If they keep on measuring with rulers don’t expect to sum anything but mathematics.
It is a strange thing how everyone today is so impressed with digits, with Boolean algebra, with yes/no, 0/1, with the idea that our universe is just one large sum of information which can be calculated from any angle by anyone. I think one of the immediate reasons why I like God so much is that there is nothing mathematical about him, I argue that God might approximate fuzzy logic and that the uncertainty principle and quantum in general makes god possible, but it is interesting that there is really nothing in religion that I can surmise makes science possible.
Does the fact that Jesus turned the water into wine make him a scientist? No because the process used was not methodical and based on a formulae, it was miracle of god.
What about the resurrection? Well other than Frankenstein there is no process by which science today can bring back the dead. Again, there appears to be no experimentally verifiable process by which God performed this freakish miracle.
A virgin birth? There have been scientific suggestions that you can stimulate the egg to fertilize itself through a simple contaminant, that is, by adding a catalyst, say protein of some sort. Still this has not been replicated in the lab, the Virgin Mary appears to be an oddity and one that will remain so for some time to come. And again, there is no evidence that god pricked her with a stick or used any methodical process to instigate the birth of Christ, by all accounts she was unsoiled even by way of her husband.
The closes that I have seen science arrive at religion is through quantum, quantum particles can perform some very miraculous tricks that require a lot of faith, but I have not seen the reverse, religion’s proximity to science. Why is there such a huge disparity? Why was God or is God so void of the scientific method. And yet let us not forget that to get to science we first had to teach religion, the academics of science is purely based in the quintessential preacher.
There appears the linearity, religion came first and science followed. It has already been well argued by this book that science is not an evolution but rather a hardening of the senses and emotions so as to tolerate intolerable feelings which an immature human might not be able to emulsify in a sensually emulsifying manner. People become self destructive when they don’t know how to dispense with their emotions, science is a way to destroy your emotions without seeming obviously nihilistic. Yet there be no doubt that anything that sets as it standard to prove everything and to define the ultimate truth, and to eliminate miracles and god, has nothing but annihilation in its mind.
Oh some fine scientists will come to place a defense on the table, that it was religion that first persecuted science, that it was God that first forced scientist into the fighting ring, this is really not true, it was after all science that juxtaposed itself by saying that it could explain phenomena, religion instigated the study of the stars and the measuring calendar, but it was when science poised itself as the absolute truth, that religion revolted, that religion branded science a heretic. Sure don’t argue with Galileo, there is a Sun forming a concentric center for planets to roll around it, seems mostly true to me, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say I was certain of it. And why not, because the truth can change, my perspective might change, if I was the size of a quark the sun and its orbits would be so inconsequential to me that I would not even bother to notice it or its captive planets. Never mind that if I was a wizard I would have even less tolerance for the limits that science puts on physical properties.
But from another angle we still laugh that former theologians consumed themselves measuring how many angels could fit on the head of a pin and yet today we are oblivious to the obvious aggrandizement of measuring everything digitally. Science has now told us that we are merely a computer and that everything can be viewed and understood from the perspectives of a Theory of Everything that argues that the universe is merely a calculator, and that everything within the universe is merely a formulae, an algorithm of the larger computer, calculating the result which is, the universe.
How utterly interestingly simple. If there is something fantastically beautiful about science is how simplistic it is. Everything is organized in tidy little formulas and calculations and tables and elements and symbols, and you can correlate the rational between all the relations of any given thing to another thing. And of course one should not be surprised because if god created everything then it is equally obvious that god had to have something in common with everything he created and so the morphing elemental ability of all things into carbon and energy and subtracts of matter is only a logical correlation of: you are where you come from. All things come from God, all things have something in common with god and by virtue of descendancy something in common with each other.
So why are we having this discussion, science might be a reductionist but that doesn’t make it wrong, someone ought to explain the little world and if that is what science enjoys and it has a captive audience in those people that have limited ability to tolerate their passions, then what in the hell is wrong with that, and more why should we sit in judgment of that. Precisely correct. I am only pointing out that trying to make a computer out of the universe is merely a reflection of science’s own attempt to automate all of its compendium of feelings into operant conditioning charts so that they don’t have to feel bad that they are machines that neuter emotions.
Why is everything now digital? Why is your DNA now a data warehouse, why is the universe one giant supercomputer? Because if you use a ruler to measure something the results will be mathematics. The universe as one giant supercomputer can only make sense if you are a scientist, I applaud them on their minimalist quest, their idea of making everything simple is almost complete, even if my universe won’t comply.
Consider this, there is analog and there is digital, which came first: analog! Analog came first, analog is everything, the universe is not digital it is analog, if that is the case then what is digital? Digital is what humans measure as the optimum point of understanding required in order to formulate a world view. In the case of a song what takes place is very simplistic, we hear the song, we say this song has a wave representation, of that wave representation what the human ear hears is equal to Q, if we subtract everything that the human ear does not here and leave only Q then we have a digital representation of that song, that is the parts of the song that matter to the human ear, we of course define what matters to the human ear based on what matters to us, and when the song is released and published then the audience only hears what is worthy to hear, and they are pleased.
But then they don’t know what is missing, digital is a sampling condition, the universe is truly all analog and reports information in an analog format, even the digital world must conform to processing in analog and converting back to analog. Every piece of digital processing is eventually transferred back to analog so that it can report itself as information to the world. The processing is perhaps the most human made thing, the most artificial condition in existence, that is, there is a wave patter, the wave pattern is not firm, it is not steady, it has a medium which is somewhat flexible and precisely because of that distorting, when a particular technique decides to determine key points it draws a symmetric wave pattern, a mathematical pattern, nothing like the universe, and a reductionistic representation of the entire wave that the universe has conspired to create.
The interesting thing is how humans aim to make all points square out to finite and discrete points, and this is precisely why digital music sounds so crisp and so out in the air, floating without a medium, like a little hammer that keeps on hitting you, on and off, ones and zeros, no rippling allowed, no flow permitted, the magnificent opulence of isolated music patters, ticking away at a membrane that was designed to flow patterns that are full of analog based distortions.
Of course you don’t want to go out an arrest digital engineers, they serve their purpose, thanks to them more songs can be stored in a tiny memory disk, the full song with all its analog wonder composes too much space. Nor is it a fatal anomaly to subtract analog and break it up into equal and discreet units so that it can be used to move streams of data and processes through a topology of wires. The point simply made here is that anything that is a subtract of the analog world can not in any framework make a theory of everything, much less can it compute everything, nothing could be further from the true essence of anything than a digital methodology of computing the defining processes of the universe.
Of course digital is all the craze, but it is all the craze because it is simplistic, people love simplistic patterns, they love to imagine that the universe and your DNA and your mind and your soul and your reason for being are simple matters that can be further reduced into more simple matters. This of course is not the case, the universe is complex, your complex, I am sorry, I have to say it, you are very complex, even the biggest idiot amongst us all is a complex entity with an infinite number of indefinable aspects which have no footing on knowledge, or for that matter mysticism, reductionist might understand things when they reduce them, but they don’t.
The Dividing Instant required by digital, doesn’t exist. Your brain is analog.
Some people argue that our brains operate under quantum principles. I just said that they operate under analog principles. It would be rather easy to disprove a quantum theory of brain circuitry.
First if our brain was based on quantum principles we wouldn’t be asking any questions, we would not be measuring, quantum allows for such simultaneous operation that one does not have to even think, that our brain thinks is one argument against the possibility of its being quantum based. We could also argue that if our brains were based on quantum principles and quantum circuitry, then that our brains could think if they wanted to, hence in quantum thinking becomes a possible probability. However, the fact that we have to use supercomputers to number crunch would imply that we lack processing power, something that would never be an issue if indeed we were quantum brains. Neither can we decipher a simple 64 bit encryption pattern, why would we imagine that we have a quantum brain, I don’t know.
In point of fact, the first computers would then have been the first pure raw evidence of two things, one that we are not quantum brains, else why would we need computers. And two that we are indeed not based on mathematical principles. The reason why I say that we are not based on mathematical principles is because a computer is a purely mathematical construct. Yet most humans have a very difficult time comprehending the inner, the outer the all around workings of a computer. And even some that manage to understand the concept of these computer things, still have difficulty learning to operate them. And yet, many say that everything in the universe has a mathematical model and such is the language that you need to speak in order to be a quantum physics theoretician patrician.
Yet if we were mathematical constructs at any levels and mathematics was the language of the universe, you could in theory divine it from any angle and from any source and from any creature. Which is indeed what many believe, they believe that aliens will speak the same or something close to it, mathematical language and so adding and subtracting meaning we will be able to get along with the aliens; specially once we realize that we have mathematics in common. Never mind that we can’t get along with our own families or humanity but that is wholly another point.
Sticking to my point, the bottom line is that neither a sponge in the sea, nor the smallest sea horse, nor a turtle nor a dog not even my smarter than dogs cats, and not me, and most people, all of us, can not divine mathematics. Sorry, we can not, it is easier to learn how to punch a person in the gut, easier still to learn how to bake cookies, but mathematics has nothing intuitive about it save for how it remarks itself upon the frontal lobe of some geniuses. The fact that only geniuses can really talk the pure theorem realm of mathematics should have made it obvious to anyone that we are not naturally arithmetic. Hence the reason why working a computer doesn’t come natural to most of us and hence the reason so many geniuses have to work very hard to make computers easy to use.
But there is a bit more here, neither is our brain analog, analog is just less metallic than digital hence the reason that I used analog as a method of humanizing our brains. Our brains are really something else and that something else is quite incomprehensible.
Your biological brain is not your brain. Your brain is something else and some place else and not in your brain, your brain is just an interpreter of your brain’s brain. Fortunately most of my readers, if statistics are anything to go by, are religious, if so this part will be easy for the faithful and much more difficult for the rationalist.
Your body is not your spirit, one can assume that the body and the spirit are inseparable, but when you die your spirit separates from your body, and your body decomposes. Your body was the astronaut suit that your spirit uses to navigate through the corporal world and more accurately to tie itself down to it. A certain degree of your being corporeal has to be forced upon your spirit, and that is why there is a part of you that falls deeply in love with the material world much to the detriment of your spirit which is the dominant part of your being, as anything else is mostly temporary.
Your brain then is not in your brain as much as you would like to imagine it though. Your brain is in instead distributed throughout the entire consciousness of the sum total of the existing corporeal sentient humanity. It is how you tune it to those around you and how you synchronize yourself among their waves of actions and thoughts, that determines the effectiveness or not, or the discomfort and joys that you will experience within your existence. This life has limitations, everyone composes your brain, and the hegemony of thought throughout the humanity is a corporeal unfettered lock step.
The common bond of humanity is what you have as your operant limitation, but if you harmonize yourself with the corporeal humanity you will tap into the resources of the whole, which maybe positive or negative as they will include criminal as well as divine or constructive elements. The medium doesn’t discriminate completely but it does discriminate against anything that is not human, it is almost desensitize towards alien life forms and even local animal life.
The medium which projects thoughts on to your brain is the interplay that you have with your humanity. The more limited the interplay the more limited your experience of the moment, of the life, of the world.
There are things to fix here, but we fix them for posterity. Much of what you are is what you will always be, at least here, which is why being radical is such a destructive force. Being radical is a fight against the generational self being. Change however cruel is in lock step with humanity as a whole.
Your brain evolves in relationship to the whole, which is why your brain is not your brain, but only partly yours, and so use it as you would anything that you are barrowing from someone else, carelessly of course.
