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

polarization

 

 

 

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!

-Physicist

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.

A monopole wavefunction

In various threads on Facebook I have had the pleasure to discuss briefly the general idea of a monopole singularity as being half space + half time, and of two corresponding .5 values as a possible ground for universal parity/duality of measurables/dimensions. The idea is that a pair of fundamental half values is required to make up 1 elementary unit of empirical reality as we know it. This concept of parity is not to be confused with the inherent duality of a singularity. An empirical parity as a wavefunction will instead be comprised of 2 dualities/monopoles in phase sequence. That would be 1 wavepackage of electromagnetism with its 2 values of electricity and 2 values of magnetism. Each fundamental duality contributes with its own polarity and extended charge surface, making one force unit the power of 2 monopoles. Note that these monopoles are not as in math some nondimensional points, but real poles with two ends, moving towards or from the central mean. That is, the Y-axis in the complex image will change uniformly on each side (positive/up and negative/down) of Y=0. This is as important as to have the corresponding X-values to do the same. If X goes from .5 to 1, then -X goes from -.5 to -1. The image is of a spheroid like entity which continously shape shifts between being a magnetic Y 1-1, via an electromagnetic X.5-.5/Y.5-.5 to the other extreme of X 1-1.
As Y it is a linear pole with rotation but no charge.
As X it is a circular 2D surface with no polarization, but likely to have a “hole” at its absolute center.

This entity cannot be accurately described by a static image, complex or simple doesn’t matter. I try to describe it conceptually, but as a reality it cannot be observed. The reason is, I suggest, that its total wavelength relates to a phantom harmonic, a missing fundamental of 1. It simply do not “wave” as it has to if subject to empirical observation. Waves are in this picture a property that comes instantly with the breaking of this monopole/singularity. They do not emerge as the final result of a process, but appear at an instant as one monopole/singularity breaks in two. The process would instead be of the oscillations which must be what breaks it. I believe that can be described by hydrodynamics. Until further notice, I assume it will snap back from full extension/surface and cut itself in 2 when equator “inverts”. Perhaps a very small perturbation of the great circle is enough to have that region speed up rotation as it comes closer to the units absolute axis of rotation. Then the relative great cricles of this 8-like unit might start a relative expanding phase.

 

This is to be understood as food for thought, not as an attempt at formally correct description. It’s a hypothesis. That’s all.

I had another image on this, but can’t get it attached. Also, I’m supposed to do other duties than dwell on the origin of the universe. Relatives are calling and I should respond properly.

 

 

monopolebreakingidea

The Sweet Spot of Mind

Everything we know of Everything is backwards.
We believe the observable Newtonian reality to be non-relativistic and 
pedictable.
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.
Inhale/contract
Exhale/expand
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!

spinorssingularities
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

turingunseen

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
                       NEESNUEHT 

 

Spinning singularities with a twist

In this post I will try to picture my idea of what singularities are and how they operate. I’m not saying “This Is So”. I’m suggesting “This Might Be It”. I have great confidence in my basic assumptions, but have totally revised the formality of it several times. If anything I suggest here is incompatible with observational data, I will do it again. My convenient ace up the sleeve is that the main point in my model defies observation. I’m fully aware this makes it “religion” to most people. I respect that opinion because it is essentially a valid point. But we might also ask ourselves if it is reasonable to dissmiss all non-empirical investigations as inherently flawed or “wrong”.

My position is that “religion” is to be understood as Re-Legion which implies a gathering of Many as to become One. It is not about dismissing the reality of subjects being unique to form and function. We all know that on a macro level, there are no two things being same thing. That’s just not true. But we also know that, at a micro level, these many subjective things have something fundamental in common. They all seem to originate from the same essence. They have a property of existence that we might call empirical, physical, existential, Buddhanature, eternal, (W-)holy or energetic. Whatever we prefer to name this commonality, it simply is. As long as it corresponds to an imagined “Everything”, that’s it.

Energy is it
God is it
Gravity is it
Consciousness is it
etc.

The crux with “Everything” is that it is impossible to point out as different from a reference point. Being Everything, how can it be related to something else? This domain of “Everything” is where religion plays a role. That is why religion can never prove its point empirically, while science can potentially prove all its Points. Science has infinitely many points to prove while religion only have one single point a.k.a. Everything. Contrary to what you might think, proving one point is way harder than proving a thousand points. That is because this one point includes all the others. It is the empty set of all sets. Inherently empty, while always present, the empty set cannot be proven by other means than observing its. Thus, religion is about the inherent emptiness of all things. I’m afraid that goes also for my model of singularity. What makes it a troublesome religion is that I contract God to reside within the tiniest forms of existence. That makes God a million Gods, all confined in their discrete singularity. A religion that gathers all parts by separating them will have few believers. So far, I’m alone… well, sort of “alone” in a relative sense.
A renegade Ego is perhaps a better label if one must be labelled.

Anyway, play around with my very un-scientific and counter-religious drawings. They are all yours, all ours. We’re in this as many ones. May all make their little effort  for the benefit of all sentient beings; past, present, future and unknown. All is connected.
Last but not least – have some fun creating the Universe.

By the way, I believe the paper on a “wild theory” is basically pointing in the same direction. It just names and arranges the concepts and parts a bit differently. Not sure authors would agree with me, but I agree with then anyway.

Wild Theory: 5-Dimensional Black Holes Could Break Laws of Physics

 

 

single1
                                  Not One, Not Two

In the above fig. zero points are at origo and 12 o’clock/North pole. The relevance of breaking the upper limit of system energy is made clear by an experiment done 2013 at Max Planck Institute. Read the article and imagine singularities to be “the lanscape” in which the spheres roll. In the text, increased energy is located to the spheres, not the landscape, but my model inverts this to picture the spheres/particles/waves as the flow of energy caused by the fundamental landscape/field in which they exist. So as when singularities generate increased force at their perimeters, the gap-field between them is filled with increased amounts of energy. Contrary to the Boltzmann distribution, where spheres eventually stop rolling and gather as “death by entropy”, my spheres are created and propagated by the fundamental force of singularities. In this scenario, there is no heat loss, no friction and infinite negentropy. I claim this landscape to be the Reality of Everything. The energy/spheres enforced by this landscape of singularities will make up all of our empirical reality, while the landscape as the fundamental cause of observables will remain impossible to investigate directly. That is because the spheres cannot probe their own ground. Energy arises out of the causal singularities and have therefore no way of exchanging information with its origin. This would seem obvious, based on logic and common sense alone, but I fear scientific minds reject it never the less. A theory the denies the possibility of experimantal proof is not likely to gain any attraction, but be regarded as “religion”. The quest for “gravity” will continue in-between the objects. A gravity that is an undetecable singularity which causes all energy (by contracting and expanding) will for some time remain a “hidden variable”. The only way to “see” it is to have your mind make a quantum leap from quantity to quality. To be properly understood, Everything must not only be quantified, but also qualified. To learn this, one needs a qualified mind.
Meditation is a good method to qualify your mind.
Don’t reject the value of enlightenment.
It’s not religion, but fundamental physics.

single2
A Singularity

 

single3
Many Singularities

I see now that I’ve made sperms of the energy flow. That was not intended, but perhaps an apt description anyway? In reality, the energy flow would look more like a grid of cubicles forming geometric structures of various densities and charge. Remember also that the singularities have an extreme spin rate and will contiously adjust their angels and positions as to generate the ocean of quantum dots “seemingly popping in and out of existence” which make up the observable universe.

The initial state is one of such a singularity. It has no space, but grows as a place of increasing force. It has no energy, since energy is caused to arise at the event horizons of two neighbour singularities. It has no velocity, since a singularity does not propagate in space, but grows potentially in place. This place is what we conventionally think of as “center of gravity”. However extreme its energy potential is, it will not occupy conventional space. How its place appear can be studied by observing states of realized energy at its event horizon. The singularity itself cannot be observed for reasons mentioned above.
What it does have is Time.

If you want to know what time is, this is it. Forget all you believe yourself to know about time. Time does not slow down in a singularity, neither does it speed up. Time has nothing to do with speed, as a singularity has no velocity. Our mistake is to imagine time as related to an observer that is either still or in motion, and to various positions of objects in relation to each other. A singularity itself has none of that. It is without dimensions and cannot have properties that require space to even exist.

In non-relativistic reality that is ultimately real, “time” is the energy potential inherent in a growing event horizon of a singularity. There is no clock running inside it, but there is the fundamental cause of clocks. There is only one single force and it rotates expansively and contractively as to generate an increasing potential for energy that is either expansive or contractive. In this, there is the potential for Everything.
There is something causing our clocks to appear as they do.
They radiate the same circumference, day and night. And while not moving one inch, there is something continously increasing. To reset the clock, we must apply “work” to make it stop. If we don’t, it just keeps going.

There will be more on Singular time…in time.