Maybe the universe itself IS simple.
But the way in wich the simplicity of the basics of the universe can be translated into concepts that resonate with the programmings of a mammalian-CNS, could turn out be very complex.

Like trying to define a DMT experience in common language.

I think an unexperienced critic could maybe argue that occams razor requires us not to have any of these experiences.

Right, so if all matter is standing waves in a medium then why does the notion of a particle still persist, why do we still talk about the wave-particle duality and double slit experiment if this has all been successfully resolved. Why have we not abandoned the term altogether if it everything is waves. Clearly we don't believe everything is all waves.. you may do, but the prevailing scientific paradigm sure doesn't and clearly embraces the standard model of particle physics and also Einsteins space-time geometry ideas. Go to CERNS website and there's a whole page devoted to particles..

I completely agree with you, it's just that we shouldn't expect the universe to make sense in a simple way to our limited monkey-brain reason. Or in other words, just because quantum physics and relativity seem complex, doesn't mean they aren't right (or right enough, as any scientific model can only aspire as much). And if better models come that withstand impartial scientific scrutiny, simple or complex, they will inevitably be adopted and I'll be excited to read about them

Lastly, to tie in with the original thread subject, imo the scientific endeavor isn't separate from spiritual development. I think understanding how the universe manifests itself in the physical realm is like playing a beautiful game of hide and seek with God, who leaves hints of Him/Her/Itself through the patterns we observe. Of course there are other aspects to self development and existential search that go beyond logical-mathematical intelligence, but that certainly shouldn't be neglected and isn't contrary to spirituality imo.

Sorry to backtrack here a little, but there's something I'd like to clear up...

The problem here is the word "schaumkommen" doesn't (strictly) exist in German (although he was Austrian, so who knows...) It would be really helpful if you could trace the exact context of the quote, otherwise you're likely just perpetuating a meaningless misquote. The word "Schaum" itself means "foam" (quantum foam? ) and "(zu) kommen" means "(to) come" which overall I find to be a bit of a non-starter; "(zu) schauen" means "(to) look" which is clearly a lot closer but I'd still be interested in knowing exactly what it was that Schrödinger said.

"Schau-um-kommen"?? "Schau um" means "look around".

"Schaumkrone" is the head on a glass of beer - alluding to the following:

On a poetic level "Schaumkommen" could be thought of as foam rising up at the top of a cauldron or brewing vat - appearing indeed. It's just that all of the attributions of this quote to Schrödinger are from English-speaking websites and not one single German-speaking website lists it. Hence my skepticism regarding its veracity.

And apologies again for a tangent into pedantry!

Nope. Not just me. This is the postulate of quantum field theory. And this is the framework that is widely embraced by the prevailing scientific paradigm.



Nope, totally wrong. No such assumptions. In fact it is the complete opposite.

Some definitions:

"QFT describes all elementary particles as vibrational modes, in fundamental fields which exist at all points in space and time throughout the universe."

or from wikipedia:
"QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles. Interactions between particles are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangian involving their corresponding fields. Each interaction can be visually represented by Feynman diagrams, which are formal computational tools, in the process of relativistic perturbation theory."


Fields are fundamental. Particles and their anti-matter counterparts are just ways in which that field vibrates.

The fields have a non-zero amplitude, which means the smallest amplitude above zero is an indivisible packet of energy, that we call a particle. Or for the electromagnetic field, the photon.

As I said already in a previous post:



Particle is a useful term when speaking about the discrete, indivisible, dimensionless, quantized packets of energy. But they aren't particles. It would be more correct to call them 'quantized field oscillations' its a bit of a mouthful, so particle is used. Also the word particle is used, due to their quantized nature they have 'particle-like' properties, hence the definition of particle in the first place.

" particle noun
par·​ti·​cle | \ ˈpär-ti-kəl \ a relatively small or the smallest discrete portion or amount of something"

If the word 'particle' causes you discomfort, just replace it with another term like 'quantized field oscillation'

The same thing you tell someone who wants to be spiritual but is resentful towards the word God. So all you do is just replace that 'God' with another equal term, like 'universal intelligence' and all is well in their minds.

Now I'm only repeating myself here. This is why it truly isn't science were talking about but faith and beliefs.

Really it's amusing to see someone who will accept without scrutiny the principles of simple harmonic motion, resonance, electromagnetism, when it applies to a Tesla coil. But then reject without hesitation those same principles, the same physics, when it applies to things they cannot see and do not understand (atoms and electrons). And then on top of that, to try and justify it to others as if its scientific, in the face of the reality.

Lol. The problem is the word God is more often then not directly compared to a theistic model.

Yes, that's kind of what the word 'god' is for, isn't it? Although it's not entirely clear, I get the impression that you mean people use the word to refer to their specific local model of what god is purported to be. Is that what you're saying in reference to "compar[ing] to a theistic model"? "Theistic model" as opposed to "theistic model", as it were.

That is exactly how i feel about it sometimes. Except you managed to articulate it in a very poetic way.

The universe is full of magic. And the more we know, the more miraculous it all seems to be.

I find the phenomenon of solar eclipses a good example of this. What are the odds of having a moon around, at the exact distance to fit perfectly onto the sun? It's simply amazing.

Your body. Cells, atoms, and mystifying particle waves dancing with each other. Photons striking the back of your eyes sending small electrical signals. You see the world. You live.

The beauty of it all is beyond comprehension. Awe inspiring mystery.

~melt in boundless gratitude~

Among some the order of the universe and emergent properties displays a coherent structure that indicates something akin to intelligence, however not intelligence as a plan or a model.

The concepts involved are tricky for our minds because we use language and so project a dichotomy of symbol and content, like a software hardware duality, however the universe doesn't indicate such a dichotomy. Often we view profound aspects as forms of other, something separate that affects and influences, like the concept of a soul verses the body. We are conditioned to think in these terms, however isn't it possible that the universe can be self ordering without having an agenda or an architect?

Imagine an intelligent universe that is as it is now, without a goal or intention. We use language and form goals and project this onto things in a teleological manner. We believe a design shows a purpose, this implies an end goal or an objective to be reached.

For some the concept of the order of the universe evokes an intelligence, a higher order or higher power if you will, however it does not follow that the form indicates a design separate and distinct that precedes the existence of the universe. It is fundamentally alien to our understanding, possibly because of our obsession with theism.

In fact if you go to the Greek origin of the word Theo you find that it was used to mean causality, (to address this word and it's evolution alone would be an entire topic unto itself) this evolves over time to take upon itself connotations and definitions of an entity. We in our exploration of the realm of existence ponder motive and wonder why things are, this implies an other, a separate cause. Perceiving causality we invoke teleology and project our language construct artifacts onto the universe and think that the existence of causality implies an entity, an all powerful other separate and distinct from the substance and events of the universe. However what if the universe is the origin of its own order?
This concept of an intelligence inherent to the universe, albeit perceivable and not comprehensible is known to the Greeks as Logos, it is translated in John as the "word" as "in the beginning was the word... " however the concept of logos cannot be rendered as such a translation. The actual translation is much more profound, but I confess I have no intention to write an essay on the subject of mistranslated Greek... at least not here.

This intelligence, the higher power that is not the cause of the universe but is actually the universe itself, of which we are a component, is also found in Tao, it is the God of Einstein and Spinoza, the intelligent nature of what is, not as "other" but as all.

The anthropomorphic god of biblical text can be rather easily demonstrated as a result of accumulated mistranslation and deception over thousands of years. The author of John was clearly trained in Greek philosophy and the original Koine text not only contains Logos, it quotes Socrates and even teaches in the classic Socratic dialogue method.

In the beginning the universe itself was intelligent and this intelligence is the higher power we perceive as behind causality, though it isn't why you can't find your car keys...

Of course there is a lot to this that is more simple than that but it defies expression.
God after all is just a word, like particle.

I am concerned that a lot of the discussion here comes from a position of conflict where there is an "us against them" mentality. It is very natural for our species to approach things this way and I don't fault anyone for it, however upon examination it can be realized and compensated for.

The takeaway is that there is no line where you begin and the universe ends. There is no line where the universe ends and god or the higher power/order begins. I'll let you do the math.

Some very good posts



I'd love to read more about it. If you do write an essay (or already did), please do share!

If not, would you mind linking us some good resources on the subject ?

I really want to read this to!?

I've been considering writing about this as part of a larger work and i want to retain as measure of anonymity.

However the basics are that you find a text, John in the New Testament for example and find the earliest versions you can find. There are ancient scrolls online and lots of recent work on them. So then you take the words from them and look them up, wictionary is a great resource. Go back using the oldest versions of the words you can find and also look at the cognates. You will find that in numerous cases the words changed to suit the effort to present the Bible as a coherent whole with a Christian theme. Take angel for example, it meant messenger. The word demon meant protector spirit. The oldest texts of the synoptic gospels are in Koine Greek, it was a standard language of the Alexandrian empire.

The result is kind of amazing. Take the adage of lay yourself up treasure that moth and dust does not corrupt, in Koine the word used for treasure (I forget the exact word) meant both a box that one would conceal valuables in and it meant coffin, it is a seriously clever play on words.

The truth is the synoptic gospels are genius but it doesn't translate. If you haven't read the Greek versions I don't think you have read them at all. To translate words like Logos takes paragraphs, but that doesn't work to make it readable. The translation of texts was largely motivated by the political power of the Roman Empire and the Protestant reformation. The former revised Christianity to match it's paganism and outlawed all other forms punishable by death.

The Romans had a tradition of God's mating with humans and incorporated that into the teachings with Jesus being a God. His teachings about the kingdom of heaven were rather specific and not about an afterlife, the translation "realm of the divine" might be more apt. Moreover his instructions are precise and amazing, but that is another topic. Constantine was not converted to Christianity, rather he converted Christianity, incidentally this is Mandeanism and baptized priests are called Nazarenes and the Iranian constitution with its Persian roots 6000 years old protects the freedom of religion of Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians does not distinguish between Christians and Mandeans) to Romanism, Constantine moved the Christian capital to Rome, the Roman's were facing political problems with Christianity and so basically stole it and kept the same holidays, regalia, rituals and more from Roman Paganism but labeled them as Christian. Constantine killed more Christians than his predecessor but did so in the name of Christianity by labeling all other forms as heresy. It's a topic I've put a lot of effort into but it is rather touchy so I generally avoid bringing it up.

I view God as the underlying force/energy which creates the fabric of space/time.

God is the metaphysical quintessence of the entire multiverse.

God is the creator of the laws of the natural universe which operates on a level beyond the control of any other force and regardless of how much it is made to be manipulated by other forces.

Gods creation is like a clock, where all the parts no matter how big or small fit in perfectly together and work in synchronicity with each other or else the clock doesnt run.

Even if people believe in the pit of their soul that "the clock can run without certain parts" or that "the clock will run just fine if we change certain parts" they are completely wrong.

The manner is which the laws of nature are formed is not able to be reconstructed and still function with maximum capacity, to use all its potential that was given from God.

Some things may "function" to a certain level of "stability" but never to reach their true maximum potential because as soon as things break away from nature they begin to degenerate and become malignant eventually.

To be at peace and to have true prosperity is to embrace the divine spark within us, to recognize that we are the creation and the experiment of something beyond our comprehension, and to know that we are given our lives out of love.