What do You think? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » Post Scripts » What do You think? « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 11:16 am:   

After all your contemplations, what do you think of the following?

#1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe?

#2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE?

#3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -- Quote Albert Einstein

Write what you will, if you will. This is an open ended question from Humancafe.

Humancafe - Eds
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, November 16, 2009 - 12:34 pm:   

#1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe?

Yes, the Hindu concept of Brhaman thinks so.

"The Upanishads describe Brahman as "the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change." (2) Brahman is the source of all things and is in all things; it is the Self (atman) of all living beings."

If the universe is filled with life, then it is a living entity infinitely in both Brahman and atman.

#2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE?

Perhaps, but it is odd that the universal constant G for gravity first postulated by Newton, and adhered to by Einstein until present times, was never refuted. A variable G idea is tempting if it in fact unites the basic forces (Standard model) and explains better what is observed astronomically such as brown dwarfs and neutron stars. But is the Pioneer Anomaly enough to call for it? http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300
Are the gas giants of the solar system really evidence of higher G holding their extreme massive atmospheres?

The case can be made that since a universal constant G was used in all orbital calculations of mass, there could not have been a way to catch our error, especially since different masses (per different G) would still act the same in acceleration (as Galileo proved long ago) so we did not know the difference. The only exception was orbital gravity assist anomalies and the Pioneers, so we really had no way of knowing if G was a universal constant as assumed. We simply assumed it was and that was that. However, and this is potentially big, if G proves to be variable in some consistent way vis-a-vis the radiational energy where it is measured, then its variability can connect to the other three forces, and that makes it fit. If it is so, then the simple universe idea also fits.

#3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?

A concept of God can be either personal or impersonal for us, so the Hindu God (One) is an impersonal "Being in itself". But this Being as "atman" can also be a personal god for every being alive in it. An "atheistic" God can exist only on the impersonal level, like a secular God in name only, "In God we trust," but not in a truly religious sense. Religion focusses on God as a personal experience of the spirit with rituals to better understand that relationship. In a simple universe idea, both the religious God and secular/atheistic God can exist side by side. In the end, it is our choice (atman).

“Water is life's mater and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.” - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_szent-gyorgyi/

I heard a Hindu priest say "The universe is full of water, and water is life, so the universe is a living thing," as proof even scientists can accept as true, that "God is" no matter what your belief.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Son of Brahma
Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 12:18 pm:   

Love, and You Win.

Oh Sons of Brahma! The beauty you see in your brothers and sisters is the beauty in yourself; same as the beauty they see in you is already the beauty in them. Their beauty, in their eyes, their voice, the face, limbs, their smile and sereneness is the beauty of all living things through the whole universe of Life. When you see them with beauty, they see you with living beauty, so nothing of death can enter you. And so you win, in this life and for all living things. You win in God.

Oh sons of ape! The lusts you feel in your heart are material in spirit, that drive you to steal or lie in ambush, to take by force what is not yours. Your divinity is blackened by your thieving actions, your beauty darkened by lies, by causing pain in others, in all living things. In your eyes you see the world darkly, lust for what is not yours, you fail in the beauty of the living universe. This failure is your loss in this life, and all lives near you, so even the beauty of the animal is lost in you. You are lost in God.

Oh children of Man! The love in your heart is not lust but the beauty of all creations of Life, all living things. Cherish this love for all things; from your heart flows Life spirit transcendent. Restrain the lust and find the beauty of your love, and the world of Life will open its heart to you. Love, and you will bask in the love of all living things about you. Love, and you will cheat death, you will win in God.

-- In answer to #1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe? and #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe? -- not a religious God, but a universal One, of Love.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 11:11 am:   

Pilgrim's voyage to a new world --- a non-religious "religion" for a secular moral society.

(for #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?)

What does religion, or God, bring to our lives? Today we no longer believe the simple "truths" of the religions of our ancestors and question everything, rightly. But we cannot ignore with doubt the moral framework religion gave us. And while we no longer believe in blind obedience to what ancients believed in their superstitious good and evils, we still maintain principles of morality adhered to by modern societies in their 'liberal' tendencies of justice, or right and wrong. Society on a larger scale could not exist without this.

When our Pilgrim forefathers came to these shores, they brought with them a hard moral code based on the Christian church (conservative reformed) beliefs of the time, of temperance, hard work, hard justice, and hard piety and sacrifice in the name of God. This was how they built their civilization out of the wilderness, which was a hard life and their morality reflected it. Today that wilderness exists little, or no more, rather we are hoping to preserve what is left of it for future generations, and the foundations of our Pilgrim fathers exist mostly in vestiges of modern sensibilities of justice and right laws, or right living. But what are these right laws of morality reduced to, in final analysis?

The modern Liberal 'atheistic God' of moral values is no longer subject to a strict hard code of Puritan morality, though from such a moral base our nation was built, but comes from a softer set of conditions that all citizens of society have more or less accepted as just and morally right. They are on the whole mainly this:

1) Reciprocity, of do onto others as you would have them do onto you, also called the Golden Rule.

2) Equality, that we are equal in each other's eyes and before the law, regardless of race or origin.

3) Tolerance, where our differences are not condemned but even celebrated.

4) Subjective morality, where what you believe is true for you is true, though it may not be true for any other person, as long as your belief does not damage the other. (This is a very modern idea which allows a person to grow.)

5) Punishment commensurate with the crime, not brutal and unusual to the destruction of the perpetrator of the crime, where capital punishment is largely eliminated or restricted.

6) Universality, that what liberates one person or group is equally valid for all others, and what enslaves is equally invalid for all.

7) Truthfulness, where we are true to ourselves and to others, both in word and deed.

8) Freedom, that we are allowed to be in our lives how we will as long as we allow the same for others. (A modern idea of the Golden Rule.)

Such ideas are not entirely new, since they existed just below the surface of most world religions, given the Golden Rule. What is new is that these principles had been stripped of their religious overtones, or over cloaks of "God", and distilled simply down to their pure essence, the Universality of Truthfulness and Freedom and Equality. These are now the sum principles of modern liberal ideas of morality, of a moral code without invoking a religious concept but deferring to scientific achievements, more secular in nature; believing in the sanctity of the individual before a greater universal reality than had ever been understood by our ancestral religions, a reality based on scientific discovery and validations. The new Pilgrims of morality are those who act and believe in a liberal moral code regardless of whether they believe in God. Whether or not "God exists" by default becomes entirely a personal, subjective moral choice, one that may not be imposed upon any other person. This is a very modern idea, and one perhaps that our Pilgrim forefathers had never envisioned. Yet, this idea had built the greatest and freest nation on Earth. And for that we must be truly thankful.

Happy Thanks Giving.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 07:59 pm:   

Good words, Pilgrim, well said. There is every reason to be awed by the human condition in a Simple Universe, and every reason to be awed by our place in it, as stated above our "atman" within "Brahman". If I were to add one principle to your list of "commandments" above, it would be this:

9) Personal responsibility, where each person carries the responsibility of their actions in relation to existence, and all living creatures within it.

This dove tails into our earlier "Opus Rex" idea, that certain things are in and of themselves inalienable to our existence as human beings, even a morality without God. These principles of existence exist independent of us, of our objective and subjective reason, but are a reason universally unto themselves. We are not mere spectators in such a universe, but also active participants in it. This is an extremely rich gift from our Universe to us, the gift of fulfilling Consciousness.

God bless.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 02:13 am:   


Forgive the off-topic question, but were you a participant in the "Examined Life" philosophy discussion forum from years ago? And if so, do you remember that infamous participant named "Anonymous" who also went by the name "Andrew" and a few other names -- and if so, have you ever seen him since?

I was a frequent participant of that forum, going by the name "Dr. Pepper" and a few other nicknames.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 - 01:06 pm:   

Dr. Pepper! Thanks for stopping by, Hesperado.

I did a quick word search on Humancafe forums and found your first entry on discussion "Dialogue with a Muslim", going back some years. This led to some good and heated discussion (but where did you go?); but it having steered away from the original intent of Humancafe, a world collective of ideas reduced down to sound universal, philosophical principle; we retired it when the discussions went too far into the problems of Islam's current manifestations (and confrontations with the world through their Jihad). We then decided the discussions lost sight of the bigger picture, especially as it applies to raising world human consciousness, through a too narrow focus on Jihad. Once the at times contentious "dialogues" were systemized into universal principles, the narrow focus of Jihad was deemed restricted and redundant on this site (best handled by sites dedicate to battle such tour de force discussions), so here focussed instead on universal notions of human interactions and philosophical notions of cosmological reality. The final product of that may be "The Universe is Simple" anthology -- continued here.

We eventually retired Mohideen's line of thought, with regrets, since he was very informative in his own way. What remains, now that Humancafe is officially "closed" (read only), is these PostScripts, to which all are welcome. But where did you go? :-)

About Andrew or "Anonymous" at the Examined Life Journal, I can't recall the poster. I had stopped going to that site years ago when Mitch Hodges shut it down, but I think it is now reopened again at "The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal", which requires a login. Hope all is well, most welcome to stop by again. Thanks.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 04:38 pm:   

Thanks Ivan,

I had dimly remembered that "dialogue with a Muslim" from years ago here, but for the most part forgot about it. I hesitate now to even click on the link you provided, lest I become ensnared in following labyrinthine sophistry that only tends to infuriate and lead to ulcers and aneurysms -- Islam-apologist sophistry I have seen, and become entangled in, a thousand times since then.

At the time, I was fairly green about this whole issue, though even then I sensed what was likely to be ahead if I stuck around to dig into a "dialogue" with a canny Muslim who would inevitably trot out all the interlocking "arguments" of his Apologetics -- which back then I hadn't even begun to analyze as I have in years since.

When I left my brief dip into Humancafe back then, I went on to continue to participate more and more in the comments fields of Jihad Watch and Front Page, and soon after that, when I learned about the curious slaughter of a Christian Coptic family in New Jersey coincident with their heated participation in some vocal chat venue called "Paltalk", I looked into it, and found quite a few Islam-critical chat rooms there, which I went on to participate in rather intensively, and even created a few rooms of my own where lots of debate -- productive and not-so productive -- was sparked between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Another thing I've done over the past few years is create a blog, called The Hesperado. I started it in June of 2006, and have written about 300 essays on it, the last one a couple of weeks ago (it's not a daily blog like some, more a place for me to pen more thoughtful analyses that take me time to think about and research).

From your brief description of your time at Examined Life, it sounds like you must have missed the long period during which "Anonymous" was most active. I had participated in Examined Life for many years, fairly continuously, I believe beginning in the late 90s. From my admittedly vague recollection, it went through at least three phases, and I believe the phase you allude to, "when Mitch Hodges shut it down" was followed by its reincarnation under some other guy whose name I can't remember, I believe a guy out of the UK whose bio boasted of being a regular runner or jogger. At any rate, if your allusion refers to the last time Examined Life was "shut down", it doesn't seem to gel with my memory and one fact:

1) for it was during at least two years prior to that time that "Anonymous" was quite active -- right up to the very end (he also wrote under other pseudonyms, but all the regulars knew who he was)

2) since that last time, there has been no discussion forum at Examined Life, only a "Journal" website where no discussion or comments at all can be posted.

Just a couple of the mischevious deeds of "Anonymous" I could cite out of many, perhaps you remember:

1) For a few months, he disguised himself as a female librarian from Liepzig and embroiled himself in many amazingly complex philosophical arguments with other commenters -- when he finally admitted it had all been a sham, he caused quite a stir, and a whole new discussion was generated all about that.

2) Later, some members suspected he pretended to be a learned female Muslim from Pakistan or Bangladesh, posting a couple of long complex comments defending Islam.

Beyond that, Anonymous and I got into frequent tangles about the problem of Islam -- he, needless to say, seeing no problem at all.

Anyway, thanks for reading all this, and thanks for responding. I hope all is well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 11:45 am:   


Beyond that, Anonymous and I got into frequent tangles about the problem of Islam -- he, needless to say, seeing no problem at all.

Ah yes, 'taqiyya' and 'kitman' - 'war is deception' - and posing an impostor, concepts now better understood by many thanks to JW and Mr Spencer et al. I will look in on The Hesperado.

Thanks, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pulling taffy
Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 01:22 pm:   

In a Simple Universe, the Kingdom of God administration is secular, not religious.

(This is in answer to: #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?)


Thus, to become human, fully conscious in the image of our universe, is the greatest goal of our development. We are not in our kingdom yet, though we can approach our kingdom on certain conditions; ultimately it will be for us to rule. -- Habeas Mentem, Chapter 16

The Abrahamic faiths have a tradition of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Perhaps the best, most modern example of this is the Baha'i Faith directive, as a reformed off shoot of Islam (making it the fourth Abrahamic faith), where the primary work of the followers is to bring in on Earth a God administration, a world order as defined by Baha'ullah and the founders of the faith. This is accomplished by doing good works and prayer, by shunning political involvement with non-religious (non-Baha'i) administration of government, by following the precepts and tenets of the Faith, and by instituting administration of world government based on the moral teachings of the founders, including racial unity, compulsory universal education, equality of the sexes, elimination of extreme poverty (and wealth), a universal language, and a culture of cooperation and discussion rather than competition and confrontation. The idea behind this movement, laudable that it is, is that the whole world eventually submit to this form of religious and moral administration to bring God's Kingdom on Earth through our human actions and right beliefs. Failure to follow these precepts requires moral correction and, in the worst case, shunning by the followers for heresy.

Contrast this with our Secular beliefs and administration of government, where separation of "church and state", meaning no religion can dominate our constitutional government; where the moral foundations of our secular society rest in equality and reciprocity, innocence unless tried by law and proven guilty, equality of gender (without restriction on what "gender" means), freedom of choice within limits of the law, private faith and belief unfettered by law, a scientific approach to inquiry and problem solving, economic freedoms; and non-discrimination for our beliefs as long as our actions led by these beliefs do not infringe upon the rights of others (through violence, fraud, deceit, and in other ways intentionally hurtful to others), where all persons are equally protected by the law from such infringements. This form of government administration (followed by most modern democratic societies) is representative in structure, where political involvement is encouraged for citizen voters to participate in. Such a system of governance in society, based on the separation of religion from the constitutional laws of government, is universal for all societies regardless of their belief systems and ideologies, whether or not of the Abrahamic faiths traditions, and solely based on the principles of just and fair government equally for all. Failure to obey the laws will cause legal prosecution, but not of a "moral" nature, rather of a social nature to "re-educate" the perpetrator with personal restriction or fines, or therapy, rather than shunning and cruel punishments (cutting off of hands and feet, stoning to death, or threats of imagined punishments in the afterlife), so the wrong doer is encouraged to once again become a full member of society. There is no "heresy" under our secular freedoms of thought.

This secularized administration of government contrasts with the religious administration in that there is no stigma attached to how one conducts oneself in life as long as a "Golden Rule" applies, that we do not restrict others from their conduct as long as it does not infringe upon us, and society structures itself not according to some master plan (of God or man), but as the collective aggregate of humanity manifests itself in society. Contrast where religion, in particularly the Abrahamic faiths, demands that we obey certain rules of the faith, whether dietary, obligatory prayers, rules regulating many aspects of personal life, a priesthood dictating right from wrong; in effect, where a person's life is managed and prescribed, or proscribed, by the religious rules and dogmas of the faith, or be punished. Man, as a universal being, must conform to these rules or be ostracized by the believers, and possibly punished or banished, even punished unto death. To do "God's Kingdom" in this faith based social environment means one must pull along with the other members to bring about a religious administration according to the rules and precepts of the faith, to make this Kingdom a reality on Earth. Contrast this with a Secular world, where no such demand is made on humanity. But this does not mean the same goals cannot be achieved; rather, it means there is a better way to achieve the same goals without the heavy over-structure of the Abhrahamic faiths.


The main difference between the two ideologies of world government, one religious the other secular, is that where the religious "pushes" man to act according to prescribed tenets of how God's Kingdom is to become reality, to work towards that administratively (social rules of conduct and beliefs) as well as personally (fasting, prayer, right morality, etc.), the whole basis for this action is to do God's work on Earth. Whereas, the Secular option is to give human freedom a chance to create an equitable and just administration of world government, so once in effect each person "pulls" in the greater social structures from the (God's Kingdom) Universe through their personal life and existence, naturally. Think of the difference between a surfer pushing his board into the waves, versus one being pulled by the forces of the wind over the waves; it is something like that. Or in Tai Chi Chih there is a motion called "pulling the taffy" where the motions are not to push, but to pull in the energy of the universe. The goal of a Secular world order is not to push on a string to create God's Kingdom on Earth, but rather to establish a just and equitably fair system of governance, a constitutional and democratic administered government, from which all human beings can draw their own strengths and talents to bring about the best in themselves, and in the aggregate to bring about the best of humanity in our world order, by agreement rather than conflict. That is what "pulling" in God's Kingdom would mean, where each human being is automatically working towards this goal without having to be coerced into doing so, or excluded from it because of their personal beliefs. The drawback and serious flaw of the Abrahamic faiths, even the most advanced versions (such as Baha'i) is that they "push" human beings into being a certain morally prescribed identity, ignoring that human identity is already given by God naturally; and thus forcing or coercing human beings to negate what they already got from their natural state. (This is a subtle coercion because on the surface it appears to have all the same qualities as the secular, cooperation and agreements, but beneath the surface lurks the reality that one must believe as told, or be out of the imagined Kingdom.) There is no mystery to allowing humanity find its best. Keep humans from doing harm to themselves and each other, and they naturally rise to the surface of their greater being (in God) to consciously shine as creations of a vast living natural Universe. This is a reversal of traditional religious ideology: where it is not man defining God, but God defining man. That is the Kingdom, but we are not yet there.

In such a world order, where the Kingdom of God forms naturally, prayer for each man and woman, and child, is naturally how they live and breathe. There are no rules to which they must be obedient, or submissive, or otherwise failing they will be punished. That is not how God's Kingdom works. Rather, it works on elevating each human being to their best potential, their natural excellence, where we interact on principles of cooperation and agreements, not through force and coercions. All religions already know this, that the best of humanity is to be our very best morally personally, individually accountable of our own free will. This is as true of the Abrahamic faiths as it is of all other world religions: we know the best of humanity is in their freedom to become the best they can be. Where the religious failures occur is that the "interpretations" of how this best is achieved become the same coercive process that disengages the best in humanity. We cannot be at our best when pushed into it; our best humanity is when we pull it in from the Universe, a loving and joyful world, of our own free will. In a Simple Universe, this is naturally how we are.

That is how "God" rules on Earth, because only in freedom are we free to do His will.

See also:
Natural Universalism
The Messiah Paradox
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Macro-microbial Life
Posted on Friday, December 25, 2009 - 01:37 pm:   

Microbial life may be the key to macro-multicellular life.

(This is in answer to #1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe?)

Halite(Salt)USGOV.jpgthe_bacterium_yersinia_pestis_magnified_is_the_cause_of_plague.jpg1013.jpg (interactive -various articles- click images)
Sodium chloride crystal; bacterium cells; neuron connections

We live in a macro-microbial universe where both species co-exist, though microbial life far preceded multicellular life in our world's evolution as a living planet. (See Paper: Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes, also see NewScientist article: And Life Created Continents.) There is cause to believe that life and evolution of life are all interdependent down to the microbial level. We live in a "bacterial universe", which surrounds and hugs us tightly right down to the gut level, so microbial life is symbiotically macro-multicellular life as it had been for hundreds of millions of years on Earth.

Why is this important, or even interesting? The key to answering this question fits into another discussion on how life started in hot pools of crystalline clays. This unsurprisingly dovetails nicely into Wolfram's idea of "cellular automata", which theoretically can mimic life-like cell reproductions. But more importantly, it points hypothetically to a linkage interface between the crystalline world and the microbial world, though this needs a deeper explanation, a very novel idea which necessitates invoking the idea of totality "interrelationship" and correlated "emergence". This is a critical key to understanding the micro-macro life connections, that a cellular structure is both derived from its crystalline predecessor, but also is driven by it through its emergence.

How can this work? The most intuitive answer is that atoms and molecules came together in some crystalline 'soup' to form the first bacterial cells, and life proceeded from there into its ultimate evolution of a brain capable of understanding this. However, that is a limited way of seeing it, since it leaves out the connections of why this happens, so in the end we are left with no explanation. A better way of understanding this is to make the connections between an 'interrelated' reality of matter, atoms and molecules, that are responsive to the macro-structure of the universe. As a 'totality' interrelationship, it in turn redefines everyone one of its constituent parts in terms of the totality macro-image of where each part fits in relation to the whole of it. In effect, this is a description of how a macro-universe 'communicates' with its constituent parts at the elemental level. Taken to the next step, this universal system of internal communications (via interrelationship) can direct life's evolutionary process through a bio-feedback mechanism involving emergent cellular DNA. However, this still leaves one more connection missing, that between the crystalline matter and micro-bacterial cellular structures: What connects cellular living matter to the macro-universal structure of atomic matter?

Crystalline.jpg Crystalline_Corners_by_midnightstouch.jpg (interactive, click image)
How old is life?

And this is where Wolfram's idea of 'cellular automata' fits in, that while the elemental structure of micro-baterial matter is self-defined, it simultaneously interacts with its external existence in a specific way which makes it responsive to the universe's internal 'interrelationship' structure. The two worlds of atomic matter, both as physics and chemistry defined by their interrelationship positions within the totality of existence; and the cellular bacterial world, as defined by the cell's interaction with this atomic matter, are intimately connected at the bio-feedback mechanisms that define living micro-life organisms, which in turn interact (after a lengthly period of co-evolution) with the macro-life of multi-celled organisms all the way up to human life forms. (Think of an insect colony 'thinking' as a totality, for example.) And what is important is that this process of connections bio-feedback works in both directions, so what is experienced by macro-life organisms, even ourselves, is once again communicated back through the micro-life organisms, bacteria, back to the interrelated matter of the physical universe, of atoms and energy, to the totality image that defines them. This is continuously a two way process, both in the present moment as well as in all prior history, where each interaction is communicated back and forth. Furthermore, what makes it even more interesting is that this communication between the micro-macro worlds and their atomic totality worlds is registered both in the cellular DNA programing, and ultimately in some manner of consciousness in the organism's living brain. Conversely, through our bacterial connections to our universe, our thoughts and actions are consequently recorded in some totality image stored into infinity. We may learn of the universe with our conscious brains, but the universe already 'knows' us in its infinite capacity for life. And that connection is what completes the circuit, which both explains why we have evolution as well as why we have a brain conscious of it: our Living Universe.

So this explanation of a Living Universe goes deeper than a simple intuitive understanding of how first life came into being from a crystalline soup; it delves deeper into how the universe self-organizes itself into a bio-feedback mechanism of life through its micro-bacterial life forms. We are interdependent upon this simple life form to interact at the macro-interrelationship levels of how the universe is self-structured into an infinite living entity; the feedback from this is the evolution of multi-cellular life forms capable of developing a thinking brain; in effect, we are made in the image of our Living Universe through our bacterial connection to all existence. And that makes us special, and divine.

1949130-3-crystalline.jpg (interactive)

We are living beings, intimately connected with a Living Universe, of God Consciousness.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

What's it about?
Posted on Friday, January 01, 2010 - 12:01 pm:   

What's it all about, really? What are we thinking?

One Human Family

As I am reading these pages, and thank you to all who wrote here, I am thinking: what is it really we are saying? Are we not in final analysis really all saying the same thing, the wisdom of the ages, that we are somehow intimately connected to all existence? We are all connected to each other in community, this is obvious, though each one of us is a separate identity, a person. We are also all connected to our planetary biosphere for survival, an environment that if too degraded will cause our demise, so we must take care of it. We are all connected psychically to each other in the things that make us human, our smiles, our loves, our fears, our desires for happiness. But in reading this, it also makes sense that we are connected to all existence in a meaningful and totally intimate way, with a universe that acts around us as we act in it. This is still a novel idea, but it harks back to what all religions, philosophies and mysticisms of the past always hinted at, that we are creatures of a God-consciousness; that we are made in that image that makes us uniquely the human species with all its beauty, and at times terror, that had been the humanity of the ages. We are connected to our universe and each other, totally. Isn't this the most wondrous thing? Each one of us is the final thread of a vast infinite tapestry of Life, and we are now coming conscious of it and beginning to understand.

Once we know this, begin to truly understand our interconnectedness to the whole universe and each other, what do we do with it? Is this not the portal of our human exploration of the ages, of the stars, that we seek to understand ourselves in Life's existence throughout the universe? Isn't this what HumanCafe was all about? Think about it.

I leave this as a thought for the New Year - 2010 - that we are one human family. God bless, and many happy wishes to all.

And to all, thank you!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

TOE is rubbish
Posted on Monday, January 04, 2010 - 07:26 pm:   

"Theory of Everything" is an impossibility, hence "rubbish".

(In answer to #2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE?}

There can never be a "Theory of Everything" or TOE given the impossibility of fitting all theories into the matrix of their foundational premises and logic. Take for example the foundational matrix of pre-Copernican astronomy, where Earth was the center of the solar system. The Ptolemaic epicycles worked perfectly within the parameters of the theory, though it was totally wrong. Earth is not the center, so within the description offered by those epicycles, it all made sense and was falsifiable, though in fact it was rubbish. This will be true for any falsifiable theory of reality, because though it will make perfect sense within the parameters of the foundational matrix of premises and logic, it cannot be falsified outside of that matrix. The best example today is whether or not gravity is truly a universal constant or not. Einstein's General Relativity falsifiably proves that it is. Everyone who knows astrophysics knows that it had been verified to decimal fractions. However, since any theory can be 'falsified' within the parameters of its matrix or observational observations, without independent cross-discipline verifications, it is essentially as worthy as those epicycles were, hence rubbish. Another example is the physics of chemistry, or perhaps even quantum physics. Within their domains of verification, they are flawless. But taken outside of their observational matrix and interpretations, they only work for within the parameters to explain the phenomenon. Outside, it becomes rubbish. So even if gravity was proved variable from what it had been assumed, it still could not and would not prove a TOE, because outside its parameters, it reduces down to rubbish. A Theory of Everything, hence, is impossible.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - 01:35 am:   

Hello All,

I have difficulty with the concept that God is love. Love is simply a subjective (but perhaps universal condition [as mercy may be]) state that depends on the definition of the conscious being involved. On the other hand, conscious beings may find that successful coexistence may only occur with peace, mutual respect, and love as qualifying conditions. So perhaps Love is the Way - Dharma so to speak, that intelligence would favor.

God is simply possibility - time, space, occurrences, and non-occurrences, as well as the creative energy which provides for these!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

God is simply...?
Posted on Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 04:10 pm:   


God is simply possibility - time, space, occurrences, and non-occurrences, as well as the creative energy which provides for these!

"God is Life" is quickly becoming my motto, Naive, though there are aspects to life that are not loving. God is Love is a human aspiration, not a universal given, to my mind. Predatory behaviors dominate too much of the universe, from galaxies devouring each other to meat eaters. But... Are these merely more "possibilities" for Life, or simply "probabilities of energy" in the end?

Here is a fairly recent article that shows how Life is much more elementally complex than we had hitherto understood. It is organized right down to the virus level, and had been such from the dawn of evolution: Viruses: The unsung heroes of evolution.


Perhaps viruses' most dramatic claim to a starring role in evolution involves events in the dim and distant past. According to Forterre and others, viruses were responsible for some or even all of the main events in early evolution, including the invention of cells.
Perhaps the most profound change will be in our concept of organisms and species. Individuals are supposed to be distinct packages of genetic information that have been passed along an unbroken line of ancestors extending back millions, if not billions, of years. But in truth we're all leaky vessels, and DNA knows no bounds. It is looking more and more as though the biosphere is an interconnected network of continuously circulated genes - a "pangenome", to use the term recently coined by microbiologist Victor Tetz of St Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University in Russia.

So we are "viruses" first? Love second? :-O And "bacteria" is what holds the universal Life together?

As to whether or not "God is Love" really matters to the universe, I think it matters only to us. God is whatever is the universe, all its possibilities and probabilities, and from that we must take what we can, if it is given. That includes Love. Personally? I'll take my chances on Love. :-)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 09:41 pm:   


When I was a kid I used to say, "We
(humanity) are just fancy germs."

I do agree with you about the predatory nature of things. Everything that lives must consume something else organic. If a person eats human flesh we call it barbaric, but we don't feel the same in regards to cannibalism in other species. I think then that we equate the ability to reason with moral responsibility. In turn we assume an omnipotent God is the ultimate in consciousness and thus the ultimate moral force, the ultimate in love.

What's really at issue is our "human" concept of love. Ancient cultures used harsh rites of passage to turn children into adults. For them it was an important and necessary step - an act of love on the road to maturity.

I believe we need to evolve our moral sense and reconcile it with the realities of the universe. Compassion can be harsh depending on the context. And love is not always the doting pampering and concern that we think it to be. Add that to the idea of an omniscient God . . . and there is just no way our small way of thinking can explain the necessity, inter-connectivity, and causal relationships that comprise universal happenings.

The gift is that we have some capacity to understand and explore our environment.
The question - do events just happen or are they made to happen, as in a grand plan?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

God not there?
Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:19 pm:   

God is not there?


I believe we need to evolve our moral sense and reconcile it with the realities of the universe. Compassion can be harsh depending on the context. And love is not always the doting pampering and concern that we think it to be. Add that to the idea of an omniscient God . . . and there is just no way our small way of thinking can explain the necessity, inter-connectivity, and causal relationships that comprise universal happenings.
The question - do events just happen or are they made to happen, as in a grand plan? -- Naive

This is a very good question, Naive. Do events just happen, or is God there in some "grand plan"? I suspect it is something like this: God is not there, there is no one "managing" our human Earthly events, anymore than there was God managing the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, or during the Nazi Holocaust. Nor did these things "just happen". WE made them happen. God is a human creation, a "missing link" between the physical universe and our living human aspirations. Same as in quantum physics it is necessary to theorize missing particles, like the Higgs Boson, to fill in gaps in the models of our understanding, so is it on a vaster scale of human need to understand our existence. God is supposed to be there. But there is nobody there, except the echoes of our own psychic voices. God is us, deep down, our own need to understand and survive the deadly business of life. We die, so to make our lives worthy of living, we invent an order to the universe that has hitherto invoked God into existence.

But this is not a fatalistic, nor atheistic point of view. The universe is large, and it is able to accommodate the dreams and aspirations of its living things with surprising ease. If we want it to be God is Love, it can be. But this has to be chosen by us, dreamed willfully and consciously chosen, same as its antithesis can be chosen, and realized. We had done that all too often, and suffered. Why not aspire for the better and higher things, and succeed? Is God there? Of course, if we want it to be. But no, not really there. In the end, what is our Dream? What are our moral and humanist bearings? How well do we understand all the interrelations of reality? What level of our compassion for all life? What does it all mean to us? That is what is God... It is inside us.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, February 05, 2010 - 05:49 pm:   


I too believe that God is within us. I think this was the idea that Jesus postulated, but perhaps was not able to impress upon his ancient followers due to the limitations in thinking of that time period. And then when the Romans got a hold of him . . . well the rest is history. Hinduism and Buddhism were more successful in transmitting their points about spirituality because ancient Hindu leaders valued the ascetic way and were expected to retire to such a life after their reign was done. It was a positive tradition.

It is so unfortunate that our concepts of (respecting) divinity are so contrary to progress. Imagine if people put as much faith and zeal into scientific pursuits. We would have a world wide renaissance. Science, after all, is the appreciation of what God / the universe is.

I think the real questions are not related to science or culture or religion at all, but rather to someone's political agenda. Who benefits from keeping the world in the dark? Why don't current world leaders have a tradition of asceticism? And why aren't they held to that standard? When we are brave enough and free enough to impose these standards upon our leaders, then the love you speak of will become societal and global rather than individual. As is, most of our minds are shackled by a mental slavery to gain and ancient dogma.

This is a 4000 year pattern that various prosperous individuals continue to exploit . . . and seemingly, no one wants to be free.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Freedom wins
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:05 am:   

BBC report on 'Winners and Losers' in former Soviet states:



Communism is easy to understand, it is essentially legalized stealing from the rich. As to where the confiscated wealth goes is a question mark. Some of it goes into munitions to maintain a war machine, some goes to maintain officials and their families in comforts of privileges, some goes into the apparatus set up to combat those (counter-revolution) forces opposed to the stealing of wealth, some goes into setting up social programs like schools and hospitals and government directed manufacturing and distribution per Communist ideology, and some of this redistributed wealth will end up on the tables of the needy poor, which is most everybody else. So now, since Communism proved poor at producing new capital wealth, once the redistributed wealth runs out, the economic system fails. This usual takes about three or four generations. But such an outcome for legalized Communism is easily understood and foretold. - Ivan

Lithuania leadership

Note how in most of the former Soviet republics, democracy and freedoms go hand in hand with wealth, but corruption and oppression of freedoms engender poverty. Same ratios for health. Freedom and democratic governments free of coercions and corruption serves the people's health and wealth. But where these are damaged, so suffers the nation.

Russia is an odd case because wealth is surprisingly high considering they are the least democratic, but that is more a function of their wealth of natural resources than economic productivity, similar to many 'Third world' countries. Health suffers regardless.

What do you think? Can oligarchy, theogarchy, or kleptogarchy really deliver best government for the people? Or is freedom, respect for the individual, the right to free expression, rule of law protecting human rights, laws of agreement free of coercions (except coercion to stop criminality), and the right of human beings to find their own happiness; are these not better than the former? Freedom wins in all these.

Let the record speak for itself. Western civilizational freedoms are best. Also see: Why the West is Best by Ibn Warraq
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Science & Politics collide
Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 02:11 pm:   

When Science and Politics collide.


The "politicizing of science" has been ongoing since the days of the Holy See tried to imposed its own Ptolemaic brand of science from Biblical sources in Medieval times. Today's politicizing of science is a more recent invention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science . But the aims are still the same, to politically influence scientific thinking with either power or money, or both. Of course, that makes for bad science. When dogma and science collide, it is bad for science.

Is this perhaps why the European Space Agency (ASE) dropped its planned "gravity research" probe for the outer solar system's Pioneer Anomaly? After all, if gravity is supposed to be a "universal constant", then why bother? If it's different constant out there than here, think how "destabilizing" this would be for all modern Cosmology thinking. How destabilizing it would be for such research funding, if Newton's G were not a constant! Better to sweep this under the proverbial rug and not examine it further…. There's too much money at stake. So like dogma, when science and politics collide, it is bad for science.

Dogma vs Science

Also see: Galileo's complaint
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

GMO dangers
Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 02:10 pm:   

Are GMO Foods Dangerous to your Health? - video shorts with Dr. Oz

gmo-4.jpg (interactive)
Genetically Modified Food (GMO - genetically modified organisms)

Pesticides injected into plants genetically stay inside indefinitely, even after they had died, so cannot be washed away. Pseudo-science claims at FDA cut short real scientific inquiry, saying GMO is safe to the public, and threaten independent researchers with legal action if they use patent protected GMO products in their experiments. But Freedom of Information and Consumer Protection should demand greater study, and certainly Truth in Labeling GMO products. Where are the legal challenges to this? Right or wrong, the consuming public has a right to know. It's your life, and your childrens' life, so it is your choice. We have a right to demand GMO labels so we can freely choose.

Also see: GMO Awareness Week articles

Non-GMO Shopping Guide

Moms Across America to label GMOs

Responsible Technology GMO dangers

But what if the GMO patent is dangerous to the public? Viz. Monsanto, saved seed and farmer lawsuits.

Should their 'patents' be invalidated if they pose a health risk? Wouldn't Freedom of Information and Consumer Protection warrant a legal challenge to "unlabeled" GMOs? Fair question, as any patent found harmful to public health and safety should be confronted legally: Organic Producers Fight Back Against Monsanto.

Freedom of information does not preclude the right to know what consumers are being sold as food. Patent protection is still in force, whether or not producers label genetically engineered food products, provided they are not sold as "food" to the consuming public. Otherwise, label and they can sell; or not label and they keep them off the shelf. At very least, potentially hazardous products, even patent protected, should be labeled (like tobacco) as potentially hazardous to public health. Product misinformation or 'omissions' should not be protected by law. Fair notice.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

How 'intelligent' Intelligent Design?
Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 12:51 am:   

How "intelligent" is Intelligence Design?

Snapshot 2013-03-14 21-36-23.jpg (interactive - click to visit artist site)

Back when we wrote on Intelligent Design (2006), the initial question was if this theory was only a "God" related idea: "Can intelligence be designed into the universe without invoking a Deity?" Can we wrestle it away from the "Creationists"?

The common perception, according to Wikipedia on Intelligent design, is:


"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." Proponents say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life."

No, scratch that. That was 2006. Today, seven years later, the submission to Wiki had been changed to:


"Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the U.S.. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""

Therein lies the problem, that "intelligent design", which is essentially an ontological idea, had been moved from philosophical inquiry to a near theistic, politicized absolutism: a form of "creationism"? Is this true?

The usual view of present day scientists is that Life started from RNA combinations that created the first living cells, possibly from some clay mixture, that then had the ability to thrive and replicate. From there, once life takes hold, a Darwinian evolution is set in motion, devoid of any intentional intelligent operative, and solely based on undirected 'natural' selection. Anything else, the scientific community cloaks itself in inviolability by calling such ideas "pseudo-science", which ends the discussion. Or worse, the question of "intelligent design" in the universe evokes a negative visceral rejection, borderline hysterical emotional response. But why is that? Isn't Science open to all challenges and ideas, leaving no stone unturned? Obviously, on this issue, the answer is clearly "No."

Does the ontological idea of a Universe bearing Life having some "intelligence" to its design lead of necessity to a Deistic idea which cannot be separated from "religious" belief? Is Life's evolution strictly a religious idea prejudiced and monopolized by an a priori concept of God? Can the universe be "intelligent" without invoking a Deity, but be intelligent by Design of its own accord, by how it is put together? Critics of Intelligent Design answer an uncategorical "No." Apparently, in their collective minds, ID equates with Creationism, such as founded by ancient text of Judaic scripture, or promoted today by fundamentalist Christians. But is this the only option? Does God have to come into it, or can a secular Intelligent design be as viable?

The same issue came up in a documentary on Intelligent Design titled "Expelled: No Intelligencer Allowed" by Ben Stein et al, where the academic community discriminates against any of its own who even mention in passing the concept, even if only referenced in a paper. The 'punishment' is shunning, being ridiculed, disciplined, losing ones employment, and essentially being "expelled" from academia for having done so. Is this Science? But Stein's documentary falls into the same ontological trap, that it commingles "Intelligent design" with "Creationism", so it becomes an issue of which do you believe? Darwinism or Creationism? However, that is a straw man, because it fails to address Intelligent design on its own terms. Darwinism's "natural" (whatever it means) selection is one possible methodology of "intelligence" in the universe, but not exclusively so. The question is not whether there is a "God" who set all this in motion; rather, the question is if there is "Intelligence" in how life had evolved? The evolution of life may be more complex than the assumed "natural selection" of survival of the fittest, or even of environmental adaptability. Life may be more a complexity of "intelligent emergence" resulting from the intelligent "design" of the Universe, than any deistic prime mover, or any "undirected" process randomly playing genetic dice. In short, Stein's documentary should have been more careful on separating the three into separate and distinct avenues of inquiry. Rather, it would have been better had he brought into the picture how "intelligent design" is actually a metaphysical idea that can exist ontologically without "God", and even with or without Darwin.

I had written in a past entry to the Examined Life forum (now closed):


Biology is not merely chemistry, however, and the two sciences only meet on the periphery of how living tissue responds to chemical or electrical stimuli. Thus far we had not yet succeeded in observing a single instance where inorganic chemistry comes alive, though we had simulated amino acids in the laboratory. But though they may be the building blocks of living matter, they still fall far short of spontaneously coming to life. So biological science is separate and distinct from the other physical sciences, and is thus unique, because it deals with living things. Life science is thus a mystery.

"God" need not come into this argument, nor Creationism. Life can evolve (2008) from its primordial clays, or ice, or crystals, or some primordial soup, or undersea volcanic vents, etc., simply by being complex enough, and large enough, so that massive complexity can become an "emergence" (2008) evolving from its own complex system. Given the universe's inherent interconnectedness (to infinity) as an "interrelated" complexity, there would be a natural (whatever that means) emergence of something more complex than itself. Given sufficient time and space, this same emergence can replicate into an organic form that is "alive", and replicates on its own. In Stein's film, he asks the question (paraphrased) "What is the probability of RNA coming together in such a fashion, all 250 proteins necessary, to become life?" No answer can be meaningful, as the probabilities are astronomical, or magical. But they can be meaningful if taken as a probability "emerging" from the universal complexity, focussed and redefining itself (as the concept of a living "interrelationship" posits) so that the whole re-defines itself on any one point within itself. That basically defines "Emergence", and it has nothing to do with a deistic, religious, or creationist ideology. "Natural" in that sense becomes just what it is meant to be, that nature is an "emergent complexity" on an infinite scale. And that, taken to its final analysis, ontologically, is what creates Life. No "God" need apply. The Universe is already "Intelligent" in its inherent design.

But it gets better. There is little in the universe that the human mind can find totally devoid of some "intelligence". Everything works within itself as part of a total whole, at every instant of time, in an interconnected interplay of forces from here to infinity. From the Quantum level to the Galactic cosmic level, there is a constant interplay of forces and energies, all commingled into an infinite complexity following intelligible laws (such as discovered by science). There is nothing "dumb" out there, but totally intelligent and understandable to the human mind. It seems that in our eagerness to understand the universe, we switched and reversed roles, that rather than seeing all Existence as intelligently intelligible, we ascribed our intelligibility as the only intelligence out there, in our brains, while the rest of the universe remains inertly devoid of it. But is this not an odd form of reverse anthropomorphism? We claim to be intelligent, but claim that the universe cannot have "intelligence", so we conclude that it must be devoid of our intelligence, as if our human (or alien) intelligence was the "only" one out there. Is it not more sensible to say that our intelligence is an "emergent" quality of Life's already extent "intelligence", one we are fortunate enough to participate in? Other living beings have some intelligence, but we surpass them, as far as we can see, by orders of magnitude. Yet, if all animals display some rudimentary intelligence, then why should our higher evolved consciousness not be inherent of the whole structure, of how it all is put together? Perhaps, taken to its natural extension, our consciousness is merely one "emergent" fragment of a larger, infinite, universal Consciousness, which we have evolved high enough to come to understand it (or beginning to). In effect, it is watching us! And if so, is that not what "Intelligent design" is naturally? There is no "God" deity here, only how the Universe, in all its totality, puts itself together on a higher intelligence plane, of interrelated forces and motion, so all emergent possibilities come "natural" to existence, and the end product of that is Life, or consciousness, or our human identity. Evolution, on such a platform, even the crude evolution of Darwinism, even if devoid of self-adjusting DNA, is still orders of magnitude greater than the simple scientific hypothesis of "random" natural selection, random mutations, environmental random adaptations, predation, etc. They somehow fall short of telling the whole story, and sound rather un-intelligent. It does not have to be deistic Creationism to be Intelligent design. Life's evolution is much more than limiting ideas of ancient creationist mythology, or politicized religion. The universe is already intelligent. It was an arrogance of ignorance that led us to think we are the supreme "intelligence" out there. In fact, we have it turned around. The Design is already out there; we are merely fortunate enough to participate in it.


Also see: Does "random" really exist?

Universe thinking itself as the Logos?

Macro-Microbial Life

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brilliant Mind of Einstein
Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 02:13 pm:   

The Brilliant, Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein

2316.jpg (interactive - Einstein's Field Equations)
Ricci tensor on blackboard

There is ample documentation that Einstein's mind was unusual, which may in part explain his brilliant accomplishments in physics within his lifetime. His scientific career spanned nearly a half century, though most work was done between 1905, when he published his Special Relativity, his 1916 published General Relativity theory of gravity, and 1935, when he worked on Quantum Mechanics and particle entanglement. His later years were dedicated to reconciling his General Relativity, which had been amply proven right through astronomical observations, with Quantum Theory, which had also been proven right. In 1950 he published a paper in Scientific American describing his unified theory, entitled "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"; except this reconciliation remained unsuccessful until his death, 1955. But in those years, he accomplished many innovations in how the world of physics works, and astronomical advances, from the Photoelectric Effect (for which he received a Nobel Prize, 1921), to quantized atomic vibrations (particle Brownian motion), to the Equivalence Principle (gravity and acceleration equivalent), to wave-particle duality (photons and energy quanta), to speculations on the nature of the universe (zero point energy, dynamical space-time, energy momentum pseudotensor equations, geodesic equations, wormholes theory, etc.), to a new type of 'heat exchange' refrigeration (patented 1930). His mind was tireless in seeking answers, and towards the end of his life he turned his attention to world events, grimly aware that the invention of the atom bomb was a serious turn in human events.

But it was the Entanglement of Quantum states that ipso facto was a potential turning point in Einstein's theoretical developments, what he called "spooky action at a distance". Had he pursued this to its natural conclusion, that the universe interacts 'instantaneously', his phenomenal insights into the workings of the universe might have taken another turn. His theoretical work was based on the workings of electromagnetic energy, light waves as photons, the light speed constant limit as a measuring gage of relativistic phenomenon in the universe, the Riemann manifold geometry as an expression of those phenomena translating into gravity geometry, how mathematics match the workings of the natural universe. It was Relativity that defined how the universe worked mathematically, and from that domain of mathematical idealism, Einstein's brilliant mind saw a totality of theory encompassing both gravity and the electromagnetic world of energy. They were related, mathematically compatible, both restricted by the light speed c limit, which made all electromagnetic energy observation, like light, automatically restricted to its 'relativity' restrictions based on light speed c; all of which invoke time delay, or relativistic 'proper' time, in how space-time became a four dimensional of Lorentz transformation. So 'instantaneous' action at a distance was not a viable alternative, if the universe worked according to the light speed constant limitation, as defined by Special Relativity. Within the parameters of relativistic reference frames, as measured by lightspeed with adjusted time, a century of observations have demonstrated the innate genius of this great mind, with mathematical elegance and precision. If all forces in the universe are communicating at the lightspeed limit, with adjustments for time, then the results of Einstein's relativistic universe are incontrovertible. His brilliant genius could not have made the outcome different, given those parameters. A century of proofs has given ample evidence of this, which is why today General Relativity and all projections from this theory of gravity spacetime have yielded us such a rich panorama of universal observations, from Hubble light redshift to the Big Bang's Cosmic Microwave Background. Within the parameters set, these are the natural conclusions that could not have been derived otherwise. Hence, the complete genius of Einstein's Relativity.

However, if the universe operated instead on a quantum entanglement platform, where all forces are not limited to lightspeed, but some forces (i.e., gravitational related forces, atomic strong force et al) operate within instantaneous 'simultaneity' parameters, the universal image now drawn is incomplete. It is correct for all observable radiating electromagnetic forces, but it fails on the gravitational arena, unless, and only unless, hypothesized gravitons (undetected to date) actually do travel at the lighspeed limit. If they do, then relativistic gravity GR is of necessity correct; but if gravity forces exceed the lightspeed limit, then GR is inconclusive. And this is where "spooky action at a distance" possibly tripped up Einstein's brilliant mathematical computations to give a potentially false reading on what is happening on the cosmological scale. If Quantum Entanglement is real, then the 'instantaneousness' of its action at a distance creates a totally different scenario. Einstein, having theorized Relativity as universal, could not have envisioned this otherwise, since his theories are entirely lightspeed dependent; it is not his fault. He put together a beautiful theory within the parameters framework he envisioned, supported by countless observations (within relativistic domains of applicability), but one which, unbeknownst to him, was flawed on its basic premises; so both his first and second postulates would have read differently from how they were said. The axioms instead would have postulated faster than light, perhaps infinitely faster, forces communicating at infinite distances, and that different reference frames communicate with each other instantaneously, not at the lighspeed limit; and the isotropy of the universe would have yielded a very different gravitational backdrop than theorized by GR. But this would necessitate an axiom of where Newton's gravitational constant G is not a universal constant. Of course, Einstein had no way to know that, as neither did other cosmological theories of his time. So within the parameters set, his work was perfect; but within a different theoretical set of axioms, it would in the end prove incomplete. Still, what Einstein did was absolutely beautiful. His was a truly beautiful, great mind.

1a-1.jpg (interactive)
Einstein's last years, diary chronicles


Also see:
What would big data think of Einstein? - BBC
Gravity, the perfect illusion
The Mass of the Universe

Gravity Waves Found?

also: Einstein’s exploration of a steady-state model of the universe - Einstein had doubts on the Big Bang Theory?


It is well known that the most important fundamental difficulty that emerges when one asks how the stellar matter fills up space in very large dimensions is that the laws of gravity are not in general consistent with the hypothesis of a finite mean density of matter. Thus, at a time when Newton’s theory of gravity was still generally accepted, Seelinger had already modified the Newtonian law by the introduction of a distance function that, for large distances r, diminished considerably faster than 1/r2.
This difficulty also arises in the general theory of relativity...

- Albert Einstein

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Big Picture, Cosmic Relativity
Posted on Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 09:55 pm:   

The Big Picture - Special Relativity and General Relativity incompatible?

new5ye0.jpg photo from Hyperdesk page
Does Dark Matter gravity redshift?

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, February 1993

It may be that our 'proven' and tested understanding of General Relativity, though mathematically beautiful and elegant, may not be self-consistent, and may not describe reality. Or as the above authors stated:


The first conclusion means that we cannot trust even the insights hard won from special relativity to accurately represent the 'big picture' of the universe. General relativity must replace special relativity in cosmology because it denies a special role to observers moving at constant velocity, extending special relativity into the arena of accelerated observers. It also denies a special significance to special relativity's flat spacetime by relegating it to only a microscopic domain within a larger geometric possibility. Just as Newtonian physics gave way to special relativity for describing high speed motion, so too does special relativity give way to general relativity. This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories.

The last conclusion drawn from general relativistic cosmology is that, unlike special relativity, it is not physically meaningful to speak of spacetime existing independently of matter and energy. In big bang cosmology, both space and time came into existence along side matter and energy at 'time zero'. If our universe contains more than a critical density of matter and energy, its spacetime is forever finite and bounded, in a shape analogous to a sphere. Beyond this boundary, space and time simply do not exist. In fact, general relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime. General relativity provides a means for 'jump-starting' Creation!...

These are limiting factors of the 'Big Picture' of our universe, to restrain it within dimensions human minds can understand. However, the universe may be both simpler and bigger than our minds now comprehend. And thus continues the adventure saga of understanding our enigmatic cosmological universe…

dd955f87816caefec928700417f6cac5.png = chart.jpg ?

Also see: Mass of the Universe

Oh Einstein... Whert art thou?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natural Universalism
Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 02:30 pm:   

Natural Universalism.

images.jpeg (interactive)
Symbol of historic Universalism

We are all programmed to connect with the Universal Mind, though mostly we are unconscious of it. Natural Universalists are those men and women who already tell the truth naturally. It is an involuntary urge to so so, when it is safe to not harm others. They will be those who do not intend to coerce others, and rather in a spirit of goodwill and community will help instead. Universalists are people who naturally connect with their higher consciousness in all things they do, whether or not aware of it. They are easily identified by their courteous good nature and joyous aura, for they eschew negativism and do not give into their fears. The individuals who are comfortable in their belief, whether or not true (for life will correct us if wrong), are true to their principles and find courage in them. Universalists are persons who bring all things to the good, such as they believe it to be, who are tolerant of others (not permissive), who reconcile differences rather than divide; nor do they force others to believe as they do. These are natural human tendencies that better center us in our natural being of Who we are.

We are what we believe, so if we believe we live in an all inclusive universal, interrelated reality that defines for us our being's identity, our Who, then we are naturally drawn to better occupying that reality in terms of Who we are. This is a fundamental principle of the freedom of us occupying our being without coercion or deceits, with the right to be who we are, and with reciprocal freedoms for all others equally. This is a fundamental human right in this existence, one that no morality belief system can take away from us. As free human beings we are better occupying our natural existence to manifest our lives as we are designed to live them, with our dreams and aspirations, and with the freedom to seek our own beliefs and beauty in life. Then we naturally manifest our lives with happiness and joy for ourselves, and for all who come in contact with us. When we believe this, a natural peace comes into our lives, and those of others, as our lives become beautiful with love for all things.

We can choose to live in competition or in harmony. Friendly competition, where parties agree to compete, is healthy for us, and stimulating as well as fun. But coercive competition is damaging to our universal being, as it promotes predatory behavior, strife and injury causing suffering. Human history is replete with the latter, but it was the prior that led to our long legacy of achievements. As Universalists, we become conscious of how we choose to live our lives. The choices we make, both consciously and unconsciously, are driven by our innate beliefs, and those are determined by how our lives unfold for us. If we seek beauty, we will find it. And if we are driven by energy to succeed, to explore, to progress in life, we will achieve it, without necessarily having to fight for it. In a Universalist belief world, the universe already works to position us within our natural being of Who we are. As more people come to understand this, the world will change for the better in surprising ways. Our future as a planet composed of conscious, Universalist beings, is a world driven by truth and harmony, and joyfulness. It is a world of gratitude and consideration, a legacy for our future generations to be thankful for.


Also see: The Kingdom of God, secular
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Devil sugar, salt
Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 01:25 pm:   

The Devil Sugar, demon Salt

american-sugar-consumption.jpg (interactive)
American per capita sugar consumption - 1822-2005

World facing cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO


The globe is facing a "tidal wave" of cancer, and restrictions on alcohol and sugar need to be considered, say World Health Organization scientists.
It predicts the number of cancer cases will reach 24 million a year by 2035, but half could be prevented.

We eat too much sugar, on average 100 pounds a year (vs. ~10 lbs in early 19th century), which is detrimental to our health. Complex sugars like fruit or found in natural founds, which also contain important dietary fiber, are not detrimental in same way as processed foods with sugar added.

BBC News: Sweet tooth linked to heart attacks


Most adults and children in the US and the UK eat too much sugar.
Sugars are added to a wide range of foods, such as sweets, cakes, biscuits, chocolate, and some fizzy drinks and juice drinks.
Nutrition labels often tell you how much sugar a food contains - look for the figure for carbohydrates on packs.

Read the ingredients labels for added sugars like sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, grams of sugar, etc. Raw sugars found in food are preferred to added sugars, including artificial sweeteners.

_65380833_sugar-spoolful_spl.jpg (interactive)
How addictive is sugar?

And then there is salt: High-sodium diet linked to obesity in teenagers

High salt intake linked to higher stroke risk


Researchers found that of close to 2,700 older, mostly minority adults, those who got well above the recommended sodium intake were nearly three times as likely to suffer a stroke over 10 years as people who met guidelines recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA).

Young and old should read labels for salt content, same as sugar content. It's a matter of life and health.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration