First of all, an update on me: I climbed the CN Tower for the Worlf Wildlife Fund last Saturday... it was fun! My lungs got tired before my legs did... but I didn't have to wander around a fair amount before I found where I had to register. Melissa had said it was the Atrium at Bay, so I went along Bay Street.... and that it was halfway between Union and the CN Tower. But it was actually more or less right at the CN Tower :S (P.S. Thanks Melly for contributing!!)
I've been looking for a job... so far without much success, but I have a few new leads that look promising, thanks to my Dad and Janet.
I just had an UPSA meeting on Wednesday, it went pretty well... I think being the VP of Internal Affairs will work out pretty well!
I've been doing a Bible study, mostly on the first few chapters of Genesis, with my Mom and a bunch of other people at our Church for the past two Wednesdays... It's really good! You couldn't ask for a better person than John Morris to lead it :)
Ok, now on to the theories!
Physics: Maybe this is already obvious to you all, but I just (last night) conceptually figured out what E=MC^2 meant... as in why E=MC^2. I could understand why you'd multiply the mass by the speed of light, but I couldn't figure out why you'd multiply by the speed of light again... so without further ado, here's my solution! First of all, motion is energy. At the moment I think all energy is ultimately motion at it's core... if you go down far enough. I'll have to look more in to it for sure! So, pure motion = pure energy. Thus we have the mass of something, and see what would happen if it were going at the speed of light (i.e. become pure motion). This part I think I sort of got for awhile... but this is only E=MC. Then last night I was thinking... well, all the molecules and atoms are already vibrating, even in a stationary object. So you need to take in to account the energy of everything vibrating, even in a mass that is in a resting state. So, if things vibrate (at a small enough level... see my post on my reasoning for time dilation) at the speed of light, we have the mass/energy state of a resting object as MC, or mass times the speed of light. THEN you convert it to pure energy, by taking that whole system, and seeing what would happen if you put it at the speed of light... as if it were all motion. So you have MC*C. So, if a particular chunk of matter were converted completely in to motion, and thus completely in to energy, you have E=MC^2! ... Maybe not as revolutionary since Einstein came up with it first, but still it was fun to think it through! There's a problem with it though... if something were pure motion in one direction... i.e. travelling the speed of light... you'd no longer have the vibration of the molecules and so it actually would just be E=MC... But up until an object were travelling the speed of light, E=MC^2 makes sense... I'll have to think more on that.
Selfishness: Ok, here's a concept that I realized/thought will in a debate with i_am_the_owl. People who say that it is logical to be selfish, or self-centered, are wrong in many ways. First of all, there's already the whole concept that it'll be worse off in the end for everyone to be selfish... but even in the short term, I suppose an argument for selfishness could go "You can feel your own emotions, you can't feel the emotions of others... so it makes sense to pursue your own happiness and not that of others". Setting empathy aside, this is basically emotional reasoning. It is based on what you feel... you being happy, or pursuing your own happiness. This isn't logical, it's emotional. Logically, you'd recognize that other people are able to feel happy, and that making two people happy, if it means some slight discomfort to you, is actually more logical than making just yourself happy. You need to include yourself in the equation, complete selflessness is wrong, as you need to take care of yourself as well... you just need to be focussed on everyone you can, or recognize that your actions affect those around you. So if someone says it's logical to pursue your own happiness and not that of others... they're being illogical and appealing to emotion rather than rationality.
Religion: Ok, the Bible study has helped me think of a few new things. In a previous post I already indicated that "In the Beginning was the Word", etc that "Word" was logos... or word, thought reason... and that Jesus was the logic of the Lord made manifest. Now, many people will probably agree... Humanity appearing in God's image is more something of the mind. We are all capable of logos or reason. However, we often don't use this fully. Thus, we are made in the image of God that we are capable of reasoning... but Jesus fully recognized this reasoning, and in this way he was in the image of God (as opposed to being God).
Now, another thing I realized after rereading Gensis... has to do with eating the fruit from the tree. I'd forgotten what it actually said. Many people say God did not want humanity to have knowledge or something like that... that knowledge was the sin. This isn't right. It was actually the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil... which if you read some of my earlier posts, you'll remember that I don't believe in Evil. Humanity adopted a point of view in which there was good and evil... this view isn't correct! This is the tree we weren't supposed to eat, because evil doesn't actually exist, it doesn't mean we weren't supposed to have knowledge! Now... there was another tree, another way of looking at the world... The Tree of Life. Also in my previous posts, I've said how a net increase in life is what is Good... it is the basic definition of good. It is a whole different way of viewing the world than from seeing Good versus Evil!
So the question you might ask (I did anyway, in my head)... is "Why did God forbid them to eat of the Tree of Life then" (I'm taking this all as a metaphor by the way... with a tree being a way of looking at the world as opposed to a literal tree). In Genisis, God says something like "For if you do, you'll surely die"... refering to eating of the Tree of Life. My theory is now this: That had the first humans realized/adopted the idea that good was a net increase in life, they would have recognized significance beyond their own lives, and the destruction they would cause on the rest of life on Earth... and so would probably die out, trying to preserve the life around them.
However, things have changed in today's age... in that we're capable of increasing the life on Earth, we don't have to destroy, or at least destroy as much, to continue to live... we won't be attacked by other animals and have to kill them in our defense for example. Now is the time to stop following the Tree of the Kowledge of Good and Evil (which some people have already done... existentialists are one group I suppose), but instead turn to the Tree of Life, which we can now adopt without dying. Now is the time to follow the Kingdom of God as a way of life... regardless of what faith you are, or any, it is to recognize the significance of life itself, and to grow across the universe, living with respect in creation.
I must go, I'll see you all later!