The nature of some things, so far as I see it
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:18 pm
I have studied deeply into many facets of our humanity, to discover little more than the thrill of discovery. To which end, I willingly accept any due diligence many of you may bring forth, as to the validity of my beliefs.
On god, as it could have been, may be, or can be. I do not disbelieve or believe per say. I only lack credible evidence, or see only such. So we should visit the bible. I see it as a collection of stories. Most, if not all, stories seem to become more amazing, even legendary, with time. The moral values contained in the bible are no doubt invaluable, or at least to those of us who are good of nature. Still, I see a collection of stories, transcribed after generations of word-of-mouth transference. That and, humans lie. Humans wrote the bible. Still, this does not explain my view of god. If god is real, in a sense relative to the bible, wouldn't he be a she? Creationism and empathy are hardly masculine attributes when you consider the feminine. Still, I see no valid proof that god exists, per factual evidence. Yet if I were to believe in such an entity, even such titles would do no justice. In originality, the deity would be the only one thing. Which of course begs the question, how did it get there? That is quite the quandary, as is this paragraph. Still, some form of creation would inevitably perpetuate. To create from nothing, even for a deity, would be theoretically impossible. Technically, the word describes the absence of all things, including observation or postulation. So the deity must create from itself. Which brings me to the other side of the coin, that means god is everything. I am still perplexed...
On physics. I have also studied to the very edge of modern advancement. When I look at any given material, I see chemicals. Chemicals composed of atoms, structured by quarks, of course followed by what I would imagine, an endless rabbit hole of similar yet different counterparts. Of course then there are the weightless photons, which cannot be. In order for any force to exert itself on another, it must have substance, which is dictated by mass. We shouldn't visit upon dark matter, not for its possible exception, but because that is something I do not wish to discuss. Which leads to the macro scale of the matter, our solar system and it's curiously similar appearance. I think it could be macro neon, or a few higher, of course forced into horizontal rotation by the nearest, greatest mass.
On psychology. I love this bit, it is essentially the understanding of oneself, or one human. Conscious and subconscious mind. I have lowered my heart rate significantly by will alone. The same goes for body temperature, yet not so significantly there. These involuntary bodily systems can indeed be self manipulated. I believe it to be possible through the subconscious mind. Consciousness I believe to be the subordinate of our subconsciousness, not as the respective titles indicate. A naturally inflicted limitation on our ability to use and manipulate our bodies, to keep us from unintentionally harming ourselves. Very intriguing.
Other than the part on god, much of this is critically limited to less than 1% of my factual knowledge on the subjects. Still, they have been conferred.
One subject to rest upon. I have recently pondered the divergence from 'origin' as a concept. For simplicity, lets consider balance. Lets also assume that the directions of divergence would be light and dark. As the light becomes lighter, and the dark becomes darker, in respect to each-other, balance is lost in respect to its' originality. Balance would theoretically be retained by the opposing forces of light and dark, but that does not reflect 'origin' balance. As both fields of divergence are responding to one another, and not maintaining a balance without influence per the origin. Of course you could admit that if they could become divergent fields, then balance was always influenced. I would refer to the point (not vector) of origin, as undefined and simplified. This is obviously a re-visitation to the foundations of logic, but the implications were and are immense. Consider the fact that 'origin' has infinite fields of possible or actual divergence. Of course this is not the case in our universe, we do have many limitations. This would apply to god though, very curious concept. Very curious indeed.
This will likely be my only post. I will look into the responses certainly, but I cannot go too much into detail. To do so would inevitably divulge my thoughts on things like dark matter, social manipulation, and other things I really do not want anyone to have knowledge of unless gained themselves. To answer any question about the discover part of the intro. All I have learned has come with the burden of proof and potential application, which may require frequent re-visitation. Even though I may find some new interesting concept, and see it to resolution or past known human knowledge. The net financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical gain is completely mitigated by the burden. I only 'feel' the gain in the sense of the 'thrill of discovery', which may truly be phantasmal.
Thoughts anyone?
On god, as it could have been, may be, or can be. I do not disbelieve or believe per say. I only lack credible evidence, or see only such. So we should visit the bible. I see it as a collection of stories. Most, if not all, stories seem to become more amazing, even legendary, with time. The moral values contained in the bible are no doubt invaluable, or at least to those of us who are good of nature. Still, I see a collection of stories, transcribed after generations of word-of-mouth transference. That and, humans lie. Humans wrote the bible. Still, this does not explain my view of god. If god is real, in a sense relative to the bible, wouldn't he be a she? Creationism and empathy are hardly masculine attributes when you consider the feminine. Still, I see no valid proof that god exists, per factual evidence. Yet if I were to believe in such an entity, even such titles would do no justice. In originality, the deity would be the only one thing. Which of course begs the question, how did it get there? That is quite the quandary, as is this paragraph. Still, some form of creation would inevitably perpetuate. To create from nothing, even for a deity, would be theoretically impossible. Technically, the word describes the absence of all things, including observation or postulation. So the deity must create from itself. Which brings me to the other side of the coin, that means god is everything. I am still perplexed...
On physics. I have also studied to the very edge of modern advancement. When I look at any given material, I see chemicals. Chemicals composed of atoms, structured by quarks, of course followed by what I would imagine, an endless rabbit hole of similar yet different counterparts. Of course then there are the weightless photons, which cannot be. In order for any force to exert itself on another, it must have substance, which is dictated by mass. We shouldn't visit upon dark matter, not for its possible exception, but because that is something I do not wish to discuss. Which leads to the macro scale of the matter, our solar system and it's curiously similar appearance. I think it could be macro neon, or a few higher, of course forced into horizontal rotation by the nearest, greatest mass.
On psychology. I love this bit, it is essentially the understanding of oneself, or one human. Conscious and subconscious mind. I have lowered my heart rate significantly by will alone. The same goes for body temperature, yet not so significantly there. These involuntary bodily systems can indeed be self manipulated. I believe it to be possible through the subconscious mind. Consciousness I believe to be the subordinate of our subconsciousness, not as the respective titles indicate. A naturally inflicted limitation on our ability to use and manipulate our bodies, to keep us from unintentionally harming ourselves. Very intriguing.
Other than the part on god, much of this is critically limited to less than 1% of my factual knowledge on the subjects. Still, they have been conferred.
One subject to rest upon. I have recently pondered the divergence from 'origin' as a concept. For simplicity, lets consider balance. Lets also assume that the directions of divergence would be light and dark. As the light becomes lighter, and the dark becomes darker, in respect to each-other, balance is lost in respect to its' originality. Balance would theoretically be retained by the opposing forces of light and dark, but that does not reflect 'origin' balance. As both fields of divergence are responding to one another, and not maintaining a balance without influence per the origin. Of course you could admit that if they could become divergent fields, then balance was always influenced. I would refer to the point (not vector) of origin, as undefined and simplified. This is obviously a re-visitation to the foundations of logic, but the implications were and are immense. Consider the fact that 'origin' has infinite fields of possible or actual divergence. Of course this is not the case in our universe, we do have many limitations. This would apply to god though, very curious concept. Very curious indeed.
This will likely be my only post. I will look into the responses certainly, but I cannot go too much into detail. To do so would inevitably divulge my thoughts on things like dark matter, social manipulation, and other things I really do not want anyone to have knowledge of unless gained themselves. To answer any question about the discover part of the intro. All I have learned has come with the burden of proof and potential application, which may require frequent re-visitation. Even though I may find some new interesting concept, and see it to resolution or past known human knowledge. The net financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical gain is completely mitigated by the burden. I only 'feel' the gain in the sense of the 'thrill of discovery', which may truly be phantasmal.
Thoughts anyone?