The Impenetrable Shield of Truth
64Perspective Matters
Are you open-minded or narrow-minded? (if you can't pass this quiz, don't waste your time reading...)
Truth is Uncertain
What is truth? Is is subjective - depending entirely on a particular point of view? Or if not, how do you know if something is true? These are some of the toughest questions I've had to grapple with in my entire 29 years of life, and to this day, the answer - in its entirety - continues to elude me.
But in my quest for this answer, I've made many wonderful realizations that have proven themselves to be both useful and powerful tools in my life thus far. And so, I'd like to share some of these with you before we begin our collective journey into the future, which - by the way - is already here.
There is a fascinating concept in modern science that is very difficult for many to fully wrap their mind around. However, it is crucial to have full mastery of this particular concept if you ever wish to have the power to decide your own future - to shape your own destiny, as it were. I'm talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics.
So what's this principle? Well, let's just take it one step at a time, shall we? - When you get to the sub-atomic level, there are tiny but incredibly heavy neutrons that cling to positively charged protons in clumps. These are surrounded by tiny, paired, negatively-charged electrons that fly around these so called 'atomic nuclei' so fast that they actually look like clouds! But the most interesting part is that within these clouds, a certain kind of duplicitous uncertainty arises.
What in the world do I mean by that - 'duplicitous uncertainty'? Simply, that these clouds are both there and not there - at the same time. Particles as tiny as protons and electrons have wavelengths - like light does. So they oscillate, in and out of existence, over and over again, really really fast - even as they race around the nuclei.
I'll make it really really simple. You can't use the same mathematical techniques on a wave that you can on a particle. A wave has a wave-length and that makes all the difference in the world. If you're wondering how something can be both a wave and a particle, you're not alone. The best explanation I can give is that ultimately, all mater is made of pure energy. If you zoom in even more, you will see that there are over 200 kinds of little tiny particles that make up the protons, neutrons, and electrons - and these, in turn are made of little strings of energy coiled into little 'balls.'
This is the boundary - the place where energy turns to matter and vice-versa. These little strings vibrate - like guitar strings, and each has its own frequency. Together these vibrations 'fluctuate' the subatomic particles into and out of existence. It's a bit like a symphony - many instruments playing many notes. And the sound of their collective vibrations - their 'harmony,' if you will - actually is the electron... Or proton... Or whatever else...
What's the point of all this, you're thinking by now... Quantum Physics ain't my thing, and who cares about your sub-atomic 'whatchamacallits'.... But it really does matter, because this fluctuation means that we can never fully know everything about any one particle. It all depends on how all these many energy strings vibrate, and what complex vibrational harmony you get as a result.
On the one hand, you need to take all these wavelengths into consideration if you ever want to know where the particle is at any given time. On the other hand, if you ever wanted to know how fast it's vibrating, you'd need to pick a specific wavelength, and then you could never tell where it's located. So the more you know about a particle's location - the less you know about its wavelength, and vice-versa. And if you want to pin either one precisely, then the other becomes completely uncertain and then you can say absolutely nothing about it. That's the duplicity. And the uncertainty. And it means that all matter is literally a matter of probability.
And this principle can be extrapolated all the way up to the Human scale. In fact, the more particles you have, the more atoms - all the more uncertainty. On the Human scale, this uncertainty is so huge, that almost anything could happen (within bounds of reason, of course), and on a Universal scale, the uncertainty is so enormously gargantuan, and I mean that quite literally - I mean we're talking 1 with quadrillions of zeroes of uncertainty - that literally anything is possible - wouldn't you agree?
So then, can anything ever be true? Yes. And no. Both. Anything is possible, so anything could be true - IF and that's the key word here - if you believe it. Wh... Wait, what...?!?
Schrödinger's Cat - A Thought Experiment
Imagine that we build the following (entirely fictional) contraption. First, take two atoms of radioactive Iodine, say, but it could be any other radioactive element. Iodine-131 is known to have an average half-life of 8.0197 days - but that's when you have hundreds of thousands of atoms. What about if you have only two?
Then it's a matter of probability. If you wait exactly that long, one of the two atoms may decay... But it just as easily could decay earlier, or later. Because that half-life is an average over such a large number of atoms, it seems like a solid figure - something constant that doesn't ever change.
But if and when you're dealing with a real-life situation, it fluctuates. And being an average, the fewer atoms you have, the more that number will fluctuate and vary from case to individual case. With only two atoms, it tells us almost nothing about what we can expect...
So there's a cat in a closed box with a beaker of poison. And if one of the atoms of Iodine-131 happens to decay, a Geiger counter triggers a mechanism that tips the beaker - thus poisoning and killing the poor cat.
The question is, can you say whether the cat is dead or alive without looking inside the box? Of course not! It could be either, depending on whether that atom of I-131 decayed or not. And the point is to demonstrate an obvious discrepancy. The theory says that at any given time we cannot know everything about a complex particle such as an atom of Iodine-131. Instead, it exists in a wide range of both decayed and undecayed states at the same time. That's what 'probability distribution' means. But when we look inside the box, the cat is either dead or it's alive - never both.
In other words, when we see the cat as either dead or not dead - when we actually perceive it - we are pinpointing a certain reality (based on whether the atom of I-131 has already decayed or perhaps not yet) - We are pinpointing a certain harmonic combination of vibrating strings, that in turn make up the subatomic particles, which then make up the I-131 atom itself, which then determines whether the cat died or not. But the reality is that it is existing in all the various possible states at once, some of which have it as decayed while others have it as not.
And again, all this while we are only allowed to see one reality at a time. That's how our perception works. Even if we can understand, using logic and reason, that the I-131 atom is existing in this wide range of states with an average probability distribution - and that it may or may not have decayed at any given time, based on and due to this distribution...
At the moment of your perception, the Universe is obligated to chose one particular state of things and present it to you. We can't possibly see the cat both dead and alive. It must be one or the other. So the Universe has to choose one, and 'show it to you,' if and when you perceive it. But until you actually look, it can be either, because the atom may or may not have decayed - you just don't know.
According to the probability distribution, you can say - if I look at the atom after only 8 days (instead of 8.0197 days), then there is a 40% chance that it will have decayed. If I look after 9 days, there is a 75% chance that it will be decayed. But what you can't say is: the atom will decay after exactly 8.0197 days - since that number is nothing but an average.
Yet, once you've looked inside the box, you can say: it's been 8 days and the atom has not decayed yet, for example. By saying this, you are already cutting off a big chunk of the probability distribution, because you know that it definitely didn't decay in less than 8 days.
And if you watch it the entire time, then you will be able to say very exactly when it did decay, (for example 9.532873482756349545 days) - very very very exact. But then you are only looking at one very specific state of affairs. And the next time you try it, the result can be completely different, so long as it does not violate the probability distribution.
It's like when you look at the atom, it has to randomly choose whether to happen to exist or not - any random state from the entire distribution. In some sense, it's up to the atom itself. In another, perhaps more realistic sense, it is up to us what reality will be. Whatever the case, someone or something will ultimately need to decide on reality. Because once someone is there to perceive it, it needs to be in one particular state....
The future exists in many different states at once. Which one will the Universe choose to present once the future becomes the present is entirely dependent on what we do and how we think and act. So the real question is not whether reality can be a certain way. It's whether or not your mind is powerful enough to perceive it the way you want it to be, rather than letting someone or something else decide that for you, and then to make it so. It's a paradox, but it does make a whole lot of sense. And it sure does a good job of characterizing how the world really works...
Some References
- Schrödinger's Cat - Wikipedia, the 'Peoples' Encyclopedia'
The Wikipedia entry for the thought experiment I'm describing to the right. Go here if you want a more detailed and technical explanation. - Explanation of the wave-particle duality principle
A very nice diagram that shows why pinpointing the location of a particle makes the determination of wavelength virtually impossible and vice-versa.
God Hides in Probabilities...
If you were the creator, and you wanted to maintain control over your creation - to have influence over every minute part of it, and yet to remain undetectable - how would you do it?
If it were me, I'd hide some uncertainty at the deepest most basic level of every sub-atomic particle, which would then build as you zoomed out and increased the number of particles interacting. Then I could control every atom any way I wanted, choosing which reality to present as I please, according to probability distributions.
That way, when someone tried to prove that I exist, I could always just say that everything I do is just a coincidence - a happenstance occurrence of interacting probabilities, that just 'happened' to come together in a way that suited my purpose. It's like one of those crazy conspiracy theories. God is the ultimate 'big brother.' Thank goodness that God (what or whoever He or She may be) appears to be an entity of ultimate Love, Goodness, and Understanding. Otherwise, He (or She) - actually it's both... There's that duality - yet again!
Otherwise, God could do just about anything to us, and we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it...
So Who Decides on Reality?
OK, so reality is not determined until someone is there to actually perceive it. So then what happens once we do look? Once the future finally becomes the present and a reality has to be decided upon. Does God decide on what reality will be? Well - sure. Every time we look, a reality is chosen, and as long as it follows all the laws that govern the Universe and lies within the range of all possible states, it really could be any one of them!!! And that's why I keep stressing that the reality of the situation that we face today, collectively, as a sentient species, is entirely dependent upon what we expect and assume it to be.
This bears repeating. We have the situation as it is right now. We have a history which has led to and produced the situation as it is right now. And then we have all the possible states that the future may happen to take on, based on this enormous probability distribution that is so large, with so many variables - every single one of which may be secretly influenced by God as necessary - that any future outcome is possible, as long as it still follows the Universal laws.
So if God decides, then...
...what influence can we possibly have on his decision, right? But that's exactly it. We know how to influence the future. We know how Carma works. We know that we ultimately get what we deserve. We are the ones who control the variables today to make tomorrow come out as we would like to see it. And maybe there's no way to know for sure that the future will come out exactly as we want it even if we do everything we can to make it so. Because there are many variables that you or I, as individuals, ultimately do not control. But these limitations vanish when you take the species as a whole! We can do a lot more together, influence a lot more variables, mold our collective future a lot more effectively, in other words...
And we can definitely be sure of one thing - and that is that if we do nothing, then we will get nothing, and the future will come out as someone else wants it - like the Globalists, for example. A sad, sorry excuse for what we should get - a joke of a future! And I'm no longer in a joking mood after walking outside the other day and smelling the sickening metallic scent of Aluminum in the brisk winter air - as I watched the beautiful snow melt into the ground, taking the heavy metal 'rat poison' with it...
My previous publication talks about poisonous, Alzheimer's-causing Aluminum nano-particles that are dispersed into our atmosphere via airplane jet-fuel - thanks to chemtrails and the tireless efforts of so-called 'geo-engineers.' Everything that this article talks about needs to be applied to stopping these people from poisoning the planet any further. Please act now! Together, let us choose a happy, healthy future for ourselves and our children. And for our beautiful, blue-green planet Earth.
Who do you think influences our collective future most?
See results without votingMore on Quantum Mechanics & Spirituality
|
Quantum Physics For Dummies NEW Equation Math Theories Wave Functions Vectors
Current Bid: $11.99
|
|
2012 Enigma DVD David Wilcock UFO Mayan Conspiracy NWO
Current Bid: $3.74
|
|
The 2012 Enigma Dvd David Wilcock Ufo Mayan Conspiracy 2012 Illuminati Doomsday
Current Bid: $.99
|
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (2)
I know the Standard Theory says 24, or something like that but if you even check that same wiki article it will tell you that the theory is not only outdated but has more than a few serious holes. It will then point you to string theory - which was the next step.
Turned out there were five separate 'string theories' each explaining the observed data but having minor faults - and also can't tell which of the 5 is correct - all work equally well.
So now there is need for further 'math play' and they come out with the *drum-roll, please* 'M-Theory' and now magically you can unite all five string theories into one M theory - but now you can't ignore or deny the fact that it's nothing but math, and only on paper. Absolutely no way to test any of it, as of right now.
And still, it has problems - can't explain dark matter or dark energy, can't find Higgs Boson, etc, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
The other point is that you said it sounds like I explain as if by magic whereas you can use the slit experiment to simply demonstrate the concept.
Perhaps that is true, but I have to be honest - seeing the ripple effect of a slit experiment tells you that electrons have wave properties - but what does that even mean? My point is that the slit experiment may be simple, and the effect is easily observed - but I have yet, to this day to hear a decent logical explanation of how a particle's wave properties actually result in the uncertainty enshrined by Heisenberg Principle, whereas I did offer one here, or tried to... - Maybe it's a bit abstract, but I wanted to stay away from technical terms - anyone can go read a bunch of books on Quantum Mechanics. I'm trying to get people to understand that the future is what you make it - and the rest is, well it's a logical argument based on my understanding and experience both, as well as what I've learned in and out of school, to support the point...
I'll have to double check and do some more research on the number of sub-atomic particles, but I know the Dogone Tribe priests say there are 266. And I think I remember Stephen Hawking saying in Into the Universe that there are over 200, but exact number is not known to this day. I don't remember exactly... Let me check and get back to you.
Your going to love The Source Field Investigations, after reading this I thought maybe you had read it some how!
This is the first hub I wrote and pertains to this http://somethgblue.hubpages.com/hub/College-Studen
Perhaps the reason is the 'particles blinking into and out of existence' analogy, which came from the documentary 'What the Bleep Do We Know' - which, I think, Wilcock had a hand in the making of.
Another possible explanation for that impression is that Truth is Truth - planet, species, sex - doesn't matter. Endless starting points - ONE destination, something like that...
I read this piece as you suggested. Honesty is one of the things that I do best... There were many interesting points and a whole lot of other details that my mind refused to wrap itself around.
Ciao...Princess Prisca
I'd love to know which ones specifically. Perhaps I can write a follow-up article, which would clarify the ambiguities a little more. It was tough for me to simplify Quantum Mechanics to the level of a casual internet publication.
The reason for the Uncertainty is still poorly understood. We know it's there, we can model it mathematically, but we cannot really explain it. I still hold that the reason the uncertainty exists at all is so that God would have a way to influence His creation while still remaining undetectable to conventional scientific inquiry.
Science or not, you can NEVER explain away the miraculous beauty and grandeur of our Universe, and uncertainty is just an inherent property of the creation. To me, it actually serves as solid proof that God really exists, although many may not agree with that reasoning.
Concepts that one refuses to wrap ones mind around is what social psychologist call Cognitive Dissonance a form of social Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and proof positive that the conditioning of the masses is working.
A sad testament to our education system, and social framework. I know many well educated, reasonable informed people that think Building 7 never happened, that Global Warming is caused by SUV's and that Einstien and Newton's works are infallible.
We have all heard of Space-Time, but consider Time-Space and that gravity is actually the 'Force' referred to in Star Wars, that all things are in perpetually motion and that our minds create our reality, not vice-versa!
Fascinating...
This Hub became much clearer and better flowing once I went over it with a fine-toothed comb. I mostly changed the Though Experiment box, but also the reference to my previous article at the end.
The ambiguity and density of the presented argument should not come as a surprise. The article does cover about the last 150 years of conventional scientific discovery as it pertains to Physics and Astronomy. There is a sizable chunk of very useful info here that the reader could 'swallow' in one bite and begin digesting.
Reality does not suffer the pedantics of fools. Either we will be the ones deciding our future or circumstance will have no choice but to do it for us, and this is another inherent property of the 'Grand Creation.' Choose your own destiny (IF you've got the 'cajones' that is), or it will be chosen for you. Which one will it be?
Don't disappoint God - he's counting on YOU to leave Him no choice - to 'force Him' to give us all an awesome future. We must be deserving of it though, otherwise, such a future lies outside the 'probability distribution' of possible outcomes.
somethgblue,
One that continues to speak while being afflicted with a severe case of diarrhea of the mouth is: A sad testament to our education system, and social framework.
Ciao...Princess Prisca
Princess P,
It takes a very humble person to final admit they are wrong and I applaud your ability to do so, although I wouldn't call your words diarrhea of the mouth, that is a little harsh.
Your Avatar portrays a young person so perhaps there is hope for you after all, but there is no reason to scream unless your on a talk show with Glen Beck!
No more personal insults please. This is beneath us all. We all have important work to be doing and important messages to be writing down so that the rest of the people can also understand what we already know.
Any further comments must pertain to the substance of the Hub for 1 week (7 days). Last 2 comments (temporarily) denied. My appologies for the censorship - the situation will be corrected shortly!
OK now back to your article, do you think and I didn't read it anywhere in the article, that we humans will be able to tell the frequencies of sub atomic particles through intuition alone.
In other words will we be able to influence these frequencies with harmonic thoughts. I know you talked about Karma (and by the way I think you spell it with a K), but is that how we would create our own reality or is this going to require a skill or knowledge that we aren't currently aware of.
Your thoughts Please . . .
Absolutely, and great question! I will actually go back and add another text cap on that point specifically.
I believe that the reason there's this mysterious force (God) that provides the push, the drive for matter to coalesce together in the shape of lifeforms of various kinds and then complexify through the process of evolution, is that precisely this process is what allows for the various small probability 'smears', as the Hub describes them, to multiply together - increasing by orders of magnitude in the process - and to become so GARGANTUAN.
This is what creates such a miraculous, in my opinion, 'coincidence' as any given one of us. It is very difficult to imagine how INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY any one of us is to even exist, given the initial supposed randomness of the Universe. It is truly stunning and should boggle the mind when imagined correctly.
To answer your question, yes absolutely - there is not a shred of doubt in my mind. We can project any one of our creative thoughts or ideas onto the bio-electric field of the Earth, and once there, if enough powerfully-willed individuals such as yourself and Princess throw their emotional weight behind these ideas, they can quickly become reality. As long as they're feasible and realistic.
I've personally seen this happen before, and I believe we're watching one such occurrence take place, even in this very thread. Let us continue our push for awareness, and we will test the concept in real time.
Now one thing I will say, is although I love to read, the length of that hub was just about the extent of my attention span. Perhaps reading words with light behind them as opposed to words on a paper page creates more stress on the eyes, I'm not sure.
I know my hubs are rather long also and am endeavoring to shorten them, after all more hubs, more potential ads, more money for Hub Pages.
One more question, can we use our understanding of quantum mechanics to teach ourselves a different way to communicate, without the use of electronics.
I think the whole electronic craze is detrimental to the human brain and would like to get away from it as much as possible.
Also a good question, albeit a very meta-physical one. I do believe the answer is still yes.
We can already communicate telepathically. I have taught myself to do this to some extent, but being at least 18-19 when I even first contemplated the idea, my brain was mostly already 'set.'
I think, however, that if you introduce the concept to kids from birth and train them to develop and use such skills and abilities, then you will see a much more marked result.
Also, there is genetic engineering and other such scientific developments. I know you cringe instinctively when you hear those terms, but I will posit here that science, like any other knowledge is a tool, which can be use to both positive and negative means, depending on whose hand you find it in.
Agreed, of course being the nutard that I am, I only use scientific concepts when they fit my paradigm, some folks seem to have a problem with this, for some reason they claim I can't have it both ways, but in my world you can.
I mean, I agree with evolution but it only works so far back and then it has some holes in the theory, which is why I believe the human race had some help evolving.
Science works to a degree but isn't infallible, I think Einstiens and Newton created concepts that worked for their day but as more is learned their theories must be adjusted, which everyone seems to have a problem with.
See I agree with the child concept you mentioned, I think that most children 'know' the truth and are conditioned to either go along with the lies to get along or become ill adjusted and ostracized from society.
What has helped me keep an open mind is that I abused drugs and alcohol for 27 years of my adult life, trying to fill a hole in my soul that was created as a child when I wouldn't accept societies paradigm. Then when I got sober and realized that to have a spiritual awakening required that I expand my mind and learn to identify and accept my self imposed limitations and maintain an open mind on all concepts, that allowed me to have a educational awakening as well.
So when I went to college at age 47, I was then able to search for the truth using critical thinking and an open mind, coupled with a recent spiritual awakening. This allowed me to consider multiple concepts all at once and not get dragged down by one set of principles.
Keeping the heart young by always continuing to learn and becoming willing to accept being wrong and constantly adjusting my paradigm has allowed me to embrace many different beliefs as ever evolving.
Now throwing quantum mechanics into the mix has really expanded my awareness, but also being willing to look at the truth from every possible angle and not stopping at the angle that makes the most sense or is the one most of society embraces, keeps me flexible.
Life would be pretty boring if you were always right!
Agreed. You make some excellent points. I have plenty to say on the subject, but I think I'll save it for my next publication, which I have been thinking about, but can't quite decide on... Any particular topic you'd be interested in hearing my thoughts on? Otherwise I'll do activism as usual, and another chapter of the novel. So far I have 'Velvet Glove - Iron Fist' and I want to make it about the police state crackdown.
And one final point - I meant to bring this up a few days ago - my paradigm of the Human mind is to liken one to a sponge, rather than a soap bubble. A sponge is able to expand and absorb, and has no definite outer boundary, while a bubble has a clear, distinct edge and will pop if you expand it too much.
What do you think about smoke and mirrors meaning, when one story is hyped it gets everyone focused on that subject, meanwhile something else is going on somewhere else.
For instance I read a short hub today about using the election to divert Americans attention to it so that they wouldn't be aware of something else going on elsewhere.
http://rafken.hubpages.com/hub/Are-the-Elections-J
Also read a story about Israel attempting to get in good with Argentina by helping them with suspicious forest fires, as a way of establishing a base near Antarctica.
Ok. More publications are coming starting tomorrow. And great hub!
Interesting work. This is an idea I've heard before, by many Christian scientists and other religions who wish to explain spirituality on a scientific level. Though I was a bit surprised to find it here on hubpages.
I think it is very fascinating that if our bodies change on a molecular level we could pass through objects of the same frequency... though it would alter our bodies to the point of literally taking apart our bodies particle by particle, it would be fascinating if our believe on God was simply this tiny cloud that influences our thoughts and movements.
As for your "What is truth? Is is subjective - depending entirely on a particular point of view? Or if not, how do you know if something is true? These are some of the toughest questions I've had to grapple with in my entire 29 years of life, and to this day, the answer - in its entirety - continues to elude me." If I may, I'd like to share my own views with you. Truth does not truly exist. Even a lie can be considered truth. It is what you believe, yet it does not have to be what someone else believes. Hence, your beliefs and morals become unimportant if another believes the opposite. The fact is, to my understanding, that good, bad, truth, lies... they are all defined by social standards. We are told green is green, yet is that true for a blind man? For those without the ability to see colors? Do you see the color the same way someone else does? ... perhaps another example would be better. There is a woman walking down the sidewalk, there is a drop of clear liquid rolling down her cheek. One man believes she is sad, so she is crying. Another sees her smiling, so believe she is crying from happiness. Yet another man sees her drop and believes it is but a bead of sweat... all of those could potentially be true and are accepted as truth to those who perceive her in that way, but if they had been with her not even a block ago, they would have seen that the A/C from an apartment building was so cold it dripped and a drop landed on her face. Even to the woman, who might not have even noticed it, that "truth" may not be true. So, in my opinion, truth is only what people accept.
Interesting thoughts. However, there is reality - and that does not depend at all on perspective. If the woman really just cried a tear of sadness, then that smile is nothing more than an involuntary gesture that doesn't correspond with what she's actually feeling. Then it's definitely not sweat. These people can go their entire lives believing it's sweat or a tear of joy, but does that make it so? Green is still radiation of a certain frequency, even if you call it red, or even PERCEIVE it red. Doesn't change the physical aspects of the phenomenon.
What I'm saying is that truth is subjective - yes, but there is an 'ultimate subject' in the Universe and that subject IS the Universe, or in other words - God. What do you think?
Our reality is defined by what we see. The entire "reality" may not even be what we perceive. Despite frequencies being known to be certain colors, we see those colors as those colors... we define them. We tell you, that color is "green" and that one over there is "red". We grow up with these biases/lessons and accept them as a truth because we were taught that they are the truth. In scientific reality, the sky isn't actually blue. We perceive it to be blue because of the reflections and all that jazz, but it is not actually the color blue.
For example- If you are sitting in a chair, do you feel the chair? Do you feel it supporting your weight? Is it comfortable? Are your feet on the floor? The floor holds the chair, and the chair holds you... but you often forget about this as you write or surf the net because you have all ready accepted that you will be upheld. The chair could break, the floor could shake from an earthwake, yet you feel secure because you believe it will hold you. This is an accepted truth- "My chair will hold me"... this is biased. You can back it up with logic, "I've sat in it a hundred times without calmity" or "Mathmatically speaking it will hold my weight because of weight disposition"... these may be true, but that does not stop them from being biases we have been taught to accept.
As for God, I believe that God exists.
We also see only in a very limited range the light spectrum, what if we could see in every spectrum? I suspect we would be shocked to learn that we share this dimension with many creatures, that we are simple unaware of.
Somethgblue- My thoughts exactly.
You completely side-stepped my point and simply re-hashed your argument. This is your text-book argument for 'everything in the world is subjective, there is no truth, there is no God - nothing to see here, people - move along please (if you don't want any trouble)...'
This argument serves no other purpose than to conceal God - or the hand of providence that is evident in all our lives - from the general public. We are to believe that in this world, there is no truth, no ultimate perspective, no God, no good, no reality, etc...
Well, a few simple mental exercises will dispel this illusion for you, if you are ready to see the truth. The chain of thought should go as follows: Let us assume for the sake of argument that God MAY exist. Then, if he did exist, reality would be his creation and our perception and everything in it and around it is also his creation. If this is true, then we should be able to see certain truths about God and his being from the rules and methods by which all of our conscious perceptions and reality as we see it seem to operate. On the other hand, if the Universe is random, we should see no such 'attributes' and there should be no evidence at all for an ultimate intelligence - only the physical laws (whatever may have created them).
OK? Then you do spiritual experiments with the world around you - ask it questions and let it respond to you, not in words, because it can't, but in various 'signs' in your surrounding environment, and also as thoughts or 'voices/whispers' in your subconscious (this takes quite a bit of practice). God will not violate his own physical laws - instead, he will act within the realm of possible outcomes, so that everything that happens COULD be interpreted as coincidence. And once you figure out how to read the responses, test them to see if they correspond with an ultimate intelligence controlling all mater and all perception in this Universe.
What you will undoubtedly find is that God does indeed exist, and thus any one person could always have two perspectives - their own, and a Universal one - God's perspective. And thus there IS 'truth' and there IS 'reality' because God is always there watching from his eternal, never-changing perspective while the rest of us come and go... Check some of my other hubs, I talk about this at length.
Good Morning RighterOne,
I find your latest comment to be, interesting and 'point on' within each paragraph. Not to change the subject (yes I want to change the subject), are you going to be publishing another chapter of 'Fall of an Empire' soon? I would like to see what Prince Adon and Princess Evo are encountering at this point...
Ciao...Princess Prisca
I will get right on it! =) What would I ever do without you? Probably slack around and do nothing all day, and never finish my novel - that's what!
RighterOne- I assume that longer comment is in response to mine? If so... here is my response.
If you go back and read my comment, you will see that I actually do believe in God.
Goodness is only what is accepted by people. This does not mean God does not exist, but rather that god has his own developed consciousness that defines society's basic laws. You say that your excerises will dispel my illusions, yet you clearly did not read my comment thoroughly which is, quite frankly, lazy.
What I wish for you to see is that sins developed and changed over time, so, if God creates our realities, then He is changing with the world. It was once considered a sin to marry a woman who was not a virgin... yet now people have children out of wedlock without a frown from society. What was once considered a sin is now accepted. To tattoo the body was once considered a terrible thing, now people tattoo Bible verses and prayer hands. So, if what you say is true, then God's perspective is changing to fit society. Otherwise, a lot of women would be stoned to death.
I did read your comment carefully - I always do. My response was directed at your argument, not at you - so it would be a mistake to take it personally, even if it is only on a very deep, subconscious level. Our goal here is to argue until we can see the truth clearly, not to argue for the sake of arguing or being right.
What you are describing is Humanity's collective understanding of 'God' - and you are absolutely right, that does indeed change over time, just like it would on any other planet with any other intelligent species.
That does not mean that God is changing, however. At best, it's our perception changing, getting ever closer to an ACTUAL, CORRECT understanding of what God must be.
Let me be a bit more specific though. I doubt you'll argue that our understanding of the Universe today is LESS advanced than at any other given time in RECORDED history (I am not speaking about forgotten history). So from our current perspective, we can clearly see the error of our own ways in the past, which is direct and undeniable proof that two perspectives are not created equal - but rather that one is better, or more superior than another.
But you don't need to go that far to understand that there IS such thing as 'truth', 'goodness', 'sin' etc... What is a 'fact'? 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. You can take four apples and try it, four oranges, four souls - doesn't matter. 2 + 2 = 4... period.
Is it better that the Earth exists or doesn't exist? Is it better that Humanity exists or doesn't exist? The answers should be obvious, and it doesn't matter if you're Human or not, if you are on Earth or have anything to do with it, or not. You could be an alien from a galaxy at the edge of our 'visible universe' and never ever come in contact with Humans or Earth. And still, the answer would be the same.
Complexity is more interesting than simplicity. It has more details. It is more intricate. Etc... These are 'facts.' There is no argument with facts, because they are... well, facts. Take all 'facts' in the Universe, known and unknown to us both, and add them all together and you have God. We don't know the WHOLE God, as we are now. But we know which of our beliefs are facts, and which are subjective opinions. Thus, we can start painting the picture with what we've got so far - and leave blanks where we KNOW blanks are due.
And by the way, I never questioned you faith. And I never said you don't believe in God - only that your argument is designed by others to conceal God. You are an unwilling disseminator of a false ideology, and the point of this calm conversation is for me to show you where you are making your judgment error. (Or possibly for you to show me mine - depending on where the actual truth of the matter lies - and that is NOT a matter of perspective!) =)
The argument does not conceal god, but rather shows that our intellect is not without our biases. To believe what is 'good' and/or 'evil' we listen to those who raised us and to what the government and social gathering tell us. This is what creates the problem... we take it upon ourselves to say what is right and what is wrong. For a god, they do not truly exist. It would elimnate ego entirely if we got rid of all our biases... ego is not bad, it keeps us human. We believe we matter, so we want to sustain our life. That is why so many people question why God kills children, and why their loved ones had to die... they are selfishly believing that their loved ones matter more than they actually do. God would change what 'sin' is based on the ideology on it while human exist because we are a constantly changing species.
Now we have to determine whether or not you believe what is written in the Bible. Do you believe he wrote the 10 commandments and at one time flooded the entire earth?
I read your answer, and you hold you position well. However, to figure right from wrong, at some point maybe 10-12 years ago, I simply tossed out all pre-conceptions and began forming my very-own set of moral convictions.
Through school-type education, through street-type education, through spiritual and religious education, through elucidating drug experience-type education - and many other ways also - I have thus far constructed a clear-enough picture of God. And I now know how to speak to Him (or Her) directly.
Do not speak for all of us regarding having biases. Once God is so clear in your mind's eye, that no church, no synagogue, no mosque will ever corrupt it - well then you can look at God directly, act like him, imitate his personality (yes, he even has a sense of humor - can you believe that?)
As far as various religious text go - I will say only this. The entire Universe is God's creation. So, God is either equal to or more than the whole of the Universe. Thus whatever happens inside this Universe - tablets appear in front of one man, or flood on this planet, or any other - all of that is the efforts and will of God.
Imitation is only another way to say you wish to be like the one you are imitating... even those who mock others by trying to act like them. This is actually a bias. And of course God has a sense of humor, look at emus (large flightless birds).
And I disagree about the "will of God"... supposedly we have free will and we decide our fates to some degree. Otherwise we are forced into being puppets and then God is not just a creator, but a dictator.
Anyone can speak to God directly. It is nothing unique. If you are alive, you have biases. Period. You would also never refer to yourself because that means you believe you are important enough to mention. Biases are not evil or bad, they can be, but not all. To eliminate your preconceived notions, you would have to erase everything about yourself and start over from scratch while still remembering the past.
You say "Once God is so clear in your mind's eye, that no church, no synagogue, no mosque will ever corrupt it" But that just mean you refuse to accept that it CAN be corrupted. Just because, in this moment, you feel like nothing could make what you see/think corrupt, does not mean tomorrow you may believe the complete opposite that you did today. Don't put yourself in such a box otherwise you will no longer grow but become narrow-minded and so set in your beliefs that no truth will ever exist but the ones in your own head.
I honestly don't really know what your argument is anymore. Whereas before you were responding to specific claims and speaking eloquently, now you are contradicting yourself here and there, and again, I can sense you lowering down to irritation/annoyance : even those who mock others by trying to act like them. For example.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and not one of mockery whatsoever. Btw, bible calls upon all Christians to be imitators of Christ.
You say "Once God is so clear in your mind's eye, that no church, no synagogue, no mosque will ever corrupt it" But that just mean you refuse to accept that it CAN be corrupted. That is a glaring contradiction. Why would I place God's image in my own head, where I can make sure it answers to MY OWN standards and MY OWN understanding of reality? - Because I feel that taking that image from any religious authority - church, synagogue, mosque and following THAT image, THAT definition - now that will corrupt it for most people. So how do I refuse to accept that it can be corrupted when I'm taking measures against specifically that? If you mean that I said that God's image is eternal and doesn't change - then I still stand by that claim fully, because you will not see me say anywhere that my picture of God is the best or full picture of God - in fact I say the opposite constantly.
Look, go back and re-read my earlier comments please, and yours too. I don't want any more of this senseless bickering. If your comments are of the same type as your last, then I will approve them but will no longer respond.
If you would like to continue having a serious conversation like two adults, I suggest you pick a specific issue or point from one of my hubs or one of my comments in the thread, and say you disagree. Then say why and build a supporting argument using facts and solid logical reasoning.
You will never convince anyone the 'other way'. And it would also help it if you were more willing to accept that you COULD very well be wrong about some things, just like the rest of us...
I apologize that you did not understand what I wrote. Naturally I will rewrite it so you can fully grasp what I meant. Also, the reason my hub was so short and "choppy" is not because that was all I had intended to write, but rather I hit "Post Comment", by mistake but before I could add details by editing it, I got sidetracked by my son and promptly forgot about my hubpage comment. I tend to write then add details in comments later on, so I apologize for not remembering to fix my comment sooner.
But first let me expand on 'imitation' first. Though there are several definitions of the word, one of the most commonly known is "the assumption of behavior observed in other individuals". For example; A child imitating a parent to learn how to do certain things. Another example would be children on a bus teasing/mocking another by pretending to be like them (A school orientated boy's glasses being taken and a bully pretending to be the boy who appreciates school is another form of imitation...) So when you said, "well then you can look at God directly, act like him, imitate his personality" I pictured a child trying to be like their parents. Then I thought about how strange it is to try to become someone you are not. After all, children desire to be like their parents... otherwise you would not have so many kids talking about how their parents are their role models. So, when you try to adopt a personality like God's, the logical conclusion is that you would like to be like God or become God. Though it is more likely you would rather be like God than actually becoming one. *Shrug*
Let me put this plainly... on the topic of biases and corruption, the very word "bias" means to be inclined towards one direction rather than another. So when a person tells me that they are not biased in the way they think and view things, or view God, I have to pause at that. Just by believing in God, you are biased in believing there is something greater than yourself out there. That is not to say that it is wrong to be biased, for there is nothing wrong with believing in things. Please do not take this the wrong way. Biases can corrupt us. For example, Brutus believed he was helping the people of Rome when he stabbed his good friend. He was biased. He believed that the people and government of Rome was so important that it was worth killing for. So even though he had good intentions, he was corrupted by his morals. Despite his resolve to be loyal and just. To believe that images held tightly cannot corrupt us can be a dangerous thing. Sometimes we do not know when others will manipulate our own high standards to make us do what they want us to do. Just like Brutus.
For your last short paragraph, about accepting that I could be wrong... your point? I hold onto one thing and one thing alone- I could fully believe I am right today and be proven wrong tomorrow. I am fine with being wrong because it means I am learning. If I was right about everything, life would be very dull indeed.
Ok, well your last paragraph was spot-on. I feel the same way - and I'm glad that we are there, at least, on the same page.
Your first paragraph - no need to apologize really. If it was a misunderstanding so be it. No reason to be upset... I will end this comment with one question: is it REALLY impossible to have someone completely without bias? I incline in all directions. I consider all points of view (the ones I can get my hands on) The rest, I'll add to my 'univrsal view' once I come across more.
The definition of bias is not having some preference, but rather having a preferred outlook, and via your biased thinking, dismissing alternative viewpoints, or alternative explanations. I make it a point of deep philosophical and religious conviction to - NEVER EVER EVER - do that.
And if I ever do such a thing, boy does Karma bite me hard. I usually don't wait for the punishment though, and simply go correct what I have done. Sins like murder, rape, etc... I will never do, so I am always able to correct my errors. They're usually very minor anyway - no one is perfect.
You asked- "is it REALLY impossible to have someone completely without bias?" -My answer, as of this moment is- It is impossible to live without biases. Biases basically mean to sway one way more than another. As I stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with that, it simply means you have conviction for your ideals. Just by using the word "sins" in your last paragraph shows you do in fact have biases in your life. You view something as wrong or evil, meaning you lean towards defining what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to murder another human, yet it is all right if it was in self-defense or to save another. *Shrug* Biases are also another way we perceive the world around us. If you find one flower more favorable than another, you have a bias that inclines towards the other flower. For example; Let's say you like to eat healthy because it is good for your body and makes you feel good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to feel healthy and live in a life-sustaining way... but that would also mean that foods having a lot of fat or grease would not make you feel as good. You dislike them, and just by having a dislike, you are biased. So, it is impossible to not have at least one preference over another.
As you mentioned that a bias is "having a preferred outlook", that is really the same thing as viewing healthy foods being better for you than junkfood.
It really goes further than that- If we want to live, we are biased into believing we deserve to live, that we have a right to sustain our life. Again, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live... but it would mean we lean towards living and prolonging our existence. We could live for 100 years and do nothing but try to be completely open-minded and without biases afflicting us, but just because we live, we have a bias.
If this was a bit difficult to understand I can expand on this, but it seems pretty straight forward as I read what I wrote over again. If not, I'll be happy to answer any questions about misconceptions in what I wrote or any other questions you may have.
Ok, now you're the one who's responding without carefully reading what I wrote. I gave a different definition of bias, and based my argument entirely on that...
bias:
a particular tendency or inclination, ESPECIALLY one that *prevents* *unprejudiced* *consideration* of a *question*; PREJUDICE. (dictionary.com) That's a sane definition. The other one? - Well yes, I'm arguing that there is an ultimate perspective that is superior to all others and that it is possible to reach and utilize that perspective - that's three of your so-called 'biases' right there!
Bias is just a word, I'm talking real, genuine truth here, Hun. Look, God does change over time, and it does have a lot to do with how we Humans, and all other intelligent races throughout the Universe that undoubtedly exist - how we all collectively perceive and understand 'God' and how our collective perception of 'God' changes over time as we interact with the physical matrix of the universe...
We are our souls - our bodies are the robot skins.
But God was there before the big bang and He was there when the Egg (Universe) was laid. And He has been there ever since and will be the only thing that remains when the physical shell of the universe is torn apart and destroyed at the end of time.
God is eternal, and yes - the Universe - the Egg, it is a huge part of him, and it is a way for him to grow and to change and to 'scrub off his dark side' as I like to call it sometimes.
And each and every one of us has a role to play in this process, this scrubbing, cleaning process of collective, Universal spiritual change. - Some will play minor roles, others major and very important ones. And everything in between. But that's a story for another hub.
I gave you a definition of bias earlier, but even with your newest one "a particular tendency or inclination, ESPECIALLY one that *prevents* *unprejudiced* *consideration* of a *question*; PREJUDICE. (dictionary.com)"... it is much of the same thing I have written above. What I wrote earlier was this- "Let me put this plainly... on the topic of biases and corruption, the very word "bias" means to be inclined towards one direction rather than another." Which is basically a rewording of what you wrote.
"Look, God does change over time, and it does have a lot to do with how we Humans, and all other intelligent races throughout the Universe that undoubtedly exist - how we all collectively perceive and understand 'God' and how our collective perception of 'God' changes over time as we interact with the physical matrix of the universe..." You are contradicting yourself because earlier you said that God does not change... just because our understanding of God changes, does not mean he does.
You seem to latch onto concepts of "dark" vs. "good" quite a bit... but then you claim you do not try to be biased. Yet you have not defined what you considered evil. You have listed rape and murder, yet you seem to forget that some may not view it as such. In fact, in some cultures, women are raped and it is considered a natural right for the men to do so.
Please do not misunderstand what I am writing, but I find you have a lot more biases than you seem to be aware of. I suppose that's the worth of being an outsider... you have a fresh look and can say what you see so the people who have always been there can take a different angle.
I did not contradict myself. Even as I argued before that God doesn't change, I still had this idea of a very large-scale, Universal change in the back of my mind. But those two are almost entirely unrelated. God is still a constant in any given location (Earth) at any given time (our entire span of recorded development).
We are most likely not the first species to have come to such a moment of being on the verge of ultimate spiritual awareness and unity. Others have come before and have changed God already with such events. Now the spiritual matrix already contains the blueprint for this type of collective planetary awakening. That is why even when we still lived in caves, God was already this advanced for many millions of years (obviously I cannot know what this number is actually).
Each time an awakening happens, the blueprint gets averaged, perfected, polished... It's a growing, learning process...
But what I'm arguing is that GOD IS A CONSTANT - something that any one of us and all of us together could look to in times of need - like a judgment tower, from the top of which truth can clearly be seen. The state of things from God's perspective: Oh look, there go little old I! Hello there God! *waves and smiles up to the top of the tower* =) Do you get it?
It's not that hard to separate subjective convictions from objective truths. This is another fact.
What do you mean - 'outsider'? ;-{
You two need to get a room, I tried to pretend to care but gave up on the insipid drivel, I mean really!
Yeah... I'm just going for the hits, and to level up on my commenter 'Accolade' icon. LoL You think I haven't seen that you're level 7 and I'm only 3? what gives?!?
But also, I was hoping she'd open up, but it just ain't happening... That's what I'm starting to feel here.
Eh, anywayz... Good argument practice, if nothing else... *shrugs*
Since you're here, check out my new Nibiru hub! =)
RighterOne- Since you clearly have no interest in actually discussing the things in comments... I'll let you in on a little secret- Commenting on your own hub does not count towards your accolades. You have to comment on other hubbers' hubs.
I still get the argument practice, plus my attempt to convince you was 100% sincere... Oh well.
Hey, I was fully prepared to counter your last comment, but after seeing that I'm pretty sure it's a waste of time considering you only want a higher score.
Considering what you just told me, and that I'm still talking, I guess it should be pretty clear that the argument was and is genuine. But then again, I think I've made my stance pretty clear, and to this point you have still not convinced me that I'm making any kind of miscalculation in my reasoning.
Though you still believe that you are not biased?
It's nearly impossible to be completely unbiased. I mean, I've had days where I came fairly close, but only because I was trying really hard. A man is a man because he is imperfect.
But bias is a very general word and has many shades of meaning. There is malicious bias, intentional bias, unintentional bias, unavoidable, accidental... Do I do everything in my power to remain completely unbiased? Always! Do I pull it off? Sometimes...
The problem is, if you believe that being unbias is something everyone should work towards, then you are taking away their humanity. To be unbiased, and to never incline towards one or another, would also mean we could not love anything or anyone. For we will choose those we love over strangers.
I'm trying to tell you that there is one ultimate perspective - the divine perspective. None of us really know what it is, or are capable of comprehending this perspective fully, but those who manage to harmonize with it, whether by accident or by deliberate effort, reap the benefits. Harmony with this perspective is the definition of love. And understanding that such a harmony exists is the defining characteristic of being human. An animal harmonizes with it instinctively, while as a sentient being you are given the capacity to understand it and the choice to accept it, which is embodied by free will.
In other words, animals are all ready in harmony while species of a stronger intellect cannot fully grasp it...
Not exactly what I said. You can submit to your instinct and become a simple-minded, animal-like pawn of God's will, in which case you will lose your humanity. Or you can exercise your free will and choose to make a conscious effort to change your behavior to correspond with the 'ultimate perspective' - but then you can no longer make the excuse that you were 'just following your instinct.'
It just sounds like you want to be like God in every possible way...
God is a perfect essence - so what's wrong with striving for perfection? And besides, we are supposed to be like God - he made us that way (see Genesis).
He made us in his "image". The fact is, if we did everything right, we would bore him. That's why we have "angels"... and whatever happened to not holding onto religious ideals?
'image' is a word, subject to interpretation. What is YOUR definition? We have 'angels'? I never knew that... (have you ever seen one?) I'm an 'Angel'... Oh, but wait, I'm also a 'Demon' Hmmm... You were the one who said that ideals were bad and outdated. I never even spoke of 'ideals' until you brought it up. Besides, 'ideals' is another word open to interpretation. what is YOUR definition?
I was talking about the ultimate perspective, and for all the 50 comments I wrote trying to open your mind to the concept (not to mention the hub itself), you are still just talking to yourself (and completely ignoring anything I say)
I'm actually starting to get bored here. If you feel like arguing for the sake of arguing, go to YouTube, there are plenty of loud-mouthed know-it-alls there, who will gladly argue with you day and night until your eyes pop out from staring at the computer screen. I'm tired of it, sorry... Think what you want, but so will I.
I get your position - I really do. I'm just seeing something else, that you are choosing to ignore. Every concept you brought up, I acknowledged... I never denied any of them. You, on the other hand, seem to think that I am just 'wrong,' and will keep arguing until you prove it. Which means - use every trick in the book to support your side. I bet you failed my quiz at the top of the hub, and then thought that it was ridiculous... Hah!
First throw away any preconceptions, then try looking at it from my perspective as well as yours, and only then decide (fresh!) which side is right, or perhaps both... Is that what you're doing? Obviously, it is NOT!
I don't know if you realize this, but you constantly contradict yourself. Anyone with half a brain would have realized long ago that I have a solid and fully valid position that is logical, well-supported, and highly practical.
I don't force my opinion onto others, but you seem to like doing that a whole lot. I know my views and positions well, I know how to defend them, and I will not hesitate to do so. They have worked for me wonderfully thus far, and I will keep to them. My mind remains open, and I reserve the full right to change my position at any time, if someone can manage to demonstrate to me that I'm wrong. You are clearly not up to the task - it takes a little more than just being a contrarian to everything I say. If you like being stubborn and contradict everything, so be it - I definitely won't be the one to stop you.
I hope there are no hard feelings, but I like being right too, I'm sure you understand...
Cheers!
You love to be "right", RighterOne. You desire perfection and that's interesting to me. I have no "hard feelings" from this comment. I normally write comments light-heartedly. This was simply just expressing different opinions and trying to see what you would write. Mostly curiousity to see if that was what you truly believed or if it was something you were taught.
How about we try my quiz? It's simple enough- break down everything you wrote in your hub to one paragraph. Only one. Then, question each sentence and point made in it. Go a little further and write out an argument for it and come up with points to defend it. If you still hold onto what you original believed/felt/thought/etc, then ask yourself if you believe it because it is true, or because it is not disproven? Simple enough. It couldn't hurt, right?
After all, if you are correct, wouldn't it make a wonderful hub? To show you challenged your own thinking and ideas... it would certainly be an interesting read.
Great suggestion. However, it's been said and done. Look again at my earlier comments - they clearly state, in only a few sentences, what the main claims are, what my beliefs are. And the subsequent comments do a wonderful job of fully supporting my claims - three times over, at that. I just re-read the entire thread, both here and in 'Reconciliation,' and I honestly had to re-state my position over and over. Question is why?
I already said that I've long ago thrown out all my preconceptions. A little late to call me on not doing that, isn't it? 'If you still hold onto what you original believed/felt/thought/etc, then ask yourself if you believe it because it is true, or because it is not disproven?' Yes, I still believe what I said - do you think I'm just running my mouth here? Why waste my time on BS? I also already said, more than once, that I do not care about being right (I like i, yes - care, no) I ask myself that question CONSTANTLY. Do YOU?
I'm not talking about what you wrote in comments to me or anyone else for that matter. But rather stating it for you and only you. When you write to someone else, it is normally trying to explain yourself so they understand you. When you write notes for YOURSELF, you can freely write without having to worry "Will another person understand this?"... to write a hub for you to argue with yourself, is basically a way to elaborate on ideas you wrote and find ways to explain it on an entirely different level. Think of it as a diary, many published diaries, like Anne Frank's, often have the writer questioning themselves and their thoughts. It might just be fun to write it out for yourself. Just a suggestion.
OK, I don't disagree - but what does that have to do with our argument? I'm NOT writing to myself! I already know these things...This is not some personal diary, it is a way to share with others. And I have no interest in arguing, especially with myself.
So you spend a week arguing back and forth with me, and now all of a sudden, I was arguing with myself the whole time? How convenient. Sorry, but it just sounds like an excuse to get away from being proven wrong.
Shoot for perfection, settle for progress!
I personally do not have a problem with being biased, I'm always right everybody else needs to grow a brain . . . what is there to argue about!
Both of you have valid points and really seem to be preaching to the choir, if you want to argue visit some of my hubs leave a comment and if I deem you worthy I will respond.
If I don't respond then you'll just have to get over it or come up with something clever to get my attention, but until then remember the Golden rule of Hub pages the author of the Hub is always right and if you disagree you can always be DENIED!
Watch what you say! You know your words can apparently make someone act like an animal, and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT! (sigh)
Also, I think you just invalidated both our arguments simply by disagreeing! You are a powerful man indeed...
Of course, I would disagree - in my opinion, a Human is responsible for his or her own actions (hence free will), and I would say some opinions are more valid than others - but since there is someone who disagrees with me, it doesn't really matter what I think anymore... Whew! What a relief! I never have to worry about being wrong or right ever again - because EVERYBODY IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING! Ya-ay!
Not at all what I said RighterOne. I simply suggest you try writing for yourself.
Oh... Well, that's an interesting idea - I've started travel journals before, dream diaries, etc... But it just never took off, because I can think quite clearly without writing - and I generally do not think in words (which language to use?), but rather in images and concepts. I have a conceptual memory also. When I try to write a journal entry, I need to sit and think about how to put these awesome concepts into just a set of words, and usually the result is disappointing, because of the limitations of spoken and written language itself.
It is obviously a different story when you write a persuasion piece that is intended to convey your ideas to OTHER readers.
If you think in images, perhaps a camera and a drawing pad would suit you better.
perhaps...
soumyasrajan Level 4 Commenter 3 months ago
Interesting article RighterOne! Nice to use quantum physics for environment.
Though I wonder why did you say "200 kinds?" I thought now standard model is much simpler only two kinds Fermions and Bosons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Even total number of Fermions which constitute main matter are only 24 now, I think + there are a few Bosons (including yet undiscovered Higgs Boson).
Also you write as if it is some kind of magic and very complicated. While over all these ideas are very simple and very clear. Any one can understand them by very simple explanations and experiments. You may perhaps enjoy this recent article on hubpages (many others are also there) and a simple cartoon movie there which explains so nicely how a particle behaves some times like a particle and some times like a wave.
http://rasta1.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Control-Life
But there are other aspects of truth as well and also philosophies about preserving. I once wrote an article on truth describing ideas from ancient Indian philosophies and how did they study truth. More recently I have been writing more details about these theories (links are given the article). These ideas include ideas from science (nothing in Indian philosophies contradicts science, the models from science are often used also to explain ideas).
http://soumyasrajan.hubpages.com/hub/Truth-what-it