A 'creator' - the case against

The argument in favour of a creator (god) of the universe is based on the exactness of certain measured parameters. The formulation of the components of the hydrogen atom to the disposition of the planet earth in a fairly  routine solar system, according to a 'goldilocks' prescription. The perfect detail of the whole, according to adherents of the idea, leads them to believe that the universe was 'created' by a creator (god).
The Davies Hypothesis, whilst refraining from asking who or what created the 'creator, maintains that unless certain parameters are met, the universe would not have been viable and therefore would have not been created in the first place. You do not need a 'creator' to adopt the only option available.
The key to understanding this argument is accepting that the universe emerged from the absolute nothingness I call the pleroma. This is the best, perhaps the only way one can avoid the problems of infinite regression such as 'who created the creator'.
The absolute nothingness of the pleroma can be thought of as zero and expressed according to the following formula:

P ~ f [ x² + (ix)²] = 0  where ‘i’ is the square root of minus one.

or more strictly: P ~ f [ (±x)² + (±ix)²] = 0
(Note the coefficients of the terms: +1. -1, +i, -i )
Here we have nothing composed of something, two seemingly positive terms cancelling each other out. But how do we get a universe? the 'x' could refer to anything; a cabbage. But what if it refers to the very ingredients and recipe for making a viable (dual) universe?

If the recipe, x, doesn't comply with the requirements to form a viable universe then the universe doesn't come into being. No creator required other than the natural, uncreated order of numbers.

Details are to be found in my book: Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions.

Brexit update

A reported 700,000 people marched in central London, yesterday, demanding a second referendum on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. They are arguing that the people were not given all the facts of withdrawal and that, indeed, they had been lied to.
The first referendum was the culmination of a legal process, enacted by Parliament with a huge majority, making the result binding on the Government. The referendum simply asked if the people wanted to be in the EU or out of the EU. This is not a difficult question and to suggest that the people were somehow hoodwinked is to accuse them of being ignorant or stupid or both.
Put another way, the question was whether they wanted to be part of an undemocratic political experiment run by an unelected junta with a record of fiscal mismanagement or be part of a democratic sovereign nation able to set its own laws, control its own borders etc etc. The 'remainers' seem incapable of understanding that not only are the people aware of this, they also understand that the europhiles, driving the protest, are part of the problem in facilitating a deal, by weakening the hand of our negotiators.
With regard to the lies, both sides in the referendum campaign were guilty of exageration and obfuscation especially in forecasts of financial well-being. The question of being poorer or happier was not on the ballot paper. nor was the process being straightforward or not. They are irrelevant. So too the difficulties of the Irish border. Whilst not underestimating the strength of feelings in the island of Ireland, it must not be beyond the wit of man to find a solution that preserves peace.
Let the young vote and determine their own future, was another view well aired; another cynical ploy to increase their electorate, sacrificing mature deliberation based on the wisdom of experience for the unripened reason and incomplete education of kids staright out of the sweetie shop.
This internal friction within our sceptred isles has so weakened the position of Mrs May, trying to appease everyone, I fear she may, now, be incapable of striking a good deal, one that is better than no deal. In the end the result of the march will be exactly the opposite of what the 'remainers' intended.

Monarchy update

This blog sends congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the announcement of their impending parenthood and to Eugenie, daughter of the Duke of York, on the occasion of her marriage.
To those who would end the monarchy in the UK I would say who else would bring so much joy and pleasure to the population as shown over the weekend? Who else would give so much joy and pleasure to the people of Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands of Fiji and Tonga? Some unknown Republican in a suit? The monarchy is a unifying force for good, not only in the UK but around the world with whom our sceptred isles wish to trade.
Long live the Queen.

The evidence for the existence of souls

That there is an 'afterlife' is a question that has haunted mankind almost from the beginning. It lies behind so many myths, stories, superstitions from as many different countries and cultures that it is legitimate to ask if there is some basis of truth behind the belief. The common conception of the afterlife is that on death, life somehow continues, often in the form of a soul that escapes the body.
The idea was, almost from the beginning, hijacked by the priestly classes to promote their own ambitions, deriving images of heaven and hell to coerce the living into accepting their divine privilege to control.
The idea of a heaven and hell is an example of the two world reality of the universe as posited by Plato with his 'phenomenal' and 'noumenal' halves; the one we exist in and another, unknowable, a theme taken up by Kant who described the latter as 'transcendental'.
So; is there another world; another part to our universe and if so, what part, if any, does it play in the 'afterlife' story?
The Davies Hypothesis suggests that our universe is a duality because nature's prerogative to express absolute nothingness (pleroma) as a positive/ negative balance. What evidence do we have that nature does this? Because of nature's delicious paradox that there are TWO valid solutions to the square root of one; plus and minus one.
Could it be that we exist in one part and that the afterlife exists in the other? What is the evidence?
The Davies Hypothesis shows that nature doesn't only observe the reality of there being two solutions to the square root of one but rather that there are four valid answers to the fourth roots of one, two real (or rather one real & one 'unreal') and two imaginary, based on the square root of minus one, 'i'. We think of a length as 'real' and positive, only. Nature dictates that a length can be described in three extra, unsensed dimensions, two of which survive the transition from pleroma to dual universe.
For further discussion of this I refer readers to my book (Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions) or the series of short videos on you tube.(see link above)
Suffice to say that we exist in one part (positive) of a dual universe and the other part can be construed as being negative. This also includes the dimension of time, the negative time being reconciled, as per Heideggar, with the past.
However, as these dimensions all act at right angles (orthogonal) with respect to each other there can, therefore, be no 'trespassing'. Negative time, equating with the past, does not, therefore, mean we can go back in our own time-line. We cannot travel to the past. The past is something else but is it the repository of souls?
I think not. I suggest that souls have been conflated with character which is passed on; not at death but with procreation. Further, character is a trait of consciousness, the manifestation of the brain working in three dimensions of time.
By adopting this point of view we can suggest that following clinical death and before decay sets in, the brain still functions in 'imaginary' time, that responsible for dreaming, allowing some perception by the 'deceased' of tunnels of white light, gardens etc. The character of a person is an amalgam of nature and nurture, nature allowing the inheritance of a prior character (including memory) from a forebear from either parents. This ancestor, itself the product of a previous ancestor, can be many generations older. It is this that I believe has been confused with soul. Nurturing ensures that this character is always 'of the time'. Souls therefore reside in the continuous line of inherited genes in our world.

Plato's dual universe explained

Let me start with a statement of the existence of a universe, 'u'.
u = u
Using the usual rule for equations we can now say:
u - u = 0
We can further say:
u + (-u) = 0             Note coefficients of terms, +1 & -1, the square roots of one
Multiplying both sides by 'u', we have:
u² + (-u²) = 0
We can go further by introducing complex terms:
u² + (iu)² = 0        where 'i' is the square root of minus one
I suggest this recognises the duality of the universe as posited by Plato. His 'phenomenal' world is represented by the 'real' term 'u' whilst his 'noumenal' universe, the unknowable part, described by Kant as 'transcendental', can be seen to be represented by the complex term, 'iu'.

The equation can be further refined as:
 (±u)² + (±iu)² = 0     Note the coefficients, +1, -1, +i, -i, the fourth roots of one.

The statement suggests that the dual universe sums to zero, the absolute nothingness from which it emerged a vindication of Plato's idea.

It also is a vindication of the Davies Hypothesis regarding the roots of one, unity.

For more details read my book, Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions (see margin).
Or refer to my series of short talks on you tube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpThiz2UeBeEI9MwGjChZ04j8XulU78uZ