Political realists do not bother listening to those teaching nuclear non-proliferation while retaining their own nuclear weapons. Thus, realistic Iranians want to have their own nuclear weapons. And soon realistic African nation states would do the same or they would continue to be screwed by the white men who have such nuclear weapons and use them to intimidate Africans, arouse fear in them and out of fear of harm and death do what their white masters ask them to do. (Unless we disarm all nations such as America, Russia, France, England, Pakistan, India and Israel and other nations who possess nuclear weapons…there is a fat chance of this happening, political realists tell us.)

The genii are let out of the bottle and there is no going back; nature itself produces nuclear reactions that kill people so all we are doing is replicating natural processes. As long as we have the desire to understand how nature works we will understand these things. And if we use such information to destroy all humanity, well, good riddance, after all sixty- five million years ago another predatory animal, dinosaurs were eradicated from the surface of the earth. The earth would continue with or without human beings. At any rate, and before we get sentimental, in a few billion years the earth itself would be destroyed by natural forces. C'est la vie, such is life. Grind your teeth, head help up and chins jutted out and take life as it is, no sentimentality, real politics teaches.

We learned how to split the strong nuclear force holding protons and neutrons together in nuclear fission and in the process release enormous energy. That energy could be used destructively to destroy people and cities or productively if captured in nuclear reactor plants and transformed into electrical energy (which now supplies many countries with electricity).

Our understanding of the nuclei has increased in leaps and bounds. We now know that there are other subatomic particles other than the major three; we know about quarks (which Murray Gell-Mann organized into up and down quarks), muons, gluons, meson, leptons, Higgs and a veritable zoo of other subatomic particles.

The European Superconducting Supercollider Laboratories (CERN) in Geneva Switzerland aim at accelerating the speed of particles (such as protons and neutrons) aimed at each other so that they smash each other and release what they are composed of; the hope is that through these efforts we shall learn about what happened during the first second during the Big Bang; we are trying to understand creation. As long as we ask the question: where did we come from, such efforts as are made at CERN will be made. Human beings are inquisitive creatures and will not stop until they have understood their world.

In 1957 building on Quantum Mechanics, especially Schrodinger’s cat experiment (if you placed a cat in a box and attached a radioactive material that had a fifty-fifty chance of decaying and releasing radioactive energy that could kill the cat and then came around to open the box you could not predict whether the radiation had been released hence the cat is dead or alive), Hugh Everett wrote a dissertation for Princeton University (his thesis supervisor was John Archibald Wheeler, one of the giants of Quantum Mechanics) in which he said that a strict interpretation of Schrodinger’s wave equation and cat experiment  suggests that the cat could be dead in one universe and alive in another universe; in other words, that there are many universes (many worlds was his term). The cat is neither alive nor dead until the observer looked at it. It is the act of observation that collapses it to the state that the observer wants to see it. Before observation it is in quantum superposition, a state that is neither here nor there but ready to be collapsed into any state that the observer seems to want it to be.

Everett said that there are many universes (in fact, infinite universes) and that the act of observation and measurement produces an outcome in the universe that the observer is in (or thinks that he is in).

Hugh Everett was saying that things are in a sort of no man’s land until our observation, our wish, our consciousness, our mind, our instruments and our measurements make them appear where we want them to appear. Without observation nothing exists in any permanent state.

This seems to answer the old philosophical question: if a tree falls and there is no person to observe it fall did it fall or was sound made. Everett says that a tree falls only when an observer is looking for a fallen tree.

The observation could make the tree fall in what seems the past (say, millions of years ago…we see bones of dead dinosaurs that died sixty- five million years ago; Everett would say that they died sixty five million years ago now for us to think that we saw such fossil evidence hence convince ourselves that the past is real).

As Everett sees it, a strict interpretation of Quantum mechanics says that only now exists, that the past and future are in super-position states to be collapsed for us to see or think that we see to prove our presuppositions that the past is real or that there is a future. The future does not exist but if we want it to exist it would seem to exist for us.

If we believe in the past and future we can do time travels to the past and to the future and even Einstein’s equations ask for such travels to be doable. We live in an Alice in Wonderland world, after all; things are whatever we want them to seem like to us, otherwise we do not know what things are; put differently, whatever things are they have the potential to become whatever we want them to be for us. Our minds, our consciousness plays a role in the existence of the world we see!

Everett asserts that strict consideration of quantum mechanics leaves him no option but to conclude that there are many worlds, infinite worlds, actually, and that our wish for things to appear in our extant world makes them to appear here.

Even then they may appear in different forms in other universes.   Put differently, your mind, your consciousness, your wish to be in this particular universe, this particular place called planet earth plays a role in your being here. And that is not the end of it. You are here by your choice yet you are in other universes. There are infinite yous in the other universes. In every imaginable form a you exist in other universes. Everything that you have ever wanted to do, a you are doing it, or have done it in one of the infinite universes!

There is a me here in front of my computer typing away. There is another me jogging in another universe (I want to go run and would do that as on as I am done with this freaking typing). There is a me doing everything my mind can conceive in other universes.

Hugh Everett said that this is the inevitable conclusion of Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theory. If we take physics conclusions, especially its mathematics seriously, he said that we must accept the thesis that there are infinite universes, infinite us, infinite you and me, infinite your cats, trees etc.

(There is a universe where black folks are screwing white folks instead of white folks screwing black folks as they do in our world…that would be an interesting universe, after all as a black man I am sick and tired of being screwed by white men…my own personal hope, however, is that there is a universe where we love each other and not screw each other.)

Many other physicists have added to Everett’s original paper on many worlds (some call it parallel universes, others call it multiverses). David Deutsch of Oxford University vociferously says that we simultaneously exist in many universes; Bryce Dewitt tells us that the existence of parallel universes is a scientific reality.

If, as quantum mechanics says, consciousness affects what happens does it follow that consciousness brought the universe into being, created the big bang?  Many physical scientists are not willing to go that far. John Gibbon believes that perhaps people in other universes, advanced civilizations probably used their consciousness to invent our world, perhaps intelligently designed its parameters hence seeming anthropic principle and project it out (perhaps into a black hole…for all we know our universe could be taking place in a black hole, expanding to nowhere, just as black holes are expanding to nowhere while those in it think that it is expanding…black holes are not black; the white man calls whatever he does not understand black or dark hence black hole and dark matter and dark energy, stuff we have not seen).

Since all these talk about many universes is theoretical and no one has seen any other universe other than our own, naturally some people dismiss the whole business as fruitless. Instead, they take those aspects of quantum mechanics that works to do work. Just about everything we have in the electronic industry is based on quantum mechanics: Radio, TV, telephones, Computers, Internet and Email are predicated on quantum mechanics. As it were, the idea is to use what has practical value in quantum mechanics and ignore the rest of it; take from Schrodinger’s wave equations to send your email but ignore that it predicts the existence of many universes.

Alas, some people have hang dog mentality and do not let go of any seeming true idea hence persist in talking about parallel universes.

John Bell, an Irish physicist working at CERN in the 1960s made an astonishing observation. He observed that when particles are entangled, contacted with each other, and later separated, regardless of the distance now separating them they seem to know what each other is doing and instantaneously (going beyond the speed of light, supposedly that nothing could go faster than). Even if you place the two particles one at each end of the universe 13.7 billion years apart (and gazillions of miles apart) they would respond to each other as soon as one is stimulated.  This greater than light speed response of entangled particles has been verified in many experimental situations, Alan Aspect did, so we are not talking theory here, we are talking reality. Indeed, efforts are taking place to build computers based on quantum entanglement.

(Think about it; your body is composed of particles; those particles are entangled with the particles in your mother so you respond to her thinking even though she is thousands of miles away from you; that is the point being made here, in case you have not got it yet…some people call this phenomenon telepathy and the more scientifically oriented look to the day we can do teleportation, travel instantaneously to all sorts of places.)

Are there parallel universes?  I do not know. The idea is, however, interesting. If there are parallel universes and we are in many of them it follows that we do not die out and that we keep living in other universes. That is the idea, anyway. Alternatively, do all of the yous in the infinite universes die when the you on earth die?

From religion’s point of view we could say that some of the universes are like what those who have experienced out of body experience (see Robert Monroe’s books on journeys out of body) and near death experiences (see Mrs. Eddy’s claim of visiting a world where she saw her dead relatives). These folks claim to go to worlds were they see their loved dead relatives or to different worlds.

It may well be that when we die we keep on living in other universes. Why not, if there are infinite universes?

Finally, if there are infinite universes surely one could be what religionists call heaven, a place where folks live eternally?  I can imagine a place where folks are not in forms, are not in bodies, are pure ideas, pure disembodied intelligence (I wish to be pure disembodied intelligence; I do not like to be in the human body) and pure consciousness and live in each other person, in a unified state. You never know.

AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE

The above summary of ideas in aspects of science that might have a bearing on God may or may not appeal to your way of thinking. I just felt a need to summarize them to set the stage before I make my argument for the existence of God. From now on I will rely strictly on my own experience and only using other people’s insights as springboard to expand on my own ideas; I do not have any need to root my conclusions on God on other persons’ conclusions. I do not recognize any external authority on this matter for we are all equal here. There are no experts on God, no authorities that we all should obey (except self- proclaimed authorities, who often are charlatans, quarks and frauds deceiving folks with their snake oil ideas).

I was raised a Catholic Christian and necessarily have the Christian world view in my sub-conscious mind and it influences my thinking. I have studied other religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism; I studied Helen Schuman’s A course in miracles and the Gnosticism that shaped it; all those studies no doubt influence my thinking.

Be those caveats as they may, the following material is my understanding about God. Take it or leave it; I am just stating what makes sense to me. What makes sense to me does not have to make sense to you, for in the phenomenal universe we inherited different bodies and had different social experiences and see things differently.

I must hasten to add that I have no need to say that what I say is true because it is what other people, such as my African folks, believe is true.  I could care less about African religion or culture or any other religion or culture; what matters to me is what makes sense to me. Let us then dance to my songs. And it is about time people danced to music from African minds rather than always dance to the mostly gibberish European minds dish to the world as the truth.

What is God?  Is God what is delineated in the Christian bible?  The Old Testament God is a pathological narcissist; he wants to be the center of attention and admired by all people and if you dare disobey his often foolish views he feels angry and flies into rage and not only destroys you but entire cities and the world (as in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood that saved only Noah and his family).  I have no use for such an angry God.  That is not the God that created our real selves.

The Old Testament God has been referred to as the false God, the demiurge, the god that separated from the real God and invented this world of sorrows (or laughter, depending on how you look at it).

My conception of God is not the same as traditional Christian conception of God; it is somewhat in line with Gnostic conception of God (although I do not have any urge to fall in line with everything Gnostics say about their God; I say something about God that makes sense to me and if it happens to seem like Gnostic conception of God so be it).

Gnostics believe that there is a God that created us and that one of his creations out of pride rebelled against him and separated from him to go create his own world in opposition to God. The separating god has been given many names including demiurge, Lucifer, Ladabot etc.

The Gnostic story of separation that makes most sense to me is the one Helen Schucman delineated in her poem, A course in miracles. Helen, a professor of psychology at Columbia University, New York, wrote in verse, in poetic form hence lends herself to different interpretations.

What I will do is write in the form I am used to, prose and provide a story of creation that may be akin to Helen's story. If we diverge here and there so be it; I do not have any obligation to follow her reasoning; I follow my own light.

I should observe that Helen wrote from her stream of consciousness (she said that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is the source of her writing); as it were, she shut out her conscious mind and allowed information in her subconscious mind to stream out (and saw it as coming from another person; persons with multiple personality disorder, aka dissociative disorder do this all the time).  This is pretty much like what happens when we sleep and dream and our subconscious minds produce information that we did not know that we have in our conscious minds.

Because she wrote from her subconscious mind she wrote in the language of dreams: symbols, metaphors, similes, figures of speech etc. Her writing is not straight forward; its symbols need interpretation. As we all know, when two or more persons interpret the same symbolic writing they tend to end up with different interpretations. Thus, already cottage industries have sprung up each claiming to have the true and only true interpretation of what Helen wrote.

I will just state what I see as the truth and leave it to the interpreters to do their thing. I write from my conscious mind, not subconscious mind (although as Freud correctly understands even our conscious minds are suffused with information from our unconscious minds).

THE HUMAN BODY

Look at the human body; what do you see?  What you see is an animal’s body; it is not that much different from the body of a dog, cat, cow etc.  Our bodies are animal bodies. They are exquisitely put together alright and our brains can do wonderful things including understanding the world we live in. But when all is said and done the human body is exactly what it is, an animal body. It lives (perhaps, up to 120 years), ages, suffers weakness and dies. When it dies it rots and smells worse than feces. Ultimately, it decays and returns to the chemical elements that organized themselves into it: Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen etc.; those return to their kind in nature and are absorbed by other biological organisms and exist as part of them. In time those decay to their constituent protons, neutrons and electrons and those in time decay to photons which in turn decay to nothingness.

Simply put, our bodies are nothing, and we all know it. It is because we know that our bodies are nothing that we struggle mightily to make them seem important in our awareness. We even invent gods that tell us that our bodies are important.  Indeed, the pretense of importance is carried forward to death. When we die we pretend that our bodies are still important hence surround burial with all sorts of ceremonies. But, alas, upon death our bodies decay and return to the nothingness from whence they came.

Now, if a person put nothingness together, crafted a body that is ultimately nothing, invented a universe in which that body lives, a universe that science has accurately pointed out is made of matter, energy, space and time and a universe that would ultimately die a cold death and everything in it return to nothing has that person done a great job?  If someone created our bodies and world and those are nothing had that someone done something important?  Of course not. In fact, that someone is insane for why take all the trouble to construct a seeming marvelous machine that would decay and return to nothing?  As Christopher Hitchens said, if God created our bodies and our universe he is not great, in fact, he is nothing, too.

A god that took all the trouble to create our bodies and this world did nothing and is insane. Only an insane god could have created this world for it is an insane person who does something knowing that it is nothing and would return to nothing and take pride from that nothingness or feel powerful from nothingness).

Christians run around thanking their god for creating their bodies and for keeping them alive in bodies; they are thanking god for making them live in body and in a world destined to die a cold death?  To me that is incredible. If, in fact, a god created such a world he ought to be crucified for he cursed people to live a pointless existence, an existence destined to end in death.

An intelligent god could not have created this world. It is better that we did what scientists do and see our bodies and this world as something that blindly evolved over billions of years and leave it at that than to say that a god designed our bodies, as proponents of the idea of Intelligent Design say. If God designed our body he designed nothing of worth and is a poor designer! (While at it, I would design a permanent body!)

Scientists’ insistence that this world is a product of evolution, not creation is probably rooted in their awareness of the nothingness of their bodies; they know it is a grand joke to say that a god created their bodies, created nothingness.

In America when white Americans become vaguely aware that their bodies are food for worms, instead of using that opportunity to become thinkers they run into the mind dead notion that somehow their bodies are better than black bodies. They fancy that they are a superior race. They look around and see what seems to them great accomplishments of Western civilization and use them as benchmark to rationalize their wishes that they are a superior bunch of predatory animals. They are so superior that in a few years they would die and their bodies eaten by worms and eventually transformed into nothingness.

It is when a human being becomes aware that his body is nothing of significance (if you cremated a white person’s body, or a black person’s body you would reduce it to three pounds of ashes that have no monetary value and ultimately you would return it to gases and finally to nothing) that he is capable of philosophical thinking.  At first he may feel depressed (that is, see life as worthless and meaningless, feel no energy to do anything human beings do to adapt to their world and feel tempted to give up and kill himself) but if he persists in asking questions he would learn the eternal truth that there is a force behind this mad dance we dance on earth. When one is aware of the nothingness of one’s body and ego self and ask serious questions one would then learn that there is an aspect of one that has eternal worth, one’s spirit.

Instead of engaging in philosophical thinking, white Americans seek infantile answers to the quandary of being, pseudo answers that mask their existential angsts from the realization that their bodies are nothing.  For example, a couple of years two mind dead white children (those two never attained adult thinking and as such were children to be helped to grow up) called Richard Heinstein and David Marry wrote a book called the Bell Curve (before them an over grown brain dead child called Arthur Jensen did the same thing). In it they methodically showed that black folks score fifteen points below white folks at standard Intelligence tests (such as Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, and Stanford Binet); they satisfied themselves that black folks score less than white folks on every test including Scholastic Aptitude Tests, SAT and on that basis concluded that black folks must be genetically inferior to white folks (actually some black folks score perfectly on those tests they are impressed by hence refute their infantile generalizations).

Interestingly, these cretins ignored the fact that on IQ tests Asians score more than white folks by exactly fifteen points and also score higher than whites on the SAT hence by their criterion of measurement are superior to white folks! But such inference is not to bother fools. (Cultural factors are responsible for the differences in test scores; Asians are much disciplined students; they are more disciplined than white students; white students are more disciplined than black students.)

Now that they have proved to their childish minds satisfaction that black folks are an inferior race what is to be done? They hope that America would relegate black folks to performing menial jobs (return them to slavery) and give meaningful jobs to white folks. In their warped minds they have provided racist America with statistical evidence with which to justify racism and hopefully since they are gods and have spoken black folks would accept their dictates!

The racist somehow always thinks that black folks would accept his sick view of them. Fortunately, black folks actually see racists as less than mosquitoes in esteem.

The racist is aware of the terrible crime his people committed by enslaving black folks and is actuated by tremendous sense of guilt and tries to  expel his guilt by providing what seems justified reason for slavery and racial discrimination, the inferiority of those his people discriminates against; in the process he loads his mind with additional guilt and that guilt ultimately destroys him, for the wages of sin is death (sin is any idea or action that teaches separation; sinlessness, guiltlessness and innocence inheres in any idea and behavior rooted in seeing all people as the same, equal and unified).