A Word on Demons

I have a few rejections for claims on the existence of demons. This was provoked by finding out that “serious” exorcism is taught at the Vatican; then again the Vatican can’t really be held in high esteem for its “sensibilities”. First of all I will highlight some of the portrayals of demons and attack the likelihood of such properties using what is known about the physical world. The first is inherent invisibility. This property requires that the demon does not interact electromagnetically and from this it becomes a challenge to conceive of how it may influence electrical signals in the brain. If we are absolute with what has been said there is indeed no way for such a demon to have such an influence and even less likely for it to exist as some sort of sentient being. Furthermore it is hard to imagine that some creature like being can compactify itself somewhere within a person such that it can meddle with the brain. It is highly unlikely that such a creature could be made out of non-electromagnetically interacting matter since the formation of complex macroscopic structures such as life requires the electromagnetic force since it is the only candidate with suitable properties (strength, range and particles subject to its interaction). Of course some may say that demons are really just spirits and it should be obvious why this isn't physically possible. To deny such reasoning is to deny the judgement of many physicists in their study of the natural world. If demons are such persisting entities in terms of time then they surely would have shown up as a mystery of physics and perhaps biology.

Parseval's Identity

Some Musings on the universe

I begin with Lawrence krauss’s idea which is the thought that if the total energy of the universe is zero then it’s conceivable that the universe came from absolute nothing. The evidence that the total energy of the universe is zero is the observation that the universe appears flat overall. Bringing in general relativity to justify this, a metric that is flat overall looks something like the Minkowski metric except that it may be locally curved however the total energy contributed by every inhomogeneity is zero.

The universe is then a mass fluctuation out of absolute nothingness but adds up to nothing and so could be considered nothingness which isn’t in equilibrium. There is a certain implication from this which is somewhat philosophical but also pragmatic: this absolute nothingness was imbued with the law of energy conservation. The nothingness then could be said to have some sort of mathematical adherence; this in itself could be considered to be a property and so the pre-universal state wasn’t necessarily absolute nothingness. One could progress and ask how far do we have to go reach a point where there was absolute nothingness; does such a thing exist? Maybe this mathematical adherence is fundamental to anything that could be considered a state of pre-universal nothingness. However there is one thing which is more grounded and that is to say that since the universe sprung from this “nothingness” which possesses laws the nothingness could be said to be some sort of extra-universal plane-just a description nothing inexplicably profound-which the universe exists within even now.

I would also like to expound a conceptual idea of mine that takes a different stance to the one which conceives time as always flowing. The idea is simply that space-time is static and we experience times slices through it as moments. We can say that constant motion through time is required in order for us to perceive-without motion through time there would be no perception. So we are 4 dimensional structures in space-time and each three dimensional slice of constant time is the “present” and moving through these slices generates our perceptions. A side note here would be this is not as depressing as it sounds; these structures (us) are still self-influencing and influence their own future. So in a sense our perceptions and time are running in tandem by necessity.

Thoughts on Education

I thought I would start with a post concerning the current state of education in a general sense. As far as my judgement on this matter is reliable one thing is for certain; school systems very rarely promote curiosity. I noticed this crushing pressure myself in school and definitely resented it. I suppose that the tight schedules and the intent to cram as much information into an individual’s mental repository as is possible pushes curiosity to the sidelines. The next thing that seems to be discouraged in cases of the academic subjects is complete understanding.

An example would be being presented something in mathematics without proof and by extension a lack of appreciation for the capacity of proof. As a result a student may view mathematics as a vast expanse of formulas with various applications and not see the rich interconnectedness between all mathematical expressions and ideas. This deficiency could again be attributed to the lack of available time for all these things to be presented in the classroom. Now even if this was the case I can still say that on the part of those giving this education this is a poor job.

People often leave school with lots of information (possibly little information) but no understanding and therefore no way of extending and applying the knowledge except in a very cosmetic and parrot like fashion which is often how it was taught to them. Thus people having these deficiencies will be less than adept at solving problems outside the bounds of the standard form of problems encountered at school but within the scope of their knowledge.

Society does not receive a great deal of benefit from people with this lack of ability and yet the system isn't changed for the better. The ability to think independently and deeply should be cultivated and sustained unlike the current rote and robotic procedures teaching currently entails. But this beast feeds itself on what it produces; people that go on to become teachers have had their curiosity stamped out and so cannot promote it and maintain it in their students and so the circle continues. There are exceptions to this but then the educational system comes in, with it’s defined curricula inducing rote learning which maintains the problem. I may be wrong however; maybe people really are inherently lacking in curiosity and general interest for things.