God Appearing as Laws that Hold True beyond Time and Space

Let us suppose that one falls from the second floor. This is a proof that God exists. Why? Because one falls. Everything is subject to the law of universal gravitation as found by Sir Isaac Newton. Any being that had existed even before human beings emerged, such as dinosaurs, would have been subject to the law. Any one, be s/he even an atheist or a communist, is subject to the law regardless of their religious views. The law exists and holds true beyond time and space regardless of the recognition or belief about it on the part of the human being. A law that holds true beyond time and space is a form of God that appears in front of any being. 

Such laws can be found in everything. 

What kind of existence was God when dinosaurs enjoyed their prosperous moments where there were no human beings as we know them? Is the existence worth being called God unless it can exist without the beings that believe in it?

God exists and governs everything without the beings that believe in it. 

Therefore, it is one's personal experience or realization that leads one to the recognition of God. 

Game Over, Dude!

 Game Over, Dude!

Human Language

According to Sapir (1921), "There are just five languages that have had an over-whelming significance as carriers of culture. They are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin" of which classical Chinese alone is free from grammatical gender. 

As an alien originally from the planet Mars, the grammatical gender does not make sense to me. This reduces the set of UN official languages to just English and Chinese. 

Design of Human Society

As an alien originally from the planet Mars, I have the impression that the modern human society is designed in a way that it is revealed only to those who think, in Sapir (1921)'s sense, in English.

Free from bias in recognition?

There will always be a certain degree and a certain sense of bias in the process of an act to perceive or recognize something. It is impossible to be free from being biased in the conduct of making a point. The target of one's perception or recognition is itsself derived from one's interest which is the realization of one's bias. For example: when the media is attempting to report an issue, the media is already biased. Why is the media reporting the specific issue over others when there are countless other issues? It is because the media has and is based on its own awareness and motivation which is the realization of its bias. The difference in awareness and motivation among writers will lead to the diversity in the selection of issues as media coverage and will lead to offering a variety of points of view on the issue. Otherwise, there will be no difference among media reports in both the selection of topics and the offering of the corresponding possible interpretations. Anyone or any organization can argue neutrality in their opinions, but practically it is impossible to do so. Anyone is always and is naturally biased in such a way that characterizes himself or herself. One can be said to be true and sincere not only to oneself but also to others if one is to be aware that the awareness or motivation is the reflection of one's inherent bias and if one is to be open to others that the one is biased in this sense. Ironically enough, if one has awareness and motivation on an issue, then one is biased in a way that leads oneself to such awareness and motivation. If one is unbiased in one's thinking, then it is almost equivalent to being that the one does not have awareness or motivation on real-world issues.

It is a nontrivial experience for anyone to be in a process to understand what is unknown to himself or herself. What are the things that are truly worth learning? How can one reach understanding? What is the correctness in understanding? These are examples of common questions to be asked and can never be answered by those who seek truth. Some of the methodologies that survive to this day would be those by Euclid, Aristotle, René Descartes, and more. In the days of science-oriented society like the one we happen to live in, the ways of thought offered in Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper, for example, would be a starting point for perception and recognition about everything that we face in the daily life, be it either in scientific, economic, political, sociologic, or cultural aspects or in aspects in their different degrees of mixture. While recognizing the above, the methodologies themselves are just those that give some hints, are those that are imperfect in a sense that they are applicable under some certain respective conditions, and are those that do not guarantee the correctness of each decision making based on them.

There is one common aspect in each of these methodologies: start with asking a question. An event or phenomenon is nontrivial if there are more than one valid hypotheses to explain it. The degree of openness to a discussion about valid hypotheses is a proxy of how healthy the society is.

If one happens to be forced to face a situation where none of the conventional idea seems to be valid anymore and non-standard methodologies are being implemented by authorities with or without seemingly reasonable explanations, then one might want to pay attention more to the following than to seeking for seemingly correct or heaven-sent answers: what kind of hypotheses are being raised? How are the hypotheses being tested in the discussions? How is a political decision making made following the relevant arguments? If raising hypotheses are denied without being tested, then the surrounding situation is not academic. If a valid hypothesis is not fully tested, then the surrounding situation is not true to the truth. If a valid argument is not openly discussed, then the society that supports the surrounding situation is not healthy. If a political decision making is made irrelevant with the corresponding arguments, then it is much more likely that there will be long-lasting negative effects to the society.

A Modest Hypothesis

A modest hypothesis: the viral interference as a way to control a dangerous artificial or natural pathogen and to mitigate its effects. When a truly dangerous pathogen is intentionally or accidentally released to the environment, you impose an immediate lockdown to the affected city and at the same time you intentionally release a less dangerous pathogen that works reasonably well to achieve the viral interference against the deadly pathogen. For repeated application, the less dangerous pathogen for viral interference is ideal if human beings in general do not gain lifelong immunity against it. 

Discussion

What is the best way to respond to the seriously deadly pathogen? An immediate straightforward answer would be to follow the conventional idea in which an attempt is made to gain antibody-mediated mass immunity. But is this true? What are the underlying implicit assumptions by which the above mentioned idea makes sense? There are two implicit assumptions without which the conventional idea does not make sense: assumption one is that the mechanism of human bodies is such that antibodies are the primary sources of protection against it rather than other means such as apoptosis; assumption two is that the artificially induced antibody-mediated immunity does not lead to the emergence of new variants with more toxicity. We have no guarantee in advance that the two assumptions hold true. Then especially for an artificial pathogen with seriously dangerous toxicity, we will want to have a safety measure without relying on the above mentioned two assumptions. This leaves an alternative idea to be desired. Thus an alternative idea to the conventional one would be the use of viral interference. It is much easier to control the deadly pathogen through controlling the viral-interference-inducing less dangerous pathogen than through controlling the deadly pathogen itself.

Implications

What is then implied if the above mentioned hypothesis proves true and the above-mentioned discussion makes sense? It could be a wrong decision making to try gaining immunity against the viral-interference-inducing less toxic pathogen because if otherwise you will lose the privilege to passover the deadly pathogen. 

It is much more difficult to successfully recognize as true what looks totally false and is actually true than to successfully recognize as false what looks totally true and is actually false.

It is much more difficult to successfully recognize as true what looks totally false and is actually true than to successfully recognize as false what looks totally true and is actually false. 

Homo Sapiens 1.n

Homo Sapiens 1.n. 

To my best knowledge as of March 2022, “n” is at most 4 in general for the time being. To my best imagination, “n” could eventually reach 5. I am awkwardly observing their determined and relentless efforts for achieving a higher “n”. 

Then, how much time does it take or how large should “n” be for them to eventually leap to man-made Homo Sapiens 2.0?

I would rather declare that “our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” I am pleased to be simply Homo Sapiens.