The purposes of
this essay?
[a] I find that
writing my thoughts down helps align and organise my thinking therefore reduces
the burden these thoughts place in my mind, and helps make sense of reality.
[b] Some who
have the patience and interests in what a 50 year old businessman, scientist
and voracious reader has learned about reality and is still learning – may find
some insight, agreement, disagreement within my thought process, to provoke
their own thinking, and perhaps make them smile.
[c] I think
Walter White [aka Heisenberg] from Breaking Bad summed it up well at the close
of the final episode – I did this for me.
I consider my eccentric
nature attributable to my voracious reading, listening to music and viewing
films that make me “think” and contemplate; as well as related to my childhood,
growing up on the grounds of mental institutions due to my father being a
psychiatrist [now retired].
It’s perhaps
best to read this, when you have time, and a glass of Scotch in your hand.
I’m on day 3 of
an unprecedented 14 days leave over the Christmas holidays, as my business goes
on a winter shutdown. I now have plenty of time to think without distractions.
This year the whole family will be spending it at our home in England , and not going to Dublin
I feel my
internal energy levels rise as my biological battery recharges, as I take time
to explore my thoughts, and re-booting my internal operating system.
As a
counterpoint I have a staggering array of books to read, both for pleasure as
well as professionally for The Crime Writers Association, being involved as a
literary judge. I also have a stack of DVDs to chose from and I may well do some
of my own writing.
As I have aged I
have reduced patience [or inclination] for ‘general / small talk’, as I have
found resonance and solace with Jean-Paul
Charles Sartre’s infamous saying ‘Hell is Other People’. I recall as a young
student, a tutor once told me that as we traverse the educational process,
depending how far we travel, the narrower will be our spectrum of interest.
This statement I have found to be true. At 16, in the UK we did ‘O-levels’ for
which I studied 9 subjects, then at 18 it was narrowed to 4 [actually 5] for
me, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, General Studies and a year of Advanced
Mathematics. Then for my Degree it was one subject – Applied Chemistry
[combining Organic, Inorganic, Physical, Analytical and Industrial Chemistry].
If I had continued for an MSc or Doctorate, then it would be a tiny aspect of
that one subject.
In
my twenties and thirties my thinking had been tamed into one that logic and the
principles of science were applied to manage my perceptions; influencing my thinking.
The result of all this, created or at least shaped the way I viewed the reality
that surrounded me.
Now
at fifty, an honest assessment of my thinking reveals that the only real
interests [and thoughts] I have; ones that I am keen to explore relate to [a]
my family [b] trying to understand [and make sense of] the reality around me
and how it is constructed and presented [c] reading and writing about crime and
thriller novels, and their writers, editors, publishers [d] Chemistry, which is
my profession and something that I am good at and [e] my friends, whom I am
privileged to have many [all to greater and lesser degrees]. These shape my
world view.
Considering
that my interests are now [1] very narrow [2] the people that share some of my
interests are scattered around the world and [3] none of us have much free time
to interact and [4] I feel I have found my place in the world and have nothing
to prove or impress anyone with, nor the requirement for receiving the
acceptance or approval that a child craves from his parents or his / her
peers – hence why I have such an
attraction to Facebook.
People
say Facebook is a real time-suck. So? What else were you planning to do from
your own pack of “interests / needs” that make your own internal / biological
operating system work? I agree that FB does take up a lot of time, but without
it one would never be able to keep track of what, and who we term friends.
Happiness
is a curious concept for those who think about it. Happiness is not constant,
it waxes and wanes like the tides pulled and pushed by the influence of the
moon, ie influenced by the forces of an external source. One of the external
sources that influence the shifting of our moods, and therefore our happiness
is our family, another are our friends. So for those who are time constrained,
with a narrow bandwidth of areas that stimulate, low tolerance for small-talk
that is outside our bandwidth of interest [and with that pool of family and
friends that are scattered geographically], then Facebook is one small way that
can assist in the happiness area.
With
two weeks off, at home with my family, my books, films, and no desire to meet
people in a random manner [due to a slim chance of meeting anyone with shared
interests], I’m reading books, viewing films that stoke and recharge my
internal operating system, and of course I’m using FB for keeping in touch with
my friends, so I don’t cognitively isolate myself. A number of my FB friends
are writers [many physical friends too], and as they often work in isolation,
they too use FB as a way of connecting to people with shared interests.
So
without further ado, I’d like to put some of my thoughts, my examinations of
reality into context like the rhythmic drum beat in Paul Simon’s ‘The Obvious
Child’ so that the words ‘I’m accustomed to a smooth ride’ makes some form of
sense. The act of committing them to paper or a screen, helps me dissect how my
own mind works, and these are observations that have taken decades of
experiencing reality to take shape. They also indicate to me how bloody clueless
I was when I was younger.
Some
people feel age, and all the problems that relate to age are awful. I take the
converse view. It is a true privilege to age for two crucial reasons [a] many
do not make it to old-age as Reality is random and dangerous, many not living
into old age as a result and [b] as we age we see things in a more enlightened
manner, because of all the things we’ve observed, the situations we’ve seen,
read about, and thanks to the conscious mind’s ability in pattern recognition,
we see the world and the traces of evidence that there maybe some form of
design. It is debateable if that design is intelligent, one issue being what we
define as intelligent is as complex as the reality that surrounds us.
The Line between Bravery
and Stupidity is Diffuse
The
business I planned in 2002 started trade on the 8th of October 2004.
I took great personal risks setting up the business, and I am not being
melodramatic in revealing that it nearly cost me my life, such was the
financial and professional risk I took on. I have discovered that the line
between bravery and stupidity is a diffuse one, and sometimes an element of
stupidity is important in creating bravado, something that can assist when the
walls are crumbling. It takes sheer bravery and bravado from allowing the
implosion of the wall, and therefore the dream from collapsing.
Next
year the business I help set-up, and manage will celebrate its tenth
anniversary, with a turnover a little below £10M [~$16M]. I now only own just
short of 3% of the business, but am glad as being a small shareholder in a
profitable, technologically advanced, and growing business [that with my team,
I manage] is far, far better than being a big shareholder in a business that is
insolvent.
During
the darkest days of the set-up, when my back was so close to the wall I felt
the brick dust against the back of my neck - with debts mounting up, and my
personal liabilities weighing me down like a ball and chain shackled to my
ankles – I was in a bad way. If someone had come up to me and said they would
take the company over, and release me from my debts [and most crucially] my
financial liabilities – but it would cost me my right arm, I’d have replied
immediately, and without pause or deliberation saying ‘thank you and pass me the fucking hack-saw’. You see I proved that
Fredrich Nietzsche was correct, when he wrote that ‘the thought of suicide gets
a man through a difficult night’. The emphasis is on the word – thought, I hasten to add, even if those
thoughts were as vivid as the reflection of my face in the mirror.
I
have often pondered over the years why I took such a huge and life-changing risk,
and I have come up with these key answers.
[A]
Despite outwardly stating that I did this to provide long term financial
security for my family, as well as illustrating that the son of an immigrant
can add benefits to his Country [Great Britain, a place I love] by contributing
to the economy and employing people – the truth however was contained in what
Heisenberg said when he’d finished his job ‘I did this for me’.
[B]
At my age I realised that my greatest enemy is myself. When I planned the
start-up, I was fully aware of the adversity and danger that was ahead of me if
I were to go into business. The real issue was how would I live with myself if
I chose not to take the hard path, because as I aged [and without the benefit
of foresight, but coupled to a vivid imagination] I would live the rest of my
days in the desolate land of the ‘what
if’, knowing I was weak and did not take the chance [aka opportunity] I
discovered. This would rot at my soul, because when we ‘imagine the future’,
the inherent human condition is for optimism so I would have always believed
[rightly] that I could carve a successful business from scribbles on the back
of a pack of Marlboro, into reality. That thought could be one that would
trigger my demise, and so I thought at the time ‘buckle up, it’s gonna be a
rough ride’, and it sure was.
Retaining
my sanity in business during the start-up, and then later when the mighty
Lehman Brothers fell [starting the ensuing economic turmoil that still echoes
around stock markets today], and the usual issues businessmen face in today’s
fucked-up economy – is my passion for reading crime thrillers. They not only
distract me from my problems, but also have over the years changed my thinking.
A love detective fiction has made me adept at problem solving, thinking
imaginatively and making me paranoid in identifying the problems [and solutions]
cognitively, as well as gaining insight into human nature, as doing business
with people is as complex as the motivations of protagonists and antagonists
battling between the covers of a crime thriller.
Viewing the world as a giant fish tank
Let me tell you a story of
the cod fish. At the turn of the century cod fish were in much demand on the
east coast of America
We all have and need catfish in our lives to keep us fresh.
We all have and need catfish in our lives to keep us fresh.
It is up to you to decide
who, and what are the Catfish in your own lives as you swim through the giant
fish tanks we term reality or existence. At times of stress when you feel the
teeth of the Catfish at your heels, it is easy to feel angry at the stress
caused by them chasing you continually.
The intelligent will realize
that we may not enjoy the company of the Catfish in our lives. Many times you
may well consider your loved ones as one of the many irritating Catfish in your
lives; our bosses, wives and husbands, our parents, our children and our
friends – who make us who we are.
But to remain, agile, fresh
and motivated in the areas that are truly important in our lives, like it or
not, we should understand the importance of the Catfish that surround us, and
what they do for us.
"The trick, William Potter,
is not minding it hurts."
I would like to share some
thoughts which were prompted when I learned of the passing of the Anglo-Irish
actor Peter O’ Toole. This dragged out a distant memory from my childhood; and
one that made me think deeply, and one that changed the way I view the
professional and personal problems I confront, and overcome.
As a child I watched David Lean’s 1962
film ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ which featured the late Peter O’ Toole, several
times. This was due to my father’s enthusiasm for this film, probably due to
him always thinking he looked like its co-star Omar Sharif, and he told me that
Sharif’s character was named Sherif Ali. I always thought he named me after
this character, though he denies it.
I would like to share a few lines from the movie that influenced my
young and developing mind. Following seeing the film for the first time, my
father explained the significance of the scene when Lawrence Lawrence
Sometimes there would be difficult challenges
to overcome, but I would have to be stoical, embrace the adversity and not show
pain, weakness but work through them and in so doing, it would make me strong.
As a child I looked up to my father and so his words echoed in my mind as I
tried to understand what he meant and the significance of the burning match between
Lawrence’s fingers. My father was trained as a psychiatrist, now retired and as
eccentric in his thinking as his eldest son, even when he was a young man.
The astute understand the axiom that doing anything worthwhile is hard,
and at times painful. Some cope with the pain of change, while others don’t.
The ones that succeed understand that the management of reality exists
principally in the mind. The outcome of any adversity rests firmly in how we
view the problem, and the wider ramifications and context of the problem and
the ability to smile though the rain.
In the lead up to last years Ridley Scott film “Prometheus”, the
Australian actor Guy Pearce [playing Peter Weyland] references David Lean’s
Lawrence of Arabia in a remarkable viral video.
“T.E. Lawrence, eponymously of Arabia but very much an Englishman, favoured pinching a
burning match between his fingers to put it out. When asked by his colleague
William Potter to reveal his trick, how is it he effectively extinguished the
flame without hurting himself whatsoever, Lawrence
"The
trick, William Potter, is not minding it hurts."
As a young kid, that scene resonated in me as I realized that my Father
and TE Lawrence were right, as successfully overcoming challenges often depends
on this principle of “not minding that it hurts”.
Later in life as I read
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, I realised
that part of his view of life was based on this concept, though he expanded
upon it. Nietzsche detailed that we should embrace, even look forward to
challenges and adversity as the act of overcoming them makes us stronger, which
became the mantra ‘What does not kill me,
makes me stronger’.
The lesson
being that the ups and downs of reality [and our lives] can be managed by the
mind, and we must never allow adversity to overwhelm us, instead harness it - because
if it were easy, any idiot could do it.
The reality we view is
Holographic and only exists when observed
I
have always been interested in science and the arts and their
inter-relationship, from childhood, the concepts of accepted wisdom via logic
as well as the more esoteric referenced by the moods that wash over us. One
concept that has always fascinated me since I first read it, is the question ‘Does a falling tree in a forest make a
sound if there is no observer present?’ I grappled with this for many years
always concurring with what some quote as accepted wisdom ‘of course it makes a sound’. That was the case until several years
ago when I started reading about ‘The Observer Effect’, or ‘The Hawthorne
Effect’, and the critical nature of what brings existence into reality. It is
now accepted wisdom that reality does not exist [and can not exist] without the
presence of an observer. The solution to the falling tree dilemma can be
addressed by two empirical experiments, and a physically real one –
[a]
Understanding the duality of the existence of matter when one observes or chooses
not to observe the Cat that Schrödinger put in his box, where the cat can be
either alive or dead, or both at the same time.
[b]
When a tree falls in a forest, the movement of displaced air molecules, dust
and objects such as foliage will make a sound if there is an observer with a tympanic
membrane [ie ear] or microphone for the displaced air molecules to hit and make
vibrate and record the evidence of the falling tree. Failure to have an
observer [could be a human Observer, and Animal or a Microphone] with the
membrane at the moment the tree falls will result in no sound as the air
molecules have nothing to strike and record the evidence of the falling tree. The
air molecules hitting the ground or other trees, foliage does not count as they
are not observers.
[c] The duality in nature of
a stream of mono-chromatic photons passing through the ‘double slit’ proves
that the observer is crucial in determining the reality of there being two
possible states - wave or particle; which if we go one step further into
Quantum Theory, shows that fundamental particles are of a wave nature, until
observed – when they become what we term particulate. This may well bridge
string theory and dark matter, and why the universe appears to be composed
primarily of nothingness. This is proven when we take observation of
fundamental particles, or even atoms, as what we term the whizzing electrons
are everywhere, circling the nucleus, until the precise moment they are
observed, then they appear in one specific place, until the observation is
finished – when they are everywhere again, hence the energy of the wave nature
of the particle becomes a physical presence – matter at the point of
observation.
So nothing can exist unless
it is observed, therefore the reality you experience around you is influenced
by you, so there is credence in the adage ‘you create your own reality’. This however must also be tempered by the random
nature of reality also, because like the collision of sub-atomic, fundamental
as well as not so fundamental particles in the macro scale – as there is entropy
and disorder. In your reality, this is due to the interactions you have with
other observer’s realities [the people that surround you] that you interact
with.
What does this mean to me?
It means I am careful [as
one can be] with the people I interact with, as their observation of reality
merging in areas of my own observation can change, or modify my own worldview.
Though because we have so many interactions like those whizzing electrons,
there will be unplanned collisions and therefore the ground we walk upon is not
truly solid or firm in places, so we have to be wary of the cracks and fissures
that traverse our world view and therefore our path in life.
Experiencing reality first-hand vs.
watching a film or reading a book
The world [or reality]
around you is far more complex than we’ve been lead to believe or taught. One
concept that perhaps is hard to accept but logic proves it to be correct is the
internalised hologram that our mind constructs from the sensory data it
receives from our senses [and referenced and contextualised with our past
experiences, our prejudices and our moods] is what we perceive as reality.
Therefore the reality we experience is influenced [and some say created] by
ourselves, and so therefore there is no fundamental reality, instead of rocky
solid ground, it is in fact akin to the sands of a desert, ever shifting by the
wind or the tides waxing and waning by the pull of our Moon.
Studies of the brain indicate
that there is little difference in experiencing reality first hand, to that of
experiencing it through the lens of a film or the prose of a novel; the
synapses spark in the same manner. Though I would add that the experience of
reading fiction, is far more rewarding than experiencing fiction as a film,
though much more effort is required to read. This is why in my opinion fewer
and fewer people read, as opposed to switching on a film or TV, because with a
film, part of the work the brain has to undertake is done by the film maker,
the visuals and audio are presented to us, so we sit back and allow our brains
then to contextualise the sounds and images with our own inner prejudices, and our
own life experiences; however the downside is that the experience is rarely as
profound as the act of reading a very well written and engaging novel. The
reason why reading is so much harder and ultimately more rewarding is that we
take the words from the page and our brains have to work hard to convert them
into the holographic representation that we term a form of reality. The most
imaginative have brains that can vividly create the alternative reality, and
the imaginative reader can then reassemble the words into a hologram and
experience it as if it were happening in front of them. This also leads to a
few strands of thought that as a book reviewer I concur with. The really good
books can put the reader into a trance state, hypnotise them so they continue
reading and the hologram takes on the shape of a lucid dream. When in this
state, we get grumpy when we have to take breaks from this type of book as the
reality we have constructed via the writer can be so powerful that it becomes
more interesting than what we term ‘the real world’ we experience first hand.
My own experience has been that reading great novels has allowed me to escape,
provided me with insights and reduced my need for holidays, for within a really
good book is a holiday from myself and my own reality. And perhaps most
crucially, reading allows me to experience reality from a different
point-of-view or context, and challenge my own thinking.
As the brain interprets the
reality we perceive first hand in the same manner as the reality we perceive
second-hand by the act of watching a film or reading a novel, except that
reading is harder and uses more brain energy in constructing the hologram, but
again the additional effort will reward more than sitting and watching a film.
Reading also keeps the mind exercised and challenged and enhances our concept
of empathy to our fellow human.
When viewing reality look for signs of the
Artifice
I’ve always believed that much
of what we perceive as reality is at best influenced by those amongst us with
wealth and power, and at worst is a construct, an artifice. If you look back
through history you will see the hands of manipulation at play, and hidden by
the machinations of ‘Bread and Circuses’ and the modus operandi of the
magician, long sleeves, an attractive and scantily clad assistant – all to
misdirect the observer. Previously I mentioned the importance [and essential
nature] of the observer in making the reality into what we experience. So by
extending this logical augment, we can see that the reality we perceive can be
manipulated. This manipulation is all around us, and now an industry - Public
Relations, Perception Management, Lobbying, or even conditioning in educating
our children into conforming to an agreed value system. Those who delve beneath
the surface, the veneer of reality do so at their own peril because in the
words of Dr Zeus to Taylor and Nova at the conclusion of ‘The Planet of the
Apes’ “If you are seeking
the truth by venturing into the Forbidden Zone, I warn you, you may not like
what you find.”
Clues to the ability of
humans to be fooled into believing a manipulated reality are all around us from
the work of Edward
Bernays, through to the extreme systems of governance such as the Nazis of
the Right Wing and the Communists of the Left Wing, through to the experiments
carried out by Dr Stanley
Milgram, the Stanford Prison
Experiments and understanding the term Propaganda.
I have long since explored
the various events that some term as conspiracies while other use the term
conspiracy theories. Some of these events or postulated explanations of these
events are clearly silly, while others much more sinister. One common theme
that occurs by those shocked by some of these events, is to ridicule those who
ask questions. It’s a common defence when the questions challenge a belief
system or call into query the people with power and influence and when a
sinister agenda is revealed.
Studies reveal -
……it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were
not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as
well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding
that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off
the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in
Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other
hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of
9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not
on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official
account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests
that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic
wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people
who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Read More from Veterans
Today Here
The problem is that as we
grow we are conditioned into a belief system that is constantly reinforced
anything that contradicts our world view is perplexing, and our instant
reaction is to ridicule, as the people with power and influence need their
agendas to be forwarded [and covertly, hidden in plain sight in many cases],
besides the majority would have difficulty in handling the truth.
As a counterpoint, a
remarkable chilling independent Horror / SF film from Canada that was released
earlier this year, and imaginatively titled The Conspiracy is worth viewing, as
it also puts an interesting point about governance of the masses in a chaotic
and dangerous world –
The one common method of
discrediting conspiracy theories is ‘and how could so many keep such a huge secret?’, and ‘I prefer cock-up theory’
– I would retort with these comments
[a] Keeping a secret is easy
when you control the media and compartmentalize the truth in levels, and have
enforcers who can create accidents or threaten the families at the core. An
example is ‘The Manhattan Project’ or the Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany.
[b] Life is never black vs
white, as we have shades of grey, so within any conspiracy there will be
cock-ups, which makes the conspiracy now a conspiracy theory, and the seams
visible to those who are interested to explore beneath the veneer.
[c] There is also
disinformation out there to discredit real conspiracies by tarring them with
the brush of the ones planted as disinformation tools.
I am not going to discuss
the conspiracies that I believe are not theories here, because there is an even
more sinister possibility, and one that many of us are starting to believe in. More
worrying than the man-made artifices that merge into our perceived reality, are
indications that the construct[s] or artifice[s] around us may not originate
from Earth.
Many of us now believe that
the reality we experience is engineered, a construct or what many term a
simulation. This is nothing new for people who have viewed the film ‘The
Matrix’ or ‘The Thirteen Floor’ or ‘Dark
City
Bostrom’s
argument is lucidly detailed at his website www.simulation-argument.com and
I would urge you to explore the content.
Best summed up -
ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the
following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go
extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is
extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their
evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly
living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a
significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run
ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
The chilling side of the
simulation argument lies in the belief of the following crucial axioms –
[a] That Humans enjoy escape
and the deployment of simulations be they 3-D Films, Computer Games, Satellite
Navigation Systems, training programs et al
[b] Moore
[c] If we wished to make a
simulation of reality to study or escape to, we would lean toward the ‘highest’
end, not a ‘basic’ one like the stone age village, where life expectancy is low
and medical advances limited.
This would indicate, that
perhaps we would view a simulation that details the later days of mankind.
Though even more perplexing
is a possibility what David Cronenberg explored in his film eXistenz, where an
advanced civilisation discovers that when entering a virtual reality game that
is a simulation, that within the game is another simulated reality game, and
entering that one reveals that within that game / reality is yet another one,
and so the rabbit hole is so deep that each time a civilisation creates a
simulation, that the inhabitants of that simulation have created one of their
own, and to quote Kurt Vonnegut, and so it goes.
I would also point out that many
scientists are working on [and some say they have empirical proof, via
measurement of cosmic rays] the theory that the universe we find ourselves in
is actually
a numerical / mathematical simulation. Remember that earlier I indicated
that the act of the observer or the act of taking a measurement makes reality -
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh
Davoudi, Martin J. Savage [9 Nov 2012]
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that
the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time
lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by
extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice
QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory
technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical
simulation with unimproved Wilson
Others believe that our
observable universe actually exists as a holographic projection from what we
term an Event Horizon, the point of no return that edges a singularity, such as
a black hole.
BBC Horizon featured a most
interesting program exploring the nature of reality, which is accessible for
those without a scientific background, and is accessible here,
and highly recommended. Though in an earlier documentary [entitled Time-Trip]
from the BBC, scientists postulated how a Time Machine could be built. This is
truly a fascinating documentary very accessible and archived here.
The chilling conclusion in a roundtable debate, features a very startling
conclusion - rather than humans building a time machine, we had Nick Bostrom
indicating [with agreement from his fellow scientists] that it is much more
probable that we would build a simulation, and travel to recreate a time
period. I would concur with this, as depressing as it appears, time is not real, but an
illusion we’ve created to measure events as they unfold, and that time is
not a constant, and does not flow [as in conventional belief] like a river, but
exists as ‘the moment’. This theory has its opposition but many have difficulty
seeing how time fits in with both classical and quantum physics, as it actually
is not required for the functioning of the mathematics that binds reality.
However our former
Astronomer Royal Lord Martin Rees of Ludlow
Some of the greatest mysteries of the universe may
never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to
Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.
Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.
He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.
“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”
Rees’s thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries.
Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.
He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.
“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”
Rees’s thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries.
And
so finally, many of these thoughts to me seem to relate to our Moon, and for
the reasons why? Let’s consider the ridiculous concept -
The Moon is Artificial
So
all these ideas in my mind have a link to our moon, and like scientists before
who postulated that the world was a sphere and not flat [which was at the time
the considered wisdom] were subject to ridicule. At my stage in life I do not
worry about ridicule in my belief that the moon is artificial. My fascination
with the moon started [like many] watching the Apollo landings as a child, [and
we won’t debate the veracity of these alleged manned landings or the
significance of the Van Allen Belts here] - and most recently reading Who Built The Moon
by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. The first two thirds are very
compelling and strongly researched, however I am at odds with the last third,
mainly their conclusion as to who built it. I conclude that the moon is
artificial but can not allude as to who or what built the damned thing or
placed it in our orbit.
What
many don’t realise is that without the Moon life on Earth could not have
evolved, as the Moon control the oceans, tidal flows that oxygenate the ocean,
allow the amino acids to combine and recombine into DNA. No Moon would result
in stagnant oceans and no life on Earth. What perplexes me is its unbelievably
amazing orbit keeping Earth in the Goldilocks Zone, the low surface heat
capacity, the abundance of refractory metals such as Titanium, Chromium, Vanadium
etc, high levels of Nuclear Fusible Helium-3 isotope, the massive diameter but
very shallow craters, the Moon is older than the Earth, the Moon’s density is
many times lower than the Earth, and potentially hollow - I could go on, the
anomalous nature and origin of our Moon is not understood, though the abundance
of He-3 and refractory metals have got the Chinese sending robotic missions,
with the Indians not far behind.
Michael
Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov of Soviet Academy of
Sciences published an article entitled "Is the
Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?" which I have copied below, and
should provoke interest, as it is as valid today as it was in the 1970s
IS THE MOON THE CREATION OF INTELLIGENCE?
by Mikhail Vasin and
Alexander Shcherbakov
Although people long ago
began to wonder whether the "canals" on Mars were the creation of
cosmic engineers, for some odd reason it has not occurred to look with the same
eyes upon the peculiarities of the lunar landscape much closer at hand. And all
the arguments about the possibilities of intelligent life existing on other
celestial bodies have been confined to the idea that other civilisations must
necessarily live on the surface of a planet, and that the interior as a habitat
is out of the question.
AN ARTIFICIAL SPUTNIK OF THE
EARTH?
The origin of the Moon is
one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony. So far there have been
basically three hypotheses under discussion.
HYPOTHESIS I. The Moon was
once a part of the Earth and broke away from it.
This has now been refuted by
the evidence.
HYPOTHESIS II. The Moon was
formed independently from the same cloud of dust and gas as the Earth, and
immediately became the Earth's natural satellite.
But then why is there such a
big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic
centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the
latest information (analysis of samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo
astronauts) lunar rock is not of the same composition as the Earth's.
HYPOTHESIS III. The Moon
came into being separately, and, moreover, far from the Earth (perhaps even
outside the Solar system). This would mean that the moon would not have to be
fashioned from the same "clay" as our own planet. Sailing through the
Universe, the Moon came into Earth's proximity, and by a complex interplay of
forces of gravity was brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to
circular. But a catch of this kind is virtually impossible.
In fact, scientists studying
the origin of the Universe today have no acceptable theory to explain how the
Earth-Moon system came into being.
OUR HYPOTHESIS:
The Moon is an artificial
Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings
unknown to ourselves.
We refuse to engage in
speculation about who exactly staged this unique experiment, which only a
highly developed civilisation was capable of.
A NOAH'S ARK
If you are going to launch
an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it hollow. At the same time
it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous space project
would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled into a
near-Earth trajectory.
It is more likely that what
we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of which was filled with
fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work, navigation,
instruments, observation equipment and all manner of machinery... in other
words, everything necessary to enable this "caravelle of the
Universe" to serve as a kind of Noah's Ark of intelligence, perhaps even
as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging a prolonged (thousands of
millions of years) existence and long wanderings through space (thousands of
millions of miles).
Naturally, the hull of such
a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the blows of meteorites
and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold. Probably the
shell is a double-layered affair--the basis a dense armouring of about 20 miles
in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely packed covering (a
thinner layer--averaging about three miles).
In certain areas--where the
lunar "seas" and "craters" are, the upper layer is quite
thin, in some cases, non-existent.
Since the Moon's diameter is
2,162 miles, then looked at from our point of view it is a thin-walled sphere.
And, understandably, not an empty one. There could be all kinds of materials
and equipment on its inner surface.
But the greatest proportion
of the lunar mass is concentrated in the central part of the sphere, in its
core, which has a diameter of 2,062 miles.
Thus the distance between
the kernel and the shell of this nut is in the region of 30 miles. This space
was doubtless filled with gases required for breathing, and for technological
and other purposes.
With such an internal
structure the Moon could have an average specific gravity of 3.3 grammes per
cubic centimetre, which differs considerably from that of Earth (5.5 grammes
per cubic centimetre).
A BATTLESHIP THEY COULDN'T
TORPEDO?
The most numerous and
interesting of the formations on the lunar surface are the craters. In diameter
they vary considerably. Some are less that a yard across, while others are more
than 120 miles (the biggest has a diameter of 148 miles). How does the Moon
come to be so pockmarked?
There are two
hypothesis--volcanic and meteoric. Most scientists vote for the latter.
Kirill Stanyukovich, a
Soviet physicist, has written a whole series of works since 1937 in which he
expounds the idea that the craters are the result of bombardment of the Moon
for millions of years. And he really means bombardment, for even the smallest
celestial body, when it is involved in one of those fastest head-on collisions
so common in the cosmos behaves itself like a warhead charged with dynamite, or
even an atomic warhead at times. Instant combustion takes place on impact,
turning it into a dense cloud of incandescent gas, into plasma, and there is a
very definite explosion.
According to Professor
Stanykovich, a "missile" of a sizable character (say 6 miles in
diameter) must, on collision with the Moon, penetrate to a depth equal to 4 or
5 times its own diameter (24-30 miles).
The surprising thing is that
however big the meteorites may have been which have fallen on the Moon (some
have been more than 60 miles in diameter), and however fast they must have been
travelling (in some cases the combined speed was as much as 38 miles per
second), the craters they have left behind are for some odd reason all about
the same depth, 1.2-2 miles, although they vary tremendously in diameter.
Take that 148-mile diameter crater. In area it outdoesHiroshima
Take that 148-mile diameter crater. In area it outdoes
For such a big hole, it is
too shallow. Furthermore, the bottom of the crater is convex, following the
curve of the lunar surface. If you were to stand in the middle of the crater
you would not even be able to see the soaring edge-- it would be beyond the
horizon. A hollow that is more like a hill is a rather strange affair, perhaps.
Not really, if one assumes
that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering of the moon, this plays the
role of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an impenetrable
spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 20-mile layer of armour plating,
the explosion flings bits of its "coating" far and wide.
Bearing in mind that the
Moon's defence coating is, according to our calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one
sees that this is approximately the maximum depth of the craters.
A SPACESHIP COME TO GRIEF?
Now let us consider the
chemical peculiarities of the lunar rock. Upon analysis, American scientists
have found chromium, titanium and zirconium in it. These are all metals with
refractory, mechanically strong and anti-corrosive properties. A combination of
them all would have envitable resistance to heat and the ability to stand up to
means of aggression, and could be used on Earth for linings for electrical
furnaces.
If a material had to be
devised to protect a giant artificial satellite from the unfavourable effects
of temperature, from cosmic radiation and meteorite bombardment, the experts
would probably have hit on precisely these metals. In that case it is not clear
why lunar rock is such an extraordinarily poor heat conductor--a factor which
so amazed the astronauts? Wasn't that what the designers of the super-sputnik
of the Earth were after?
From the engineers point of
view, this spaceship of ages long past which we call the Moon is superbly
constructed. There may be a good reason for its extreme longevity. It is even
possible that it predates our own planet. At any rate, some pieces of lunar
rock have proved older than the oldest on Earth, although it is true, this
applies to the age of the materials and not of the structure for which they
were used. And from the number of craters on its surface, the Moon itself is no
chicken.
It is, of course, difficult
to say when it began to shine in the sky above the Earth, but on the basis of
some preliminary estimates one might hazard a guess that it was around two
thousand million years ago.
We do not, of course,
imagine that the moon is still inhabited, and probably many of its automatic
devices have stopped working, too. The stabilisers have ceased functioning and
the poles have shifted. Even though the moon keeps that same side turned
towards us, for some time it has been unsteady on its own axis, on occasion
showing us part of its reverse side which were once invisible to observers on
the Earth--for example, the Selenites themselves if they made expeditions here.
Time has taken its toll.
Both body and rigging have disintegrated to some extent; some seams on the
inner shell evidently diverged. We assume that the long (up to 940 miles)
chains of small craters formerly ascribed to volcanic activity were brought
about by eruptions of gas through cracks appearing in the armour plating as a
result of accidents.
No doubt one of the most
splendid features of the lunarscape--a straight "wall" nearly 500
yards high and over 60 miles long--formed as a result of one of the armour
plates bending under the impact of celestial torpedoes and raising one of its
straight, even edges.
The Moon's population presumably
took the necessary steps to remedy the effects of meteorite bombardment, for
example, patching up rents in the outer shield covering the inner shell. For
such purposes a substance from the lunar core was probably used, a kind a
cement being made from it. After processing this would be piped to the surface
sites where it was required.
The stocks of materials and
machinery for doing this are no doubt still where they were, and are
sufficiently massive to give rise to these gravitational anomalies.
What is the Moon today? Is
it a colossal necropolis, a "city of the dead," where some form of
life became extinct? Is it a kind cosmic Flying Dutchman?
A craft abandoned by its
crew and controlled automatically? We do not know and we shall not try to
guess.
BLUE OR RED PILL
So
may the Existentialist Man wish you, your families and friends a very good
Christmas [or what ever winter festival you celebrate], and now that the winter
solstice has passed, an excellent 2014. For those with challenges ahead, may
you gain strength upon overcoming them as Fredrich Nietzsche indicated when he
said ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you
stronger’.
And
when it comes to your thinking, and the ability to look beyond your
programming, you may have to decide whether you are going to take the red or
blue pill.
It
may depend on what Paul Simon sang indicating that your preference may impinge
on if you are accustomed to a smooth ride, because some of these thoughts will
give you bumps, but who said reality would be easy?
I'm accustomed to a smooth ride
Or maybe I'm a dog who's lost it's bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep through the night
Some people say a lie's a lie's a lie
But I say why
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
Or maybe I'm a dog who's lost it's bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep through the night
Some people say a lie's a lie's a lie
But I say why
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
THE
OBVIOUS CHILD by PAUL SIMON
I'm accustomed to a smooth ride
Or maybe I'm a dog who's lost it's bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep through the night
Some people say a lie's a lie's a lie
But I say why
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
And in remembering a road sign
I am remembering a girl when I was young
And we said these songs are true
These days are ours
These tears are free
And hey
The cross is in the ballpark
The cross is in the ballpark
We had a lot of fun
We had a lot of money
We had a little son and we thought we'd call him sonny
Sonny gets married and moves away
Sonny has a baby and bills to pay
Sonny gets sunnier
Day by day by day by day
I've been waking up at sunrise
I've been following the light across my room
I watch the night receive the room of my day
Some people say the sky is just the sky
But I say
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
Sonny sits by his window and thinks to himself
How it's strange that some rooms are like cages
Sonny's yearbook from high school
Is down from the shelf
And he idly thumbs through the pages
Some have died
Some have fled from themselves
Or struggled from here to get there
Sonny wanders beyond his interior walls
Runs his hand through his thinning brown hair
Well I'm accustomed to a smoother ride
Maybe I'm a dog that's lost his bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep the night
Some people say a lie is just a lie
But I say the cross is in the ballpark
Why deny the obvious child?
Or maybe I'm a dog who's lost it's bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep through the night
Some people say a lie's a lie's a lie
But I say why
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
And in remembering a road sign
I am remembering a girl when I was young
And we said these songs are true
These days are ours
These tears are free
And hey
The cross is in the ballpark
The cross is in the ballpark
We had a lot of fun
We had a lot of money
We had a little son and we thought we'd call him sonny
Sonny gets married and moves away
Sonny has a baby and bills to pay
Sonny gets sunnier
Day by day by day by day
I've been waking up at sunrise
I've been following the light across my room
I watch the night receive the room of my day
Some people say the sky is just the sky
But I say
Why deny the obvious child?
Why deny the obvious child?
Sonny sits by his window and thinks to himself
How it's strange that some rooms are like cages
Sonny's yearbook from high school
Is down from the shelf
And he idly thumbs through the pages
Some have died
Some have fled from themselves
Or struggled from here to get there
Sonny wanders beyond his interior walls
Runs his hand through his thinning brown hair
Well I'm accustomed to a smoother ride
Maybe I'm a dog that's lost his bite
I don't expect to be treated like a fool no more
I don't expect to sleep the night
Some people say a lie is just a lie
But I say the cross is in the ballpark
Why deny the obvious child?
Posts
