Nothingness? Or a balance of everything?

December 14, 2008 on 7:30 am | In My crazy ideas, Null Physics | 2 Comments

First I want to mention I’ve added a comment on “Our Super Neural Networks.” Thanks for all your comments!

Lately my husband has been reading a book called “Our Undiscovered Universe, Introduction to Null Physics” by Terence Witt. I can’t quote it, because I’m not reading it, I’m just going by what he says it says. :)

So he says in the book he claims that the Universe is Nothing. I said, does he mean nothingness? Or not anything? Turns out there has actually been a discussion about it in the book. Melvin started to explain it and I can’t say it really stuck with me, but that’s because (this is what happens so often) while he was talking I drew my own conclusion already. Well he says that they have been able to create matter, but there is always an anti-matter with it. They say that all matter has an equal anti-matter somewhere, which makes everything “null.” What I decided is that it is not nothing, but everything. A balance of everything, or a medium. It’s like amniotic fluid, or a perfect room temperature. When it’s perfectly balanced, you can’t feel it.

This is why I think the Tao is right on. The philosophy of Tao refers to a balance between Heaven and Earth. The nothing being the everything. Like the most important part of a tea cup is the empty part. It’s in that nothing, or everything, where all possibilities exist. You can put anything you want in the empty part of the cup.

Another thing that fits is “Top-Down causation.” What science used to follow was “Bottom-Up causation.” Meaning we used to think that the root of things is as small as the molecule, or the tiniest thing we have found yet. Then we go up, like then comes the cell, then the organs, then the body, then… there’s a gap then between that and the spirit and the Universe and God. Top-Down causation begins with God. It all makes sense when you begin there. Then God created the Universe, our spirit is part of the Universe. Then out of the universe comes this reality, and then we need a brain to experience it. Then from there we need the 5 senses to feed the brain. And then comes the materials to make it all up. And so on. It took a little bit to get my head around this new paradigm, but now it makes total sense to me. The universe is the medium which all things come from.

So that is my thoughts for today, and watch for the comments, I’m going to ask the real scientist (Melvin) for his opinion.

2 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Hi, Pauline asked me to write a bit about Terence Witt’s Null Physics. My theory of near death experiences and non local perceptions depends on quantum physics, specifically concepts such as entanglement and quantum reality. Real physicists, such as Henry Stapp, Amit Goswami, and Hal Puthoff embrace the philosophical concepts of consciousness being a part of reality itself. If we accept this, then we can accept that consciousness can exist independent of a brain, indeed, the brain serving only to express consciousness in this local reality.

    Now comes Terence Witt, and his book The Undiscovered Universe disputes all of this!
    I read his book, which is more than 90% of his critics did! It was astonishing to read reviews of his book and lengthy discussions of his book based entirely on the authors reading the jacket blurbs and Amazon.com reviews!

    Well, not really. The most extensive discussion of Witt’s book online is on the James Randi skeptical site. No surprise there that those who discussed the book had never read it and roundly condemned it. Witt joins in a lengthy discussion with them, which, no surprise again, quickly degenerates into name calling! However, James Randi is an intellectual fraud posing as a skeptic. I once appeared with him on National TV, and I was astonished how intellectually shallow and narrow minded he is. One the other hand, I did learn some really great tricks of the trade from him on how to give the appearance of being a mind reader, and how to “find” lost objects with one’s mind. He gave an excellent demonstration of how to fake remote viewing.

    Don’t misunderstand me, I think there is a place in the world for James Randi. One reason I learned to remote view myself, is that I learned from Mr. Randi how easy it is to con people, especially scientists. He gave a breathtaking demonstration of remote viewing, and “found” a hidden object in a room, which was all magic and subtle mind techniques. It is just unfortunate that he is also narrow minded and lacks true intellectual honesty.

    I also learned from the James Randi site discussion with Mr. Witt what NOT to do when you have a controversial theory. The discussents argued back and forth with Mr. Witt, but then soon started subtle digs at his character. After a bit, he lashed out at them.

    Ahah, then they had him. They immediately dismissed him as a “crackpot” on the basis of his overreacting to their subtle personal digs at him.
    I wish I knew Mr. Witt and could have told him there is no point in arguing with people on the James Randi skeptical website, they are really just stringing him along until he makes a mistake and then jumping all over him. They then ruthlessly promote the thread of the discussion all over the web, to prove he is a “crackpot”, whatever a “crackpot” is.

    Actually, I know what their definition of a “crackpot” is, and I took their Discovery magazine test and guess what? I am not a crackpot, and I pass the test for being a respectable alternative scientist. Big whoopee.

    Anyway, back to Witt’s book.
    Well, it is a riot, so those who didn’t read it are really missing out. He has great lines in it such as “physics has been infected with mysticism at a subhysterical level for the past 90 years”, and “the Big Bang Theory will be our generation’s Flat Earth theory”. He basically completely disputes everything about quantum physics.

    Otherwise, I don’t have the math or the physics background to assess the book. Using Mark Twain’s criteria that if everyone hates what you are doing, it is probably correct, he must have something going for him.

    Melvin

    Comment by Melvin — December 18, 2008 #

  2. Just saw that I did not tell you where my review from reeading Terence Witt’s “Our Undiscovered Universe” is!
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html

    Comment by Reality Check — January 15, 2009 #

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^