NOTHING MAY BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING MAY BE CONSCIOUS, AND INFORMATION

NOTHING MAY BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING MAY BE CONSCIOUS, AND INFORMATION ...

There were lots of unusual articles I received this week, and when considered in connection to each other, they may add up to a high octane speculative "whopper doozie." Consider the following articles shared by P.S.J., and T.S.:

The Noömass Hypothesis: Is Dark Matter Made of Knowledge?

There is no dark matter. Instead, information has mass, physicist says

Nothingness Has Friction, And The Fastest Spinning Object Ever Made Could Measure It

Galileo’s Error Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

Consider just this statement in the third article:

Scientists have created the fastest spinning object ever made, taking them a big step closer to being able to measure the mysterious quantum forces at play inside 'nothingness'.

The record-breaking object in question is a tiny piece of silica, capable of whipping around billions of times per second - creating sufficient sensitivity that the team think they'll be able to use it to detect unfathomably small amounts of drag caused by the 'friction' within a vacuum.

Now, if rotational systems detecting a kind of "friction" or "drag  effect" sounds a bit familiar, it should, for in essence it forms the conceptual basis of Georges Sagnac's 1913 rotating version of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect an aether "drag" effect. But how can a nothing effect a something?

As the other articles aver, consciousness and the information it contains may have a kind of inertial mass effect. Now, while this may be news to physicists, it's not very big news to theologians or ancient philosophers. There are even terms for this effect in the literature, if one reads it in a certain way, and with an eye for the physics connection. It's called the "habit of will" and in some Greek theologians like St. Maximus the Confessor, the "gnomic will," the habits of will and choice that a person builds up over time and in a variety of circumstances and experience. Such a habit becomes or functions like a kind of psychological "inertial mass", a predisposition to respond to certain factors by choosing in a certain way, but one that can never be deterministic: the habit is there, and yet, an individual might respond completely differently than the habit indicates; the individual might change his mind and choose very differently than previous habit indicates. It's this notion, if one ponders it carefully, that lies behind the modern quest to build up databases of individuals, in order to compile statistical aggregates of predicted behavior, which is much easier to do with aggregates of individuals - or particles - than it is of any given individual (or particle).

But if so, if consciousness is all pervasive, and if human consciousness is all pervasive, as these articles suggest, then whose consciousness is it? Again, the idea and the question is not new to theologians or ancient philosophers, but in the hands of theologians, it's not a pan-psychism. It's a bit more subtle. The ancients had the conception that there were "seeds of the creative reason" in all things to various degrees, but that this was a break in kind with humans where it was present in quality, not mere quantity. We may, as Chesterton observes, share certain things in common with animals, yet, art - creativity - remains unique to man. But all things nevertheless display some of these "seeds of the creative reason." These seminal reasons, rationes seminales in the Latin, or logoi spermatikoi in the Greek, are, so to speak, reflections of the Logos, who in Christian thought is a person, and indeed, the second divine person of the Trinity. It's an unusual doctrine, in that it's another of those "both/and" cases so inimical to the "binary mind," which would have it that either one's person is subsumed and erased by that all-consuming Person at the heart of it all, or that that there is no transcending Person, but just little persons, who in their turn are but the accidental results of chemistry, and hence, personhood is merely a material illusion. It's this "both/and" view of Personhood including other personhoods that lies behind the statement in the book of Acts, "in whom we live and move and have our being." Or as Maximus put it, "the one Logos is the many logoi, and the many logoi are the one Logos."

Perhaps what's most intriguing about these developments, however, is not so much any specific connections they may have with ancient doctrines, but rather, with the fact that if these recent developments should be borne out, physics seems to be coming back to metaphysics after a long sojourn in the deserts of materialism and "method," that it should be coming back to life, and organism, rather than mechanism and materialism.

See you on the flip side...

39 thoughts on “ NOTHING MAY BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING MAY BE CONSCIOUS, AND INFORMATION ...”

  1. I would Not say the scientists are coming around. On the contrary, it seems it might be the ultimate Trap. Meaning, the final frontier of the Tower of Babel Archetype, they need to implement it, so they need a World Conception, and it CANNOT be alive, an entity, or rather – not too much. Its sort of dead but conscious MATTER generating Consciousness, so they can “explain” the phenomenon of Consciousness and maybe even “Soul” or supernatural phenomena like ghosts, new TECHNOLOGIES coming in, but not really. Instead it will just muddy the water for people trying to come around to the connection with Spirit and the rest of the Whole, by diverting their Thought Process back towards Matter and not the Living Universe. Hopefully it will also blow up in their faces, like so many things recently : ]

  2. and coming back to responsibility, and consequences.
    E Michael Jones forthcoming book Logos Rising… I actually looked up the greek word for logos in a book he quoted. I was disappointed to find only 3 pages of definitions of it, not the 5 he quoted.. https://ia902608.us.archive.org/19/items/greekenglishlex00liddrich/greekenglishlex00liddrich.pdf
    1800 pages and a large pdf file 200mb , best viewed and searched for ‘logos’ with evince under Linux.
    it’s all greek to me.
    In sicko mode, home planet water deprivation craziness, David Bowie in the Man Who Fell to Earth says “get out of my head”.
    Douglas Adam’s babblefish… too much communication.
    He was running short of Logos amidst the confusion that spreads the dissent.

    Tardis backwards is sidrat, sid being short for Sidonia, but it could just be a German town hall (the kind that brave Sir
    Einstein ran away from, accused of plagiarism).

    remember Black lives Batter, Dark matters not, until it is. think I’ll start a new religion that eventually comes back to the old ones.

    1. “Because they didn’t know better, they called it “civilization,” when it was part of their slavery.” – Agricola by Tacitus, XXI.

      Honor does not exist in natural state. Take away the concept of honor, and the fashion industry has nothing to mimic.

      Religion of logos is an attempt to imitate logic, honoring the lookalike. Followers went following, and submitted to the empire.

      Feminism is echo chamber.

  3. The problem is the dogmas change but in the end, they are dogmas ideas with no backing. Just a house of cards waiting to collapse at the first gust of new ideas that may contain the truth at last or another false trail to nowhere.

  4. This was a long time coming, The double slit experiment proved definitively that consciousness (i.e., the observer effect) rendered immanent energy or wave-forms into actual photon particles. It stunned Einstein and Bohr and made believers out of them, and its ultimate implication is that consciousness is what creates material “reality.”

    So, simply put, “reality” or the physical world is dependent upon consciousness; matter would not exist if there was no consciousness to bring it into existence. E=mc2 means that energy and mass are equivalent, balanced by the immense power of the speed of light squared, which may as well be consciousness itself.

    Quantum physics shows that electrons will change their excitation states so that at any given moment over the course of infinite time, the entire universe will fall into phase and its physical existence will wink out for a brief moment while all its material elements are in an excited, energetic phase and no matter is in existence. Poof! No matter, only immanent energy. In other words, the Big Bang.

    This is perfectly in keeping with ancient traditions, and anyone who has had extraordinary experiences beyond our mundane, shared existence will tell you that all this is quite obvious and that “reality” is a construct and that conscious intention (ref. Sheldrake) will alter the commonly perceived reality.

    Going beyond the well-established science, I’m always drawn to comments made by that arch psychopath, Donald Rumsfeld, who said during the Iraq invasion that while observers were pondering the present reality, he and his minions would be transforming that reality and that their actions would create a new reality which would confound them. This is a profound truth and illuminates exactly how an elite cabal of psychopaths control our commonly perceived reality, by having the audacity to intercede and shift it to their ends.

    I’ll leave it at that.

      1. Hi ZDB, what you have to understand about E=MC2 is that it tells us that mass (matter) and energy (wave forms) are equivalents. The double slit experiment (along with quantum mechanics) tell us that C2, the speed of light squared, has exactly the same power to transform immanent energy into matter as consciousness does. In the double-slit experiment, an observer transmutes E into M; ergo the observer has the power of C2. Consciousness is therefore equivalent to the speed of light squared, or in other words, it determines the state of the universe.

    1. Basta, well said. Including how the ‘dark side’ creates. And why this level of thinking/intuition is shamed/ridiculed/minimized by their agents…

      1. Not ridiculing. Noting that it is a reductive perspective on —- what is the term? My reductive training makes me want to say the opposite of reductive. That too is reductive.

        I am noting that we are talking in equivalencies here. And that is the best we can do. Given the subject and the nature that seems inappropriate, inaccurate n unwise. It makes good science sound like woowoo and tobacco marketing sound like science.

      2. I agree about mass and energy. I bet Einstein n his equation are far less accurate than is presumed. Will love seeing what Tesla and friends did with the concept.

  5. I don’t believe dark matter actually exists. I think it’s just a by product of computer models. But then again, I don’t believe that scientists found the Higgs Boson. But that’s neither here nor there. But … could “dark matter” be the “ether”? … which is just being misidentified? I don’t know.

    Also what happened to the other forces? I remember 25 years ago talk of other major forces like the weak, strong, gravity, and electromagnetism. Talk about them disappeared relatively (ha) quickly … so ??? Could “dark matter” just be a gremlin in their models, and dark matter is actually just a manifestation of another major force that they don’t realise is there? Or other dimensions impinging on ours??

    So many questions, so many stupid scientists. Thank god I didn’t get to do astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh … I would have throttled someone for their ongoing shortsightedness and stupidity.

    Also … do black holes actually exist??? Will we ever know … probably not in our lunchtime …

    1. Meanwhile, some of the electric universe ideas splain a lot of observable, scalable, replicable phenomena that splain some of Hawking’s et al’s unobservable ideas.

  6. I wanted to know if there was a God/Universal Consciousness with all my heart and mind back when I was a teenager argueing with my Babtist Grandmother on the subject. I studied the question of how we could come from nothing all day and used all my knowledge of physics at the time and even my own version of physics because there was a lot I was taught in school that I never agreed with. I had just got done reading everything in red which Jesus said in the New testament and felt he was a real person and had the same issues I had with his churches that I had with mine. Also I felt I understood some of his parrables better than his apostles seemed to at the time and got a different message than what some of the churches of that time preached. This was the catalyst that got me asking all these metaphysical questions to begin with. Right when I felt there was know way I was ever going to be able to figure it out for certain I had a feeling of total euphoria come over me and it all was showed to me how everything worked on the subatomic energy level and was all tied together in ever increasing scales at larger and larger intervals with slightly different properties until some of these manifested everything we perceive as the material. But most importantly I was showed that there was no such thing of nothing/total emptiness and never was. It only exists as a mental concept of the ignorant and is an impossibility outside of ignorance. Everything is immortal and constantly changing from one form to the other and back again through infinity.

    1. Thank you. Well written.

      Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. By definition there is no such thing as no thing. There is no such thing as nothing. There are plenty of thinks that are nothing.

      Some one else wrote here recently about this talking about constructs and descriptors as though they are phenomena. That talk does not make them phenomena. What it does do is expose woowoo sounding talks as marketing aka tobacco science. I think the subjects described as though they were physical entities were some descriptors – like time, the speed of light, G and other standards that are turning out to be not so standard.

      Science entails sticking to phenomena and objects that we can observe. Ideas that we can prove. Or disprove.

      When someone shows me a sample of nothing and some useful observations about it, I might start being convinced. Meanwhile, this gets lumped into Stephen Hawking land next to blackholes, big bang, gravity waves, time/space continuum and other un-measureable, unobservable and unproveable ideas.

      If memory serves this is another weird kind of imposition of Hegelian dialectic.

    2. Roger, you may have inadvertently ‘used’ a technique Joseph Chilton Pearce described in The Crack in the Cosmic Egg: New Constructs of Mind and Reality (1971):

      In brief, decide on something you want to know. Pursue every path to try to find out what you want to know. Be passionate about it. If you have exhausted every resource and still do not have your answer, release the quest . Walk away…

      Then, something happens. Somehow, God/the Universe/whatever responds to the intent and passion. The complete, unaccessible ‘answer’ appears, fully formed. Voilà…

      This technique can be used for mundane and sublime purposes. It sounds like you picked a lofty quest and got your needed ‘response’, Roger…

      1. I did discover that by accident and it does work on just about anything you want to know. It seems the more you trust in this the easier and deeper the relationship becomes. But when translating what is shown in words and thoughts afterwards it seems impossible to describe it accurately or fully enough because while you see and understand it all in the moment of connection it really is too much for the unconnected mind to fully retain and describe afterwards. But its not just physics and spiritual stuff the Universe will find a way to answer but political and personal relationship stuff as well. But wanting to know the answer to something with all your heart and doing everything you can to find the answer and trusting the answer will be revealed if you are ready for it seems to be the key. Most people just don’t want to know strongly enough to search as thoroughly as they can and have deadened their capacity for passion which seems to be the key to connection. Might be the real reason for all the chemicals in the food and water and drugs.

        1. Roger, very well said. Yes, emotional investment (passion) does seem to be a key. I have an analogy which I use to explain the process. A car analogy. The intellect is the steering wheel. The emotions are the accelerator pedal. Combine both, and you get ‘movement’. Omit or minimize the emotion component, and it either does not happen or takes forever to ‘show’.

          If you were a baddie, you would want to both restrict basic knowledge on ‘sensitive’ subjects – a person would not know the questions to ask – and desensitize the populace to their own passion. Keep it up in the intellect (only), and you’ve got them…

          And yes, retaining as much of the ‘experience’ as possible is hard. They occur in higher or more out-there consciousness levels. Writing stuff down ASAP while still partially ‘in’ that state is important – even if it seems weird as you write it down. Later reflection on those materials may tease out the meaning or induce further revelations.

          Another process which I use on those experiences is to establish ‘bridging’ metaphors while still partially in that state. Earthly experiences which are close-enough in intent to the original material. I call it down-shifting . That way, the material is not ‘lost’ when we return to ordinary consciousness, although ‘coarsened’. Be especially aware of any emotional ‘cues’ that came-in along with the intellectual stuff. They may be deeply important…

          1. This is some seriously NON-reductionist perspective. Appreciate it. James Redfield wrote a bit about related ideas.

            Also, ideas of using the conscious mind’s linguistic perspective (left brain?) to speak well in the present tense for the unconscious mind’s less-linguistic perspective (right brain?) to listen and reply in some usually non-linguistic method. Like repeating a question on each breath as one falls asleep and waking up with a notebook to record the perceived reply.

            I think this was brought up a few posts ago along with the power of a group of people working on the same question. Some sage wise guy suggested we pick a question here, go to sleep on it and report back the next day with what we find.

          2. ZDB, your left-right brain ‘translation’ suggestion might be at the core of why the corpus callosum was ‘retained’ by Mother Nature. (And this gets back to the question of why would you ‘design’ a brain in two halves, anyway?)

          3. G, as i understand it the corpus c is the hurting part of an autist’s brain. Roger fouts postulated that both sides were good but the signals between were painfully chewed up. Hence visual and auditory signals combined phisically hurt.

            As for purpose, my first guess is specialization. Remember seeing evidence of either side picking up for the other thru neuroplasticity in event of damage.

            Don’t dolphins have similar, larger and in some ways more advanced brains too? And they do not sleep but instead just switch sides? Makes me wonder about what we do. Naturally, artificially and in between.

    3. Right on, Roger!! The Universe is a Living Organism & we are all a part of it!! Your final sentence is brilliant!!! I would say that is why whatever Belief System one clings to does not really matter….none of us know what the True Reality IS!!

      Reading these comments brought to mind the story of a wh.blower who had been in ‘Nam & remembers one day fleeing as fast as he could, running thru’ a horribly muck & muddy field with his boot sole flapping trying to imagine he was running along a sunny beach in flip-flops! He kept “thinking” he was running on the sunny beach when, all of a sudden, he WAS running down a sunny beach! ;-0
      In other words, his mind had created what it was told to!!!

      I tend to believe his story as it is becoming apparent we human beings are VERY powerful beings, we’ve just been dumbed down for centuries, not realizing WHO we really are!!! Who was it that said, “Ye are gods”!!! 😉

      1. I suspect “TRUE” reality’s full potential is infinite, but our consciousness only operates on a very narrow range of potentials. I suspect expanding consciousness in different directions of potentials may validate opposing truths to those who have expanded their consciousness to the experiences of opposing potentials. There appears to be a natural fear in cultures of those who believe in radically different beliefs and goals to the point that some of them put others to death over it. Makes one wonder about the true nature of the fishers of souls and why it seems so important to gather and keep as many souls as possible in their own chosen narrow net of potentials. Perhaps the solidity of potential experiences somehow increases in potential with the more conscious mass that is applied to it?

        1. From what I’ve been reading, you are right on; they know it too. If they create the ruts into which you are born, and then throw a net (hello 5G) over those ruts, what are your chances of escaping the terrain?
          Hi-hoh!

  7. In high school, my friend & I used to have many arguments on this subject. My view: nothing is something; but, something is not nothing. He though nothing is nothing; and, something is something. They don’t mix

    1. WOW!
      Just reading a couple of links has me scratching my noodle.
      To measure ‘nothingness’. Looks like readers are having to swallow too many hooks, lines, and sinkers in this information pond. Good thing is; many unknown truths slip out their loops, in the framing these twisted, knotted lies.
      Is friction something?
      The group behavior is really what “they’ want to control. So they will jam the “results'[their way of thinking]/into statistics. Like ladies of the night; being made to conform.

    2. Brings to mind: communication of information. In other words; how many information pathways are branching in & out; from whence to hence? Oh, it is a deceitful web that is being spun, depending upon ‘intention[s]’??
      Ah! The real desired breech. Moving from binary thought[s], toward the metaphor thought interface.

      Back to the future?
      Is coming on all fronts; and, in-spades[binary] no less.

    1. Sounds like aether to me. I’m not a physicist, thus I’m out of my domain. Upon learning of Georges Sagnac’s 1913 rotating version of the Michelson-Morley experiment and it’s success in demonstrating the original as flawed, his conflicting result has been strangely ignored. What if the universe is vaping after all, with aether manifesting itself as smoke?

    2. YES!….thank you Dana. The whole “quantum”/”particle” model is dead….mainstream science is still poking at a corpse, thinking the postmortem twitching is some kind of evidence for..something?…and/or “nothing that’s something”?….it’s tragically sad…so many intelligent people foolishly clinging to a dead paradigm.
      I can’t find it at the moment, but Eric P Dollard and another experimenter(can’t remember who) , working on dielectric/magnetic/aether stuff supposedly created a “small universe in a bottle”….and when they, unknowingly, brought in a certain kind of person ( sociopath/bad intentions) to see the experiment in action, it catastrophically failed…in his direction!….witnesses claim “the universe in a bottle” displayed sentience! Sounds a lot like a “nothing that’s something” to me….but what do i know, lowly internet dot connector that i be.
      Check out this book by James DeMeao…(i ain’t asking, but wouldn’t it be great if Doc could read and review it?)
      https://emediapress.com/2019/10/23/the-dynamic-ether-of-cosmic-space-by-james-demeo-ph-d/
      LOTS of other great stuff on the site of the above link.

  8. In hard-core Heathenry, one is naturally inclined to transcend, since one is born free. When one is born as slave, then one needs to compensate for loss of instincts. That compensation is Christianity, especially designed for imperial victims, as “Druidry for dummies”.

    Statistics of Druidic Meritocracy:

    100% of men are able to understand, that there are more to the Runes, than just nursery rhymes.

    50% of men can understand 50% of the Runes, that are prepubertal and premarital.

    5% of men are mentally able to grasp 100% of the Runes, as Rightfully understood.

    5% of men are spiritually inclined, as Druidic.

    5% of men are emotionally blood related to every clan, as Cyning by blood.

    0.000125% of men are Rightful-Druidic-Cyning.

    One out of ten thousand!

    Reestablishing the throne of David, by anointment, is diabolic puppet lottery of banking casino.

    Anointment is just ritualized spectacle, keeping up appearances, whereas kingship by Runes is scientific.

    Papacy doesn’t want you to know this, because pope magic is, to produce hot air, and bestow it like grace.

    One draws sword-needle from fodder-haystack, to pop the dragon-balloon.

    This is fun!

    Doctor Who’s Tardis: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/qav7519hrnzumpp/kylie-the-kangaroo.jpg

  9. Without yet having dug through the articles, the mere titles produced an “aha” connection for me. I have long regarded Babylon 5 as a Truth series, like X-Files and such. Somebody wants to get certain things out to the public, and so it is put in novelistic (and deniable) form.

    In Babylon 5 , there was always great emphasis on the First Ones going “beyond the Rim” to parts unknown. One defining moment was when Lorien led the remaining First Ones out “beyond the Rim” (a seemingly irreversible action). I always wondered about this phraseology. Plopping into the galactic halo or the spaces between the galaxies seemed too trite. It also did not fit with death or suicide imagery, but rather a change of form in some manner…

    What if this is related to “There is no dark matter. Instead, information has mass,” and “Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?”

    The First Ones would have been powerful ‘carriers’ of “habit of will” or “gnomic will.” Imagine million-year-long “habits of will and choice that a ‘person’ builds up over time and in a variety of circumstances and experience.” What if this became not only psychological “inertial mass”, but some kind of actual “inertial mass”? What if (our) First Ones were somehow the scientifically-unseeable (in a materialistic-testing manner) source of what has been only deduced as some form of Mass? What if those who came before us were still ‘resident’ in some manner?

    I wonder if the folks giving ‘hints’ to the script-writers of Babylon 5 were sprinkling seeds of Truth to any discerning viewers…

    1. If my theory of dimensional scales has merit then our whole universe and many others exist in the physical mind and brain of another us that exist at an infinitely larger scale of re-being. Also many other minds and universes exist at the sub-atomic level inside our physical minds and meta-physical consciousness. Then consciousness would really pervade all the universes. Imagine all these consciousnesses interacting slightly on the sub-conscious level with each other sometimes despite the sub-conscious and conscious filters we’ve biologically developed to try to keep them separate from our newly manifested biological robot that’s created in sympathy with particular potential physical and mental experiences only in mind. Say we have brain damage from a physical injury or toxic substances and some of these barriers are lowered in some individuals so some sub-conscious and conscious knowledge, emotions, thoughts, and experiences leak through as dreams, nightmares, and new ideas for inspiration for behavior, creating new fiction ideas or new scientific break throughs. We perceive this as being a genius when actually we are only picking up on what really exists for someone else somewhere else. Perhaps growing consciousness breaks through more biological barriers and merges our consciousness more and more with the many consciousnesses we newly connect with on other potential scale both within our physical mind and without.

Comments are closed.