Where does life even come from?

in Abundance Tribelast month


The basic attitude of physics, and thus of all science, is that life/ consciousness arose from the dead, unconscious, lifeless, it-like processes, therefore from the exact opposite...

Unfortunately, I have never been able to observe and verify this.
Only the opposite.

Quantum physics is crap. Although it is sold to you as revolutionary. But it is still just as dead, because it only consists of models.

Quantum mechanics is oriented towards methodology and thus above all towards verifiable experiments, but it is still too imprecise and also dead.
Whereas life and the influence of life (especially the difference between the observation and non-observation of the double-slit experiment) can at least be demonstrated and proven.

And yet it is still too imprecise.
Since the wrong basic attitudes are still assumed (otherwise the revolutionary insights would not come out).

The most accurate theory so far is still the theory of the aether. The world soul.
Which was also the recognised basis in the 19th century.
Tesla was one of the most famous aetherists and without him you wouldn't be able to read my words right now.

In the theory of the aether/ world soul, the dead emerged from the living.
That is probably why it is not (any longer) recognised by science.
The aether is, so to speak, a consciousness-god-life-field (whatever you want to call it) from which everything has manifested itself.

Nowadays this is called a quantum field or simply simulation (Elon Musk ;)).
Precisely because of the false basic attitude that everything is dead.

However, if you think it through carefully, there are only 3 possibilities:
-Life/ consciousness has always been there.
-Life/ consciousness/ subject has at some point, somehow sprung from the opposite (problem: illogical, or not explainable).
-There is no consciousness at all. Everything is still dead now and only a computer simulation/illusion in the head (neurosciences etc).

What is also funny:
if one starts from the 1st possibility as a basis, one no longer errs ahead like science, since one no longer gets tangled up in logic contradictions....

Instead, you know beforehand how things should work (because you can think it through properly) and then only have to implement it correctly.
(For a UFO, for example, the metal that has the opposite magnetic properties to copper is still missing - thus magnetically accelerating instead of decelerating - if you find it, you can get a Nobel Prize and big bucks ;) ) - well, this is just a fun fact on the side.

And that is why philosophy, especially natural philosophy, is so important.

Where does the love for Sophie (philo sophy) actually come from?
Philo Gaia Sophia

This should only be a very rough introduction to a very big topic.
I hope this has not been too much already.... 👽
I will elaborate further in the next posts.
Stay tuned. :)


To tune in further:
here a post about reductionism and a video about trees, an old post about the way of the tao (which is a very old east philosophy about the world soul - quite precise)

and a few pictures:






and who still wants more: what does science do right now?


I don´t agree that the aether was debunked/not recognized by science because according to it "dead emerged from the living". No, it was just because it was disproven by hard facts like the Michelson-Morley-experiment and later by Einstein. In the relativity theory you simply don´t need that hypothetical aether anymore.

The simulation/matrix just "postpones" the problem to the next level. Where did the people who run the simulation stem from?

But why you think the solution that life emerged from dead is not explainable? Ever heard about the concept of evolution? There are many tiny steps in between both statuses (life/dead). Organic molecules -> more complex organic molecules ->self replicating molecules ->compartments/proto cells that combine several self replicating molecules, etc. Same with consciousness, animal research shows that some animals have a limited self-consciousness.
Even today people debate if viruses should be considered living or dead. So there is no a clear border, no black&white like you point out throughout your essay.

Yeah cuz we live in a materalistic simulation (doesnt need to be run by anyone)
And life / conciousness is just a mechanistic tool/ side-effect.

There is no soul and also no world soul.

Everything is dead.

Religions at least believed & worshipped the Demiurg (geometric, mechanistic, materalistic) , but atheistic science only believes in crazy ideas and models while at the same moment denying the exact basis you need to think about those ideas and models.

Maybe you should come out of the dualism

There is not only believing or atheistic denying.

Life is the Basis. For everything.
Without life, it is unimportant what matter "does"

Or have fun without the aether tech and instead with big science cancer

"Organic Chemistry"

But now we first need to wait for instrumentalized alien agenda

Not sure, that I got what you are talking about.

Maybe you should come out of the dualism

You are the one categorizing everything in living/dead. So who is stuck in the dualism?

Okay so for you live = death

Then where do you disagree with the aether?

Erklär mir doch mal die Gegenfunktion zur Entropie.
Wo ist die?

Erklär mir doch mal Begeisterung.
Was soll man damit? Ist ja nicht materiell. Immaterielles gibt es ja nicht, bzw ist lediglich eine Illusion aus dem Materiellen.

Aber dann will man die Menschen mit einmal von Wissenschaft begeistern. xDD
Indem man alles leugnet.

Viel Glück

Habe nie behauptet, dass Leben = Tod. Rein phänomenologisch sind das 2 komplett verschiedene Kategorien.
Es gibt einfach verschiedene Zustandsformen der Materie, einige sind unbelebt, andere belebt und wenige self aware. Alle sind aber immer basierend auf Materie. Ohne Materie gäbe es nichts. Materie und Energie sind ja auf grundlegender Ebene eins (E=mc2), daher sehe ich da keinen Widerspruch, dass Lebewesen Energien in sich tragen können. Und das Gehirn als komplizierteste Entität im bekannten Universum ist irgendwie fähig, obwohl es auch aus Materie besteht, über solche Dinge nachzudenken. Wie genau Bewusstsein entsteht, weiß man noch nicht, und es wird verdammt schwer sein, das herauszufinden, da wir mit unserem Verstand diesen nicht selbst ergründen können, ohne auf die Metaebene zu gelangen.
Einen möglichen Ansatz untersucht Max Tegmark.

lol mit der Logik kommt man sicher nicht dort an wo man hinmöchte.

Erstmal als Grundhaltung das leugnen was man eigentlich sucht?

Alles klar.

Ever heard of Evolution?

Without life. How shall there be life?
What evolves?!

What gives and takes impulses?

Without life how shall life start?

You just go from the wrong basis
As the whole science

The concept of Deism I believe best explains everything.