Posted: May 14th, 2010 | Author: admin | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2nd chances, compassion, consensual delusion, crisis, dark energy, dark matter, die once, empathy, experience, growth, High school, kids, love, New York Times, number one, opportunity, Pulitzer Prize, reality, understanding | No Comments »
When I started this blog in February of last year, I had no expectation that people would actually read it. At the very least it would provide a mechanism for me to record my thoughts, musings and opinions. Now 600+ people from over 70 countries read this blog. Frankly that blows me away. As there are both a lot of new readers, I decided to high-lite 5 of the more popular earlier posts that newer readers may have missed.
Once again, thank you to those that read this. Please feel free to comment, email me and recommend Consensual Delusion to your friends, colleagues, and family.
This entry on how my 1st son’s birth changed my perspective was picked up by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Tina Kelly and the New York Times “Local” blog last year.
This post, “Die Once”, is about my dad wrestling with his mortality.
After reading “Crisis and Opportunity”, a friend from high school asked me “when did you become so smart?” I’ll take the back-handed compliment.
I am actually grouping these 2 posts together as they both illustrate the very fuzzy boundaries that define science and mysticism. Both posts attempt to show the reader that we believe we know much more than we actually know. And that is both supremely arrogant and very dangerous; “master planned obsolescence” and “Is your reality, really reality?”
Lastly, in my opinion, this may be one of my most useful posts from a day to day living perspective. If my kids take anything away from this blog, hopefully it will be this message, “Don’t count on 2nd chances.”
Posted: November 9th, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Add new tag, Bohr, dark energy, dark matter, Einstein, God, Hawking, love, Newton, tangible universe, that which can not be described, thought | No Comments »
I have a problem with God. Or more precisely, I have a problem with the word God. I believe it is a product of convenience: a word created by humans to describe the indescribable. An artificial semantic construct that subtly shifts the inconceivable into the realm of the near tangible. It is a word that allows us to apply convention to something that is not just far beyond our physical capability for understanding but something that is seemingly beyond our abilities of abstraction and imagination.
By assigning a linguistic, etymological or symbolic value to that which can not be described, we simultaneously limit its scope and define it in our own terms, dragging it into the world of matter and energy in which we reside. And I believe that is both supremely arrogant and more importantly, a disservice to ourselves as it inhibits our ability to connect with something that is paradoxical and life altering.
As previously mentioned, the universe that we all know, the universe in which we exist, the universe described by Newton, Einstein, Bohr and Hawking comprises less than 4% of what astrophysicists can currently measure. Physically, we have no choice but take up space and conform to the limitations of this tangible universe. However we are not just physical. Thoughts are not physical. Insights are not physical and love is certainly not physical. We just choose to define and relate to them exclusively in physical terms. And by doing that, we limit ourselves from truly being who we are and experiencing that which can not be described.
Posted: March 4th, 2009 | Author: admin | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: dark energy, dark matter, questions, reality, WMAP | 2 Comments »
The Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe, aka WMAP, was launched in 2001. The larger mission of the probe was to retrieve residual data from “the big bang” and thus allow us to gain a greater understanding of our universe and its origins. What it actually accomplished was to change our understanding of what makes up reality.
Data from the WMAP has shown that the vast majority of our universe is composed of unknown matter and energy. This undefined dark matter makes up approximately 23% of the universe, while undefined dark energy makes up approximately 73%. That means that what has been conventionally understood to make up reality is just 4% of the actual universe. Further, the vast majority of that 4% is made up of hydrogen and helium (the stars), while the heavier elements (what we consider solid matter) is only approximately 0.03%.
So 96% of reality is not understood, not really quantifiable and apparently can’t be directly perceived. Whereas everything with which we interact and what we believe that we understand only makes up between 0.03 and 4% of actual reality. The entire tangible and intangible world as we conventionally experience it, relate to it and interact with it is a statistically insignificant fraction of actuality.
So what is really real? Or more precisely, what is really significant? Are the things that we can hold more real or more significant than our thoughts and ideals? Are our emotions any less real or less significant than our actions? Are our perceived abilities more real and more significant than our unacknowledged limitations? Is our shared concept of reality any more real or more significant than own individual realities? Are the questions we ask any less real or less significant than the answers that we are given?