Culture and creativity integrate wonder and wisdom. It is at the Intersection of Art and Bio-physics
Today, what we love we have become addicted to, and it has fueled our myopia to the truth.
Today’s thought experiment: LIGHT WATER AND MAGNETISM
ARE HUMANS BEHAVING LIKE A CANCER ON EARTH because of the light they use to communicate and live???
Is the evidence found in civilization all around us?
Cancer is when a cell from the human body errs in such a way that it:
1. Starts to replicate without control
2. Invades other bodily systems without care (metastasis)
3. Spawns clones within the same tumor, and these clones compete with each other to maintain tumor dominance (intra-tumor heterogeneity)
4. Clones that make it to another bodily system may be different from the primary tumor (inter-tumor heterogeneity)
5. Siphon off all energy/info sources to serve the needs of the tumor and not the body
6. Grow and grow and grow without respect for the borders within the human body (local invasion)
7. Grow new blood vessels to feed the tumor instead of the healthy cells (angiogenesis)
Humans brains shrunk 65,000 years ago. This was linked to melanin destruction as they left Africa and headed to the 51st latitude, where new speciation began inside caves powered by campfires. Art and creativity were the first evidence of what melanin destruction can do. Today, we see this as a positive. Initially, it might have been. But what are the collateral effects of this effect of light on our biology? Is it not unreasonable to say humans have become a cancer on Earth the more they have innovated uses of the electromagnetic spectrum?
Might they be manufacturing the 6th extinction and keeping you in the dark by removing all the fire alarms in society to achieve the goal?
Neanderthal brains shrunk with time as their light stability changed, morphing from equatorial light to light in the tundra.
Art and creativity were its atavist effect. This implies that art has profound lessons to teach us about health.
As light stability was lost and metabolically expensive, larger brains became costly.
Magnetochemistry and POMC sculpted the skulls of our ancestors. Genes had very little to do with these changes.
HISTORY OF MAN:
The human brain has nearly quadrupled in size in the six million years since our species last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
However, studies show this trend toward larger brains has reversed in Homo sapiens. Our species’ average brain sizes have shrunk over the last 100,000 years.
For example, in a recent 2023 study, he tracked the braincase volumes of ancient hominins on a spaceship through time. He started with the oldest known species and ended with modern humans.
They found that rapid brain expansion occurred independently in different species of hominins and at other times across Asia, Europe, and Africa. Species whose brains grew over time include Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis. It stopped with them.
Why?
The light they lived under changed. Equatorial light has light stability. High latitude light does not have light stability.
The trend for brain enlargement over time was turned on its head with the arrival of modern humans. The skulls of men and women today are, on average, 12.7% smaller than that of Homo sapiens who lived during the last ice age, as the picture above shows.
Note for those who follow culture: When our ancestors had larger brains, there were no culture wars because there was no culture present in the history of homo species up until this time.
So, how can we explain this striking reduction? A study of paleoanthropology suggests that the shrinkage in brain size began around 100,000 years ago when the last ice age began. This corresponds to a period in which humans switched cognitive abilities because this was the time when humans began producing symbolic artifacts and engravings with meaningful geometric images on them. These were the precursors of artwork that was soon to appear on the walls of caves.
As they left the cradle of humanity, temperatures changed, light stability was lost, and more glucose was made from high-latitude light. That higher glucose level created a relative pseudohypoxia that created the need to reduce the size of the brain thermodynamically. The human brain shrank due to the abscopal effects of blue light from a latitude change and the need to use fire to keep warm. This fire was used inside a cave, and for the first time, humans began to use animal skins to cover their skins. The skin is a solar panel for the brain, and with it covered, brain expansion was halted dead in its tracks.
Smaller brains have allowed humans to cool down quickly. It’s well known that humans in hot climates have darker skin and more melanin and have evolved leaner and taller bodies to maximize heat loss. Warmer temperatures link directly to equatorial light stability and melanin biology.
DID YOU KNOW CREATIVITY AND LANGUAGE BOTH SHOWED UP WHEN SUNLIGHT WEAKENED IN OUR FAMILY? IS IT HAPPENING AGAIN IN OUR MODERN WORLD? IS THE RESULT REFLECTED IN ART AND CULTURE?
As man left equatorial Africa and entered the Middle East, the invention of written languages like Sumerian began
Nobody doubts that Albert Einstein had a brilliant mind. But the Nobel prizewinner, famous for his special and general relativity theories, wasn’t blessed with a big brain. Based on the history of hominin speciation, it was smaller than average.
This seems surprising to centralized science because they believe bigger is better. Quantum thermodynamics tells us that smaller is more energy efficient. This means the impetus to shrinkage is likely tied to energy and information loss from the environment. This story should have brought centralized science to the story of light, but it has not. Look at the picture slide show in this blog. The answer is here.
Big brains are a defining feature of human anatomy that we are proud of. Other species might be speedy or powerful, but we thrive using the ingenuity that comes with a large brain. Or so we tell ourselves. Einstein’s brain hints that the story isn’t simple – recent fossil discoveries confirm this. Over the past two decades, we have learned that small-brained hominin species survived on Earth long after big-brained ones appeared. Moreover, evidence shows that they were behaviorally sophisticated as the brain shrunk. Some, for instance, made complex stone tools that could probably only have been fashioned by individuals with language.
These discoveries turn the question of human brain evolution on its head. “Why would selection favor big brains when small-brained humans can survive on the landscape? Neural tissue consumes lots of energy, so big brains must have benefitted the few species that evolved them. But what?
The answer is that it allowed us to concentrate melanin inside our skulls because the light on the exterior created so much POMC translation at our surfaces. The more melanin created on our skin, the more it allowed it to move to our interiors, where it became housed endogenously as our most important wide-band gapped semiconductor that sculpted our body plan from our cousins. The result: Humans have more cognitive abilities than any other primate in history.
So what happened as the brain shrunk? Melanin was degraded and lost, and 125 grams of neural tissues were subtracted, but the amount of CSF in the human brain increased relative to its size.
WATER BECAME MORE IMPORTANT TO THE BRAIN FOR FUNCTIONING.
WHAT IS THE ART CORRELATE TO THIS IN HUMANITY?
At the end of the line, the aqueduct’s contribution to modern human flourishing is marked with a nod to the other great civilizational force that built Rome:
Beauty.
Meet the Trevi fountain. It could have never been built by a Neanderthal brain.
Just as the functioning of the human brain improved when neurons shrunk and water increased, so did the Roman Empire.
At their peak, these systems fed Rome with a million cubic meters of water per day, which was used for baths, fountains, and sewers.
Clean water was the civilizational lifeblood that allowed Rome and its population to rise above all others.
How are stars and water linked?
WHAT ELSE CHANGES THE REFRACTIVE INDEX OF A SUBSTANCE EMITTED BY STARS WHEN THEY ARE CREATED?
WATER.
So, was the shrinking human brain filled with more water and somehow fossilized into human culture?
I think so.
The Trevi Fountain
What’s behind is often forgotten: a 17th-century palace called the Palazzo Poli.
Salvi turned its entire facade into his great stone symphony carved into rock. But people often miss something far more interesting: what’s underneath.
It’s the endpoint of the last of Rome’s 11 ancient aqueducts, the Aqua Virgo, which is still in operation.
The fountain was only completed in 1762, but it was built on a site of ancient significance. This is the same idea we see in the cenote system in Mexico with the Maya.
Following the water beneath the fountain, you’ll find the Vicus Caprarius — the City of Water.
It’s a first-century housing complex, and the water flowing through it and the Trevi Fountain’s water still comes from the ancient aqueduct.
If you follow it further (red line), you’ll end up 20km outside of Rome at the springs that feed it.
Just as water was the key to power generation in the shrinking human brain, Rome’s aqueducts were the key to its dominance: remarkably simple in concept and brilliant in execution.
To bring fresh water right into Rome, all you needed was a slight, continuous gradient from source to endpoint, and gravity handled the rest.
That meant digging tunnels to cut straight through hillsides and erecting bridges to cross valleys…
Sometimes, it meant building 160 feet into the air. From one end of the Pont du Gard to the other (900 feet), the level descends less than 1 inch. The Roman Empire was built on impeccable precision.
At their peak, these systems fed Rome a million cubic meters of water per day: baths, fountains, sewers… Clean water was the civilizational lifeblood that allowed Rome and its population to rise above all others.
At the end of the line, the aqueduct’s contribution to human flourishing is marked with a nod to the other great civilizational force that built Rome:
Beauty.
MAGNETISM
When melanin degrades, there is less of it to deal with the magnetic chemicals made by mitochondrial metabolism. Those chemicals are ROS and RNS. These chemicals control metabolic flux in a cell. Stochastically, they all link back to the light we live under as well. This is why all metabolic pathways have different levels of ATP associated with their use.
Changes in ATP always link to ROS and RNS production, which is why we did not need genes to create man. ROS and RNS chemicals all have one unpaired electron, which makes them the source of magnetic flux in cells. Magnetic flux controls timing sequence in cells and timing is the key to morphologic changes in evolutionary creation. The same is true in our brains concerning art creation.
We used changing light frequencies to become who we are. Our identity is reflected in our art, which begins in our hydrated carbon-based semiconductors. See the paper written three days ago. That is how cutting-edge the science of Nature is.
Diamonds are carbon-based semiconductors.
Did you know that diamonds don’t actually shine on their own?
They reflect light the semiconductor emits!
Might the hydrated carbon-based semiconductors be reflecting their magnetic effects in the artwork humans create? Art is built from that reflected light in our brains.
I think that is exactly why visionary artists use quantum entanglement with their environment to become the first members of a culture to see the world in a new way. This is reflected in their work. When it manifests in reality, culture flows to the rest of the silly-talking monkeys.
This fascinating property is one of the reasons why diamonds make excellent semiconductors.
Here’s why:
1. *Crystal Structure*: Diamonds have a unique tetrahedral crystal structure that allows for efficient electron movement, enhancing their performance as semiconductors. Water made by metabolism also has its own unique geometry.
2. *High Thermal Conductivity*: Diamonds can dissipate heat effectively, crucial for electronic devices to function efficiently and reduce overheating. The water around our semiconductors allows for the same thing.
3. *Wide Bandgap*: Diamonds have a wide bandgap, making them ideal for high-voltage and high-frequency applications. This enables more efficient electronic devices and systems. Diamonds and all hydrated carbon-based semiconductors work well with UV light. I have established in the Quantum Engineering series that we are filled to the gills with wide-band gapped semiconductors that use UV light.
4. *Chemical Stability*: Diamonds are chemically inert, which means they can function reliably in harsh environments. So, the next time you admire a diamond’s brilliance, remember that it’s not just about beauty but cutting-edge technology! Our semiconductors are inert as well under the power of visible light. Any other frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum induces changes to our semiconductors.
Our use of the light spectrum is why chronic diseases are upon us. We have the same number of genes as our nearest relatives. Few see what I see. After I have infected your mind with this idea, I want you to visit any museum and see the history of art.
“What would happen,“ Marshall McLuhan wondered in his seminal 1964 treatise Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, “if art were suddenly seen for what it is, namely, exact information of how to rearrange one’s psyche to anticipate the next blow from our own extended faculties?
A surgeon is both an artist and a scientist… Surgeons rely heavily on their intuitive visual-spatial right-hemispheric mode. At the same time, our training is obviously scientific. Left-brained logic, reason, and abstract thinking are the stepping stones leading to the vast scientific literature’s arcane tenets. The need in my profession to shuttle back and forth constantly between these two complementary functions of the human psyche This ability has served me well to see the unknown and hidden messages of art history and evolution.
These thoughts today are on the quantum biology of farming. I show you what planting seen inthe public’s fertile mind can accomplish. You’ll never look at art the same way again. Humanity creates beauty when it is entangled with Nature. It establishes simplified things when it is made to the wrong frequencies of light. Centralization results from this prescription.
Don’t fear burning down art critics’ beliefs about their world today. Today’s ashes are tomorrow’s soil. Moments, like my talk at Palestra Society on Friday, August 15th, 2024, are like seeds to place in that soil.
Any moment’s beginning ends in a moment….and the seed transforms into something new, something different, something unique. The moral of the story of the seed is that if you want something new, you must stop doing something old.
This view below of the sun says something significant about the modern environment of man in the 1960s (above pic)
We have made Nature artificial, and it is reflected in the painting.
Art and the physics of quantum biology are propelled by revolutionary insight — that transcendent clarity of vision that Rilke called a “conflagration of clear sight” — which reframes our understanding of the world.
Although the development of physics has always depended upon the incremental contributions of many original and dedicated workers, on a few occasions in history, one physicist has had an insight of such import that it led to a revision in his whole society’s concept of reality. . . .Think about the contributions of Newton, Faraday, and Einstein as examples.
Emile Zola’s definition of art: “Nature as seen through a temperament,” invokes physics, which is likewise involved with Nature. The Greek word physis means “Nature.”… Like any scientist, the physicist sets out to break “nature” down into its component parts to analyze the relationship of those parts. This process is principally one of reduction.
On the other hand, the artist often juxtaposes different features of reality and synthesizes them so that upon completion, the whole work is greater than the sum of its parts. There is considerable crossover in the technique used by both. The novelist Vladimir Nabokov wrote, “There is no science without fancy and no art without facts.”
In addition to illuminating, imitating, and interpreting reality … artists create a language of symbols for things for which there are yet to be words. Their works are reflections of the light they are forced to imbibe. And we consume it. It reminds us of us we cannot put our finger on, but we know there is a deep connection. This series of blogs makes concrete decentralized connections.
SUMMARY
Art lives not only as an aesthetic that can be pleasing to the eye but also as a distant early warning system occurring in our colony of mitochondria and the collective thinking of a society.
Visionary art alerts the other members that a conceptual shift is about to occur in the thought system used to perceive the world. For the last 120 years, I have not seen one DaVinci, Rembrandt, or Monet producing among us.
In my opinion, Art creation has been creatively dying since 1905.
Is this related to when Marconi harnessed the power of light in radio and wireless transmission?
I’ll leave you to ponder this.
My vision is based on art critic Robert Hughes’s assertion that “the truly significant work of art is the one that prepares the future” and adds:
Repeatedly throughout history, the artist introduces symbols and icons that, in retrospect, prove to have been avant-garde for the thought patterns of a scientific age yet to be born.
They are born; they are just random packets of quanta awaiting to be organized by the melanin in your mind.
Decentralized science carries the torch of a tradition that stretches back through a long line of rebellious thinkers who have resisted the usual dividing lines between physics and philosophy. It is in this space where art is explanatory to human evolutionary history. In experimental metaphysics, the tools of science can be used to test our philosophical worldviews, which in turn can be used to better understand science that remains fuzzy to centralized thinkers.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals in the deep scaffolding of the world: the Nature of space, time, causation and ex,istence, the foundations of reality itself. It’s generally considered untestable, so centralized science ignores it. This is done at the peril of the public health. Since, metaphysical assumptions underlie all our efforts to conduct tests and interpret results. Those assumptions usually go unspoken.
Most of the time, that’s fine. Within centralized intuitions they foster beliefs of how the world works for their benefit, and it often conflicts with our everyday experience of reality. At speeds far slower than the speed of light or at scales far more significant than the quantum one, we can, for instance, assume that objects have definite features independent of our measurements, that we all share a universal space and time, that a fact for one of us is a fact for all. As long as our philosophy works, it lurks undetected in the background, leading us to believe that centralized science is something separable from metaphysics mistakenly.
But at the uncharted edges of experience, where the quantum biology of the brain lies — at high speeds and tiny scales — those intuitions cease to serve us, making it impossible for us to do science without confronting our philosophical assumptions head-on. Suddenly, we find ourselves in a place where science and philosophy can no longer be neatly distinguished. Art and creativity of society can and do provide answers to the hard questions of evolution.
THE DIVIDING LINE between science and philosophy has never been clear. Often, it’s drawn along testability. Any science that deserves its name is said to be vulnerable to tests that can falsify it, while philosophy aims for pristine truths that hover somewhere beyond the grubby reach of experiments. So long as that distinction is in play, physicists believe they can get on with the messy business of “real science” and leave the philosophers in their armchairs, stroking their chins.
As it turns out, though, the testability distinction doesn’t hold. Philosophers have long known that it’s impossible to prove a hypothesis. (No matter how many white swans you see, the next one could be black.) That’s why Karl Popper famously said that a statement is only scientific if it’s falsifiable — if we can’t prove it, we can at least try to disprove it.
In 1906, French physicist Pierre Duhem showed that falsifying a single hypothesis is impossible. This should teach us that the basis of the scientific method has some limitations. Rarely do we talk about this in today’s science, but it was the talk of the day in the 19th and 20th centuries.
He argued that every piece of science is bound up in a tangled mesh of assumptions. These assumptions are about everything from underlying physical laws to the workings of specific measurement devices. If the result of your experiment appears to disprove your hypothesis, you can always account for the data by tweaking one of your assumptions while leaving your hypothesis intact.
Take, for instance, the geometry of space-time. Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century philosopher, declared that the properties of space and time are not empirical questions. He thought not only that the geometry of space was necessarily Euclidean, meaning that a triangle’s interior angles add up to 180 degrees, but that this fact had to be “the basis of any future metaphysics.” According to Kant, it wasn’t empirically testable because it provided the very framework within which we understand how our tests work in the first place.
Yet, in 1919, when astronomers measured the path of distant starlight skirting the gravitational influence of the sun, they found that the geometry of space wasn’t Euclidean after all—it was warped by the effect of gravity from stars, as Albert Einstein had predicted.
Or did they? Henri Poincaré, the French polymath, offered up an intriguing thought experiment. Imagine that the universe is a giant disk that conforms to Euclidean geometry but whose physical laws include the following: The disk is hottest in the middle and coldest at the edge, with the temperature falling in proportion to the square of the distance from the center.
Moreover, this universe features a refractive index — a measurement of how light rays bend — inversely proportional to the temperature. In such a universe, rulers and yardsticks would never be straight (solid objects would expand and shrink with the temperature gradient), while the refractive index would make light rays appear to travel in curves rather than lines. As a result, any attempt to measure the geometry of the space — say, by adding up the angles of a triangle — would lead one to believe that the space was non-Euclidean.
Any test of geometry requires you to assume specific laws of physics, while any test of those laws of physics requires you to assume geometry. Sure, the disk world’s physical laws seem ad hoc, but so are Euclid’s axioms. “Poincaré, in my opinion, is right,” Einstein said in a 1921 lecture.
He added, “Only the sum of geometry and physical laws is subject to experimental verification.” As the American logician Willard V. O. Quine put it, “The unit of empirical significance” — the thing that’s testable — “is the whole of science.”
The most straightforward observation (that the sky is blue or the particle is there) should force us to question everything we know about the universe’s workings.
But actually, it’s worse than that from a decentralized perspective. The unit of empirical significance is a combination of science and philosophy. The thinker who saw this most clearly was the 20th-century Swiss mathematician Ferdinand Gonseth. For Gonseth, science and metaphysics are always in constant conversation, with metaphysics providing the foundations on which science operates, science providing evidence that forces metaphysics to revise those foundations, and the two together adapting and changing like a living, breathing organism. As he said in a symposium he attended in Einstein’s honor, “Science and philosophy form a single whole.”
Revolutionary art has served the function of preparing the future at all times.
The art of today has me worried about our species’ future. We are headed back to our times in caves.
The art revolution today is being heavily influenced by artificial Intelligence. This concerns me, and it should concern you. Anything crafted by AI adopts a centralizing force in its DNA. This centralizing force sits at odds with the decentralizing forces in Nature.
Revolutionary art and visionary physics attempt to speak about matters that do not yet have words. That is why people outside their fields could better understand their languages. Because they both speak of what is to come, we must learn to understand them.
My art is quantum biology.
Our cognitive de-evolution is real, and it has been reflected in our art since Picasso.
We don’t see things as they are… we see things as they are.
There is a reason we see a lot of minimalist “art,” abstract modern painting, container houses, and buildings that are blocks of concrete with holes for windows when, in reality, everything is artless.
The minimalist trend is an ideology/formatting for people to accept less than they deserve, things that are unbalanced, artless, and heartless. If we look at things from a few decades ago, everything was ornamental, with style and thoughtful design. This shows what you are referring to: when society gets ill, that gets reflected in everything it creates.
Ask yourself right now who the 20-21st century great artists are.
Can you name anyone?
I cannot.
It even shows up in buildings when Marconi and Tesla were ruining humanity.
Some will look at a plumeria flower (gardenia/magnolia) and try to tell us that it results from perfection in minimalism.
This uncovers what they do not know. It is false. For me, it is a reflection of the melanin sheets in them.
The Plumeria flower and the Trevi fountain represent opposite poles of the complexity argument.
Did you know flowering plants like the plumeria species occur due to a lack of CO2 energy? So, their analogy is poor. They are minimalistic flowers/plants because of their low-energy environment. They are great examples of my point.
Plants also are made of DC electric semiconductors like we are. They reflect the light in their environment, structure, and phylogeny. Most plant groups were relatively unscathed by the Permo-Triassic extinction event, although the structures of communities changed. This may have set the scene for the appearance of the flowering plants in the Triassic (~200 million years ago) and their later diversification in the Cretaceous and Paleogene. The latest major group of plants to evolve were the grasses, which became important in the mid-Paleogene from around 40 million years ago. The grasses, as well as many other groups, evolved new mechanisms of metabolism to survive the low CO2 environments linked to warm, dry conditions of the tropics over the last 10 million years. Beauty varies as environmental energies vary. The results are in the art we create, the buildings we make, the brands we’ve built, and the flowers that do best as continue to spread artificial light over the surface of Earth like a viral pathogen spreading cancer.
At a certain point, you would think more people would realize that these minimalist cities are filled with antennas and nnEMF: They have accepted to be a total debt slave to the fiat system, and they do not seem to understand why their beliefs are bending to the will of the oppressor.
Architecture lives not only as an aesthetic that can be pleasing to the eye but, as a Distant Early Warning system occurring in our civilization to our colony of mitochondria which reflects the collective thinking and experience of a society.
You’ve been warned yet again by me. Are you listening to the whispers of Nature, or will you continue to be seduced by man’s technology?
HERE IS A FINAL VIDEO FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
