A wheel is a wheel Not because It’s a symmetrical piece Hanging on the wall But because It’s spinning in the wind Or on the road Symmetry in nature Necessarily dynamic Hence the perception Of asymmetry Or parity violation Balance is balanced In eternal rotation

How do I prove The hobbits Of Tolkien’s tales Don’t exist in reality How do I prove The quarks Colourfully Conveniently Confined In the nucleus Don’t exist in reality Eleven years Too short to prove Your immortality

@Hikmah Heikal Thanks for joining the group, Hickmah. Sorry for the delay in welcoming you and others — took two weeks off to recover from a minor surgery. In the context of all existing theistic religions, god is merely humanity’s projection of an all powerful being who serves as a strong black garbage bag into which all mysteries are dumped. The best account of this explanation was provided by Feuerbach’s writings. In the context of philosophy, the only logical way for god to exist is Spinoza’s “god or nature” — namely identifying nature as god (in essence as good as denying god). In the context of science, whatever exists is but a form of energy — there’s no god whatsoever, just energy in its myriad forms.

@Lisa Dyer Thanks for joining the group, Lisa, and for your seemingly rather straightforward question. For many religious people, the answer is seemingly straightforward too: as taught by the Bible, God the Creator created humans. But it isn’t really an ultimate answer because one can continue to ask: who created God? Now the challenge has shifted: at first, the question was to explain the origin of humans who are known to obviously exist, however, with that answer, a new question has been raised — how to explain the origin of God who’s not known to obviously exist. That’s no answer at all. The correct way to answer your question is to deconstruct it: more specifically, to deconstruct the notion of creation. Whatever exists is but a form of energy — in the forms of humans, animals, vegetation, bacteria, clouds, and what not. Any perceived action of creation is in fact merely transformation of energy: every part of the universe plays a role in the formation of anything in the universe, be it a grain of sand, a mountain, a grasshopper, or a human being. Amidst all these transformations, one thing remains constant: energy conserves. More specifically, angular momentum conserves. This transformation of nature and within nature is the true meaning of Darwin’s evolutionary theory: humans are part of this evolutionary process just like all the insects, all the stars and all the galaxies. To look for the details of this evolutionary process, to find out about all the forms and structures and functions, to figure out the causal relationships, constitutes science or the pursuit of knowledge. To appreciate the wonders of the universe, of the transforming nature, of which we are an integral part, constitutes genuine spirituality — something humanity as a whole hasn’t evolved to acquire yet.

Abstract: This short note outlines the philosophical reasoning that the perceived imbalance between matter and antimatter is a conceptual problem for which there exists a theoretical solution. The current definition of matter automatically excludes the possibility for particles and antiparticles to form matter despite the fact that antiparticles (positrons) can be produced in the decay of matter. The assumption that particles and antiparticles always annihilate each other does not reflect an initial condition in which elementary particles and antiparticles are relativistically rotating around each other as pairs in a rotating universe. With this initial condition, matter is necessarily made up of electrons and positrons, thereby accounting for all the antiparticles and explaining why there is matter rather than antimatter. 1. The Big Bang was accompanied with an equal number of particles and antiparticles, but contrary to common assumption, this doesn’t automatically mean that there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter at that time. To assume this would be to miss the critical step involved for these particles and antiparticles to form matter or antimatter. 2. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, due to their composite nature, can be treated as matter since they must contain elementary particles. In other words, before the emergence of composite particles or antiparticles and other more complex forms of matter or antimatter, there was a time when there must be only elementary particles and antiparticles. 3. Elementary particles, being elementary, cannot interact with other types of elementary particles if they are fundamentally different in nature – that fundamental difference would make such interaction impossible. This means that fundamentally there can only be one type of elementary particle or antiparticle in the universe. This contradicts the current conceptual framework that demands a bewildering variety of unrelated elementary particles and antiparticles. It also explains why an elementary particle can interact with its antiparticle – they are fundamentally the same.