Whos idea is it anyway?

Is any of the stuff I write here “my” ideas? Is it like I’m sitting on my own thinking of this and that and – Boom – I have some sort of insight or brilliant idea I feel compelled to share with everyone? Not really. In fact, not at all.

What happens is that sometimes I finally get what others have been trying to tell me. I rarely find anything new or original in my thinking. It is just repeating what has been consistently repeated for ages. It is my voice for sure, but the song remains the same.
Here’s an example:

I keep pointing to the fundamental unit of reality as being an oscillation, a gradual shape shifting, between two extreme states which are the inversion points of the process. One extreme is an energetic equilibrium in the shape of a sphere. This state is empty of all characteristics and measurable values. Being void of energy, it can never be detected and empirically verified. The reason for this is built on well established math and physics. I am not just making this up because it sounds cool, or that I want to keep some aspect of reality hidden or mystified. It is just so that an object which does not expand, nor contract will not communicate with its outside world. It does not reflect anything and does not absorb anything. In this sense, it is completely silent to others. The other extreme state is a flat, circular disc with tension at its perimeter horizon and compression at its center. This disc state is the opposite to the sphere, because here we have maximum energy and very definite values of extension as well as compression. So if the sphere equlibrium can be seen as “grey”, the disc is “black/white”. I will also hold that what causes the sphere to become a disc is rotation, and that rotation is the one and only force there is.
In short, the force of rotation creates energy by having a fundamental unit of reality oscillate between states of sphere and disc.

I suggest the above is a pretty accurate picture of what basic assumption a Theory of Everything and a Grand Unification Theory must be built upon. It has nothing to do with religion or any esoteric doctrine. It’s just what comes to mind when connecting a few physical, mathematical and logical dots. I didn’t make those dots. Others did, and they keep generating such dots. Lots of ’em.

Ok, so that’s what the scientific community will eventually end up in telling us. Of course, they’re already saying this, over and over again. It’s just that they refuse to listen to their own announcements. They seem ignorant of themselves. Weird isn’t it?

This is where the more “spiritual” approach can be of help. Here is what Zen Master AMA Samy has to say about the fundamental nature of reality:

Reality is both is and is-not; it is personal and transpersonal; it is not-one and not-two. This not-one and not-two applies in a particular way to the relationship between the Self and the Ego-self. Madhyamika logic extends this not-one, not-two further: Everything is suchness; Everything is not suchness. Everything is both suchness and not suchness; and, Everything is neither suchness, nor not suchness. Ultimate reality both include and are beyond all such terms. It is mystry, unknowing.

Thou Master seems to speak about the human problem of  relating subjective self experience (Ego-self) with its more objective, fundamental nature (Self), we are both saying exactly the same thing. That would come as no surprise to anyone who assumes humans to be just as natural as everything else in existence. If we are of this world, and not some supernatural aliens from elsewhere unknown, then what is true of fundamental physics must also be true of you and me.

So if we compare Master’s and my statements we can see that:
Sphere = is-not, transpersonal, not-two, Self, not-suchness, beyond terms and unknowable.
Disc = is, personal, not-one, Ego-self, suchness, definable and exclusive.

What I would like to add is this – since the unknowable Self, beyond all terms is the same reality that is definable and knowable, is being such as this or that, the unknown cannot remain hidden from the known. I offer you an ultimate reality which hides its original face by showing it as Everything that is. That’s the tricky part I guess.

Human mind is stuck in disc-mode where all aspects of reality is analysed and understood in terms of this or that. To even think of reality at all, human intellect is forced to assume visible is incompatible with invisible. Human mind is robbed of its wonderful ability to reason if not allowed to define reality in various terms. Reality must be local or nonlocal, finite or infinite, electric or magnetic, time or space, knowable or unknowable etc, or else we can’t even talk about it, right?

So have I by this made some genious breakthrough in how to approach the above? Does the idea of “visible” and “invisible” being just momentary states of the same thing make me a stellar philosopher? Of course not! There is no special prize or credentials to get from saying this. It is old fucking news.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Luke 8:17

The last quote is for most people just religious bullshit that we better educate away. For others it is a mysterious prophesy of sorts, something that ordinary people like you and me can never fully understand. It’s for the scholars to figure out. Well, 2000 years have gone and they still seem to argue about it.

To me, reality is both disputable and indisputable as well as neither disputable, nor indisputable. Below is a crude image of the process I try to describe. So you see, “grey” is not in-between “black” and “white” as we conventionally believe. Instead, “grey” is a momentary state/phase at which it is impossible to distinguish “black” from “white”, and “black/white” is a momentary state/phase at which it is impossible to distinguish “grey” other than as “an average value” of black and white combined. Since you cannot apply proper math and physics on the grey aspect, the original face of unity, science is bound to remain within the realm of duality, statistical probabilities and “dark matter”. Since religion is aimed at the immesurable and all pervading grey-ness, it will occupy the seemingly opposite realm of the invisible unknown mystery.

As for me, I oscillate wildly between being the voice of existence itself, and just another crackpot Mr. Know-It-All who believes him-self to have something important to tell the world. How special is that, considering the same goes for you, your neighbour, your neighbours dog and the cypress in the garden?
Every thing is like that.
Everything is that






Re: math in physics

This is a Q&A from the site Ask a Mathematician which I think is informative of the problem we’re facing in trying to understand the reality of physics in general, and perhaps General Relativity in particular.

Dear Mathematician, given Gödel’s theorem of incompleteness, is it possible for a complete theory of physics to come with a math that is complete, and still be true in all its statements?
I’m thinking the requirement of a complete formal system S to, by neccesity, include “gaps” could pose a problem for physics since they seem die hard on the math to be totally flawless.
For instance, the concept of singularity as an initial state pre-big bang seems rather accepted in most of physics, but in math it means “undifined” or “Dunno”. How akward it would be if the very fundation of every physical event, every cool equation and theory, could not be described by physics for as long as they (a) require the attachment of well defined math, and/or rejects the notion of a math saying “Dunno”.
Especially if that physical singularity was never broken, and therefore in effect still is a singularity. After all, logic has it that a true singularity has nothing external to it which can break or divide it, right?
To me, it seems reasonable that a theory in physics, supposed to cover Everything, must be unable to cover itself. That is if we a priori assume the theory to actually exist as an aspect of this Everything. Were it “outside” of Everything, it could get the complete picture, but that would question its ecological validity I guess.
Isn’t this the actual physics of Gödel’s brilliant idea concerning self-reference? So, complete math = incomplete physics and incomplete math possibly complete physics?
Then the answer
Most physicists have a healthy understanding of where math sits in relation to physics: if it works use it.

For a physicist, singularities don’t mean “the end of science” they mean “try something else”.  There’s a post here that talks about singularities in physics.

Physics can be described very well using math, and every math system is incomplete, so ultimately we can expect that there are likely to be things about the universe that are likewise true-but-unprovable.

Hope that helps!


My thoughts
– If we don’t know what we’re working on, how can we tell if the math is actually working? Of course, in applied physics, as in engineering, this is a valid statement. That’s the pragmatic perspective.
But if we are about to hack the foundation to “what works”, stopping at “what works” is not good enough.
– If singularities means “try something else” to a physicist, that means s/he must disregard the Penrose Hawkins Theorem proving singularities are essential to General Relativity. If the notion of singularity shows up, the physicist is encouraged to “try something else”. That seems an awkward approach, to disregard the very core of General Relativity.
– Wouldn’t it be a creative challange to figure out if the incompleteness of math, the incompleteness of physics and the fact that human cognition is based on relf-reference in some way are related to the nature of singularity? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a math that also was self-referent?
The last point about self-referent math is obviously a paradox. After all, the power of math is more like the opposite to self-reference. Math is designed for correspondence with objects that are not mathematical. If self-referent, math would probably end up entangled in circular functions that says nothing about the reality it is supposed to describe.
Perhaps that’s not a problem? Actually, that’s what I assume to be a possible way out of incompleteness in theory. Try this thought:
A singularity can be pictured mathematically as .5 + .5 = 1
As such, a singularity is both 1 and not 1.
It is not 0, nor is it 2.
It is 1 integer and 2 fractions.
It is both 1 absolute and 2 relatives.
It is of two faces where one face is Dual and the other face is Singular.
The Single face is same as the Dual face.
The Dual face is of Sameness united.
I suggest we do not try “something else”, but that we try harder to be creative with what we’ve got.
What we’ve got is 1. That’s the smallest quantity of unification, perhaps the only possible.
Math begins with 1 and not fractions. Without 1 in the first place, there is no one from which fractions can be measured and counted.
So while math works fine in our current universe, we can assume the post initial state singularity to be correctly described by the use of 1. If it wasn’t, then math would not correspond as well as it obviously does. Assuming that leads us to contemplate in what way This One can be understood as equal to Those Halves. We must be careful not to analyse the .5’s as if they were 1 divided in 2.
The equation here does not say 1/2 = .5
It says that if we do it backwards, beginning with the current standard of 1, then we end up missing half the initial point of singularity. This is what we normally do, and that’s why we end up in uncertainty.
I am saying that we must avoid breaking apart what has once been unified, or we will lose a vital aspect of reality as it is. Instead we should ask ourselves what halves would be required as to be the same as 1. The trick here is to resist minds habit of manipulating the data as to build minds own understanding of it. Mind has a strong tendency to mean everything and every thing. It cuts up input and conceptualize it as either this or that.

1 or 0
Big or small
Here or there
Dimensional or nondimensional
Absolute or relative
Objective or subjective
Particle or wave
Position or velocity
Discrete or continuus
Right or wrong
Cause or effect
Finite or infinite
Body or mind
Local or nonlocal
Space or time
Electric or magnetic
Singular or dual
Self or no-self
Bounded or free
Surface or bulk
X or Y
Real or imaginary
Me or you
… ad infinitum

This is the requirement for intelligence to reason about reality. It has to do this, or it cannot tell one from another one. No definitions are possible without this a priori reconfiguration of input, and without definitions we can not reason verbally/intellectually at all. Intellectual discourse is impossible without separating This from That. In order to enable gradients, mind also operates in opposites/polarities. By that, it can picture  a scale with 2 extreme values and then place anything related to these extremes somewhere in-between. Can you imagine science or philosophy conducted without this being done?
If you can, please leave a comment and tell my how.
To round this brief pointer off, I will borrow from one of the truly great minds a few quotes that might perhaps at least some air of credibility to the above. Not as in trying to use Henri Poincaré as a proof of me being “right”, but to show the mindset that must be cultivated if we are to make progress in our shared understanding of what This is. The minds are just means to the end of knowledge.
Analyse data just so far as to obtain simplicity and no further.

Mathematics has a threefold purpose. It must provide an instrument for the study of nature. But this is not all: it has a philosophical purpose, and, I daresay, an aesthetic purpose.

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Guten abend Prof. Riemann

Ever since I “got it” 4 years ago, I’ve been looking for a way to express it in various ways. Everyday language is pretty useless, and everyone who “gets it” knows this for sure. In the Zen tradition this pofound inability to express in words what is beyond words is often pictured in short stories. My favourite is this:

Student: What is truth?
Master: Truth is like a river.
Student: How do you mean “like a river”?
Master: Ok, truth is not like a river.

So however you phrase it, it’s not that. You must rely on metaphors and pointers to have the listener find out for herself. There is no other way it seems. But I’m not here to tell you about Zen. I am fool enough to …well, perhaps I am here to tell you about Zen. Zen is whatever happens so there’s no way out of it really.

Chinese Chan master Yiduan (I-tuan, 9th century), a disciple of Nanquan, declared: “Speech is blasphemy! Silence is a lie! Above speech and silence, there is a way out.”

True that, and I’m falling inside out of that door way, so in which direction should I point my finger? Well, ultimately that’s a trick question because there is no door way. There is no way “out” of that which you are always “in”. Forget that and forget the “you” asking all the questions. Let’s go answering instead.
One way of answering is to ask great minds what they don’t know. To know what is not known is probably better than to know a lot. It narrows the search. So let’s ask one of our greatest minds, Bernhard Riemann, what he didn’t know most of all. It turns out he didn’t know for sure if all the zeros of his famous Z-function has the real part 1/2. If you’re not a fan of mathematical enigmas, this is irrelevant. But if you are, you know that proving the Riemann Hypothesis is the Big One in the field. Pro’s has been obsessed by it for decades, but no one seems able to hack it. Bets are on and stakes are high. More than a few insiders believes it is impossible to prove this beast of a function in the way Riemann himself thought of as perhaps possible.

So why would I even bother to look t it? I may be dumb as a rock, but I’m not stupid enough to think I could prove it, because I can’t. Full. Stop. First of all, I hardly know math well enough to count change at the grocery store. Secondly, I know no one who is willing to help me understand it in a formally accepted and correct way. As with physics, I mix it up as I go along and rarely follow the beaten paths of the professionals. I always get lost in complexity when I try. So I stay simple and follow my nose. This doesn’t mean I can’t hack it, because I can. It means no one credible in academia would ever look at my layman doodles. And honestly, who can blame them?

Never the less, here’s my basic message to my dear friend BR: Your hypothesis is definitely on track and all zeros will indeed have real part 1/2. Thing is, I must be rude enough to wreck your complex image to show you why. The reason for this is that the rotation at hand is of a peculiar kind. It is of a monopole, not a known particle or measurable spinor. To throw in a pole in a complex image is sort of how it’s done, so nothing new there. But I’m afraid this one is like an essential singularity with some geometry missing. To picture stuff that has no place in space can be a challange. It messes with the values on X and Y, but what can you do? We’re talking quantum stuff here, and those guys do not behave as expected. Not with any certainty at least. It is also tricky to picture it right when you’re dealing with “time”. Sure time goes around, and the complex rotation goes around, but time is also an arrow of sorts. In this case it means I will throw away what roates a soon as it has made uni verse (one turn). I hope you’ll excuse me for this, but I have thrown a monopole on the table and it just won’t sit still and spin within the image frame. I seems to oscillate, as a light switch going on/off, and to runs off mixing with other values. Most of all, it is never ever alone, so I would need two images to picture something relating to the physical world as we measure it. Then I could show you a photon perhaps.

A simple complex image, essentially being a singularity

So Prof. Riemann, there’s a pdf with my monopole/singularity to look at, and below I have copy/pasted a few words from it. Again, this will not make sense without thinking of a physical entity, or half physical perhaps. As a mathematical proof it is of course an obvious failure. But I like to think math has emerged from human mind, and that human mind is the mind of physical reality. Claiming we are the reality that is being pictured in our math and science, one thinks naturally that math is not abstract or un-natural in any way. In reality, everything is equally real, including the complex plane. What I allowed myself to do was to add a little quantum mystery to it. Mystery or not, the blue surface is what eventually builds space and the primes will come from that building. But to do that we would need 3 such surfaces to make an atom, and this is the image of 1. I’d like to show you how the 1 really looks like, but perhaps you already know it has no surface when really being the only 1. My image is of course based on how 1 appears together with 1, but so do all our images don’t they.

There’s a hole  the picture, I know that, and perhaps there has to be. I know you are a religious man Professor, and if you so wish, please insert a Holieness in that hole. I’d love that image. But not to scare away the secular  minds of today, I might choose to regard it “silent frequency” or Father Time to reconcile. I guess Dirac would call it a drop in the ocean. And knowing God as I imagine you do, I assume you know the quantity of 1 better than most. That’s a good thing. Half the seen world and half the unseen always adds up to 1 doesn’t it?

Oh, one more thing. Having XY never go beyond 1+1i  is not only to stay true to the one, but will save some space and keep us on comfortable distance from relativity’s fractions. The big numbers and tedious decimals come later, with the many poles as numerous di-poles. I claim the original complex image should be extraordinarily simple.
A one timer, then….Bang.
Lights On.


Riemann hypothesis is true in quantum physics.
A real surface is the 2D extension of a spinning monopole. The least real value is 1 since monopoles are not of fractions. All real measurables are of positive values. Negative values are of surface rotation in real quarter. Rotational values must be calculated separately from extensional values. There are 2 zeros relating to the monopoles binary nature. The definite XY Zero is of the monopole as less than real space measurable. The relative .5,.5=1 is the zero in the so called critical strip. Any monopole extension will generate a real quantum of measurable space with the real value 1. All real values 1 of the Z-function will thus show up as having real part .5 in the complex image. The imaginary values are related to the empirically undetectable zero point with definite XY=0. XY=0 is not measurable since it is a point entity which defines the zero limit where the monopole extension does not generate spatial dimensionals. As a real space value 1, the pole frequency of the extended surface wavelength 1 is silent to observation. The silent value relates to uncertainty in measurement and likely to phenomena such as parity, antimatter, flux tube, wormhole and inversion of signs. As the monopoles surface extension is real space, the internal silent zero spin should be understood as real time/frequency. Pi is corrected to be 3 because the extension radius .5 is when including the zero points radius .2. But .2 has no real space value so r.5 is dimensionally r.3 (red dotted circle). When extension is measured as real surface, there is loss of zero point values .2 i.e. the time/frequency values, indicated by red lines. This can be understood as the zero point frequency of any real space that cannot be dimensioned as space itself. Therefore, Pi decimals are added as time, inherent in every basic quantum of space generated by monopoles extensions.

To have ones mind changed

When believe something, I really believe that. Until I don’t. Then I really believe something else. If I believe that I know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really knew X. If I believe I don’t know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really don’t know X.
What X really is, X only knows.
X is probably X.

Since I was old enough to contemplate existence and what existence really is, I have gone through a lot of beliefs, and I promise you, I believed them all equally much. One such belief was that the story of Big Bang was totally unbelievable. I found, and still find, a thousand reasons not to believe it. I will spare you the details, and I’m sure you know most of them. Or so I really believe anyway.

Come a moment in life when a certain belief changes shape and colour. It might still be the same belief, but something has drastically changed. In the case of my dis-belief in the Big Bang story, the change is not the Big Bang itself, but what the Big Bang is about. Suddenly I find myself believing it was actually so. It was a Big Bang-ish event which kicked off the universe as we know it. But having learned more about the concepts involved and how we argue about them, I have found that the problem is not the Big Bang but how the story is told. It is as unbeliavable today as it has been for all of my life. But today I believe myself to know better why the story sounds like science fiction and why it doesn’t make any sense.

The Big Bang story suffers credibility mainly because we cannot tell the story of singularity in a reasonable way. And since singularity is a “big” player in Einsteins wonderful universe of relativity, we think it is BIG. We forget that the singularity might just be a player, and the size comes from the way it plays. We understand universe from our point of view. Science prides itself of being objective and non-egocentric, but that’s educated bullshit.
A measuring device might be objective, but the detectors don’t interpret data.
A computer tells no story and explains nothing.
It computes.
A scientist is not objective.
A scientist is a scientist.

Today I believe in the so called Big Bang, but that is not from what science tells me about it. What has changed my mind is what science doesn’t tell me. It says a lot about singularities in theory. There’s a library full of books on singularity.
Gravitational singularity.
Mathematical singularity.
Naked singularity.
Technological singularity.
Then we are told “No one knows a singularity. It is beyond description. The laws of the universe break down in the singularity. It writes its own laws and we have no access to the laws of the singularity

Then I think this: They are looking at God.

The way mind responds to the singularity reminds me of how it responds to some imagined entity which is supposed to be The Beginning.
“In the beginning there was” ….and then the stories diverge. But they are trying to describe the same event.
The Beginning.
After all the books are written, all arguments thrown on the table, all storytellers end their tale with a common disclaimer:
-The Beginner of Beginning is not to be understood.
-The Singular God is beyond conventional mind of mankind.
Still, they have their theories of what this unknown creator created first.
Bible says that “heaven and earth” cames first.
Science prefer to begin with “light”.
Bible says “God did it”.
Science says “We don’t know, but we’re working on it”.

Then I encountered the Monopole and it changed my mind.
It was a Big Bang-ish event.
Heaven and earth is probably prior to light, but light is true while heaven and earth is a metaphor. Both camps win. Both camps lose. Fair deal. At least fair enough methinks.
The discription of a Monopole fits the Wanted! ad to a T.

One undetectable character
One force to unite them all
A master of disguise
Extremely powerful
Carries a Holy Grail full of answers
Description: Looks a lot like “Nothing”

So what is a “monopole” then?
It is what it is.
A monopole is a monopole.
I have no addition to what wikipedia says, and you can look that up for yourself.
The question is – how well does that descripition fit the descriptions of God and Singularity. That’s a matter of opinion and belief.
Today, in my opinion, I believe God is a Monopole Singularity.
I believe in Gods, Monopoles and Singularities.
Heureka as well as Halleujah.
I believe One multiplies as many Ones.
I believe many Ones does This.
I believe the many Ones are of two faces/phases.
All of One (not “in” One)
All as Once (not “at” once)

But only in The Beginning is the One all alone.
So One breaks into Light
Light enlightens all forms of reality
Reality is this Enlightenment
One shines as many Ones
One eventually gathers itself
The many Ones again becomes the Only One
Light returns itself to the source
The One Pole attracts every Little One
Then…what we cannot understand, because there is no “where” to stand.
There are no relatives to the One Alone, so theories of relativity are silenced.
There are no quantities, so quantum theory are silenced.
As a fact, “there” does not apply.
As a fact, “is” does not apply.
As a fact, “One” does not apply.
What applies is Action. That does it. Action.
Not action potential because this reality can not be. It has to be.
Reality must be inevitably enforced, not optional.
Option implies a choise, a decision and intention. Believing this is so, God, Singularity and Monople line up to enter stage. But there is no stage and no One to enter.
Stage One comes later. Big comes with the Bang, but not yet.

This is what makes it difficult to describe. We are trying to imagine action without an actor. We know there is no one physically there to do it, but we know it is done.
So we imagine Force, which is not that hard. But then the mistake of mind.
We attatch some thing that is forceful, as to “have” force.
Always looking for the doer of what is done.
God is forceful
Singularities are forceful
Monopoles are forceful
We believe that if there is force, some thing has to be full of it.
If there is walking, there has to be a walker.

Today I believe that as The Beginning was what walks the walker.
The coming of what comes.
The going of what goes.
The around of all.

The Beginning comes around and goes around
Today that is…


Doing the Being

It does what it is
It need not “do” what it “does”
It “does” what it is
The action is of the agent, being the agent
Being need not be “done”
It just is
What it is, is what it “does”

This is not what we believe to be true
Not-believing is not “done” by us
We are disbelief
We are uncertainty
We are not absolutely sure
Therefore, we are also creation,
while not “creating” anything at all

Creation is of novelties
so we are the excitement with news
Always excited by new novelties
Mind is most of all creative
so mind creates
It cannot stop “doing” what it is
Only by being still
Creations of mind comes to a halt
But there is no “you” that can “do” the stillness
Either it is, or it is not

Scientists that are not knowing this
cannot “do” knowledge of this
Therefore, they “do” novelties ad infinitum
They cannot be stopped
and they do not mind this
because they are not mindful
of what is

So they believe in creation and “doing”
There are fields that does
There are dimensions that does
There are particles that does
There are objects that does
There are scientists that does
and data that does a “show”
Data shows

But reality has no doer of what is real
Reality realizes by simply being real
This is the hard part for creative mind to understand
Understanding and knowing is not done
by an entity that does the understanding and knowing
There is knowing or there is not knowing
Science is embracing not-knowing
Because creation stops with knowing
In the stillness of mind
there is only countinous change
The still mind creates nothing
It simply responds to the flow of change
It knows this by being this-ness
and it can only be when no doer is there to mind it

That’s the paradox

The still mind, not occupied with “doing” the stillness,
is a mind in a continous flow of change
A still mind is not separate from an external flow
A still mind is not a separate mind
It is a momentary expression of whatever flows
where the still mind is

The still mind knows the real flow
by being the real flow
in the momentary shape of “mind”
A tree is also a momentary shape of flow
but a tree is not a mind
so they respond in their subjective, unique way
A tree is tree-ing the flow
A mind is mind-ing the flow

To mind the fundament of reality
is to mind being one as be-coming two
Being one is what this is
We can label that “form”
Form is what it is
To be coming is what it does
We can label that “formless”
The flow requires the one to act
so being one is never enough
If one is one, it cannot flow
One also needs to be the coming of one
Being one is to be coming one
over and over agin

Being one is not being two
That is the simple nature of the unified field of entanglement
There are no lose parts or isolated systems
One is unbreakable says the scientists
But “one” is just a quantity
and quantity is never enough
We must add the quality of one to know one correctly
The quality of one is to come
To come and come and yet again come
One adjoint operation of one
coming and going
Being the coming back to itself
Thus reality be-comes realized

Looking at how one begins its cycle of be-coming one
it looking at singularity
Singularity is not of form
Singularity is no thing
Neither is it nothing
Singularity is formless action
Singularity is time without space
The Arrow of time is a measure of the flowing
not of what flows
The flow of one, coming back to itself,
is not a linear arrow pointing in a particular direction
To come into its being, the arrow of time must be circular
The hands of time must wrap around its being
Have you seen a clock?
I have …

Time is frequency of rotation
It is a measure of how many times
one comes back to one
The zero of time is not between 11 and 1
The zero of time is at the spinning center
in the face of being
from zero emerges the hands of time
From origo stretches the hands of the original face
A clockwork reality
that never fails

Out of no “thing”
in the very middle of no “where”
there is the quality of formless action
Out of zero comes the being
of this One.

The initial state is a no-state
The zero time action is a trait
Singularity is the coming of what becomes the being
One formless flow of many forms
of this One

It begins with a quality
the quality is two faced
One is contraction
One is extension
One is: extended contraction
Contraction causes many forms of one
Extension causes the many of one to flow
Reality is the one effect
Reality is spaced out time

Just be the looking at it!



The Sweet Spot of Mind

Everything we know of Everything is backwards.
We believe the observable Newtonian reality to be non-relativistic and 
We believe the quantum reality to be relativistic and unpredictable.
Sorry for spoiling your weekend, but you are looking at it without seeing it.

But if you’ve played golf, you know that a swing which consistently generates a socket (hitting bottom of shaft so ball goes out the window) is extremely valuable. To always hit the perfect sweet spot, you just have to correct your stance a little bit.
Consistency is the Holy Grail, not the apperance of actual motion.

I aim at the fundamental stance in relation to Everything. Not at a theory to appear valid or credible. I don’t shoot shots. I make the effort of keeping it simple and repeatedly consistent. As in meditation, so in theory.
Do it consistently and your head eventually begins to spin.
Let it spin faster and faster, and there will be light on the count to 3.
From there, you can wrap your head around Everything without having to do it. It just happens.

That perspective is the sweet spot of mind.

Science and Religion knows, but You will never get it.

Once upon a time I believed in science as a creative process. Nowadays I doubt it to be more than contemporary religion. To illustrate this, I will present a typical “discussion” as it unfolds when I try being creative in relation to a scientific thinker. This is not to “out” someone in particular, because in my experience, this attitude or belief system is the norm. I have seen it almost without exception in every response I get when questioning the established pattern of thinking. Exactly the same thing happens when I’m stupid enough to question any religious truth so this is not to critisize the scientific community. It is to highlight the mind’s default function of hiding itself in the process of expressing itself. My mind is in this respect just like yours. All minds are alike, whether we know it or not. The trick is to know that, from a “Me”-perspective, there is no knowledge but My Knowledge, and that inevitably excludes the knowing of Me.

Me: I suggest “energy” is caused by “force” and force being what spins and rotates. We can detect a “what” which appears to “spin”, but that’s the effect caused by some other “what”. I maintain that the latter is not accessible to observation. The vortices in condensates has that force at their zero point origo. I for one cannot imagine something external to their perimeters that causes that spin. If we trap them by applying energy, with laser beams for example, the effect can be momentarily decreased, but without external manipulation they seem to self-generate the quality of spin. Force does this, not energy. And the higher rate of spin, the more potential energy is there.

Scientist: I’d be inclined to suggest that that doesn’t really sound like physics. Forces and energy are related (and forces can at least be directly measured), but there’s no particular implication that force ’causes’ energy… For instance, spin is angular momentum, which is naturally conserved… it’s not ‘self generating’… in the absence of external forces, a spinning object will simply keep spinning… it requires an application of force to change the spin… but even in the absence of any force it spins… and thus has energy… not potential energy, but rotational kinetic energy… the faster it spins the more kinetic energy it has, because it’s ‘moving’ faster… We can apply a force to make it spin faster, and thus add energy… but we can also apply a force to make it spin more slowly, and thus lose energy… the force is responsible for the energy change, but in what sense can it actually ’cause’ the energy?
I should add, of course, Niklas, that the intuition is on the right track… spin is a key concept in modern physics, yet often overlooked… There’s a reason that Planck’s constant describes a fundamental unit of spin… and there are clear links between spin and energy and force interactions… which is why it’s worth learning to use the concepts properly…

Me: Ok.

And that’s it. The scientist assumes I have not attended high school physics or bothered to google wikipedia for “force” and “energy”. Or Scientist believes me to actually have read about it, but tells me not to question what is in the textbook. I am considered
a) stupid
b) lazy
c) disobediant
This is why I never thrived in the “proper” educational system. I listened and learned ok, but then I had the stomach to say “But what if..”, and that is not allowed if you are not already a “proper” authority. Only they have the right to be creative, to destroy and rebuild. Of course they are frowned upon and considered “out of line”, but they are at least not labelled “stupid” or “lazy”, perhaps “disobediant”. The last being the very essence of their work so I guess they take that as credit.

Now, did Scientist read my words “properly”? Did s/he even attempt to understand what I was pointing to? From the response, it seems not to be the case. I explicitly write force and energy as “force” and “energy” in a feeble attempt at openly admitting my use of these concepts are not the proper usage. To me it seems totally obvious that I am suggesting a redefinition of force, but to Scientist I’m just ignorant of what force really is. I’m directed to the textbook.
My fault is of “not sounding like physics”. That is, I do not speak in the words of the textbook. Religious people say the same thing. They have their scriptures to obey, just as science have theirs.

“Forces can at least be measured”. Is that so? In that case, reality is correctly defined by means of our measurements. If we measure “force” then Force it is.That’s a very convenient and useful approach. The preacher says – If we experience “god”, God it is. But Scientist believes inderect measurements are more valid than direct experience while Preacher holds the opposite to be correct. Either way, both Force and God are believed to be of physical properties and existing as matters of fact.
Since I am obviously is questioning these ideas, I write:
“I maintain that the latter is not accessible to observation”.
What I’m trying to say is that an ultimate cause is not possible to observe, regardless of calling it “God” or “Force”. If it is not itself caused, it will not change from being observed. An ultimate cause cannot possibly exchange information with an observer of any kind. Why not? Because it is the cause of information to exists in the first place, that’s why. You cannot investigate gasoline by means of fire. Fire will not penetrate or manipulate gasoline. If you enter the lab filled with gasoline fumes, I suggest you do not light a match in order to observe the fumes in better light. What happens is that “fire” causes “fumes” to ignite, but where there is fire, there are no fumes to investigate. There is no border condition where fire causes gasoline to become fire. Either it burns or it doesn’t. There’s no state of gasoline as “slightly burning”. Ok, so we keep asking;
What caused the fire – a match did.
What caused the match to burn – I did.
What caused you to light the match – my decision to light the match.
…and soon enough, we’re stuck in the dead end of “free will” or perhaps in the suggested quark/gluon-soup. Either option is equally hopeless. When this happens, and because we humans fear not-knowing more than anything else, there are some available escape routes.

Religion: It is all about God.
Good enough Science: We will never know, that’s all.
Creative Science: It is all about us to keep working on it..
Philosophy: It is all about defining “ultimate” and “cause” correctly.
Hinduism: It is all about the Supreme Lord residing in Everything.
Zen: It is all about knowing who is asking the question?
Advaita: It is This, not “about” this.
Animism: It is all about Mother Nature.
Mathematics: It is all about information.
Homer Simpson: What’s all this about?
New Age: It is all about Love.
Ignorasmus: This is just pretentious mumbo-jumbo.
Nihilist: Who fuckin’ cares?

Then there is the option to avoid having an opinion or belief. Instead of having the courage to stand up for any of the above, you can appear as knowledgable by picking on those who do make a statement. This is the go to-response we find among the skeptics. Their answer to the most fundamental questions is always to point out why others are wrong, without providing a reasonable alternative. This is almost like accepting the position of Good Enough Science, that “we will never know”. The particular thing with skeptics is that they seem obsessed with finding an answer anyway. Good Enough Scientists need not argue and attack any particular position or belief. They just turn their back on the question and keep doing what they believe is possible and of use. Skeptics won’t do that. Deep inside they really want to know, but their conviction that definite knowledge is impossible makes them angry and frustrated. Therefore they mock those who suggest they have found a fundamental answer to all questions.

in the absence of external forces, a spinning object will simply keep spinning

So Scientist explicitly acknowledge and agree to what I am suggesting. S/he confirms that a spinning object will keep spinning all by itself, but to the scientific mind, this has no further implications. It does not turn on the lights, if you will.

there’s no particular implication that force ’causes’ energy…

To me it implies that this kind of thinking inevitably leads to contradictions. Like saying the spinning object “just keeps spinning” while denying that spin is self-generated. So if nothing makes it spin, and it does not spin by itself, a curious scientist would ask –
What the heck is going on here? We cannot have a physical event like “spin” without at least trying to understand what causes this observation. We must know. We will know. Let’s investigate!

Characterizing singularities by the 𝐶  -point index. Spin lines representing the local orientation of the major axis of the spin ellipse are plotted over the condensate phase.
From: Singular atom optics with spinor Bose–Einstein condensates
Azure Hansen, Justin T. Schultz, and Nicholas P. Bigelow, Optica,Vol. 3, Issue 4,pp. 355-361
My note: This is a picture of “spin”, not of a “spinor”.

That’s the Spirit of Knowledge I’m looking for. The readers of the Bible do not know physics correctly, or they keep themselves blindfolded to protect their flawed interpretations of the basics in the book. They will maintain that the cause of spin is a Prime Mover, a One Deity that creates spin. They refuse to acknowledge the vast ocean of spinning zero points as having anything to do with creation and universal operation. They want One creator, so that’s what they get.
Scientific mind on the other hand refuses to see that there is a prime motion i.e. spin in everything existing. Or rather, it observes this unconditioned and thus fundamental property of existence, but maintain that this observation has “no further implications”.

To the eternal question – what makes all this happen, the religious mind says “God”. If you ask a scientific mind, it is likely to say “We don’t care to find out because that’s for religion and philosophy to deal with”.
Then the scientific community is concerned with signs of the public opinion having too little trust in science and worse, tending to increased interest in spirituality.

One concern with including non-empirical arguments in Bayesian confirmation theory, Dawid acknowledged in his talk, is “that it opens the floodgates to abandoning all scientific principles.” One can come up with all kinds of non-empirical virtues when arguing in favor of a pet idea. “Clearly the risk is there, and clearly one has to be careful about this kind of reasoning,” Dawid said. “But acknowledging that non-empirical confirmation is part of science, and has been part of science for quite some time, provides a better basis for having that discussion than pretending that it wasn’t there, and only implicitly using it, and then saying I haven’t done it. Once it’s out in the open, one can discuss the pros and cons of those arguments within a specific context.”

Here’s the deal: Religion has this pet idea that there is a creator that causes our empirical observations to happen, to even exist. Some religious folks call the cause “God”, but the implied cause goes by many names e.g. Buddha nature, Vishnu, The Force etc. All believers in an ultimate cause have their own label on it, but they all agree there is a cause for all of existence as it is and evolves/changes. The scientific response to that pet theory is that such a cause is irrelevant to science for as long as it is indeed beyond empirical detection. As such, the cause is just a matter of speculation and blind faith. But the fear of “all kinds of non-empirical virtues” to come up is clearly misguided. If you look closely to all the diverse expressions of spiritual beliefs, they have one thing in common – the belief in something that is more fundamental than what can be detected by means of empirical investigation. Where they may differ some is how to deal with the concequenses following this basic assumption. But that is all about cultural and momentary opinions regarding “correct behavior”. That is the lesser law invented and applied by humans. The bigger law concerning reality as a universal fact is what we’re dealing with here. It is not about how many goats are allowed to graze on the northern hill.

Am I the only one seeing that science already have observed what religion call God? Can’t you see that God has has been revealed for decades now?
Is it so hard to see that the only thing keeping religion and science apart is the nature of human mind and its strong tendency to believe its content to be My Understanding?

Until we are forced to realize what we are, religion will keep saying God is the ultimate answer, so science knows nothing of truth, while science keeps saying that knowing “God” has no particular implications because it is just spin anyway.
Or strings
Or Gravity
Or spacetime
Or entanglement
Or a lattice
Or irrelevant
Or next weeks interesting hypothesis
I see no other way out of this ridiculous Catch 22 than to trust evolution having its way with us. We did not design, cause or evolve ourselves you know…or do you? I realized this by “knowing who it is asking the question”, and I consider that event a quirk of evolution. It happens to a lot of people and it is not the pleasent and joyful experience as is generally believed. You must pray for a good sense of humor to counter the hurt and sorrow that comes with watching us kill ourselves in the blind belief we are making progress. You want to stop this lunacy, but you are constantly stopped from doing it.
Everyone is waiting for their particular saviour and bringer of light. Scientists wait for the next Einstein or Newton. Christians wait for the second coming of Jesus. Buddhists wait for Maitreya. They all share the belief and faith in a particular individual who will reveal the ultimate truth to us. They are all true believers of separation and relation.

Few are able to realize that what they believe to be One is actually Many, and what they believe to be Many is actually One.
The One Creator is in reality Many Creators which are Discrete and Untouchable.
The Many Creations are in reality One Creation which is Continous and Touchable.
The Many Discretes are untouchable simply because they are discrete. But you will never hear a scientist saying this, because that would imply a definite limit of scientific method. I have repeatedly argued that an entity that is defined as discrete can never be observed as it is, which is what science call its eigenstate. As soon as an experimental instrument interacts (measures) something that is by definition discrete, its eigenstate becomes an unsererstate as related to the instrument of measurement. But science wants to eat the cake while keeping it. First it claims reality to be, on the most fundamental level, discrete and thus separate entities or “quanta”. Then it claims to have knowledge of this quanta by means of interacting with it. No wonder quantum physics has a measurement problem which has “generated a multitude of responses“.
But the effect of these discrete untouchables is indeed possible to measure. It is in fact Everything, including the scientist, the instruments and the event of measuring. One such effect is me sitting here writing this, another effect was Einstein as seemingly “causing” the theory of General Relativity by “thinking”. But as we know, no event or object measured or experienced is totally separate from its environment. The general rule is very simple:
If it can be observed, it is not discrete and separate but continuus and connected.
If it cannot be observed, but only inferred, it is discret and disconnected.

But you will never hear a preacher of Genesis saying that existence as we know it is One continuus field/ensamble of connected forms. S/he will deny that because the Bible says One creator created many particular things, in particular meaning Man (as separate from Nature). That’s of course to read the Bible from Ego’s inherently separate perspective. But that’s how they misunderstand it.

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Genesis 1:25-26

  1. Creation is of a quality that will evolve, not of finite and perfectly defined quantities.
  2. Creation is not one directional but an interactive process.

If the spinor of the spin causes the effect of energy/matter, then this effect will in turn affect how spin operates as integrated units in the bigger context of cause and effect. That’s why the authors/scientists inform the reader of God as also being us on a functional level. They are not telling us The God made every form of creation to be exactly as we see it today. Instead they say “God is the cause of creating a unified whole/holy existence where the God, as a sort of Singularity, become Gods of its own/one creation.
But who the hell am I to believe I can shed light over what has been in the darkness for millenia? Of course the reader will conclude what I already know i.e. that I know nothing of this. The only difference is between the “I know nothing” and the “I know nothing”.
That little difference makes all of the difference.

But You will never get this.