Countless educated people today openly worship something they cannot explain.  They attend regular sermons delivered by those whom they trust to know best, and relinquish their curiosity in exchange for a sure understanding, which masses of other people around them promote and confirm and reinforce for them.  Their scripture starts with the beginning of the universe.  They worry about the universe collapsing at end times.   They follow formulas blindly, in a dogmatic way, treating them as absolute unbreakable rules.  They insist that there is no alternative than to believe, with blind faith, that the universe started from an infinitely dense, infinitely small point, which exploded a few billion years ago and is simply continuing to expand from that point, when time itself started.



Do you believe in evolution?  Yes?  OK.

Do you know evolution to be true?  Yes?  Great.


Do you believe in the big bang?  Yes?  Really?  OK…., then:                                            

Do you know the big bang to be true?    What’s that? ….    Eh?   ……

Can you even explain the big bang?


If you don’t really know that the big bang is true, or you can’t even remember the evidence presented in favour of it (like you probably are able to do with the theory of evolution), or worse: if you can’t even explain the big bang, then you are no better than a monk, acting on faith alone.



There is only one single universe.  There are no alternate or parallel or multi-verses.

The universe never started.  There cannot possibly have been a beginning.

The universe will never stop.  There cannot possibly be an end.

The universe is simply perpetually in existence.  


You cannot travel back and forth through time, because it does not exist.

Time is a useful figment of the minds of all living creatures.

During the now, we may become conscious of echoes of what used to be in the now, in a past moment in the eternal ever-present universe.

During the now, we may forecast what the now will look like, in a future moment in the eternal ever-present universe.

But the recalling and the forecasting only ever take place in the now. 


Now.  The primary evidence used to argue in favor of the big bang theory is the “cosmological red-shift”.  Astronomers compare the size and brightness of galaxies with how much that light is shifted toward the red end of the electro-magnetic wave spectrum.  The red end of the spectrum is the longer wavelengths.  Astronomers have found that, generally speaking, the farther away a galaxy is (smaller and less bright), the more its light has shifted to the red. 

They have therefore concluded that the entire universe is expanding because: the light waves were stretched out by the expanding space as they travelled through it.  ??? 

That’s a real stretch … of the imagination!  And that’s pretty much their entire case.  We can ignore the existence of a background of microwave radiation all throughout the sky, because, among other reasons, all theories predict some background light. It's not a big shock that the dark sky isn't absolutely dark.  The background radiation doesn’t prove the big bang is more correct than other theories.  So, the only real ‘evidence’ is the cosmological redshift.

There are other physics that could explain why the light might shift to the red.

A galaxy, NGC 7603, which shows 4 objects tied together by a common filament, registers 4 different redshift values – one unique redshift value for each object.  So, the common filament shows that all 4 objects are at the same distance from us, but they all show different redshifts!  There must be different physics involved in the redshifting!  NGC 7603 alone puts a quick end to any and all claims of a beginning.

Also, there are large-scale galaxy clusters right at the edge of the observable universe – a tremendous amount of structure that apparently formed very shortly after the beginning of time.

And even if the galaxies are moving away from each other, this does not inherently mean that they must have all come from some magical “infinitely dense and infinitely small point marking a beginning of time and of the universe only a few billion years ago”!


If something is infinitely dense, it could never ever unpack itself at all.  No matter how many years after the alleged beginning of time you wait – it will never unwrap itself out of infinite density.  Infinity cannot be subtracted from to get a smaller infinity – infinite density can never come out of infinite density – it is limitless – it is numberless – it is beyond comprehension and beyond observation – it is density without measure, and without any possibility of anything ever unglueing itself from anything else.

If something is infinitely small, it can never expand into anything of any size or shape, whatever the rate of expansion you might attribute to it.  How can anything be infinitely small in the first place?  If something is infinitely small, it fills no space, it does not exist, at all, in the first place.

“Infinitely dense”  “Infinitely small”    These terms are not mathematical.  These terms are not scientific.  They just sound like it.




Scientists assume that life had an origin. 


Scientists assume that life can arise out of lifeless inert stuff.


Scientists assume that there exist some magical fundamental building blocks to the universe – microscopic lego that are not made up of anything smaller – indivisible lifeless lego.


Scientists assume that there exists some boundary out there – some edge to the universe, beyond which nothing exists.


Scientists assume that there is such a thing as “empty space”, so they never bother to look inside it (when they think they’ve found it).


Scientists assume that each electron is identical to all other electrons.


Scientists assume that it is possible to have a closed area – a finite portion of the universe which is completely closed off from the rest of the universe – where nothing moves out from it, nothing moves into it, and nothing moves through it.  They assume they can account for all the traffic of all the entities in their “closed system”, and completely shut it out from the rest of the universe.  Impressive claim!


Scientists assume that we are the best and finest and wisest stock of creatures to have ever roamed this planet, and certainly the smartest primates to have ever roamed the earth.  Scientists assume that populations only evolve.  Scientists never even consider the possibility that we might devolve – that might make us chumps on the tree of life, and maybe turn us into chimps if we devolve further.  We don’t like that.  Progress!  Progress is on the march!  Progress is always on the march!

Scientists assume we are the first to have used precision rotating power-drills and power-saws to cut hard stone.

Scientists assume we are the first to uncover electricity, magnetism and their relationship.

Scientists assume those who came before us were all superstitious morons who simply worshipped all sorts of false Gods in error, or self-delusion, or collective delusion.


Scientists assume that we are the first to do science – in a serious way.


Scientists assume that the people who wrote the Bible and the Quran actually believed in physical talking snakes, actually believed in talking donkeys, actually believed in magic carpet rides, literal walking on water, actual turning water into wine, and eating from a literal Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad.

Scientists assume that the Bible and Qur'an are not worth reading because the authors didn’t understand natural law and didn’t understand that there is no such thing as a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil – that such things do not exist, therefore the texts are without value.  Genius assumption! 

Scientists never consider the possibility that things in the Bible and the Qur'an are symbols.  They assume the authors were either trying to fool people or were themselves fools, and those are the only two possibilities.

Scientists refuse to investigate the Bible and the Qur'an. They allow themselves ignorance when it comes to these books, and don't bother to actually study the material for what it is.


Scientists assume plants and animals do not have minds of their own.

Scientists assume that a buffalo doesn’t know it is a buffalo.

Scientists assume that our own cells within us are just robots – acting from pre-existing chemical instructions alone.

When a critter stores food for later, by hiding or burying it, we are not allowed to say it truly “remembered” where it was stored.  We are not allowed to say it “planned” to store the food.  We are not allowed to say that it “thought” up its plan to store food.  We are not allowed to say it “understands” the notion of storage.  We are not allowed to say that it wants to eat well and survive - we are not allowed to say it truly has a “will” to do so.

When prey look out for and fear the presence of a predator, we are not allowed to say it “perceives” the presence of a predator.  We are not allowed to say it has an “understanding” of the situation.

Scientists assume that everything animals do is instinct, which is not even a scientific term.  Scientists simply catalogue their repertoires of instincts and only anthropomorphise these allegedly robotic functions for a laugh in nature videos.

We are not allowed to say that when an eagle drops a turtle onto rocks, from great heights, to crack the turtle’s shell, we are not allowed to say that the eagle can contemplate (truly think in a living way) upon its truly living dynamic memory to conjure up a plan to deal with the hard shell.

Perigrine falcons transfer their captured prey mid-air, to relay the prey along to the other parent who is tending to the nest, to feed their young.  We are not allowed to say that they are truly communicating or truly co-ordinating this based on a common understanding of the situation.  It’s all just instincts at work.  It is just innate habits and reflexes at work.

Some jumping spiders, in particular some species of Portia, can negotiate long detours from one bush down to the ground, then up the stem of another bush to capture a prey item on a particular leaf.  But apparently humans are the only species with planning or foresight.  We can’t even give credit to the poor spider for even simply remembering, truly remembering, the other critter during its detoured trip.

Every year in October, the hawks on the Galapagos eagerly await the iguana eggs to hatch in the middle of a crater.  They cannot see the eggs, and could only possibly know about this from memories at least a year old.  But, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I’m not allowed to say it actually remembered the eggs.  I’m only permitted to say that it’s just some automatic robotic instinctual “pattern recognition” encoded in their DNA then expressed as inert instincts and reflexes.  Right.  My mistake.


Many of those that claim to simply obey science, and to follow the strict rules of science, and to determine the pure objective laws of nature through the scientific method alone, start from a whole series of massive assumptions, that are not necessarily science-based, but are more philosophical or even theologically-inspired.  Many of the so-called laws of nature they promote as indisputable fact, are more assumptions based on their personal interpretations of scientific observations.

For example, a course on the Origins of Life starts out with the professor making statements like “This course is simply science-based” and “There is no philosophy here”.  Well, the very title of the course: “The Grand Question of Life’s Origins”, demonstrates a massive fundamental philosophical assumption: “Life had an origin”.

Questions that we find in big lettering on the cover of Time magazine, such as “When did the universe begin?”, or “How will the universe end?”, front themselves as being purely science-based articles, while they carry fundamental philosophical assumptions:   “The universe had a beginning.”    “The universe will have an end.”




“How can one describe the universe at the beginning of time?  I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of science.  The universe exists because the laws of general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist.  If I’m right, the universe is self-contained, and governed by science alone.”

Stephen Hawking

In a lecture at the university of California at Berkley, 2007



The smartest minds of the day have built models of the universe based on the assumption that there is nothing smaller than sub-atomic particles, and nothing larger than the observable collections of galaxies that we are able to see with our instruments.  The sub-atomic particle is the smallest thing we can observe.  And galaxy clusters are the largest things we can observe.  Isn’t it curious that we would build our entire understanding of the universe exclusively based on what we can see and observe, with the current instruments that we have at our disposal? Isn't it amazing that the universe consists only of what we have come to see with our instruments to date?

How convenient!

What more can a scientist do other than to explain things through what she has observed.  It is only natural.  In fact, it is required of the modern scientist.

We could, on the other hand, be more open to what may be outside of our sight – things smaller than sub-atomics, and things larger than the collections of galaxies that we have already observed with our limited instruments.

Observations are inherently limited (not just by technology).  If science relies upon observation, then science itself has inherent limits.  These limits are easier to work around when doing biology or chemistry, because these things are closer to our size, so we have easier access to do experiments.  But, when it comes to what is beyond galaxy clusters and what is below a sub-atomic particle, and when it comes to eternity and the universe as a whole - when it comes to cosmology, the scientist is put on an equal footing with the armchair philosopher.

Imagine if we were still functioning with the belief that the atom is the smallest – indivisible – unit of matter.  Imagine if we still had not managed to observe galaxies.  Would we have done ourselves any service by solidifying our understanding of the whole universe by assuming there is nothing larger than planets and stars and nothing smaller than atoms?

Whenever we develop better microscopes and telescopes, we have only ever seen smaller units and larger units.  We have never encountered fundamental building blocks, and we have never encountered an “edge” to the universe – out there in ‘space’.  This fact alone lends evidence (not proof) that the universe is infinite in size.  The theory of an infinite universe predicts that we would be able to observe, if we had stronger microscopes, that there are entities smaller than sub-atomic particles; and if we had stronger telescopes, we would observe that there are entities larger than galaxy clusters.


According to the wise respectable educated peer-reviewed talented studious meticulous dedicated award-winning tenured professionals in the various well-funded fields of science that promote and contribute to big bang cosmology, we just so happen, by miraculous happenstance, to reside smack-dab, in the middle of, a big universal sandwich:


Galaxy Clusters

 Galaxies and quasars

  Solar Systems and nebulae

   Planets and suns


   Living cells



Sub-atomic things


The universe has a few layers of entities above our size, and a few layers of entities below our size, and we’re comfortably sitting in the middle spot, miraculously, where we are afforded an equal view of the top and bottom layers of the universe?


Pfffffffff !


Is this seriously what you believe?


While you are chewing on your big tasteless universal sandwich, ask yourself if the burden of proof is in fact on you – to describe the nature and physics of your proposed magical fundamental building blocks to the universe – and also ask yourself if the burden proof is in fact on you – to describe the nature and physics of the edge of the universe – the area into which it exploded and is expanding within.   

Explain the physics of your theory!

Explain the physics of your theory of a finite universe!

In a finite universe, are your fundamental building blocks empty inside?  What shape would these smallest parts have then?  Just a point?  This point would have to have a shape, even if it is a sphere, right?  Well, would not the fact that you could observe one side of the sphere as opposed to its other side, reveal that it has multiple parts to it?  No?  OK.  Describe the surface of this empty thing then.  Is it simply that there is nothing there and the surface is simply the boundary of the void within and the things outside of it?  Can things fall into this void?  Does the void remain void if something falls into it?  And if there is just a void in these fundamental building blocks, then how can they be building blocks of anything at all?  In other words, how can anything that is made of nothing constitute larger things?

Likewise, what is the nature of the edge of the universe, up there, outside of which nothing else exists?  Explain the physics of the edge of the universe!

A finite universe is simply unintelligible!


There is no “final frontier”. 



























You are a vast complex network of interacting microscopic living creatures, each with their own bewildering intricacies, which nobody will ever fully understand, and whose behaviour nobody will ever be able to fully predict.

Your cells each have a mind of their own.  And you have a mind of your own.  Yet, “you” are “your” cells.  Your distinct mind is the result of the common experience and common activity of a group of cells – a group of distinct minds.  You, are thinking about “your” cells, with your cells.

By the same token, cells are made of smaller, distinct individual living creatures themselves. If it is possible with us multi-cellular creatures, why not so with cells themselves?  And those living constituents of the cell are made up of smaller living creatures, and so on, to infinity.

And, if distinct living creatures – cells, can also form a cohesive unified living creature of its own – like you, then by the same token, you, and any living entity in the universe, also has the potential to form larger living entities, by engaging in coordinated activity with others on the outside, just as cells engage in coordinated activity with other cells to allow you to do things, like read this sentence.

If we define a living entity, such as yourself, as a group of smaller living entities, experiencing common things, communicating with each other, and acting together, then the universe has to be infinite in size and must hold an infinite number of living entities – in an infinite variety, each one being made up of smaller ones, which are made up of smaller ones, to infinity, without ever finding an end to it.  You “contain” infinite living entities.  Also, if this is the definition of a living entity, then life in the universe could not ever have started, for life is always being made from pre-existing life, with an infinite variety always existing on the big tree of life which cannot collapse or expand as a whole because it has no size and no boundary to shrink or expand from.

Although the infinite extent of the universe cannot be proven, at any time, by any means, what can be proven, is that the authors of the Bible and the Qur'an believed that the universe was not finite, had no beginning, will have no end, and encoded their advanced cosmology of an infinite eternal universe within the letters of the words of their brilliant books.  Unfortunately, it still remains that the Bible and the Qur'an require blind faith in something untestable and unseen. If the universe is infinite, there is no way to prove it.  Proof deals with finite observable things.  Nothing can observe infinity.  Belief in the infinite requires a leap of faith.




The Hebrew term “ein soph”, meaning “without measure” or “infinite”, is found as a central symbol among Jewish mystics, employed as a noun: “The Infinite”.



“It does not reveal itself in a way that makes knowledge of its nature possible, and it is not accessible even to the innermost thought (hirhur ha-lev) of the contemplative.  Only through the finite nature of every existing thing, through the actual existence of creation itself, is it possible to deduce the existence of Ein-Sof as the first infinite cause.”

Gershom Gerhard Scholem 



“Ein-Sof is not his proper name, but a word which signifies his complete concealment, and our sacred tongue has no word like these two to signify his concealment.  And it is not right to say ‘Ein-Sof, blessed be he’ or ‘may he be blessed’ because he cannot be blessed by our lips.”

Baruch Kosover (writing in 1770)





Each living entity has a mind, in that each living entity can be conscious of what is outside itself, conscious of what is inside itself, can remember what it has been conscious of, can contemplate upon what it remembers, and can act in a coordinated way in context with this thinking, to do what it has a will to achieve.


You can become conscious of a thing only by encountering it physically, or by physically encountering an echo of other things encountering it physically.  No matter which way you go about being conscious of anything, there is always some sort of motion of real matter between you and the thing you are conscious of, no matter how many times the echo has to be relayed, no matter how different the entities passing along the echo may be.

A small fish can become conscious of a shark because light bounces off the shark, and into the small fish’s eye, then that signal of light is broadcast to the other cells in the fish (echoes of the ray of light reach the other fish cells).

If some of the fish cells get bit by the shark, the fish can send echoes of that painful bite to the other cells in the fish, thereby producing an instance of self-consciousness.

In whatever manner the cells of a fish can all receive a similar echo of what’s going on in the world, the multi-cellular organism as a whole can become conscious of things, from those common experiences – those common signals – the common receipt of those echoes of events by all the cells at generally the same moment. 


This is true not only for consciousness, but for every process of the mind.  Every process in the mind involves these echoes – these actual physical things that are bouncing around – that are relaying echoes of events.

So, everything happening in your mind is the result of actual physical echoes of events – the echoes being delivered through actual physical means, even if the echoes become just electrons moving between cells – there are still entities being bounced around. 

The echoes can be passed along by multiple entities in succession, and some of the entities passing along the echo might be so small and intangible that it seems like some sort of spirit is at work, but whatever that is, it is still physical things transferring that echo between your living cells.

All of what you are conscious of is an echo of what has already occurred in the past – because that is the nature of an echo (it has some sort of delay). 

Your cells may re-constitute the original echoes.  They can re-member those echoes, and re-broadcast them back to the other cells. 

Some cells may want to get other cells of yours to act in a certain way – like a fish cell may want the other cells to swim away from the shark, so one cell might start to talk with the other cells.  This internal communication, what we generally call thought, still involves cells sending signals between one another – bouncing actual physical things between one another.  The mind is still limited by the motion of the objects bouncing between cells, as they discuss things.  Just like a conversation you have with someone else involves some tangible real objects bouncing between yourselves.


A living entity cannot know, observe, sense or otherwise be conscious of the entire infinite universe – all its unique finite things, even with the most sophisticated instruments or the most broadly travelled messengers or other intermediaries, or by focusing and redirecting echoes of other things toward itself, or by referring to associated groups of things with numbers or any other kind of symbol.  Here are just a few reasons why:

If consciousness can only occur with resistance – the echoes bouncing onto you, then when you are busy encountering one thing, your capacity to encounter other things is blocked at that point. 

The intermediaries you encounter (the entities transferring signals and echoes), which make you conscious of other entities indirectly, also have the infinite within, so when you focus on the source of the intermediaries instead of the intermediaries themselves, you are excluding all of that infinite information.

If there are infinite entities moving in infinite different directions, then how could they ever all be going toward you or sending echoes toward you for you to be conscious of them all.

Signals and echoes eventually fade because they are incessantly encountering resistance themselves, however slight that resistance might be.

Seeing as all of what you are conscious of is but an echo – delayed signals – signals from the past, then once you are conscious of something, it has already changed.



It has only ever been and will forever be now.  Everything is constantly changing, or, more precisely: nothing ever stands still. The now is always unfolding into something new, but it still remains now.


Time is a useful concept.  Speed is a useful concept.  Rhythms of things happening over time – that’s a useful concept.  These abstract concepts, with only loose ties to the reality of the ever-present universe, are useful ways of thinking about the now – what the now was doing in the past, and projecting what the now might be doing in the future.


There is no maximum speed inherent in any kind of entity if there are infinite entities in the universe.  Speed is a comparison of motion between entities, and so to measure the true speed of one, you would have to measure the speed of all other entities, which are moving in ever-changing unique ways.

Even though there may be no inherent speed limit, this does not mean that any thing can manage to speed up endlessly without any sort of restriction, to infinite speed.  That’s impossible, for many reasons.  Each entity is incessantly encountering others, even if this resistance is imperceptible to us.  There is no vacuum – no absolutely void space anywhere, in which an entity may cease to act upon or cease to be acted upon by other entities.  There may be areas void of certain kinds of entities, but the infinite within each part of this “void” contains entities, even if they are imperceptible to us.


Your rhythms (as a whole) are generally faster than entities larger than you, and generally slower than entities smaller than you. 

A fly perceives you as lumbering around slowly, like we perceive elephants lumbering around slowly.  An elephant perceives you moving around quickly like you perceive a mouse scurrying around.  A fly can be fully conscious of something much quicker than you because it has fewer cells to broadcast the echoes of consciousness.

It generally takes longer for a single message to propagate throughout the consciousness of an elephant than it does in creatures smaller than the elephant.  In other words, it generally takes more time for an echo to propagate from the first cell to all the other cells within an elephant, than it does within a fly.  The echoes and signals are moving through and between roughly the same kinds of constituents (cells and organs), but in the case of the elephant, the echoes and signals are moving throughout a much larger grouping – a larger broadcasting area.   Therefore, many signals can be broadcast throughout your consciousness in the same period that it takes to send only one signal throughout the elephant’s consciousness. 

This is why your childhood seemed to have gone by so much slower than your full-grown existence.  This is why, when you were a child, all the older folks seemed to behave so much slower; and when you are fully grown, kids seem to behave with such greater speed compared to what you remember from your youth.  This is why elephants are annoyed by mice scurrying around them – the same reason we are annoyed by flies scurrying around us.


This applies not only to consciousness, it also applies to any other aspect of the mind.  All processes of the mind involve echoes in motion – echoes from events of resistance with other things, therefore the size of the living entity hosting the mind affects the speed at which all of the processes of that mind operate.


Super-small entities, relative to you, enjoy such extremely speedier relative rhythms that one of your footsteps may span aeons for them. 

Likewise, super-huge entities, relative to you, like a galaxy, seem to be frozen in a snap-shot.


If you were the size of an atom, you would see things flying around the nucleus much much slower; and if you were the size of a planet, you would see things flying around the sun much much quicker.


When you perceive the regular action of really large entities, from your size, like watching the earth slowly orbiting the sun and spinning on its axis in a regular pattern, it may seem that the rhythms are more stable, constant, and the repetitions more similar, compared with the actions of smaller entities.  Seeing as the actions of the larger entities generally take longer to play out relative to you, you tend to notice fewer repetitions and you therefore have a harder time noticing change in the general process, and are therefore limited in being able to discern the 'paths' or 'directions' or 'functions' of the earth, if any, and how it changes, if it does so noticeably through the course of its existence.

When you perceive the activities of super-small entities, from your size, like watching electrons quickly spin around the nucleus, you see so many more repetitions of the activity, so you can get a sense of their ultimate effect and purpose and inter-relationship with other things, by observing the combined effect of countless repetitions of activities, but because of the speed of activity and change, the physical properties and location of the things involved becomes harder to pinpoint.


The larger the entities you look at, the more you lose track of their activity, until you end up looking at galaxies, where you can’t understand much of their activity at all, you’re instead stuck staring at a still photograph – you’re stuck analysing their physical properties at a very static and knowable location.

The smaller the entities you look at, the more you lose track of their physical properties, until you end up looking at sub-atomic particles, where you really start to lose track of their properties, while you can get an excellent sense of their activity and ultimate effect of their activities, because you can observe oodles upon oodles of repetitions of activities.

So, with super-large entities, we can figure out the physical structure and location very well, but are blind to what they do; whereas with super-small entities, we can figure out what these things are doing very well, but are blind to their physical structure and location.


When you, from your viewpoint, at your size, observe the super-small, with its more rapid and ever-changing action relative to you, everything seems to be inter-related and inter-dependent; whereas when you observe the super-big, where you don’t notice much action between the different parts and not much change at all, everything seems to have its own separate existence with little inter-relation and little inter-dependency. 


To say that you are made up of infinite smaller living entities in a tree of life is not to imply that this ‘tree’ is static and rigid and unchanging. 

At some small enough level, the relative speed of existence makes it so that many more individual living entities are born or perish or significantly change every instant than we see in a lifetime at our size.  Many more bonds are broken and many more cemented relative to our realm, every moment.  To maintain the infinite tree of life within you, a constant change of constituents is taking place – constant birth and death, constant joining and leaving of constituents, constant engaging and withdrawing of participation among the living entities on all of the branches of the tree of life within you.


To say that you are made up of infinite smaller living entities in a tree of life is not to imply that every living entity within it is actively aware of you and engaged in your living network.  Each constituent of the tree of life within you pretty much tends to matters near to its own general area and size. 

A super-super-super-super-super-small creature within you might work with others around it to perform some sort of co-ordinated action, which would contribute to the activity of a larger living entity, which might contribute to the activity of a larger living entity, which might contribute to a sub-atomic creature's activity, which might contribute to a cell's activity, which might contribute to your activity. But, that super-super-super-super-super-small creature within you is probably not aware of your activity, as a whole, that it had "contributed" to. Its entire existence might have been so fleeting, relative to yours, that it would never have had the chance to observe and understand any of your rhythms, any of your activity, any of your habits, any of your dreams, etc...

They would feel the same way you feel when you look up at the galaxy you are contained within.  Events are so rare within your galaxy - the intervals between events are so long, and the parts seemingly unrelated, that you feel like a stranger in your own galaxy.  You don't really identify with your home galaxy.  It's just something "out there".


The cells within your mind have an advantage of being able to communicate between each other and deliberate about things at their relatively accelerated rate of activity.  This can make your thought seem to transpire instantaneously.  A thought can seem to occur all at once, but each smaller entity below generally has more of an opportunity to reflect upon and prepare its contribution to the larger actions above.


No two things are identical. 

No two events are identical. 

There is no absolute copying or duplication or repeating or habituation.  Even when you remember a specific thing over and over and over and over again, each time you bring that thing back into your consciousness, each instance of remembering it is unique – not just in its perception in context with other things – but it is physically different – the echoes are re-member-ed in a slightly different way and travel throughout your consciousness in a slightly different way each time.

No two beats of your heart are the same.

The same heart cell never truly remains exactly the same from moment to moment.

Each cell sees the world, and its place in it, from a unique vantage point within you, and each cell’s opinon can change over time, just like yours can.

Each cell receives the echoes from events in a unique way.

Each cell's contribution to your coordinated activity is different from the contribution of other cells.

Each cell within you is unique from other cells, like you are unique from other people around you.

Some cells might have a hard time to listen to other cells.

Some cells might be trying to tell your other cells something important, but they never get around to listening.

Some cells might repeat a scripted theatrical production to prove a political point with symbolism.  Even with nightly performances of the same script, your other cells might not get the symbolism.


Every decision you make and every action you take is the combined “result” of the activities of infinite entities within you, infinite entities outside of you, and infinite entities moving through you.

Every decision you make and every action you take is preceded by infinite events, and will cause infinite after-effects.   

There are infinite moments in every moment.































“Every letter and every word in every section of the Torah have a deep root in wisdom and contain a mystery from among the mysteries of understanding, the depths of which we cannot penetrate…”

Abraham bar Hiyya   (1065 – 1136 AD)




“…place in front of the eyes of your mind the letters of God’s name, as if they were written in a book in Hebrew script.  Visualize every letter extending to infinity.  What I mean is: when you visualize the letters focus on them with your mind’s eye as you contemplate infinity.  Both together: gazing and meditating.”

Isaac of Akko (13th-14th centuries)




“ ‘Ali said, “If I wished I could load seventy camels with the [interpretation] of the opening Surah of the Koran.”  What is the meaning of this, when the [outward – surface] interpretation [of this surah] is extremely short?  Abu al-Darda’ said, “A man does not understand until he attributes [different] perspectives to the Koran.”  A certain scholar said, “For every verse there are sixty thousand understandings, and what remains to be understood is even more.”  Others have said, “The Koran contains seventy-seven thousand two hundred sciences, for every word [in it] is a science, and then that [number] can be quadrupled, since every word has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an end and a beginning.”


"The Prophet’s repetition of [the phrase] “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate” twenty times was only for the purpose of pondering its [inner] meanings.  Otherwise its explanation and [interpretation] are so obvious that someone like him would not need to repeat it.  Ibn Mas’ud said, “He who desires the knowledge of the ancients and the moderns should ponder the Koran,” and that is not something that can be attained merely by its [outward – surface] interpretation.”


“The rejection of [outward – surface] meanings is the opinion of the Batiniyya, who, being one-eyed, looked only at one of the two worlds and did not recognize the correspondence between the two and did not understand its significance.  Similarly, the rejection of the [inner] meanings is the position of the Hashwiyya.  Whoever takes only the outward meaning is a Hashwi, and whoever takes only the inward meaning is a Batini, but whoever combines the two of them is perfect.  For this reason the Prophet said, “The Koran has an outward aspect, an inward aspect, an ending, and a beginning.”


"One should not neglect the learning of outward [interpretation] first for there is no hope of reaching the inward aspect before having mastered the outward.  One who claims to understand the secrets of the Koran without having mastered its outward [interpretation], is like a man who claims to have reached the main room of a house without having passed through the door…”

Ghazali (1058-1111 AD)




“Just as in the body of a man there are limbs and joints, just as some organs of the body are more, others less, vital, so it seems to be with the Torah.  To one who does not understand their hidden meaning, certain sections and verses of the Torah seem fit to be thrown into the fire; but to one who has gained insight into their true meaning they seem essential components of the Torah.  Consequently, to omit so much as one letter or point from the Torah is like removing some part of a perfect edifice.  Thence it also follows that in respect of its divine character no essential distinction can be drawn between the section of Genesis 36, setting forth the generations of Esau [a seemingly superfluous passage], and the Ten Commandments, for it is all one whole and one edifice.”

Rabbi Azriel of Gerona (1160 – 1238 AD)










This is a customized script used to represent the 22 letters of the Hebrew and Aramaic alphabets, as well as the first 22 letters of the Arabic alphabet.  The characters were derived mostly from the Proto-Semitic script, the common ancestor of all 3 alphabets:



The letter-slots that are blank are those that either have not been found or identified at all and there is no strong guess as to its identity. The letter-slots that are shaded but have letters, indicate only potential candidates, without certainty. There are only a few stone inscriptions which show this script. For example, here's a recent discovery in Egypt, at Wadi El Hol:


Wadi El Hol inscription - slide number 1                 Wadi El Hol inscription - slide number 2




Here :    PC  MAC    is a free font of the customized selection of characters from Proto-Semitic. Once you install the font, you should be able to see the characters in this next section:
















































ALEF q is a symbol that represents multiple entities (two or more), which are separate from one another.  Like vapour in the open air, like dust freely blowing in the wind, like strangers walking in a crowd without any relation at all.  When ALEF q is made of really small and rarefied things, it can give the sense of empty space, but no portion space is absolutely empty.  All portions of space that seem empty have some matter in it.  ALEF q is the absence of bonds that maintain matter.  Matter is represented by the next letter, YUHD a

YUHD a represents multiple entities (two or more), which are attached to one another, or otherwise maintaining static direct contact (like you and the earth as you stand still).  These bonds give us what we call matter or structure.

QOAF z represents a combination of ALEF q  and YUHD a   It is the nearness or inter-mingling of entities.  A sort of disconnected connectedness.  It can be the quasi-structure of things divided by holes, crevices, gaps, clefts, breaches, etc..., like a solar system or a flock of birds, or those cumulonimbus clouds (where the water particles sort of keep together).  Also, it can be a relationship between things which are directly touching, but not in a static way, like the relationship between a table and a ‘top’ spinning on the table – when both the table and the spinning ‘top’ are considered together, it forms a sort of disconnected connection.  When the ‘top’ stops spinning, and just sits on the table, then that would be more like YUHD a .  QOAF is entities staying ‘with’ or ‘near’ one another but not being directly joined or maintaining static direct contact with one another – whatever its substance may be, by whatever means it is maintained, however distant the entities may be from one another, and however long (or short) it may last.


Hands tightly interlocked together would be more like YUHD a , some sort of solid structure.

Hands rubbing, or hands held slightly apart, but still maintaining proximity or non-static contact of any sort, would be more like QOAF z

Hands held far apart would be more like ALEF q


These symbols are all a matter of perspective.

Even when you have your hands stretched out as far as possible, they are still pretty much maintaining some nearness to some degree. 

No matter how much you squeeze your hands together, you can never really close the gap to form perfect absolute unbroken matter.  There will always be some sort of "empty" space between them, or between any two entities bound together, even with the strongest ‘glue’.

When you were holding your hands apart - near to one another – QOAF z , imagine an amoeba on the tip of one of your fingers, looking out across this expanse.  For the amoeba, the other hand is quite a distance away – it is not at all near, it sees more ALEF q  than QOAF z  between the hands.



The next three letters represent all the individual entities within ALEF q,  YUHD a,  AND QOAF z, whether they are alive or not, considered in their simple physical external relationship to other things.  These next 3 letters are literally a “surface” understanding of the entities – how their physical surface relates to other things.  This is the simple physics of entities.


BAIT w  represents individual entities where they are separate from others – essentially ‘pointing’ toward ALEF q

KAF s  represents individual entities where they are bound to others (or otherwise maintaining static direct contact) – essentially ‘pointing’ toward YUHD a

RAISH x  represents individual entities where they are near or ‘with’ others without maintaining static direct contact – essentially ‘pointing’ toward QOAF z   A RAISH may be hovering around, it may be indirectly attached, it may be rubbing up against, skimming upon, or it may be moving throughout the interior of the entities with which it is associated, or it may be intertwined with them while not directly bound to them and not maintaining static direct contact.  Any other sort of ‘nearness’ or ‘intermingling’ or ‘proximal association’.


If you are playing hockey outdoors, and you’re the goalie, you are standing firm on the ground – so you are a KAF s  in relation to the earth.  You foolishly chose not to wear a helmet so your head is exposed directly to the sky – making you a BAIT w  in relation to the heavens.  At the same time, you are taking slap-shots and players are slamming into you, and specatators are shouting waves of disapproval through the air toward you, so you are a RAISH x  in relation to other things around you.



GIMEL e  is the motion of BAIT w   It is the motion of entities where they are unbound.  Like a puck flying freely in the air.

LAMED d  is the motion of KAF s   It is the motion of entities where they are stuck to or maintaining static direct contact with other entities.   Like the flicking of a puck with a hockey stick.

SHEEN c  is the motion of RAISH x   It is the motion of entities where they are near others or otherwise staying ‘with’ other entities, but are not attached or maintaining static direct contact.  Like a puck sliding on the ice.


DALET r  is the resistance of BAIT w   It is the resistance that occurs when entities encounter other entities from which they are separate.  Like a player dodging another player’s check.  Like a puck bouncing on the sideboards.

MEM f  is the resistance of KAF s   It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage other entities to which they are stuck or maintaining static direct contact.   Like a goalie catching and squeezing the puck in his glove.   Like the reverberating waves of grumbling throughout a spectator’s bones as the goal is prevented.

TAWV v  is the resistance of RAISH x   It is the resistance that occurs when entities engage with other entities to which they are ‘near’ or otherwise staying ‘with’.  Like a player’s scraping his skates on the ice.  Like the puck flying through the goalie’s kneepads and hitting the kneepads along the way.  Like the spectator’s hands clapping together repeatedly.  Like the goalie scratching his head, wondering what just happened.




HAY t  represents the life of entities, where they are generally more free and unbound and unconditioned and unpredictable.

NOON g  represents the life of entities, where they are generally more bound and more conditioned and engaged in more similar habitual activity.


You can combine these letters for life, with the letters for the specific external physical properties (qwer asdf zxcv ) that we just talked about at the hockey game.  Life is different. 

A living entity can act in different directions at the same time – as part of a coordinated activity, so it’s not as simple in the physics.  All your organs and limbs might be involved as part of the same coordinated activity – while some may have radically different physical positions than others – some organs are working inside, some outside, some might be working with entities going through you like when you breathe – all as part of the same coordinated activity.

You might be free and unbound in an open area on vacation, with no external obligations, but pretty much act in a repetitive way unable or unwilling to shake loose from your habitual way of thinking and acting.  That way of thinking and acting would define your living self then, rather than your external physical situation.  On the other hand, you might plant yourself in a peaceful spot and free your living mind from your habitual way of thinking and acting, as you remain stationary.



VAWV y is the organized unified living motion of HAY t

SAMEK h is the organized unified living motion of NOON g


ZAIN u is the organized unified living resistance of HAY t

OYIN j is the organized unified living resistance of NOON g



HKET i and PHAY k represent the aspect of entities where they are not living.

HKET i is non-living entities in more unbound and loose and rarefied form – like vapour or mash potatoes.

PHAY k is non-living entities in more bound and tight and condensed form – like ice or gold coins.


Even though these two letters represent the stuff and things when you get lots and lots and lots of entities not acting in a living way together, HKET i and PHAY k also refer to just a small number of entities (even just 2) which are not interacting in an organised unified way together – like a few strangers sitting together on the bus, each minding his/her own business, or two competitors in the world of business.  Considered together, the competitors form a non-living entity.


TET o is the coming together, combining, joining, binding, bonding, placing together, etc...

TSADY l is the breaking free, the splitting, separating, parting, expulsion, releasing, etc…





All of these 22 letters are consonants.  Any particular combination of these consonants can be used for multiple different words, by adding different vowels to the same consonants.  There are telling similarities between the words with the same consonants but different vowels.

In these following examples of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic vocabulary, the reason why you will see multiple entries for the same combination of letters is because these words are pronounced differently, but their vowel markings have been eliminated here. 


“The scroll of the Torah is written without vowels, in order to enable man to interpret it however he wishes – as the consonants without the vowels bear several interpretations and [splinter into sparks].  This is the reason why we do not write the vowels of the scroll of the Torah, for the significance of each word is in accordance with its vocalization, but when it is vocalized it has but one single significance; but without vowels man may interpret it [extrapolating from it] several different things, many, marvellous and sublime.”

Bahya ben Asher (13th – 14th centuries)

























Come out, go out, come forth, go through.  Of rising sun, of stars, of birth of child, of plants, of command.  Flow from (river).  (spirit) expressed (through).  Fall (onto), reach unto.  Go out, go forth, come forward, step forth, march out, start out, set forth, set out, depart, leave, proceed to.  Escape, flee, go free, release.  Passing.  Bring forth, produce, send, spread out.  Issue.  Projecting from, spring from.  Originate.  Descendants.  Carry.  Clear out.  Extract, pluck, pull out.  Take out.  Draw (sword) out.  Bring out, finish, complete.  End (of the year).  Be led out, be excluded, be handed over, be paid out.  Exported, give out.  Appear.  Laid out.  Bulging (eye).  Become known, reported.  Publicly (defame).  (fire) breaking out. 



Offspring.  Issue.  Descendants.  Produce, crops.  Springs.



To issue from (mother’s womb), come from.  To depart, to go out.  To cast out.



To spring, leap, jump.  Leap for joy.  Rejoice.  Pleasure, joyfulness.  Exultation.  Dance.  To tame, to break a horse.  Wild she-goat, gazelle, hind.



Squeezing.  To squeeze out.  Pressing.  Be pressed out.  To shed (blood).  Churning.  Wringing out.  Extortioner.  Drain (a cup) dry (by drinking).  To be drained out.  To suck.  To suck out.



To tear down, to be torn up, break up, break down, demolish, raze.  Destroy.  To pull down.  Smash.



Destruction.  End.  Finish.



To smash up.  Bruise.  Dislocation.  Crush in pieces.  Contrition.  Ill-treat, abuse.  Oppress.  Push each other around.  Struggle.  To crush, to hammer, to tread under.  Crack, break.



Newborn chick.



To crush.



To cut off, scrape off, trim off (piece by piece).  Maim (feet).  Shorten (one’s life).  Breaking.  Morsel, fragment.  To break (as bread).  An end, extremity.  Tear apart.  Edge, border, boundary, outskirts, frontier, outpost, extreme end, farthest end.  Last one.  Most remote part, outermost.  Mouth.  Fringes.  Shreds of a wick.  Corners.  To designate, to place in a corner.  To be broken, to set aside.  Outer limits.  Limit (of one’s endurance).  Ends of the earth.  Highest peak.  Goal.  Fixed length of time, appointed time, definite sum.  Defined, fixed, stipulated, agree, bargain.  Death.  At the end of, after.



Cut off, trim (hair).  Clip, shear, break.  Axe, hewer.  Plank.  Cut up, cut in pieces.  Cut in two.  Maimed.  Name of a reptile, cut off piece of a limb.  To be plucked out.  To cut short.  To bring an end to.  To be impatient.  To shave.  To chop down.  To be defined, to be imputed, to be deducted.  To define, to reckon, to reckon to someone's account, to make an agreement, to agree on a fee.  Pod, hull, pact, promise, to vow, proportion, prepaid interest, discount, salary.  To impose.  To be reconciled.  To cease, be lacking.  To be defined, to be destined.



Scatter, disperse, strew.  Be pushed out (from property).  Chase.  Spread out.  Let something pour out, gush out.  Overflow.  Sow (scatter seed).



To part, open.  Open wide.  Open up (mouth - to gulp or to speak).  Set free.  Rescue out from.  Deliverance, to save. 



Piece, portion, lot.  Column of text.  Text, booklet, composition.



To break.  Be shattered (rock).  Shaken to pieces.  To smash.



To divide.  To be divided (water).  Half.  Middle.  Midst.  Two parts.  To partition.  Dispersed.  Parceled.  Separated.  To reach to.



Arrow.  Archers.  Shaft (of spear).  Wound.



To be nailed.



Nail, spike.



To produce blossoms, shine, sparkle.  Sprout, bud.  Bloom.  Flourish.  Flower, shining thing.





To break or dash into pieces, to beat, to crush To scatter, disperse To shake off, cast off, purge, pour out, be born, give forth, to free, discharge Excrement, secretionTo be cast out, expelled, deposited


Slaughter, battle axe.


To break (bones) To break forth (into singing or joy) To jump over Open, un-walled place Free will, happiness, joy Shining.


To peel, split, divide, separate, partTo open a way.  To be branched.


To branch off.


To break (the ground by earthquake) To break or crack without being separated.  To cut out a window.


To wound, bruise, split.




To break.  To break up.  To break out, break forth, burst out, break away, break through Breach, gap, hole Send abroad, spread abroad.  Scatter, disperse.




To oppress, to push each other.


Oppression, distress.


Oppress, break, shake terribly.  Violence.  Fright, fear, terror, dread.  Power, might, strength.


Forcible.  Grievous.  Sore.


To slay, murder, kill.  Sword.


To penetrate, make to pass through Scabies To become afflicted with leprosy To swell up.


Sharp pointed things.  Threshing instrument.  Maim.  To cut into.  Dig.


To bore, pierce.


An awl.


Intestinal worm.



To stream, pour out.  Small spring.  Ulcerousness.

























Gently, softly.  Secret.


To shut (mouth or hand).


To close, shut, stop.  Narrowness.  Closed, dense, forced.  Dam.  Thickness.  Being full.  Deaf. 


Folded material / object. 


Scabies (A nasty little bug which digs in and lives in your skin)


Bramble, thorn-bush, thorns.


Linen.  Rope.







To sew, fasten Thread, string, cord, rope, line Seam, borderline Tailor To join, repairTo be reunited.


Needle, sewing together, sticking.


To seize, take away, attract, extort, rob, catch Booty Ravenous Bird of prey Sudden, rapid.


To dig out, carve in.  Furrow (A long, narrow, shallow trench made in the ground by a plough).  Having scabs, sores.  Field mouse (these live in burrows in the ground).


To put down (a burden), leave off, lower.




To cover, wrap.  Privily, secretly, softly.



To curse.


To mix/intermingle/incorporate/blend, put together with another thing, confuse/confound/disorder, to perplex or disturb, to have sexual intercourse, to penetrate into (with an arrow), to infect or pervade, associate/converse, become intimate with, enter into a confederacy/league/compact/covenant, good natured/disposition.


To mix, mingle Confusion To share To confiscate, contract, catch, to flow in To declare permanent ownership Affability, consorting


To be fixed, or to cleave (in mind).  To take away a thing.


To deliver, escape.  To save, get away.  To lay eggs.  To preserve.


To deliver, escape To give birthTo eject, vomit, spit, discharge To rejectTo free, let go.  To be spared Dislocation.  Fugitives To rescue, saveTo preserve.


Refuge, asylum.


To catch, clutch, absorb Greed, avarice.


To gather, pluck, collect, glean, attract, contract, to pick up, pick out, take up, acquire, grasp Bait Tongs.



Dominion, rule, power, might, authority To have the right or permission Governor, captain, magistrate, official, autocrat Arrogant Office, diocese To oppressTo take possession of.


To peel.


To feed Jaw.




To stop up a cavity by filling, to dam a water source, to stop up (anything) completely To cover up, swallow up, overflow, overwhelm, fill to the brim.

Firm, dense, densely packed, solid, clogged up, dammed up, mute, dumb.


Bone, block.


To cover up, envelop.


To close, shut, stop Closed, dense, thickness, fullness.  Forced Dam Deaf.


To hide.


To hide, conceal, store, bury Secretly, privily Hidden treasures or stores To be quiet, rest securely in, satisfied by, in tranquillity, secure from danger.


Treasury, royal property.


To hide, cover, conceal To bury, dig In secret Mine (possessive) Hiding place.  Hidden wealth.


Husk of a date-stone, thin skin which envelopes a date-stone.


To immerse.


To sink To bury To be swallowed up Seclusion.


To bind, fasten, make firm, close.  Fetter, chain Seal.


To fatten


To taste To perceive, judge, advise To eatTo be grafted in, to be implanted.







































To knead dough.  To mix.