Signs of Creationism vs. Atheism

https://i2.wp.com/www.upnito.sk/0/s3ujecftp3saca6hugsuj5va7p58u3pk.jpg

As you, the reader can tell, I am touching on a very sensitive subject.  I may put my personal beliefs into this post, but I am not here to pose my belief and painstakingly defend them.  I actually have participated on numerous online debates, and actually, they were very informative.  Not on the actual arguments, but on the argument itself.  I believe at the very core of this debate, can be broken up from coincidence.  I am quoting from the movie Signs:

People break down into two groups when they experience something lucky.  Group number 1, sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence, a sign, evidence, that there is someone out there watching over them.  Group number 2, sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance, sure there are people in group number 2 are looking at those 14 lights in a very suspicious way – for them this situation isn’t just 50/50.  It could be bad, it could be good.   But deep down, they feel that whatever happens they are on their own, and that, fills them with fear.

There’s a whole lot of people in group number 1.  When they see those 14 lights, they see a miracle.  And deep down they feel that whatever is going to happen, there’s going to be someone there to help them, and that fills them with hope.  You have to ask yourself, what kind of person are you?

Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles?  Or do you believe that people just get lucky?  Or, is it possible that there are no coincidences?

And guess what the movie title is?  It is Signs.  So the movie is making a statement that there is no coincidence, that there is some forces that watch over us.  It’s a good movie, and very thought provoking, with some constant humor that will make you chuckle.  It’s a good watch.

But what I really wanted to say, is I started a huge debate online with creationism vs. atheism, and I opened with an alternative to what Mel Gibson said.  I started with a word, that I think is the correct word, however it really ticks off atheists, and that’s the word “faith.”  Simply put, I said that in whether or not you believe in a God or not, both outcomes practice faith.  That fueled the fire, but at the very end, where they stopped responding, was when I started being more specific with what I said at the beginning.  I started talking about coincidence, and how for some people, there is never a coincidence, while others there is just coincidence.  And that is what sealed it.  We argued aspects of the big bang, the cosmos, physics, mathematics, biology, what have you.  It all doesn’t matter.  What matters is if you believe in coincidence, or do you believe if there is something more?  So what did I learn?  The Creationism vs. Atheism debate fundamentally is a philosophical debate, rather than the debate on interpretation of various facts that humanity has found.

  • Faith –>  belief that is not based on proof.
  • Belief –>  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

Therefore:

  • Do you believe in coincidence, or do you believe there is no coincidence?
  • Do you have faith in coincidence, or do you have faith that there is no coincidence?

All I did was change the word and they were okay with it.  But they literally mean the same thing in this context.

There is something I wanted to explore.  Let’s assume the entirety of Mel Gibson’s analysis.  People that just believe in luck, know that they are alone, and so they have fear.  People that believe in something more than just luck, they are filled with hope.  What would be the implications that this is the case?

The first thing that comes to mind is the life cycle of empires.  In Sir John Glubb’s essay, The Fate of Empires, he talks about societies that do not believe in a God or Gods.  Which means, that according to this analysis, many people were in the state of fear.  And in this state, it makes us make decisions and do actions that would be different if we were not scared.  Now when looking at that work, there is no doubt that the US is in the Age of Decadence.  Which means, there is an increasing amount of people that are not God fearing people, which means they are scared.  Look at our society?  Fear begets fear.  It seems like it’s a snowball effect.  The media pumps out fear, and we like it because we are scared.  I’m not really sure as to why that is.  Why is it, that when I am scared, I enjoy watching things that make me scared?  I just know from personal experience, with me as well as other loved ones – they were scared, and they expose themselves to fearful stuff.  I do not necessarily understand the psychology of that to be honest.  But it also makes me wonder, what kind of society would we be if we were not scared?  What policies would we put into place?

Personally, I do believe in a God and a spiritual realm, but I have problems with particular views, however I haven’t really put in the effort to resolve these problems in either outcome.  But I feel that’s where a lot of people lye.  They are spiritual, but they do not put effort into that spirituality.

In any case, that one scene in this entire movie, encapsulated what I have learned is the core philosophical argument with the creationism vs. atheism debate.  If someone, on a philosophical level, can refute one side and prove the other, I would argue it would be for sure the best philosophical find ever, and one of the biggest intellectual leaps humanity will have ever done.

Thanks for reading!  Post comments!

 

 

Advertisements

The Possible Decrease of Poverty

https://oswego.studioabroad.com/_customtags/ct_Image.cfm?Image_ID=912

There are many solutions to a problem.  It just it seems to me that my idea seems sound, not just by me being biased that it is me, but I see the evidence of it around me where I live.  Poverty is a problem, and when people are faced with survival, they will break the law in order to get the things they need in order to survive.  This is not the case with all crime, but a large portion, it is the case.  I firmly believe that with the money that this country has, there should absolutely be no person living on the streets.  Not only should one consider the entire budget of The United States, but consider as well the printing power that this country has.  People don’t like the idea of paying for someone else to live; they would rather have their tax money go towards other things, especially considering how little reading people do on poverty.  People figure that you can just take things into your own hands, and just get out of poverty.  Since the majority of people in poverty stay in poverty, they are perceived to deserve to be there because they do not have the ability to get out.  The whole premise of our economy, our philosophy of it, is that people with more ability should be paid more.  So if people don’t have the ability to get out of poverty, then they should stay there.

But I just argue it is the decent thing to do, and we have the money to do it.  People don’t trust the government, as they should, but I think this would be a key point to use the power of the government.  Church’s do wonderful work, but they don’t have the capital to do what I am proposing needs to be done.  Private charities I just do not trust for the life of me.  The profit incentive is just too much with those organizations, and exploit their message to make more money for themselves at the expense of the people they were paid to help.  This is why I think the government is the only entity that can really pull this off on a national level.

I have found a basic relationship where I live.  There are extremes in income levels throughout the city and county.  What I have found, is that the neighborhoods seem to be in conditions accordance with different schools, and the better the schools create better neighborhoods.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.  Meaning, both entities influence one another in either a positive or negative way.  Considering that most schools, not all, are funded by property taxes, it makes sense that better schools create better neighborhoods and vise versa.  However, it is in my belief, that with this system comes a feedback loop in either the positive or negative way.

In regards to a positive feedback loop, good academic performance creates good test scores, good funding, and good advertisement for the school.  It puts the district or neighborhood in demand.  Raising prices, which increases funding for the school.  There is even a district where I live, that actually volunteered to raise prices for the school district.  The community recognizes the strength of education, and wants good education for their families.

On the negative side of things, poor test scores or academic performance, lowers the demand of the district in general.  This decreases the price of the real estate in the area.  With less money being funded to the schools, cuts have to be made, making learning conditions worse for the students, increasing the likelihood of poor test scores.  This makes property values go down, which further impacts the school.

There are other variables that impact property values.  The big one for me that comes to mind is crime.  The problem is crime would be alleviated if people were more educated, because they would decrease some if not most of poverty, by creating people that can land higher paying jobs, which again would decrease crime.  It’s all interconnected.

In short, by increasing the quality of education in all areas, people would be prepared to not only make better decisions, but to go to college, get a degree, and land a higher paying job.  This would create better communities to be apart of.

What is this idea?

It’s really basic.  I think what makes the most sense, if you the reader, were to read my posts on government debt, to print the money required to fund schools in need, and schools that are the center of poverty.  The funds would initially be used to modernize the facilities of the school.  Good electrical, plumping, good gyms, technological science labs, I mean the works.  There would also be money allocated, to hire better quality teachers.  Hopefully there would be enough funds available, to try and keep class size low.  With better facilities, and better teaching staff, it is up to the staff to provide favorable test scores.  I will note, that I think it would be better to teach multiple subjects, rather than just a test.  If you were to teach the kids well, the ACT or SAT would be just another test to study for.  To take the entire year to teach this test, you rob the student’s potential of learning important aspects of our world and society.

Tax payers are going to want the money to be paid back.  Essentially the school should be run like a business.  If a teacher is under performing, make warnings, but then don’t be afraid to fire.  All expenses, including the salaries of administration, should be termed “expenses.”  The profits are then sent back to the government to be paid back in full over time.  The incentive to pay back the government at a decent rate, is to have that money paid back into the school.  Once the government is paid back, (yes there will be instances where schools will fail and should be learned from) the government can take a database of statistics on the program, and ultimately can be used to learn how to attack the issue of poverty further.

It’s a really basic idea, founded upon a basic relationship I have found in my community.  At the very least, I would hope this idea could start a conversation on how to infuse government capital into education.  We spend trillions of dollars for wars, yet we refuse to educate our own people.  And honestly, I think that it is intentional.  As a Rockefellar was caught saying, “I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.”

The only thing we can really do, is express our voice to the people in power.  Honestly, I have lost hope there, but I am going to write to my representatives about this issue.  Ultimately I think what gets a voice in Washington is money, but at least I will have the ease of mind knowing I did what I could to bring an idea that I have to fruition for America.

The Book of Eli Analysis

This is an older movie so I am not too stressed out about spoiling the movie. I did want to take the time to dive into what the movie was trying to say, and at one point the writers view is the core message of The Bible. I don’t think I am even going to take time to summarize the movie.

Eli you learn later is blind. “I see by faith, not by sight,” he is quoted to saying, and he literally can see from faith. He wears sunglasses not to protect his eyes from the sun, but to not show people that he is blind. He has been given special privileges from God so to speak. He took on a task that has taken him over 30 years, surviving off of a wasteland. It isn’t just the surviving from the elements, but from gun fire. The first gun fire scene Eli was literally standing with no cover, and the audience hears bullets flying by. This maybe typical in other Hollywood movies, but this one had a purpose. It was showing that God was protecting him on a more literal level. Not to mention when he gets shot, and somehow by God’s plans, a friend comes and helps save his life.

He takes life and he hates taking it. Probably the coolest action scene is towards the beginning of the movie. He uses his blade. And after he was done protecting himself, he slams his blade with disgust. It’s to show that he follows what he reads. He knows it was to protect himself, but he hates taking the life of another.

What made the movie more interesting was the stance of the antagonist. He wanted to use The Bible as a means of power. By using their faith, they could be more righteous by building more towns, or something to that effect. He wanted to use faith as a means of expanding his power, of having his people follow him. By slanting the word of God, he could control his uneducated citizenship into doing things mainly for himself. I feel considering the statements made in his movie, the writing are showing not only what was done in the past with God, but also what should be done instead.

When I think about religion being used as a means of power, I automatically think of The Crusades and The Inquisition. As I understand it, by using what the bible says about bringing Christianity to all parts of the Earth for the second coming, this justified eliminating or saving the heathens. This created more conquest, and therefore more power. Depending on how you worship Christianity, there are some denominations that have you pay money to help loved ones pass into the after life – in the olden days, you had to pay the priest in order for your prayer to be heard by God. The Inquisition brought fear to the church, a fear that was used as a means of power. You fear the church, you do as the church says. These were once dire moments of our history, but people of God have evolved so to speak. Now through the Christian faith, there are different flavors of worship, but I believe what The Book of Eli said as to the main message of The Bible, is basic but very true.

Keep in mind Eli has been reading this book (it’s in braille) every night for 30 years. He is asked by his friend, the one who saved his life, indirectly, “what did you learn from this book?” Keep in mind she has no concept of God, of Jesus, or Creation, I mean anything. It’s the last Bible on the planet. Eli said, “Do onto others you’d want to do onto you.” The Golden Rule basically. This message is shown through love and caring throughout the entire Bible. I would argue that at some points the love is hard to see – however especially in The New Testament, love is a theme found throughout the book.

On this issue of spirituality, and faith, I think there comes to be two kinds of people that approach this phenomenon on whether or not to worship a certain religion. The first kind, take a leap of faith and believe in that God, to later find the evidence for that religion. The second, are people that require proof in order to worship whatever said God. The main difference that I can see, is for one the second group have to put forth loads more amount of effort to even come to a decision. The first group is able to put their belief into something and not require proof. This is admirable, but did they make the right decision? Only faith will tell.

Eli basically said if you were to remove knowledge of all the various characters of The Bible, and all the various stories, that the main message is the golden rule. Imagine, as John Lennon would say, what our society would be like if we treated others as we would like to be treated. It’s really difficult to be that way in our current society, with how people are vultures with our money. As they should be, because it seems if there is a financial incentive to do something, regardless of the ethics involved, you do it. As I have said before, our society is individualism. You could expand individualism to units of people, like your immediate family and friends. It’s okay to look out for the ones you love, but it is not okay to do that at the expense of others livelihood. People have forgotten that, people have forgotten the message of Eli. I wouldn’t be so against capitalism if it didn’t corrode the souls of so many people that partake in it. We seem to be taught the golden rule, but we refuse to execute that into our lives. Admittedly, that is the hard part. It is much easier to learn of a concept, rather than to incorporate that change into your life. I hope we can come together as a people, rather than be divided. We are so divided on so many levels. But class, sex, race, religion, political ideology just to name a few, we are so separated that we aren’t even an American people. What drives this conflict, is money, even where race is involved. Didn’t this book say money is the root of all evil?

When Eli prayed, he didn’t ask for anything. He thanked the Lord for everything. He will only take that of which is given to him, and what is planned for him, but he will not request it. If we all showed that humility, our world would be a much better place.

“Image no possessions,
Wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.”

“Imagine” by John Lennon

Naturalism

Image result for naturalism

In this post, I will be focusing on two definitions of naturalism:

  1.  The doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
  2.   Adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I’m going to edit the first definition for me, in that natural processes are very important, but so is spiritual philosophy.

When I read about nature, and science, I feel that our universe is perfect.  The common denominator of all things, is energy (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy).  I just read that the quantum engine, or QE, is being tested in space by NASA.  Essentially this works by taking the minute energies that are found in the vacuum of space.  Then the device produces thrust, just from being in space.  Infinite fuel, infinite speeds.  Nature is a beautiful thing.

However I have a personal story that has me convinced that nature is where we were meant to be, without the conversation that our ancestors grew up completely in nature.  Growing up I was an extremely happy kid.  I spent literally the entire day being outside, riding my bike unless it was the winter.  Then I was sledding!  When there was no sunlight, I would come home, do homework, and game.  As school became more strenuous, my time outside drastically decreased and I predominately gamed at night.  Towards the end of my high school career, I was pretty depressed.  Now I know this is a basic story, and I refrained from getting very descriptive about my childhood, but multiple factors can explain why I became depressed.  The predominate reason in my opinion, was I was not spending as much time outside than when I usually did.  Part of that has to do with an increase in studies, and another, has to do with my growing attachment to video games.

I have stated this earlier in my blog, but Eric Fromm has a very interesting theory as to overall happiness of people.  Essentially what makes us happy is finding what makes us more human, by finding the essence of man.  The essence of man has no clear definition, but it is what makes us human, what makes us who we are.  Currently, society is idolizing, and gorging themselves with products, services, drugs, and sex.  Well sex is controversial, because there is actually no “disorder” of having too much sex.  Apparently it’s really good to have sex.  But that is besides the point.  We use man-made technology, to the point of worship.  I infer that living in cities, separates us from not only what makes us human, but our sustainability or I should survivability as a person.  If you were to take group A, and put them in nature from childhood to adulthood, there would be less conditions and health ailments as group B, who live in a city.  Simply put, nature is a part of who we are.  We are a part of the biosphere of this planet, we tend to separate ourselves from the animal kingdom.  Which is justified, but we forget how we are connected.  Nature is our true home, but we separate ourselves from nature to make life easier.  Maybe the best way is to hunt for our food, rather than pick up meat at the grocery store.

The planet Earth.  It strives to be in equilibrium.  Considering the vastness of chemical reactions, in both the animate and inanimate world, there is no contention that the Earth is striving for a state of equilibrium.  Not many know this, but every single chemical reaction goes into a state of equilibrium.  It is when the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the reverse reaction.  Reverse reaction?  What about iron and water?  Rust?  Wouldn’t that be only a forward reaction?  If you were to enclose the iron and water, theoretically iron-oxide and hydrogen would react in the reverse way to create iron and water.  This can be tested by altering the concentrations of either the products or reactants.  If the hydrogen was reacted with something else, the equilibrium would shift to the right speeding up the rate of rusting (in an enclosed system).

The point in all of this?

Since there are chemical reactions everywhere on this planet, everywhere from the ground to the sky, the result is the planet itself strives for equilibrium within the entire system.  This means, Gaia will induce conditions on the planet to re-stabilize itself in response to temperature change (regardless if it is man-made or not).  That is perfect.  Gaia will always remain until it is engulfed by the sun.

This intricate system of our universe, or reality, is a self-sufficient self-evolving system.  That is perfect.  That is our world.  If we are closer to our world, we are closer to who we are, and we are closer to finding our essence of man.

Thanks for reading!

The Double Helix of Science and Spirituality

https://i0.wp.com/i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1462168001i/18960454._SX540_.jpg

To start off this post, I’m going to share a poem that I have written.

“Spiritual Stars”

Man travels through life
Easily distracted by immersive information
The progress of our ancestors
Rests as Man’s foundation
Planting an addiction for answers
Our understanding – blossoming flowers.

The floret never touches the sky
It can never reach the stars
(The universe expands to infinity);
No matter the sacrifices and the scars
Path to Truth has utmost affinity
For Man to rip each others’ humanity.

An honest man looks at history
The Enlightenment the most recited
Men upheld to their ideals
Dividing which once was united
The Church never allowing appeals
Ignoring reason, and what it reveals –

Men ahead of their time
Their knowledge grinds with society
Shedding assumptions of culture
Their deeds proclaimed notoriety
The Church, feeling their credibility will rupture
Men killed in response for all their glory and wonder.

It was times of blood, and the victim was reason
All to keep the established beliefs
Most people blame the irrationality on religion
As a result people suppress spirituality underneath
People strive to make a logical decision
Rather to look onto God with submission.

Humanity does not know for sure,
if there is a God or not
Logic declares each a possibility;
Usually spirituality is negated
Blamed for taking the essence of humanity
Theories constructed, for God is hated
Something at some point had to of been created.

God may not be accurately expressed in our texts,
Could not spirituality and reason co-exist?
What would unfold, with the double helix
of reason and religion?
The floret would grow past the cold mist
When we show humility and make that admission
Our understanding would only depend upon our ambition.


This post will essentially talk about this poem, and well, a specific song that talks about the same thing.  “Science” by System of a Down.  Here is the song and the lyrics:

Making two possibilities a reality
predicting the future of things we all know
fighting off the diseased programming
of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries
Science fails to recognize the single most
potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
science has failed our mother earth
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
Science has failed our mother earth
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Spirit-moves-through-all-things
Science has failed our mother earth

(Sorry for the format issues.)

First, I want to talk about the song specifically.  If you notice, he takes a Platonian view of matter in this world.  “Spirit moves through all things” is like the lifeforce that Plato theorized about.  (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy)  Secondly, the message that is trying to be portrayed is that science has hurt mother nature, however I would add science has really benefited humanity at the expense of mother nature.  Not to get too political, but when we have the technology to not only take care of our planet but provide the needs of our society, it is usually shot down simply because of money.  An example of this is renewable technology.  Arguably, it might be that science isn’t at fault, but rather the desires of men.  The desire to maximize an electronic spreadsheet, at the expense of not only the planet, but of humanity itself.

There is a common message, between my poem and System of a Down – in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the poem was inspired by System of a Down.

It’s the idea that not only is spirituality not credible in the realms of science; not only is it obvious to see that spirituality (energy) is in all things; what of the possibility of spirituality being accepted in science?  What about that possibility?

As my poem suggested, the actual ways of the spirit realm may not be expressed in all of the world’s religious texts.  It could be expressed by one, who knows.  The point is that either possibility is an unknown, so why not study objectively with the possibility that spirituality exists?  Furthermore, I pose the possibility that aspects of the spirit realm is actually found.  Wouldn’t finding Truth behind those properties of this spiritual realm, wouldn’t that open our eyes to other aspects of our universe as well?  Thus, looking for aspects of spirituality in science, not only has the same benefit as studying science without it (IF God or Gods are not out there), but prepares humanity for finding something that could climb us ever closer to Truth.  Meaning, if we are open to the idea of a spirit realm, it could either not be true (the same as not looking for spirituality at all), or it could be true and we unlocked another world to our perception.

If we were to find a spiritual realm, the double helix of spirituality and science would be created.  One as part of the other.  And with this deeper understanding, the closer to Truth we would become, having spirituality and science being the genome of our expression.

To close, the song by System of a Down is very artistic.  When the music turns into a different beat and melody, it’s Spirit.  They’re trying to portray the strength as well as aspects of this spirit that they are talking about.  The harsh and grungy sound is science, while the pleasant and tribal sound is spirit.  It’s peaceful, no?

And with that, comes my second attempt at changing how frequently I post.  Again, I am completely open to the concept that I could be flat out wrong, and that others may disagree with me.  I just hope that my reader, that you’re actually thinking along these lines and came up with thoughts of your own.

Thanks for reading!

Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy

universe-age

 

The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, theorized that there was a life force in all matter on this planet.  However, people knew through working with stone and rock, there were no living parts or systems of these materials.  Since there was nothing to be observed for this theory, there was obviously scrutiny.  Understandably, people wanted observable evidence to this theory than to accept it – which is understandable considering human nature.  Even to this day, physicists and mathematicians create theories without possibility of acquiring evidence, or in other words to test the theory.  The prime example of this is string theory.  It is a mathematical marvel, however physicists are starting to shift to other areas of thought, simply because they want to work towards something that is testable.

Is it possible that we are thinking about this in the wrong way?  After all, all matter was created from energy.  The energy that drives this planet, to make the planet’s systems sustainable, comes from the sun.  The sun is pure energy.  As we learned in elementary school, foliage consumes sunlight, which is then in turn consumed by other animals.  Either by sucking in oxygen, or by consuming the plants themselves, or by consuming other animals that consumed those plants or other animals.  Thus, the food pyramid.  The food pyramid is one of the mechanisms by which the sun’s energy is transferred.

My contention that everything has some sort of energy, and thus is the lifeforce that Plato was talking about.

What about rocks?  They act as transferring heat from itself to what is around it.  In fact, it has been theorized that when energy is transferred through the rock, and it is in a pool of hydro carbons (like pools by volcanoes), eventually the atomic structure of the rock would change.  Why?  Because the rock is becoming more efficient at transferring its flow.  (The Constructal Law)  Look at water.  The movement of water, either by potential energy or by direct energy through the sun, brings about movement to fuel the life on this planet.  Each organism consumes this energy in some way, and is used to create energy for that organism, while its waste is used as energy for other organisms.  It’s a complete cycle.  If one were to consider that the transfer of energy, that substance or organism “has” energy, then there is energy in all things.  There is a lifeforce to this universe, which means Plato was right.

But what other aspects of this lifeforce are there?  I think energy can be expressed in a wave, with a frequency and amplitude.  These different frequencies make things like heat, light, and compounds.  In fact, one could argue that matter is a certain frequency of energy.  With that said, I think anything living, are in tune to these frequencies that energy produces in them and other things.  A common example of this would be dogs.  Cesar Millan, the gentleman behind The Dog Whisperer, has a theory based upon the “energy” of the dog.  Meaning, how does it feel to be around the dog?  The reason why these dogs exert these energies, is because different states of mind metabolize its fuel differently, and changes the physiology of the dog.  The energy of the owner, or in this case Cesar Millan, interacts with one another like two waves coming into contact, creating a resultant.  This “resultant” wave, is the wave that is perceived, and thus is responded to.  In essence, the dog communicates how he or she feels to Cesar, or any owner that is in tune with their dog.  This is possible because the energy is transferred through the air, literally affecting the air molecules.

I would argue the same happens with plants.  If I were to walk in a state or national park, I would feel at ease assuming I didn’t run into predators.  That is because the energy of water, the wind, and trees and plants, provides a sense of relaxation that is not felt anywhere else but nature.  Simply because our physiology evolved from nature.  I suppose if natural selection is true, some time down the line humans would start to evolve to the conditions of the city, rather than nature herself.  I don’t think we would live to see the day.

Therefore, not only is energy in all things, as fuel, but as a means of communication and ultimately influences the perception of living things.  When you go about your day, and you are in the presence of friends and family, pay attention to what you feel like when you encounter them.  It is true, that a bad day may influence these feelings, so I suppose pay attention over time.  Each person feels different, because they metabolize energy differently, resulting in different waves, which against changes the resultant wave.

One might be able to consider that energy can act like a neural network.  It flows through all living and nonliving things, and provides a very subtle way to communicate to everything on this planet.

This is why I do not discredit Plato.  I actually think he was right, and were thousands of years ahead of his time.  It is astounding, to think at the very beginning of our universe, during the big bang, pure energy would shape, provide fuel, as well as a means of communication for the universe entirely.

Thanks for reading!  Feel free to submit questions and comments.  And thanks for sticking with me, I haven’t wrote on this blog for a long time.  I do hope to change that.

Tron Legacy Analysis

 

This movie I have really enjoyed recently.  I felt when I first saw it about five years ago, I didn’t really appreciate the fullness of the film.  It’s beyond the great special effects, music in accordance to action, and the wardrobe.  I mean these costumes look like they were engineered in the future.  They did a good job.  Daft Punk being in the futuristic bar was a great touch.  The story is well written, and brings about themes of love, perfection and imperfection, as well as God and creation.  It’s a very compelling movie, and really makes the viewer reflect on the statements on these themes.

It starts with the father son relationship, of the Flynn’s.  His father decided to pursue ideas that were way ahead of their time, get enveloped in creating utopias, while realizing that “perfection” was right at his finger tips (more on the perfection them later), and it was that of his son.  I quote, “I would give it all up for just one more day with you.”  In order to really appreciate the power of those words, I have to explain the premise of the movie.

Flynn was able to take the human image and put it into a digital self.  Sort of like a Matrix I guess, but different intentions and conditions.  In this world, Flynn is God.  He created a program to protect users (himself) named Tron.  He then created a program, a digital representation of himself, to create the perfect system.  That program was named Clue.  With those three, they created utopias.  First one they created, only programs could exist in the world.  They finally after that attempt, started over and made a utopia for both programs and users.  In a super computer for the time it was made, in the bottom of an arcade, there was a universe and Flynn was God.

In fact, the image that is presented in this post, is my favorite part I think.  It is the moment that God revealed himself to His creation after many cycles.  Everyone goes in to awe and fear was expressed.  There was a program that was praying the in the presence of Flynn.  Imagine that?  First, imagine being God.  Isn’t that insane?  He created all of that.  As shown later in the film, Flynn has powers that only He can have.  Since He has the master file on his disk, He can manipulate what He created.  Imagine seeing God right in front of you.  I would just wait and stare in awe honestly.  To actually be with the Creator, brings a mixture of emotions I can’t describe.  Imagine living in a world where they know there is a God, and they know who He is.  That society has a much different psyche than ours, and in a sense, I envy them.  I would love to have the luxury to have seen my God and know that He is there.  What is interesting, is Flynn doesn’t hear prayers.  It’s something I have thought hard about with our Creator, does he actually listen to prayers?  Or does he let the system run and does something else?  I will never know.

Now it is understood the strength of those words, “I would give it all up just to spend one more day with you.”  He would give up being God to be with his son again.  He was forced to stay in The Grid because the portal closed.  He hadn’t seen his son in years, and he thought he would never see him again.  Flynn knew what had to be done in order to get The Iso and his son out.  That is why he said,”one more day” because he was going to merge with Clue and create an instant explosion followed by a complete reset.  Flynn died, but The Grid remains to be manipulated, or improved, by his son.  Flynn knew he was going to die, and it would of given up his life’s work, at being God, to be with his son more.  That was more important to him.  That is really strong, and shows what we all desire and what usually happens.  Father’s aren’t home making the cheddar, and some get so caught up in their career it is more important than family.  A song that shows this well is “Cats in the Cradle.”  It’s a cycle.  The boy mimics a distant father and becomes a distant father.  Most of us yearn for a close father because not only is it human, but a lot of us have had distant relationships with our fathers because of our society.

There is another love story.  The son Flynn and The Iso.  Iso’s were literally a result of The Grid.  They were a different race of people created by The Grid.  Flynn, God, not only created a digital frontier and utopias with programs, but created another being that lived in The Grid, with their own DNA.  Clue saw them as imperfections, and slaughtered them.  “It was genocide.”  The Iso, she is the last remaining Iso, that Flynn saved.  Imagine, being saved individually by your Creator.  In any case, The Iso’s DNA could revolutionize technology back on Earth, and was the true purpose of The Grid to Flynn.  His creation, of living beings, He truly is a God if one thinks about it.

Clue was programmed to make the perfect system.  He did it well.  Flynn had a long time to think, and told this to Clue.  “The thing about perfection, is that it is unknowable.  It’s impossible but it is also right in front of you all the time.  You wouldn’t know that because I didn’t when I created you.  I’m sorry, Clue.  I’m sorry.”  When his son went to the portal, there were images of his son when he was younger.  To show what he was thinking.  “See ya kiddo.”  Flynn then combined Himself with Clue, resetting The Grid.

I don’t know why, but that quote is making me think of a concept.  Could the world be more perfect that we originally thought?  I think it is a perfect super-organism.  Meaning it has processes that ultimately balance everyone out, and is cyclic to bring motion to the planet.  There’s a carbon cycle, a water cycle, an oxygen cycle, a carbon dioxide cycle, and the list goes on.  It’s a perfect system, that was created through the laws of this universe.  But could it be more perfect?  Perfection to us is pure symmetry, uniform color, evenly divided angles.  Sterile.  But could the structure and all of the planet be perfect?  Sure the structure is different than our preconceived notion of perfection, but what if Flynn is right?  What if perfection is unknowable?  Then our views of perfection are not valid because perfection is unknowable.

Could it be possible that perfection is our universe itself?  Could the very variable leaves of a tree actually all be perfect?  Sure there is variance in nature, but it is truly random, and that could mean true perfection.  Maybe a part of perfection is variability, or randomness?  Maybe our preconceived notions of perfection blinds us from the perfection right in front of us.  Excuse my french, but it’s the fact that we fucking exist in the first place.  I believe there were systemic steps, and I think considering all the Earth like planets we are finding, we are bound to find life.  If we are truly alone in this universe, then those are planets for our taking.

Singularities.  There is no reality.  There is no time.  There is nothingness, but a infinitely small and dense particle.  Do you think that particle could of exploded in an infinite amount of ways?  After all, there is no reality.  The singularity exploded with just enough energy to produce the exact mass of 14 decimal places to create a universe that is flat and eventually harbors life.  That to me is perfection.  Iso’s are us.  As a result of the flow of energy becoming more efficient, life was systematically created.  We are the result of energy.

This movie has really changed me.  I think the climax of the film, where Flynn explains perfection, has actually changed my perception of the world.  I think we are living on a perfect planet, in not only processes, symbiotic relationships, but also in structure itself.

I’m going for a walk I think tonight.  Thanks for reading.

The Revolutionary Theme in Film

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

There are two movies that I have recently watched, and it has been awhile since I have enjoyed movies.  The first movie, is The Hunger Games:  Mockingjay Part 1 and then Exodus Gods and Kings.  And really, the main theme that I keep seeing in these movies is some sort of revolution.  Exodus has been redone by Hollywood I don’t know how many times, and it makes me wonder why they focus on that one story so much.  What my theory is, is it has to do with revolution.  Mazerunner was another example.  The game essentially forced these kids to risk their lives to exit the maze, a sense of rebellion/revolution.  I want to explore as to why this theme keeps recurring throughout movies over the years.

First, since the first movies of this kind have been successful, it is a recipe to be repeated by Hollywood to maximize their profits.  But why do we like them?  We like to see the oppressed to be free of their bondage.  All throughout human history, there have been revolutions because living conditions were so poor, or their treatment was so unjust, there had to be something done.  However, with the repetition that this movie theme is used, it makes me wonder, is there another purpose to this?  When the revolution is successfully fulfilled, there is a better life for many.  Seeing that moment, feels good, and maybe why these movies are so successful.  However, I think the action of putting revolutions on the big screen, undermines actual revolution.  What I mean is, when people watch something fictional on the big screen, and see the loss of life and risk involved, mixed with current contentment in their lives, people don’t even think about enacting a new government forcefully.  When I say contentment, is our way of life is decent enough to not risk for many, even though the quality of life for everyone could greatly improve if our government was forcefully abolished.  So since we have large amounts of things to consume, and we are programmed to consume at a young age, we don’t think about the possibilities of other lives.

And just as fictional stories show, there is risk involved, including one’s life.

I suppose peoples’ standards of living are at the point they aren’t willing to risk their lives for the possible betterment of humanity.  After all, things in theory may end up being practiced completely differently.  But I see so many problems with our economy, our government, and our way of life.  I suppose my life right now is fine.  I get to watch movies, play video games, listen to an insane amount of music, and have libraries full of databases and books.  However, as one example of so many I could list, The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a verdict that basically says if the owner of the property is not present, cops have the legal authority to search the property.  That basically undermines the fourth amendment.  I’m saying this, because ever so slightly, our Constitution is degrading.  We as a people revere it so much, but are not educated about it.  And our way of life is moving further and further from the intentions of our forefathers, allowing greed and apathy to consume our population.

And these movies?  In a way I think it is a defense for the establishment towards the idea of the masses revolting over what is going on.  Because the people in power, and the people making all the money, feel it too.  They dehumanize, just like any moment in history, people making less money than them, to justify their exploitation.  But they know it isn’t right.  There was a UN study done on social stratification, and it found that countries with the most social stratification had the least quality of health among all classes of that population.  When Donald Trump sees a homeless man, two things occur.  There is a pyschosocial stress experienced between the homeless man and Donald Trump.  This stress, leads to failing health.  Donald Trump, to deal with the psychosocial stress, dehumanizes the homeless man.  The homeless man, probably feels the stigma associated with being homeless, and feels worse about themselves when they see affluence.  Both parties experience stress, and both parties have less health because of it.

I also see these movies as an expression of a fantasy.  I think it in a way, because it is enjoyable to all of us, we desire a better life.  It speaks to us.  But because it is on the big screen, it is undermined.  “Because it is a movie.”  Nevertheless, I feel there is a desire in people for a better life.  For example, what the band MGMT feels.

They are giving up on life, because they don’t want to work the 9-5 life.  They don’t feel like they are living if they live that life.

So will America keep consuming movies about revolutions, or will they one day do something about the state of this country?  Time will tell.

I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.  -John D Rockefeller

 

What Possibly Happened Before the Big Bang

Afshordi, Niayesh, Robert B Mann, and Razzieh Pourhasan. “The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time.”Scientific American  Aug. 2014: 38-43. Print.

This idea made me marvel at the possibilities that are out there, possibilities that may or may not be true in explaining the universe around us.  They built this theory around the concept on the volatility of singularities.  What I am trying to say, is our universe is very uniform and flat, which makes no sense considering the accepted theory of the big bang.  Singularities have no laws of physics, and there is no future or past – there is no time.  Out of all the possible ways the singularity exploded, the singularity exploded in such a way that eventually harbored life.  To them there has to be a logical explanation rather than a spiritual one.  So they came up with this idea, to provide conditions for the singularity to explode in a much more uniform manner.

According to their mathematics, it very well could be possible that the big bang happened on the event horizon of a black hole in four-dimensional space.  This basically means the black hole is a part of a universe in higher dimensions.  The event horizon would be three-dimensional, the very conditions that our universe exists.  The core reason why they are scheming this is because they need the event horizon.  And I quote:

Cloaked by an event horizon, the singularity is rendered impotent.  Its disturbing effects cannot escape, making it possible for the laws of physics to describe and predict all that we observe…

…We would like to have a way to shield ourselves from the big bang’s singularity and its catastrophic unpredictability, perhaps with something akin to an event horizon.

The point to all of this is a way to explain why the singularity of the big bang exploded the way it did.  They saw that if the singularity was in an event horizon, then it would work out.  This theory is testable which I like, and it is tested by analyzing the background radiation.

So what do they say about the universe that exists in higher dimensions than our own?

Well since it would of been in existence much longer than our current universe, it would have time to equalize its temperature.  This would provide the favorable conditions on the event horizon which would allow our universe to explode in such a way that the temperature is consistent enough, and the shape flat enough to eventually harbor life.  But they of course have no good explanations on how that universe was created, or the laws of that universe for that matter.

In conclusion, it is a forced hunch.  They are designing a situation knowing what we know currently which would explain why the big bang exploded the way it did.  What about the universe in higher dimensions?  Why did that singularity explode the way it did?  It is my forced hunch, that physicists do not completely understand singularities themselves and how they behave.  I think it very well could be possible that the birth of our universe is from an implosion, and that implosion had the natural conditions to eventually harbor life.  Scientists just struggle with the implications of this.  Inflationary theory was derived because scientists didn’t like how precise the amount of matter was in the universe.  If it was much higher or much lower, life as we know it would not be able to exist.  I don’t understand it completely, but the fact that if the universe expanded on an order of 78 in fractions of a second, eliminates the need of what I term “The God Ratio.”  It’s the ratio of actual matter and theoretical matter required to make the universe flat.  It had to have been equal to 1.00000000000000.  With that precision.  If it was off, our universe would not be flat and we wouldn’t exist.  Scientists didn’t like that idea, because it points to a Creator.  So they derived inflationary theory.

It makes sense, that if the singularity of the big bang was created, it was understood it would harbor life.  Scientists don’t like this philosophy or way of thinking, and will derive complete theories to get around it.  Not only inflationary theory, but this theory as well.  This bothers me.

I understand what happened during The Enlightenment, and I can see why people have a beef with spirituality.  But spirituality cannot be divided into certain factions.  The bottom line is nobody knows, and we all can theorize on the spiritual realm.  Just as I cannot provide hard proof that God exists, we cannot provide hard proof that he does not exist.  Therefore, we should conduct ourselves open to the possibility that our universe was created.

Finally, I believe that if we continue to think everything was not created from a creator, we will deal with an infinite paradigm.  Here is what I mean:

At the end, the tadpole looking thing is going into a world that is completely infinite.  What I am trying to say, is if we do not wrestle with the fact that something had to come from nothing, we are going to explain different universes infinitely.  There will always be a universe that created the other, but how did the original become created?  Believing in creation ends this conundrum, and it very well could be that the existence He created is infinite.  It would be within His power, or wouldn’t it?

At least this idea is testable.  String theory is losing popularity because the ideas aren’t testable, it is just a mathematical marvel.

I mean the other month, I read about a theory that states universes are in the singularity of black holes, which means our universe is a singularity of a black hole.  What made that black hole?  A universe, which is the singularity of a black hole.

Am I making sense here?  This theory is infinite.

So I take theoretical physics with a grain of salt.  It is a lot of creative math, but no data to support its claims.  I hope scientists get the data they deserve, so we can have an absolute picture of our universe.  I also hope more scientists would be open to the idea that there is a Creator.

Thoughts on “Hallelujah” by Paramore

I wanted to try something new and write about music.  I have noticed through the years that I have plenty of thoughts stemming from music, and it would bring a sense of relief to get those thoughts out there to those who care to read.  So depending on how this goes I will probably do this again.  First, let me show you the song that I am going to refer to.

In my opinion this song is so much stronger than most of their material.  The punk sound really came out, and the drums sing while showing his true capabilities (It is in my view, that he holds back too much with the rest of the tracks on this album).  The lead singer’s voice, her voice, tops the sound off with her clarity and precision of tone.  Finally, the sound in accordance to what is being talked about bring images of golden daylight resting on lush tree tops.  I usually fly in this song because of the image of the dove.  This song brings me a sense of excited happiness, like an eager energy wanting to experience the future.  It brings me back to the feelings I had growing up, when life was filled with wonder and lots of happiness.

To what she says, I see two meanings that are obvious to me (thanks to the video), however there is a separate personal meaning.  The first obvious message that this song is trying to portray could be that of reuniting lovers.  While deciding to try again, she is determined to make this new relationship last forever, and celebrates in her excitement for the future.  The second message, and most likely the message intended by the band, was shown through the video.  The song encompasses the experience of their band, and their celebration for the future.

If only time flew like a dove

Well God make it fly faster than I am falling in love

This is pretty deep stuff, deeper than most of the material out there.  Doves mean a multitude of things, but what it means to me is a “good” future in this context.  Time is bringing good tidings into their lives.  The second line for me is harder to discern a meaning.  What would happen if favorable time traveled slower than she was falling in love?  Does she cease to love?  I think this may mean that she wants God to continue their good tidings so that she can continue to fall in love more with her life.  Then she changes this part.  It turns to:

If only time flew like a dove

Well we can watch it fly and keep looking up

To me this means that if tidings remain to be good, that they can just experience time and take it all in.  The image of somebody remaining to look at the sky, reminds me of being a child, when I would look at the different shapes of the clouds.  Essentially, I was happy, and that is what this line is communicating to me.  She is saying she will take the tidings, waiting for more, and remaining to be happy.  After these moments in the song, she exalts “Hallelujah!”  She is thanking and praising God for her life, and she wants to make this moment in their lives last forever.

But there is a personal meaning that I take from this.

I take it to the spiritual context.  I take it that this song is celebrating the reunion of a person and God, and they will work to make the relationship last forever.  The dove is also a symbol in The Bible, obviously, in conjunction with the praise of hallelujah, as well as the golden forests, mountains, and blinding white light that this sound creates for me – I cannot help but feel that this song is talking about a relationship with God.  I have even personalized it to the point that the song was a song expressing that relationship.  Who knows, maybe the band Paramore intended this song to be spiritual but decided to show it in more marketable context for their listeners.  Nonetheless I feel that music can have multiple meanings for a multitude of people, and that is the true beauty of art.  Art is personalized and is intimate – it brings about emotions, messages, wisdom, etc. to the observer.  In everyday conversation, I rarely ever dive into what other people think or feel about particular songs, most likely because it is hard to be familiar with the same music as someone else.  When that does happen, the conversation usually reveals the opinion of each person in regards to the song, but nothing else.  Since I am living with guys, it would more than likely turn into who knows the most music, because guys want to be dominant.  What is interesting, is guys don’t compete into how much they take from their music, more than likely because most people don’t take the time these days to truly listen to music.  I know I am guilty of putting Pandora in the background while I do something, essentially creating a more pleasurable white noise.  I wonder if that is how most music is experienced.

One thing I do know is that I used to partake in the album experience.  I would judge on how the overall flow of the tracks were.  I’d check out random artists from the library, usually striking out but still in wonder listen to every track.  I feel that since being an adult, I don’t have the time to do that anymore.  I barely find time to read.  Realizing this makes me think about where we want society to take us.  Is having more material things more beneficial than getting the most out of what you have?  I don’t know, I just find it rewarding to listen to an album multiple times and trying to find out what that song means from the writers, as well as my own, point of view.

One thing is for certain!  Paramore’s drummer can really ride the set.  I hope you all enjoyed the read, and thank you for taking time out of your day to read my blog.

Till next time.

« Older entries