It only occurred to me this evening, while I was attempting to program this website, how much I've allowed myself to fall into bad habits.

Or should I say, fall back into bad habits ... habits only arise due to repeated behaviours, which stem from beliefs, which of course stem from the decisions we make on a moment by moment basis. There's some great sayings on this subject, along the lines of "from thoughts come habits, from habits come destiny" or some such.

In my previous post I had said I was going to setup another site devoted to 'productive-creativity' - creativity that is productive, useful, valuable. In broad terms, I was thinking that the new website should be a hub of ideas and processes related to productive-creativity, or 'innovation' in the context of business.

But as I was browsing through the wealth of information that can now be found via links through twitter, I'm wondering if I really want togo that way.

As explained previously, I've decided to hitch-hike back to Sydney, seeing where it takes me, what experiences I have.

Thursday 25th March,  2010: This morning I began my hitch-hiking, heading South out of Cairns to Innisfail (from where I'm presently writing this).

In recent months in particular, but also in recent years, I've been drawn to helping small business friends and, in general, the small business community.1

It's an activity that I naturally find myself 'falling into' ... whether it be advice on project management, organising better business systems, or simply picking up the phone and making some sales calls on their behalf.

In a sense I've been a business nanny, and it's a role that I find immensely satisfying.

1. 1. As explained previously I believe small business entrepreneurs have a creative independent spirit.

This content is provided as a resource to clearly illustrate how mainstream scientific thinking (of there being physical causes for all physical effects) is now untenable in the face of the latest quantum physics (e.g. how plants use nonlocal, at-once energy pathways to photosynthesize light).

Modern science is largely based on a deterministic, Newtonian clockwork model of our universe.

I was recently having coffee with a friend when she explained how much she enjoyed doing her numerology workshops. Her energy, passion and excitement was obvious.

As I sat there, her grin and body language got me thinking about belief-systems and new-age practices such as astrology, numerology and other 'ologies'.

This proof shows that, based on standard scientific assumptions, physical movement is impossible. Since everday physical movement is not only possible, but routinely lived and experienced, we can confidently conclude that modern scientific world-views are wrong.

The objective of these proofs is to reveal how our modern scientific views are surface-layer perceptions that do not reveal or account for deeper, nonlocal (meta-physical) rhythms and processes.

Proving the impossibility of physical movement, based on the Assumptions of modern science. This proof, based on the assumptions of modern science and medicine, reveals how we are unable to move our bodies even for the simplest of tasks, such as blinking an eye, or lifting a finger.

This proof focuses on the 'silliness of science' in regards to first-cause. What enables or makes us think, e.g. about thinking? The brain-as-computer metaphor has serious shortcomings, chief of which is the inability to explain the impetus to think: before we think, what must we do? Less well known, but even more telling is the inability of brain-as-computer metaphors to accommodate and explain how the brain-as-machine model operates in the quantum realm involving fields of potentials and possibilities; realms within which all brain 'stuff' is bathed.

As Freeman Dyson explained:

Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes.

What enables particles of our brain-stuff to make choices between random processes that can't be physically predicted or modelled?