Ranting: The Theory

To be read in complement with Kate's "Everything Theory-Part I".

Life

In clarification of my personal definition of "faith" and "hope" (for I think that there is a subtle difference between the two), faith, I believe, is blinder than hope--less prejudiced against the circumstance, if you will. Both are, I agree, things derived from something within ourselves, be it neurons, chemicals, spirit, or soul.

Do we have a soul? That is too big a question to be answered at the moment, especially since proving the answers will be difficult at the lack of what people would refer to as "hard core evidence". So we'll take a detour around the issue and let each one decide for themselves.

Remember my call for the human love of potentials, from which hope/faith (for argument's sake, we'll put them together to make it easier) came from. Humans love potentials and yet many fail to see how much potential they themselves are born with. The hope/faith for miracles from outside potential, for some helpful chances and possibilities that came from Elsewhere is so great that for some it is impossible to think that they must rely on themselves for that miracle. (Please note that I neither affirmed nor denied the presence of God, whose existence we can discuss some other day.) Yet what humanity has accomplished so far (both good and bad)can be credited as hard work done by humans while God seemed to serve as a sort of moral/spiritual support.

Consider this hypothesis: God is a part of us, and we are a part of God, because our subconscious recognizes our own potentials and, in the perversion of the human psyche, seeks to place it in a more glorious vessel of ideology for us to recognize. How else, otherwise, would something all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful ended up so humanized? God is in each of us, but what is in each of us does not make us God, nor is that small bit in each of us God. It's the derived whole of humanity, the sum of our potential and hope/faith that is God. Put it all together, the sum of all of humanity would know all that the humanity knows (all-knowing), the sum of all of humanity would see all that humans can see (all-seeing)...*

And of course, this is just an explanation for one idea/image of God than many worships and in no way limited the possibly upper-dimensional Being that can still be very much real.

Universe

Take a step back and inspect it from a different perspective—that of a scientist seeking for truth. Here we have the Big Bang theory, where it states, a long, long time ago, in the beginning of time actually, everything there is and ever will be is packed within an infinitely small and dense point. At that point (no pun intended), everything is essentially one Thing, which we might imagine to be the highest level of pure energy or we might imagine to be a dying flounder—we don’t know, though the fish idea seems pretty ridiculous.

Orson Scott Card (author) once proposed an idea in Ender’s Game (book series) that when we split the fundamental particles (whatever they may be), the two halves will be able to resonate at the same frequency, no matter how far away they’re placed. There is a small sub-theory for that that when two people are very close, some particles within them will start to take on the characteristics of the halves of the split particle which, yes, is a very pretty idea.

Connect the two above paragraphs. Things really can’t get any closer than when they were one Thing, squeezed, infinitely small and infinitely dense, into one point, can it?

Therefore, when the Big Bang happened, the one Thing is flung across the suddenly existent space-time continuum as now very very many things—and it would seem possible that all those things (particles, radiation, etc., you know the works) that were once one Thing would still be able to maintain some sort of interconnectiveness (not a word). It wouldn’t be too surprising, in fact, if space-time (actually it’s more likely if we go up higher dimensions, I think) is a composite of all the resonance going on.

How does this relate to part one, you ask?

Well, I always thought the idea that we are made from star dust (i.e. children of the stars) the prettiest idea in the fields of space science. That means, in other words, we are made for the dust of stars that have died, which are made from either dust of other stars that have died or from residue dust from the Big Bang. And all stars and galaxies originated from the big bang, which means that we were, unchangeably, once a part of the one Thing.

And Everything Else

It’s part of the reason why some people choose different field to go into in life, I think.

When we’re little, we are much more a part of what we were than when we grow up, because society, let’s face it, is a rather big and very effective distraction. Yet people still manage to hang on to the things they feel the most connected to. Astronomy people, for instance, probably felt most connected to the stars out there. Biology majors, to earth. Sociology—other people, so on and so forth. Along the same lines, the more resonance/connectiveness (again, not a word) you feel to the other parts of the one Thing, the more interests you might have. (I wonder if this is how xenobiology started, but I digress.) Different combinations of interests gives us the other “interests” such as art (possibly connection to earth and other humans?), music, etc.

The same idea of resonance may also account for the bouts of “separateness” that everyone occasional suffers from. The sense of being alone and aching to be a part of something greater. Considering that we were, technically, once the one Thing before Big Bang tore us all apart (I can’t very well say we were parts of the one Thing because the one Thing had no parts, it’s just that one Thing, but you can deduce what I’m trying to say), which meant that once we were One, all that there was, the feeling seems quite understandable now, doesn’t it? Of course, technically we’re still an intimate part of the universe out there, but now we’re all separate parts, so there’s quite a difference.

You know what? This theory also allows for the idea of “true-love”, as in the “you make me feel complete” idea may have more to it than what meets the idea. (Human intuition is such a great thing…honestly.) I’m not exactly sure how the resonance managed to sort themselves out so that they could find the complementary notes (think music, think how one note can complement the other…well sounds is resonating air, so the idea shouldn’t be that different), but that might explain the high divorce rate and other problems we have at the moment. Beside, I have the rest of my life to figure out the complete answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, and it’s only 9: 31 AM in the morning of almost my eighteenth year in life.

Think I’ll go and drink some tea now.


*[edit 10:10] Just thought I'd bring this up too. Around the invention of the hydrogen bomb there's the saying that humans are trying to be God. They're playing the power of God which is to create and destroy, and the saying is that we're half way there already because we know how to destroy. Now, seeing all the stuff we're doing with genetics and biotechnology, I'd say we're pretty close to create too.
All human. All God.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Kate, this is the best I can do. How'd you like it?