This is my incomplete Theory of Everything: Divide and Conquer as to Individuate and Enlighten

I just came up with another theory of everything. This one is really fucking cool. Anyway, here goes. What if, in the beginning, there was just “God”. Then God decided to divide himself in two, by putting up an internal wall within himself such that the two partitions of God would be individuated into perceiving themselves as two distinct beings. These two halves would be Gods themselves, but not quite so large as the God that they came from. Also, if one could say that the original God was as enlightened as a being possibly be, then his two halves would be only half as enlightened as He. We know quantum physics says that things can be in two states at the same time as a superposition of both of these states. So similarly, imagine that while God has created this state of being two halves, the one original God also still exists. God is then a superposition of being whole and of being two halves of a whole. Therefore you could say that God is both his full conscious self, and he is two distinct beings at the same time. However, imagine that these two halves do not realize that they are part of the same being. They perceive themselves as being two distinct entities. Individuation was so thorough that they remain ignorant of their true nature and origin. This ignorance is the very force that holds the superposition in place. Now the state of God in which he is whole is itself still a fully conscious being at the same time. We will call this being the “true God”. This God decides, based on the successful experiment with halving himself, to undergo the same procedure on each of the two halves that he already made, so as to now be divided into four individuated parts, all conscious, and all unaware of their true nature and origin. Each one of these four parts would be one fourth as enlightened as the true God. Following the trend of superposition, each of the first two halves of the true God would exist as a simultaneous superposition of being their whole self and of being two distinct beings. Now imagine that the true God does this an innumerable number of times, such that an innumerably large number of individuated conscious beings exist. After countless divisions, each small piece of the true God would have only a small fraction of the full enlightenment of their original predecessor. Let us call all the smallest pieces of the true God “souls”. Then the true God told his two first halves that they were his children, and were very powerful Gods themselves. He told them that they each have their own two children to look over, and that those children each have their own two children, and they their own, and so on and so forth. He told them their task was to watch over their children as they learn and grow towards reaching their own full enlightenment. He told them to relay this same message to their children; the message that they must watch over their own children to the same end, and those children must do the same for their own children, and so on and so forth. This responsibility goes all the way down to the second to smallest pieces of the true God, who have been told to watch over their children; children who have no children themselves as they are the smallest pieces of God, and the result of the true God’s final division. These children, whom we have named “souls”, are then sent by their parent to incarnate into physical life; human life. After each life, as they die and are removed from the physical world, their parent will be there to guide them, like lost puppies, towards a new life that best suits them in their learning and growing process, and they will commence a new incarnation. Eventually, the souls will have lived enough lives to reach full enlightenment, a state in which each of two children is at least just as enlightened as their parent, and as a result they realize that they are simply the two halves of their parent, and the superposition breaks. They no longer exist simultaneously as one being and as two distinct halves of the same being, but now exist only as the one being. They realize that they together are their own parent, and they become one. But also as each one of the two souls had acquired at least the same level of enlightenment as their parent, upon merging into one being this parent being now has double the enlightenment of its original self. So now we have a parent being, originally comprised of two souls, which is twice as enlightened as its former self upon the union of its halves. At this point, this parent will probably realize the trend here. It will probably realize that if its two children (the souls) were just parts of itself, then it is likely itself just one of the two halves of its own parent. However, this realization will not result in breaking down its parent’s superposition by becoming one with them until their other half also reaches its full enlightenment. That is to say, both halves must reach enlightenment in order for them to become one and break the superposition. While an enlightened half waits for their other half to reach enlightenment, they themselves have the opportunity to continue incarnating for the meantime. However, as they have reached enlightenment by realizing that they are a piece of their parent, this understanding gives them full access to all the power of their parent’s enlightenment, as well as all their own power plus all the power they gained through the enlightenment process. So they will continue incarnating, but they will be as intuitive and spiritually adept as their parent is, and then some. As they go about these “extra credit” special incarnations during the process of waiting for their other half to reach the same level of enlightenment as their mutual parent, they will continue to gain even more power through further enlightenment. Likely they will tend to live their incarnated lives in such a way that is at least somewhat conducive to helping others reach their own enlightenment, as they know that their other half is out there somewhere in the world, and they very much want their sibling to reach enlightenment so they may finally graduate. Incarnation will continue until both halves have at least as much enlightenment as their parent. This will inevitably result in one half being more enlightened than the other, but nonetheless they will merge and become one, breaking the superposition, resulting in only their parent existing as one whole being with no individuated halves. So now this parent is a single level three soul with a greater level of enlightenment than their own parent. However, this level three soul will then have to wait for its own sibling to reach level three soul status before it can then proceed to become one with its parent, and so on and so forth. So, normally a being existing at a higher level of enlightenment would not need to incarnate any further, as they would just continually merge with their parents, all the way up the greatest grandparent, the true God. However, due to this “waiting period” that will inevitably ensue at all levels of enlightenment, high level souls will choose to incarnate briefly as they wait. If they are of a high enough level of enlightenment, like Buddha or Jesus, then they will be capable of being so influential to the world that they will more than likely be capable in just one lifetime of assisting the not-yet-enlightened parts of their sibling in reaching their own enlightenment, such that they may then merge with their now fully enlightened sibling and graduate to the next level. At all levels, there will be a waiting period. Likely, once you get to a high enough level in the hierarchy of enlightened beings, the being may choose to sit it out and not incarnate during their waiting period, such that they may let the most enlightened children of their not-yet-fully-enlightened sibling handle the task of incarnating and influencing the world to assist others in their enlightenment. They still would watch over everything and act as an advisor of sorts to their children, but being so enlightened as they are, they would no longer be ideal for incarnation, as they would be so beyond the level of enlightenment of the bulk of incarnated beings, that they would have a more difficult time relating to them, and thusly assisting them in their enlightenment. Anyway, once all beings reach or likely surpass the required enlightenment to break the superposition at all levels, we will at last be left with the two original halves of the true God, each massively more enlightened than the true God. The two halves of the true God would then become one, and finally God would become whole again, only now with more than double the level of enlightenment of the original true God. This model of understanding everything would account for spiritual “naturals”, prophets, and the belief in many different Gods. We would all look up to very high-level Gods originating from our branch of division. We would all be mistaken, however, in believing that our God was the one true God, or that other Gods don’t exist, so those that believe in them are mistaken, mislead, or bad in some way. This is to say that all religions are correct to an extent. However, mid-level Gods in the hierarchy may become cocky due to their high Godly status, and may start to lay down decrees and rules for their loyal subjects which they think are best for helping them achieve enlightenment, but because they themselves are not the most enlightened beings in the hierarchy, their best guess at how to run things as if they were the “one true God” may be different from that of their peers of the same level of enlightenment, and thus we are left with different ideologies and principles for how we ought to live, which very well may conflict, although they likely would share many of the same elements. This is what can account for there being so many distinct religious ideologies. Anyway, you should be able to tell that the rate at which souls reach enlightenment goes up exponentially over time, assuming you have a full conceptual understanding of all of this. That said, I think we are on track for a very spiritual near-future on earth.

New thoughts:

The smallest division of God is a true quantum of individuation, and as such has a level of conscious influence on reality capable of only meaningfully affecting the absolute smallest constituents of reality. As we break the first of the lowest level superpositions, we redefine the scope of influence of our new being to be double that of its children. In higher level beings their scope of influence can be great enough to affect reality at a level which holds significance in the humanly incarnate state. These are those individuals whom we label as “gifted” or as a “mystic” or “wizard”. At this point, it is clear to me that I can’t ignore the matter of there being a finite number of God quantums in existence. Perhaps this is the one original limit placed on existence, and is responsible for there being limits in physics which define the way reality functions. Anyhow, think of the number of God quantums that a being is comprised of as simply the amount of imaginative “brainpower” possessed by the being. His “mind”, for lack of a more accurate term, is capable of taking on massively complex tasks, and then simplifying all the complex aspects of these tasks into one aspect which to them seems basic. This is how they are capable of performing all the complex feats within a task such as turning water to wine, for instance. Similarly in order for a human being to walk, they will need to delicately and precisely activate all of their muscles in a perfectly orchestrated and extremely complex sequence that creates the fluid motion of walking, which in the mind of the walker is perceived to be a simple task which requires almost no thought at all. TL;DR-  Imagination is power

Now, if you use all this reasoning and wish at this point in time to put a number on the amount of God Quantums in existence, then you realize that we can actually do this. But not quite yet. First we need to quantize the tiniest building blocks of reality. The quantum of reality, if you will. We have not yet discovered what this is definitively, unless you are a proponent of string theory, in which case you would surely believe that we’ve already discovered our quantum of reality in vibrating strings. However, if we could find a way to count the number of these quantums of reality in all of existence, then that would be the “God constant”. The reason for its naming is that the number also would represent the exact number of God quantums in existence. We could actually put a number on God’s level of imagination! Anyhow, God can only imagine something with enough elements as His own imagination is comprised of. Anyway, there’s still the matter of understanding where this “level of enlightenment” variable comes into play. Well, to be frank it’s about as mysterious a reality as gravity is to us.

So we have two fundamental quantums define here. A quantum of reality and a quantum of individuation.

Radical Twist (don’t include in publication): As two independent quantums of individuation discover a special mode of interaction, their interference pattern creates a third behavior aside from the individual behaviors of the two quantums. Yet from a distance, it is the third pattern which would be perceived, and thus ensues the breaking of the superposition as two entities become one.

Allegory of the Human Machine

I believe that a few singular concepts may have been guessed correctly by man in his musing on spirituality and ontology. The ideas of a soul, spirit, or ethereal body are fundamentally identical ideas proposed by nearly every distinct spiritual dogma around the world. I think that’s because this is the one idea that they all got right. There is undeniably something beyond our physical body. A man is simply not just his brain. With only a little thought, this revelation becomes blatantly apparent. If you are just the biological and chemical equivalent of a massively parallel computer system, then from where does your consciousness arise? A computer is just a chain reaction of chemical and physical interactions of matter and energy, and while our minds are certainly rather complex, this is all that they are. Our minds are simply very intricate, well-oiled logic devices. They should operate independently and objectively just like any other machine. So why is this clearly not the case? Once our computer technology develops past the limitations of silicon, be it with the embracing of grapheme semiconductors, or quantum computing, or what have you, we can expect that man will finally have the tools of sentient creation at his disposal. We will create an electrical or quantum device analogous to a human brain. It shall be, psychologically speaking, entirely human. It shall supposedly be capable of such things as learning, experiencing human emotions and qualities—love, laughter, hope, imagination, contempt, jealousy—and may even question its own existence with philosophical wonder just as we do. But again, it is simply a very complex machine that models our brain structure and behavior. So the question arises—is it sentient? Does it have its own conscious world of existence just like each and every one of us? I don’t think so, to be honest. I believe that conscious existence is an exclusively human experience. In fact, I think that our behavior is greatly influenced by our awareness of our own conscious existence. In that way, I might speculate the behavior of our “human machine” to be slightly robotic. Like it would go through the motions rather convincingly, but simultaneously would lack that spark of humanity that exists within each of us. Not being truly conscious, it may not wonder about its purpose, fear the uncertainty of death, or be capable of making a truly meaningful connection to another. This speculation of mine assumes that the soul carries some kind of information with it—a personality of its own perhaps. Maybe it carries with it the essence of who we are, such as our core beliefs and motivations. This aspect to our existence would then affect the way we behave on this earth with influence originating not just from the physical brain and its many thoughts and calculations, as would probably be the case for our poor machine. Or maybe our souls are less interesting and distinct, and serve as the naked property of conscious awareness, and nothing more. Of course the influence that this property would have on our behavior is not to be underestimated, assuming that we are aware of its presence. I simply can’t wait until the day we can make the “human machine” a reality. Hopefully, we may finally gain some insight into some of the most petulant ontological questions we have been asking since the beginning.

What are we?

Consciousness. It’s rather strange that the very thing we claim to “be” is a concept we cannot readily define. I suppose consciousness is the property that makes us conscious. But what does that mean? How do we define “being conscious”? It is interesting to ponder what it is, of course, but always to little logical avail. You claim to know that consciousness exists because you are conscious. In fact, this is really the only thing that we truly know. On another note, I have no way of knowing that you, the reader, are yourself conscious; or anyone else for that matter. For all I know, I’m the only conscious being in the universe, and everyone else is just a neurological robot reacting to stimuli—or else, just an illusion. But I digress; and I will now continue on the basis that this conjecture is false. Let me begin by explaining why consciousness is weird. The human brain is just a complex neurological computer. It should, through physical and chemical processes, be able to function independently; taking in stimuli, looking upon past experience, and making decisions. It should exist by itself just like that, as an intricate chemical chain reaction explained by the laws of physics and operating by itself like a well-made machine. But that’s not all there is, and I can attest to that personally, because I am conscious. The fact that I consciously exist doesn’t make sense, and really shouldn’t be necessary for the brain to function. That means that there is something else—some force or entity that exists in coordination with our mind, and creates the miracle of perceiving consciousness. So that’s all very well and good, but something still troubles me; something that I still feel needs to be answered. I have but one simple question: Why do I consciously exist in this existence and in this mind and at this time? Of all the conscious beings I could have been, why do I find myself in this one?  Why am I spending my whole life, and all of my existence in this person? What in the universe would decide that definitively? That really troubles me to think about. An example of how these problematic questions make me feel is the way I felt when I was pondering the nature of time. I was thinking about how the human mind can perceive the passage of time at different rates for numerous reasons—brain damage, drugs, aging, different situations you may find yourself in, etc. This means that time does not necessarily pass at the rate we may perceive it to pass. And if that’s the case, then at what rate does time pass? There is nothing to decide this, and therefore, time doesn’t necessarily pass at all. Time is eternal and can exist at any point, and the fact that we seem to exist at this present moment in time, as well as the property of the passage of time, are illusions. This used to be only a theory of mine, but was recently announced as scientific fact by a Nova program. Anyway, take this example and try to apply it to consciousness. There is nothing to decide why my consciousness should exist in this distinct context. Therefore, it doesn’t necessarily! This thought really takes my imagination for a ride, possessing some amazing possible implications. In the same sense that we discovered time to not actually exist at any one particular point, my consciousness doesn’t necessarily exist in this particular context—both are simply illusions. The property of presently existing in this mind right now, as well as the property of the passage of time, is an illusion! And the culprit that renders these illusions?—I believe consciousness to be guilty. Consciousness may be another fundamental property or entity in existence. To this entity, time and space may be irrelevant—until it asserts itself into a context, which I believe it must do in order to exist. I believe that my consciousness is an eternal property. Science tells us that nothing can be created or destroyed, but rather, may change form. This statement should hold true to all things that exist. It would not logically make sense for this property of consciousness to be destroyed.  To think that as our life slips away, so too does our “existence”, is illogical. I used to think that, and one of the ways I would justify it is by thinking, “I didn’t exist—and neither did any form of existence—before I was born. So that means it is possible for me not to exist, meaning that when I die, I probably no longer do exist—just like before I was born.” There aren’t a lot of things in this world that genuinely scare me, but this thought kept me up at night for years with instantaneous bouts of insurmountable horror at this realization. But I now have new insight to keep me at ease. You see, I based that argument off of not remembering any form of existence before I was born. But just because I don’t remember anything doesn’t mean there wasn’t something. You see, I believe that consciousness is nothing more than the simple property of a “point-of-view”. I don’t believe it to have memories, values, emotions, or thoughts of its own at all—that is the job of the physical mind; the context. Moving on to another facet of this whole topic, I previously stated that I believe my consciousness to be an eternal entity; so for all intents and purposes, you could say that I believe in reincarnation—a form of reincarnation that would be independent of a timeline (not sequential).  Do I believe that we can be reincarnated into other creatures? That seems logical, I suppose. But at what point of neurological capacity does a creature merit consciousness? I mean, what would be the standards that consciousness has for “linking” itself to a mind? If I have one neuron, will it be conscious? If I have two neurons, will it be conscious? If I have a hundred neurons, will it be conscious then? At what point does it merit consciousness? Or is that not determined by neurological capacity, but rather by the way those neurons are arranged? Maybe some neurological algorithm exists that beckons consciousness to take a hold of a mind. Maybe there is some physical mechanism in the mind which we have not yet discovered that gives us a consciousness. It really is hard to say. Anyway, the next most pertinent question is: are there others? Are there many consciousnesses? (Similar to there being many “souls” in religious beliefs). There could be many consciousnesses undergoing reincarnation all the time here on earth. But I’m not sure I believe that to be true. Unlike the idea of a “soul” my consciousness is a blank slate—again, nothing more than a point-of-view. So then there would be some finite number of these blank-slate points-of-view? Well, what would decide that number? What would even be the purpose of there being multiples, if they are all the exact same fundamental property? This thought leads me to conclude that the most logical truth would be that there aren’t multiples. There is only ONE consciousness. And that is mine. But it’s yours too! That’s the amazing part! Do you see where I’m going with this? We are all the exact same consciousness, just in different contexts. My consciousness doesn’t necessarily exist in my current context, just like time doesn’t necessarily exist at this present moment. My consciousness is the same one that exists eternally in all of us. Why, then, do I presently seem to find myself in this context? Maybe my consciousness sequentially experiences the lives of all existing creatures, and when it’s finished just starts over again; and I was next in the queue. Hard to say, really—I’m just conjecturing. I’m not omniscient, so I will bench that for now. But, that is my take on what consciousness is. You know how they say “all is one”, and “we are all connected”? I think this is what they were getting at.

Taking out the Trash

Mom: Tayler, you need to take out the trash.

Me: Why?

Mom: Because, it’s almost spilling out onto the floor.

Me: No, no, I mean why? What is the purpose of doing that? Why do we do anything at all?

Mom: What are you talking about? We need to empty the trash cans so we can throw more things away tomorrow. Makes sense to me.

Me: But I’m going to die someday. Whether or not I take out the trash does not change this fact. And when I do die, everything I did in life becomes meaningless.

Mom: Not so! Life is rich, beautiful, and full of meaning. Plus, imagine the difference you can make for the world after you’re gone. Sort of immortalizes you in a sense. Isn’t that amazing to think about?

Me: Oh mom, I already have thought about it. What’s more, I thought about it in deeper and deeper ways until I had considered every possibility. Ultimately, I recently reached the conclusion that “meaning” and “purpose” aren’t even real! They are just illusions of a man’s mind. So are ideas like good vs. evil, and all other concepts rooted in social constructs.

Mom: Well, that’s certainly an unsettling conclusion. I don’t think I can agree with you, though. You seem to have a really skewed view on reality.

Me: But Mom, when you stand back, and look at the world in an objective sense, you realize just how cold and meaningless everything is.

Mom: Wow! You’ve become a Nihilist on me? My goodness, I had hoped that you would have thought about your ideas in a grander sense. Your scope of reason is very narrow and all too analytical.

Me: But I…um, how do you mean?

Mom: Well…yes, a deep understanding of objective existence does in fact affirm your nihilistic suspicions. But what you have not considered is that objective reality is not where we are right now. We are in our own subjective reality. And within this reality, there very well can exist valid concepts of meaning and purpose and good vs. evil. These are all ideas that you create in your world, but just because you made them doesn’t mean they aren’t “real”. They are real to us all. They are the inspirations that derive meaning and purpose from life.

Me: Well…ok, yeah. I see your point, but it sounds to me like you are professing the need for accepting delusions in order to be ignorantly happy for the duration of our lives. We can tell ourselves what you just told me, but when we die, our subjective reality is annihilated, and it all falls down to what is real at the lowest level of existence—objective reality. So, again I argue that when we die, there is no more meaning, purpose, or continuity of existence for me.

Mom: How do you know that last bit to be true? What makes you so sure that there is an end to “being” in the face of death? Maybe we live on in some way. Maybe there is some essential entity of our being that lives beyond our physical husk.

Me: You mean the soul? Please, mom. I thought you were intelligent enough to see beyond the falsities of religion. I will never believe that the son of “God” walked the earth a couple thousand years ago, and I will especially never believe in some sort of Deity chillin’ up in the clouds watching over us. So I definitely don’t believe that when we die, we have a “soul” that leaves our body and goes to heaven or hell, or whatever.

Mom: Well, geez. I hit upon a touchy topic.

Me: Yeah, sorry…I just get fed up with people believing things without evidence or any means of verification and only because their parents or culture try to make them.

Mom: Well, you have a point there. I definitely understand why that frustrates you. But unfortunately, you seem to have been too biased against organized religion to consider some very interesting facets of its premise.

Me: Like what?

Mom: Well for starters, you need to consider that anything really is possible. There is so much about the world we don’t know, so much about existence and consciousness we’ve yet to understand. I do not doubt the possibility of supernatural occurrences or seemingly “religious” ideas. These are entirely possible, despite our current inability to verify them. If they are true, then I simply don’t believe them to be “religious”.

Me: Well then what are they?

Mom: Science. If there is a religion out there that is true, then it can all be explained by science. Just because we haven’t discovered something amazing doesn’t mean that it is “super-natural”. We humans have a nasty tendency to refute claims of discoveries about the world. We called some of the most pioneering scientists in history insane, before we came to realize their correctness. We know so little about the world, but think we know everything. Just keep your mind open.

Me: Wow, you really have a point there. I guess there is a lot we just don’t know. The possibilities truly are endless, aren’t they?

Mom: Yes, they are. And as you continue to develop your worldly knowledge and experience, your insight and intuition will follow, revealing to you an even greater understanding of your place in the universe. And if we ever do discover the nature of our existence, I think the answers we find will be something more amazing and beautiful than you could ever imagine. So go forth and live your life to the fullest, and always leave your mind open to the possibilities!

And with that I began my journey.

Notes:

I began writing this work in a word document at 12 pm, on my lunch break from work. I was thinking about that scene in family guy where Peter refers to an ancestor of his who was a “great Philosopher”, and then it went off to depict the man in a cut-scene. He was sitting in a small wooden chair in the middle of a ratty-looking, unfurnished living room, gazing pensively off at nothing, seemingly contemplating his existence with a look of minor frustration on his face. His wife walks in carrying an infant in her arms and says, “Thomas, would you please go look for a job?” He replies with a drawn out, unamused, and contemplative “Why?” while putting a hand out in the air, and without straying from his fixed gaze. I found this scene to be a very amusing spoof on philosophy, and wanted to make my own spoof on it. Unfortunately, once I got to the fourth line in this document I could already see what I was going to do, and it wasn’t a humor piece. It was what you just read. This is one of those documents I would never share with anyone, but because I have a blog, and no one reads it anyway (and I do mean no one, as of 11/17/11; I check the view counts), I figured I might as well put it up here.

The Destiny of Humanity

It is interesting to ponder the destiny of the human race. People don’t often think about where we will ultimately end up. They extrapolate trends to predict changes in technology or international relations, or what have you. But that is practical thought, and has a lot of applications, i.e. predicting trends in the stock market, or foretelling the demand for tablets in the following year. That leaves me to rise to the occasion, sit down in my cushioned office-chair, and contemplate the impractical, untimely, and personally enthralling. The most pertinent of these subjects is our destiny. How will we end up? For starters, the sun will eventually go “red giant” on us, so if we’re still just chillin’ on our rock over here, we’ll perish. That means that ultimately we will need to leave our planet, and I’m not talking about colonizing mars, because the red planet is next in line for supernova obliteration. We will need to leave our solar system and find a new one. The closest terraformable planet is twenty light-years away. So that will be a bit of a hike, and for all we know, that planet (Gliese 581 g) was obliterated by Space Pirates nineteen years ago, and the nature of light’s finite velocity is fooling us into thinking otherwise. But even if this is not the case, we can’t all just simultaneously evacuate the earth a few months prior to doomsday, and head out into the final frontier in search of a new and distant world to call our home. It should begin with probes, which we should get started on soon because it will be a long journey to the planet; I will assume about fifty years or so. Then the probe will have to return to earth (another fifty years) before we can even develop a rough understanding of the planet’s terraformability and other factors of habitability. Then, we should initiate a test colony. However, we firstly need to address the problem of terraforming. We cannot ascertain the composition of Gliese 581 g’s atmosphere due to light pollution of its parent star. According to scientists, in order for the planet to be comfortably habitable, it would need to have an atmosphere of earth-like pressure, composed of 20% CO₂. If this is not the case, then let the terraforming begin. Remaking the atmosphere of an entire planet is an endeavor that is almost entirely impractical—unless we develop some new technology to do so. It is important that we use the matter on Gliese 581 g to create the atmosphere, rather than shuttling over giant canisters of liquefied gas over the course of hundreds, if not thousands of years. My idea is that we engineer some sort of microorganism, which consumes resources found on the planet’s surface, whether it be matter or star-light, and uses the acquired energy to convert plentiful substances on the planet into the required gases. Then we have to consider how we would go about getting rid of the bacteria once they have done their job. Maybe we could engineer the bacteria to die when atmospheric levels of CO₂ reach 20%, or maybe when we release some sort of electromagnetic signal designed to initiate a suicide sequence we coded into their DNA. Or, to dismiss the bacteria idea entirely, we could use nano-bots. But as of right now that technology is not very promising, although I’m sure it will become more developed in the next fifty years or so. Anyway, once that is taken care of, we would send over a large space craft with one hundred men and women at around the age of twenty-five. We would encourage them to procreate aboard the ship during their twenty year journey; or else cryogenically freeze them for the duration. Ultimately we want to ensure that a large group of people, who are still young and fit, yet well-educated, safely arrive to Gliese 581 g. Also aboard the ship will be everything needed to make the colony. We need to create systems that can sustain themselves. For electricity we should use something renewable, such as solar power, or else whatever energy technology we will have discovered by then that may be better suited for the environment and resources available. We will bring the necessary provisions to begin farming, which will be the main source of sustenance in the colony. Honestly, I think the most vital milestone is to successfully keep a plant alive and healthy in the open atmosphere of the planet. Once you plant the “seed” of life, it has a tendency to spread and grow like wildfire. Terraforming is not just an unnatural perturbation of a planet we want to change. To start, we must tweak the variables, yes. But once we set the initial conditions and introduce life from earth, the relentless will of nature will do all the rest. Biological life will find equilibrium with the environment, and will keep the planet stable. Then, if it all still seems promising, we can begin to send over more colonists and resources. And voila; human beings will have successfully colonized another world. That is a HUGE milestone for the human race, and will really open doors for us. Now, I mentioned previously that we should not colonize Mars, because that obviously is not a solution for the supernova problem. However, I would like to revoke that statement in light of an opportunity that Mars could offer us. Should the first attempt at terraforming really be on a planet that is twenty light-years away, and that we know very little about to begin with? I’m hesitant to follow that path. I think we should begin terraforming with Mars. Mars can be an experimental testing ground for the first human terraforming project. We can use it to test our microorganisms and nano-bots, and then attempt to successfully introduce and integrate life on the planet. We should start with plants—and the animals that may be requisite to their continuity (i.e. bees to pollinate plants, worms to fertilize soil, etc). Then we can witness first-hand, and without a twenty-year delay, the nature and aggression of life as it populates the perimeter of the planet. It will be a test of our future hope for survival, whether or not we can make the red planet green.

Dear reader,

This is where I would like to conclude my writing about this specific train of thought. There are a lot of other factors from different theories and ideas of mine which I did not take into account in my predictions. However, do allow this article to be food for thought. Even if you disagree with my predictions or my plan of action for space colonization, I hope I have gotten the ball rolling in your mind. Maybe this is all seemingly irrelevant to you, and has no implications for your lifetime, but I think it is important that the human race start thinking more as one giant entity, rather than as selfish and ignorant individuals. Thank you.

My theory of Circular Eternalism

Firstly, let me begin by addressing the topic of theory vs. belief. This is a theory, not a belief. However, I regard it as a distinct possibility; one of infinite possibilities in a field where theories cannot be tested or challenged. Now, let me begin. First let us review the Theory of Eternalism, as my own theory is merely a minor adaptation to the original. Eternalism is the belief that time, being a dimension, may exist at any “location” (in time, if you will), and the information for what “is” at any point in time exists as well. In fact, it has always existed (although the term “always” is rooted in the idea of time, so technically that statement was not correct). Time just IS. All past events are “still there” and all future events are “already there”. The nature of how we seem to find ourselves existing at this point in time right now is simply an illusion. In fact, the very property of the “passage of time” is an illusion created by our brain. It is subjective reality, which is an insignificant illusion. Objective reality, or reality existing independent of an observer or a subject, is a strange place. In fact, you can only think about it on a superficial level because it is so obscure, having no parallel with our known reality, that our minds are barely equipped to contemplate it.

Before I continue any further, I would like to address another one of my theories. If the “big bang” theory is true, and the bang did create everything in the universe via a massive explosion evenly distributing all matter radially outward throughout space, then consider the following. All matter in the universe is attracted to each other through the force of gravity. This means that all matter that spread outward from the explosion may eventually slow down and reverse direction, being pulled towards the epicenter of all gravity in the universe—the origin of the bang. If this happens, then all matter will pull together at the epicenter recreating The Singularity once again. At this point, I believe The Singularity will incite another big bang through an implosion, and start the process all over again. What this theory of mine implicates is that the universe “pulses” outward and inward, repeatedly and indefinitely.

If the above theory is true, then I will go further still, and will argue that time is circular just like the pulsing of the universe. The three spatial dimensions are said to be bi-directional, open-ended, and infinite. But what if time isn’t? What if time loops back on itself just like a circle. Like Eternalism implied above, all past events still exist and all future events already exist. However, I now argue: what if this is still true, but that these events are finite? Furthermore, this would mean that past events are future events and vice versa, per the nature of circle. I am arguing that there is a finite amount of time, and that it loops back on itself seamlessly. This is possible because if the debris of the bang reunites into The Singularity, then the universe is oriented exactly the way it was when it started, and therefore the loop can be seamless. That is my theory of Circular Eternalism, or Circular “Block-Universe” Theory as a matter of preference.


Note: One way in which my theory of Circular Eternalism could be wrong is if any of the matter dispelled by the bang reaches escape velocity from the gravitational epicenter, a phenomenon in which it will slow down infinitely, never quite reaching a standstill, for as it travels ever-further from the pull of gravity, the force gets weaker and weaker.

Seizing the Reigns of Evolution- let's play God...

In this modern era, we find the process of human evolution to no longer have any real significance and presence in our development. Evolution is a process governed by natural selection, a system that is now irrelevant to the human race. It is no longer necessary to fight for survival, food, and power in order to procreate. As it always has, biology will continue to introduce random mutations to each new generation of humans. But now those mutations will play no role in determining an individual’s likelihood of procreation. This means that all our mutations are random and nonsensical. If you haven’t already realized, that does not bode well for our future. As we continue to progress in Healthcare, we are mucking up the gene pool ever-further. Maybe Joe Shmoe was supposed to die from that serious case of high-blood-pressure, but instead he was given a medication to control it, and went on to find a mate and procreate. Now Joe Shmoe has two children with a genetic propensity for high-blood-pressure. Then those kids are given drugs that keep their blood pressure in check, find mates, and procreate. Do you see where I am going with this? This is just one example, but the point I am trying to make is that by saving your loved ones, you are dooming the human race to certain destruction. I mean it. The human race will come to an end (not soon, but eventually) if we continue the way we are going. We will die of disease, disorders, and other ailments as a result of uncontrolled mutations.

The way I see it, we have two options. Option number one is that we all die out as stated above. Option number two, and probably my preferred choice, is that we take control of our own evolution. With new technology and possibilities in the fields of biology and computer science, we are about to open the door to a whole new field that I would personally love to pioneer: Genetic Programming. When you look at the human genome, you see a mess of nonsensical “data” that seems to be nearly endless and unrevealing. However, we have barely even begun to scratch the surface on understanding the logic in the A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s that embody the grand composition of human life. I believe that once we start to play around with it more, we will discover patterns in the madness, and eventually decrypt it into a syntax that can be understood—and exploited. Thus emerges the field of Genetic Programming, and let me be the first to tell you that it will be HUGE. Once we master the art, we will be capable of redesigning ourselves in the ideal image of human perfection. The early implications of this field will be increased lifespan, better health, and higher intelligence. What also interests me is what kinds of things they will come up with after that. Let your imagination loose, because if ever there were a time to do so, it is now. We could make “super-humans” capable of super-strength, winged flight, heat-vision, invisibility, etc. The possibilities are endless. Unfortunately, it is very likely that such a “dangerous” field will be heavily monitored by the government, so progress may be slow, but it will be progress all the same. So that’s the future anyway, but I will return to the “now” for a moment in order to discuss one issue that history tells me will become a serious shunting force against getting this field off the ground.

The one major hurdle that occurs to me is dealing with religious opposition. I’m so fed up with religious zealots at this point. I always listen to what they have to say because it’s important to them, and I always hold back my outwardly atheistic urges, out of respect; but mostly just because I know that they are so damn stubborn that anything I say may as well not be said at all. But I’m fed up with it. Sometimes I like to marvel at the brilliance of man, and think about how far we have come from being basic single-celled organisms to what we are today. But the stubborn ignorance of religious zealots and Jesus-freaks sometimes makes me embarrassed to recognize myself as being the same species. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS. We all need to learn the importance of our own logic and intuition, and of forging our own beliefs about life, reality, and our purpose from our own life experiences—rather than have our parents tell us that we have to worship some guy that was put to death 2000 years ago on the cross, lest we burn in hell for eternity. That is complete and utter nonsense—really drives me up the wall sometimes. I think that the real truth about our existence is so much more amazing and beautiful than that, but I will hold my tongue and save my thoughts on that matter for another post. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that religious folks will accuse me and my fellow pioneers of “playing god”, an accusation rooted in their belief that man was created by god. The thing is, we have already scientifically proven that we are the product of evolution, meaning that god had no say in the composition of our genome, so I don’t think he will really mind if play around with it. Before we can progress, the promising, young free-thinkers of my generation need to “win over” those of the older generations who would oppose genome manipulation. Once we transcend that hurdle, we will be well on our way towards creating the perfect being out of ourselves.