Charity

Charity is, a characteristic,

perceived beyond realistic.

Becomes the personality,

with power in reality.

 

Charity, the characteristic,

prevails in those who risk it.

It’s Pascal’s wager, wins always,

for charity, for happy days.

 

But that what charity does present,

diminishes all it represents.

And that what charity does consist,

glows brighter when the plight persists.

 

And when that plight begins to fade,

it’s so-called truth retreats in shade.

Can’t be true then, that what is right,

is only that what, exists in light.

The Nature of Truth


An idea is the perfect form of the thing it relates to by virtue of its limitations within its truth. This is the pure idea, how it exists theoretically and in isolation.
A true idealist can only be a realist in reality. The idea inevitably unravels within the vastness of other infinitely perfect ideas. It is only when it does not unravel, are you a realist.

Do I move or does the World move?

img_4044

Ain’t it weird how I move and the world does not? Or is it that the world moves, and I do not…?

Internal processing of external movement manifests itself in two ways:
External objects that are not fixed to the earths surface (in a stationary/inert way);
external objects that are fixed to the earth’s surface (in a stationary/inert way).
The former relates to other living entities, man-made machines, gases, liquids etc…
The later relates to what we consider the earth’s surface itself. An earthquake is a good example of when our senses, and survival mechanisms are dumbfounded.

But why do we have the ability to comprehend that things are either moving or they are stationary? My deduction is that, what we think of as moving and not moving, is only true to the extent that our internal alerts are triggered, recognising a difference between ourself and external stimuli.

The things that we recognise as moving, become more recognisable relative to the distance observed over a certain period of time, traveling away or towards ourselves.
Therefore the moving things that we are less able to recognise as moving, are the things that move closer to the movement in which we ourselves are moving.

This recognition of external movement is not really movement and non-movement. It is simply all movement that diverges from the speed at which we are traveling.

And doesn’t this prove existence?
It demonstrates that we are travelling at a certain objective speed, controlled by gravity and other forces which are specific to our external environment. These forces have in turn been determined based on the objective agreement that common observable external things, are moving at an agreed rate.

Everything that does move, to our recognition, is rational based on the common truth of ‘ourselves’. This is mathematics (laws of physics, including theoretical physics).

This common truth can only be the mind. The mind is the thing that recognises, even when it itself is still. Our minds are the things that aren’t moving.

The unmoved mover.

Realisation and Distraction (2nd edition)

img_4042

Realisation and distraction,
the curse of one another.
The curse they know because they are,
but equal to each other.

Growth of each, extends the curse,
dilutes the truth they stem from.
But look at what’s diluting them,
the substance extending – its will to diverge.

What misconception this creates –
expansion despite resistance.
Expansion is resistance –
the substance is the curse.

But one is roots and one is fruit,
the fruit is tempting time.
It welcomes its neighbours, seeks to recruit.
While the roots are the ones to dine.

Each stem from common substance,
the roots create fruit in abundance;
must therefore be the same.
The fruit is the roots to gain.

Learning From Mistakes

img_4024

Relates to an objective and, the things that didn’t achieve it.

The objective is not clear but, it certainly is ahead.
Were mistakes, as now believed,
once part of the objective?
So then the certainty of this objective, is certainly part mistake.
Or have I mistaken the objective?
Is this what learning is?

What is learned from each mistake,
does not extinguish learning;
and each mistake and what is learned, exists within that learning.

And what regard we give to learning, composed of each mistake!
Not knowing where we’re going,
except only that we’re learning.

So learning is ahead of us,
made
clearer
by
mistakes.

 

The Force of Reason


It has no existence,
until it is the cause,
that causes recognition
of the change that it has caused.

Such observation may be slight.
Not much change caused, by recognition.
But observing change, caused by that recognition might,
cause greater change, again.

And so the thing with no existence,
is recognised by change.
And when observed, the cause – not change, it starts to lose resistance,
and there it is without a cause, no reason thus to wage.
Anticipation

Things and Time


They say that the things you buy represent the time you’ve spent earning the amount of money it takes to pay for them.
For me, yes the things I buy to live, do do that. But living is also an expenditure of the time you have to live.
Thinking is time spent observing infinity.
If buying things, by the money you have earned, by the time you have spent earning it, supports you living – then you have time to think.

The Dependencies of Collective DeterminismĀ 

I don’t think this all means nothing, and getting to this point is precisely the reason why I think this.
The will to survive has taken us on an extraordinary journey, in the physical sense and in the conscious sense.

Consciousness being an extension of the physical self, which is itself physically created, however we cannot comprehend it, because it is comprehension.

Just because we cannot recognise consciousness as a physical manifestation, doesn’t mean that it does not exist in the same way that a molecule of blood does. Ok consciousness is not an element of the universe but it is created by elements, in the same way that light is created from combustion, electromagnetism and other reactions. 

Thought is an energy by product of neurotransmitters and physical pathways in the brain. Thought can be determined by deducing the possible outcomes of the energy created in a brain under specific controls. Background information is required in order to understand the structure of that persons brain given the environment that they have developed in. But I’m sure presumptions can be made in order to predict quite an accurate outcome.

An analogy that might go some way to support this idea is that within our bodies similar processes are occurring all the time that we give no such regard to as we do thought. For example heat generation through the process of respiration. This is a biproduct of mitochondrial activity in our cells which escapes into the outside world. It is not of physical essence.

Back to my original thought…
An explanation of human consciousness often reverts back to religion, or a creator. Which works pretty well from a survival perspective because it creates, or provides purpose for morality and also fear. Diminishing the harsh animalistic natures that only consider the basic needs of the body. Thus encouraging an environment where the collective recognise their potential. The idea of a creator keeps the animalistic instincts at bay during this period of growth. But that is all it is doing, keeping them at bay, which quite frankly means that there is not a creator of the kind we imagine because otherwise why would this diminished attitude towards individual survival have come about?
The predicament we now find ourselves in is that the very thing that has softened our attitude to others…created our consciousness…is also the thing that continuously demonstrates itself to be the rational or ‘logic’ for a return to our animalistic instincts.
This observation quite clearly solidifies the belief that religion is a product of consciousness, consciousness is a product of survival; and when a product of consciousness fails to do what it was created to do, the consciousness attacks and adjusts its understanding of survival. 

The problem we have is that the development of conscious beliefs occur over varying lengths of time and are isolated to various collective groups which means that the attack or shift in belief systems do not occur simultaneously amongst all peoples.
Under this premise it is easy to comprehend how irreconcilable wars are triggered if one group of conscious thought is at a different stage to another’s 

So therefore I do not despair at the loss of a benevolent creator, because there was no such thing. In fact I live in hope that we are collectively moving towards a greater understanding of the purpose of survival. The will to survive is beauty itself and I don’t mind being part of that process, for whatever reason. It’s surely out of my control.

The Role of Time in the Concept of Something and Nothing


Time is a measure of change, but it has many dimensions:

1. My living time – the things that change within my current surroundings;
2. Collective (human) learned time – a structured accepted measure of living time. This can also be applied retrospectively to past times (from human, earth perspective);
3. Observation of a time that has occurred in the past, in the present living time.

Understanding that an observed past event is not happening in our living time demonstrates the following:

1. Time is a human construct, which enables us to rationalise our existence as separate from being an essence of time;
2. Living and past time can occur at the same time when observed by reason;
3. To know that you exist in the living time and also accept the observable past time must mean that existence is different from time;
4. This breaks down the generally posited idea that change = time and that this rule applies universally and relatively. How can we exist and be subject to the natural laws of the universe, while at the same time also observe the past?

This creates a loophole in relativity. This loophole is actually a revelation of the fact that it doesn’t work to apply our standard measure of living time, to the past and to the future – because living measurement of time changes as the composition of our environment changes…relativity!!

So of course we cannot conceptualise a time when there was nothing, however we can conceptualise a time when we did not know that a past event had occurred, even though it had. We just did not have the tools to recognise it, nor the ability to translate it into our relative understanding of ‘living’ time.

We think of no time, as ‘nothing’, but isn’t that the same as the past event that did occur that we have not observed yet?

The difference between something and nothing is not time and no time, but human recognition of a change in matter, whenever identified.

This solidifies my understanding that time is not the measure of something from nothing, nor the product of something…it is the evidence that something is just a view, restricted by time, of everything. Everything being both something and nothing.

Entropy and Time

Continued discussion on reverse predictability (see previous blog ‘entropy and the singularity’).

Shared entropy that exists between the possible microscopic configurations of combined macroscopic environments, is only shared up until the point that the actual configuration is realised. Once this occurs, when viewed retrospectively – this outcome is the only possible outcome. This is because time makes the process irreversible and unchangeable. It HAS happened.
But what if we can use this logic to infer greater insight into probability – can this work in ‘reverse predictability’s’ favour? The random outcome which does occur, creates irreversible change in the microscopic and macroscopic environments, changing the shared entropy in a unique way. If we know all the possible microscopic configurations of the shared entropy, then we can also know how each configuration, if achieved, would change the micro and macroscopic environments. There is a vast number of possible configurations…it’s a three dimensional matrix made up of all the shared entropy configurations. This vastness of possibilities cannot be predicted (they are equally likely), and then when the magnitude of the universe is considered, the matrix of possibilities is infinite.
But infinity will always convey an infinite number of possibilities. Why don’t we use the physical corrosion of time to visualise the behaviour of infinite probability?
Look at how time changes the direction of infinite probability. Each irreversible outcome, eliminates that precise event from ever occurring again. From this perspective, we can look at all things that have happened and know this:

1. They were possible in the past;
2. They are no longer possible in the future – although there are still infinite possibilities in the future, these are not included in that vastness;
3. All the possible outcomes that were equally likely to occur, but didn’t, do two things – they either also become impossible in the new infinity of possible outcomes, or they remain possible in the new infinity.
4. So the outcomes that did occur, and the outcomes that are no longer possible because of the outcomes that did occur, exist in a non-existent world, in parallel to the infinite future.
5. This is helpful for reverse predictability because the eliminated non-existent outcomes are finite – we can travel back, layer by layer, reducing possible outcomes based on the destruction of time.

I don’t believe this demonstrates the possibility of infinite parallel universes. The opposite in fact, I think this demonstrates that the universe behaves exponentially, but the exponential behaviour is not linear – it is three dimensional, swaying through infinity. However the definition of exponential is expansion – expansion from what? Exponential growth of zero is zero, as is 1. You need 2 for exponentialism to exist.

If we can’t fathom how something can come from nothing, then why don’t we deduce what the only possible outcome was, from two possible outcomes? The macroscopic environment that created the outcome that did occur, is the same environment that contained the equally possible configuration of the outcome that didn’t occur. This is the singular state that sparked the exponential growth of the infinite universe. God knows what this is šŸ¤” any ideas??