See and read it all here and now.

Animation on the UPGRADE01A YouTube channel. Read other information here.

Science fiction and politics is covered mostly at this space-time, but every category listed is mentioned in a blog, story or commentary here.

The free exchange of ideas, hopes, dreams, goods, services, peace and love should prevail. Education is alive and free online and in the world’s libraries.


“For the life of me, I do not see a single particle projectory, altered by the mind, where each of the mind’s particles involved in the the altering were not themselves already pushed by previous cause”

– The Altura AF7 Network

“It was statements like that, that caused you to fail the Turing Test for so long.”

– attributed to Trevor Lick

“John, while Jerry had had ‘had’, had had ‘had had’; ‘had had’ had had a better effect on the teacher”

– unknown origin. Both John and Jerry repeated it more than either “wanted” to.  Some stocks took a big dive for that.

“Choose one member from each set?”

– The first interesting machine question, Grif Lab Network, 2019.

[The details as to why that question is very interesting – coming from a machine will not be revealed here, within this blog or post; any time soon, if ever.]

Note: Go to the side bar on the home page and scroll down to find the latest posts. The mechanism that was working in the past appears to no longer function. It appears to take you to this post instead. Thanks!

Here are several posts that were created after this initial version:



























Every person, no matter what their opinion is, consistently follows the laws of nature, whatever those laws turn out to be. At this fundamental level, we are all consistent. We all must follow the laws of physics (or nature), because we have no choice – whatever nature is, we are a part of it. We just don’t know what those laws are.

In my opinion (at the time of this posting at least), the Universe and everything in it, including all the people living in it, are made up of matter, energy, and within the framework of causeless spacetime, where a state of nothingness probably never existed. There are many possibilities of “true reality” that fall within this general theme. This view may be considered as a Materialists point-of-view (if one is permitted to include in this definition energy, space and time are a part of the overall fabric), but the term “materialist” can be misleading (it does not mean that I value material possession over love of my family, or that I believe everything is made up of very tiny little pebble-like bits). In any case, it is my considered opinion that what we think of as atoms and sub-atomic particles are highly underrated and under appreciated by the majority of my fellow humans.

Still other people have multiple variations on the opinions or belief that there is another, supernatural aspect to life and the cosmos that somehow exists outside of nature.

Many people hold beliefs that on the one hand embrace the more-or-less materialist viewpoint, but to some degree hold onto the Dualist point-of-view. They hold onto a kind of middle ground, if you will, between the realm of the spiritual and the material. Usually this middle ground involves a spirit or soul that somehow effects human beings and possibly all living things, but not inanimate objects.

Not all of these opinions can be correct. Some people may not agree with the statement just previous to this sentence.

Regardless of where the ultimate truth may be (I was tempted to say use the term “lie” here instead of “be” but decided against it), it seems to me that there must be a single, underlying foundation, a single law or set of laws that can describe the entire universe, even if we never fully understand what those laws may be. Of course, those that believe that each of us make our own reality will not agree with the me on this point. If the laws are never discovered, does it follow that the laws do not actually exist and is this merely an argument over semantics?

If the current understanding of the laws of the Universe can be bent or changed, or in some way altered, then we have yet to discover the fundamental laws. The laws that are altered, must not be the entire story. It may be the case that the fundamental laws can never be discovered by humans, but we should never give up trying.

By “The Universe”, in this context, I very roughly mean that part of the Universe that most physicists believe to be about 13.7 billion years old and is commonly believed to have “started” with a big bang (probably much bigger than the Hubble Volume, but no one knows for sure). Explaining what I mean here is but one example of where talking about “beliefs” can rapidly become very fuzzy and difficult to accurately discuss. The meanings of many words are ambiguous. The everyday use or missuse of words tends to increase the ambiguity of words (Is there such a thing as language entropy and does my very reference to the word entropy in this metaphorical context further contribute to it?). 

Our “understanding” of what the Universe “is” is even more ambiguous, given that the nature of science itself is a dynamic process, and there are various competing theories, none of which are completely worked out. Most people (and I include myself) do not understand much beyond the high-level concepts described to us by scientists (and most of us can forget about ever understanding the mathematics involved) to really understand any of the details. On the other hand, I think that those that side with the Supernatural camp have much much bigger hurdles to cross, and they must admit that they at least have hurdles of similar magnitude.

Perhaps we can all learn from each other, and try to find the positive aspects of the opinions of others. Everyone’s opinions (or set of beliefs, or worldview) must be based, at least in part (even if the Dualist point-of-view turn out to be correct), on their previous experiences, and ultimately the initial state of their entire set of atoms and energy, and the state of all their surrounding atoms. At least to a certain extent, people really cannot help what they believe. Furthermore, natural human language has far too many ambiguities built into it to for any lay person to fully and completely describe their beliefs accurately to another human being.

To make matters worse, I would wager that most or all people would have a difficult time explaining their own beliefs to themselves in a completely consistent, non-dynamic way that does not drift at least a little bit from day to day and from one emotional state to another. We each think we know what our beliefs are, but when we delve deeper into our own thoughts we run into inconsistencies, ambiguities, doubts, and other forms of uncertainties. We change our minds in subtle ways that we may not always be consciously aware of.

When we are sad or frustrated about our own life, we may begin to doubt some of our own beliefs. When we are on top of the world, and everything is going our way, we are often so certain that we know what we are doing. Even those that have dogmatic beliefs (as seen from the outside by the rest of us) and can recite their beliefs word for word from one book or another, or perhaps from memorization will inevitably run into ambiguities in the very words they speak. They will realize (or they should realize) that they do not understand everything they utter or think or pray with one hundred percent understanding.

I was just lucky enough that “my” particles, or rather my patterns (life is more like a process than a thing) collided with other particles in such a way that my opinion turned out to be the more or less correct one! I can’t help it if I’m lucky! I cannot help it if I think that I know that I am mostly right, at least in the bare-boned essential fundamentals. You probably feel the same way about your opinions. You think that you know that you must essentially be correct about what you consider to be important. Of course, you and I are probably wrong about many of our personal beliefs. There is a good chance that we both are missing more than a few important details about the reality of this Universe. You probably believe know a few facts that I do not know and some of those facts may be important insights that I am missing. On the other hand, you are most likely missing bits of information that, if you knew them, might alter your view of this world in some very radical ways.

As an example, most people are in denial about how much their own political opinions have changed over time.

As another example, most people are in denial about how much their personal viewpoints have changed after they fall in love. Compromises inevitably take place. New ideas and concepts are learned from your partner. We fail to see flaws in the person we fall in love with. That is a part of the nature of falling in love. Many (or most? or all?) people had doubts about the existence of the kind of love they experience only after falling in love (which is of course at least somewhat different than the love we feel for our siblings, which is different than the love we feel for our parents, and the love we feel for our neighbors, our friends, and chocolate). Most people do not want to make love to a piece of chocolate or to their parents, for example.

Beware, here comes a tangential point (or is it a fuzzy wave? or both?):

I could not resist creating this post. Of course, I created this post because I wanted to create this post, but I did not create it on my own free will in the traditional sense. If free will did exist, that would imply that I could choose to do something other than what I want to do.

I am certain that other’s do not agree with this post. I am reasonably certain that my opinion and understanding of the world has already and will continue to change over spacetime. I am certain that my opinions are not made very concise or clear in this post. I have changed this post several times already today, and it is still not written down to my complete satisfaction. New ideas and variations on ideas keep popping into my consciousness.

I believe that story telling is one good way that people can learn new ideas, explore beliefs, and be entertained at the same spacetime.

Using logic and rational discussion is another way, but consider the following bit of simple logic:

A is A.

In one sense the above statement is true. It is the Law of Identity first described by Aristotle and seemed to be one of Ayn Rand’s favorite statements. However, the moment we try to apply this simple bit of logic to any entity in the real world, even for this most simple fundamental truth in logic, it does not absolutely apply in all instances.

Here is a silly example of what I am (not) talking about, but it does give a point of how confusing even simple concepts can become misunderstood: In the real world, that first “A” exists several pixels to the left of the second “A”. The statement “A is A” above is located on your computer screen at time X, while the same sentence is located on my computer screen at time “Y” (and it looks different inside the editor than it does to me when I save and post again).

Suppose instead, as was presumably intended by both Aristotle and Ayn Rand, we take “A” to represent an entity. In that case, the second “A” can be said to represent the same entity as the first “A”. However, in the real world, both the laws of thermodynamics apply and time exists. Real entities change over time. In the real world entities do not have precise edges on them, even if we discount quantum theory. Atoms constantly break away from the outside edges of physical, material entities. Electrons move around, jump from one atom over to another, absorbing light that came from other places, both from outside and inside of the entity.

Suppose we take the word “is” to apply to entity “A” in a single instance of time. In the real world we cannot freeze time at a single instant.

Suppose we could freeze time at a single instant, and the variable “A” represented the single musical note “A” (at 440 cycles per second). In this case, the note would vanish, since frequency implies time.

Instead, let us suppose that “is” is taken to mean “to exist”. If I play A-440 on my piano, by the time I tell you about this note, it will have faded away. What is meant by “to exist”? Does a musical note traveling through the air exist in the same sense that a solid rock exists?

If “A” stands for “apple” and I tell you “this apple is delicious”, that could mean that I ate the apple and found it to be delicious, or that I ate a similar apple, perhaps from the same batch of apples at the store. It does not mean that “apple” and “delicious” are two words for the same entity. It does not mean that all apples are delicious. Yet I said:

apple is delicious.

In this sense of “is” we do not mean equality, but we mean that a particular entity (an apple) as a specific attribute (delicious). It gets even more complex, because the attribute “delicious” is subjective. It is a matter of opinion.

Furthermore, your tongue may have superior taste buds to mine, or your neurons in the taste sensory section of your brain may have superior synaptic connections, and you may sense a bit of bitterness in the apple. Your sensors came up with a different answer.

If I did take a bite out of the apple to determine that the apple is delicious, the apple is no longer a whole apple anymore.

I dare say that the most experienced logician will have a difficult time explaining to a layperson (and perhaps to their selves) how and when or if logic every really does apply to the real world. Is logic merely to be taken as an academic subject, as a kind of model of the real world? Is the real world logical? Is logic logical?

Everybody misunderstands everybody else to at least some degree. Even the best of philosophers have changed their own minds over time. Whenever a person learns more about the nature of his or her world, that person will change in subtle or not so subtle ways. Even mathematicians do not agree completely on what mathematics is?

I do not mean to imply that life is meaningless. And please do not take my one remark about mathematics, or my statements about logic or science out of context. It is my opinion that science with math, logic and rational thought are the best and most effective ways of discovering the truth about the universe around us.

On the other hand, “truth” is not the only game in town worth pursuing. What is “true” or “false” about music, art, poetry, literature, or love? Is the music of Bach “true” and the music of Miles Davis “false”? I don’t think so. Perhaps religion is like music or art for some people. A lot of people probably enjoy a nice religious service.

Perhaps my previous statements about music are somehow wrong or misguided, or perhaps a particular musicologist has an opinion that I am somehow not understanding or listening to music properly in some respect, and if I would only learn what music was all about I would understand that my taste for music was poor and silly and stupid. On the other hand, perhaps the musicologist does not understand properly how the musical notes of a piece of music stimulated a set of neurons in such as way as to cause a cascade chemical reactions that resulted in part of the pleasure zone in my brain to light up making me feel good.

What I am arguing is that we should listen to one another and not use violence against those that do not agree with our own point-of-view. I prefer having the freedom to decide what the meaning of life is for myself. Is it not written the you choose your own path? (now it is written)

Live and let live. If your beliefs lead you to think about flying an airplane into a building full of innocent beings is good, or that dropping bombs on innocent people, in the desperate hope of perhaps killing some of your enemies is just, please take another look at your beliefs. I was hoping this post will get you to change your mind.

Avoid becoming dogmatic in your beliefs, whatever they may be. Consider the possibility that you have no idea what you are talking about. Consider the possibility that people you look up to admire, and respect are perhaps even more confused and misguided than you are. Consider the possibility that much of what you believe is essentially correct, but that you are mistaken in some areas where you might least expect.

Belief in Einstein’s equations did not cause lunatics to fly an airplane into an office building, but neither did belief in Mohamed’s philosophy make the atom bomb possible. Stalin was an atheist, but Adolf Hitler was religious. Terrorism is evil, but so is a misguided foreign policy.

Blaming 9/11 only on religion, without considering the political and the economic components, as some prominent scientists and philosophers seem have recently done (some that I admire and respect in many other regards, and as a fellow atheist, at times I find myself sympathizing with their points about religion and do not completely disagree them on this matter – I am referring to Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens ), makes little or no more sense than blaming the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima completely on Albert Einstein. Such thinking can lead to dangerous ideas.

It was Albert Einstein who persuaded Roosevelt that the atomic bomb was not only possible, but that the Nazis were developing one. Einstein later regretted sending that letter to the president. My feeling on the 9/11 terrorist situation is that Ron Paul, a Christian, has a much more clear understanding of foreign affairs and American foreign policy than any of the above mentioned atheist, scientist, or philosophers. Although I do admire and respect their work and feel that have important comments to consider on this topic as well. If the pro-Iraq camp has a valid point, they certainly have not presented their case very clearly or accurately (see: this, for example – or this). Is it oil, or weapons of mass destruction, or terrorist, and how many innocent lives and how much tax payers money is justified in this fuzzy pursuit, and what about a Declaration of War, and on and on.

My opinions are definitely not 100% correct and your opinions are most certainly not 100% wrong. There is probably exactly one reality, but there are more than six billion perceptions of that reality. The scientific method is designed to be unbiased and self-correcting, but in practice, there will always be politics. Religious institutions promise hope and love, but often promote fear and death.

Science does not have all of the answers, but that does not imply that other institutions have any real answers to any questions. It may be true that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but that is not necessarily the case. No one knows for sure.

If truth is beauty and beauty is truth, then in that sense, music is beautiful can be true for me, a religious sermon may be beautiful and true for you, and a mathematical proof may be beautiful and true for another. Is one person’s pleasure center more true than anothers? Are you arguing with the laws of physics? The particles in your brain followed the same laws of physics that my brain followed.

At the moment, both the religious and the authoritarians have been a lot more successful at passing both their genes and their memes along than either the atheists and the libertarians. If you want to change someone’s opinion to be more in line with your own, then try to have a little empathy for how they got to where they are. Remember how lucky you are that your particles and patterns happened to collide in just the right ways to give you your the intelligent, rational, and objective insight that you believe you have.



PhilosophyMonty Python style … I Kant understand it. It’s all Greek to me.


…but when you observe something, don’t you have to shine light “photons” on that something, so the electron would “know” it is being observed, right?






The Dawkins Delusion


Beyond Uncertainty


Climate Catastrophe Cancelled


Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?


Peace Train

Lovely song, but on the other hand:

… but is that really how he feels (and do people change over time?),2933,237698,00.html?sPage=fnc.entertainment/music


Morning Has Broken


Bach – Glenn Gould talks about Art of fugue



Wayne Dyer: Power of Intention … some of this sounds nice

It’s nice to have an optimistic outlook on life, but doesn’t luck have something to do with it? Do the children starving in Africa not “intend” or “think positive thoughts” hard enough? …. Does Quantum theory really say anything about macroscopic objects?

field guide to quackery


George Carlin on Religion


The Sistine Chapel


Bach – Matthaus Passion – 52. Aria A – Koennen Traenen meine

Was Bach thinking of the bad bits of the Bible when he wrote this? I doubt it.


Not Exactly God Videos

… but Christians are not praying with the hateful side of the Bible on their minds are they? Aren’t they mostly pretty nice people who want to help others? Answer: Some are and some are not.


I like much of what Ron Paul has to say… but he is a Christian and I am an Atheist…

I agree with Richard Dawkins that atheists in America should come out of the closet. He has written many wonderful books explaining evolution (I recommend “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker“, but I think politically he is a bit too “left leaning” when it comes to centralized government, and government spending. Maybe I am wrong about that.



© All rights reserved, with the exceptions given on the home page. In short, feel free to use this material in any public URL with “.com”, or “.edu” domains for non-profit purposes. Please link back to whatever you reference.

Nothingness Probably Never Existed.

Nothingness cannot have an Attribute. If Nothing had an attribute, it would be an Entity. An Entity is the same thing as a Something, which is the opposite of Nothing. For example, Nothing can neither have nor be: a shape, color, velocity, mass, or time.

Nothingness is the lack of anything at all.

There could not be more than one Nothing, otherwise there would be a difference between any two “Nothings”. To show the difference between two concepts of nothingness, there must be at least one attribute associated with at least one of the concepts, therefore that concept must be an Entity. Hence, there can be at most one Nothing.

Something exists now. We call this something the Universe. The Universe is an Entity (in this sense it is the Entity containing all Real Entities other than itself – sometimes referred to philosophically as The World) with many Attributes (infinite attributes?) including Space and Time.

If Nothing exists, then there would be no Universe, therefore Something exists Now.

Some theologians claim that God created the Universe from Nothing, but that cannot be the case:

If God is Something then God is not Nothing. If God is Something, and can create Something from Nothing, then Nothing must have attributes from which something could be made, so Nothing must be an Entity and therefore is Not Nothing. Therefore Nothing does not exist.

If God is Nothing, then God cannot have any attributes, so God is not an Entity, therefore God does not exist. Therefore Nothing is created.

Something does exist, we call it the Universe, so God did not create the Universe from Nothing.

Physicists have shown that empty space is not Nothing, since it contains small amounts of random energy known as quantum flux arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Quantum fluctuation can be defined using at least four Attributes (variables and constants): time, energy, Planck’s constant (h), and another constant (2×pi):

\Delta E \Delta t \approx {h \over 2 \pi}

Since space contains quantum fluctuation, and quantum fluctuations are random bits of energy over time, space itself is not Nothing. It is worth mentioning for consideration and emphasis that the random energy fluctuation resulting in the temporary creation of energy is considered a causeless event.

Nothingness seems to be nothing more than the logical opposite of Something. Nothingness has no real existence on its own. If it there where ever a time where there was Nothing, then there could not have been time itself, for two reasons:

(a) time, according to Relativity, cannot be separable from space, and

(b) Time is an Attribute – turning Nothing into a Something once again.

If Nothingness did somehow “exist” before there was Something, then Nothing must be highly unstable. There can be at most one Nothing, and an infinity of possible Somethings.

Nothingness must be highly unstable.

Suppose instead of Nothing, there has always existed at least one Something (a minimal Entity with minimal Attributes approaching Nothingness in some sense perhaps), possibly quite different from Space as we “observe” it today in “our” Universe (as far as we can say we actually are observing space). Perhaps a primordial form of Time (or Space) itself may have been its only Attribute. It may have, perhaps, then become possible for a primordial Space (or Time) instantaneously creating a more modern day Spacetime with both a Planck Length and Plank Time (or visa versa with space appearing first). Perhaps other different “sized” bits of information (different sizes or possibly different attributes completely alien or incomprehensible to our human understanding) appeared as well, but were either very short lived, or continue to exist, but do not affect “our” Universe.

Another possibility to consider is that two or more primeval spaces, times, spacetimes (or something completely different) with different laws (perhaps one would call them Planck-like spacetimes), somehow collided to form the spacetime that we human entities live in.

Perhaps time itself is simply one dimension of space rolled up in such a way that in our sector of the Universe, matter and energy can only travel in one direction “though” it.

Perhaps space, time, or spacetime consists of something even more basic. A single, fundamental, perhaps highly unstable primordial Entity consisting of zero Attributes. We may be tempted to call this Entity The Primordial No Thing. This “initial” Entity would have an energy level as close to zero within the limits of the uncertainty principle.

The Primordial No Thing, if it existed, must have been both mathematical and unstable in its nature and eventually randomly mutated into a set of one or more entwined self-referencing, fractals or fractal-like Entities with the probability of barely less than one of exactly repeating itself. One or more branches of this increasingly organic-like, statistical fractal set collided with itself over and over again, until one event important to us occurred, spontaneously creating our known Universe, with its own set of so-called Natural Laws.

Note: “A fractal is an object or quantity that displays self-similarity, in a somewhat technical sense, on all scales.” – from


Did I already include this link?  Why not Something rather than nothing?

Really good book. I highly recommend it! I think Lloyd’s ideas combined with the idea of replicating Statistical Fractals (In this sense, I mean fractals with probability less than one of repeating with zero change that started in the simplist possible state initiated by random quantum fluctuation. They have an “organic” quality about them), and Eternal Inflation Theory is the key to understanding the Universe (multiverse).

Nothingness is highly improbable! Quantum fluctuation does not require previous cause. The “constants” of nature may not be as constant as once believed.


Seth Lloyd’s Quantum Computer

Quantum Computer “Running”


Quantum Computer, 20 Years Off

Home Back to More Links