Why wonder about souls?
WE HAVE NO SOULS!
You see i couldn't care less about such absolute definition born out of nothingness!
The other one on the other side is yelling the opposite now!
Still couldn't care less about that absolute definition born out of nothingness!
Here, just for the heck off it and to piss all the absoluters out there.
Ya gonna hate me for it.
But still couldn't care less about that absolute definition born out of nothingness!
Lets. just to see a pragmatical observation of such abstract as absolute definition born out of nothingness, pretend to it.
And just to be the perfect little bitch........................................
.....................Lets use our favorite subject to analyze!
GGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDD!
You gone yet?
Good!
Now we begin.
Premise the first: There was nothing but god!
Premise the second: From god came the universe!
Logical deduction:
1) Nor time nor space pre-dates god! God would therefor be unbounded by time and space! Implying that god would not have limites within time and/or space, hence without any form (temporal and/or physical and/or metaphysical included).
2) God had but itself from which to create! Therefor Time and space emerges from the unbounded fabric of god.
3) All that is, was, will be emerges from this emergence of time and space from the unbounded fabric of god!
Conclusion!
If you were to utter in a single instance all that is the universe in a single sound you still wouldn't be able to define this god!
Yet not a single part could be denied to it!
You say "blue".
The other screams "THAT DON"T DEFINE NO GOD YOU MORON!"
Hey! Don't blame me, you throw insults at the other too so there!
Said pragmatic remember? so lets be!
Your mind, which just uttered this "blue", it is born out of the fabric of space is it not?
Of course it is!
Everything is born out of the fabric of space through the constructs of time, simple physics!
So if the fabric of time and space emerges from god, you emerge from the fabric of time and space, the uttered "blue" emerges from you!
By the transposition of property the uttered "blue" emerges from god, hence you never had free will!
You see why i hate absolute definitions born out of nothingness?
Not enough? Lets get badder!
This uttered "blue" can not serve to define this god, yet by the transposition of property it can't be denied to god!
You know what is the most fun about this entire thing?
Up to now all that you have read in this little post could be applied to the Big Bang!
Don't believe me?
READ IT AGAIN AND REPLACE THE WORD GOD WITH BIG BANG!
Told you you wouldn't like it!
Go on say it "i'm a little bitch"
Actually i'm a scientist who will never find any kind of satisfaction in absolute definition born out of nothingness!
If you wish to walk, do you not need a firm and solid ground upon which to stand?
If you then wish to postulate an absolute definition, show me that solid ground upon which it stands!
Show me that the ground you pretend to can actually hold the weight of the universe!
So now you wanna quote this one and that one!
You know that's what all believers do, quote this one and that one!
"SCIENTIST HAVE PEER REVIEW SYSTEMS THAT INSURES THE INTEGRITY OF THE FABRIC OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS SURE AND SOUND!"
Hallowed be thy name then!
But prey tell! What of it do YOU know?
What of the process of matter birth do you know/understand?
What of moment t=1, t=2, t=3 do you know and understand?
What of parity?
What of Quarks?
What do you know, as YOU quote the absolutes of science?
I said it before and i'll say it a million time more:
Science is not right!
Science is not the truth!
Science is not absolute!
Science is the search for the truths of the universe without bias!
And there's where YOU loose scientific integrity!
You look at the universe through a predefined bias which you pretend as an absolute without having anything to stand on but a blind faith in its absoluteness as you assert to it!
Then as you read of this one's absolute definition, because that one bears the tittle SCIENTIST, you believe!
Peer review this then!
Scientist (A) makes a postulate!
"As i cause the incoming stellar light to interact and interfere to obtain the diffraction patterns of the light of those stars, i can clearly define in this interference pattern those obtained from diffraction experiment on basic elements here on earth."
"But since there is a displacement towards the lower end of the spectrum in these interference patterns, i deduce that the universe is expanding!"
So, you agree with (A)?
How bout this one from scientist (B):
"Light, like all waves and energies, requires a medium to propagate within."
"Since i can see lights of galaxies and stars at un fathomable distances, i deduce that the whole of space is bathed,contained,permeated, by this substrate/medium through which this light propagates."
So, you disagree with (B)?
And when you answered "YES" or "NO" to these questions on what knowledge did you form that answer from?
Was it your acquired experiences working/studying/analyzing wave patterns/propagations/interactions/etc..
Was it cause scientists (x,y,z and co.) says so?
Now, unles you've answered god to all three, your answers were the following biased statement:
Yes i agree with scienist (A)!
Yes i disagree with scientist (B)!
Yes i say these things because scientists (x,y,z, and co) told me it was so!
A Christian says "Yes i believe in Jesus because the bible says so!"
Same god damn statement!
There is an obvious problem with this line of reasonning and here's what:
Dear old (B) said nothing more than that about his theory!
You do understand that (B) lived in a time long ago where such subjects were not discussed in public right?
In private gathering, hidden from the powers that be, did these men conjecture about things beyond their abilities to comprehend them.
Not seeking to explain the "SOUL" nor "DEITIES" for that matter, simply conjecturing, exchanging ideals, forming theories.
Take Davinci!
Do you think anybody believed he could create a flying machine?
He didn't even know if he could achieve it!
But, unlike those who believed birds can fly cause god said so, he understood that there was nothing magical about flight!
So he laid his stone and began the work that some 400 years later lead to the Wright Brothers' success and the birth of modern aviation!
So (B) defined this simple, yet elegant, statement; nothing more than a medium un defined!
But time took hold of it!
Mme Irma and her Crystal ball buddies began poring their dirty water, sprinkling their magic pixy dust, and adding their snake oil.
By the time Einstein figured out relativity, we now had Ethereal bodies and Ethereal voyages and Blah, Blah, Blah!
But that had nothing to do with (B)'s vision of electromagnetic wave propagation, which he couldn't even name as such because he didn't even know what electromagnetic was!
Yet, that's exactly what, in his limited knowledge, he was trying to understand.
Enters Michelson & Morley and they thought:
"If this ETHER exist, then it must create friction!"
"This friction should then cause a slowing down of the rotation of the earth,."
"As minute as that effect might be it could be measured through interferometry."
Their theory was also elegant:
"The minute slowing down of the earth would cause a similar minute deformation of light wave train."
The thing is,they could have simply asked a geologist and would have obtained the exact same response!
Because, you see, when magma flows out of the earth and cools down on its surface, The rotational speed of the planet is imprinted within the rock structure that results!
Because of that geologist have known for a long time that our planet used to spin just a bit faster 4.5 Billion years ago.
But that slowing down has been the sole result of the interactions between the earth and the moon!
Hence the Michelson/Morley experiment was a load of crap and futile to begin with!
THE ANSWER WAS KNOWN BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT BEGAN!
Yet at the same time, and from the same theories that they used to disprove this elusive "ETHER", relativity refers to space as a fabric.
Defined as smooth in all directions.
Scientist everywhere trying to use relativity to determine the curvature of space.
So what is this nothing that is smooth in all direction and that scientist are trying to define the curvature of?
Can nothing posses a curve?
At the same time, and again from the same bulk of theories they used to disprove this elusive "ETHER", Quantum mechanics defines the structure of space, at the Plank scale, as bubbling foam like.
So again what is this nothing that has a bubbling foam like structure?
Grasping at straws am i?
Well no worries, Jews tell me the same thing when i explain the story of the plagues, oops sorry i forgot everything is made up cause it says god around it!
Never mind!
Lets talk about (A) for a bit shall we?
So what is this nothing that is expanding?
Enough about (A)!
Let's talk about Higgs instead!
First time i heard of the Higgs boson, i found no real interest in this GOD particle.
Through the simple application of Newton's F= MA in regards to Einstein's E=MC2 i could prove that matter can't exist without mass (not even at its birthing moment), other wise Relativity become incoherent.
But i did share Einstein's obsession with photons!
Curious and intriguing are those electromagnetic waves!
So what is a photon?
Do you know?
Simply put: A PHOTON is, in absolute value, the resulting energy of momentum preservation as an electron falls from one energy state into a lower.
A skater races across the ice and suddenly veers off in a new direction. As he does so, his skates propels a large amount of ice in the air. That's the resulting energy of momentum preservation.
Photons actually have 6 magnetic fields, but are neutral in charge.
Ever wonder what an anti photon could be?
Simply put: An ANTI-PHOTON is, in absolute value, the resulting energy of momentum preservation as a positron falls from one energy state into a lower.
Anti-Photons actually have 6 manetic fields, but are neutral in charge.
Funny how there is absolutely no difference in definitions between one and the other, except for the all glorious word ANTI!
As i pondered upon these transfers of momentum resulting in photons, i began to see photons as a kind of echo polarizing the path they travels as they travels it.
Not in a magnetic sense, but rather in a quantum sense!
The ever fluctuating structure of the Qfield must adapt to it!
Like water adapting to a ship traveling through it.
But her the ship, or rather the photon, doesn't travel per say!
It's the passage between the two energy states that causes a brake, an echo, within the field, the fabric of space!
The none frictional nature of space allows for this echo to propagate through the field in a linear fashion with a vector equal to the tangent at the point of transition.
And this is exactly what the Higgs Field Theory is all about!
Each photon being a singular set of wave echoing in a forward motion as the Qfield(the Higgs Field) adapts to the quantum shape/state of this motion/reaction.
So what does this has to do with souls?
Nothing!
Nothing has to do with souls!
No the exposed problem here is your biased attitude towards a universe of which you know basically only your name!
In (B)'s story, (B) never mentioned souls or Ethereal bodies, voyages, and all that Esoteric Mumbo Jumbo!
Yet you are un able to hear the word ETHER without thinking of all that crap and the Michelson/Morley disproving experiment!
In other words you accept that there is a nothing that is expanding curved and smooth, but refuse to accept that that is what (B) was trying to define simply because of what a bunch of magic pixy dust snake oil peddler added to it.
And that even though all modern theory including, relativity, Quantum mechanics and Higss field, define the exact same thing but with a different wording!
So why is it that you, who would accuse a rapist of having willfully raped, claim to the absence of freewill?
Because they say "SOULS COME FROM GOD!"?
Because Mme Irma and her crystal ball buddies added their dirty water, magic pixy dust and snake oil to the concept of freewill?
Understand the meaning of your statement here!
If there is no freewill it means that every instant, measurable in plank length of time, is nothing more than the result of the previous quantum state of the universe.
You can skate around the reality of this being the true definition of your statement, but when you'll put your ego aside you'll realize that i am right!
And as such the rapist can not have committed any sorts of crime, since he has no will of his own. All his actions are but the results of the preceding states of the universe.
I truly couldn't care less about any redefinition that you would wish to apply to the notion of freewill to refuse to accept this as the only logical conclusion!
But unless you develop the ability to consider the concept of freewill without the requirement of an elusive soul, which you can no more prove than disprove, you will most likely never accept that the person who attacked you, your loved ones or those kids in that school, either did it out of freewill, or no crime was committed since everything is never anything else than the results of the preceding states of the universe.
No good nor bad actions, just flowing quantum states!
My thoughts your thoughts, are not thoughts but resulting states within the continuous flows of quantum states that is the universe.
And just in case you thought of trying it "No neurobologie as not, in any ways, shapes or forms, proven and/or dispoven the soul and/or freewill!"
And since any and every test imaginable in this regard would be fully subjective, It's ludicrous to pretend such abilities to science amongst scientists.
But then again (B) could have been full of it, as modern scientist still love to say!
I know i am, but what are you?
c(i8>D')-{
No comments:
Post a Comment