Free Energy & All That
It has potential

If anything could be more threatening to our modern sensibility than telepathy, it would either be free energy or free love.  Does promiscuity have no decency?

It is my contention, as an immaterialist, that free energy, anti-gravity and the like are all variations on the telekinesis/telepathesis theme.  Free energy is more natural than unfree energy.  We really had to sweat over the space-time manifold to construct unfree energy.  Reversion back to the natural state may seem even more difficult.

One must address the natural state of entropy.  Any student of these pages will know that I have struggled with this issue.  It is difficult to avoid the Darwinian temptation of the free cosmic evolutionary lunch.  My problem may be that it is not free enough.  The bootstrapped God is a tempting idol for any stalwart physicist.  But is it reasonable?

Besides entropy there is potency.  If there is enough potency, then who needs entropy, or energy for that matter?  I am thinking of the quantum fluctuations of reality.  It is very seriously alleged that our universe sprung from those quantum inflationary loins.  It seems more likely to me that God would have sprung first from any such loins.  But then why bother to spring?  Why not just go with a more potent potency?  Instead of asking if God exists, we should be asking if potency exists.  It would seem that potency would always have a good potential for existing.  But maybe we should be wondering if existence has any real potential.  Maybe existence has been greatly overrated.  It is an idea that may have already realized its own potential.  The grave of existence is full to overflowing.  The grave to which I turn is strangely empty.  Who needs free energy when we have free love?  Therein lies the potency of telepathesis.


| Contents |

rev. 1/31/99