Science Extreme

Prompted by “Be careful, your love of science looks a lot like religion”:

My view of science is different from everyone else, because I authored Reality Waveform Theory — which fully logically is the actual theory of everything that nobody knows about (and sincerely a ‘Thank you, science community’ theory for a very good reason — they did most of the work, but have not stepped back to put it all logically together yet — due to their necessary scientific focus, not stupidity).

The beauty of the scientific method is I can’t just make that claim without the firm knowledge that all somebody needs to do is scientifically debunk RWT (if possible). I can’t just say a fact is a fact without a fully logical basis, which is usually (if not always) done outside of science by leveraging the strength of emotion over logic. That emotion includes the supremely powerful resonating sensation of spiritual experience enormously crushing the current body of scientific conclusions these days — but not crushing RWT, which fully logically explains that resonance.

You just need to read and understand RWT to confirm its accuracy (the theory just sits there for free reading and sharing with no strings attached), but many (if not all) of you will not apply careful attention towards that meticulously refined theory, because I’m a relatively unpopular freak of an entertainer and the common human being’s psychology instantly demands that you ignore such claims by default. Einstein (for crying out loud) tried and failed to discover the theory of everything, as has every brilliant mind on Earth through this moment, so how can this largely unknown entertainer get the job done, right?

Of course, using the word spirit as part of this journal’s name is a red flag for many scientists, because junk/pseudo science usually accompanies any supposedly scientific claim associated with spirituality. However, an actual theory of everything cannot help but be logically spiritual, because it logically explains literally everything (including uncertainty).

There’s an important distinction between the scientific method and science. The latter includes popular scientific conclusions, which may be wrong or incomplete. It also includes the risky (if not obscene) idea of scientific community consensus being on par with application of the scientific method (any scientific conclusion can only match 100% consensus — that’s the whole point of the scientific method).

Spiritualists may be turned off by the following claim, but an open ‘bear with me’ mind is warranted here. The scientific method is the only path to understanding. Its uncorrupted results can only be honest and therefore fair (so just) for literally everyone (clearly the only moral approach against the baseless contrary built purely upon sensation and inevitably conflict — as history has only shown during a highly risky and too-often horrifyingly deadly religious competition). Reality (i.e. the oneness of existence itself in the form of whatever happens) effectively responds via technology and other experimental results. The prophecies founded in mathematics are astonishing, for prime example, so at the very least, contribute strongly to that competition.

There’s indeed a religion in science and beyond, but it’s probably not what you think — it’s the religion of distinction.

Definition itself can only exist by distinction (relativity is needed for definition). You cannot define your religion (or otherwise) without distinction. No application of the scientific method is possible without distinction. You probably trust that the screen you’re looking at is distinct from anyone or anything around it (because your brain is probably concluding that distinction), but if so, your trust is scientifically baseless.

Anyone spending as much time as yours truly paying attention to the latest mainstream flow of scientific claims can make this statement with perfect confidence — the fact is there’s no science proving any objective distinction exists where it’s perceived to be, so distinction is purely subjective (at least based upon the best application of mainstream science to date). Don’t believe me? Go find the best quantum physicist on the planet and challenge that person to provide a shred of science confirming objective distinction exists between the smallest objects ever discovered that form all known existence — subatomic particles. That physicist can only bring up the uncertainty principle, particle/wave duality, virtual particles popping in and out of what they call existence, quantum entanglement, and anything else I may be unimportantly missing offhand that raises serious questions regarding particle distinction — and ultimately state that distinction is “fuzzy” or such (not good enough for this hardcore scientific enthusiast — especially when the science against objective distinction is powerfully strong).

That may seem like odd and meaningless nonsense, but it remains true and the ramifications are serious on many serious fronts defying brevity and scope here (e.g. you’re not objectively defined — think about that for one or more moments for quite the mental ride, but obviously avoid brain inflammation — it’s not worth it).

RWT explains the purely oceanic and energetic nature of reality using pure and complete logic, but then (via that same necessarily flawless logic) explains why distinction can never be the path to understanding — an inevitable release traditionally prompting the skeptics against science ever fully explaining spirituality.

Distinction is needed for survival, the continuance of science, and describing a spiritual experience, but understanding its permanently subjective quality is key.

Despite exploring science frequently (especially subatomic research), I have not found any conclusive science conflicting with RWT — it all fits perfectly (at least so far).

One of my favorite parts apparently worth echoing here is RWT validates Einstein’s instincts against quantum physics — without defying quantum physics (the aforementioned quantum oddities prompting those instincts have been experimentally confirmed).

RWT is not very long (roughly 4,000 words, or 4x longer than this post), and the fundamental pattern literally building all of known reality according to mainstream science (yet oddly never expressed as such) is the beautifully simple and elegant pattern desired by at least Einstein (and even fully logically forms the base of sacred geometry — hint: nature’s first pattern is not just circles, but sine waves — albeit another way of saying a circle, but one over time), so why not give it a read (and perhaps even a study or two)?

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Keep It Real

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: