Microtubules are microscopic tubes found inside cell in the realm termed cytoplasm. They are thought to serve several functions. The major one is though to be cytoskelleton, i.e to provide a mechanical support for the cell. Microtubules are made of proteins arranged in helixes. A typical cell has several such structures. They form their own network within the cell. Now there is the idea that our bodies are the containers housing some other stuff termed soul. Since microtubules are tubes they are perharps the only part of the body that can act as a kind of container.SOUL DYNAMICS ARE NECESSARYWe need a theory that at least explain the interface between soul and matter. Without such, the idea of soul has unsurmountable problems and is the biggest reason reasonable people reject soul. The 'beyond understanding' nolonger works. Lets for instance posit that the soul inhabits the body. Then for the purposes of following the body wherever it goes, it must interact with the body. This interaction would be something like a bonding force between the soul and the body. However, a disembodied soul must not interact with matter for otherwise it would be easily ditected by say scientific instruments.BODY HELP SOUL EVOLUTIONOne way of explaining this is that the body helps the soul to grow or evolve or even creats it! You have probably heard it said that we incarnate here to learn. However, they don't spend the seconds neaded to think that there is physical corelate with learning. The data comes to our senses PHYSICALLY and for soul to learn from this world, the physical world must be able to interact with the soul. You see that without a 'physical' aspect of the soul, the whole idea is terribly problematic.If we are to accept that the purpose of the body is to help the soul to grow, then we can explain the difficulty of soul comming out of the body without ad ocs and sounding like deliberately trying to make the theory unfalsifyable. The body then would be to the egg as the soul is to a chick. Once the chick is marture, the egg can be broken.We must then form an interface between spirit and physical. That is to say some entities are on the twilight zone, being neither 'spirit' nor 'matter'. A not yet grown soul is in this zone. A fully grown soul is complete spirit and can nolonger interact with matter or at least be able to switch off its coupling to matter at will. Such a person is a LITTERALY born again person.THE PHYSICSLets say astral projection NDE etc is real just as desired. No sane person should bother with NDE if it is entirely explicable by psychology. Neither should one stop at subjective verification for it then begs the question: can our brains fool us? For the sole purpose of the soul not being possible to be detected by scientists in the room, it must not interact with matter. It must pass through walls etc. However in its journey, it collects experiences in the other realm and upon reentering the body, alas, the soul must be able to interact with the body. This would make it capable of 'downloading' the knowledge to the brain which in turn triggers electric signals in neurones which eventually moves the mouth to spit out the testimony.The means of interacting with the body is just the soul being capable of exerting the electromagnetic force. Thus the soul must be able to switch on and off its electromagnetism. This land me exactly where I wanted to land, the soul, when in the body must at least be capable of electromagnetic interaction. When it can do that, it can be contained, i.e it doesn't percolates through the body. The microtubules will be a good candidate for such a container. When the soul turn off its electromagnetism, it percolates through matter and can nolonger be detected. So the soul need not be anything 'immaterial'. It only need to be able to 'turn off materialism' whenever neaded! Infact the soul can just be the sheer WATER in the cytoplasm! And contrary to how you may think, what makes something 'material' is not 'matter' or 'mass'. Rather, it is ELECTROMAGNETISM.MATTER AND ANTIMATTERThe antiparticle of a particle is just a particle of the same mass but of opposite charge. When matter and antimatter meet, they anihillate each other. But what exactly is this 'anihillation'? Common sence tell us that we can't realy turn anything into a void. Yes, we know that if two opposite charges get so near each other, they screen off their charges and they together now behave like a neutral particle. But like I have said, a fundamental particle that is electrically neutral cannot interact with the observable world. Thus a union of matter and antimatter behaves to us, for all relevant purposes as if it does not exist! So other than thinking of space as simply empty, think of it as an ocean or even a solid that is electromagnetically neutral. Light can be understood as a slight polarization in this medium (i.e ephemeral seperation of charges) that is propagated as a wave.VACUUM POLARIZATIONBecause the vacuum is infact matter-antimatter potential, any charged particle will tend to polarize the vacuum. This is to say that the electron for instance will attract positrons from vacuum. It is such distortion of vacuum that I purpote to use it to explain a soul! Now in the usual atom, say of hydrogen if the electron orbiting around the proton was to fall right into the nuclear, then both the proton and the electron would anihillate each other and the hydrogen turns into a neutron. As you see, our 'hydrogen' now begin to be slightly bizzare. For instance it can now pass through walls! Infact were it not for nuclear force, the neutron would be entirely undetectable.The question now is what prevents the electron in the atom from falling in to the nuclear? The answere is zero point energy that the electron taps from vacuum. So you see that given two opposit charges, it does not necesarily mean that they will anihilate each other. Though physicists tend to think that the phenomena of vacuum polarization is ephemeral, I tend to think that it retains a faint memory. Once the 'neutral particle' of vacuum is deformed due to polarization, it never return completely to its original shape.WHY MICROTUBULES?First of all they are made up of proteins and proteins are formed from aminoacid soup through RNA in much the same way soul would form from the matter-antimatter soup through the protein. RNA in turn form through DNA in exactly the same way. So we can get satisfied with the sense that nature realy have the idea! It only need to be possible to form a soul in the matter-antimatter potential, then nature will find a way.There are some evidence that microtubules in the brain cells are involved in consciousness. Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose's theory of quantum mind uses microtubules to control neural activites through quantum effects in the tubes. It is suggested that quantum coherence develope in the microtubules. At first, it seem impossible for quantum coherence to develope at such a temperature. However, evidence in photosynthesis shows suggest that proteins can indead develope quantum coherence at high temperatures. It seems to be due to the fact that proteins are already abit intelligent and thus 'know' how to vibrate!
Read more…
Einstein's relativity limits any signal from moving any faster than light. It does not allow any practical interstella communication. It also does not allow us to use quantum nonlocality to explain psi.LORENTZ'S RELATIVITYFortunately, there is a way of explaining anything that can be explained by Einsteinian relativity without Einstein's barrier, abandoning aether and paradoxes. This theory was deviced before Einstein's in 1904. Lorentz formulated a set of equations to explain the null results of Michelson-Morley experiment and invarance of Maxwell's equations in inertial frames of riferrances.To understand it, simply take for insance the two 'times', t and t' appearing in 'time dillation', as an indication of the same period of time by two MULFUNCTIONING clocks! All paradoxes disapear through the window and yet we can explain all facts!! There is no such a thing as 'time' that is dillating like a stomach full of beer.So what does it happen when you measure the speed of snail using a clock ticking sooo slowly? Allright you have guessed. You will get a tremendous speed! By the time the snail has covered 100m, i.e after one week or so, our rusty clock is yet to tick to the 1 second mark. So we conclude that the snail is rocketing at over 100m/sec! Such are the idiocies that relativists kill their time with.To Lorentz, it did not happen necesarily but rather due to electromagnetical nature of matter. One can show that matter, understood as electric charges pulling and pushing each other, must suffer Lorentz contraction should it speed. This has nothing to do with 'space' and 'time'. These are just abstract concepts. This mean that should you build a train using a stuff that is not electric in the fundamental, it will not suffer Lorentz's contraction etc and as such will shoot at any speed!NONLOCAL CONSCIOUSNESSBefore I use physics, let me use almost pure reasoning to show that consciousness cannot be anything but nonlocal throughout the universe.1)Consciousness is either caused by body or some other unseen stuff (to me it doesn't matter)2.)If it is caused by unseen stuff, that stuff is not subject to our electromagnetic laws hence to our speed limits3.)If it is caused by the body, then it must be true that the 'I' identity is a state that every matter in the universe can assume! (to me, such fact is even more surprising than soul)4.)If some other matter somewhere else assumes an 'I' state, there will be an instantaneous communication between the two 'I' no matter how far apart they are!5.)If another state of 'I' cannot be assumed by anything else while another state of 'I' is still assumed somewhere else, then there must be a constant instantaneous communication between everywhere and everywhere to ensure that no states of the same 'I' is assumed by any matter at more than one place in the whole universe.In physics, we can understand that before a quantum particle is measured, there exist a kind of 'a particle can be here' information. However, right at the moment of observation, a signal must be instantly sent everywhere else that tend to say 'particle cannot be here'. One can see this strange signal as a way of preventing a single particle from appearing at two places all at once. You can intuite it this way: supposing you are sitting down here and then suddenly, another 'you' running in andromeda appears. For that 'you' to be truely you, the you that is sitted here must somehow instantly cease to be aware. That is to say we completely have no problem with the idea of us moving to andromeda in a twinkle of an eye no matter how far andromeda is.
Read more…
There is yet another huge paradigm shift burrowing its way to physics. This round, it is the universe wherein everything happen by chance that is waving bye bye. Physicists are steadily beginning to realise that the universe is incredibly fine tunned as it were, the works of a genius accrobat.A philosopher termed Gotfried Leibniz once offered a good argument for God. In summary, it goes (putting it in my own words):1.)Everything whose otherwise than how it is is possible must have a reason why it is how it is and not that otherwise.2.)A universe that is not like this is possible.3.)Therefore there must be a reason why the universe is as it is and not any otherwise.4.)The ultimate cause of everything must have a sufficient reason within itself for being how it is and not any otherwise.In the era of Einstein's physics, there was a tendency of physicists to view the so called laws of physics as inevitable. Einstein himself was the gang leader in making it firm the notion of a law of physics. He is reported to have said that he want to see if God had any other option. Remember that Einstein tended to try explain phenomenon as though necesity. This is why even though space is perceived as necesity, he tended to unwittingly treat is as contingent, like aether. Using 'space' to explain physics will then make the physics looks more necesary than background dependent physics. However, this cannot realy fool anyone. That is why the search for a true theory of gravity is still ongoing and string theory IS background dependent, hence very contingent, suggesting that the universe is far from being inevitable.The physics that is doomed to get obselet is the one that explain natural phenomena using a pendulum that swings back and forth from necesity to chances and nothing in between.Q: Why did you get the head and not the tail after tossing the coin?A:The chanceQ:And why did the coin fall down and not up?A:The lawBy just invorking these two abrakadabras, chance and law, the physicist purpotes to explain everything and to understand nothing. Since everything that is not law must be a chance, then those things that happen with no law dictating them must be those likely. If they see 'unlikely' event but which nevertheless happen, then they look for a law to 'explain' it. However, unfortunately for them, not everything is explicable by laws. 'Laws' are just differential equations and solving them absolutely requires innitial and boundery condition. It is these conditions where the true drama lies. They are supposed to belong to the 'chance' folder but they stubbornly refuse to get their heads to the folder.So you are now ready to understand the fine tunning issue. Not every phenomena of physics is due to a law, much less, a necesity of nature. Specifically, the values of constants of nature are not determined by any laws. The mass of an electron is just like the mass of the earth or the moon. That is to say it could possibly be any value. But guess what? The value is choosen just to allow life to be possible! The wonder of the electron having the exact mass it has is just the same wonder of the earth having just the right size, with the just the right moon, with the right atmosphere, at at just the right distance from the sun just at the right time during sun's evolution to allow you to leave. There is no law which dictated where the earth should be. This is a matter of initial and boundery conditions presumed to be due to chances!THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSEThe universe is assumed to have begun. But since beginning together with its innitial conditions is supposed to belong to the 'chances basket', then maybe the picture of an exploding quarrey is appealing . After all with such a 'quarrey', you won't bother to ask why anything might be flying the way it might be flying. If on the other hand a pineable had poped out, it would be like a wow! This is because a pineable is thought to be 'unlikely' (by fallible human brain). However, Roger Penrose has shown that this is ridiculus! If the accuracy of the innitial conditions missed by one part in some number n, they you won't be here. To write n, use atoms for zeros. Then if an atom represents a zero, there isn't enough number of atoms in the known universe to write n! So the picture that comes to our mind for n seems not much different from infinity.To have exploded, the universe neaded to have a repulsive type gravity. It is thought to be offered by negative energy in vacuume otherwise termed cosmological constant. If this constant was slightly bigger, then objects would fly like bullets from a machine gun. Never would they have time to collect into atoms, let alone planets and stars. If this constant was slightly smaller, then the universe would have almost instantly recolaps into a blackhole. So to create a working universe, no skills short of that of an acrobatical basket baller that can throw a mango from japan all the way to a market in London surfice! To put it in summary, for a universe that can later bring out a pineable to begine, it requires as much a miracle to happen at the beginning as it were for the pineable itself to have poped out right at the start! Then Darwinism becomes moot!HIERARCHY PROBLEMTo what can I liken this with? It is like discovering that Venus and Earth are infact equal to an accuracy that is correct to 18 decimal places! When you want to say that there is a law that balances the masses, you realise that one is infact slightly heavier by just one atom, and this atom is crucial to life!There is a way in which physicists deal with infinities arising in their equations. They find themselves subtracting huge numbers from their equations. If there were a law of nature dictating the value of those numbers, as in the size of the earth, then you would espect them to cancel out. But the reason they should cancel out but just leave the precise and extreemly tiny number just neaded to make the cosmos is the center of the can of worms.ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE AND THE MULTIVERSEThe antropic principle is a joker card. It is a red herring. It says, hey, lets turn attention from the wonderfull universe and focus on an inexistent one which is not that wonderfull! So he opt to a 'theory of anything' to reintroduce 'chance' out of an inexistent window. But since multiverse theory is infact a theory of anything, one of this anything should be the same same God! What problem after all did this guys have with God? They have equally ended up with a theory that is both unverifyable and unfalsifyable. So why not just accept the simpler one: the universe was infact designed?So disperate is our poor 'Darwin' when he realise that explaining the origin of life using the universe merely kick the ball close to his own penalty area that he resort to bring Darwinism to cosmology! The universe is now thought to be akin to a leaving thing. It eats using a black hole, shits using a white hole and gives birth to baby universes using wormholes! Voila! Universes too can evolve via natural selection!Finally, lets recarp the antropic principle to see if it conduct electricity. It says the universe is as it is because if it were not so, we will not be there to study it. Good! If you one day find yourself trapped inside a well but then a rope come down to you so you may climb out, you can ammuse yourself that the rope came down to the well because if it were not so, you won't be there to think about ropes. I.e explain what it did not happen in an inexistent scenario because trying to explain what it did happen is too remarkable.PASTOR: Praise chances!GANG OF IDIOTS: Amen!
Read more…
The 'fundamental particles' is the first born son of reductionism. Reductionism is the assumption that if I break a system into its components, study the components in isolation, then I have understood everything there is to understand about the system. It is preconceived ideas of how the world should be, not observations, that have been the fuel and the rocket that propels the religion of 'science'The 'fundamental particles' is the idea that there exist few simple tiniest particles out of which, everything else is made by their mere rearrangements. It must first be noted that no one begun by first OBSERVING such particles. But when we begine by developing a firm beleif in something, and then begine searching evidence, we human beings then tend to be blind to or trivialise or explain away facts that does not agree with the preconceived idea.It is the search for fundamental particles that makes us 'find' some such as electrons, photons etc. It is what makes the physicist to make the ludicrous claim that these particles are point size, i.e of zero size! So photon, for instance, has no size, no shape, no mass and no charge and yet they have discoverd it in colliders! Of course this rely of sheer gullibility of the layperson funding those accellerators. These zero sized particles can decay farther to even smaller particles! The only word that can summarise anyone beleiving in such establishment garbage is 'insane'!But how has establishment excaped the hooks? Simple! The modern science has subtituted 'inferring' with 'proof'. If someone 'predict' that some invisible queen is surrounded by buzzing bees, then discovering the bees tantamounts to discovering the invisible queen! In otherwords, what the fool is trying to say is that reasoning using some 'beautifull and elegant equations' is infallible!Thinking in terms of fundamental particles lead to unanswerable questions. For instance both electrons, quark and photons are supposed to be fundamental. However, the question immediately comes as to what exactly makes these particles unique. As in all religions, there are always points farther than which you are allowed to ask! If you are talking of the tortoise model of the world, you should not ask what the tortoise is standing on. If you are talking to a christian, you are not allowed to ask what God was doing before he created the world. In big bang religion, you are not even allowed to think about a 'before big bang'. In the religion of fundamental particles, you are not allowed to ask what these bricks are in turn made of. It is sort of like asking what God is made of! This is realy because farther questions instantly destroy the religion. So don't ask.But exactly why did scientists tried to force things to fit fundamental particle way of thinking. The answer is a perverted notion of 'understanding'. In conventional science, we must think of a fundamental universe wherein simple things obey simple blind rules. Combining these simple things and simple events into a complex observed event constituted understanding the event. Or in short, 'reductionism' is confused with 'understanding'. Rather, understanding should stop at figuring out all the causal factors relevant in a phenomena. Without the intuition of cause and effect, 'understanding' becomes a meaningless concept. With this latter notion of understanding, reductionism is not mandatory. For instance, though we can describe the motion of celestial bodies using a single, elegant equation, this does not constitute understanding gravity. However, Bjerkness's demonstration of gravity using pulsating balls imerced in a fluid is the correct aproach to building a human understanding of gravity even though Bjerkness's work suggest that gravitating objects are the works of an intelligent being!THE CORRECT APPROACHScrap off the idea of a fundamental particle completely and begine entertaining the notions that1.)There is no limit as to how small a particle can be2.)Small particles are not necesarily simple3.)Not all small particles necesarily combine up to form the big objects we can observe.Considering the point '2' we now understand say electrons in a bit different way. The properties that ends up leading us to categorise a family of objects as 'electrons' is only aproximately true for all the electrons. Thus an electron taken as fundamental is only the art of treating it as a black box. Thus a theory that treats electrons as fundamental is only aproximately true or in some more fantastic terms, it is an EFFECTIVE THEORY. Then considering points '1' and '2' means that there can be NO fundamental theory, i.e 'theory of everything'! All theories are effective. We can but only make theories more and more accurate but never exact.All electrons then are but only aproximately the same. Electrons differ from quarks just like cats differ from dogs. However, each electrons is unique and no two are exactly alike. That means treating all of them as alike can but only be an aproximation and the resultant theory is only aproximately true.BUT WHY DOESN'T ESTABLISHMENT TAKE THIS PATH?It completely fly against the reductionism doctrine. Even though no one realy saw the subatomic world, it is somewhat a taboo to posit that there might be bees as small as electrons! Such 'bees' serve no purpose to the reductionist. He can nolonger use the subatomic world to 'understand' the macroscopic world because he has, since a child, been indoctrinated that understanding constitutes figuring out how a phenomena follows from simple, structures and simple rules. That, not true understanding, is the reason he seeks fundamental particles.Modern 'scientist' does not seek knowledge nor understanding. He rather seeks a world which is fundamentally simple and which obeys simple blind rules. He seeks such a world because he beleive in it! He selectively sees only the evidences that supports this view and explain away other evidences through endless ad-ocs and ever complications. He seeks a simple world wherein complexity, sentience, order etc happens by chances and not as an intergral part of reality. 'Explaining' has be turned not to be the process of trying to make sense of the world but rather 'explaining away' the phenomena, such as life, that we donnot want them to be part of the fundamental universe!
Read more…
When you ask the mainstream scientist about consciousness, he offers one of the 3 ireconcilable answers depending on who is asking and/or what they are asking about.1.)Consciousness emerges from complex neural activities.2.)Consciousness does not exist.3.)We donnot know what or how consciousness comes about.Like a dishonnest magician stealthly swapping the hats and then pulling out the rabbit, our 'scientist' will obviously win every argument. When you give him a new idea, such as quantum mind, he objects with '1'. When you ask him to explain, he replies with '3'. When a dualist object that consciousness is beyond science, he releases the '2' joker card.So if we donnot shoot these wishy washies one at a time, we will get hopelessly lost chasing the moving born.EMERGENCEOur scientist immediately switches gears and is now a full blown poet. He is now going to entirely use metaphors and analogies. At once, we don't have neurons on the table. We now have water. Water is a collection of molecules. Non of the individual molecules have some ill defined property termed 'wettness' and yet the bulck of them, water, has. So he forms analogya)brain -> waterb)neurons -> atomsc)consciousness -> wetnessUnfortunately, though, analogies are scientifically worthless. They are often meant to help the lazy to quickly grasp a difficult idea. In this particular instance, analogy is not being used as a guidance to a difficult idea. It is used as a smock in the arena to hid unjustifyable ghosts that the magician is trying to surreptitiously introduce.A GUIDE TO PROPER USE OF ANALOGIES: The theoretician must be able to drop the analogy and explain the real thing. Analogies SHOULD be dispensable in a theory.All these stupid analogies emergentists offer suffers exactly the same set of problems. Let me quickly peruse through the glarring one. 'wetness' is merely the property of matter that is due to its ability to flow and a percolate through other objects. Neurones too would flow in bulk and 'wet' things by percolating through those that have bigger spaces. Therefore if brain is analogous to water and neurones to atoms, then wetness will be analogous not to consciousness but to a type of 'wetness' caused by bigger 'atoms'.So let me summarise the definition of emergent propertyEmergent property is a property of the whole and yet non of the component of the whole has it. A tunnel is hollow yet non of the bricks used to constract it is hollow. We say 'hollowness' is an emergent property.This red herring has completely mislead neurologists into thinking that we can understand consciousness from neural activities in the same way we can understand hollowness from bricks. This analogy sets the boat off the track right at the beginning.The problem comes from failure to see that we can but only ammuse ourselves that each of the brick does not contribute to the property termed 'hollow'. To understand this, lets build our structure using extremely thin cylydrical sectors as 'bricks'. Then we end up with a solid and not anything hollow. Or in short, what emerges in a system with components still depends on a property in the components that is being summed over and over. We don't, for instance expect a nuclear bomb to surreptitiously emerge as we build the tunnel.PANPSYCHIC:Guess what? H-bomb has emerged from cement in a constraction siteDUALIST: Suddenly, our materialist has turn into a magician for just that specific instance.PANPSYCHIC: Yeah, I see. Things now emerge by the magic wand of a materialist!EMERGENCE DEPENDS ON CONSCIOUSNESSPerharps the most ridiculus thing with emergentism model of consciousness is that emergence itself is clearly due to consciousness. Without somene to to think about dust, particles out there, what we have is just motion. It is the conscious perception and consideration of motion that integrates verious motions of dust particles into a single activity we term it as 'tornado'. Tornado is completely abstract from particles. As an abstraction, it is contingent on the very same thing we are trying to understand. So emergence is the question itself and not the answer!PROTOCONSCIOUSNESSIf at all the emergentist is to make sense of consciousness, then the best idea is that of proto conscious events. The obvious problem with the analogies offered for the emergent phenomena is that in all cases, both the component, the system the properties of the components and the emergent properties are those gotten via a bird's angle type of observation otherwise incongruously termed as 'objective'. On the other hand, each neurone together with neural activities must be thought of as objective and yet consciousness must be thought of as to be entirely subjective! This is the crucial point where the analogy breaks. We are realy not saying that emergence don't happen. Rather, in the case of awareness, we lack the appropriate proto consciousness from which the consciousness must emerge. Like consciousness, protoconsciousness property must be gotten via solely subjective perception just as both water molecules and wetness are properties gotten via objective perception. Only this way can emergence analogy do justice to consciousness. But we see that neural activities fails miserably to be the protoconscious events.OBJECTIVE CONSCIOUSSome scientists are carefull to limit their use of the word 'conscious' to rifer only to what they can know of from what I may term it as 'Galilean Science'. Indead science is, by definition, objective knowledge and if consciousness is, by definition, entirely subjective, then consciousness fall outside scientific juridiction. The only reason a materialist stick their noses with their 'science' is that should science leave consciousness alone, then it provide an idealist with an exellent counter example of what can be certainly known of yet without a physical proof.The 'objective' definition of consciousness then can be: the ability of a system to act as a coherent whole. Then in this sence of 'consciousness', there is nothing at all logically problematic about 'consciousness' emerging from neural activities. One might then soundly say that the sense of 'I' is our subjective perception of a coherent brain just as we would perceive 'redness' when electromagnetic vibration is what is taking place 'objectively'.However, I don't like this object/subject dichotomy as the properties we wish to shove to 'objective' are realy not any less subjective than your notion of 'self'!Q:What is moon?A:Just a ball I am aware of that exist up thereThe only reason we regard consciousness as subjective is a lack of appropriate way of communicating our conscious states directly to other people. In other words, consciousness is subjective IN PRACTICE and not IN PRINCIPLE.
Read more…
The sensations that comes to our bodies can be clearly divided into two. There are those pleasant hence those we desire and then those that we would rather avoid them. For example the pleasant sensations are:i)Happiness/joy/ecstacyii)Loveiii)Aromaiv)Sweet food etcThe unpleasant sensations are:i)Painii)Angeriii)Sadnessiv)Bad smell etcWhen we close exermine what people seem to mean by 'paradise', it is a place wherein we experience only the first type of sensations. At least we must define an ideal paradise so.WHY DO WE EXPERIENCE BOTH OF THESE IN THE WORLDThe idiotic explanation normally offered is that we CHOSE this before we came here so we may LEARN. There is a reason explanation does not conduct electricity. When we zero in on the correct, much simpler explanation, we begine to see how paradise can come about. Pain, for instance, does not help us to learn anything apart from how to avoid it. This lesson is useless once we nolonger have the bodies like these ones. So the need for the lesson came AFTER we were born and not BEFORE we were born. The purpose of the lesson will END at death, when we nolonger have the type of the body and another purpose of the lesson will not BEGINE in an afterlife if we will then have a different body.The correct explanation as to why we can experience both good and bad things is that we need both of them to survive given the bodies like these we have. So perharps the question is that why then we have the bodies like these. Did we choose it? NO! It is because that was the only possible alternative at the time of your birth!! So there is no reason why we are not in a paradise at this time apart from that it is absolutely impossible for people like us to be in paradise at this time.In order for our bodies to do homeostasis exellently, they have succeded to somehow trap and made awake conscious being that must experience the body everytime it is fully aware. Then the body make use of the ability of 'it' to experience both bad and good things in order for the body to maintain its existence in this world.The pleasant sensations can be termed as those that produce the positive feedback in body's homeostasis. They serve to take the body more to the conditions that elicits the sensation. On the other hand the unpleasant sensations are used by the body as negative feedback, i.e to take the body away from the conditions that elicits them. We need both positive and negative feedback in every control system. With only the positive feedback, the body may get into a runnaway train. For instance if food ever tested nice, nothing will tell you where to stop. You will keep eating and eating until the stomach burst!There is a tendency to treat 'love' as special. However, it fits tightly alongside every other body sensation. There is no difference between feeling that you love someone and sensing the aromatic smell of cloves. Aroma is just the body saying 'more cloves please'. Love is just a body saying 'a little bit more of Eunice please'. So like aroma, it is not a suprise that once you get enough 'smell' of Eunice, the body now say 'a little less of Eunice please' and 'a little bit of Erica.:)'SO WHAT IS AN IDEAL PARADISE?My best guess is that the body has trapped both the 'positive' and 'negative' sensations of a conscious being so it may maintain itself in an ever changing enviroment. However, a conscious being can, in principle, exist on its own independent on the need to be used in a body's control system. One might at first find such an existence to be purposeless. However, so does the life of a body in an ever changing enviroment. There doesn't seem to be any purpose of the body. It just maintain itself in an enviroment apparently for just the sake of it. Keeping on existing seems to be the only purpose of the body. Similarly, merely keeping on feeling good sensations can be seen as the only purpose of existing in a paradise. There doesn't have to be any other purpose.LOVEI must again finish by cautioning against overvaluing any sensation. Like I have shown above, these sensations seem usefull but only because the body has made use of them in its homeostasis. The aspect of love, usefull to other people apart from individuals feeling the sensation is that one which goes to meet their needs. Without the concept of 'needs' the usefullness of love, especially apart from the individual experiencing, is ill defined.A new ager is notorius in using 'love' to manipulate. He holds almost mutualy incompartible notions and embodies them within a vague notion he terms 'love'. He may at one time tell you of how much he does not need love from other people, and that the love they have for themselves is enough. Then he switches gears and tells you how love for other people is important, that only loving yourself is not good!! But if he does not need love from other people, whom does he think he need such love?? If no one need love from other people, then what is the purpose of loving them at all? NON!!Or in short, don't overvalue 'love'. Love's usefullness comes hand in hand with the neadiness of people in the surroundings. If people from the other corner of the world hate you, you still have to wake up in the morning, tie your own shoe lases, walk upright eat well etc. If they love you, you still have to wake up, tie your own shoe lases, walk upright and eat well! Clearly loving or hating you is something that concerns THEM not YOU. Similarly in a paradise, where no one need anything from anyone, we may as well not need love alltogether. All we need is bliss and we can choose love because it is blissfull TO US and not because it is necesary TO THE 'OTHER'.
Read more…
The word 'dimension' is often used in the context of any of the three lines that are each mutualy perpendicular to each other. When we try to squez more than 3 lines to meet at a vertex, we find that we can't get to make the 4rth one perpendicular to all the 3 all at once. This has nothing to do with limited imagination. Rather the idea of 'space' we have in our consciousness is a 'space of geometry'However, we can always abstract necesary ideas from this 'space of geometry' and then form other 'spaces' such as space of colors, space of music etc. We abstract the concept 'orthonomal' from the concept 'perpendicular'. Then being perpendicular to another thing is just a special case of a more general idea of being 'orthonomal' to that thing. It is this latter general idea that is not limited to the space of geometry.We say, for instance, that a tone is orthonomal to the other tone that is one octave higher. In another language, we say that a sound that is one octave higher 'rans in another dimension' It is in this sence that music eventually forms a multidimensional reality of their own. Unlike the space of geometry though, space of music is not limited to only 3 dimensions. This is because there can be as many octaves as you can imagine. Each octave is orthonomal to all the other octaves.ORTHONOMALITYIf two quantities are orthonomal, then varying one does not result in varying of the other. The eastern direction is othornomal to the southern direction in that if you move strictly to the south, you don't move to the east. On the other hand, south-eastern direction is neither orthonormal to east nor to south in that moving in south-eastern direction results in moving both to east and to south.This orthonomality concept extends very well to vibrating things. You normally hear it said that two signals vibrating at different frequencies donnot interfere with each other in that they are off resonance. Compare this to two forces. If one force act to the south direction, then it does not affect the other force acting towards eastern direction. It is this idea that leads to the concept of dot product between two vectors, which I will latter elaborate on it.But does the vibration at some other frequency truely don't affect the other? The more accurate answer is that the effect a vibration has on another vibration diminishes gradualy as you increase the frequency then it the effect becomes completely zero at some frequency, then again the effect begines to gradually increas till it reaches maximum again at exactly twice the frequency. So the frequency which is one octave higher is once again at a resonant frequency to the other frequency. But another concept necesary in orthonomality 'coherence'. Coherent frequencies are also resonant. But resonant frequencies are not necesarily coherent.Coherence/decoherence is what gives rise to the notion of 'mutually perpendicular' is the space of vibrations. If we relied only on resonance, they yes, moving from one frequency all the way to twice that other frequency, hence once again to a resonant frequency, would indead bring the notion of 'turning by ninenty degrees' but would have landed us to the original axis in that the frequencies can now affect each other. It would be sort of like rotating by 45 degrees and then beginning a journey to return to where you started instead of proceeding to creat a 90 degrees angle. However, because frequencies that are an octave different are nolonger coherent, the various octaves are realy not on the same axis in the space of music.GEOMETRY FROM VIBRATIONSThe first thing we must begine investigating is the notion of 'angle' in the 'space of vibrations'. If a string vibrats at a certain amplitude, call it a, and then some other string vibrats at some other amplitude, call it b, then the two amplitudes can simply add up if bothe frequencies are the same and the vibration is coherent. However, if the frequencies are different, it is a bit trick. Much the same trick as adding to forces that are not both running along the same axis. We must talk of a component of frequency in vibration A that is the same frequency as vibration B.It is here where the concept of 'dot product' comes in. To understand it, consider a vibrating thing such as a string eventualy making the resonator to vibrate. Then it exerts a force. Since the string keeps changing direction rapidly, the force two must be vibrating. The vibration of the string is harmonic. That is to say that it is composed of frequincies that are interger multiples of a fundamental frequency. For simplicity, We are going to consider only two such frequencies. So if f is the fundamental frequency, the we will consider f and 2f. So our music space is a two dimensional one. If a string vibrates, its displacement, call it x, will be described by a sinosuidal wave. We say-x=-lcos(A)-kcos(2A) (I am using 'minus' because this browser does not type 'plus')l=amplitude of the wave vibrating at fk=amplitude of the wave vibrating at 2fA=2pfp=pieThe force F (not to be confused with f) too will vibrate at the same frequencies of f and 2f. So we have-F=-F1cos(A)-F2cos(2A)F1=maximum force for exerted by the string vibrating at frequency f, which is the same thing as saying the amplitude.F2=maximum force exerted by the string vibrating at frequency 2f.The energy is given by Fx (force times distance) so we have-Fx=-lF1cos(A)cosA-kF1cos(A)cos(2A)-lF2cos(2A)cos(A)-kF2cos(2A)cos(2A)Now recall that we said that waves of different frequencies are decoherent and waves of the same frequency are coherent. So when we want to do average energy, cos(A)cos(2A ) always equals to zero and average of cos(A)cos(A)=average of cos(2A)cos(2A)=1 so oure equation for average energy reduces to-Fx=-lF1-kF2Which is the farmiliar dot product of two vectors, F and x given by:-F=-iF1-jF2-x=-il-jkThis suggests that we think of two frequencies of a vibrating thing as two dimensions in a space of music.MUSIC AS A JOURNEYSo if I say doh, reh, mih, fah, soh, lah, tih, doh', I am always moving like a soldier in an 8 dimensional space considering only some 3 of them, doh, soh, lah, then doh coresponds to one step say eastwards, soh coresponds to a step say southwards and lah will corresponds to a step say upwards. Normally these 3 tones can create any other song. Compare this to the fact that you can always move to anywhere in a 3d space by using a combination of only 3 motions. So each and every song can be said to inhabit a unique place in a space of music. Infact it is possible that tunes are more of discoveries in this other space than invensions! Unwittingly, mucisians explores a space of music that pervades the whole space.IS OUR UNIVERSE INFACT A SPACE OF MUSIC?It is quite possible that the 'space of geometry' is infact a creation of mind by mapping what are infact frequencies as axi in a 3d space. Thinking this way makes the idea that our world is up to 26 dimensional makes perfect sense. If you doubt that this is possible, remember that 'creation of space' already happens when you dream. That the mind is capable of creating a vast space where infact there is non is not a far fetched idea at all.Quantum jumps backs up this idea. Why must motions etc happen in descrete jumps? If moving is understood as playing a guitar, then this makes perfect sense! To move 4 steps along the 'doh' direction, I must play doh doh doh doh. If each tone has amplitude l, then the total 'distance' would be 4l, i.e distance is automatically quantised. So if we simply understand the universe as the work of some realy good guitarist, then quantum mechanics becomes straight foward to understand!
Read more…
When it comes to an expert in trapping people in what I may term it as 'prove know beleive' mindset, then 'positivism' takes the beer. The modern man is a preacher and never a teacher. He KNOWS everything and UNDERSTAND nothing. He always try to recruit, persuade, prove, convert. This is the sons of a way of thinking termed 'positivism' so lets close exermine this doctrine to see if it has any merits.POSITIVISM: A philosophical stand which hold that justifyable knowledge is only that which can be proven by observation and/or infered logically from what we observe.It seems to make sense. However, as I will show you, it does not conduct electricity. It is saing 'science' (as unwittingly redefined in modern times) is the only justifyable knowledge. So it is even tempting to equate science to positivism. This was infact done at the beginning of 20th centuary. Positivism disease plagued physics during the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics. Positivism, when fully mature, begets absurd knowledge and endless paradoxes.Positivism gives excess trust to common senses, test, touch, smell, hear, see and reject introspection as a source of knowledge. But what sense does this make? Introspection performed by the BRAIN, the very same organ that must interprate the data you observe through your senses. If the intuition of the brain is not to be trusted, then neither should we trust our senses because it is infact the very same brain that sees, and not the eyes. It sees what it has checked and gotten convince that it is true. Or perharps it simply sees what it want to beleive and/or what is usefull to beleive.Positivism looks sensible but surprisingly, it begets obviously dump conclusions and experiments. How many things do we truely prove in day to day life? The answer is NOTHING! When your child merely walks around the corner of the streets, you can nolonger prove by touching, seeing and smelling that he exist any more. Neither can you prove that he will return. Is it not equaly justifyable to coock lunch for that child because you cannot prove empirically that he still exist? What makes you so sure that people don't vanish by merely hiding? The answer is introspection. A sane person should be able to understand that trusting the 'eyes', the visual cortex, and doubting celebral cortex is philosophically bunk.With positivism, we don't trust the brain. We have to perform experiments to 'prove' even very stupid claims. Some of these experiments worth billions of dollers. So positivism is takes the wisky when it comes to making scientists zillionairs. Is the seed inside a mango perharps bigger than the mango itself? Guess what? We must pull out the tape and measure the mango and then measure the seed!Positivism rejects a priori knowledge in favour of a pesteriori yet it is, itself an a priori reasoning on what constitude justifyable know. So positivism self destruct on its own way to defining itself. The question of whether or not knowledge should constitute only the empirical cannot be settled via experiments. To do that is begging the question. Therefore the positivist cannot have possibly arrive at his coclusion by experimentations and proves. Therefore, based on its own standard, positivism is not a justifyable knowledge. Positivism is one of those ideas ridiculus enough to self refute!INSTINCTOne of the most ridiculus notions, often peddled by relativists and quantum mechanists is the insinuation that a priori knowledge is a sum of what we observe in day to day world. What they are yet to discover is another way of knowing termed 'instinct'. We can easily know that many of what QM and SR brew are downright garbage even without performing any experiment. This strange way of knowing has nothing to do with empiricism. It is an inborn state of the brain that if it can be said to be wrong, then even empiricism is wrong because a posteriori knowledge inevitably pass through the very same brain we wish to dismiss!For example, a relativist is stupid enough to think that the knowledge of space and time is derived a posteriori. To a relativist, it is after gawking at a clock that he comes to terms with what 'time' mean!! Thus the inventers of clocks did not know what they were trying to measure, and yet the calibrations they made must be unquestionable!! It is after flying a clock around the world do we come to terms with what 'time' means. Make sense? Why all these crap? Because admitting that 'time' is known a priori is a classic counter example against positivism which holds that all justifyable knowledge are those comming from the temple called 'laboratory'.Everyone who have passed through a physics lesson number 1 ought to know that if you donnot know how long an object is, then you cannot measure how long it is. But how come Lord Kelvin was stupid enough to equate 'measuring' with 'knowing' and mislead a generation of physicists? We know a priori what equality and inequality means without having experience the world. A chick must be able to know an eagle, nearness, speed and even gravity without having experienced these things before. Ergo there is a way of knowing that can circumvent the need for empirical proofs!One can even argue that all knowledges are infact ultimately instinctual. We can completely circumvent the 'truth'/'false' dichotomy and replace it with a 'usefull'/'useless' dichotomy. A bat uses a natural radar to constract an image of the world. It may have a very 'false' picture of the world. But 'truth' is not important!!! Avoiding danger is all we need. We see and experience things that our minds find them important to know of. If for instance the magnetic field lines could easily tear us apart, then upon sensing the forice, our brains would develope a 'false' image to toruses here and to allow us to 'know' that there is a danger ahead. Everyone would beleive that there is aether 'even if it does not exist'. Ergo it is philosophicaly prudent to hold that if it behaves, for all relevant purposes, like it exists, then it exists!! We donnot need a physical prove of existence. We need to UNDERSTAND phenomena to a good extend as making viable predictions using it.SCIENCE IS NOT POSITIVISMLet us again recarp positivism:"...justifyable knowledge is only those that can be proven empirically..."Ironically, even science fails this criteria. To be usefull, science must rely on statements that, strictly speaking, cannot be proven. You cannot prove that a mango must always fall down no matter how many experiments you perform with mangoes! We accept a claim as 'science fact' only because it is USEFULL to beleive and not because it is TRUE. Once a more usefull idea comes, such as a 'curved space', we drop the latter 'even if it was true'! We don't retain Newton's gravity necesarily because it is true but because it is usefull. Gr might be 'true' but to land man on moon, we nead Newton gravity 'even if it is false'! So it is usefull to beleive in Newton's gravity. Consiquently, our brains convinces us that it is true and GR curved nothing is garbage. Or in short, there is simply no truth! Either a claim is sensible, hence usefull, or senseless and hence useless!
Read more…
E=mc2 is the most popular formular in physics. However, it is also the least understood. The part that is least understood is the most important part. People love to quote it and somewhat hate to think about it. It is just like the case with the concocter of the wisky himself, Albert. They love to celebrate him and hate to imitate him. If you are beginning to feel belitled, don't loose heart cause I will show you that the stupidest guys are amongst, not the laymen but the bozos calling themselves 'experts'. To get a rough grip, lets for instance listen from the horse's mouth:"...now that the mathematicians have taken over (relativity), I myself nolonger understand it..." EinsteinIf Einstein cannot understand the modern relativity, you can at least feel better when I demystify E=mc2. At least you are not alone in the basketfull of bozos, especially if your very master is acompanying you in hell.The first myth that set the boats off is perharps the most ridiculus of all: that it takes a genius to figure out that E=mc2. So it cannot be anything easy to understand. Einstein must have peeped to gods up there to listen to secreat chats amongst divine beings whispering what every stuff is made of. Then they say behold! It is an abstract mathematical concept termed energy! Energy is the explain it all word, more formidable than 'God'. But to inject back sanity, we must begine by humbling the equation to what it is: a DEFINITION effortlessly invented by Gotfried Leibniz in 17th centuary, calling it visa-vis. Since E=MV2 is inbuilt to the math of mass, force and energy, should someone like Albert massages equations correctly, he can always spit out things like E=MC2. It isn't a surprise, the conclution is already hiding in the assumptions!INERTIAWhat then does it take for an otherwise smart person to make the following ridiculus interpratation, M=object (everything), c=speed of light, E=concept? The answer is an hodge podge understanding of INERTIA and MASS and science as a whole! A relativist want to convince you that if you encounter an ET, he will CALCULATE what an object is and ET can somehow understand the nonsense! Math is just a collection of counting tactics. They have no place in what things ARE. They only say how many they are! So it is time to dethrone this false queen off the pedestral in the temple of science. In true physics, mathematics is a SLAVE, not the QUEEN. ILLURTRATION is the queen of science.If you place a ball on the table in a pannell full of relativists, their brains are already miles ahead! Their reasoning is entirely along EFGH. They have no place for ABCDs. A relativist will have already begun pushing the ball and watching how it is accellerating, he is already in moon with ball and beam balances, he is already placing the ball in some hypothetical trains shooting near the speed of light, he is already moving in some imaginary train and watching the ball from the train, yada yada, bla bla bla. In short, a relativist is one such a guy who can't get to stay in the present moment and just take a look at something. He is already full of irelevant complexities and unanswerable questions such that what exactly it is on the table is a complete nonstarter.Ok, lets be more precise and recap the problem with relativity. It is traceable to the E= MC2 great grand father equation:F=mam=massF=forcea=accelerationThis is where the ambiguotus word, 'mass' firt appear in an equation. At once, you can smell the moronic thing in this equation. Sir Newton is trying to convince you that such a static thing as mere presence of matter can somehow determine how things can accelerate! To a sane person, what resists acceleration (inertia) must be what matter DOES to the compelling force and not what it IS inherently. This action must provide a strange, short lasting reaction force in the opposite direction to the applied force, resisting the effective action force as far as causing acceleration is concerned.In principle, any object can accelerate at any rate for any given force. If accelleration per given force seems to depend of quantity of matter (true mass), then it is only because matter is composed of identical particles each with identical behaviour. In this case, they all offer the same amount of resistance to acceleration. Then true must is obtained by COUNTING the particle. Mass as quantity of matter must be a unitless number. So Newton's equation must be rewritten as F=nma, n is the number of fundamental parts, m is the inertia offered by each part. Infact such is how Newton originaly stated the second law of motion, not with an equation but this way:"Rate of change in momentum is directly proportional to the force applied"Modern reinterprates replaced 'is directly proportional to' with 'is equal to'EINSTEIN CONFUSES MASS WITH INERTIASo if following the equation f=ma we measure the 'mass' of fundamental particles by pussing it, checking how it accelerates and say their mass is given by m=f/a, then that is the most moronic thing we can do in science! We should not MEASURE the mass, we should just DEFINE it. In the case of fundamental particle, we can chose to call it 1 bla bla bla grams. Measuring it as f/a makes Newton's law true by DEFINITION and not by EMPIRICAL FACT. Idiocy cames when mathphysicists defines their 'laws' to be true in all possible universes and then go ahead to ask you for funds to test them by running experiments! It is called scotsman's fallacy.But lets check Einstein's, Poincare's etc reasoning. He begines by Lorentz's transformations of lengthsx=x'{1-(v/c)^2}^(1/2)then accelarations, a and a' must transform the same way as a=d^2x/(dt)^2 and a'=d^2x'/(dt)^2 so:a=a'{1-(v/c)^2}^(1/2)then the morons use a=f/m and a=f/m' to deduce that masses must transform inversly as:m=m'/{1-(v/c)^2}^(1/2)So it is crystal clear that they commit a crime in physics. Unlike in math, in physics, the equation f=ma does NOT mean same as ma=f!! There is another thing in physics inexpressible with maths. It can be true that given force, matter must accelerate yet given matter there doesn't have to be any force.HIGGsPerharps the math is hard to crack down. To convince you that mass appearing in modern physics is not a necesary essence of matter, consider higgs. If what 'mass' is had already been figured out back in 1905, what was the purpose of another centuary search for a particle that should explain mass in objects? Is this latter theory of higgs even reconcilable with the notion of Einstein? In higgs theory 'mass' is a strange entity that can be donated like pants, then clearly mass does not mean the same thing as matter. Therefore even the mathematical physics is clearly refuting the notion that E=MC2 means that EVERYTHING is energy.In the comments section, I will deduce to you E=mc2 using two different methods. You should be able to see that it is either inertia that we are equating to mass or the theory is one that is explicable within the bounderies of Newton's physics.
Read more…
The sun rise set rise set,...The year come, goes, come, go,...We sleep wake sleep wake,...All the day, you get into the house, out of the house, into the house,...We get dirty, get clean, get dirty, get clean,...We breath in, breath out, breath in breath out,...Can we also induce that we die, ressurect die ressurect die ressurect? It seems to fit the pattern so well. But the mechanism doesn't seem quite obvious. Hopefully, I will elucidate it here.There is a reson why the die-resurrect circle doest not follow quickly from all those other 'circles' of nature. It has something to do with growth being a change that is akin to change in etropy. This is to say that it is irreversable at least during the timescale of our lifetime. But the growth is the true way all changes of nature happen. Though things seems to move in circles, actualy they spiral and move in helical paths.The changes in seasons that we are farmiliar with as in winter sammer winter summer,...are what we might term them as solar seasons since they are caused by the earth on its journey around the sun. Since the solar system in turn revolves around the galactic center, it makes sense to talk of galactic seasons. There must be subtle changes as the solar system pass through different regions in its journey. So no two years or even days are exactly different.It is this subtle difference between two years that I like to see it reflected in our aging. Though January comes once more, we are not as old as we were last year. This is because though the earth has come to the same position it were relative to the sun last year, it has 'irretrivocably' gone somewhere else relative to the galaxy. But it is not completely iretrivocable as galactic seasons too are cyclic. It is only that the circle takes much longer. So once the other January, that is truely identical to the gone January comes after millions of years, we will have grown as young as we were!So we will once again resurrect being old and then grow younger all the way to being children when the earth will be in the other extreem end of the milky way! At the other extreem, time seems to run in riverse direction!
Read more…
One of the most puzzling problems in neurology is the so called binding problem. The properties of the object you perceive, such as color, shape, location etc are processed in different regions of the brain. However, in your awareness, you never fail to recognise that they all belong to the same object and not a series of unrelated properties.But I tend to think that there is a corresponding 'problem' in quantum mechanics that make me think that even the universe experience its own type of 'binding problem'. Remember that it is said that before you observe a particle, there is a probability of finding it anywhere! How does nature know that all the eigenstates are 'properties' of the same particle and not of zillions of particles in an ocean? This mirrors the binding problem exactly. How do your brain know that several locations are properties of the same object, say a moving one?Having established that the universe, like the brain, can 'perceive' different objects at different locations, or STATES in general as rather just different information pertaining to the same entity, we can now picture alot of realms in the 'cosmic mind'. Remember that particles forming objects are just vibrations. So indead the analogy of particle as a piece of information is apt. Also notice how this explains quantum entanglement.This can explain how death can be illusory. When you die, your body rather has changed state. Different particles in your body are now in different states. Lets say they are now in different locations relative to each other. But because these particles are just information, you can view the changing of locations as just the way your brain process information pertaining to different properties of the same object at different regions. The cosmic 'binding problem' now is how the cosmos treat different particles at different locations as to all belong to a single set such as your body. So from the point of view of the mind of the universe, you have not died, even if you exploded in an H bomb! Ask how can this be? I say it is the cosmic version of 'binding problem'.
Read more…
Many skeptics doubt telepathy on the basis that they seem incompatible with known physics. Let me use an example where an andromedan telepathically tell you to raise your hand, then you instantly raise the hand! Since our science trace the action to electromagnetic signal switched on from the brain and the switches in the brain are controled by isomerising molecules, then there has to be a way in which molecules can be caused to move that is yet unknown to science and/or incompartible to known science.This is also good in showing the serious problems with the 'beyond science' wishy washy joker card that religion has taught us to release when cornered. Either we can prove telepathy in us and that telepathy is physics or telepathy is not physics and we must forever rely on blind faith. So we must explain telepathy at least to show that it is compartible with known facts. There is nolonger need to form a no-answer-answer theory.My attempt to inject sense to telepathy is to hold that indead there are ways in which particles can move that is yet to be known by physics. So our physics is INCOMPLETE yet. But how exactly has this motion eluded physics? Let me use an analogy. Consider a piece of iron. If you were to test if it is a magnet, you will conclude that it is not, but you are wrong!! Infact EVERY OBJECT IS A MAGNET! It is only that in what we are acustomed to call it magnet simply has all its tiny magnets alligned in a single direction. This causes the metal to manifest its magnetism.In a very analogous way, the brain has a way of aligning very tiny 'vibrations' to form a coherent 'vibration' that we perceive it as 'us' that are acting freewilingly. Infact without such an explanation, our freewill itself is unexplained as the series of actions in atoms that eventually constitutes our brain, when studies in isolation are too seperate to eventually form the unity whole that we perceive as ourselves. So mere need to explain the so called 'binding problem' in the philosophy and the science of mind naturaly brings in telepathy!QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENTAn amazing teaching in quantum mechanics is that in a multiparticle system, we donnot treat them as many particles. Remember that these particles are infact wavicles. So we don't treat the waves of the many particles as many waves. We treat it as a SINGLE wave! There is no true seperation in quantum mechanics. Seperation is an EMERGENT phenomenon due to DECOHERENCE. We only need to wonder whether consciousness is due to sensing this SINGLE field as opposed to the many particles wiggling around on top of this ocean.Tied to this mystery is yet another one termed 'collups of wavefunction'. But I want you to understand exactly how this 'collups' implies the reality of 'spooky' action-at-a-distance relevant in understanding telepathy. Quantum mechanics say for instance that before we measure the position of a particle, there is always a non zero probability of finding it anywhere within the boundary condition! The point is that immediately we measure and find a particle somewhere, the entire ocean somehow 'freeze' everywhere in that the probability of finding it anywhere else now becomes zero. The question what happened to make it so? Or rather how did the rest of the ocean now suddenly 'know' that the particle is now certainly not here any more? Surely it must be an instantaneous communication throughout every region in the undulating ocean! Can such a way of communication explain telepathy?Many physicists will say 'NO' because any such a communication violet Einstein's Relativity. But I say YES for I have long sinse droped Einstein's theory in favour of an equally empirically correct theory termed Lorentz's theory which does not prevent such communication IN PRINCIPLE. Infact, you should be able to easily see that the reality of quantum entanglement makes Einstein's theory trivialy true! It is NOT a law of nature, it is a practical difficulty on the part of a human with his tools but not in nature. Nature has a way of superluminal communication.This practical difficulty comes because with instrumentations, we can't realy get to decide when and where exactly the particles should collupse. Also we can't get to make many of them collups at a go, i.e coherently. Ergo we cannot modulate them to carry information. But what if physicists are wrong in this and that when we use the mind, things are different? Infact, this latter makes perfect sense when we want to say that quantum uncertainity is realy due to freewill. Remember that we are not strangers watching the particles from remort. WE ARE THE PARTICLES!!
Read more…
Lets first begine by overturning the tables upside down, or infact right side up. An habbit rooted in what I might term it as 'Galilean Physics' is that of studying neurones, each of which thought to be unconscious, thinking that the synthesis of them will help us understand how another ghostlike entity, 'consciousness' emerge. Needless to say, this is like adding a very large number of zeroes with the hope of obtaining a number for when we donnot factor in consciousness in any of the neurones, any addition of neuron to our synthesis contributes zero to our understanding of consciousness.On the other side of the absurd pendulum is an equaly stupid claim that we cannot understand consciousness scientifically. 'Science' is coined from the latin word, 'scientia' which just mean 'knowledge'. In the modern world, it has evolved to become 'objectiv knowledge', however, it is the very same 'Galilean Physics' that creats the object-subject dichotomy in principle as opposed to the proper, IN PRACTISE. So yes, if we revamp science to include consciousness in the fundamental way we perceive the universe, then yes we can 100% account for consciousness scientifically. Infact, it will be a nobrainer!The usuall way we understand things scientifically is simply to include what we have observed in the fundamental way we understand the universe. Why do we understand motion? Because after observing things move, we think of dynamics as part of the essential property of what define as all there is. It is the absurd stand of the modern science that even though we clearly observe us as conscious, and that this property is not reducable to dynamics etc, we should refuse to understand the universe with the light of this property, consciousness, we discovered in us. This is what makes it impossible to understand consciousness scientifically.OBJECT-SUBJECT DICHOTOMYThis first born son of 'Galilean Physics' is the first beast that we must gun down. Almost everyone will say that ball sitting on the table is objective while the consciousness of the table is subject. Let me surprise you abit; either both the ball and the consciousness are subjective or both of them are objective! I will go for the second. The only reason we think that consciousness is subjective is that we understand that mere clossing our eyes donnot necesarily make the ball varnish from another man's consciousness. But this is a PRACTICAL difficulty but not a PRINCIPLE property of consciousness. While if I close the door of my house, I may nolonger see the outer world and the outer world need not to varnish in the process does not mean that the space we define as 'our house' is any more subjective than any other region in the universe. Yet when it comes to consciousness, we are stupid enough to think that the mere difficulty in sharing our conscious perceptions makes consciousness a property distinct from any other property as to warrant a unique lable as 'subjective'.Rather simply, the words 'subjective' should stop at riffering to 'knowledge we haven't shared'. I have two bannanas in my room. The bannanas are subjective in that it is me alone who knows of them. However, if you enter my room, they cease being subjective. It is now objective, albeit just between me and you but it is still subjective to us together until someone else again enter the room, and so forth. Likewise if you telepathically connect with me, the thoughts I have about planning to sleep with Jane ceases be subjective, it is now an objective knowledge. So yes IN PRINCIPLE, consciousness is objective but IN PRACTICE, it better be labled as subjective. Anyone in the universe can observe my consciousness should the signals get to him and perharps just as you can observe my face better than myself, you can experience my consciousness IN YOU better than me!!MEASUREMENTSo then if consciouss is as objective as any other state, then we can measure it like any state in the universe. But first we need to understand well the essence of measurement. Over time, this ritual in physics temples have been so much performed and taken for granted that its true meaning has been entirely lost. Everyone unconsciously place a ruler against an object and some seconds latter, he spits out a number. It is no wonder people end up making ridiculus notion that there is some things we can know of that we can't measure.The insinuation is that when measuring say temperature, the coincidence between say the mark along the thermometer and the height of the expanding liquid is objective while what you obtain by touching the hot thing is the subjective knowledge about the heat. This of course would mean that shapes and movements exists 'out there' while the sense of temperatures etc exists 'in here' What a flaw in thinking! This is a disaster in modern science thinking. It instantly create the unsurmountable problem; what is qualia? Rather, shapes and the marks along a thermometer is as much a property of the 'in here' as it is for the 'out there'. Similarly, the heat you feel through the touch is as much the property of 'in here' as it is for 'out there'.Actually what the morons do, unwittingly, is to use a double standard in gauging whether the sense of touch gives as much objective knowledge as reading a thermometer. You see? Different people touching the stove give different opinions of how hot it is. They fail to realise that same would happen if the thermometer had no marks along the tube. In the latter then, we are comparing two quantities with themselves while we are not being clever enough to do so in the former. We are trying to obtain the temperature of a body by comparing it with our body, which might differ from person to person but in just exactly the same way judging how long a stick is without a ruler will tantamount to comparing the stick with yourself.So here is a fairer test, we place a stove and an ice side by side. This is now getting closer to what the thermometer moron is doing. The 'mark' coresponds to the ice and the liguid coresponds to the stove. Fact is, everyone will agree that the stove is hotter than ice without the need of any thermometer. Therefore the knowledge about the heat, we obtain by touching IS an OBJECTIVE fact about heat!The bottomline is that measurement is trivial, if not entirely useless, when it comes to UNDERSTANDING the world. Measurement has a deeper and more fundamental meaning than gazing at an instrument calibrated in Paris. It is when we think in terms of the deeper meaning do we understand that consciousness, like any other state in the universe CAN be measured! You can gauge sleep, drunk, dream etc because you are using the wake state as a yardstick.DESCRIPTIONThere is no such a thing as 'indiscribable'!! Description is a list of words we associate with what we have experience. These words are arbitrary and 100% INVENTION. We can describe ANYTHING by simply doing analysis of the parts and naming each of the parts. As long as our listener is familiar with what each of those words rifers to, there will be a meaningfull notion of description. If the property in question is not analytic, such as zero, a single word, zero, adequately describes the property. So we don't hail! Zero is BEYOND DESCRIPTION, no no no, it is THE EASIEST DESCREPTION! What the moron is doing is to identify description with listing of many words oblivious that we can adequatly descripe property using a single word if that property is not analytic. And we say just that; NOT ANALYTIC, not BEYOND ANALYSIS. The latter is misleading that zero is such a lofty concept that no one can understand it just because no one can describe it ('description' here taken narrowly to mean listing several words associated with zero, a silly task) phew!! The indoctrination that 'God is beyond understanding' or something like that drives humanity, in his ever search, to find anything, beyond beyond beyond,..., to fill that gap. We now worship non analytic CONCEPTS because they are 'BEYOND DESCRIPTIONS'. We bow to zeros, singularities, 'now', nothingness, one,..., guess what? They are beyond description! What a bunch of morons!
Read more…
Phew! What the hell do all these got to do with each other? You might be wondering. Then hold on. People talk about everything in the world being interconnected with everything else but they hardly go into details as to how these things are interconnected. Specifically, they don't address the question as to whether they are polyconnected, monoconnected or panconnected.Panconnectivity is a scenario where each of the set of all the particles involved in the interconnection is directly connected to each and every other particle in the set. As we will see, panconnectivity in things explains alot in our world.CONCEPTUALIZING PANCONNECTIVITYAs an example, we have ten particles. We are going to panconnect all of them with some strings radiating away from each particle. So in each of the ten particles, there are 9 strings radiating away. Everyone of the strings directly touches one of the other remaining 9 particles.Lets lable the particles as A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J .When we zoom more on the interconnections, we don't fail to find loops. Taking 'loops' containg two members in each set, we must permute AB, AC,AD,AF,...,BC, BD etc. If you knew some math, this is called 10 combination two. Likwise you can form a POLYCONNECTED loop that contains 3 particles in each loop. the sum total of such sets is 10 combination 3. You can go on upto the 10 combination 10, which will be just a single set.PERSONALITY AND UNIQUENESSThere is this question of uniqueness of individuals while at the same time the particles in our bodies can be used to form the bodies of other personalities! In panconnectivity, this poses no problem as we will see below.In each of the loops, we regard the set as a single thing on its own that has emerged. If anything, the 'single' particle is realy not single but a set. There is no such a thing as absolutely single. Singularity is a concept we form when we treat the thing as a black box. However when we zoom in, we find that the 'single' is in fact composed of many things.What makes a given loop containing many particles 'single' is a unique, instantaneous communication between them. In the 'loop' containing only two particles, we can understand this as that which would give rise to quantum entanglement. But when we add more particles to the loop, the entanglement does not get lost, rather its effect diminishes due to decoherence. We understand a 'single' particle as many particles that are vibrating coherently. So should two particles mearge, there will be a coherence between both the particles and hence between all the 'sub particles' that are constituents of the two particles.When another particle joins the 2 to form a loop of 3 particles, we find that there has to be now a unique coherent vibration that characterises the three particles. However, the uniqueness between the 2 earlier 2 particles must be maintained. The only way this is acheived is if the frequency connecting the 3 particles is different from that connecting the 2 particles. So at least 3 of the many 'subparticles' must alter their frequency. This new frequency decoheres with the earlier frequency. Hence joining 3 particles apparently disentangles the two particles as precisely demanded by quantum mechanics.GOD AND THE 'ORIGIN OF LIFE'As we have seen in our example, there are as many 'speacies' formed from the ten particles. The 10 combination 1, i.e 'single' particles will be analogous to single celled animals there are 10 of them in our case. The 10 combination 2 will be two celled animals etc. The point is that pan connecting all the particles with a connection that gives rise to instantaneous communication (or nearly so) already contain all the manner in which the particles can be interconnected! It already implicitly contain all the possible leaving things!! What remains is just a spatial seperation. (or apparent seperation)What is neaded is some brain in the 'ocean'. But this brain is already there for the connection neaded to form a brain is already there due to the pan-connection. Pan connection mean all possible connections already exist. You should note that it is CONNECTION, not NEARNESS that matters. Nearness is just one way of enhancing the connection. While all the components in your computer are near each other, this nearness is only for convenience. In principle, the computer can still work with all the components being seperated miles appart with wires or waves connecting them. Likewise the brain can still function even if it has died if all the relevant parts are still connected by a means of quick communication!!! But this connection, we know it exists. It is what gives rise to quantum entanglement.:)
Read more…
Dictionary may define 'concept' as the general idea about something. But are you sure you understand this statement? It seems that many people don't grasp it and yet it is the most important thing to understand for debates to be meaningfull. Conceptualization and understanding concepts is also crucial to understanding the universe.When people hear of 'idea', what comes to mind is a sort of theory about something. So ideas of things are like those in science, akin to relativity, quantum mechanics etc. So we can as well dispense off concepts. Nothing can be more mistaken! Rather, there are 3 ways of getting ideas: information, experience and the brain. So when you merely see the world, you automaticaly get an idea of a world. It is as if nature is somehow communicating with your senses.The understanding of an object and its concept comes all at once. If you think that you can somehow perceive the object 'billiard ball' without getting the concept 'billiard ball', then either you are mistaken about 'concepts' and/or your brain is mulfunctioning. When you want to teach an ET who knows not what the word 'billiard ball' rifers to, all you have to do is point at something with your fingure. The object 'billiard ball' is what is on the table at that moment. But if you blind fold the ET and then swap the billiard ball with a perfectly identical one, our ET won't tell the difference because he has the concept and not the object in his mind.Then I am just using the 'words' for illustration. It does not mean at all that words are necesary for conceptualisation. Words are circumscribed tightly to their role: mere communication. It happens even if you are simply staring at the 'billiard ball'. Should you close your eyes, a devil can as well swap the ball. 'Thinking' is also not necesary for conceptualization if you understand 'thinking' as 'mind chatter'. We cannot get to make any chatter in your head without having some concepts. So concepts absolutely comes prior to such 'thinking' and not the vice-versa. It is not 'thinking' that form concepts, it is exactly the opposit.But of course a ley person has no problem with equating 'thought about a thing' with 'concept of the thing' because perception of though is not seperate to different categories at all. It is only new age mismash that necesitates such clarification. Particularly it is their misuse of the word 'thought' to rifer to the narrow 'mind chatter'. We are 100% sure that there is something going on in our heads more than this 'chatter'. We donnot even understand what we are doing and we choose to summarily lable all head activities as 'thoughts'. So at no point in wake state can you somehow cease thinking. Granted, the seemingly more voluntary 'chatter' can seem to cease during meditation.Carefull close exermination reveals that there is no such a clear cut distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary activities in our bodies. While it seems that we 100% control our breathing, it is our brain that is fooling us! You understand this when you 'decide' to hold your breath longer that you are 'decididing'. You WILL NOT (not you CANNOT). Or rather, the body and the personality is not seperate. Though 'seperate' is a wrong word here. The thoughts are exactly symmetrical with the breaths. We donnot think voluntarily to some extend and we do to a certain extend. There is no clear cut difference between the 'you' thinking and the 'it' thinking.With this, we understand that some of the things our society and even new ager self servingly want to shove it to 'it' is actually 'us'. Or rather, the voluntariliness of activities in our bodies and even outside our bodies is in large part flexible. The conceptualisation is the particularly tricky one in this case.The new ager's categorising out 'mind chatter' as the thing we do it voluntary in our heads is greatly misguided. Rather the word 'thoughts' summarily resorts to all the series of perceptions within our heads. Words are particularly the internal sounds in our heads and thus perceiving words and/or creating words is just exactly on the same par with perceiving and/or creating colors, shapes, love etc. So there should be no such a dichotomy as thoughts vs feelings. Rather the dichotomy is 'mind chatter' vs visualisation or between a more voluntary 'chatter'/visualization vs a lesser voluntary ones.After such clarification, you can now understand how it is easy to amuse yourself that you can somehow observe things without conceptualization. A purely spatial thinking as done by a human being can be extreemly fast. If a human being enters to a room, he can name all the objects in the room in split seconds. To computer scientists, this is a great wonder. It is then tempting to think that you are not thinking about guitar when you are starring at it without the 'chatter'. Yes you are! To quickly figure out the shape, the strings, the frets involves what we term 'spatial reasoning'. It is analogous to the 'chatter' if you took 'space' to be 'time'. In the latter, the set of thoughts neaded to perceive are just comming too fast for you to realise that they are thoughts. Reasoning colors also have a characteristic similar to reasoning with shapes. They are both spatial in nature but sound, hence words, is temporal.Let me finish by illustrating why we should summarily lable all the events going on in the skull with a single word, 'thought' or you can choose any. Define the word 'thinking'. When I say that you define the word, I mean that you should do it in such a way that if you were talking to an ET who is yet to understand English, he will get to know what you mean by the word. You see, you won't get to his skull to make him know what you are talking about by pointing to 'thoughts'. You will assume that his brain is good enough to perceive it in himself. Then you will not assume that his brain works 100% like yours. So the best way to define the word is just 'what you do when you are aware but not talking'!! 'Awareness' in turn is just the wake state. These definitions are ostensive in nature. They don't for instance say exactly what thoughts are. They are more of like a guid to help the ET to perceive the thoughts etc for himself like we would 'define' the word 'guitar' by merely pointing at one. The rest of what goes on in the ET when he is sitted there silently are best left in the category of 'his own business'.
Read more…
"May be it is save to say that no one can understand quantum mechanics" FeynmanImagine standing somewhere on a hill watching vehicles from a distant move to the city. If you insist that the cars you see are just simple objects with no farther structure just because right there on the hill you cannot open the cars and see inside, it is not a surprise that you will only conclude that no one can understand how cars move. Historically, it has been shown that when a phenomenon stubornly defy our understanding, then there is an important thing we are not including in the fundamental way we understand the universe itself. In the case of quantum mechanics, it seems that awareness is exactly the thing that physicist have never tried to factor in.Ever since the time of Corpenicus, physicists have been searching for simple principle out from which every other natural phenomena is derived. So when a physicist talk of 'explanation', he simply mean that showing that a phenomenon aparently unique is actually deducable from some simpler principles. However, you can spot that this is a redevinition of 'explanation'. It should mean illustrating the non apparent causes of a phenomenon so that we understand why it happens. In effect, modern science has confused understanding with the process of making phenomena fit the reductionism paradigm.
Read more…
"May be it is save to say that no one can understand quantum mechanics" FeynmanImagine standing somewhere on a hill watching vehicles from a distant move to the city. If you insist that the cars you see are just simple objects with no farther structure just because right there on the hill you cannot open the cars and see inside, it is not a surprise that you will only conclude that no one can understand how cars move. Historically, it has been shown that when a phenomenon stubornly defy our understanding, then there is an important thing we are not including in the fundamental way we understand the universe itself. In the case of quantum mechanics, it seems that awareness is exactly the thing that physicist have never tried to factor in.Ever since the time of Corpenicus, physicists have been searching for simple principle out from which every other natural phenomena is derived. So when a physicist talk of 'explanation', he simply mean that showing that a phenomenon aparently unique is actually deducable from some simpler principles. However, you can spot that this is a redefinition of 'explanation'. It should mean illustrating the non apparent causes of a phenomenon so that we understand why it happens. In effect, modern science has confused understanding with the process of making phenomena fit the reductionism paradigm.Tied to this problem is one termed 'naturalness'. If you are on a tour with our scientist and you see some heep of dust apparently lieing there purposelessly, he will never bother to try to explain why the dust look exactly the way it looks. However, if you see a structure that looks as it were everything fit together for a purpose, that is where the tail of our guy turns kinky. Why? Because we have all been indoctrinated to perceive reality with a preconceived idea of what 'natural' should look like. It is here when we can wave an hand on some phenomena and say ah! Its just natural that way. Then 'explanation' is infact explaining away from nature what we think it is not 'natural'. The result is a world view that preexclude some phenomena from the fundamental way we understand nature farther fueled by our need to make the fundamental as simple as possible.Oblivious of the fact that seeking for 'natural' phenomenon out of which to derive the rest of phenomena is perharps searching for a shadow in the dark, our physicists found themselves chasing a moving bone. At some point, they discover that nature even in the fundamental is such fantastically fine tuned that everything simply has a purpose! This does not seem to be the 'simplicity' they were searching. It utterly defies reductionism if as we zoom the lense to microscopic world, we don't find a simpler world. We rather find a fresh can of worms in every level!The supersymmetry theory was designed to explain away some of those 'unatural' phenomena. The failure of supersymmetry will most certainly lead physicists to give up the 'naturalness' idea. But the alternative they tend to swing to is that of claiming that our universe is one out of zillions so that it is the way it is by a huge chance. This baseless alternative is behind the quests such as theories of inflation and strings. However these theories have proven worthless from science point of view as other than explaining EVERYTHING, they end up explaining ANYTHING.One of the things that indicates the tendency of our scientists to preconceive atoms as billiard balls. It is just the 'naturalness' idea that nature should be most symmetrical. No one dared to form an idea of atoms as tiny bottles even though containers are widely observed in leaving things. But no one is allowed to reason fundamentally with leaving things. Leaving things are not 'natural' and they should not explain. They should be explained by billiard balls. But billiard balls are not any more natural. They are just perceived to be dead and that is all. Modern science is out to explain life out of nature and that is why they indoctrinate you that billiard balls are more 'natural' and that reductionism constitutes understanding.
Read more…
All dynamics in nature, exept thermodynamics are known to be time riversable. Time riversable dynamics makes it possible what I may term it as 'bidirectional causality'. What this mean is that if A can cause B, then under the right circumstance, B will cause A. This gives another way of understanding how we can use mind to creat. If the dynamics that eventually cause an image of the outer world in your eyes is time riversable, then if you begine by visualizing and image in your mind, the causality will work backwards to creat the thing in the 'outer world'!But of course you know that the dynamics at work in classical mechanics is thermodynamics. In quantum world, things are different. The manner in which the energy flows in quantum world is bidirectional. So if it is possible for quantum particle to eventually cause an image in you brain prior to the 'collaps of wavefunction', then somehow visualizing the image will create the particle in the quantum world!So at least we can get a guide to creating what you want in a realm where causality is bidirectional. If you want a good thing out there to observe, just begine by somehow 'observing the thing'.CREATING A 'SOUL'Here 'soul' is just the whatever mechanism that the awareness will use after death. But it need not be understood as what we truely are. We are eternal but we are not 'souls'. So you can call it 'etheric bodies' if you want. This etheric body interlaces this body of ours in that its particles does not interact with our electromagnetic field. You can understand the cause of our electromagnetism as a coherent vibration in our charged particles. Without this coherence, electromagnetism is not possible. Coherence is altered by simply altering the frequency of our particles.If a particle is to cross over to the other interlacing world, a similar one must come from that other world to complete the circuite. So if our brain is presently causing consciousness and we want to shift, to avoid the paradox of having two awareness, our brain must enter a different state such as sleep or deep meditation. Then as we donnot know what to do to alter the vibration of our particle, we can be guided by the experience we will acheive as the particles spontaneously alter. Through bidirectional causality principle, we know that is such and such etheric causes brings about this and that experiences, then we can use this and that experiences to cause such and such in etheric realm. So it is all about visualising the best you want.
Read more…
Like a scoring goalkeeper, a scientist named Rupet Sheldrake has tried to explain leaving things in unothodoxed manner. He seems disatisfied by the usual idea that DNA contains all the information there is about a leaving thing. He priffers to say that some information is stored in the space away from the body. This, he terms it as 'morphic field'.Apparently, Sheldrake donnot have a clue of physics that might be involved in creating a 'morphic field'. So he terms it simply as 'beyond physics'. This might be one of the reason Sheldrake, though himself a qualified scientist, have been hugely attacked by mainstream science. His idea tests too 'new agey'But like I always complain, when we don't understand the mechanism behind an explanation we like to offer, there is no need to offer such no-answer answers as 'beyond physics'. It is more scientific to leave it open. What more? Even inflaton, dark matter, higgs, quarks etc are 'beyond physics'. No one knows what inflaton is. When a physicist though at least makes the idea behaves in a way consistent to known facts, it makes the idea warrant farther scientific investigation.In our case, we know that morphic field, whatever it might be, will ultimately interact with matter if it is to explain anything we observe, such as how it organises organs to form a leaving thing. It is here that 'beyond physics' self destructs. This morphic field will dat back and forth from physics to beyond every time when neaded by the theorist. It seems posited for no reason other than to serve the theorist to seal all cracks.It is here when I step in. Even before I read of morphic field, I was already explaining a 'soul' in terms of a DNA like stuff in 'empty space'. I close exermined how cells reproduced and how they form DNA and wondered if such thing can happen in quantum field. It simply seem that the leaving this are too intelligent in how they work for any idea I can form to elude them. It only need to be possible for a leaving thing to make use of the possibility. So if leaving things are imerced in water-like entity pervading everywhere, nothing will stop them from using this field to store information and even to reproduce in it! Why? They are simply too clever!It is even more sure if the mechanism of 'writting' to the field is just the same idea like that of 'writting' information in the DNA to the RNA or to the protein molecule. Why will nature be able to take amino acids floating in water and use them as 'ink' but consistently fail to use the matter-untimatter soup for exactly the same advantage? My reasoning is just like that of going to stars and finding a calculator somewhere. You can't fail to infere that there must be a computer there too. Why? The ETs are clever enough to make it!So leaving things are undoubtly clever enough to seize every opportunity to store information . The mechanism merely needs to be possible. Sooner or latter, they will use. Probably, they begun by storing information in RNA. Then for the simple fact that DNA is possible, they extended the technology. Then they begun to encode it in proteins. You see the pattern? It only has to be possible and then nature never fails to figure out the mechanism. So our mindset should change from that of trying to proov if a thing such as angels, etc exist to that of simply figuring out how they can exist. If there is a means, then they exist!!In our case, the idea of copying the entire body into the quantum field, rather than just the DNA is perharps a very good one. Then the leaving thing will reproduce to the quantum field asexually just like a cell division of an entire organism! After all our scientist donnot realy explain cell division very well. The nature seems to be merely copying the entire cell to the enviroment other than copying the DNA alone.What then is the physics at work in the process? We donnot even need new physics. Vacume polarization is enough. If you close exermine vacume polarization, you find that the ordinary matter acts as a 'catalist' in creating matter-antimatter pair in the quantum field. It is a matter of fact that as you stand there, there is an exact copy of your body in the quantum field! What is not understood is how nature can priserve this copy as it is thought that matter-antimatter pair is highly unstable. But it need not be so entirely. Even the tape record containe a mixture of southpole-northpole, relatively unstable pairs. By polarizing the tape accordingly, it could store any informating. The information just need to be brought adjuscent to the tape. But the matter-untimatter in the vacume acts exactly like the tape. Only replace 'north pole' with electron and 'south pole' with a positron and the vacume is similar to the tape in all relevant ways!If you still don't beleive that nature, apart from in biology, can store, retreive or even process information, consider a magnon, a phonon or any other quasi-particle for that matter. What the hell is a magnon if not just the information pertaining to event of riversal of magnetic pole stored in a quantum system? What is a wave packet? What does it exist in the quantum sea when not yet observed? It is just 'there has to be a photon' information that dats back and forth throughout the quantum system. How does nature distinguish a photon from gluon etc. How does it distinguish different quantum occupying the same space if it does not recognise and act on information?
Read more…
'The kingdom of God does not come with your carefull observation nor will people say, 'Here it is', or 'There it is' because the kingdom of God is within you' Luke 17:20This verse has become the bread and the butter of modern 'spiritually'. Well, I used to like it when quoted in 'new age' till I suddenly got angry. It is because I found out that it is neither the word 'God' nor 'Kingdom' that makes the tail so kinky. It is the word 'within' that raises the pairs of buttocks. Apparently, he is not interested with whatever that would be 'within'. Even if Jesus had said the devil or hell is within you, he would still have aroused. It is yap yap yap within that matters. In is not the truth per-se that matters but the vague place it is supposedly found. It is not the diamond that they sell. It is some invisible diamond mine that is peddled.One other thing the above verse might be very interesting is 'guruish' style of Jesus. This is releasing a jump card to evade the question. People are asking WHEN the kingdom of God will come and Jesus is answering HOW it will do so. 'Gurus' realy love this.Infact, the above verse is a mistranslation of NIV version and may not even be teaching what exactly Jesus teached about the kingdom of God. But it has confused even Christians on what the Kingdom Of God supposed to mean. Here is the correct quote:"The kingdom of God will not come in such a way as to be said, 'there it is', rather, it will suddenly appear in your midist" (New King James Version)Suddenly, what the new age guru wanted to teach disapears in picoseconds! He wanted to say that the 'Kingdom Of God' has no objective reality. It is just a stuff that only a psycologist or a psychiatrist might be interested with. It is just some vague sentiments you will experience if you follow the practises he is ready to sell it to you that he terms 'search within'.Christians have also 'spiritualised' this message to nothing. Being 'born again' is just the process of becoming a christian, baptism is the process of turning a dry sinner into a wet sinner and kingdom of God is just the church! Metaphors are only good when they stick to where they belong, Poetry. When used in the context of 'truths', it only cloud reasoning and make people stupid. There is a reason why metaphors are indispensable in religion, it kills two birds with a single stone. By arbitrarily choosing what to take it literal and what to take it poeticaly, he can justify or condem anything he wish. Metaphors allows someone to move the post any time it suits him! The religion often collups when you merely force them to call a spade a spade.So not so to me. I am tightly on the camp of those Jews who were patiently waiting for a real worrior comming with an iron club and spitting out a sword from his mouth. Jesus of course would greatly disapoint them. Instead of this new 'king' conquering and defeating the Tyrannic Roman Empire and establishing the the righteous Kingdom, which would turn the world to a paradise, he rathe kill his hours singing poems and he eventually get killed by the empire he was prophesied to come and conquer! So you might naturaly be thinking that I too am on the camp of Judahs who felt that Jesus betrayed them back to Romans but you are totally mistaken. As you will see, Jews right from the start losed the track on what constitude the Kingdom Of God.Some times then, during the reigns of Kings in Israel, kings often turned out to be tyrannical. Originally, they were inaugurated by priests and prophets, beginning from phrophet Samwell. The evil kings of Israel and Judah created a longing for a time when a king will establish a utopia in Israel. This foreseen kingdom was dubed the 'kingdom of God' for kings would do the will of God in that kingdom. This was idea was farther formented by the foreign empires such as Babylon, Persia etc attacking Israel, alongside the rest of the world. Apparently, the priests of Israel longed for the time when, like Babylon, Persia etc, Jews would rule the entire world. So the story of a magical ruler who would do this was concocted. This was the idea of the Kingdom Of God."Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all rulers will worship and obey him.' Daniel 7:26This verse amongst myriads of similar ones says it all. It is clearly not talking about some sentiments 'within' that only a psychiatrist is interested with. It is talking about a real government that will usher in a golden age. It is something that we too, in the modern age should be pushing foward to. Granted, some 'work within' is neaded to bring the kingdom but work within per-se does not define the kindom. The kingdom is LITTERAL, a way of gorvenance that many long for even today. Another interesting thing we notice from the bible is that the kingdom of God is earthly! This is in stark contrast with the 'heaven' preached by Christians. It is something akin to Jehovah Witness message.A minor catch that still makes Jesus correct in dismissing the physical conquering as to be the 'kingdom of God' is that the idea of David-like kings was not in the original plan of Yahweh. This is clearly stated in Samwell. In requesting for a visible king, Jews were in effect rejecting the invisible God as their king. In other words, they were rejecting the Kingdom Of God! So to espect the messiah to be a David-like King was totally mistaken! The kindom of God is just that, God, not men is the invisible king and Jesus was a man. This is what Jesus meant when he said no one will say 'there is the kingdom of God'.
Read more…
