Science and mysteries and in between, plus electronic music.

I haven't written a lot about the music I do per se because of a couple of things. One thing wss that I lost a hard disk with a lot of work on it. That isn't as bad as it sounds, because mostof that work was experimental such that the methods applied, and not the output, was what I was working on. So, the methods I recall, having practiced with them, the hard disk was a nice place to have the "experiments" already set up, but it is nothing I can't re-create.

Having said that, there was some work that I would like to have preserved, and now is lost. But even so the music i make up and the way i do it changes a lot and it isn't anything that most people like, so in the larger scheme of things not a huge loss.

Then, there *was* some work I had done for someone else, some video editing with sound overlay, that was lost. I did it for free, and they said they were happy with it. Then, I lost my hard disk (it dropped on the ground, bingpizzblech) and *then* some time later they asked "oh by the way could you change the music on the video" to which I said, "uhm, I'll see what I can do, but I lost that hard disk" and really, there is nothing "good" I can do, because the final edited high-quality rendered video was on my disk. I could download the final copy, and re-do the audio bed, but because the uploaded video was rendered to a format more suitable from online, it would lose quality.

So I feel bad about that, even though I did the work for free, and of course the moral of the story is to completely separate work you do for someone else from your "experimental area" and archive it separately because even after someone says it is all well and done they might want it done again slightly differently.

Anyway, the rest of this is about science and "mysterious theories" because it seems like so many people want to use science to explain/support mysterious theories.

Now I am not a credentialed scientist, but it interests me so I read about it. Nor am I a credentialed theologian but it interests me so I read about that.

Maybe the most recent big collision of these two ways of thinking was with the recent "end of world" predictions, where the fella said a super massive giant tremendous earthquake would start in the Pacific, travel around the world and everything would be undone.

He had done some numerological transformations on the numbers in the Bible, claiming that while the words were translated from different languages and so might have lost some of the more exact meanings, the numbers were absolute and so more reliable, plus the numbers had knowledge encoded into them that could be derived from other mentions in Biblical scripture.

It was really a very elaborate interpretation and it was based on a lot of tbe same exact "let this mean this, therefore this other thing means that and from this we derive [whatever]" that you find in mathematical theorems. Only, the "proof" of this particular theorem was that the world would end when the theorem said it would, it didn't and so it was disproved. Then, he went back and checked his work and said "oh, ok: the end *started* but it won't *finish* until [a date in October which coincides with the date of an Old Testamant feast day]."

AND of course this is why people think people who try to interpret the Bible are wacko. BUT, people also want some notion that religious writing does indeed give a "heads up" about big time cataclysms to people who believe in it, because otherwise (somehow) it's not fair.

Which is not really such a wild expectation, I think, because there are several places where it is clearly intended as a warning (i.e. "when you see these things know that such and such is coming"). On the other hand, it is impenetrably cryptic: in the case of the Revelations, you are interpreting someone's dream vision that happened centuries ago. The impression that it is somehow de-cryptable comes from the fact that he was instructed in the dream to write things down so that people would know.

Anyway, what my thought is about is that everytime someone comes up with some science, usually astronomy or physics, that seems to coincide with some aspect of the mysterious or prophetic, they latch on to that as if it "supports" the metaphysical theory.

This is an entertaining exercise, one which (if done correctly) can cause goosebumps to form as some "realization" forms in the mind. However, here are somethings, regardless of if you are non-religious or highly religious, that you *must* accede to if you are going to function:

1) There is no belief system that is greater than truth. That is, if what you would like to believe (like a giant earthquake at a certain date and time) does not occur, it does not mean "the world is out of whack", it means what you believe is not true. The crowning triumph of religion, even the most bitter and snarky "God is going to get you for that" kind of religion, is when it bears out to be true. It is the same with science, if it cannot be proven, it is really only a belief.

2) Faith is important, but faith is not everything. A good example of faith are the good scientists who have faith that they will be able to pursue their work to an extent that helps advance their field of science. But they still have to pursue the work. It is the same with metaphysics or religion, I think: the work is required, although it is of a less demonstrable or documentable type and occurs largely internally.

This second thing, this is where science and metaphysics seem to have a "falling out". Scientists have the advantage of providing the proofs of their work in the "dimensions" of space, time and matter to a *wide audience*. The wide audience has access to that "stage" upon which discoveries in space, time and matter are presented, through sensory appreciation and intellectual understanding. And this introduces a fallacy among the wide audience: that fallacy is that they believe that religious or metaphysical "theories" need to be proven in the same manner. The fallacy continues: if they cannot be proven in this way, then the metaphysical theories are clearly of lesser value, less true, and the science is of greater value or more true.

Which can lead to the assertions that "religion/metaphysics is a lie", old ways and murky beliefs can be discarded because "god is dead", etc..

But of course the two things are "proven" in different realms. Just like my missing hard disk contained electronic music experiments that were of worth to me but not currently "provable", I have the methods and can invoke them again: my methods currently exist in a metaphysical realm. In a similar way one proves metaphysics and religion in the "lab" that is oneself and if anything some of the guidelines that we see as "behavior control" that are part of religion are "good internal laboratory practices" that avoid us injuring ourselves or blowing up the metaphysical laboratory.

Now, because I believe that music and especially computer-based electronic music of the sort I do relies both on science and "metaphysics" or less tangible aspects of existence, I value both of these things for a kind of "higher" fulfillment and exploration. A lot of people don't see metaphysics or religion as that, however. They see it as a way to a)get what they want and b)to get other people to act they way they think other people should act.

Which is where the whole "end of the world" thing comes in.

If there is a metaphysical event or sequence or process that results in "the end of the world", you can bet on two things as a complete lock:

1) No human will have any say in its unfolding, either in regards to process or timing. The lack of control will be extreme, and the forces involved will be immense.

2) In the event of such a thing, the *only* thing that religious/metaphysical/spiritual preparation actually prepares you for is to have some faith and perserverance that will get your soul/spiritual essence/internal metaphysical being through that thing.

3) Your actions are a manifestation of your metaphysical/spirtual preparation. Some people act selflessly, some selfishly.

4) The more people that act with some degree of selflessness, the "better place" the world is. That is because a) they have some faith that sacrifices they make will be restored to them and b) they instill an atmosphere of continuity and permanence that other people respond to positively.

A long time ago, a friend of mine once said to me "it doesn't matter why you do something, just so you do the thing that is right". I had a lot of trouble with this, because it meant "if you do something to get what you want that's ok, as long as people see that as 'being good'". I still have trouble with that, it is clearly a "legal" behavior, but it is a kind of "metaphysically dishonest" behavior. One notion of the "end of the world" is that all of the intentions are judged, what is in one's heart.

We often can't control what's in our hearts, but we can at least practice the inner understanding that let's us know what is in our hearts, and how we truly approve or disapprove of that. Religion/metaphysics gives us a sort of "ruler" by which we can compare our approval or disapproval. The extent to which the ruler measures accurately given our true selves is what validates, or proves, any metaphysical theories.