Home » Church of Zero » Is Nothing Sacred?

Is Nothing Sacred?

The Not-Zero

The Church of Zero is based around the logically absurd but scientifically reasonable idea that the physical word we perceive as reality does not, in fact, exist; that the visible, tangible universe is a Grand Illusion (don’t take the caps seriously, folks – one basic tenet of this church is that just about everything we can know about the manifestation of reality is probably wrong, and certainly incomplete.)

Nor should you conclude that this in any way attempts to negate or deny the functional “reality of reality.” The construct may be ephemeral, but its existence is what makes all this possible. The physical is illusion. But the experience is the reality, and the purpose.

Survey Says…

We pretty much all agree that we are composed of atoms, and atoms contain electrons, protons and neutrons, with the protons and neutrons in the nucleus and electrons whirling around the chewy center. And most of the region occupied by the atom is essentially empty space. This has been accepted by the scientific community as the norm since before the 1900s. And since then, our closer examination with better tools and extended theories and we have pretty solid evidence that everything eventually can be shown to exist purely as energy. Current general agreement is built around String Theory, which postulates that at a deep enough observation, everything reduces to a single type of energy packet called a string, from its behavior. And if we are, indeed, at our most basic level  beings of energy and light, then the physical universe of matter is a construct of pure energy and thus may reasonably be considered, at its core, as “Nothing.”

But the Actuality of our existence despite the less-than-ephemeral nature of matter is fundamentally beyond our understanding – we may extrapolate ideas, purpose and meaning, but there can never be a way to prove the theories, only ways to disprove them – and that means  our understanding of everything – and Nothing – is based solely upon Belief, and therefore Sacred.

So Newton and Galileo Were Wrong?

Of course – eventually! That is the nature of scientific discovery. And that, in a certain sense, is the impetus behind scientific discovery. To prove itself wrong. Or rather to prove itself closer to the chimerical Absolute Truth by proving its previous knowledge was incomplete, less correct or provably wrong…. The more we know, the more we can combine to glean new truths, the more we overturn our previous beliefs. Knowledge grows exponentially when allowed to explore freely, it grows factorially when allowed to cross-fertilize other fields. And lies fallow when ignored…

Little Al

What’s It All About, Alfred?

Einstein suspected, Planck postulated…

In short, the axiomatic principle, which we hope to demonstrate,  states that the universe is not a three-dimensional physical space, rather it functions essentially as a two-dimensional hologram, which we “conscious” beings use the body’s sensorium to access, manipulate and experience as three-dimensional reality. This site (and others) refers to this as the Quantum Hologram. This is a startling and unfamiliar concept to many people, (myself included, initially) so I will try to lead you gently into this updated worldview.

The idea of the Holographic Universe is not mine. The originator is David Bohm. interviewed here in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute. Also vital to the development of the concept were Dr. Karl Pribram and Dr. Leonard Susskind, both discussed elsewhere. The term “Quantum Hologram” has taken on several meanings, some of which may be quite far removed from our discussions. But it is equally fundamental to the process of existence, and is actually not much more than a definition, a term to refer to the leading edge of the Big Bang (or equivalent.)

Less provable, but arguable, is the idea that each entity (e.g., single atom, cell, your liver, the body we inhabit, the sun) exists in this hologram as an independently defined mathematical function consisting of a set of waves – a waveset.
This waveset may be considered as a semi-autonomous but interdependent entity, interacting with the many other primarily localized wavesets (from complex entities like people and objects to the building blocks – strings, photons, electrons, etc.) in its perceived sphere of mutual influence/confluence.

And from this perspective, it is clear that everything is, indeed, interconnected and co-dependent.

What’s New, Pussycat?

What is my own work is the idea that if we accept the idea that our subatomic existence is actually as wave sets rather than particles, it is logical to presume that we interact and exchange information by synchronizing particular ranges or elements of our own waveset with those of other entities/wavesets in order to share/experience a specific slice of “reality,” in a manner not unlike how computer networks share information.

When this concept of is examined, it must be recognized that any “observer” in classical quantum mechanics terms is also a waveset and subject to the same synchronization requirements as the observed. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that “collapsing the waveset,” the term current quantum scientists use to describe the phenomenon, is an incorrect description of the reality. The wavesets do not collapse, they synchronize (and remain always as waves of intention. ) An observer observes by synchronizing with the observed, just as the spokes on a movie stagecoach wheel can go from blur to sharp focus and back – only at Planck speeds, rather than 24 frames-per-second.

Put Schrödinger in the box! What changes?

Anything? (Only if Dr. S. has seen a lot of MacGyver reruns…)

This is what I as “philosopher” hope to prove to science. And this may be great news for Schrödinger’s much-maligned kitty – if the cat can be shown to demonstrate intent (or we put Schrödinger in the box,) it still maintains its unique history up till it is freed or its time runs out. That is, while the external observer may consider the state of the cat as indeterminate from the observer’s perspective, the cat knows its true state. This shows that the idea of infinite possibilities is artificial, and becomes superfluous when dealing with waves rather than particles.

Thus there are two purposes for this church; first, to examine and refine the concepts that are part of the “revealed truth” (meaning I figured it out by analyzing the information I have picked up over the years and extrapolating that which became obvious to me; no extra-terrestrial , channeling or metaphysical entities present.) Second, to share this one discovery that has emerged from my studies and experiences that challenges a foundation principle of particle physics.

In the process, I will be weaving in and out of real science and my own take on it. I will do my best to let you know which is which. Currently it appears that I am somewhat in line with “M-Theory” and various String concepts, but I have questions that need further work before I can extrapolate/comment.


having real being or existence…

And one other word, which defines my presumed intuitive grasp of the quantum process and the extrapolations I deduce is “gnosis,” something beyond simple insight, but not much… I am not hypothesizing or theorizing, I am – gnosticating? Sounds like I need a laxative… (And I’m not getting paid, so I’m not-pro- gnosticating…)

The term I am probably looking for to describe these concepts is “conjecture.” So if you are willing, I invite you to explore with us the underlying nature of the universe.


What’s Next?

My first recommendation is that you read this site as a kind of science fiction novel. Don’t try to grasp either the speculation or the science until enough of the back story has been revealed to let you see where it is heading. (Willingly suspend disbelief until you can’t.) The ideas here, right or wrong, do try to compose a fairly coherent system. If I fail, tell me, I want to know.

So read the site in order or skim it just for fun as a sci-fi melodrama the first time. I apologize for the purple prose, but I hope it makes it a more enjoyable read.

After that, you have four basic options:

Total Skeptics

Laugh it off as a crackpot site and leave. Thanks for stopping by…

First-time visitors:

Most folks will begin by skimming the site, looking at a page here and there to see if they are interested. For your first visit, it’s not a bad idea. I recommend you begin by reading or skimming the rest of the pages under this menu, starting with the “Solid Science” pages.  And then…

Been here before?

Intrigued? Want to see if there is anything of interest here? Start with our Tenets page and study each post in order. Tenets, Anyone?

Seasoned Veterans

You old hands know what to do, so – go do it…

Top of Page

Comments are closed.