This is not a Black Body

Today I will try to show you why a Black Body is not a Black Body, and how the unknowable can be known if we know what makes knowledge possible at all. I have had this invisible image in my mind for a few years now, but still I have not been able to share it with someone. This should be understood as “not able to commute that which enables a receiver to respond in such a way that a co-responding happens”. It is obvious that an invisible image is impossible in itself, let alone to communicate. It has to be so. My effort is to trigger a constructive response in you. Not shove my response down your throat. This is very difficult, because anything I say or show will by default be reconstructed according to your existing cognitive structures. It has to be so. But knowing how communication is bidirectional can be of some help.

The image has, to me, opened the floodgates to numerous Aha-moments. It still does. It is a game changer with profound consequences, that is, if you want it to be that. If you do not want it to be of any significance to you, it won’t be. Then it is just someone’s private speculations. Well, it IS someone’s private speculations no doubt, but not necessarily just so. It might also be valuable. It might also be complete/incomplete nonsense.
Ultimately, it is what it is. It is an event of co-responding.

Trying to avoid my usual rambling all over Everything, this will be an introductory post, an initial conditioning of you, so what follows has at least a slight possibility of being understood correctly. Only then can there be an accurate response to what I actually suggest, and not to what you have me suggesting. Only then can it be rightfully buffed or nerfed.

Let’s begin with the scope of this image. It answers none of your questions, except for one; What Is This? By “this” I do not mean any of the following:
God, reality, entanglement, entropy, particles, consciousness, mathematics, religion, free will, continuum, theory, mind, matter, energy, consciousness, purpose, intention, relativity, QM, essence, ether, gravity, true, good, impossible, probable, measurable, important or consciousness.
By “this” I mean: FUNDAMENTAL.
The reason I suggest the fundamental to be of highest priority is this – if we get it somewhat wrong, everything that follows will be somewhat skewed and out of focus. Not “wrong”, but not “right” either. If that is a problem is up to that response of yours. I just want to know Everything for no particular reason at all…it seems.


Using the concept of Black Body (BB) is bound to cause multiple misconceptions, because you know already what a Black Body is, and that is not what I suggest here. That means most readers will stop reading here. Before leaving, some friendly soul might suggest references and further studies so I can educate myself properly. And by that, our paths diverge. I can see for myself that my image is not of a Kirchhoff Black Body. The main reason for this is that my image does not include absorption of any kind, nor anything like emission. Since perfect absorption and zero emission is the very definition of a blackbody, this is obviously something else. There is no need to state the obvious over and over again. Sharing your opinion that the image is confusing and contradicting adds nothing but informational noise. I know it is confusing and full of contradictions. I wrote the damn thing. I have pictured it for soon to be 5 years. If you know it, you also know why it is confusing and paradoxical to an observer. You don’t reject QM out of the box, just because it is confusing, do you? You don’t accuse Zen for being full of paradoxes, do you? Objecting to my use of “Black Body” and “blackbody” without explicitly spelling out why I do that and how they relate to each other in this context, that is just interference and I’ll put you in the penalty box until you stop such nonsense. Unless you actively refuse to know, you know perfectly well what I mean. If not perfectly, well enough goes a long way.



But I reluctantly use the term Black Body anyway, because if I don’t use a conventional label, that is what is wrong and what makes everyone run away screaming “Pseudo-scientific crackpottery”. So I say “Black Body”, thinking it is the closest any concept I know of comes to what I’m suggesting.

I predict that most, if not all, questions you might have about this initial image are answered already. You must read more carefully the part of what it is not about. Then there are likely to be opinions. They cannot be answered but only argued. I won’t argue opinions unless I forget not to. It can be fun and challenging, but mostly it is boring and counterproductive. If you want the image to be potentially significant, you will ask honest questions. If you do not want it to be significant, you will argue your point. No one has ever been persuaded by arguments. Answers is what does it, so keep questioning…Everything!
I did, and I came up with Nothing.

Then of course there is the Gatekeepers of Credibility who will respond per usual:
You must include relevant equations, a list of references and vectors, scales, philosophical background, elementary charge, the number 137, set-theory, topology and algebra and whatever (we decide) is required for communicating anything at all of significance.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, these Gatekeepers would join the following category.

Then the impatient ones who wants all their favourite questions answered promptly, or the image explains nothing at all to them. They want more than just an alphabet. They want you to read for them. You are supposed to read their favourite story, over and over again.
But consciousness is primary and is not of a Black Body
But there must be spacetime inherent in the image and it’s not
But existence is mathematical and cannot be based on geometry
But existence is based on geometry and cannot be based on a nondimensional point
But this has to be observable or it is supernatural metaphysics
But God is not reducible to a scientific concept
But Science is not reducible to an unknowable Genesis
But a Black Body is just a useful concept
But a layperson cannot possibly understand this without extensive education and years of diligent practice.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, it would be to help them strengthen their arguments in favour of their current story.

But nevertheless,  there is a faint hope of someone who is not only guided by convention and a priori assumptions of what is possible, true, desirable, correct, allowed and appropriate. Someone who was not dead set on reframing this image to fit his own theory/model.  If that one person looks at the image, reads the few words attached and makes a little effort to let the input stand for itself, if only for 10 minutes, then s/he might just come up with some relevant questions, and not just the predictable ones stated above. S/he might be curious….doubting…wondering…
How does that move?
How did that get there?
What enforces that?
Why is that not a Black Hole?
Why is that unknowable?

The last one I can suggest an answer to right now. It is unknowable because there is no knower relative to it. It is more fundamental than epistemology and ontology combined. In those domains, the questions are usually based on the a priori assumption that there is an existing relation knower-known. Then we start elaborating on that relation.
Who knows who, are both observers and observed, are they one or two, how does information flow from one to the other and in-between, are they discrete or continuous, local or nonlocal etc.. You can spend a lifes worth of asking the above without knowing for sure. But there’s wealth of relatively correct answers to pic from and they keep coming. Already the old Greeks knew. Everyone knows, but no one seems to know why.

If you look really closely at the/my Black Body, you might realize that there is no possible relation presented. This unity is not of relativity. It is the epitome of the Absolute. Before your pre-conception of the term “absolute” shuts down all your cognitive functions and crystallize it into a solid wall of rejection, please take a few minutes and check the source. Absolute refers to that which is away from+loosening.  From that root of perfect unity, it has grown branches of meaning that are like the origin, but only relatively so. Can you spot the potential problem with this? To me, it is obvious. If we start to wobble in relation to the absolute, we are immediately lost and separated from its very nature. So much that it can suddenly mean the opposite to itself, as in “make separate”. This brings immense confusion to all our thinking about fundamentals. To make it sensible and useful, we must hold on to the most basic and concrete definition and meaning it can possibly have. That would be; “not lost” or perhaps “conserved”. Then we can use relative as its extreme opposite, as in “coming and going” or perhaps “progressive”.

The careful reader can easily spot an inconsistency, and it is a tricky one. How can that which is, by its most fundamental definition, absolute also be relative? This is a very good objection to what I have just said. I would be a fool to suggest that the ultimate cause of all existing effects is (a) absolute, and thus (b) empty of relations. That would be saying General Relativity is totally wrong and a theory of Nothing at all. It is to negate what is obvious in our everyday experience. Since that would be stupidity per excellence, I will not suggest that.

The reason my image of this Black Body is empty of relations is that the image is incomplete. Not only incomplete, but also fundamentally wrong as it stands right now. What makes it wrong is that the most vital aspect is missing. Unless I add the missing property, the unit is indeed absolute and non-relative, just like I said it is. But it will not remain so for very long. That which is absolute will only last a moment, or perhaps 3 moments. I’ll leave that to those who know math and physics. Read that again before you start arguing. Absolute is not of a stable state, let alone a particular “thing/object”. Not in my image. No way. I claim it to be a momentary configuration that, in a very specific way, makes the existence of relatives and relations impossible. It is a momentary state of a unit that can be of numerous momentary states as defined by an existing observer. The only one of these possible states that an observer cannot observe is likely to be the state of absolute-ness. Why this is so will become less of a mystery when we have graced the Black Body with its most prominent attribute. I said it is incomplete, but that needs a slight revision. It is incomplete if understood from the context of its effects. That context is to no surprise the current universe of measurable relatives. This image is of that which potentially enforces it to be what it is. QM and GR deals with the numerous effects. My image is not that. It is not of an initial condition, but of an eternal conditioner of conditioning. Can you possibly recognize the significant differences between condition – conditioning – conditioner? Try object – observation – observer….

As for now, all we know is that whatever is pictured here, it is not of observable qualities.
If we wish, we can therefore label it “supernatural”, “hidden” or “that which cannot be known”. I suggest we avoid all such definitions because they hi-jack our imagination and steals away from us any degrees of intellectual freedom.
If supernatural, scientific mind shuts down.
If hidden, we must invent that which hides it. Please, don’t do it. You will end up with a cover, a bulk, a boundary and a double cover. Before you can say “Duality”, game is over.
If “That which cannot be known”, there is the obvious risk of abandoning the whole issue. Of course, we are not able to let go of the fundamental question, but if we dodge the question of why an absolute state is unknowable, we begin to generate objects that have the property of being invisible, ethereal or omnipresent.
A spacetime grid or a universal background or …gravity…

Ok, now you are free to do what you are forced to do:

– A double cover is a …formalism…necessary…understand…Nobel Prize…
– Your use of the word “observer” is …Copenhagen interpretation….uncertainty….nonsense.
– A singularity is by definition _insert your preferred definition_
– What do you mean by…duality…intellectual….body….ontology…obviously you’re wrong.
– Absolute can be defined as …without a conscious witness….just so you know!
– In string theory, dimensions are ….which contradicts…because
– Contrary to what you imply here, General Relativity is not …
– Already the old Greeks knew that …fundamentals must…because…
– I get the impression you believe …which is wrong…because..
– Just because you consider…doesn’t mean…because…
– My God you’re full of your own garbage aren’t you.

Yes of course, definitely; it is, it does, it means, it should, it must, I will, I am, I can’t, there is, there was, he said, you are, you can and no one should, just as everyone is required to.

Now, does a dog have Buddha nature, or can we for once respond according to what actually is?

A quick spin on spinors

“No one fully understands spinors. Their algebra is formally understood but their general significance is mysterious. In some sense they describe the “square root” of geometry and, just as understanding the square root of −1 took centuries, the same might be true of spinors.” From Graham Farmelo. The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius

The concept of spinors is obviously a tricky one to people in the fields of math and physics. So how can I be of any help? Well, I could copy paste some statements about spinors and see how that relates to my fundamental unit. Who knows, they might turn out to be the same ”thing”.

  1. “…spinors appear when we imagine that instead of a single rotation, the coordinate system is gradually (continuously) rotated between some initial and final configuration.”
    Good fit! My unit oscillates back and forth between two distinct configurations. Those are the momentary states when/where the unit experiences phase shifts to and from projection/extension and conjection/contraction. I usually describe this as the unit being what defines the coordinate system values of X,Y,Z.
  2. “…sensitive to how the gradual rotation of the coordinates arrived there: they exhibit path-dependence
    Good fit! The gradual change is of opposite directions vertically, but same direction horizontally. When vertical values decrease, horizontal values increase and vice versa. So one path is “positive” in the sense that the real plane extends, and the other is “negative” since the projected values are then conjected. This is probably the cause of quantization. It seems reasonable to assume path-dependence of value X as either increasing or decreasing.
  3. Spinors actually exhibit a sign-reversal..” Perfect fit! As explained above, all values are likely to be reversed/inversed as the unit phase shifts at the relevant end configurations. The different topologies of rotation can perhaps be linked to the perpendicular relation of pole/axis to charge/radius. While my unit rotates around the vertical axis, that axis itself is assumed to be non-rotational. Instead, it is compressed when unit extends horizontally, and it elongates when compression is relaxed i.e. when axis function as a tensor. The topologies of circular and linear would be close to opposite as far as I can see. But if this is what is meant by “inequivalent gradual (continuous) rotations of the coordinate system”, I don’t know.
  4. “..a spinor must belong to a representation of the double cover of the rotation group SO(n, R), or more generally of double cover of the generalized special orthogonal group SO+(p, q, R) on spaces with metric signature (p, q).”
    You got me there Buddy! When reading “double cover” I think of chocolate wrapping, but that makes no sense in this context, so I Google it up. It turns out that what is covered is a continuous function p which is mapped from a topological space C to a topological space X. Seems like p-function translates “open” values to “definite” values. Then I stumble on the concept of “balls” in math, and things start to get really complicated. But however complex and diverse, the balls of math seems to resonate fairly well to my extreme simplicity. An Euclidean plane ball is a disc, an Euclidean 3-space ball is a volume bounded by a 2-D spherical shell and in 1-D space it is a line segment. All of those are present in my unit so, at a glance, it seems possible that this oscillator covers, if not everything so at least lots of it.All in all, I believe someone knowing Lorentz groups and spin matrices would have a field day with this unit/oscillator. And even with my limited understanding of formal physics and math, it seems possible that this is indeed what causes the effect of geometry. The problem might be that this unit cannot be detected empirically as a particular pure state. That requires a parity of such units, and such a pair is, at least in my mind, forced to counter each others values as to obey von Neumann entropy zero. That is, if A is forced by observation to express “contraction”, then B is forced by parity to express “extension”. That would seem an obvious function of parity, to have A and B oscillate in transverse directions. If both were to expand equally, I see them bounce off each other and separate. On the other hand, if they both contract, I fear they would condense to a single, coherent state. Opposition would be what keeps the oscillator oscillate, whether it is a single, pair or a triplet.

    Science seems bound to appearances, and in my image, appearance is a quality of space extensions and that is only half the truth. How space hides itself will be revealed in time, but “time” is not an observable. Time is linear momentum which enables spatial extensions to be observed “at a distance”. Without axial compression/relaxation, Alice and Bob would be blind to system AB. A spinning surface is going nowhere but in circles, but a pole on the other hand…can be understood as an “arrow of time”.
    In short: pole is messenger and surface is the message. In my image, the fundamental unit oscillates between both configurations. Not local, not nonlocal.

    Does this make any sense? Most certainly not!

Density of time

This is one way of thinking about the relation time-space; time might be considered a constant value, let’s say “3” or “1”, and an increase of time is not an increase of that value, but an increase in the frequency of that particular value. So as we get older, there is something that happens at an increasing rate. I suggest we “shrink” with age, and that our previous kinetic motion, our outward activity, is translated to potential activity. Contrary to what we usually Think, we do not “dissolve” when we die, but we are condensed back into the source of spatial extension. That source is the density of time.

In the image below, we can understand the circles as 2D surface extensions and the lines as “poles” of those surfaces. So the radii of surfaces decrease as their poles increase. But unlike in the crude graph, each surface has but 1 pole, and its value grows vertically, as if the pole was a tensor with spatial dimension (length). But it is not likely so, because linear “time” cannot be directly observed as “space”. The poles/tensors are to be understood as the “timing” of potential extension. Only as surfaces are these “timings” realized.

The lower left of the graph has some arrows depicted and they go in certain angles. This is where context comes into play and where multiple time lines (poles) align as to generate geometries. That’s about the angles of spin, not about “rotation”, because my poles doesn’t spin. Only as surfaces do they rotate, and they do so around the remains of the pole position. Therefore, velocity is circular while position is not. But I’ll save that for a post on the measurement problem. The point is that with increased density, frequency of time is condensed to a position of lesser space. Run as far as you can with that thought, and you end up in a nonlocal state of eternity where there is no space at all. You get there by merging 2 fundamental units so that their surface extensions goes from an EM-wavelength to the single pulse of a singularity without exterior. That’s a true monopole in my book.

But today let’s keep it to how the growth of “time” equals the increase of polar “frequency”. By that, we also have an increase in density which makes for a paradoxical spacetime evolution where the universe “shrinks” as it grows “older”. So perhaps the acceleration of universal expansion is actually an increase in global density.  As we all know, the speed of informational processing increases as density increases, and superconductors are superdense and superfast. One might argue that observation of acceleration is an artifact from informational values gaining speed from global increase in density.

I’m pretty sure that our universe is not expanding but contracting, and objects that are, relative to us, travelling outwards, are doing so to a much lesser extent than data implies. It is probably the frequency of data flow, telling us the object is moving further away, that increases. Not the assumed velocity of the object. All of that is relative truths…

Side note: nevermind the 3,2,1 stuff at the top. It’s another topic and I’m out of paper.



Hawkins radiation from a single point of view

In this article is discussed why Stephen Hawkin’s 1974 theory of Black Hole radiation made such a fuzz. As always, I assume others argue over the theory itself and definitely over mainstream medias presentations of it. This article may be totally confused, but what can you do?

A wacky set of physical theories says that if you try to zoom all the way in to look at the tiniest particles, you won’t be able to focus the camera. Everything is a blurry mess, like white noise, where things are constantly created and destroyed from nothing. An electron, for example, can appear out of nowhere if its evil twin, the positron — the same particle but with the opposite electric charge — appears alongside it. Since opposites attract in physics, the particles crash back together and disappear in a burst of energy.

But, Hawking thought, what if the two particles appeared on either side of the point-of-no-return of the black hole’s pull? One particle would meet its demise inside the black hole, while the other would have just enough will to escape. Those lucky particles overcame the black hole’s oppressive gravity and appear as an extremely faint glow — one that we might be able to measure. That glow is now known Hawking radiation.

Without questioning any of Hawkins authority and brilliance, I’d like to make a few comments on the above. “Things” are never created or destroyed, but their shape may change for as long as the thing is real. When not-realized, that which was a “thing” just a nanosecond ago can be “no-thing” in a flash. The dis-appearing is not from existence but from apperance. A quanta can appear as well as dis-appear, but it’s still a quanta. Make no mistake. “Things” may be “lost”, but “no-things” are never lost. They are just the abscence of properties required for the phenomena of apperance.

The reason electron and positron come and go together is, in my mind, because the “and” is a mistake. Get rid of duality and you have an “elepotron”. We know that any particle always comes with an anti-particle, so why not assume they are opposite expressions of the same quanta? My basic unit of quanta is an annulus surface, and such a geometry has two sides of itself. The upside is the other side of the downside and vice versa. They charge in the same direction, the direction of their/its zero point pole, so left alone, they would functionally be the same simply because they are the same.
But we never find particles/quanta in total isolation. A minimum of interaction would be with the quanta of measurement. Without that, well…how could we find it?
So the one single surface of pole extension, its measurable quanta if you will, is always valued in relation to what evaluates it. Without evaluation, no matter/antimatter opposition. But if measurement evaluates one side, it collapses, and since the other side is of the same extension, it too collapses. This is as obvious as when you flip a coin and both sides flip in unison, but depending on a relative observer, the sides of the coin behave like two. They can be measured as having opposite signs. That is because they are the opposite sides on the same coin. Don’t get lost in the philosophical aspect of whether a coin has sides or the sides has a coin. All of that deals, ad infinitum, with artifacts of mind. Put it to rest for now.

I suggest fundamental charge is one directional as in “charging in rotation of its own single pole”. Only with 2 or more relatives will “opposite” charge enter stage. But then it is not the charge that is opposite, but the position of the relative. This is to say, all circles have the same direction. They all go round and round and round. Only when 2 charges/circles are placed together can we realize linearity, distance, angles and opposition.

When the “elepotron” escapes observation, it does that by being contracted backwards by its own double negative pole. The flat surface extension is then the equator of a sphere. When extended, the one pole is naturally contracted and its two ends are at their closest. So the units circular extension comes with its linear/polar contraction.
This is not a sequence.
It is an instance of one single action.
Nothing is extended. There is ex-tension.
Nothing is contracted. There is con-traction.
This one is the action, but there is no-thing “doing” the action.
This one does things. It is not!
It does.
The “burst of energy” they dis-appear into is what robs the quanta of its measurables. It is the frequency of the pole that does it. Then the doing of circular extension is reversed to the doing of circular contraction. So the extended quanta is dis-appeared by its own double negative pole.
So while the radiation itself might be real, it is not caused by what Hawkins suggest. That would require the breaking of a monopole, and we will not have that.

Note that when I say “one” monopole, I do not mean “one electron”. The electric currency I suggest is the electron, is itself a compound value of monopoles oscillating as quark/gluon. This is why charge ratio of proton/electron is same but opposite.

What actually could be the cause of Hawkins Radiation I can only guess. Perhaps the environment at the Black Hole horizon is such that the compounds of monopoles i.e. atoms, will be charged out of their phase locks and split. The radiation would then be some scattering of this disintergation.
What the heck. I don’t know.
But there’s no splitting of matter/anti-matter on a fundamental level.
There is no two of the same particle in that sense.
Every particle has a backside which is in play when it comes to measurements, but not neccesarily when it comes to action. The backside/anti might be functionally silent, but measuring the visible/active front, you inevitabely get the value of them both.

Measuring action and measuring what acts is not to be confused.
But we usually do.
Mind trap.


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.

Turing unseen


How beautiful the mind of Alan Turing. The Unseen World is today a ridiculous new-age fantasy, gagged and bagged by empiricism as the only faith allowed. In spite of this, AT sends a message to us from this dimensionless state of potential reality.

The Light Cone is the unfolding of singularity implications. It is contracted radiance, radiating contraction. The Unseen is its root which forever remains non-light.
Enlightenment is the act of the Unseen to be Seen.
Seeing the universal interior of Light is itself Enlightenment.
Enlightenment is all of empirical existence.
The root of empirical existence is the non-light Unseen.
There is no escape from being Enlightenment.
Existence itself is the being of Enlightenment.
To know Enlightenment, the study of non-light Unseen is required.
Religion as spiritual investigation is the practice of studying the Unseen of non-light.


The Science of understanding effects in empirical reality
The Spirit of studying the cause of empirical reality
The Light Cone of many potential effects from one cause enforced


The question of Mu

In Zen here is a famous koan known as Mu. A koan is sort of a riddle that a teacher gives a student to work on. These riddles have no definite answers as regular questions have. The purpous of a koan is to break conventional though patterns and, in a way, short circuit mind in order to access knowledge behind reasoning. It is a way of studying reality as it is when not reasoned about or understood by a human observer.

A monk asked Master Chao-chou, “Has a dog the Buddha Nature or not?” Chao-chou said, “Mu!”

That’s it. One question, one answer. Case closed.

There are of course numerous interpretations of what Mu really means. I suggest the point made by the master is this – mind will never stop asking questions, and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you know the mind, and knowing mind opens the door to knowing Everything. So why say Mu? Mu is not an answer to the monks question. Mu is a negation of the questioning itself. It doesn’t answer that particular question. Instead it answers the natural function of mind to persistently put reality into question. Mu is just another way of saying “God did it”. It is the end of further questioning. Now, the Master, being a Master, didn’t Believe in God or any other diety. Knowing mind fully, he didn’t Believe in anything mind told him. Neither did he reject anything of minds content. To the Master of Reality, there is ultimately nothing being wrong or right. There is just what is. Instead of saying God or Buddhanature is Everything, including dogs, he says “There is no definite answer to any of your questions, so stop asking”. The message is this – if you stop asking questions that require an answer where reality is reduced to separate parts with inherent properties, you might just realize that there’s a whole reality that includes all seemingly subjective and unique phenomena. You may be enlightened by the fact that reality is conceptual and understandable only to mind itself, but unknowable when absent minded.

But there’s trap in this, waiting to catch mind red handed. The reflexive response of mind when “understanding” Mu is to, yet again, trying to understand it. Mind cannot help itself from repeating the act of questioning. Mind Thinks – Oh, so reality is something else than how it appears to my mind. My experience is not of reality but of illusion.

No you don’t. You will never “get it”. You missed the point of Mu. Mu said “Beware of questioning reality because that habit of mind will keep it from knowing the essence of it”. Instead of “getting it”, you immediately questioned the reality of minds experience. You stupid fool!

Mu is relentlessly wrecking everything you believe to be important aspects of knowledge. If you ask “What mind”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is real”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is the point”, you miss the point.

You see, mind has to keep asking questions, never accepting a definite answer. That’s the very function of human mind. It is not wrong or “illusory” at all. It is perfectly normal and fully functional. You need not do anything about this response/function of mind. But if you want to know reality in its most ultimate sense, you must realize this mind function first hand. You must learn the essence of mind in order to understand how it “knows” reality. Mind gains knowledge by not accepting input as experienced, but by questioning reality as it presents itself in the experience of mind.

This is why a Theory of Everything can never be accepted by anyone else than s/he who puts it on the table. Imagine gravity being the cause of vortices in condensed matter. Let’s say that is essentially the creative force behind Everything. Whatever it is, someone will inevitably respond – Ok, but what causes that to happen? If reality is such that the ultimate cause cannot be caused itself, mind will never settle for that kind of Everything. It will keep asking – Has a dog Buddhanature?