller stone is preventing it. The smaller stone in turn is prevented from rolling away by some heep of sand that can be easily blown by wind. So the wind blowing the sand will swith chain reaction. Eventually, the huge rock will role down blocking the river, controlling a huge power that is driving the water. With a matter of brainstorming or carefull exerminations, I hope you will notice such amplifications in nature and that smaller power controlling a series of larger power in a fractal manner is indead the true cause of chaos. Then because the formular for chaos involves something tending to zero as another tends to infinity, we can indead say that there is an owns volition control of energy usage pace in a chaotic system.
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 24, 2015 at 1:00pm
Q:Are we the mind or the matter?A:Never mind, it doesn't matter.The material vs spiritual dichotomy is so deep rooted in spirituality that people nolonger have the faintest clue how it all started. Originaly, man wondered if other things as angels, gods, demons etc exist. However, they could not figure out how these things can be invisible. So they choose to just say 'it is not matter'. So originally, narture be rather divided between the 'seen' and the 'unseen'. 'Spiritual' vs 'material' are redundant misnormers. The use of the word 'spirit' is pretence that one knows what he is talking of. When pressed against the wall, he just says 'immaterial'. Negating something you know as in 'material' does not constitute knowing something else as in 'spirit'. Broadly, nature is simply divided into somethingness and nothingness and 'nothingness' does NOT mean the 'unseen'.The battle ground soon shifted to whether we are 'spiritual' or 'mechanical'. Actually, it should realy not matter at all what we are. It only matter as long as we can't figure out what will happen to us when we die. People can of course see that our bodies will eventualy rot and if we are the body, so they think, we rot alongside the body. So people develops some antagonism to the idea that we are matter. The 'matter phobia' gets rooted till we nolonger remember at all why in the first place we wanted to say 'we are not matter'.It is worth saying that it is not the matter per-se that is the problem. Rather, it is our IDEAS about it that is at the heart of the problem. It is the baseless idea that matter rots, is inert, dead, devoid of freewill, mortal, dull, seperate, ugly, solid, always seen, mortal, lacks rich inner world etc that are the problems. If someone does not hold these beleifs about matter, he absolutely needs not be intimidated to buy into the idea that we are 'imaterial' or 'matter is illusion' and other nonsense. To beleive that I won't realy die, I just need to buy into the idea that my true essence is UNSEEN. Whatever it ACTUALY is or is not is quite irelevant.CONSCIOUSNESSI beleive that consciousness is a state of something and not a thing per-se. As long as I am aware in this world, my consciousness is a state of my brain. It is on the same par with the shape, the color, the test etc. Consciousness is not CAUSED by the brain anymore than the billiard ball causes its own shape. Both of them are/ were caused by nature and/or God. Nevertheless, without the ball, there would be nothing to be spherical. Similarly, without the brain, there is temporarily nothing to be conscious. Like the fact that there is not only one ball that can be spherical but rather ANY matter can be turned spherical, it is not my brain alone that can give rise to my awareness.So you may see that I beleive in a possibility of reincarnation and walkins but in a completely abstract sense. There is nothing necesarily tangible 'incarnating' at all. I am already there hidden in all things. I only need to 'wake up' accordingly. my awareness is not something of any sort. Rather, it is a PROPERTY of something. So I need not to worry about it ceasing to exist. It already does not exist!! But I am aware!KNOWLEDGE OF MATTER IMPROVEDIt is ironic that people seek for scientific proofs of spiritual realms while at the same time denying anything scientific as to have any bearing on spiritual realms! This absurd state is caused by 'scientism'. Over the years, scientists, skeptics and atheists have tried to use science to undermine beleives in unseen realms. The stereotype that if it is a science fact, it can't underpin spirituality has so much grown roots even among the spiritual that even if science ends up discovering spirits, they will deny it! I hereby show that infact this is happening before our very eyes!When you ask such questions as what causes the ocean tides, many take the explanation that it is the moon to mean that science is doing away with 'magical thinking'. However, few people go ahead to wonder where the moon get this amazing power from. Then they realise that things turtles all the way down. While the word 'explain' is like a chewing gum in the mouth of modern scientist, he actually doesn't explain anything. He does not seek understanding. Modern science is not about a search to understand the world. It is about making and unmaking beleifs.Modern physicist has long declared that the world is not amenable to reasoning. Is it so? Absolutely not!! It does not conform to what he want it to be: simple machinelike entity that can easily happen to be there by pure chance. Modern scientist does not seek understanding. He seeks to REDUCE everything to simple blind rules. He is deluded that this constitutes understanding. What if we do away with the idea that nature is fundamentally simple and chances driven and brainstorm even 'unlikely' models? Alas! Nature begine to make sense!At the beginning of the past centuary, physicists discovered several problems in the earlier physics. This paved way for quantum mechanics. At the heart of the problem is what you are never told. The subatomic world did not work by pure chances driven by blind forces. It moved to statistically unlikely state. Thermodynamics could not explain it and quantum mechanics are time reversable dynamics that involves a quantum field. A PHOTON in a 'quantum ocean' can be understood if you simply discard the second law of thermodynamics in such an ocean. This cannot be understood in terms of blind forces. Invorking intelligence in the fundamentals seems not an option. They opt to tell you that the quantum world is not ameanable to human reasoning! It IS, if we discard ALL preconceptions of what the world ought to be like! We came to this world not knowing anything. It is mind bogling where people get the idea of what is 'likely' or 'unlikely' in this world. Claiming that it is unlikely that to find a guitar on mars is an highly presumptuos. Part of the question is; is there no life in mars? Must we explain everything using CHANCES? If not, the 'unlikely' criteria of rulling out explanations have no place whatsoever.
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 23, 2015 at 8:30am
One of the most daunting claims made by modern mathematical physicists is that they can infer the existence of dimensions more than the 3 by taking measurements while stuck in the 3d so call manifold. Many people fall into the temptation due to the desire to find a place to hid god, angels, demons and santas to the extend that they never bother to check if the breath taking claims by the mathematicians conduct electricity. Does it even make sense? What if someone tells you that he is going to prove to you that devil is inside your shoe polish can. Surely, before you open the can, he must first tell you how the devil look. What if he says that he can't even imagine the devil? What is he going to prove by opening the can? Allright you have gotten, he will not be knowing what the hell he is doing!GEOMETRY IS NOT MATHEMATICSIt all begun when mathematicians cheated themselves that geometry is mathematics. In other words, geometry is NOT a purely 'HOW MUCH' issue. It has a very meaningfull 'WHAT IS' issue that falls outside the juridiction of pure mathematics. A mathematician will want to understand PARRALEL LINES as lines that never meet no matter how far they extend. He is trying to answer a 'WHAT IS' question with an 'HOW FAR' answer! He is not trying to simple contemplate on WHAT parallel lines are. He is busy wondering how far he will get with his neverending tape measure before he conclude that the two lines are indead parallel, sidestepping the MEANING of parallel lines! Mathematician is an idiot when it comes to a 'WHAT'. He is not interested with what things are. He is just interested with how big they are!No matter how sharp your pencil is, how smooth your paper is, how white it is, lines, triangles, dots etc are THINGS and not mere abstract concepts. a line is a SOLID. It is not 1d. It is a genuine 3d OBJECT. Geometry is PHYSICS, an empirical science done by OBSERVATION. The only way to define parallel ines, straight ones, triangles, perpendicular lines etc is to SHOW them! No words or equations can adequately express these concepts. Therefore a flat lander traped in a 2d tissue paper trying to INFER 3d is a meaningless idea.An equation of the form s^2=x^2 y^2 does not mean that s,x and y are sides of a triangle a right angled triangle! The only way to determine the othorgonality of s,x and y is to look at the triangle! Yet this is the only reason Minkowsky ends up claiming that time is a fourth dimension!To add insult to injury, mathematician ends up thinking that an equation of the form z=Ax^2 By^2 necesarily describe a curved surface so that z must be a fourth dimension relative to x and y!ALTERNATIVE TO FLAT LANDERIt is at this point where I step in to introduce another way of understanding a curved space. This is designed to show that it is impossible for a flat lander to conclusively infer a third axis while trapped in 2d. And then of course all the modern physics speculations of 'multidimensional reality' goes on its way to dustpin!At the centre of a piece of paper, draw a series of equaly spaced concentric circles. Then draw a cartecian grid whose origin is that concenter of those circles. If z is the radius of an abitrary concentric circle, it is possible to have an equation of the form z=Ax2 By2 by simply chosing an apropriate values of A,B, x and y. The gist of my argument is that since the flat lander cannot imagine the z axis, he can as well conclude that the information supposedly containg the curvarture of the piece of paper(A&B) rather shows how lines are related to each other within the flat piece of paper!It is even far more apt in general relativity because I can take z as the unknown length of a ruler under no gravity (in free space), x is the length of the same ruler placed horizontaly near a gravitating object (so the length contracts) and y is the length of the same ruler placed vertically. So the relation dz/dx gives the relativist length contraction etc and A=D^z/dx^2 and B=D^2z/dy^2 contains information about curvature of the manifold which you have now seen that it is just rates at which lenghts in various orientations are contracted to the second derivative. Einstein's field equations is just about relating such values as A and B to the mass and the energy of gravitating objects.FLAT LANDER IN THE BALOONThis is truely curious case where the flat lange head straight bearing neither to the left nor to the right only to land at the very place he started! Will the flat lander still not conclude that he leaves traped on the surface of the cylinder? The answer is 'no' simply because relativity brings ambiguity as to what 'bearing neighther to the left nor right' supposed to mean.To illustrat it, consider consider a sun with several planets orbiting aroun it. Let the farther away the planet, the faster it revolves around the sun. So we have our 'flat lander' doing geometry on the the space he is moving past. Remember that in relativity, the faster we move, the more the length contracts. So as we move farther and farther from the sun, we eventually hit at the one revolving around the sun at the speed of light. What would be the circumfrence of its orbit as measured by the 'bed bug' in that planet? Allright, it will be zero! So it realy doesn't matter if the the flatlander uwittingly moved around all the way to the other end since any such distance amounts to zero in his frame of referance. So he can still amuse himself that he is bearing neither to the left nor to the right but voila! He is comming from the other end of the cosmos!!
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 22, 2015 at 5:00am
Many reasonable people reject the idea of soul on the basis of interaction issue. So this issue is worth addresing by the proponents of soul. However, it can be tricky to notice that it is a rerious problem not only for a soul idea but for any idea of leaving in a world that is beyond the five common sense. So let me outline the problem. The soul must enjoy a realy peculiar property. It must both be able to interact with the world and not be able to interact with it all at once! So the soul proponent just has to dat back and forth amongst these ireconcillable propositions whenever it suits him! For the purposes of not beeing detected in the laboratory, it must not be able to interact with matter in the usual sense, in this case photons. However for the purposes of animating our brains, it must be able to interact with electrodynamics and as far as we understand physics, electrodynamics interaction implies interaction with photons. This is just too much a convinience to be true.One red herring thrown by soul proponents is the joker card, ah! It is beyond rational mind. You can as well go gulp some beer instead of thinking about it. When you see the pink elephant, you will surely beleive in souls. Unfortunately, this 'understanding' issue is a red herring. Neither do we understand almost everything we see around. Even matter is beyond rationality. What we seek is for an idea to be at least CONSISTENT with facts. Not necesarily to understand it completely. Physicists donnot either understand nor see quantum entanglement. But a theory can be formed that shows it to be compartible with facts. Physicists did not galp a beer to convince themselves of quantum entanglement etc. They know better.WHY IS SOUL INVISIBLE?To the skeptic, this is just a convinent ad-oc from the proponents. To make it look a little bit credible, we got to compromise some things abit. An entity that will penetrate walls will automatically be invisible, as far as we understand physics. In case a soul need to travel superluminary to other galaxies, it must be able to penetrate through walls!What else? If it cannot interact with matter, then it cannot be damaged by matter.Another reason is carmaoflage. We see that leaving things like to mimick the color of their surrounding. They like making themselves as invisible as possiple. So it just makes sense to say that the beings leaving in a colorless surounding, such as aether, would like to make themselvs colorless! If you still don't beleive me, consider JELLY FISH. Only in water do we find a transparent animal because water itself is transparent!Such is the prototype of 'explaining soul'. We should show that such is how the world like behaving. Or rather, narture cannot fail to have the idea of soul at all!NEW BIRTHThe process of forming the soul may be very similar to the process of forming proteins from the RNA. If you donnot like the idea of a created soul, you can think the vice-versa; the process of forming the body using the divine blue prints from the supernatural realms. What I want to show, the interface between the seen and the unseen worlds, works in both directions.Having formed the soul (or the body if you like), it should have a way of detaching itself off the body. To do so, it needs to swith off its capability of binding to the body. This explains why a disembodies soul can't interact with matter.PHYSICS OF INVISIBILITYIn modern physics, we understand that an object is invisible, untouchable, untestable etc if it simply donnot interact with photons. Objects donnot interact with photons in turn if it is electrically neutral. So contrary to how you may think, objects manifest the all properties we know of because of electric charge and not say mass.As charge is more of what something DOES than what it IS, how something can cross over to the unseen worlds becomes quite understandable in physics. It simply need to 'discharge' away! The good example of such a thing in physics is neutrino. This is a typical physics ghost. For instance, it is capeable of penetrating through light years thick lead walls! Neutrino is hardly detectable in physics.VACUUM POLARIZATIONLike I said, the process of forming soul from the body is analogous to forming proteins from RNA. What is analogous to amino acids floating around will be the matter antimatter pairs incestantly poping in and out of existence in 'vacuum'. As matter and antimatter are of oposite charges, one of the pair gets attracted to our electrons and the other gets attracted to our protons. This phenomenon is well known in physics and is termed 'vacuum polarization'. But when we close exermine vacuume polarization formed by our bodies, the polarized vacuume will thus form a perfect image of our bodies in 'vacuume' akin to how the amino acids attracted to RNA forms image of the RNA termed as protein molecule. It is this virtual body in vacuume that will condense to form a soul in the process I will illustrate below.HYDRODYNAMIC ANALOGY OF ELECTRODYNAMICSTo understand how electrostatic force might work, we think of charged bodies as to be imersed in an all pervading medium termed aether. This is an highly elastic, extreemly light fluid. In hydrodynamics, we understand that if two speres pulsate synchronously, i.e expands and contract at the same pase, then the thus generated waves would reinforce themselves between the spheres creating a repulsive force similar to Culomb's force. If two such spheres pulsate exactly out of synch, it will create attraction. Therefore vibrating objects in such an aether will perfectly mimick electrostatic forces.With this understanding, we can now easily solve the interaction problem of the soul. We understand that one other way in which charge of an object can be apparently muted is to simply alter its frequency. So the process of soul formation goes this way: the negative and positive charges in body attract charges in 'vacuume'. The thus attracted charges will themselves begine to attract each other to form a body on its own. So in biochemistry, we understand the body here as to do the job of an ENZYME in a process we term CATALYSIS. Here, it catalyses the soul formation! The vacuum charges having bind themselves, the formed body nolonger need the other body. Infact, it need to detatch itself so that the body nolonger affect it as in damaging it alongside itself. To do so, it must nolonger interact with body's electrostatic field and yet it still needs to interact with its own field. It do so by simply raising its pulsation frequency. With the above understanding of electromagnetism, with the help of hydrodynamic analogies, we know that two realms vibrating at different rates will each form its own electromagnetism and the two realms would not affect each other.
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 16, 2015 at 10:00am
In order to excellently link new teleology with time travel, it is first necesary to understand well the physic's version of 'time travel'. Physicist has redefined the word 'moments' to mean stages in some cosmic evolution. When we say 'at another time', we mean at another stage in the cosmic evolution and of course it is logically possible that such a stage can occur at any time. So such a 'time' can possible occur at any TIME. It becomes problematic as the same word 'time' is being used twice in a single sentens and ergo with inconsistent meanings. However, it need not be so because the latter 'time', as a STAGE, STATE etc, need not be taken literaly. In physics, we call the latter COORDINATE TIME and the former PROPER TIME.It is important also to understand that Einstein's theory of relativity, though it lables 'time' as a fourth dimension related to space, does not realy teach an eternalistic or block universe whence every event can be said to occur in every 'now'. However, it is perfectly consistent with an eternalistic interpratation. If however time travel is possible, then only eternalistic interpratation will be valid.Teleology is a scenario whence the USE of a thing is somehow its cause for it being there. This demands the state of its completion to somehow exist prio the thing itself. This often occur in our brains. Before you build a house, an house serving its purpose is not only somehow already existent in your brain, this reason for the house will somehow be the cause of the very house by your brain acting on your body. We say the explanation of the presence of such an house is teleologic.It is not hard to appreciate that time seems nothing but a property of our own brains. It is tempting to say that there is no past nor future at all. What we call 'past' is our memory and what we call 'future' is our plans. However, one should not think this way because our brains are actually part of the universe. The workings of our brains reflects how the universe itself work simply because the brain is a portion of the universe. Farthermore, no one can say for sure that our memory occur in our brains at all. If the memory is stored in space, the 'past' can be taken to be a state in such a space. Then we are back with an eternalistic view of the cosmos albeit with a link between 'past', which actually exist out there, and the memory. It is this stages in cosmic memory that we can 'time travel' to.In such a universe, a state of future already exists and can influence the present state. Then the present can influence the future, the present can influence the past, the past can influence the present, the past can influence the future and the future can influence the past! What does it become of the evolution theory? We disembowell it! If someone beleives in the possibility of time travel, one wonders what problems he might have with the beleif in God. Why will we need the theory of evolution? What will it explain? Before the series of accidents occur in the dirty, prebiotic soup, an already clean, finished prototype bacteria already exists in the ' 'future' like a glossy, standing by car at the end of a manufacturing line. Is it not more reasonable to say that the bacteria in the 'future' is acting as a blue print for the constraction of the bacteria in the 'past' much like the already existent DNA would act as a blue print for constraction of a new DNA? Yea, Ockam's razor favours much the latter theory.
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 15, 2015 at 8:02pm
Dawrinian evolution removes the teleology that is so evident in leaving system. In teleology, we can say that the cause of something in some way is what will come after the thing.Q:Why do you have eyes?A:So that I may see your faceThe 'seeing of your face' can come only AFTER you have had the eyes. Then it is the reason why you have eyes! Dawrinian answers the question as to why the beings that are alife have eyes by answering the question as to why the beings that donnot have eyes are not alife! Red herring? Dawrin try to explain why we are alife by what it did not happen to us and not what it happened to us! Then he explain what it happened to something else we are not realy interested with. But does he get a bear? No! When we close exermine what it DID happen to us, it is still amazing nevertheless!When we add up all what happened to you from your toe to your crown, it is still a series of bajillions of accidents that are quite incredible. Adding milleniums to this event serves nothing to make it any more plausible than it all happening in one second. The natural selection is just a smock in the arena that makes it difficult for you to see the events quite clearly. It is redundant because it is what supposedly happened to something else irrelevant but not YOU.To illustrate what I mean, lets consider an eye and 3 creatures, A,B and C. An accident happens and A aquires the lense and C aquires the iris. Then A dies due to natural selection. Another accident happens and B aquires the iris, then C is selected away. The milleniums that might pass between the events is quite irrelevant to B because there is no trial and eror being done on B. Every move is perfect. Such is exactly how God would create B if he is taking some long coffee breaks in between while playing with some other non serius toys as A and C. In making B, he is 100% flawless in every zillions of steps and it is still increadible!
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 14, 2015 at 3:53pm
"Objects are not in space, they are spatially extended as fields. Objects can only appear as a limited region of space where the field or energy density is particularly high. In this sense the concept of empty space looses its meaning." EinsteinGood, but however, perharps Einstein did not know that a closely similar conclusion can be arrived at through pure reasoning without considering any physics at all, just pure logics! Here is what I will set forth to show it to you. But as a warm up, begine by contemplating on infinite divisibility of matter. Say what? Am I going to show you that there is no genuine division of matter using the idea of infinite divisibility of matter? Yep!Genuine boundery between object is a scenario of objects that are seperated by perfect void. Here I want to discourage you from thinking of a void as a something of any sort. The premise that I am going to use is just one: there is no contradiction. But to help you, I will give it in different terms.In any region of space, it cannot be both true to say that there is an object there and also true to say that there is no object there.My reasoning is that any object has a size and therefore several portions. As you point at different portions of the object, you will say there is object here. At the exact junction where the object end and the void begines, we encounter trouble as the object would have to be both there and also absent from the region! So there is no genuine edge of objects. Rather, every object must have an 'aura' that diminishes in density slowly as we move away from the object. So where we think there are objects are rather regions of particularly high density as Einstein is saying above.INFINITE DIVISIBILITY OF MATTERWe can use similar reasoning to question the idea of FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE which is so predominant amongst physicist. Also, the following reasoning will help you incase you didn't understand the above reasoning. The idea of indivisible objects seperated by empty spaces is absurd. For an object to be indivisible, it has to be perfectly rigid. Such an object encounter problems during collition. The comming in object will have to encounter an abrubt stop when it touch the going object and the going object will have its speed instantaneously shoot from zero to its maximum velocity! This infinite ACCELERATION is as logicaly inconsistent as infinit VELOCITY. The latter tantamounts to a single object being present both at the beginning and at the end of the journey all at once! The former tantamounts to a single object moving at two different velocities all at once! Both its minimum and its maximum! The only logical conclusion is that all objects must ACCELERATE smoothly. This in turn mean that there must be a considerable period of time whence the coliding objects are in each other's domains. This mean that both objects must neither be perfectly rigid nor end suddenly in the edges. They must have 'auras' extending out smoothly.The above also mean that we are ariving at something similar to Newton's second law of motion through pure reasoning! Farthermore, if we also demand that even change in acceleration etc must all proceed smoothly, we arive at something similar to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle through pure reasoning!
Read more…
Posted by Roaring Lovely on September 12, 2015 at 6:00pm
I saw someone online raise some realy intriguing scientific theory of a soul. A soul is simply a geon. As I will elaborate below, a geon is a self sustaining gravitantional wave that is caused by the wiggling of spacetime itself. The approach is similar in spirit to my approach when I set forth to explain the light body as a vacuume polarization it the matter-antimatter potential.THE 21 ST CENTUARY APPROACHI beleive that the othordox approach to the question of afterlife have thoroughly failed to answer the question. At the heart of the problem is its insistance that we should not make a rational theory of an afterlife or a soul while at the same time seeking for a prove of one! This is very problematic as the soul proponent will be forced to offer only 'beyond understanding' non answer to all sound objections raised by the skeptics.There are a couple of things that a good scientific theory of a soul should explain. The two most important ones are:a)Why it is hard if not impossible to detect oneb)How nevertheless it should interact with matter in our bodies.The geon idea seems to explain 'a' so well. 'b' is a bit tricky and the lack of any explanation on the part of proponents is one big reason why many people reject the soul completely. Simply saying that 'it is beyond rational mind' is as stupid as claiming that the earth is flat and then saying that it is beyond our minds!GEONFrom Einstein's theory of general relativity, everything that has energy has mass. Waves has energy therefore they have mass and therefore they can gravitate. A physicist term Wheeler set forth to attempt to explain the origin of matter from pure geometry!! So in this model, we begine by empty space together with pulses in it termed gravitantional waves. It is these pulses that will attract each other due to their energy not matter, at least not particles that exist in isolation.So as long as there is energy in spacetime, the energy will gravitate together and as it get more and more dense, it creates what appears to us as matter! Now, our consciousness is said to come about when several neurones fire synchronously. This creates a wave in spacetime which henceforth bind itself gravitantionaly in 'empty space'. Btw the question of what comes first, the soul or the brain is irrelevant to the question of AFTERlife, which is the main issue the soul hypothesis addresses. To me, theories positing a body that scalfholds for the sould formation makes the most perfect sense.Energy In Space Time Energy In Space Time. EINSTEIN
Read more…
Gravity have been a coffee time for physicists for a long time. One day, they tried to solve it once and for all: we are 3 dimensional bedbugs hopelessy trapped in some cosmic tissue paper. So gravity is simply beyond our imagination.A mathematician is a guy who will tell you that if he is holding 10 oranges in his left hand and then some other 10 oranges on his right hand, then when he put all of them to his mouth, he will be having a total of 20 oranges in his mouth! He can prove to you that cheatahs can never overtake tortoises and even that 2=1. Needless to say, if we hire such a guy, obviously divorced from reality, to be a spokesman of nature, we will only conclude that nature is absurd!The following question, which eludes mathematical physicists, is what you will need to answer to form a quantum theory of gravity. What does physical constrains got to do with constrains in our imaginations? Try this experiment: crawl under your bed so that you can only move along a 2d trajectory. You realise that this does not prevent you from imagining where your mendula oblangata is situated!A flat bedbug, no matter how flat the guy is is still an 100% 3d guy 'crawling under the bed'! Donnot be cheated. At what point as we keep flatening the bedbug do he suddenly loose the idea of the hammer on top of his head while he can still imagin perceiving a 1 d scenario? You realise there is realy no such a point. There is no bridge from the 3d such as a 2d. We either have a full 3d bedbug capeable of imagining all the 3 axi or we donnot have a bedbug at all! There is no in between!What does it mean if a planet happen to move along an elyptical trajectory because it is constrained in some way by some unfathomable hammock? The problem is that we can't imagine to whence the planet should otherwise go. So it can't be the question we are asking. When we say why does the moon orbit the earth, we mean why doesn't it escape tangentially like a sling. If we could not conceive the tangential direction, then we would not be in a position to even ask the question in the first place. Therefore the unfathomable hammock is an anwser to unknown, unfathomable question, leaving our question unanswered!However, let us still asume that it answers any question. So we say that the moon is stopped from moving to a direction that we cannot even imagine where it is. So if we cannot imagine 'there', then it cannot go 'there'. So our imagination is closely related to the forces that can stop the entire moon from going somewhere, if not our imagination itself that is infact constraining the moon! The best way to explain is if the moon is just a product of our imagination!This is exactly my point when it comes to pointing out the incompleteness of GR. As a classical theory, as opposed to a quantum one, it still pretends to treat observers as irrelevant in physics. We are somhow looking at the universe from a bird angle perspective and yet strange enough, we can't even imagine this point of view!A bed bug traped to walk along the surface of a cube even illustrate my point all the better. Lable the four conners of the cube ABCD. The bedbug can only imagine 2 axi. However, as it circumnavigate the cube, strange things certainly happen on the corners of the cube. It starts from A where it can imagine the horizontal axis but not the vertical axis. However, reaching B, it cease being capable of imagining the horizontal axis and then begine being able to imagine the verticle axis etc! But strange enough, he does not realise these dramatic changes in imagination.Clearly, the corners of the cube or the cube itself is somehow acting on the imagination of the flatlanders! This then is how I conclude that GR is incomplete. It is both a physics and a psychologic theory and yet it has only focused on the physics part! It should include the equation specifying how the curvarture of the manifold acts on the flat lander's imagination at that point! There is no better way for the manifold to do this than if it is itself a brain and the flatlander's brains are inherited from the manifold.
Read more…
I have decided to write 2 blogs about Yahweh. In this first, I will focus on how some parts of the bible, mostly old testament (OT) are comming close to modern physics. The next blog will concern ethics.THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSEWhen you ask the modern physicist what happened before big bang, he often spit out either of the 3 irreconcilable answers depending on who is asking the question! If an atheist asks it, he is often told that there was no such a time as before big bang. So the question is simply meaningless. But then the atheist goes disapointed knowing that the christian has a way of hiding god even beyond time! When a christian asks, he is told that time realy never begun at big bang. The cosmologist now switch gears and turn from general relativity to quantum mechanics. Time was 'smeared out' just like the position due to uncertainty principle. When a simply curious scientist asks, he is told that since we have no theory of quantum gravity, we realy donnot know the answers!Phew, here are the answers in summary: we know that universe begun at big bang, we also know that it had no beginning and we also donnot realy know what happened before big bang!Similarly, when you ask a christian what happened before God waved his magic wands, round round he goes. Either it is invalid to ask such questions as 'before' when it comes to Yahweh, or God was creating hell for those who asks such questions or that it simply turtles all the way down!"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering upon the waters.Then the lord said, let there be light and there was light." Genesis 1:1A common misunderstanding is that God created everything by talking to the void. By the time God was commanding, the heavens and the earth and the waters already existed. Out of these, he creates the stars the light, the land etc. How he created the heavens, the earth and the waters is what we are not told of.The book of genesis divides the period of creation into seven epochs. Each last for a day. God begines by making great seperations, he seperates day and night, he seperates waters ubove from waters below. Then he seperates waters below to form a dry ground. Then in the expans seperating waters above from waters below, he creates the stars and the sun.The above story closely coresponds to the one told by physicist. It begines with what they term it Planck's epoch. This is the physics version of the mysterious beginning we are not told much of. It is like physicists are saying that in Planck's epoch, something we don't know was doing we don't know what in we don't know where and we don't know why! It may be legitimate to wonder why we should try hard to understand everything only to hit at an unsurmountable wall.Then the 'lord' said: "let the force of gravity seperate from the other unified forces" and the universe went into the second epoch, the grand unified epoch. Now the 'spirit of god' (Higgs field) may be said to have been hovering upon the waters (inflaton field). Through Higgs mechanism, the Higgs 'commands' various seperations of the fundamental forces of nature to trigger phase shifts and thus different epochs. The first is the seperation of gravity, then the strong force from grand unified force and then the electricity from electroweak force.When the 'god particle' say, let the strong interaction seperate from the grand unified field, the 'waters above' seperates from the 'waters below'. 'Above' here is far above the event horizon. The waters is an Higgs like field termed inflaton. During the cosmic inflation epoch, a lot of inflaton flew past the event horizon. It is the inflaton that remained within the firmament of sky that latter condences (water seperates from water) to form the earth, the sun, the stars etc.Then the lord said, let there be light! The light is the electromagnetic field. So the seperation of electromagnetism from electroweak may be regarded as creation of light. So unlike Yahweh, the god of mathematics creates light after the firmament of sky.WAVE PARTICLE DUALITYHow did Yahweh creat by merely speaking? Even you creats lots of particles as you speak! They are termed phonons. Like I said, Yahweh was not speaking to the void. He was commanding the waters, angels or even the hovering spirit. This creats high frequency waves in the quantum field. When they eco off the event horizon, these waves form standing waves which are the particles. But it is more complicated than the mere mechanical vibration. The quantum field is more like an hovering spirit, a leaving being that can obey Yahweh.
Read more…
Many people find the eye to be quite fascinating in it's bearing signatures that are characterestic of a work of genius. However, still many go about fully imerced in day to day life and never stop to appreciate the mirracle that they can even see at all. There are some 2 reasons as to why I will present below the bewildering facts going own in your retina as you see.a)I would like you to appreciate how smart it is the whatever made this thing.b)Understanding how the eye works, can help us to judge how other realms we cannot see can be eluding us. This same reasoning applies also to the other senses.When Charles Dawrin was asked how such a structure as an eye could have evolved, he said that it all begun with a pretty simple point that can detect light. Let us now zoom the lense to see how simple this point detector is.On the retina are photosensitive cells termed rodes and cones. In every cells are proteins attatched to their cell membranes. A protein is a bewilderingly complex molecule that can only be build with the help of the blue prints in the DNA. Some of the purposes of the surface proteins are to control what enters or leave the cell and to receive signals from outside the cell. One such signals are photons.On the surface of rodes are proteins termed rhodospine. The rhodospine encloses another chemical termed cis-retinal. Right below the rhodspine inside the cell is a chemical termed transducin. Initially transducin float around near the rhodospine but it is not bounded to rhodospine. Initially, attatched to transducin is another chemical termed guanoside diphosphate (GDP) but things will change as light strike cis-retinal.Then the lord say, let there be light!The photon strikes the cis-retinal and the energy is used to alter its shape in what is termed isomerization. This in turn changes the shape of rhodospine making it to fit the transducin like a key fits a lock. The transducin binds to rhodospine and its shape too alters in the process and it releases the GDP like the dog will release a piece of bread if he sees a bone. Then another chemical termed guanoside triphosphate (GTP) attatches itself to transducin. So it is a swap.We now have a giant molecule created by binding a shape-modified rhodospine to transducin and then to GTP. Note that GTP alone could not do the next step. The briliant mechanism of releasing GDP and then grasping GTP is not even as amazing as the fact that it has thus created a total structure that can now bind to a protein termed phosphodiesterase. The thus binding of phosphodiesterase is a kind of an enable switch. It can now break a bond called phosphodiester bond which is in a molecule termed cyclic guanosine monophosphate cGMP. cGMP acts as a gate in some other surface proteins termed ion channels.The ion channels constantly pump sodium ions into the cell and pumps potasium ions out of the cell. This activity ensures that the voltage across the cell wall is steady. Attatched to these channels are cGMP. this serves to regulate the channels by opening or closing it. When the phosphodiester bonds of cGMP are broken, they can nolonger keep the sodium ion gate open. So the pumping of pottasium ions out of the cell wall without a corresponding pumping in of sodium ions creates a voltage difference across the cell wall. It is this voltage difference that causes an electric current that then flows to the brain through an optic nerve.Phew! That is how 'simple' the mere light detector is!
Read more…
The stonnage answer to the question of what a soul is was the joker card: 'beyond understanding'. The 21st centuary answer to the question is another question: is it possible? If yes, then the brilliant body will surely take advantage of it in its stage of evolution. So the mindset change from proof beleif know to explain understand creat. It is a type of a never failing TRANSHUMANISM. However, things are still not that easy for those who may want to get stuck on a flat earth hypothesis for fear of falling off a round one.Well, it is possible that there is a beginningless soul. However, I find nothing to worry about such a soul because past is past, I see no reason to long for past. Actually if you are going to worry about the existence of your soul in past because you think that eternal past imply eternal future and vice-versa, then you are totally mistaken! Time is ASSYMETRICAL and as such, no such demand. The question of our past eternity is fatly irrelevant!Now, I was hearing some materialists talking about how the brain can create images in hallucination. They dismissed such things as NDE by saying that your brain CREATS realms because that is what it wants to beleive.Q:Say what?A:CreatOk, lets put it together. So we know that the fact that you have a NDE means that your brain want to beleive that it is is realy never going to die. To cope with it, it creates realms as in heavens to make you beleive that your not realy going to die. The gist of my point is the question: how about if you hallucinate your own soul.Q:Has your brain then created the soul?A:Yep!:)Q:Why has it done so?A:Because it want to beleive that it is never going to die!Q:Has your body created blood cloting?A:yepQ:Why?A:Because it want to beleive that you are no bleeding!So the question immediately turns from an 'if' to an 'how' and this is exactly what I wanted! If it is possible for there to be a soul, the brain will certainly create it simply because it want to beleive that it is not going to die. So henceforth the question of the existence of soul loses relevance and we replace it with a brainstorming on how the brain will creat one or has already created one! This is not to deny the possibility of an eternal soul. Rather, it is to say that even if there is no such a soul, the brain will certainly seize every chance to create it. I am just putting the pseudoidea that death marks the end just an extra mile away.THE HOWfirst, lets make it crystal clear that the body DO infact creat. Infact, it created itself in what is termed as growth. The process of growth is like that which happens when vampire zombies bit normal people to turn them into their fellow vampires. When you ate the bread, it was modified to become a part of your body and you grew. So might your body 'eat' the ether too? Why should this eating be limited to the visible objects? After all you take in almost everything in your surrounding. You take the water, the air etc. When you take the ether, the soul grows just as it is that the heart grows when you take the proteins.So lets come back to the issue that 'materialists' were raising. 'Ah! Those etheric realms are mere creation of your brain. It creats them just because it want to beleive that it is there" first of all, the question is not whether or not the brain do create realms. The question is can those realms somehow bubble out of the brain and float in the surrounding 'void'. With the modern physics, it is hadder to understand how this can fail to happen than how it happens! The thoughts themselves are particles. Perharps we should call them 'thoughtons'.So does it matter that the realms you see when you close your eyes or when you dream are created by your brain? No! Not any more than it matters whether or not serotonin is biosynthesised in your brain! If anything, the paradise created by your brain is the desirable one as it does for the best of you. You can tell this when you meditate deeply. At times images comes over the eyes and you may feel lots of euphoria and that you love the images a lot. Why do you feel that you are loving that which doesn't exist? It exist and it is itself!If you think that your capacity to create in the etheric realms is low, remember that you are not alone in the universe doing so. Every object does. You only have to create your own HOME in the astral world. Do create a palace of your dreams!:) This analogy might help: Supposing we all humans had a huge tank to pee to it and store our urine there. How much urine will we have stocked since stonnage? But our bodies do create the urine in some good sense.
Read more…
Though the Idea of a wife of God has appeared an abomination in the minds of fools, nothing at all is incoherent with the concept. If God can be endowed with personlike artributes such as hand, face, interlect, love etc, why not a wife?The otherside of the absurd pendulum swing is to refuse to consider the possibility of God that is beyond sex. When I become subborn and apparently refuse to acknowledge the wife of God, I only want to deny milk from the mouth babies till they learn to chew solid food. If anything a being who reproduced the cosmos 'asexually' makes lots of sence metaphysically, metachemicaly and metabiologically.DEVINE FEMININ IN THE BIBLEIt is sad that people still try to use gender to polarise society. When combined with religion, an already worse polarising factor, the result turn from a whisky into a toxic. Then people become blind, poisoned with 'spiritual methanol'. They peruse through the bible and without understanding and conclude that the bible teaches a male god when infact the bible is very emphatic against such images of god. Nowhere in the bible is God described!! Instead, Yahweh declared:"You should not make yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below." Exodus 20:4Yahweh routinely declares that I donnot look like anything that you have ever seen. Any idea that Yahweh is a male is a mental idolatry and breaks the second command of Yahweh! It dirtify the name of Yahweh by detastable things males do. Yahweh say I am beyond the concepts you can form in your mind. I cannot be likened with anything from above or under the sun.The idea of detailed description of deities is eastern and not middle eastern. The east try to form pictures of god In east, we have tortoises supporting the earth while Job declares that the earth hangs upon nothing. So when someone full of hangover caused by the whiskies of the east reads bible, he tries to interprate it in eastern terms. This cannot work for the christian notion of god.However, let us grant that Christians donnot realy understand bible and/or that some parts of it has been removed and/or added. Do bible realy fail to give women the respect they diserve? The answer is a fat NO!"A great and wondrous sign appeared in the heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars under her head." revelation 12:1One has to read the whole bible to understand its parts! From other parts of we completely understand the above revelation. The twelve crowns mean that the woman is the queen of spiritual Israel. The sun is the imence glory and honnor. The moon on feet is great authority. The twelve stars means the queen of angelic realms. All these indirectly mean the 'wife of Yahweh'!! She gave birth to a son, who would eventualy defeat the 'dragon' that spoil 'feminine divinity' by deceiving a woman and the woman yielding to temptation to disobey the creater."He will crush your head and you will strike his heel" Genesis 3:1There are lots other verses describing God with feminine traits such as God being pregnant with birth pains, God gathering her children like a hen under her wings etc. I have no space to list them all. Two of the quite remarkable ones are:"Like a bear robbed of her cubes, I will attack them and rip them open" Hosea 13:8"Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?Though she may forget,I will not forget you!" Isaiah 49:15That the bible does not potray God as a loving mother, just as it potray God as a caring father has no basis whatsoever in scriptures. It is based on abject ignorance of bible and/or projecting ones mind to it! These claims are meant to inflame society and creat divisions based on gender and religion. Refuse to be insigted against other beleif systems and genderTHESE ARE JUST LIMITED METAPHORS AND ANALOGIESOnly fools will take the above analogies literaly and spend hours arguing on gender of God. God is neither male nor female nor an even worse, haemophrophide (both male and female). These are analogies meant to help a human understand something.It goes even farther and describe God with rocklike qualities! It is nolonger a dad nor a mom. It is now a ROCK!"I am the corner stone that the builders rejected"We can think of God as anything we want. In modern times, God is even a pair of gumboots to be worn in rainy seasons and taken off when the sunny season come! God is a Roaring lion in the jungle.But my favourite one is the ROCK. I hardly need a loving dad or mom. Rock is a firm and relyable thing. It never change whimsicaly.Q:Why doesn't god talk to or answer my prayer?A:God is a rock. A silent one. Of what use is a rock?We have an anchorThat keeps our soulsSteadfast and sure while the belows rollFastened to the ROCK which does not moveFirm and deep in the saviour's blood
Read more…
In previous blogs, I have talked of nature recognising the 3 dimensional 'space of colors' as a real spiritual realm. I have concentrated more in symmetry. When I zoomed the lense to exermine the symmetry of same color of two objects that are at two different places, something rang a bell. The space of colors are colors can be easily realised in an holographic universe.We begine by establishing a symmetry this way:Two objects along 'eastward' axis seperated by distance (space of geometry) can both have the same intensity of color blue.Two objects 'seperated' by different intensities of blue (space of colors) can be in the same location.One way to realise the latter possibility is to interlace one object in the inter atomic spaces of the other objects. The several objects interlaced in the same space will be symmetrical to arranging several objects along the same axis. So for this 'axis of colors' to be truely like another dimension, it is desirable if it is infinite. This means we find a way of squezzing infinite number of things within a finit region of space. We can use fractals such as golded spirals so that the axis of the other dimensing is infact a spiral and not a straight line.In interlaced layers of objects, the rule that no two things can realy fill the same region holds. Two objects filling the same region is only apparent simply due to the fact that there are spaces in those objects. An interesting case comes when we want to extend the symmetry to the space of colors. The symmetry is:No matter what intensity of blue an object has, no two particles can fill the same regionNo matter where an object is, no two particles can have the same intensity of blue.For the latter rule to hold, every particle must have a strange way of communicating with distant particles such that. This would be like a case where something exists holographically throughout all space. All particles of the same color intensity are near each other in the space of colors no matter how far they are in the space of geometry! This interlacings and holofractography is what is neaded to make the space of colors perfectly symmetrical to the space of geometry.An interesting application of this idea is explaining immortality without the soul! You can still be the particles. Now consider a case where you die from a nuclear explosion so that all the particles of your body are blown appart. Since these particles have once been bonded together, they all became nearly of the same 'color' no matter how far appart they get, they are still near and bonded together in some space of color. You are then still alife albeit only being able to perceive that other realm!
Read more…
What if I wave a magic wand and utter, abrakadabra! Then voila! The 'wavefunction collaps' when I look at nothing and all the notes and spinning coins come out of the thin air. Will I thus violet the laws of thermodynamics and those of conservation of momentum? The answere is a fat yes. However, Newton will smile and say; didn't I tell you magics also exist?The last magician and the first scientist, Sir Isach Newton was into understanding, he left acurate predictions and gawking to astrologers when he set fort to explain the laws of motion. He was doing natural philosophy and not realy physics as we understand today. The conservative laws of momentum are meant to capture what we understand it intuitively as: for every effect, there is a corresponding cause. He realy never mean to say that all such causes must always be visible. Infact he beleived that 'force' such as those of gravity had occult origins.Most laws of physics are conservative laws. Indead such is the root source of equal sign in the mathematical statement of the laws. Generaly, when we say the stuff in the left hand side is equal to the stuff in the right hand side, we mean the stuff is conserved in various transformations.Unless we think in terms of unseen realms, in modern physics, the conservative laws nolonger realy capture the original intuition. We beleived that the 'mass' is conserved because we found it counterintuitive to say that a stone can surreptitiously disapear off space like a witch. However, with introductions of such ideas or perharps pseudoideas as 'negative mass' or 'negative energy' the conservative laws now mean almost the opposite of what we intuited. It is now harder to understand why stones donnot just disappear into the thin air than the vice-versa!INTERDIMENSIONAL CIRCUITWe will consider a soul travel to another realm as an illustration of how interdimensional circuite is pictured to work. When I talk of 'soul travel' I talk LITERALY. I am not just spraying a nice smelling perfume on the word 'dream'. I mean a real entity comming out of the body albeit in the unseen realm. People over the years have tried to redefine the word 'soul' so they may say that they somehow know that there is such a stuff. However, the original definition goes:SOUL: An invisible part of a person that can retain the personality even if the person dies.Because of the need to address the issues raised by the physicist, Sean Carol in objecting against the idea of soul, I find a need to form a 'physical' idea of a soul! Therefore during soul travel, one would possible weigh or measure the body and find that some stuff has departed. However, there is a very natural way in which departing soul becomes difficult if not impossible to detect.In modern physics, we can talk of a pair of matter and antimatter combining to form nothing. We can see this 'nothing' as a primodal 'ocean' out of which things appear when it aquires certain properties such as 'spin'. So matter and antimatter donnot realy disapear. This 'ocean' will also serve as an intermediate stage in which soul goes through on its way to another dimension. Literaly, it crosses the 'crystal sea' to the 'other side'.My explanation of how soul travel can happen without violation of conservative laws closely recembles how Hawking explains how a blackhole can evaporate. There is a need for such a theory if the idea of soul be consistent to known physics facts as raised by Sean Carol. Here it goes: in space surrounding the particles of your body is an 'ocean' out of this ocean, pairs of matter and antimatter incesantly pops in and out of existence in what is termed quantum fluctuation. But then the newly born antimatter can combine with the particle in your body, anihillating it to the ocean. Then the newly born matter replaces the gone matter. This swapping is akin to how the outermost electron 'harlots' around making electrical circuit possible. This is why I term this motion to another dimension as a kind of circuit.Ironically, in this model, the 'soul' is what you think is the body and the vice-versa is true! It goes this way; from modern physics, we have come to understand that matter is 99.999999999999999999999999% empty. This is funny. Not only should you not sea such a densless thing, you should easily pass through it. What you see and blocks you is virtual particles incesantly erupting from void. Matter itself, being to less dense, is invisible. So ironically, it turns out to be matter itself that fit perfectly the definition of 'soul': INVISIBLE part of a person that can retain the personality when the body dies.
Read more…
The word 'theory' has become like a chewing gum in the mouths of scientists. Unfortunately however, like many other words, it seems to enjoy a lot of definitions. Some of them are ireconcillable. Then you know that when someone uses a word that embody two contradictory meanings, he can always use it to justify anything. He just has to switch back and forth whenever it suits him.Scientists often have an habit of DESCRIBING instead of DEFINING a word. There is often some winks and nudges; you know you know,...no I don't know! Here it goes: we begine by hypothesis, which is something like an 'educated guess'. Then the hypothesis is tested. If it pass several tests, then the hypothesis is awarded a lable 'theory'. Also in science, hypothesis are not realy proven. Rather, the competing hypotheses are falsified. Science is a last man standing battle. There is no science truth.So? Is theory a myth or a proven fact? It is this chameleon nature of science that makes it harvest to best from both universe. It is in the business of ever testing and never proving anything. 'Theory' is both a fact and a myth. The follower of science religion just has to remove the right weapon at the right time. When debunking suggestions, 'theory' is a well understood and well proven fact. But then they still want to keep trying to research on it and prove it!! When they want more offerings to be used to build shrines like Large Hardron Colider, Very Large Telescopes etc, suddenly, 'theory' is a wild speculation and there is infact no science truth!Another problem with this modern science redefinition of the word 'theory' concerns consistent usage. Hypothesis is promoted to theory after a repeated tests? How about the words; law of nature or principles of nature? Are they just some other types of perfumes for spraying the word 'fact'? Thats problematic. Here is perharps better definitions:SCIENTIFIC LAW: An hypothesis that has passed objective tests over and overSCIENTIFIC THEORY: Set of scientific laws posited to explain a nartural phenomenon.THEORY: set of ideas posited to explain a natural or supernatural phenomena.So why should we categorise scientific explanation as to be based on theory? Simple! Laws of nature are ideas and not facts. They are gross generalised statements about the facts we observe. When we see a stone fall to the ground, we have not just proven that EVERY stone released that way will ALWAYS have to fall down. Then we can never get to prove so no matter how many stones we releas and gawk at them as they fall down!! It sucks for those who fear the unknown that we can never realy get to prove ANYTHING! 'Proof' is a misnomer that belongs squarely in the toilet.IMPORTANCE OF THEORYIn wikipedia article talking about 'soul', it says somewhere"the problem with scientifically proving a soul is that there is no good definition saying what a soul is"This problems comes because the proponents of 'soul' rarely posit soul to explain a natural phenomenon. In other words, they donnot try to form a theory of soul. A theory allows for an indirect verification. We can indirectly verify that galaxies are moving away from us by simply forming a theory of Doppler shift. Or rather, by explaining the redshift using Dopple effect, we add the weight to the idea that the universe is expanding. Similarly, when we form a good teleological theory of origin of life, we add weight to the idea that God exists. However, people still fight you if you try to form a theory of God. Say what? God is beyond understanding!! Nonsense! Even the stones are beyond understanding! This 'beyond understanding' joker card is what priests were trained to releas when they are cornered! Over the time, the sheep begun to fall in love with 'beyond understanding' until they forgot to love God himself. It is just the same way dogs will begine to salivate at bells when you keep ringing them often before you give them food.So generaly, the snake oil pedlers of religion donnot try to explain anything. What point do 'beyond understanding' realy make? So a lack of scientific theory is often taken to be a supernatural explanation. Guess what? I chew peyote and saw a pink elephant. It cannot be explained by science!! Then of course he will form enemity with anyone trying to explain the pink elephants. He wount want anyone remove him off the blissfull ignorance. But does it make sense? Can we rely on a lack of understanding as a basis of forming beleifs?There is one other reason why forming an understandable models of such ideas as soul, heaven or even God is desirable. Well, it is possible that a soul is beyond understanding. However, what else can we say or do about it if it is this latter case? The only thing we can conclude given such a premise is the premise itself. My case is analogous to comparing Dawrin's evolution theory with a magical, inexplicable creation hypothesis posited by many Christians. If it is the latter case, then so what? What else can we do apart from closing the bibles and saying amen? Doesn't it makes perfect sense to explore the former possibility instead of raising our hands and surrendering to ignorance?PTOLEMAIC THEORIESWhen laymen are told of a science explanation, they are usualy never told of myriads of possible and equally valid explanations that are ruled out via Ockam's razor or are just brushed aside because the priests of science donnot find them that sexy. Albert Einstein knew so much of this nature of theories. Thats why alongside Minkowsky he rose to become a great brewer of whiskys such as Minkowsky spacetime. So there are theories termed Ptolemaic theories in (dis)honer of an ancient greek philosopher who could explain how the stars revolves around the sun with a geocentric model!Like I said, science donnot realy prove anything. Lets look at the following explanation as to why a boat floats and yet if you stand on a piece of wood, you sink with it. An even more ancient 'Ptolemy' concocted an amusing explanation. The water simply fear your legs! When they see your legs, they shy away off beneth the wood and then the wood sinks. He then advices the swimers to build something that covers the legs. Then they built it an voila! It floated. That was the first boat and what his theory predicted was not only confirmed but it helped in the technology at then.The question is do you think Archimede's explanation of boyancy disproved the above explanation? Not at all! Archimedes theory explain more than the other theory and that is all! It also explains why a metal with no man inside will float if shaped like a boat.
Read more…
If death does not exist, then what is death? One may knee jerk that it is an idea. But when we zoom the lense, we find that own's death is not even an idea. Own's death is a misnomer that is worse than a myth. Does the future exist then? Yes! So how the hell will one circumvent own's death?A philosopher named Gotfried Leibniz once exclaimed: there are some things that we think that we have an idea of. However infact we have no such ideas. He gave an example of the fastest speed possible. He must have reasoned that we amuse ourselves that we have an idea when we perform some abstractions. We see the fastest snail in the field, the fastest car in the road etc. Then we hail, the fastest signal in the universe. He says that we simply put ourselves in the shoes of the fastest thing and then throw your fist foward to punch a fly.My approach to showing the pseudoconceptuall nature of own's death is similar to how Leibniz does for the fastest signal possible. Yes, we perceive other bodies dieing but we know that there is more to dieing than just dismantling of the body. The awareness together with inner experience must varnish. So to form an idea of death, we must put ourselves in the shoes of a dieing man but then at once, we find that we can still throw out some fists here and there!But one may think that it is easy to form an idea of a lack of own's awareness. Well, this is the gist of the matter. It is not even that easy to form an idea of own's awareness itself. A problem is that people confuse word with idea. Everyone can talk of a fourth dimension as a spatial axis othornomal to the 3 axi but no one can realy form such an IDEA in their mind. Fourth d remains as meaningless a word as the word yuck or even worse, bugaboo. It is the same also with the pseudoidea of one's own death.I can even make this claim formal by demanding that all words must lable ideas CONSISTENTLY. Then I show that the idea of own's death is inconsistent with the idea of a lack of own's awareness. Here it goes: we form ideas by contemplating on dualities. We form the idea of our awareness by close exermining our states at different moments. Then we find that at times we are asleep, at dream and wake. We define the word awareness as to resot to our wake state and we automatically thus understand the state of our own lack of awareness. This understanding is such that the wake state comes AFTER and not before the sleep state. When we try to form an idea of own's lack of awareness as a state that will occur in future, we must absolutely form an idea of our wake state at some moment even farther in future when we realise that we were not aware all along. This is not a surprise at all. It is necesary for the concept of a lack of own's awareness to be consistent. It is quite paradoxical that we donnot even need to understand how we may resurrect at some arbitrary moment in future in order to be acertain of it.Think again about what will happen when you die. Forget about the idea of soul, heaven or hell and ASSUME that death indead marks the absolute end of own's awareness. Then we understand the absurdity of the whole pseudoidea. You will get the effective reductio-ad-absurdum of the claim that death marks an everlasting end of your own experiences. This is the realy true reason why own's end is just a pseudoidea: time itself is part of your own experiences. From the point of view of own's experience, there is no meaning of time during which you are not aware. However, from bird's angle, there is no meaning of an end of time. From bird's angle, we cannot form an idea of the whole of eternity of any state even if it is a state of being a corpse. It is far easier to imagine a corpse surreptitiously rising at some moment in future than to form an idea of the entire eternity comming to an end. So we hit at a paradox. Time, even the future eternity is an idea formed in my awareness. The eternal lack of awareness of time that supposedly follow a state of own's death must not be time at all from the point of view of own's awareness. From the latter point of view, it would mark an ACTUAL INFINITE which is an impossibility from the bird's angle point of view. In order for the notion of eternity to be consistent, one must resurrect at some arbitrary point in future. Then he realises that an arbitrarily long duration has passed during which he was not aware of anything but time itself does not come to and end from everlasting to everlasting. Failure for that to happen cannot even be imagined as it demands an actual infinite to be possible.One can still attempt to object that we can form the idea of death as a potential infinite. Give me a moment in future, and I can imagine that during all this moment, one hasn't risen. However, this chase collupses when own's awareness is at the table. You don't perceive your state as a thing occuring for a potential eternity simply because by definition, there is no one to experience a duration of any sort. From your point of view the entire future eternity must come to an actuality right at the moment of own's death as an eternity of a lack of own's awareness. This is clearly an impossibility.To add bonus to the above argument, lets consider a symmetrical case in the past. As we know, time is asymmetrical so we espect an opposite scenario in the past. The christian philosopher, William Lane Craig has been finding it realy hard to grasp the idea of a past eternity. We had such problem even more when we were young. Actually it is caused by what I said: we can only form an idea of our awareness as a state that occurs after a state of a lack of our own awareness and never the vice-versa. It is part of the states that defines the time asymmetry. The reason why it can be hard to grasp the idea of a past eternity is that we tend to put ourselves in the shoes of a being who have been leaving forever. This is problematic as it demands the past eternity to be an ACTUAL INFINITE from the point of view of such an awareness. So the mirrors are very asymmetrical; it is impossible to form an idea of own's lack of awareness as a state that will occur for the whole of future eternity just as it is impossible to form an idea of own's awareness as a state that has already occured for the whole of past eternity.Light belongs to the futureDarkness belongs to the past.
Read more…
In the blog 'Space Of Colors And Illusory Distance', I stopped at suggesting that nature recognises the color of something as an analogy to a direction of something and then the brightness of the thing as an analogy to a distance from point zero, which can be taken as the center of the universe. We can then form another idea of space wherein if two things vibrates with the same frequency and with the same amplitude, then they appear to be on the same place in this other 'space of colors' no matter how far they are in the usual 'space of geometry'!We can still form another idea of omnipresence by suggesting that nature recognises certain 'things' and not 'places'. This idea is similar to Leibniz's idea that the location of a thing is that thing's own intrinsic property and not realy an extrinsic property. A thing moves by simply changing its intrinsic property that determines where it is or it appears to be in.Let us begine by considering a problem that philosophers of mind term it as 'the binding problem'. When you are staring at say a tree, we know that the image of a tree appears in one's retina. However, from there, signals from various portions of the image disperses to various regions of the head. The signals in the head is not at all recognisable as to belong to the tree. The parts of the tree appears completely seperate as seen from without the brain and yet in the awareness of the one experiencing it, the tree is one and it is intact! This present the problem in understanding the mind which we term it as the 'binding problem'.My suggestion to the solution to binding problems involves changing how the mainstream science understand the universe itself! This is we understand the universe as nonlocal or rather simply, holographic. But I will explain it in details. The mind does not deal with PLACES in the brain. It deals with 'VIBRATORY SIGNATURES' of chemicals. We know that the fruit y lies adjacent to leaf x in. This information of nearness is retained in the retina, yes. However, when the signals disperse to the brain via optic nerve, the nearness information is nolonger coded in the geometric adjacence. It is now coded in something akin to 'vibratory adjacence'. The mind interprates the leaf x as to be near to fruit y not because they are geometrically near each other but because the 'vibrate in the same way'!But I wish to explain this 'vibration coding' farther. It is a cosmic thing and it happens to be harnessed in our brains because our brains inherits the cosmos. In cosmos is a brain 'dreaming' of this reality. We perceive this reality because our brains is a portion of this 'cosmic brain'. Lets say that there are particles in the 'cosmic brain' termed as 'particles of locations'. As usual, in all quantum particles as explained by Paul Dirac, there are 4 aspects of each of those particles. Each of those aspects can be seen as a quantum field on its own (that pervades everywhere). Call thes 4 aspects w1,w2,w3 and w4 respectively. w1etc then is a field that describes countless particles. Every other particle, such as an electron, also has 4 aspects. Call them e1,e2,e3,e4 respectively. When e1, is entangled with a certain unique particle say in the w1 field, the electron appears to be in a unique location along x axis. The uniqueness of this position is determined by the uniqueness of the particle in w1 When e1, is entangled with a unique particle in w2, the electron appears to be at a unique location along y axis and so on. Hope you can get the idea. These 4 aspects of particles helps the 'cosmic mind' to form a 4d grid system that would appear to us as things located in the 4d spacetime when infact such might not be how they are located 'in reality' (remember the binding problem)This idea gets close to explaining the monolocality of things that we observe by linking it to the 'no polygamy' law of quantum entanglements. Particles appear to be wherever they appear to be because at wavefunction collaps, they rather get quantum entangled to 'that location' before then, they are somewhat omniprecent. If two electrons themselves are quantum entangled, then they are always so only before the collaps of wavefunction. At the collaps of wave function marks a disentanglement with other particles. This is necesary in order for particles to be entangled with 'locations' making it consistent with the 'no polygamy' law of quantum entanglements.With this idea, we can understand very well how death can be just an illusion in the cosmic brain or rather an entry to another realm. Even dieing in a nuclear explosion just makes the wavicles (signals) that forms your body to disperse just in a way similar to how the signal of a tree in your retina disperse to various parts of your brain. Well, the image of the tree apparently disappears but it is there in the mind. Similarly, dieing is just as perceived by our brains. To the cosmic brain, you enter another order.
Read more…
Often I read about 'spiritual people' saying that if you are at the same vibrational level with someon, then for all relevant purposes, you are near that person no matter where they are! You can now communicate with that person telepathically. What many of these people are yet to realise though is that mathematicians have overtaken them with a wooshing sound when it comes to 'spiritual ideas'! The idea of two things occupying the same region but being vibrationally 'far' is well expressed mathematically by an Hilbert Space. This Hilbert Spaces is the formal language of quantum mechanics.Indead one can appreciate the idea that all it takes for one to feel the prencence in a location is nothing but a communication with that region. We donnot yet feel this so well in our telecommunication simply because they are not yet perfect. We can't yet transmit all the information about a region through electronic means. But consider this scenario: your brain is a kind of TV receirver. Picks signals from various regions and then construct a virtual reality of that region which is then presented to your awareness in a dreamlike way. Then for all relevant purposes, it will be to you exactly as it is when you are at that region. The bottomline is that information about a region is what is necesary and not the nearness to such a region. Nearness happens to be just the only way we know of that allows us to get all the information about that region. If then the relevant thing is information, the relevant thing would be the vibration that codes that information. The vibration would propagate at unlimited speeds.Perharps the mathematics of Hilbert Spaces is challengin. Fortunately, however, there is a good analogy that can help you to grasp the relevant idea; rainbow. We say that our universe is 3 dimensional in that we can locate anything using the 3 axi of say a cartesian coordinate. We use a vector; V=xi yj zk. This equation states that to get into the place pointed to by vector V, we move x steps along i direction then y steps along j direction and then z steps along k direction. Similarly we can form a space of colors by noticing that every color in the rainbow can be formed by simply mixing various amounts of primary colors. We can us this equation: c=xR yB zY. We meant to form color pointed to by vector c, we mix x amount of red with y amount of blue and with z amount of yellow. So something having a unique color, such as a mangoe can be said to inhabit a unique location in the space of colors.We can intuite quantum mechanics by stating that waves ('colors') behave like particles albeit in an Hilbert Space. Then we get a glims of why narture can treat waves as it were particles; how it remembers what waves belongs to what particles. When a mathematical physicist talk of a quantum state of a system, he means something akin to a color of something. So you now understand why he will say that quantum states are vectors in an Hilbert Space. The color of a mangoe is a vector in space of colors. Space of colors is an example of an Hilbert Space. When Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, we now understand it as the Hilbert Space version of the common rule that no two objects can fill the same region of space. The former space is an Hilbert Space. So from Pauli Exclusion Principle, we understand that narture can indead treat 'spiritual spaces' like the usual space.
Read more…
