The Paradox of Matter

Thinking in the material realm limits the range of possibility of outcome until the thinker consciously thinks outside of the strictly material part of the reality spectrum. If the thinker only knew that all material in the commonly accepted material realm has an aspect of illusion to it as that which we take as physical evidence is ultimately constituted of elements that have no physical properties, he would suddenly be free of those range limits. It does not mean that there are no rules of conduct or engagement, but the self imposed borders within this spectrum are removed. As rigid as those fictitious borders are, they simply dissolve as rigidity in thinking is overcome. People love to say “you don’t know what you don’t know”, but worse they believe that if they don’t know it, then it must not exist.

There is also the matter of indoctrination, confusion and belief, and belief in contradiction to intuition or understanding. There is a pervasive sense of insecurity in people as they try to comprehend reality, to make sense of their existence. I recently spoke to a psychologist who struggles with non physical concepts. He believes there is more than just material, but is an atheist because he does not want there to be a greater consciousness. I will have to explore that with him, but it appears that he has some irrational fear of the possibility of a reality other than what he knows. It seems that people try to impose their own impressions on reality rather than being curious, observant, and open minded, and reverent at such amazing things. Unlearning a lifetime of fossilized thinking might be more than most people can manage.

There is an ironic sort of humour when one looks at these issues. The fact that we are standing on a hard material surface made up of that which is not physical is a kind of joke. That we have all sorts of irrational beliefs about our reality. Being too shy to go out in public naked, but wearing Lulu Lemons because its fashionable.

I have had occasion to read The Evolution of Matter by Gustav Le Bon, I am fascinated by the meticulous adherence to the scientific method in the proof through physical means of the dissociation of matter so that no trace of it is left behind. The physicists have managed to show that even such concepts as the principle of conservation of energy is in error! (Except in a very narrow context) They have shown that all matter comes into existence and disappears again leaving no trace.

Our existence in the material world gives the impression of being on a temporal standing wave where matter comes into existence from the imponderable, lingers for a time, and then returns to the imponderable. Which means that everything we know of matter is in complete isolation, as we presently lack the ability to see beyond the ponderable. And yet, strangely enough, we use the non physical constantly in our daily lives habitually.

Idiotic Reasoning

For a while now I have been experimenting with energy conversion methods affectionately called “Free energy devices”. This description sets the mainstream scientists off into apoplectic tirades on the impossibility of free energy, while quoting the principal of Conservation of Energy and the laws of thermodynamics, after which the mocking starts. To be fair, in a certain sense they are right! In the context of a closed system... but it is sadly humorous that this level of adamant denial comes first from someone who calls himself a scientist. I always thought scientists were people who were interested in finding out the truth of everything, have an open mind, reserving judgment, investigating, replicating. But if you are starting out from the point of view “seeing is believing”, the Big Bang and other fairy tales such as “everything is chemistry” I see your difficulty.

The question I lead with is how do you define free energy? I think the problem starts with the conservation of energy in a closed system. That is the default for most people. Oh yes, but you can’t create energy out of nothing, they say. Who said anything about creating energy? And just to make matters worse I ask about Perpetual Motion! It sets of another tirade. But hold on a minute...would you say that there is movement in atoms? Yes constant movement! So if I held the oldest known rock in my hand, it has atoms in it, right? Have those atoms been moving at the same rate since they became atoms? The answer is Yes of course! Well....isn’t that perpetual motion effectively? Another tirade.

At this point we might as well agree that there is the problem of the understanding of the definitions. It has nothing to do with creating energy. It has everything to do with making available energy that is already in existence. It is about being able to have the use of more energy than you put in. Before you have another outburst, lets look at nuclear energy. You can get out much more energy than you put in. This brings us to a point where the argument is that you can measure where the energy came from in the case of nuclear energy, but some free energy devices demonstrate energy gains where the source is not obvious, and this brings us closer to the boundary of realms that may not be able to be measured with conventional equipment. As a real scientist, this only demands an investigation into an interesting phenomenon, not a denial for lack of ability. The understanding is secondary to the observation of the phenomenon.

To put it into perspective, everything that we know of our physical universe, the depth, the width and breadth is a finite bubble in a void not suspended or supported. And yet we insist on ignoring the signs that lead us to the inclination that there must be something beyond our understanding. On its own our universe appears to come from nowhere, is going nowhere, is nowhere, and is made of nothing! We just don’t believe it....I guess it is hard to believe. It certainly seems to be an incomplete picture at best.

Much like an offshore package assembly instruction sheet: insert tab A (not provided) into slot B (not shown).

Matter as a symptom of Intent

In our constant search for solutions to the universe and its origin we seem to adhere more and more to a materialistic method, more chemistry, more physics, entropy....closed and decaying systems. Yet it is ironic that the very material that we are using to interpret as an entropic system is the end of a process...an ash! But that actually gives us a massive clue that the ash, being the end of a process and entropic in nature, is part of a neg entropic process that carries on and also started from something. Entropy is like a hub cap from your car that falls off on the highway, and after a few gyrations comes to rest on the shoulder. The hub cap is not the system.

By looking at the tail end of processes it is not surprising that we find it difficult to see past the material. But there are everyday processes that show very clearly that there are at least two things at play simultaneously in many things such as plants. There is always the entropic side of the material that falls away and deteriorates, but there is something that builds up the plant as it grows. The plant seems to gain mass from a bit of water and some sunlight! Now that is not just a chemical process. Negative entropy requires more than a chemical process, as chemistry only goes down hill and ends when all reactions are spent. Nothing comes from nothing.

The part of the plant that makes no sense from a material perspective is how the matter is organized to become a certain type of plant. I defy anyone to make a dandelion out of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and a little sunlight. What is the missing ingredient? Why a dandelion and not a rose?

Today we talk incessantly about “science”, and that science is all about cause and effect. Maybe true science should not twist its own logic to protect a preferred worldview. If science is strictly the study of cause and effect, then when the chain of causality points toward something unexpected – like an intelligent first cause or a non physical origin – science should follow the evidence where ever it leads, rather than forcing a materialistic explanation.

It seems to be false logic to use the rules within one realm to predict the rules of another, or to assume that because one can’t see another realm that yours is the only one.