Archive for the ‘Original thought’ Category

Stephen Hawking

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

I am excited to read his new book “The Grand Design” in which he says:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

I read over my early posts about gravity and symmetry, we all exist because of this force, we would not have a planet if not due to this force, nor a galaxy, nor a universe.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize!

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

What a strange reaction to our President receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Everywhere on the media I watch and read about how surprised and confused everyone is about why this has happened because of the perceived lack of concrete actions taken by the president.

What people of this opinion are not aware of is the power of the ideas that Obama has been socializing since he started campaigning for Pres. He has been planting seeds of change. Did we as a public believe that the minute he was elected that everything would change instantly? Are we that foolish? We need to be acutely aware of the effect his words and ideas will SLOWLY have on the American public and other nations. Words and ideas of openness, exchange of ideals, understanding and awareness. This message that is being conveyed in and of it self, is a form of action. This is the seed. Concrete results will slowly occur if we as a nation support these ideas and messages in our actions and support elected officials that assist with moving these ideas into further actionable outcomes.

Be patient people, more is happening that we all even realize.

On birds, humans and the planet

Monday, September 4th, 2006

I guess birds have always been an easy way to commune with nature. They are an utterly foreign creature from ourselves, which makes them intreresting, with their unlikely concoction of feathers, beaks and claws, and the innate ability to fly. We can very quickly lure them into our surroundings by offering food and water – they almost always accept. We often though are disappointed at the overall lack of variety that we attract to our little oases, just sparrows, or just dove. We crave the more showy, colorful bird characters, the painted bunting, the vast variety of warbler, oriole, yet almost every other action that we as humans engage in, effectively limits our ability to ever see these standouts among birds. Here in Texas, we have launched a full-scale attack on the native cedar (juniper) trees because we need to put houses there instead, the cedar are scrubby, and we don’t appreciate the havoc the pollen wreaks on our sinuses. The Golden-Cheeked Warbler, which nests exlusively in the central part of Texas, depends on these cedar trees. They make their nests out of long strips of cedar bark held fast with spider web glue. Should we expect or suggest that to survive in this overly fast-paced, changing world, the Golden-Cheek better adapt to a new kind of tree to use for its nest? Change its behavior that has been fine-tuned for ages, just so that we as humans can make this world entirely and selfishly our own?

I am reminded over and over of all of the science fiction that I have read – scenes of terra-forming planets to suit our purposes, the need to search out new planetary resources because we have depleted our own in our recklessness and our shortsightedness. Is it even possible, with our human population as immense as it has become – to turn back now? Or is it all just a matter of waiting for the inevitable planet-recycling event that will wipe humanity off of the face of the earth in order for nature to start the process all over?

I also can’t help but stop and think about how our vast race of humans, will someday be the fossil-fuels for future beings. All of our bodies will lay in the ground for eons, pressure, heat and time, slowly being converted into just the precious resource that we crave so badly and use with such wild abandon.

About gravity, symmetry, balance, duality and evolution and 2

Sunday, August 20th, 2006

Gravity has played a huge role in human and all natural evolution. This I believe is the cause for the symmetry that exists, the balancing necessary for our bodies and all other natural things to function properly on earth. So would it not make sense then, that everything that humans create or select through preference – also has a sense of symmetry – since that is what is all around us? We have all seen the studies that have been done on the “attractiveness” of a more symmetrical face to a less. It is what our brain inherently tells us is the correct way for things to be. So, if everything on this planet is more or less symmetrical, or balanced due to the affects of gravity, then this leads me back to the human need for 2 predominant types of everything. We seem to have the tendancy to view things as two opposing, two symmetrical, two sided, two choices, when thinking about the world around us.

So, if this is “duality” is our natural tendancy, than here is a societal example of where we have gone wrong.

One president: although we have two predominant political parties, why is it that we only have one actual president? Why not two co-presidents, one from each party, so there is a balance? Oh, then nothing would ever get accomplished the naysayers would say. There would be no agreement between the two presidents, and their ideas would cancel one anothers out. This is just the kind of argument that leads me back to stating that human beings have the natural tendancy to view things as having only two sides. Black or white, right or wrong, true or false. These are the overlying parameters that we live by and we attempt to set up laws and morailty based on this, when we all know that there is much more subtlety to life than this. Is it just too hard to take better advantage of the “grayness” that exists?

evolution to 2 theory

Friday, August 18th, 2006

I am sure someone has already pondered this and it may be just ridiculously obvious to everyone but me, but I have just come across the thought that everything that is affected by human preference is subjugated to having only 2 predominant types. My evolution to 2 theory is: everything that is affected by human preference over time evolves into two predominant types.

Here are some examples of our physical evolution:
Type of chromosomes: x and y or
Type of sex: male and female
Sides of our brain: left and right
Number of eyes, ears, nostrils, lungs, kidneys, legs, arms, hands, feet, the list goes on and on: 2

Here are some examples of human preference:
Most popular pet: dog and cat
Most popular political party in us: democrat and republican
Most popular religion in the world: christianity and islam
Most popular soft drink: coke and pepsi
Most popular type of meat: beef and chicken
Most popular seasoning: salt and pepper
Most popular condiment: ketchup and mustard
Most popular cell phone company: cingular and verizon
Most populated country: china and india
Computer types: pc and mac
Sides of a coin: heads and tails
Responses: yes and no, true and false
Morality: right and wrong, good and bad, yin and yang, guilty and innocent
Directional: up and down, left and right, front and back

So some of my questions on this topic are:
Is this just a load of bs?
What other examples can be thought of that support this theory?
What about things that have evolved to just one? Are there any? Why? How?
Where does “nothing” fit into this theory?
What about things that have two main types, but a third is close at its heels – like religion and our american political parties?
Does the evolving of two types create a third type? Or one type?
Is there a way to predict the outcome of the struggle to become one of the main two or the ultimate one of things?
What are the impacts of this theory on the advertising industry? auto industry? all industries?
How does the validity of this theory impact our perception of the world around us?
Is god the ultimate one that we as humans are striving for?
Is having children the ultimate one that we as humans are striving for?
Are there only two predominant types, simply because there will always be a second-most popular competing with a most popular to be the most popular?
Is this the meaning of human life? If I correlate meaning to mean ultimate goal?
Is this symmetry all just due to gravity?

waxing philosophic

Friday, July 14th, 2006

I realized that my brain is smarter than I am. It knows more about me than I know about it. I am not sure what that means – but I am sure it means something and that my brain already knows what.