Posts by hollowpilot9

David Martin, honey, I think you might have had an accident when you typed "philosophy is like religion..."
it's harmful to most, interesting to a few, and basically a calling for the lunatics

hollowpilot9: The greatest philosophy is tucked away inside an apricot pit—right in that part you and everyone else just toss in the trash! Philosophy isn't faith; philosophy is ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, much like the "pit" of an apricot holds its seed—the very starting point from which the whole tree grows.
Is philosophy harmful? No doubt about it. The only real question is who is it hurting? The smart people or the fools!?
As for whether philosophy is uninteresting—well, a philosopher's ramblings are only as engaging as any other piece of prose, but then again, the philosophy of the whole, the philosophy of the tetrahedron, the philosophy of deterministic chaos, or fractal philosophy? Now those are gripping. And don't even get me started on wave philosophy. The reason most people haven't studied WAVE PHILOSOPHY is because a tsunami hit and "in one single blow" wiped out 300,000 people. That’s why, my dear "sweetie," philosophy is both a necessity and a requirement: to cancel out the idiots!

Elizabeth, my grandmother was actually named Elizabeth!
And regarding your take on philosophy—honestly, I’m right there with you. My experience has been pretty much the same. Here’s the bottom line: philosophy only actually matters if you're doing the work yourself—autonomously, really—with the genuine goal of digging for the Truth (the whole picture, anyway). Just blindly following someone else's school of thought? That’s not philosophy; it's just an insult to the whole concept.

Ptahotep says: "The Four-faced God" is a pretty famous concept within Egyptian philosophy.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, check out the book *Initiation* by Elizabeth Heich.

Then again—dimensions are just concepts, aren't they? Nothing more. The world is basically just another image, or maybe a movie screen in a theater.
In any kind of investigation, the only thing that actually matters is the motive behind it. Everything else is just noise—completely useless data that only serves to drag you deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit.

Best,
hollowpilot9: If you're actually interested in concepts from "Egyptian philosophy," why don't you take a look at my picture book for adults? It’s got over 300 images designed to show grown-ups what they really need to learn—you know, like little kids. If you're curious, shoot me your address and I'll send a copy your way!
Cheers

hollowpilot9 says: If there exists a consciousness that—for whatever reason—constitutes our three-dimensional Universe, can we then consider the possibility that within us lies the seed of a consciousness that makes a world without time or space!?
It’s perhaps that realm that completely encloses our 3-D world.
Like a larger sphere containing a smaller one inside it.
But since the larger and smaller spheres aren't rotating in the same direction, the smaller one ends up creating its own distinct reality.
That reality might be spatially and temporally limited, meaning all movements, shifts, and changes within it would be nothing more than a total ILLUSION.

hollowpilot9: I think you’ve hit on the core issue here! All these debates regarding consciousness, intellect, and intuition basically fall apart if 3D perception remains the absolute rule—if the 3D world holds total sway. Until the MIND LEAPS OUT of 3D space, there are no solutions. Let me share a bit of this text:

Greek geometers were the ones who first identified and introduced three-dimensional geometry into our awareness. Plato’s shapes, featuring the elementary tetrahedron, are essentially the result of that Greek 3D perception of space. This eventually leads to EUCLIDEAN THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY, which only recognizes length, width, and height, while DEPTH is just... forgotten. A mathematician or geometer might argue: "It isn't hard for us to visualize one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional (Euclidean) space: a line, a plane, and a volume, respectively." But notice how this geometer "forgets" the POINT from which the line—that one-dimensional space—actually began?
It took over a thousand years before anyone even started talking about the fourth dimension of space. Because of Einstein's authority, his specific take on this "understanding"—where time is merely a fourth spatial dimension—has persisted to this day. It’s only really in the last decade that we're seeing a resurgence of observations regarding the "sacred quaternary," a concept introduced to the mind by the Pythagoreans with their famous tetractys. We are seeing entirely new perspectives on dimensional space, and the biggest game-changer is quantum wave physics, which posits:
The Fourth Dimension, space-time continuum, is reality. In the fourth dimension the infinite number of solids in the universe are in relationship with each other through time and energy. In the time domain, the fourth dimension continues the movement of the third dimension ( past to form a wave, constituting fractally the space-time continuum.
The fourth dimension is the home of complex numbers and fractal geometry. Unlike the other dimensions, the fourth is the real world in which we live. It is the space time continuum of man and nature where there is constant change based on feedback. As Mandelbrot recently discovered the fourth dimension includes not only the first three dimensions, but also the gaps or intervals between them, the fractal dimensions.
Beyond points that are undefined in space, mathematicians have noticed something practical: in the winter, people wear gloves; a left one on the left hand and a right one on the right. If you move a left glove across a two-dimensional plane—say, a tabletop—it stays a left glove. To turn it into a right glove within that same plane, you’d have to "invert" it, or flip it inside out. Only then would the inner side of the left glove become the outer side, turning it into a right glove, and vice versa. So, if you happened to have two left gloves, an inversion (a flipping) of one would be enough to get you a right one. However, it’s possible to make a left glove a right one without actually flipping the glove itself, but rather by flipping the very space the glove occupies. If you lift one of those two left gloves off the table, rotate it 180° around an axis parallel to the table, and set it back down, you get a right glove. It’s the same logic as when we "stubbornly" assume something is on the right side of our right hand, yet the moment we start spinning around, our right becomes left and our left becomes right. It’s why when two people talk face-to-face, both think they are using their right hand, when for one speaker, the other person's right side is actually their left. That’s why people shake hands DIAGONALLY rather than "vertically"! Therefore, space is clearly DUAL rather than single, despite what we usually think. The realization is that we have space within space—two spaces that are inverses of one another. This is certainly a massive innovation in how we understand and interpret space, one that will increasingly earn its "citizenship" in the 21st century. This innovation exists within the framework of a non-linear, four-dimensional perception of space and the world!
So, if you're stuck in a two-dimensional space, you're basically looking at flat planes—kind of like a single sheet of paper sitting on my desk. To actually escape that flat, triangular 2D elementary space, you’d have to move in "height" or "depth" toward some kind of FOURTH point, let's call it point D. Most of us instinctively go "up" rather than "down," probably because we've been conditioned for thousands of years to walk on what we perceive as "flat earth." But if you look at the basic two-dimensionality of a triangle, it follows that 2D space is actually a fractal function—which essentially makes it just one face of a tetrahedron, serving as the elementary 3D fractal of the entire universe. This idea is backed up by this English text:
in the fourth dimension the infinite number of solids in the universe are in relationship with each other through time and energy. This can be expressed in terms of "fractal scaling," from the infinite small to the infinite big, perpendicular to the other dimensions and including the intervals or fractal dimensions between them. The meaning of fractal scaling for now it is sufficient to understand this as scales of magnitude, as for instance from the size of the atom to the size of a galaxy.
The ELEMENTARY 3D SHAPE IS A TETRAHEDRON, not a sphere like a lot of people assume! A tetrahedron is actually the ELEMENTARY SPATIAL FRACTAL OF THE UNIVERSE... Regarding this shape, Buckminster Fuller once said:
The four-cornered tetrahedron is the minimum structural system in Universe. It excludes all the irrelevant information of Universe and includes all the information relevant to the system.
Meanwhile, another text points out the following:
Tetrahedron is a very special structure from the point of view of General Systems, as it is the bonding structure of carbon and represents a diamond crystal. Carbon and its 4x3 structure, which is reflected twice in its nucleus, once in its electron shell, and a 4th time in its tetrahedral bonding pattern, is the pivotal structure which connects the astrophysical realm (through the alpha particle and the nucleosynthetic pathway of element formation) to the biological realm (through organic chemistry and DNA).

I hope this provides enough insight into how our mentality—which includes our intellect and our sensory perception—is woven in a four-dimensional way, rather than the three-dimensional way we still mistakenly believe? Symbolically speaking, the Pythagoreans relied on the "sacred quaternary," then the "sacred trinity" arrived and took over, and now we find ourselves returning to the "sacred quaternary" thanks to the flood of new discoveries everywhere. In order to move toward that complementary, polar, dual consciousness that is our true nature, we first have to resolve the whole "hand and glove" problem—the tetrahedron versus the sphere, polarity, masculine and feminine. Ultimately, we have to recognize our four-fold construction and organization, from our teeth down to our reproductive organs, and from our brains to our DNA structure. Our linear perception of the world is exactly what prevents us from seeing this; it's what relentlessly seduces us into believing that the world looks exactly the way we see it with our eyes. Only when we realize there is an inverse world to the one we see does consciousness truly enter the space of reality—of NON-ILLUSION! That’s why I say: Intellectuals, especially philosophers, have a massive chance right now to become locomotives instead of mere freight cars! That's my constant message. Philosophers simply need to step OUT of 3D perceptions and start flipping them—performing inversions just like a philosopher's brain does automatically, without even knowing or consenting to it. Here in the philosophy department, it seems somewhat possible, but on the science forum, it's a total disaster. Right now, they are openly mocking the GLOBAL BRAIN—the SUPERBRAIN—but in doing so, they are actually mocking themselves, reducing science to mere verbalism and triviality without any substance.

Gerald Rivera3 said: if there were actual evidence for every religious claim, we wouldn't be talking about faith anymore—it would just be science or maybe history.
Every religion has that one foundational thing you can't prove—take the resurrection of Jesus, or the idea of the Message being whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, for instance. People just accept it because someone told them that's how it went down, and apparently, the alternative is eternal damnation

hollowpilot9: Why do you, Gerald Rivera3, and most others immediately jump straight to reductionism? The question was specifically about FAITH AND EVIDENCE. If we’re only talking about religious belief, then sure, the point is missed. But you have to realize that every scientific breakthrough starts with the FAITH that something actually exists to be discovered... so, you're basically flipping cause and effect. Look at Watson and Cirque—they simply HAD FAITH that they could figure out the structure and logic of the DNA molecule. Before they actually assembled the molecule by "playing around like kids," they had no clue what it looked like: THEY JUST BELIEVED! It's the same deal with religious FAITH in the existence of God. You just need to prove that faith, or disprove it. Right now, the situation is pretty thin regarding the configuration of patterns that suggest outlines of proof for God's existence in a creative sense. Once that's proven, religious FAITH will become scientific Truth!
So why all the emphasis and misunderstanding regarding FAITH AND EVIDENCE? FAITH PRECEDES PROOF, and proving God should be simple for humans—if we're talking about His attributes—considering those two gentlemen are only about 2,000 years away!

There’s honestly no distinction to be made between faith and its object. If the thing you believe in actually exists, then it serves as its own proof—but if the object of that faith doesn't exist? Then the whole belief is just an illusion. It’s like when people sit in a movie theater thinking characters are actually moving through space, when in reality, they're just static images flickering on a screen. Every belief held in a cinema is essentially an illusion, simply because there's zero evidence to back it up.
The same logic applies to the relationship between facts and evidence. You see these novice scientists constantly peddling this idea that a fact needs scientific proof just to qualify as a fact... as if that makes any sense.

Someone or nothing says: answering the question "what is...?" essentially means defining it. In philosophy, providing an answer to "what is that?" is what we call determining the essence of a thing. So, by defining something, you are assigning it a specific definition, an essence, a form—you’re participating in a concept or an idea...
Matter has no essence; it isn't anything defined... it’s just that dark, opaque void...
Some possible answers: "it is something, but we can't even theoretically know what it is"—that’s Kant, the "thing-in-itself."
Or: "it really is nothing."
Or: "it is that which is unconscious; through awareness, we translate matter into spirit."
Maybe there are others...

hollowpilot9: My post in the other thread explains pretty clearly what it means to DEFINE SOMETHING, regardless of what it actually is! Until we define the Origin of what we otherwise "think" of as NONEXISTENCE, we can't even define something that exists. Even if a thing is mentally complex, DEFINING THE ORIGIN ISN'T A SIMPLE LINEAR CONCEPT—it's a POLARLY COMPLEX CONCEPT CONSISTING OF TWO PAIRS OF INVERSE POLAR CONCEPTS. To be specific, it looks like this: suppose we want to define male and female, with names or without—no matter how hard we try, we can't define them the way we experience and think about them. We can only define them as THEY ARE. Male and female are complex, not linear, unambiguous concepts, because every concept is composed of both male and female elements—meaning we actually have four inverse and complementary concepts wrapped into ONE. You see, PHILOSOPHY IS THE INTELLECT THAT UNDERSTANDS AND CORRECTLY INTERPRETS THESE FOUR CONCEPTS AND THEIR INTERRELATIONS WITHIN EVERY SPECIFIC EXISTENCE AND EXISTENCE IN GENERAL.
Here’s a detail: I think you're making a mistake when you say: "matter has no essence, it isn't anything defined... it’s that dark, opaque void...", because the same applies to matter as it does to you or anything else we consider a definition—an existence. Matter is indefinable for the exact same reasons a human being is indefinable; that is, MATTER is a polarly complex concept, not a simple linear one. Just as an example: we can't simply say matter is a mineral like a chunk of rock, because it is also liquid, gaseous, and even plasma. So, to make a long story short, matter CAN BE DEFINED, but only as a quaternary concept, just like everything else. And one more thing: what traditional philosophy merely attempts to label with the term ESSENCE is actually the Origin. There is no second Essence besides the Origin, neither in so-called reality nor in the minds of philosophers. Only when philosophy begins to philosophize from such a defined position of BEING does it truly become PHILOSOPHY. Everything before that is just more or less successful ATTEMPTS at philosophizing.

Kate Lee12:
Thanks, though you could have just sent the link where most of what you said is actually written in English...

It’s not like I’m saying I disagree with David Bohm’s theory—I never claimed that in the first place.

More than that, I’ve always "believed" (and still do) that our entire existence—life, our surroundings, everything—is basically just a matter of perception. It’s a construct born from shifts in elementary particle charges. In other words, what I might call our "view" of reality is essentially a fantasy—or, to use your term, just a layman's imagination...

I actually brought this up once a long time ago in a thread about "what is reality?" on an old forum...

What really fascinates me beyond that is the relationship between cause and effect regarding my own consciousness and the "external" stimulus—let's call it the "emitter"—of this supposed "hologram."

Because, just like you wrote, there has to be another "source" that defines us—our consciousness, the aforementioned hologram—right? Maybe it's even a new dimension...

hollowpilot9: Look, I agree that links can convey information, but personally, I’m "against" using them that way. My style is that knowledge should be integrated and built upon. There’s a difference between taking a piece of info and weaving it into my own understanding (whether I cite the source or not—though it's proper to do so), versus just saying, "Hey, go read what Kate Lee12 wrote." Those are two completely different ways of communicating intellectually to reach actual insight. If we aren't expanding and enriching our individual knowledge, if we aren't complementing one another to create synthetic knowledge from existing Knowledge, then all we’re doing is playing ego games—acting like one person knows more than the other. Only when we reach universal knowledge—which is what I constantly advocate for—will we each possess our own version of the SAME truth, yet expressed through CREATIVE, INDIVIDUALIZED knowledge. You follow me, right?

Any thinker, any researcher, has to solve the problem of cause and effect and the subject-object relationship first. Without resolving that, there is no REALITY, and certainly no CONSCIOUSNESS or THOUGHT. Let me give you a "trivial" example that we overlook constantly.
Imagine we’re looking at an optical image—say, the American flag with its RED, WHITE, and BLUE stripes. We are all dead certain we see red, white, and blue, right? But you know, as does anyone who finished a basic physics seminar, that the colors we see are just reflected light from the object. The object polarizes the light: it absorbs some parts and reflects others. We label the object by the color of the light it reflects, not the light it absorbs. So, what is the Truth? What color is the object if we see it as RED? Is it red because of the reflected light, or is it actually green because of the absorbed light? That right there is a perfect illustration of the problem of cause and effect—the subject-object relationship.

There absolutely must be ANOTHER SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE! Anyone even remotely interested in studying the evolution of knowledge, the spirit, or the mind knows that we all operate within three dimensions: length, surface, and volume. Just as we have these levels of reality, we have corresponding levels of consciousness—though I won't dive into that here. I will say, however, that very few people can actually think in three dimensions, which is what we call imagination. But what about the fourth dimension? And what about the FIFTH SYNTHETIC dimension? That is undoubtedly the SOURCE you mentioned, and the source of the HOLOGRAM itself, because that is the realm of the Origin—and an Origin is always the summary of everything it pertains to.
So, that’s all for now. Thanks for the questions and comments; it's only through this kind of exchange that we can nudge our stagnant minds out of the "crooked" paths of mechanical, linear scientific and philosophical traditions. Anyone thinking in straight, linear lines has nothing left to seek in the realm of the mind at the start of the 21st century—not to mention the rest of the century!
Keep going!

Kate Lee12 says: sure, we’re still stuck with a mountain of unanswered questions—but let's just start with these two:
So, what exactly is a hologram? And I’m not talking about that whole bit regarding the eternal fluctuation of spiral light and thought—you know, the E.C. perspective—but the actual mechanism. What is it being "projected" from? And then there’s the consciousness question. Is it the cause, or just some byproduct? Just something that happens after the fact?
Can I take what you just wrote as a "yes" to my previous question? Or am I totally misreading the vibe here?

My fascination with holography actually stems from my photography work—just a quick bit of context for those who don't know. A hologram is essentially a 3D image generated using coherent laser light. You take that laser light, split it, and direct it onto two separate plates. One image from one plate reflects via mirrors onto the photographic plate, while a second mirror directs the image from the other plate into the space behind it. It’s all pretty technical, but you can even get holographic photos printed on paper, much like how National Geographic experimented with similar concepts back in 1884. Since Gabor invented the hologram, it stands to reason that holographic imaging would be a solid business in a hub like Washington, D.C. I actually had the chance to see a holographic image once—I practically had to reach out and touch it just to convince myself there wasn't actually something physical sitting there.
It’s been quite a while since we last talked about this, hasn't it? And honestly, the way we define a hologram has shifted so much. It isn't just some flickering light projection anymore—that’s such a narrow view. Nowadays, we’re looking at holograms generated across various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible light. We’ve got X-ray holography, and then there’s acoustic holography, which is wild because it basically lets you "see" right through solid objects. It’s pretty incredible how these things have moved from theoretical curiosities to actual, practical tools used everywhere—from heavy industry and scientific research to business and education. Who would've thought?
The whole hologram phenomenon became such a massive scientific hit so quickly that a formal philosophical-scientific definition had to follow—one that I believe was first put forward by David Bohm. His take on it goes something like this: in a holographic world, the one and the many are essentially the same thing. Or, if you want to look at it another way, everything everyone else knows is known by every single individual, and everyone else knows exactly what any one person knows. (In our everyday American culture, we’ve basically been using a "folk" definition of a hologram for ages: "One for all, and all for one!" That’s really just the grassroots, common-sense version of it, isn't it?)
Based on that kind of definition, Bohm put together this holistic theory of the universe—basically suggesting that every single tiny unit of existence somehow knows everything about the cosmos, or rather, describes the entire universe within itself, while the whole universe is simultaneously tucked away inside every individual part. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, isn't it? Naturally, this paved the way for all sorts of holistic philosophies and theories to follow—some of the most intriguing being the ones that try to bridge the gap between ancient religious intuitions and this concept of a holistic reality.
Pribram is working on this theory that our brains are basically holograms—where every single brain cell holds the collective knowledge of all the other cells. But honestly? I’d take it a step further. If every cell in your brain already contains the data from every other cell in your entire body, isn't that just a massive, glaring hint toward a holographic universe? It feels like we're looking at the blueprint for everything.
But then—and here’s where things get stuck—whenever anyone actually tries to bridge the gap between micro and macro holistic phenomena, the conversation just hits a wall. Since I’ve always been a bit obsessed with the holographic principle for a dozen different reasons, I started thinking about how humanity’s media presence might actually be holographic and holistic in nature. Think about it: when a major news outlet like CNN drops a single story, that one piece of information reaches millions of people in a split second. That single broadcast is essentially identical to the millions of individual bits of data scattered across the global population—it’s a holographic phenomenon. It’s the same logic you see in biology, right? Every single cell in our bodies "knows" what the cells in our brain know. It’s all part of the same pattern. A hologram. Which leads me to my point—we ourselves are holographically structured.
We really need to address the fact that the quantum hologram is still incredibly relevant here. If you think about it, every single quantum state is essentially just a specific concentration of whatever that quantum refers to—which leads to the idea that a quantum state is actually a holistic perception of the world, or maybe even a perception of the future. It’s a bit of a trip, right? It completely upends everything we thought we knew—especially our tidy little ideas about space-time. Because in a holistic space-time model, space and time don't really exist as separate things anymore. Everything is simultaneous. It's all happening at once. To make things even more "complicated"—if you can call it that—this holistic theory actually aligns with the religious notion that the Origin (God) manifests in the future of time, too, rather than just being tucked away in the past like we've been mistakenly led to believe. Anyway, I hope that's enough of an answer for you.

Kate Lee12 says:
hollowpilot9, if I’m following your logic correctly—and I might be misinterpreting things here—is it fair to say that plasma is essentially a specific "cluster/density/movement" of energy that, by simply manifesting, regulates the existence of something that technically doesn't exist? Or rather, it provides us (meaning "consciousness," in the end) with information about how it "manifested" in a way that we—conditionally speaking—can "recognize"?

I sort of remember this topic drifting through my head once, though I don't recall the specifics since I wasn't really "navigating" these waters back then.

Taylor Alvarez6, I agree with the question; it actually hits on the core of trying to grasp our own existence and, ultimately, serves as the fundamental "spark" for religion...

hollowpilot9: The classic definition of plasma is ionized gas, which is obviously incomplete—actually, it's just wrong. Gas is the third state of matter, not the fourth, and gases are made of molecules containing complete atoms (protons, neutrons, and electrons). But if you keep heating a gas, if you keep ionizing it, you eventually reach the DISINTEGRATION OF ATOMS into their constituent parts: neutrons, protons, electrons, plus energy. A flux of neutrons, protons, electrons, or any other unbound particles—like photons—is PLASMA. And it's not always heated to millions of degrees Celsius; PLASMA can be as COLD as a TV screen. So, basically, all energetic radiation is PLASMA, which means we are "bathing" in solar plasma every single day. Since every particle, molecule, or energy wave—every quantum—has a specific frequency (like color), it inherently carries specific INFORMATION. We see this today in photochemistry, photobiology, photomedicine, and the massive scale of photosynthesis within FLORA, which directly or indirectly shapes all life on Earth. Of course, the question remains whether magnetic flux counts as plasma—which, by all accounts, it does—making PLASMA the FOURTH UNIVERSAL CONCEPT OF MATTER, encompassing subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, waves, magnetism, and everything else those terms imply in existence. For instance, if sunlight, or light in general, is the agent of perception and neuro-brain processes (like seeing an image or thinking about what you see), then it’s perfectly logical that PLASMA has some connection to our mentality, mind, spirit, soul, consciousness, or whatever label we choose to use.
Why does this matter? Simply because physical science has moved far beyond mechanical physics and has stepped deeply into wave-quantum PLASMA PHYSICS, which is EXPONENTIALLY DRIVING US TOWARD THE SINGULARITY—that point where the human and machine brain merge, as the innovator Kurzweil suggests—yet philosophers aren't even debating it?! Plus, there's this phenomenon where everyone is becoming dizzyingly "plasmatic," staring into computer monitors and TV screens, stepping into a cyber world that is 100% plasmatic.
To make things even more interesting, I stumbled upon this text online:

Plasma Intermediary Life stage
New Scientist
Physicists have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.
Most biologists think living cells arose out of a complex and lengthy evolution of chemicals that took millions of years, beginning with simple molecules through amino acids, primitive proteins and finally forming an organised structure. But if Mircea Sanduloviciu and his colleagues at Cuza University in Romania are right, the theory may have to be completely revised. They say cell-like self-organisation can occur in a few microseconds.
If plasma and life are causally linked, the existence of FLORA on Earth is SUFFICIENT PROOF!!!
As for the origins of religion, it seems more accurate to put it this way: Intuition is the CAUSE behind any belief, including beliefs in the existence of God, and the CAUSE of intuition is PLASMA, because plasma contains ABSOLUTE INFORMATION ABOUT EVERYTHING. That is exactly what David Bohm refers to as the holographic universe!

Kate Lee12 says: okay, if matter isn't predetermined, then what is?

(if we pivot back to that last point hollowpilot9 laid out so elegantly—what exactly is our visual brain?)

So, "reality" ends up being defined by our understanding of plasma (whatever that actually turns out to be)—though I suspect plenty of people here might get a bit triggered thinking plasma is just another word for the "soul," which, based on this logic, would make it a literal constituent part of it.
hollowpilot9: If we consider that plasma, in its most primal sense, is the Fire we all know—the kind that devours millions of cubic feet of wood and vegetation—and we acknowledge that sunlight is plasma, and all other electromagnetic radiation is plasma, and even realize that every image on our TVs or computer screens is plasma... then, if we accept that all external images processed by our brains are mediated through plasma—light—then the fourth state of matter takes on a massive role in existence, specifically regarding the existence of life, particularly plant life. Where does this leave us? That's a whole other debate. But in terms of matter, it’s vital to ditch that old, flawed mechanistic definition and embrace the modern view involving wave-particle duality. Waves clearly fall under the umbrella of plasmatic matter, and since waves carry energy, they inherently carry INFORMATION. It brings to mind what Taylor Alvarez6 mentioned: matter can't be proven; it can only be thought. Even Carl Sagan, the astrophysicist, said: "MATERIAL REALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN; WE CAN ONLY THINK IT." Along those lines, there's this perspective:
Physicists say "dark matter" can't be proven because it's essentially non-interactive, hence the name. It doesn't interact with anything. It lacks the electromagnetic or nuclear interactions seen in protons and electrons. It won't play nice with physical apparatus or lab instruments, making it impossible to detect or prove in a controlled setting. (Neil deGrasse Tyson, physics professor). As for what "dark matter" actually is? Physicists admit they haven't a clue.

I think Taylor Alvarez6—and maybe a few others—might remember my rather "turbulent" thread over on the science subforum: Does abiogenesis occur? There, I argued—with plenty of supporting points, obviously—that macro-level human life, through its physical and nuclear processes, actually creates atoms of matter. My thesis was that there are at least two ways matter is generated in the universe: the stellar way described by astrophysicists, and the terrestrial way via human intelligence—in other words, life. To many, that sounded like heresy, despite me backing it up with quotes like these:
Panpsychism
Subatomic particles such as electrons (WHICH ARE PLASMA) are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Physical reality either is not subject to the principle of local causation or does not objectively exist independent of the observers who participate in its creation.

In the context of the "soul," David Bohm offers a pretty fascinating take: The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

So, in a plasmatic, holographic universe where everything is correlated with everything else, it stands to reason that the mentality of life (humanity) is equivalent to a complex concept of matter, rather than some simplified particle model.

In the history of wisdom, that old Socrates line always seems to hold water—you know, the whole "I know that I know nothing" bit. It feels especially true when you start digging into the nature of matter. Even mistyfox812 pointed out how relevant that is:
Can we actually dive into the meat of this? Particle physics basically tells us that particles aren't these fixed, permanent things—they just swap identities. One thing turns into another; in fact, there isn't a single particle out there that couldn't eventually transform into something else. It makes you realize that what we call "matter" is really just... undefined. It’s essentially nothingness—pure potentiality. It’s that scholastic *potentia pura*, or Aristotelian *dynamis*. It's that Platonic concept of the indefinite duality, or even the Pythagorean *apeiron*. Honestly, it feels a lot like the theological idea of creation out of nothing. Just pure possibility waiting to happen.
In particle physics, how do we actually define matter? It basically boils down to conservation laws—you know, that one thing that stays exactly the same while everything else is constantly shifting around. It's the constant in the chaos.
It’s all the same thing, really—just different ways of labeling the same old patterns. You’ve got the Aristotelian *morphe* or *eidos*, then you slide right over into the Platonic *eidos* or the whole concept of an Idea. Then there’s that Pythagorean obsession with ratio—that sense of measure and proportion. And don't even get me started on the Heraclitean *logos*. It’s all just different lenses for looking at ratio—whether you call it *ratio* in Latin or *logos* in Greek, it's essentially the same underlying structure. Isn't it funny how we just keep renaming the same fundamental truths?

So, here we go again—making the exact same mistake. It’s like watching a movie where you already know the ending, except the plot never actually moves forward. People keep falling into this trap of looking *only* at the corpuscular side of things—this narrow idea of matter defined by particles. You know, that basic concept most people cling to: the idea that everything is just "stuff," from hydrogen all the way up to uranium. But honestly? That isn't really what matter is. Not anymore. If we're being real about physics today, matter is inextricably tied to electromagnetic energy. It’s not just little bits of dust floating around. We're talking about matter being both matter and antimatter; we're talking about gravity and antigravity; we're talking about magnetism. To ignore the energy aspect is to miss the entire point, isn't it?
It’s funny how we just keep making the same mistakes—it’s like a broken record at this point. People constantly fall back on that tired old trio of states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. They act like that's the whole story, completely ignoring plasma. And honestly, if you listen to someone like Dennis Gallagher—who actually knows his stuff as a plasma physicist over at NASA—he’ll tell you plainly that 99.9% of the universe is plasma. Think about that for a second. If only 0.1% of everything out there is actual atomic matter, then what exactly are we doing with the rest of the plasma? But no, some pseudo-physicist is perfectly happy to trot out the standard line that "plasma is just ionized gas" and call it a day. It’s almost impressive how they manage to stay relevant among all those brilliant physicists—and philosophers, for that matter—who somehow find it acceptable to base their entire intellectual credo on a mere 0.1% of the universe's matter. Does anyone else find that a bit... lacking?
So, George Gamow basically argues that we should view the interior of the Sun—you know, a star—as this massive, natural alchemical lab where elements are constantly being reshaped, atoms morphing into other atoms. It’s a similar vibe to what James van Allen said when he referred to "that nuclear physics laboratory called the Sun." Then you have Hans Bethe, who was the first to actually map out how hydrogen—the absolute simplest building block—transforms into helium within the Sun. By 1957, definitive scientific analysis confirmed that this exact same thing happens in all stars: these processes steadily build up simple elements, layer by layer, into increasingly complex structures. So, when I suggest that this exact same process is happening right here on Earth through the medium of human intelligence... well, then the resident physicists on this forum immediately try to label me a "fool." Is it really that much of a leap? Or is it just easier to shut down the conversation?
Honestly, until we actually address one specific question, any conversation about matter is pretty much a non-starter—just a massive waste of breath. How is it even possible that everything on Earth, from basic hydrogen all the way up to uranium—plus those transuranic elements that don't even exist naturally here—actually exists? From an astrophysical theory standpoint, the math just doesn't add up. It’s physically impossible. So, really, why are we even bothering to talk about matter if we haven't solved that fundamental mystery first?
Back in 1973, the English mathematician Jacob Bronowski wrote:
"Substance" is basically this dualistic thing that just dissolves into "Energy." We talk about the universe being built from "matter" and "antimatter," but honestly, matter has become such a ghost of an idea that modern physicists are basically saying an electron isn't a particle or a wave—it’s just this... entity? Something that resists any kind of visual description you could throw at it (if you look at *The New World of Physics*, page 133). It feels pretty outdated to act like elementary particles are just tiny little pellets of solid stuff. They aren't. They’re more like nonmaterial structures—which, if we're being honest, makes this whole "New Physics" feel a lot like metaphysics. When you're dealing with things that exist beyond what we can actually see or pin down with standard natural laws, you're left playing around with nothing but statistical probabilities—otherwise known as the "principle of indeterminacy." Does anyone else feel like we've just traded certainties for math games?
Blavatsky actually hit on a similar conclusion back in 1888 when she wrote:
A physicist needs to grasp what an atom actually is—in reality—and realize they can't truly know. They have to try and bring it within reach of their own physical senses, which is impossible. Why? Because nobody has ever actually seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted an "atom." Not once. Strictly speaking, the atom lives entirely in the realm of metaphysics. It doesn't belong to physics at all, since you can’t exactly put it under a microscope or weigh it on a scale to prove it exists. Unlike George Gamow, Jacob Bronowski, or anyone else following those old lines of thought, I’ve laid out my thesis based on actual physical and nuclear facts: life itself creates the atoms of matter on Earth, and by extension, throughout the entire universe. And yeah, I'm standing by that right here.
It’s honestly kind of sad watching some physicists and chemists on this forum push back against verbalism without actually bringing a single fact to the table to debunk it.
So, mistyfox812, you're spot on when you claim matter is "precisely what hasn't been defined"—and let's be real, it remains undefined precisely because it's only being defined through a monistic lens. Matter only truly becomes something defined—in terms of our actual material reality—once it's defined binarily and quadripolarly. Think about it: our physical world is composed of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, with plasma making up a staggering 99.9% compared to just 0.1% for everything else... and that plasma is what essentially drives the mechanics behind our visual brains.

Before we dive headfirst into that proposal of yours, shouldn't we probably try defining our terms first? I mean—faith, religion, atheism, pantheism... then you've got philosophy, metaphysics, ideology, theology... the whole list. We should probably map all that out and see if similar distinctions exist within science before we get too carried away. Once we actually know what we're talking about, then maybe we can move on to the specific post you're suggesting.
Alright, let's get this show on the road—time to tackle the "blind spots." Let’s start by mapping out what we actually know—nothing too broad, just the essentials—and then we can move on to laying down our own definitions. Our own rules, if you will. One step at a time:

So, let’s start with how we actually define faith—because apparently, we need to get our definitions straight before we go any further. According to Antic, there are basically three ways to look at it: first, you’ve got religion itself, which is just that whole organized system of religious life; then, there’s the idea of placing massive trust in someone or something—you know, total reliance; and finally, it's that "final word" kind of thing. Or is it? Just food for thought, I guess.
So, regarding religion—here’s how it breaks down: first, you've got a set of beliefs or a collection of dogmas... and second, it's that belief in one or more supernatural beings or forces. Simple enough, right?
Not a single word of philosophical jargon to be found... seriously?
So, what do we actually know about faith these days? According to Antic—who clearly has some strong opinions on the matter—it’s nothing more than a nightmare. Meanwhile, if you ask any philosopher, they’ll probably just tell you we haven't the slightest clue. It's all a bit much, isn't it?

So, here’s how I’d define it—if anyone actually cares for my take on this: Faith is just that intuitive gut feeling—that quiet, unshakable conviction—that what I already know to be true and possible will actually happen and exist. It’s less about proving things and more about just... knowing. Does that make sense? Or am I just overthinking the whole thing again?

Here are a few examples that actually back up this definition—if you want to see how it holds water:
So, Watson and Circle of Faith are out here claiming they’re going to crack the code and uncover the actual structure and logo of the DNA molecule—but honestly, do they have any clue how they plan to actually pull that off? It feels like they’re talking big without having the slightest idea what the first step even looks like.
The laser beam enthusiasts over at Circle of Faith actually believe they can multiply photon energy—and honestly? They claim they’re pulling it off, too.
There are hundreds of cases just like this—where having FAITH actually comes before anything else ever becomes a reality.
Look, I’m telling you—I truly believe there’s this universal model, a sort of underlying Logos, that governs every single phenomenon in existence. And honestly? I think the reason I was able to uncover it is simply because I believed it was there in the first place. It’s almost circular, isn't it? You find what you're looking for because you already expect to find it.
People who believe in God—I mean, because they cling to that belief so fiercely and for so long—well, does that somehow prove God exists? Is that how the logic works? Or is it just one of those things where we mistake the intensity of our own conviction for actual evidence?
Lay out what you know and give me your own take—we can either find some common ground or just agree to disagree—and then we’ll move right along to defining religion itself.

It’s an excellent starting point, really—though maybe a bit narrow if we’re looking at the broader scope of the natural world. It’s funny how that same parallel keeps popping up when you try to bridge the gap between physical reality and the world as an abstract concept. Think about it: humans rely entirely on their senses and innate capabilities to make sense of everything around them. We’re essentially trapped within those parameters. In that process, we aren't even capable of perceiving anything "greater" or "further" than the actual objects our senses can touch or see. Sure, we can technically extend our sensory reach with gadgets and high-tech tools—I mean, why wouldn't we?—but when it comes to our internal faculties, specifically the mind and reason, there isn't exactly a technological workaround for those limitations. So, no matter where we go or how deep we dig, we won't find anything in the entire universe that we couldn't eventually find within ourselves.

hollowpilot9: To make things sound "even better and more natural," I’d add:

It’s basically the same thing the Pythagoreans used to argue—back when they were obsessed with it—about how that specific number, four, was essentially nature's eternal product. You can see it in those old verses they used to recite like some kind of solemn oath:
I swear on my life—and I mean that with everything I am—to the sacred Four.
To the ultimate source of eternal Nature—the one who crafted the soul.
Even when I’m diving into this topic, my take remains the same: the Pythagoreans didn't exactly view duality as just some simple number—it was more about how unity fuses together. Because of that, they actually argued that its square serves as the very first even number—and honestly, there’s a pretty solid reason behind that logic.
(Written by Paula)

That’s exactly how Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans approached it—and honestly, they were spot on. They weren't just guessing; they were thinking in total harmony with nature and that underlying natural—well, let's call it Divine—phenomenon they swore by every single day. If you actually take the time to dig into what the Pythagoreans considered "Divine," and then compare it to what Ezekiel viewed as the Divine—or God—it becomes blindingly obvious. You start to see that Pythagorean philosophy, their religion, and our modern "high-level" four-dimensional science aren't different things at all. They're all just one and the same.

Maybe there’s a better way to frame this—just throw it out there directly: Do you actually know what non-polar faith is? Or better yet... is there even such a thing as one, or maybe several, different non-polar faiths out there?
So, as more people start jumping into the conversation, you really have to point them back to the core idea—that whole concept of interconnectedness between Man and God, where theism and atheism aren't actually warring factions... You know? The goal should be to basically weave this perspective in—defending it, sure—but using it as a way to foster actual tolerance and peace. It’s about building a consciousness that recognizes this non-polar faith. It doesn't try to erase the polarities themselves—it just makes them harmless by integrating them. Does that make sense? It's about making the friction obsolete.
Sure, we can take that route if you want—but let’s try to get our definitions straight first, just like we planned at the start. If we’re going to tackle the whole concept of Religion, we’ll eventually have to dive into different "types" of faith, which means dealing with polarized versus non-polarized belief systems. Here’s my thesis—and yes, I’m prepared to defend it: Western religions are inherently polarized, whereas pre-Western and Eastern traditions tend to be non-polarized. Just a thought.

Democracy: If you’re referring to that whole “let no one be too certain, nor anyone discouraged” vibe—well, that’s really just describing a society built on equal opportunity for everyone, an ideal we've been chasing since the beginning of time.

hollowpilot9: Obviously, it's always just SOCIETY—it’s just a matter of how it’s structured or shaped. You know better than most that we had the societies of Athens and Sparta, whose legacies still ripple through us today. One historian I spoke with once argued that Athenian society basically jumpstarted Western civilization, whereas the Spartan model ended up lost in some backwater nowhere under the command of some idiot general.

Democracy: You can see a similar pattern elsewhere. Terrorism is often used as a convenient excuse to justify oligarchic rule or the tyranny of the majority. And honestly, nothing keeps them in power quite like a manufactured threat—something that makes the public tremble at the thought of instability on one hand, while forcing them to pour every resource into "fighting" terrorism on the other. As for global terrorism, it essentially serves to manufacture a global oligarchy and tyranny. It’s pretty pathetic when you think about it—how those "warriors" are actually fighting to secure the glory, scale, and longevity of the current American and G7 status quo. In this tug-of-war, both sides are effectively working toward the same goal—there’s no doubt about it. But the real issue isn't just whether America would incite or orchestrate global terrorism—not that it wouldn't happen if they could (just look at their movies or sci-fi novels, where this kind of terror is always looming). The real question is: would the world actually progress faster toward its ultimate goal without these conflicts, or would we all just get stuck in some long, global "peaceful swamp"?

hollowpilot9: Look, I can’t—and frankly, don't know how to—dispute what you’re saying. But to me, it feels like any phenomenon with the character of this specific type of terrorism—especially when it scales from individual acts to mass movements—carries some hidden, deeper implication. There’s no room here to bring in the Butterfly Effect, or my usual point that intelligent people bear the heaviest responsibility for tragic events that occur simply because they used their wisdom to conclude that something was "insignificant."
The crux of it all is definitely this idea of the "peaceful swamp," right?? Is peace actually a swamp, or is it something else entirely? Is a void without any dynamic movement truly peace? Those are questions for "real" philosophy, I suppose. I’ve spent plenty of time listening to lectures and reading up on this, and after some thinking, I've landed on the idea that we have at least two—actually, let's say four—fundamental "peaceful swamps": one internal and one external. This external one usually crops up after exhaustion, after the struggle, after the war... The first one is permanent, while the second is fleeting. Personally, I’m rooting for the first kind of "swamp"—the one that acts as a catalyst for functional, constructive, and enduring life dynamics, much like the force of creative love.

Continuation:
hollowpilot9: There’s a gentleman here in the States who wrote a book for his Master’s thesis titled "THE REVEALED FACE OF THE CIRCLE." Honestly, the content is extraordinary—it’s at such a high intellectual level! Out of pure goodwill, I once wrote about thirty pages on the "Phenomenology of the Circle," solely to demonstrate what the circle actually signifies in our practical, everyday lives—specifically within engineering PRACTICE. A little later, in a letter or perhaps just speaking casually, I mentioned that one should pair the Phenomenology of the Circle with a Phenomenology of the Anti-circle. Without that, you can't even see the revealed face of the circle! So, does the circle have its own anti-circle? And if it does, what exactly is an anti-circle??
Besides, any thought regarding the circle ought to be accompanied by thoughts of the sine wave—motion isn't just circular, it's oscillatory. In my opinion, we still haven't quite settled the business regarding the circle. It’s a rather complex "philosophical toy." Personally, I’m more drawn to two inverse tetrahedrons, where one is a tetrahedron and the other is an anti-tetrahedron. Could the answers to all the world's questions—including the mystery of the circle—be found there?

Walter Foster87: Well, there's also Hobbes's "Leviathan"—so the universe isn't the only Great Man out there. However, it seems to have become common practice to assume that Totality (God is this entire world—and for the fullness of existence, I am missing from Him) serves as the foundation for pantheism.
To me, though, that doesn't quite strike as the center of everything. I don't dispute the intelligence inherent in nature, but—what concerns me, and what I focus on, is man and human society. Not because of Truth or some lofty ideals or higher interests, but exclusively for the sake of Man. After all, even Truth doesn't exist for its own sake, but for the sake of a "perfected" (complete, ...) man.

hollowpilot9: There is also the "great Gulliver," and I completely agree with your interest in "man and human society." I don't deal with it specifically, but as an aside, I MUST, and I find myself increasingly inclined toward the realization that HUMAN SOCIETY is breaking down, atomizing, becoming centralized, heating up, turning more chaotic—more plasma-like—vanishing... Instead of the "old society" that is fading away, I see the emergence of some NEW INTEGRATED HUMAN SOCIETY where Man can be either a PARTNER or a SERVANT. Who becomes which is irrelevant. In this new society, the SERVANT LIVES AS GOD OR ALL GODS LIVE AS SERVANTS! If you think that’s a utopia, you’re mistaken!
Here is an excerpt of how I contemplate man and human society TODAY:
Such a VITAL, rather than MORTAL, epilogue is particularly important now, as death is moving into our habitats from all sides, especially from the direction of JIHAD. We just saw on the news in Baghdad a heavily wounded man saying: "No great or heavy wound hurts me, for I am a warrior of Allah." To some, this religious warrior might seem like an anachronism, a fanatic, or someone religiously narrow-minded, but above all, one must see that this is a mass phenomenon shaking the world, nations, cities, our homes, and ourselves, spreading the fear of terror and death. If this modern phenomenon is understood as a sign of "GLOBAL DEATH"—what is already called "GLOBAL TERRORISM"—and placed within the context of the macrocosmic being—Homoteras or God—then it becomes easy to see that people have always died in the name and for the account of this great cosmic master, first as a sacrifice to God, and then as a struggle—WAR in the name of God and for God, which today is simply labeled as a struggle—War in the name of Allah.
If all the religious warriors in the world, including these Islamic ones, knew that the master they fight for—whom they call God or Allah—truly exists as HUMANITY at its evolutionary peak, they would never carry out death in His name or for His account. Because HE, as has been shown, truly exists in a unified state of IMMORTALITY, and therefore all His components are immortal—and those components are cells and people. Killing an immortal man is the absolute nonsense of a foolish man doing it!

Walter Foster87 : The center as that (Pythagorean) "little God"!? Well, there were other ways to look at it. Human consciousness is inherently self-centered—it’s basically the embodiment of the old cliché: "When I die, the whole world dies with me."

hollowpilot9: That ego-driven consciousness is so nauseatingly predictable that I honestly "spat it out" a long time ago. Yeah, I'm thinking of Pythagoras, sure, but also all those belief systems and frameworks that came before him. In that spirit, I’ve been sitting on a new topic that’s pretty much ready to go. If you think this would interest the non-egocentrics out there, let me know, and I’ll pull the trigger on it. Here’s how the intro looks:
WHERE ARE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION LEADING US?
( Evolutionism vs. Creationism, Theism vs. Atheism, Materialism vs. Idealism )
Since the beginning of time, man has been asking questions about the Creator of the macrocosm and macro-life. The pre-scientific Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious traditions are creationist. On the other hand, the scientific tradition is evolutionist. This is essentially a materialistic theory suggesting that existence is merely the result of physical and chemical interactions. This creates a timeline of events from the Big Bang to the present day. Along this stretch of maybe 15 to 20 billion years, science doesn't find God. That’s the stronghold of scientific materialism for the argument that God doesn't exist. If He does exist, as theology claims, then God must reside somewhere behind the Big Bang. It’s a realm that remains unreachable for both theology and science alike. Consequently, people have split into those who believe in God—theists—and those who see no sign of Him in this universe—atheists. Divided this way, they clash over origins: is it a natural, materialistic evolutionary process, or is it a creative act mediated by the supernatural intelligence of the Creator—God? The Greek philosophers believed matter was eternal and didn't need a Creator. They thought some kind of force existed within matter that could make it come alive. This interpretation was explained through a philosophical system known as MATERIALISM.
The great naturalist Aristotle argued that some kind of special force stands behind every living phenomenon, calling it *anima*—the soul. This animistic projection of life force into inanimate matter served as his substitute for the Creator. Materialists, however, maintain that only physical forces—like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces—are real. Anything that can't be measured or tested is dismissed by materialists as nothing more than a product of human imagination. According to the laws of physics and chemistry, matter simply changes shape, eventually transforming into the form of life. Much of these materialistic theories have fallen silent today, eclipsed by the emergence of a NEW SOCIAL—GLOBAL FORM OF "MATTER IN MOTION."
Matter no longer moves solely through natural physical and chemical laws; it now moves through the WILL OF MAN. No chunk of Earth's matter can launch itself toward Mars or Mercury without human will and intelligence. No astrophysical law governing the creation of atoms in stars can manifest on a "tiny speck" like Earth without the will and intelligence of man. Traditional theories are stumbling over this fact because it introduces a mind and a capability that tradition once reserved exclusively for the Creator.
Man knows he possesses cognitive traits and a massive capacity for abstractly visualizing what he sees with his eyes. These qualities have manifested especially strongly since the middle of the last century through the creation of artifacts that even the wildest imagination couldn't conceive. Traces of this immense human creativity can be found in early Egyptian religious reality. Because it's impossible to see the Creator with the naked eye, many "see" a sort of lost force or a lost spirit. This kind of "seeing" is called ANIMISM. Microbiologist J. Mond defines animism as the projection of human consciousness into inanimate nature, functioning like a central nervous system. From this comes the hypothesis that natural phenomena can be explained in the same way as subjective human activity. Thus, Plato believed that the force shaping all things from chaotic matter was a kind of abstract personalization of his own thinking power. Unlike Aristotle, Plato finds that within the human mentality lies a driving and creative force that religion attributes to God. The Great Spirit of God is, in a reduced sense, the spirit of man. This leads directly to the philosophical system of IDEALISM.
In all those early civilizations—think ancient India, Persia, Egypt, or Greece—there was this pervasive belief that man and the cosmos were crafted from the same blueprint. Essentially, the existence of the universe and the presence of God are just two sides of the same coin, a mirror image of a single reality. Under this view, God isn't some distant, detached Being hovering far above our world; rather, God is embedded *within* this world, manifesting itself through man. These cultures operated on the idea of a constant, flowing interaction between the MACROCOSM (the vast Universe) and the MICROCOSM (the biological man). It’s almost like the Jewish concept of the Golem—something once as massive as the heavens that was eventually scaled down to an earthly, then purely biological, human measure.

Now, if we look at Pythagoras—who spent time in Egypt and the Near East soaking up local wisdom—he stumbled upon the idea that everything in the cosmos, from elemental matter to physical laws and energy, is mirrored at a micro-level within the human body. He and his contemporaries basically argued that whatever exists outside of man also exists within him. From this perspective, the theology of the time dealt with two concepts: first, the MACRO MAN, who is the GREAT GOD CREATOR, and second, the MICRO BIOLOGICAL MAN, who is the SMALL GOD CREATOR. The distinction between the large and small God is really just an evolutionary one—not unlike the difference between a child and an adult. The small God creator evolves toward the great God creator. Or, to put it more simply, man evolves toward God. Even traditional theology dances around this duality, pointing to the tension between the grand, sweeping God of Moses and the small, vulnerable God-child in the manger—Jesus. But long before that specific imagery took hold, Pythagoras and his peers viewed the vast universe as a massive biological organism—a Man—while the biological individual was seen as a tiny universe. They called them the MACROCOSM and the MICROCOSM. Again, the gap is purely evolutionary. The microcosm develops and expands until it reaches the macrocosm, where a new microcosm is born, which then grows into yet another macrocosm. One fades as the other emerges, much like the cycle of a human life. It’s interesting how pre-Christian pagan societies saw this interactive, inverse correlation between the two; even Blavatsky puts a modern spin on it, suggesting that "man is a little world—a microcosm nested within the vast macrocosm, much like a human fetus is a microcosm of cells held within the macrocosm of a woman's body."
These perspectives suggest that the debate between theism and atheism—or idealism versus materialism—doesn't have to be a polarized, "either-or" fight. There’s a way to see them as mutually constructive. That second path involves recognizing the fundamental identity between man and God, which is essentially the core message of the Bible delivered through the God-man, Jesus. It seems to me that this message has roots stretching back to the dawn of time, and what we see today is perhaps a scientific anticipation of that ancient religious truth.

So, there's my opening pitch for a new topic. What do you guys think?

Walter Foster87 says: The phenomenology of the universal fabric is made up of mediation, unexpected twists, "dark and honorable corners of ignorance," and various other filters that shade the light of Truth.
hollowpilot9: It all depends on your vantage point, doesn't it? Are you looking from the beginning toward the end, or from the end back to the start? Are you moving from the center to the periphery, or from the edge inward? Are you following the "light" that once shone in ancient Egypt, or the light shining on Victory Avenue after defeating an enemy? If you understand the underlying logic of events, there are no "unexpected" twists. We can be certain that the baby snake on the perimeter will strike the moment its speed crosses the runner's threshold...

Walter Foster87: Perhaps they're just lost, searching in all the wrong places. What if they're actually chasing a "shadow"—just hunting for some external reflection of themselves?
hollowpilot9: You can always doubt things, I suppose. People tend to get worked up, acting all cynical about things they haven't even touched, seeing nothing but catastrophe everywhere. The other day, I "sold" my neighbor a recipe for staining wooden railings—something I'd perfected over four years of trial and error. He looks at me and asks, "But what if the glaze and the varnish don't mix?" I gave him a very "cultured" response: "Why don't you go to hell before they even have a chance to mix?"

From what I can gather, THEY (the Pythagoreans) actually went out and FOUND God in the right damn place. Even the intro to this new thread hints at that...

Walter Foster87: Circular motion was considered appropriate because it feels infinite. But then again, anything that moves is also changing, which creates a bit of a paradox, doesn't it? So, would it not make more sense for God to be in a state of absolute stillness? Light could represent the distinction between mere knowledge (darkness) and the actual understanding of what is known (light)—much like how it might signify pure, ultimate Truth. And since Truth is the prerequisite for rational action, free will, and making choices... we’re really just talking about assumed attributes here. Quality is merely their way of describing how much they resemble those divine attributes—without getting bogged down in cultural differences or isolation.

Just a quick follow-up to my previous post.
I stumbled upon some texts online regarding Plato: The Republic:
The Life and Philosophy of Pythagoras Pythagoras was Said to have been The First man to call himself a philosopher
Pythagoras was supposedly the first guy to actually call himself a philosopher—honestly, we probably owe him a debt for even having the word in our vocabulary.
He’s the one who coined "philosopher," defining it simply as someone who is actively trying to figure things out.
Based on this text, Pythagoras was the first to apply the term PHILOSOPHY. In his view—which aligns pretty closely with my own—a philosopher is an investigator seeking truths in relation to the WHOLE. Isn't that basically just the modern definition of a scientist?
Euclidean Geometry
The study of geometry, music, and astronomy was considered essential to a rational understanding of God, man, or Nature, and no one could accompany Pythagoras as a disciple who was not thoroughly familiar with these sciences.
This suggests he was striving for a rational grasp of God, man, and Nature—something that modern scientific frameworks apparently deem impossible today? I wonder why that is...

Theology. He described God as the Supreme Mind distributed throughout all parts of the universe—the Cause of all things, the Intelligence of all things, and the Power within all things. He further declared the motion of God to be circular, the body of God to be composed of the substance of light, and the nature of God to be composed of the substance of truth.

So, according to this, God moves in a circular motion, His body is woven from light, and His very nature is comprised of Truth. It’s interesting how much this mirrors various religious doctrines.

Philosophy. Pythagoras taught that both man and the universe were made in the image of God; that both being made in the same image, the understanding of one predicated the knowledge of the other. He further taught that there was a constant interplay between the Great Man (the universe) and man (the little universe).

From this, we see that Pythagoras believed man and the universe were created in the image of God. Since they share that same blueprint, the image of Homoteras is identical to the image of man and humanity. He believed there was a continuous interaction between the Great Man (Homoteras—corresponding to the single Being of the universe) and man (the micro-universe).
It seems Pythagoras and I are thinking along very similar lines. My own interpretation is built upon the findings of modern biology, physics, and chemistry, alongside new insights into the significance and scope of tetrahedral philosophy as understood through contemporary science—what was known in his era as the TETRAKIS.
I’ll say it again: if a cell is the center of the microcosmos, then man is the center of the macrocosmos! It simply couldn't be any other way.
Cosmology. A theological system in which God was considered as the Great Man and, conversely, man as the little god. Continuing this analogy, the universe was regarded as a man and, conversely, man as a miniature universe. The greater universe was termed the Macrocosm—the Great World or Body—and the Divine Life or spiritual entity controlling its functions was called the Macroprosophus. Man's body, or the individual human universe, was termed the Microcosm, and the Divine Life or spiritual entity controlling its functions was called the Microprosophus. The pagan Mysteries were primarily concerned with instructing neophytes in the true relationship existing between the Macrocosm and the Microcosm—in other words, between God and man.
This passage illustrates the idea of God as a Great Man, a macrocosmic being, while man serves as a small god. Following this logic, man is naturally equal to a miniature universe, just as the universe is a vast version structured identically to the small one. Pre-religious pagan beliefs held that a constant correlation exists between the macrocosm and the microcosm—that is, between God and man.

In Isis Unveiled, H. P. Blavatsky summarizes the pagan concept of man as follows: "Man is a little world—a microcosm inside the great universe. Like a fetus, he is suspended, by all his three spirits, in the matrix of the macrocosmos; and while his terrestrial body is in constant sympathy with its parent earth, his astral soul lives in unison with the sidereal anima mundi. He is in it, as it is in him, for the world-pervading element fills all space, and is space itself, only shoreless and infinite. As the material nature of man is therefore within the sum of spirit, so the Universal Nature, including the entire sidereal system, is within the all-pervading essence of God—the Universal Spirit."

It looks like Blavatsky also sees a direct link between man and the universe here—so, it’s perfectly logical to argue that man is actually the center of everything. Think about it: we are essentially a condensed point of the macrocosm where everything folds in on itself, creating this inversion of existence and being. This is, of course, the "point" of Origin—the very vantage point from which I'm speaking and writing.

This attachment makes it clear that my perspectives possess an ancient continuity, one that modern science is actually starting to support and validate today. Because of that, we're looking at an absolutely NEW PHILOSOPHY—one that finds its roots in ANCIENT PHILOSOPHIES, much like the ideas found in Plato: The Republic and the work of other researchers from his era.

Walter Foster87 says: Because man is never the center of the universe, nor can he base his power of action—his movement—on mere whim.

hollowpilot9: And there’s the massive divide right there! Look, I personally think—as irrational as it might sound to some—that man *is* the center of the universe. I mean, sure, I agree you can't base your capacity for action on total randomness; it has to be rooted in evolutionary necessity (LOGOS), if you will. My reasoning comes down to a simple fact: every single cell acts as the center of its own little universe—the entire cosmos that makes up the human organism. So, every cell is a center of the human universe, yet it’s also a center for all those billions of tiny universes swirling around... In an essay I put together—which basically synthesizes all my scattered thoughts from these posts—I argued quite clearly that human intellect and intelligence ultimately reduce the entire universe to pure INFORMATION. By doing that, we become the center of the universe, whether there's just one of them or a billion billion. I follow what you're getting at with the rest of your point (and I agree), but that’s just the kind of intelligence that tracks events and shifts over the short term of past and future. Like I’ve said before, I’m more interested in Phenomenology. I want to find the UNIVERSAL, if such a thing even exists—and I'm inclined to believe it does!

Part 2 of the essay:
Humans now possess the willpower to craft everything that once fell solely under the domain of nature or the Creator, God. In doing so, we’re essentially merging religious theism and scientific atheism—or materialism and idealism—into a single, more vital synthesis that actually feels alive. There is a path forward, a real chance to escape the dead end of traditional materialism and partial idealism, provided we can shift our mindset from a strictly linear way of thinking to a non-linear perception of the world. This essay is just a small attempt to nudge things in that direction.

So, where is the solution, and does one even exist?

Personally, I suspect a solution exists if we can just break through the barrier of our linear, three-dimensional, Cartesian perception and step into a non-linear, wave-quantum, four-dimensional view of reality. This used to be the realm of myth and mysticism, but today it’s the playground for intense scientific and philosophical inquiry. It’s impossible to recap everything discovered so far, but I will say this: there is a growing consensus that the entire universe—and life itself—is structured in a wave-quantum way. In this quantum context, phenomena recur at specific intervals—think of the changing seasons or the biological cycles of mating (creation) and birth. Humans have known since the beginning of time that events repeat cyclically, and this is precisely the bridge that connects science and religion through a quantum perception of the world. In religious thought, God appears twice at specific temporal distances—at the beginning and the end, in the past and the future—creating a distinct span of time. These boundaries of that span are a QUANTUM PHENOMENON; therefore, God is a quantum, rather than a linear, phenomenon. This is a NEW REALIZATION that both theists and atheists, scientists and theologians—essentially EVERYONE—will eventually have to accept. This should be an "easier" pill for scientists to swallow, given they already deal with quantum phenomena and wave-oscillation theories in physics. We simply need to extrapolate the insights found at the micro-level of reality up to the macro-level to reveal the religious outlines of the macro-quantum phenomenon of the Origin, or God. This provides an intellectual framework that offers a solution because, alongside this macro-quantum phenomenon, there is the development of a macro-biological organism tentatively named HOMOTERAS. There is no real distinction between Humanity and HOMOTERAS; the difference is merely that Humanity is a being currently under construction, much like a human fetus is still developing. The "newly ordered" human is a shaped micro-HOMOTERAS, evolving toward an evolutionary peak marked by the capacity for self-renewal—that is, biological reproduction.
By that same logic, we can posit the construction of HOMOTERAS as a macro-cosmic Being being built by humanity, much like cells build a human body. It’s a familiar biological process extrapolated to the macro scale, suggesting that Humanity is moving toward a macro-cosmic entity. HOMOTERAS manifests with the attributes of a creator in a quantum sense, just as every creative phenomenon in biology occurs quantumly. These two realizations—the quantum religious manifestation of God and the quantum scientific-philosophical manifestation of HOMOTERAS—serve as evidence for the existence of a Being that acts as the macro-creator of cosmic phenomena.
I know most people still think macro-cosmic phenomena, like planets, solar systems, or extraterrestrial life, are far beyond human capability, but skeptics ought to remember all those things that were once deemed "impossible" and are now mundane. For instance, traveling around the Earth used to be a monumental feat, whereas today we measure that distance in mere hours. Over time, these massive scales shrink—they compress. Eventually, even the entire universe, not just its individual objects, will be distilled into information, which is a metric that allows us to model anything, including the formation of Earth or our solar system. So, by postulating a macro-organism built by humans rather than some imaginary metaphysical force, science and religion can finally meet halfway. They can work "hand in hand" on the same task: religion prepares humanity for a renewed encounter with God, while science and philosophy work to make God look as much like a Human as possible—essentially the inversion of the religious idea that Man was created in the image and likeness of God.
Once you look at this essay, the logic actually works both ways—meaning, it’s just as true that Man is shaping God in his own image as it is that God shaped Man in His. It's a total inversion, really, and one driven by the sheer velocity of scientific innovation and constant creation. We’re reaching a point where the concept of a divine creator is being swapped for the idea of Man as the creator. Honestly, it’s become an undeniable fact; you can't argue against it anymore, you can only attempt to INTERPRET how accurately we are constructing this macro-creator. When we finally come face-to-face with such a Being, shouldn't that encounter be as intelligent, beautiful, and authentic as possible? It should reflect the grueling physical and intellectual labor passed down through countless generations.
So, the answer lies in Homoteras—an entity that exists only as long as humanity itself persists. This macrocosmic figure manifests on a quantum level as an auto-creator, mirroring the way the religious God manifests quantumly as an auto-creator. And we aren't just talking about quantum physics here; we’re looking at the quantum micro- and macrobiology of the entire universe.

Essay continuation:
...beliefs are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I just saw news that a group of molecular geneticists over in the UK has decided to collect and preserve the genomes of over 1,000 species before they go extinct. These scientists—whether they realize it or not—are essentially performing a scientific inversion of the religious story of Noah's Ark. What Noah did through faith, modern science is doing through data. One commentator put it bluntly: "Aren't these scientists just creationists in lab coats?" It’s getting to a point where religious anticipation and scientific reality are meeting in this inverted way. What used to be myth or mysticism is now becoming scientific "myth"—or rather, scientific practice. This clearly points to something extraordinary happening that, whether we like it or not, makes us our own >.
Can "scientific" materialism and traditional idealism ever bridge their delusions?

Can materialists actually explain how living organisms come to be without a >? Biologists know there isn't a hard line separating flora from fauna, since both are composed of non-living matter. The distinction we draw between plants and animals is largely conceptual; it doesn't really exist in physical reality. And yet, that difference persists because the world of mineral matter and the world of biological matter are fundamentally different. A single calcium atom and that exact same calcium atom inside a biological organism—say, in your bones—are not the same thing! They differ in size and spatial orientation. Just as life requires all the fluids we drink to be filtered of impurities so the water becomes biologically pure and active, the atoms and molecules we ingest via food must be reconstructed into atoms and molecules that match the specific needs of a cell, a tissue, or bone. A carbon atom in the graphite core of a pencil and a carbon atom in our proteins are not two identical things. The first one in the pencil is "dead," while the second one in the cell is "alive"! The chemical activity of carbon atoms within the molecules of living organisms is absolute, powerful, and CREATIVE. Carbon is that central hub around which other atoms cluster to form the molecular chains of life. It almost seems perfect to say that the carbon atom is the "God" among atoms in biomolecules, specifically because its electrons are pair-interactive—acting as two donors and two acceptors—meaning they are quadripolar and tetrahedrally arranged, which
are characteristics that ancient traditions have always attributed to the divine.

Traditional materialists used to argue that motion was the cause of everything. Today, they’ll claim it’s energy, which is also just another form of matter—but then they won't tell you what drives the energy, will they? So, according to the materialist logic, matter moves matter? Is that the conclusion? Matter is in constant motion, so life is merely a specialized form of movement. This kind of shallow thinking stems from >, who thought he had stumbled upon a new law of nature stating: "All qualitative differences in nature are differences in chemical composition or modes of motion." Just as the *anima* was the creative force for living beings according to >, physical force—energy—is the equivalent for materialists like > and Oparin. Some have called this worldview "cosmic animism." Despite these superficial and flawed interpretations, dialectical materialism remains popular among certain scientists. They cling to principles like the idea that quantitative changes dictate qualitative ones—the old "quantity gives rise to quality" trope. To reach life through this quantitative path, materialists argue, you need reproduction—multiplication that builds up the quantitative volume necessary to trigger a qualitative core change. Biologist Dillon sort of mocks this, suggesting that two poly-amino acid chains might accidentally bump into each other in a way that allows one to transform into the other. That would be the spark of life, supposedly. Regarding this provocative idea from Dillon, Magnus Verbrugge argues that Dillon didn't actually say two complex molecules merge to create a third one made of those two. This is a prime example of how Magnus and other linearly-minded materialists miss the mark, because biogenetic science—thanks to the discovery by Watson and Crick—has shown exactly what Dillon "provocatively" suggests. You see, it's not about two molecules snapping together like "Lego bricks," which is how linear materialists perceive it; it's about two molecules that are non-living but complementarily compatible meeting to form a molecule that becomes alive. Once these two complementary, mirror-image molecules join, they form an entirely new, complex spiral molecule with two strands that are ALIVE from the moment of union, exhibiting all the hallmarks of life: self-organization, development, self-maintenance, and autopoiesis. Division is the fundamental mode of multiplication here—something those same molecules lack when they are separate. We're talking about the well-known DNA molecule, formed by FOUR sacred molecules—two pairs of complementary AGCT strands. These four molecules, in massive combinations, form two molecular spirals held together by hydrogen bonds that are identical yet mirror images of each other. This is a non-linear phenomenon that traditional materialists struggle to grasp because it requires a kind of "mirror intelligence," much like what Leonardo da Vinci possessed. Life is, without question, a "chemical entity," but not of mineral order—it's biological, where chiral—or mirror-image—molecules reign supreme. For instance, one "left-handed" molecule might be opium—a drug—while its "right-handed" counterpart is completely non-narcotic. That is a qualitative difference that cannot be explained by any quantitative "law" that simply "produces" quality. The qualitative difference here is driven by the spatial orientation of the molecules, not their quantity. This fact leaves scientific and pseudo-scientific materialists of all stripes utterly lost.

Materialists are constantly being bombarded by this religious, Christian influence regarding the supposed necessity of injecting supernatural forces into science. It’s essentially a bankrupt view of materialism—something the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd actually broke down quite well. He pointed out that the various scientific laws of creation discovered by researchers don't just exist in isolation; they act cumulatively according to the capacities of the macro-creation. His whole point was that human creative power isn't some external addition, but sits right inside the creation itself—effectively becoming an attribute of God within us. Honestly, it’s a fact that’s getting harder to ignore, and it’ll only get more obvious as time goes on. We’re seeing more and more scientists, philosophers, and even just "regular" folks realizing that by exploring and understanding nature—or, if you ask a theist, by uncovering God's nature and God's laws—they are essentially tapping into the supernatural attributes of the Creator and, in doing so, becoming creators themselves. That’s the core of modern understanding regarding the relationship between science and religion. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive, despite how much materialists have tried to spin the narrative since the late 19th century.

To really wrap your head around what’s happening here, you have to look at the fact that what we used to call "nature"—and still call that—is gradually, but surely, being transformed by humanity into INFORMATION ABOUT NATURE, rather than what we used to simply call KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE. Once this knowledge reaches a level of total omniscience regarding the natural world—and let's face it, a version of this already exists in our mapping of Earth and the cosmos, in biology, oceanography, mineralogy, and as we push deeper into micro and macro structures—we will eventually have two distinct things: physical nature on one hand, and a complete set of information about that nature, organized and stored in the memories of small and large computers all over the US on the other. What is all this highly organized information about Nature going to do for humanity, if not serve the exact same purpose as any other type of information? We are talking about information that functions in a creative capacity. And with information like that...

In an effort to give my dialogue with the people a more cohesive and structured feel, I’ve put together this essay—basically a summary of everything I’ve been tossing out here so far. Perhaps it might serve as a starting point for some researchers looking into macro-evolution and the role humans play in that unfolding process.
WHERE ARE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION LEADING US?
( Materialism, animism, idealism, evolutionism )
Man Replacing God
Since the beginning of time, humans have been asking questions about the creator of macro-existence and macro-life. Pre-scientific religious traditions—specifically Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ones—are creationist in nature. They posit a supernatural being, God, as the creator of all things. Now, you can't really use scientific methods to disprove God, can you? It’s not like God expresses Himself through measurable, quantitative values; He exists primarily as an IDEA of the supernatural. Even so, the scientific denial of God is baked into materialistic theories that are just as old as the theories regarding the Creator. It essentially boils down to the divide between theists and atheists, who argue over whether existence is a natural, materialistic evolutionary process or a creative act mediated by the supernatural intelligence of the Creator—God.
The Hindu tradition, for instance, views their God as an aspect of reality that expands existing matter so it can be reshaped. Ancient Greek philosophers took a different route, suggesting that matter itself is eternal and exists without a creator. They believed there was a force within matter capable of making it alive—an idea framed by the philosophical system known as MATERIALISM.
Humans clearly possess mental, cognitive qualities, along with a massive capacity for abstractly visualizing what they see with their eyes. These traits function creatively, a fact that has become especially glaring since the mid-20th century, as we began creating artifacts that neither the atheist nor the theist traditions could have ever imagined. Traces of this immense human creativity are found more in ancient Egyptian religious realities and the Bible (Ezekiel) than in traditional materialistic philosophy. Because the Creator cannot be seen, many "see" a sort of lost force or a wandering spirit behind natural phenomena. This way of "seeing"—which is really just a belief—is called ANIMISM. Microbiologist J. Mond defines animism as the projection of human consciousness onto inanimate nature, functioning like a central nervous system. From this, the hypothesis arises that natural phenomena can be explained in the same way we explain subjective human activity.
Plato believed that the force shaping all things from chaotic matter was the Demiurge—a Hegelian version of the Creator—essentially an abstract personalization of his own thought process. The great naturalist Aristotle viewed life as a special force behind every living phenomenon, calling it *anima*—the soul. This animistic projection of a living force into dead matter served as his substitute for the Creator. Consequently, Aristotle's materialism led him toward a form of vitalism, which was later modified and applied by various scientists and philosophers. Today, most materialists reject vitalism because a "vital force" can't be measured with physical-chemical tools and instruments. Materialists hold that only physical forces—like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces—are real because they are measurable. Anything that can't be measured is dismissed by them as a mere product of human imagination, or "supernatural."
Materialist theorists used to think that life was just a special way for matter to move—matter that is eternally one and the same, simply changing shape through the natural laws of physics and chemistry to eventually become life. All those theories from the era of Engels and Oparin have largely fallen silent in the face of a NEW SOCIAL-GLOBAL FORM OF "THE MOVEMENT OF MATTER."
Matter no longer moves solely through natural physical and chemical laws; it now moves through the WILL OF MAN. No piece of Earthly matter is going to launch itself toward Mars or Mercury without human will and intelligence. Both theistic and atheistic theories are now staring down this fact, because a mind and a capability have emerged that tradition once attributed solely to the Creator—but today, it is clearly the power and ability of Man and humanity. This reality forces all traditional scientific and non-scientific theories to face a question mark, demanding a total revision of our established knowledge and beliefs.
Scientific data regarding life
It’s been common knowledge for ages that our bodies are roughly 70 to 80% water—the rest being mostly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and tiny traces of other elements. Basically, our bodies assemble complex molecules based on whatever food we throw at them. We're talking proteins and fats that break down into smaller pieces, like enzymes—those specialized proteins acting as catalysts. Each one of those thousands of different proteins has its own specific molecular structure and job to do. Then you have DNA and RNA, which carry the entire informational blueprint of a living thing—the genome. These molecules also handle cell division, a trick not everyone can pull off. Every biomolecule has these unique characteristics necessary for building and sustaining cells. If you were to pluck such a molecule out of a cell, it would still perform the same chemical reactions it does inside, just without the "living" part.
Materialists used to insist there was no real distinction between living and non-living matter. But now, faced with a wave of new scientific insights, they've largely gone quiet—leaving the research to scientists and philosophers who are starting to realize how flawed the Euclidean and linear perceptions of the world actually are. Those old ways are really what traditional Western science, philosophy, and religion are built upon. However, quantum physics, stereo and chiral chemistry, complementarity, and polarity are becoming the new paradigms of reality—new mindsets that speak increasingly clearly about holism, singularity, an intelligent designer, the superbrain, and man as a creator of both matter and the universe; all tied together by a universal logos that connects the beginning, the present, and the future. This modern approach comes from studying the microworld. When you extrapolate these findings to the macro world, it opens up entirely new avenues for research and understanding—especially for philosophy. It’s becoming painfully obvious that the accumulated knowledge and creative intelligence of humanity possess all the anticipated attributes of God, which is where theories about an intelligent designer with human-like qualities come from. So, slowly but surely, the creator—God—is being mirrored by the human creator with those divine attributes. That’s what confuses so many people; it prevents us from redefining the human being from being just a physical-chemical accidental evolutionary byproduct into the creator of all products, whether natural or artificial. But with the exponential growth of innovation and the massive expansion of electronics—especially the internet, which is turning into a global superbrain—traditional views and