According to Stephen Hawking...

According to Stephen Hawking, the purpose of science is to work toward a good theoretical description of how the universe works. The question of whether or not the universe was created by god is not left out because it may seem too fantastic or simplistic but is left there while the theories that can stand on their own are discovered and if, according to science, those theories support the creation principal, then so be it.

Right now I'm reading A Brief History of Time by Hawkings. Getting the opportunity to apply my skeptical, but unscientific mind to his philosophy is a pleasure and so right off, within a few brief pages, I've already discovered a flaw. Not a flaw in his reasoning but a flaw in the a priori assumption that whatever he says there is an element he assumes to exist and like time, is the basis for our attempt at understanding anything. That is consciousness. Consciousness is similar to time, in that its existence or origins or the environment it is connected to, cannot be determined and thus has to be left out like the god created universe theology should be.

So yes, Mr Hawkings does address the notion that we may be just discovering ourselves or other things that we are a part of and more importantly, it isn't clear whether or not what discoveries we encounter will have anything to do with whether or not we survive as a species or not. Still, other animals have become extinct, and it could be concluded that our unique "consciousness" and ability to transfer knowledge by communication written in a book, makes us worthy of a theory in itself for the simple reason that pre-destiny maintains the universe requires a unified theory because we are, or assume we are the end result of billions of years of chaotic, neutral, and random physical reactions, making us conclude we are the center of the universe again.

Objects nearing the speed of light increase their mass until at the speed of light it takes an infinite amount of energy to propel an infinite mass, thus no object can go over the speed of light.

Before I go on, my first impression is this. Can science, which seems more like getting a ship in a bottle, see anything outside of what it has determined “exists”. They already know there are universes of mathematical space between particles of atoms, molecules, and stars, thus room for much error.

Yet, that does not seem to deter us.

It’s my contention that we rely way too much on authoritative science and behaviorists to tell us way more than what we “naturally” perceive to be true. Do we accept all this progress because we still have all the religious fears implanted in our social and physical upbringings that we are really nothing except gifted animals, and maybe not really that necessary for the world, much less the universe, from going on. I believe that’s called doubt.

In other words, will our extinction be a failed genetic exercise, much like the dinosaurs or any other dominant species/genre that at one time held special significance for a certain period.

Like I said, we are unique on this earth anyway, being entities that “believe, we are earth’s destiny, unlike the dinosaurs or any other animal which certainly influenced it’s immediate environment but as far as we know, held no erroneous or unproven consciousness that they were indispensable. Since every other earthly mass extinction, except this one, the sixth extinction, did not hold any special significance to our self- interest, whatever outcome it may have engendered that made it more conducive for our emergence as the “supreme” life form we are, precluding religious directed “creationism”.

Allred’s I Love America

I’ve almost forgotten that America is a highly sophisticated security state. I get the feeling, maybe it’s just deja vue, that we’re living in the fifties again, giving birth to the sixties again. Does Joe bring that on? He’s acting as if America can and will fix all these problems if he had just come along a little sooner.

Just a hunch.

Did Copernicus or Galileo predict that the rise of the national security state would ultimately give rise to a worldwide crackdown on dissent, real democracy, and true equality? Probably not. But Maybe Tolstoy said it because he had such a shotgun type of mind that exposed everything he thought so, it’s possible he more than likely hit upon the concept that everything contrived by preachers and politicians couldn’t be good for anybody. Chomsky probably thinks so too because he also sees the external state of things as they really are and not what people want them to be, so he probably saw it too.

Since humans seem to want to contrive a superior being/species out of this wild process that has been around for billions of years, rather than 6-7000 years ago, we’ve kind of taken the fun out of really discovering how the system works. As long as we want to, or have to believe that somehow, someway we are “god’s little children,” we’ll never pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and tap in to what may be out there ( outside our consciousness or knowledge) to save us.