Einstein's God In Scientific Definition

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"​

​

This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.

Einstein was Jewish, which is why the people of Israel asked him once to become Israel's second president. Also, Einstein felt uncomfortable with the idea that the Jews are God's favored People.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise, I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them", said Einstein.

Although, neither Einstein nor his parents were religious people, he did in fact attend the Catholic primary school. But at the age of 12 he was already questioning the truth of the stories written in the Bible. "The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression", Einstein wrote.
Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.

Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scie...Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml

Einstein used to speak so often of God that I tend to believe that he has been a disguised theologian.
-Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Albert Einstein (Diogenes Verlag, Zürich, 1979), p. 12, quoted in Jammer, p. 7

​

Short Comments on God:
Knowing God's Thoughts
I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
- From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

Could God Have Done It Differently?
What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.
- C. Seelig, Helle Zeit-Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.

The following comments are excerpted from Calaprice. See pp. 145 - 161.

God's Punishment
Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
- Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).

God and Goodness
Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it.
- From conversation recorded by Algernon Black, Fall 1940; Einstein Archive 54-834

God's worry
If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us.
- Letter to David Bohm, February 10, 1954; Einstein Archive 8-041

An Unperceivable Being
To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

Awe of the Structure of the World
I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154

Conversation on Religion and Antisemitism
See Bucky and Weakland pp. 85 - 87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.

BUCKY:
It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?

EINSTEIN:
Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

BUCKY:
So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?

EINSTEIN:
I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:
You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:
Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

BUCKY:
Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep them in check, so to speak?

EINSTEIN:
No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others. Education has a great role to play in this respect. Religion should have nothing to do with a fear of living or a fear of death, but should instead be a striving after rational knowledge.

BUCKY:
And yet, with all of these thoughts, you are still identified strongly in the public mind as definitely Jewish and this certainly is a very traditional religion.

EINSTEIN:
Actually, my first religious training of any kind was in the Catholic catechism. A fluke, of course, only because the primary school that I first went to was a Catholic one. I was, as a matter of fact, the only Jewish child in the school. This actually worked to my advantage, since it made it easier for me to isolate myself from the rest of the class and find that comfort in solitude that I so cherished.

BUCKY:
But don't you find any discrepancy between your previous somewhat anti-religious statements and your willingness to be identified publicly as a Jew?

EINSTEIN:
Not necessarily. Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let's picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.

​

The photograph is the last known picture of Einstein, taken in March, 1955. The photograph was scanned from Subtle is the Lord...: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein by Abraham Pais



I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. - Albert Einstein, in conversation
http://einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html with Gustav Bucky

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. - Albert Einstein, responding http://einsteinandreligion.com/godcomments.html to an Iowa student who asked, "What is God?" July 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

A Scientific Definition for the 'Universal Intelligence' aka 'God'​

Stanley McKeown wrote (August 2009) in theoretical_physics yahoo forum:
Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist

Dear Alexk23000,
I agree that science must be open minded (please find me a religion that is open minded).
But the idea of 'unknowable' gods does not further science. I use the word 'unknowable' because that is the word used by all religions, who‚ are surely the experts in their version of their gods. Yet again we come across the confusion that the unknowable must be labelled god.
Please, please some evidence that god is singular, at least as a starting point!!!!!!! !!! Then please, some of his/her/its/ their attributes to further our discussion.
Your eager scholar, Stan

And again, Stanley addressed Ron:

Dear n.s.p.o.paranormal,
Thank you for explaining it so simply. Although I personally am totally unsure what 'it' is.
It seems to me that the thrust of your argument is, 'The world exists so a super-intelligence created it'.
I may have got your concept wrong so....
Now please, describe some of the attributes of your concept of "a super intelligent computer controlling the universe".

a)=1.What is it's power source?
b)=2.What operating system or rules does it use to process it's output?
c)=3.What is it's output?
d)=4.When did it start?
e)=5.When will it stop?

I could go on but it's your concept, you take the initiarive. I am sure that the readers of this web site are eager to learn.
Your eager pupil, Stan

And again, Stanley asked Zachary:

Dear Zachery,
I appreciate that you admit that you do not know your god's APPEARANCE, MIND nor PLAN.
I would be grateful if you would elaborate on those aspects of your god that you do know, so that we, the members, might learn and discuss.
How about starting with:

f)=(Q1) inside/outside the universe
g)=(Q2) creator of the laws of physics
h)=(Q3) subject to these laws
i)=(Q4) the god hierarchy, does your god have a god or is he/she/it/they the TOP?

Please note that those who propose their god on this website should enlighten the readers with issues such as these.
Please request the wider readers as to what they would like to learn about the attributes of deities/supernatural beings..
Please note that I differentiate between the unknown and the unknowable. The unknown is that with which science grapples.
The unknowable is the realm of philosophy, superstitionand imagination. There will always be those who invent/create/perpetuate the unknowable. I suggest that the unknowable is a sterile area for science, since it will retreat from science as science decreases the unknown.
I suggest to you that the members of this website may not appreciate fruitless debate on the unknowable. Your eager correspondent, Stan​

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The postings of Alex, Ron, Zachary and Brian are below the following dispensation for individual contextualised discernment.
I shall answer Stanley's questions in the ordered labelings and the bold highlightings as indicated by his own wordings (sic).

Dear Stanley,
It is no longer necessary for anyone to remain in 'the dark' as to the 'nature of God' or of 'being totally unsure of what 'it' is'.
The human evolutionary pathology has attained a nexus point, where the human sentience has developed sufficiently to use its deductive logic and its scientific reasoning to solve its own questions and insecurities regarding origins, purpose and destiny.
The necessity for any 'God-concept' to be physically realisable was known by Isaac Newton and most of the so termed 'Natural Philosophers' as the forerunners of what today is labeled 'scientist'.
Newton knew, that IF a 'scriptural God' like the one(s) found in the Christian bible COULD exist, then it would have to 'be scientific' in the sense of Leibnitz's 'Monad' or Spinoza's 'Essence' or Einstein's 'Old One'.
So you may see, that your mentally skeptical postion regarding 'unknowable spiritual things' could be labeled as following in the 'footsteps of Newton' and many pioneers of contemporary science since the renaissance of the 17th century.
However the scientific data base had to await the onset of physical knowledge and models of the 21st century to accumulate enough information to actually enable the PROCESSING of the required data, which had conglomerated since the dawn of time in the thermodynamic cosmology of the universe.

And so I, in the function of 'God's Advocate', shall present to you in the function of the 'Devil's Advocate', the "God of Science", so passionately searched for by Isaac Newton in the latter's 'Office of the Alchemist of OmniScience' (inclusive of the 'unknowable spiritual things').
What you shall do with this 'mystery solving' information will be up to you as the 'Skeptical Inquirer'.
You may take this new dispensation 'to heart' and realise just how you are an intrinsic part of this 'God' or you may dismiss 'it' and in so doing actually 'deny' the innermost part of being of yourself.

1=a) What is it's power source?
2=b) What operating system or rules does it use to process it's output?
3=c) What is it's output?
4=d) When did it start?
5=e) When will it stop?
6=f) (Q1) inside/outside the universe
7=g) (Q2) creator of the laws of physics
8=h) (Q3) subject to these laws
9=i) (Q4) the god hierarchy, does your god have a god or is he/she/it/they the TOP?

1. God's Power-Source
God's Power-Source is a form of 'eternal energy', yet 'unitarily particularised' not definable in any spacetime except in its mathematical formalism.
This mathematical logos so specifies what this concept of 'eternity' relative to its antistate of temporality implies. Those specifications then must also DEFINE the omniness of anything in relation to the God-concept.
In its most simple terms; the 'eternal energy' becomes a 'physicalisable' energy residing not in spacetimematter, but in a subplenum.
The subplenum is nontemporal, nonlocal and nonmaterial; but is defined in the mathematical principles and rules attaining to numerical systems, all based upon the binary code both algebraically and geometrically.
The geometric form of the 'Closed' Zero-Loop becomes physicalised in the 'Open' One-Loop or the Superstring and which then leads definition of a binary numeracy rootextended into the decimal in the archetypical set:
Binary-Monad BM: {0,1} → Decimal-Monad DM: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}.

The subplenum so becomes a 2-dimensional Complex plane, with origin the Unity of the Binary-Monad BM, i.e. the eigenstate of either open-ended or closed superstring loops.
It is this UNITY within the subplenum (as itself and as a prior definition for 'God'), which then allows the nonphysicalised nature of God to define itself without the existence of space, time and/or matter.
This nonphysicality then utilizes the UNITY of ITSELF to extend its own self-definition by application of fundamental principles (see hierarchy of God in 9.).
In particular, the 6th principle of inversion allows the algebraic concept of the ratio to assume limiting functionalities (say in convergent and divergent asymptotic series and number sequences). This then allows boundary- and initial conditions for a subsequent physical reality to become established in the 'complex manifold' of the subplenum.
Division of the Unity=1 AS the Open-Geometric-Superstring by the Zero=0 AS the Closed-Geometric-Superstring so applies the Principle of Inversion WITHIN the Decimal-Monad hierarchy and DEFINES the quantum relativity between the subplenum and itself as a plenum comprised of the UNITY eigenstate.

The Unified Power-Source so is a God-Quantum which has UNLIMITED energy in the subplenum, because the 'Counting' of such subplenum units represents a 'Wholey Trinity' in being simultaneously Unity=FinityAfter=1 and Zero=FinityBefore=0 and Eternity=Infinity=∞

God's Power-Source represents an Infinite Reservoir of SourceSink Subplenum 'IMAGINATION-Energy'; defined in the UNITY-God-Quantum and in an 'IMAGE-Energy', which becomes manifested in finite partiality in selfcontained closed systems, such as a Planck-Black Body-Radiator defining the entropy-related thermodynamic expansion (and cooling) of a physically finitised universe.


2. God's Operating System (OS) and Processor
God's OS is then the plenum of a physically imaged universe.
The eternity of God becomes 'trapped' in the asymptotic definitions of the 'Laws of Nature', which are all based on the algorithmic nature of the string monadic sets, which, under utility of the hierarchical principalities, allow mathematical relationships and proportionalities to become defined in abstract terms of the complex unity of the subplenum, before becoming IMAGED in the physicality of the finite spacetimematter, termed the universe's cosmogony and cosmology.

3. God's Output-Input Function
God's Input is naturally the UNIT of itself as the God-Quantum.
Iow, the quantization of the physicalised universe becomes a holofractal multiplication or quanta count of God itself. The universe, being a 'count' of God-Units so differentiates itself as the plenum of 'Finity of Measurement' from the subplenum of 'Infinity of Nonmensuration'.
Alternatively expressed, the metric spacetimes within a selfcontained thermodynamic system, subject to statistical integration of multidimensional and multifaceted energy eigenstates; become nonstochastic in the Unity energy selfstate of the subplenum.
The plenum so becomes a mirror image in the subplenum; remaining however as a finitized subset of the infinite superset as that image.

God's primary Input so becomes a finitised and countable quantum energy integral definitive for the total energy content of the so termed Quantum Big Bang. The precise quantum count is a function of the inflaton-instanton, defining the 11-dimensional supermembrane boundary (itself a quantum count as a surface area integration) to encompass the thermodynamically expanding 'Planck-Nugget-Seed', which is one dimension lower to allow a hybrid toroidal overall topology for the multidimensional universe, originating from a protoversal seed.

God's secondary Input is however a function of the PROCESSING capabilities of the primary Input becoming Output and subsequent Inputs multiply the protoversal seed as phaseshifted multiverses as a function of the Output potentials of the protoversed multiverses.

The purpose for the creation from the creator is simply the SIMULTANEOUS Self-Experience of God in the distinctions of the subplenum of oneness and the plenum of spacetime separations.
To EXPERIENCE ITSELF, God must bifurcate (and then holographically multifractalize) its own Unity.
The function of the Input is to experience 'on God's behalf' in the 'Kingdom of the Separation', namely the physical universe; and then to IMAGE in IMAGINATION and LOGISTICAL MODELS and FORMALISMS and otherwise 'as a processed Output' becoming the 'reflected' Input; reemitted from the plenum of the spacetimematter into the suplenum of the 'singularity'.

The PROCESSORS from and for God so become the God-Quantums in agglomeration, defining the 'Consciousness' of godlike spacetimematter containers.
God's Consciousness then becomes a particular energy-resonance eigenstate, defined in frequency and related derivatives (see 10.) and specifically in the concept of a 3-dimensional volumar being acted upon by a form of angular acceleration, the latter being by definition independent on the radial displacement of linear metrics and the separation of idealised coordinate 'points'.
The minimised 'consciousness-units' in God's cosmology are neutrons, evolving into hydrogen atoms, followed by molecules and macro-inertia conglomerations including chemical compounds, asteroids, moons, planets, stars and galaxies; viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, mosquitoes, fish, salamanders, lizards, dinosaurs, birds, smilodons, australopithecines, orang-utans, bonobos, dogs and cats, Stanleys and Samanthas; Sirians, interdimensional extraterrestrials like methaned Venusians and groupgalactic Magellaneans to the SUMTOTAL of the universe's consciousness as the EVOLVING Superconsciousness of God itself.

And so, should you watch an ant crawling in your garden or should you engage in watching some birds of divers variety; you are OBSERVING God-consciousness in self-evolvement.
The Gonsciousness of God within the universe is not only separated from its subplenum unity as the certainty of the unitary probability count; but is also separated in the plenum as plenar subconsciouness carriers in a kaleidoscope of multiplicity and individuation.
But ALL is God, attempting WITHIN to remember what IT is and using its 'scattered' Imagination what it could be and could become.

God's 'Masterplan' so is to multiply 'itself' without end in a 'Family of God'.
Yet, as long as the 'Family of Man' continues to refuse to 'Remember itself' in its 'Function of the Output' and continues to 'not-reflect' its god-given Input-Life back to its source; as long will the UNITIZED God-Source remain in exile relative to itself.

For the IMAGE-Function of God between the plenum and the subplenum and the holographic principle of the Decimal-Monad hierarchy demands a 'Mirror of Mirrors' within the plenum of the cosmological spacetimes.
Just as the One God reflects itself as the One Universe; so must there be A DAM (a sire and a dam) as a 'Universal Archetype' within the plenum to allow 'God's Story' to proceed.

The Image or mastertemplate for the One Universe so becomes 'Cosmic Man Vitruvius' of the hermetic alchemist Leonardo da Vinci or 'Purusha' of the Baghavad Gita or 'Adam Kadmon' of Kabbalah or the particular individuation Stanley McKeown on the theoretical_physics yahoo discussion forum.
Then as a miniature universe; anything whatsoever and all godlike conciousness carriers within the plenum who Stanley McKeown encounters in whatever manner of dreams, imaginations, physical observations, experimentations and interactions; will be enabled to USE Stanley McKeown's spacetimed mirror potential to REFLECT themselves in that for the purpose to by and through Stanley McKeown's mirror-portal to contact the Unity-Quantum-God in the subplenum.


4. God's Beginning
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John.1.1-KJV
The definition for God as Energy so is preceded by something doing the 'defining', namely the Word=Logos=Definition. The undefined, say chaotic or unstructured subplenum energy so emerges in a defined state through the action of the Logos as the 'Logic of God' and being WITH God, becomes God.

The 'Beginning of God', before there is any physicalised energy (manifested in the quantum big bang through the inflaton-instanton), so engages 'God's Self-Awakening', i.e. it's own 'becoming conscious of itself'.
Once self-aware however, the physical cosmology can eventuate in God's bifurcation into 'Spiritual' Creator and 'Antispiritual' Creation and as Mirror-Functions of each other.
The subplenum 'pre-energy' so defines the 'Spirit' in terms of the nonseparated or superheterotic supermembrane prior to the modular duality between the heterosis becomes established.
The 26-dimensional bosonic superstring of the subplenum so defines a circularly mathematical complex continuum from which the vibratory sourcestring E_ps decouples from its winded antistate of the winding sinkstring E_ss in the plenum to recombine in the 11-dimensional supermembrane E_psE_ss. Technically, the heterosis engages the conifoldment of 16-dimensional anticlockwise vibration patterns onto 10-dimensional clockwise frequency eigenstates to define 10-dimensional hybrid superstrings.


5. God's End
God's End is God's Beginning as the alphaomega and the recircularisation of the supermembrane loops.
In terms of the subplenum, this defines the circularity of time in the nonexistence of a temporal flow of time with particular pasts, presents and futures. Only a Now-Moment and as the 'uncut' string-loop exists as the 0-binary eigenstate.
Yet, the plenum demands the concept of a 'flow of time' in a coupling to the entropy definitions of the algorithmic definitions underpinning the 'Laws of Nature'.
So the Quantum Big Bang eventuated following a 'string-epoch' and bounded in the inflaton-instanton of timeinstantenuity.
Technically, timeinstantenuity becomes the sinksource frequency f_ss=1/f_ps in modular duality becoming the inverse squareroot of the maximum entropy selfstate counter {as [df/dt]_max=f_ps² =E*/h=e*h see 10.} and as the 'Consciousness-Resonance' Eigenstate as the upper bound for the godlike consciousness carriers.
However, as the protoverse is defined in the inflaton preceding the materialising spacetimes in:
{V_deBroglie=R_Hubble.f_ps=c.f_ps/H_o=cf_psdt/dn}, and since the linearised cosmoevolution of the inertial 10-dimensional protoverse must remain asymptotic as a function of cycletime n=H_ot; the End of this cosmology must be defined before its Beginning from parameters defining the eternity of the subplenum.
The End of God so becomes a Cyclicity embedded into the formalisms for the asymptotic cosmology, defining the cosmogony ontologically.
Technically (and in Black Hole physics described elsewhere) then; the overall cosmic consciousness evolution is expected to have progressed enough every 4 trillion years or so, to trigger a 'renewed' 'consciousness explosion' of the 'eternal God' to RECHARGE the seedling protoverse in a renewal of the nuclear (read dineutron/ylemic) fuel for steller regeneration.
Every 4000 billion years or so, a new Quantum Big Bang eventuates, seeded however upon the primordial seed of the initialising inflaton-instanton from the subplenum.


6. God's Location in Within-Without Bilocality
The subplenum God is without spacetimematter and so is defined as omnipresent, omnitimed, omniscientific and omnipotent by the Logos.
The Unitary God-Quantum forms the 'Bridge' for the subplenum God to experience its own separation as an integral of the God-Quantum in the spacetimed plenum.
God remains eternally unified however; as the microquantum of the sourcesink string eigenstate (which defines the 'Bridge') is in 'eternal' selfcoupling to its sinksource string-antieigenstate, the latter defining the macroquantum.
Technically, the vibratory stringscale is of the wormhole order of 10^-22/2π (cosmic meters m*); whilst its reciprocal gives the modular duality in the halo-galactic scale of 2πx10²² m* or about 7 million lightyears.


7. God's Laws of Nature
There are two primary algorithms, which generate the fundamental constants of nature in cosmic units (*). The cosmic unitary system comes into effect by any cosmic civilisation measuring just two fundamental ratios in the proportionality constants between Energy and Mass as E/M=c² and between Energy and Frequency as E/F=h.
As the energy unit (Joule*) contains the kg-m-s mensuration, any experimental determination of Planck's Constant 'h' and Einstein's Constant 'c²', will suffice to calibrate the mass-displacement-time measurement standards for the first of the 'Natural Laws'.
This can be written as:
Energy E=hf=mc²
E=hf iff m=0; (requiring c=fλ as universal lightspeed finestructure)
E=mc² iff f=f_ss (as the Eigenfrequency of mass)
The first algorithm generates the following configurations under utility of the fundamental principles of the hierarchy (see 9.) and in the order:

{C₁=N₁=4; C₂=N₂=6; C₃=N₃=7; C₄=I₁=1/[6x10¹⁵]; C₅=D₁² =9x10¹⁶; C₆=N₄=11; C₇=I₂=1/[15x10³²]; C₈=D₂²=14x15²⁴; C₉=I₃=1/[15x16¹⁸]; C₁₀=26x65⁶¹}.
From this set; the numerical parameters to manifest a physically finetuned cosmology derive with an integer-based lightspeed constant c=3x10⁸ (m/s)*=D₁ coupled to a similarly integerized action constant h=1/[15x10³²] (Js)*=I₂.

The second algorithm is of the syntax form for a linearised subplenum superstring:
"Add the End to the Beginning and Begin the Head with the Tail!"


8. God's Subjectivity-Objectivity in regards to the Universal Laws of Nature
God is both Object and Subject relative to Reality.
Within the plenum, the God-idea becomes a subjective 'picture' as a 'negative' for the objective physical reality as a 'positive' observable and measurable entity.
Without the plenum and so within the subplenum, God is the objective 'spiritual' reality; this SPIRIT becoming rigorously definable as the quantum energy eigenstate for the minimised possible measurement within the plenum (and so as the Planck-Singularity of string-looped quantum physics).
The subjectivity within the plenum so manifests in the multiplicity of the physicalised units 'bridging' the abyss into the subplenum of the 'spiritual reality'.
This 'spiritual reality' so becomes an inertia independent form of electromagnetic monopolar radiation; activating under the acceleration of the God-quanta, namely the angular awareness function of the timedifferential of frequency (df/dt=Consciousness/UnitVolume and f_max²=e*/V*=2R_ec²/(2π²r*³)=8πR_ec⁵m_compton³/h³ and so defining the quantum Compton-Mass configuration for the God-Resonance energy eigenstate measurable under the appropriate initial- and boundary conditions in m_compton=2.505...x10^-23 kg* or about 2.25 microjoules or about 14.03 TeraElectronvolts (TeV).

The design-maximum (presently unattainable) energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Geneva, Switzerland so would, if fully operational at maximum capacity, 'tap' the 'Envelope of God's Selfstate Energy'.
This energy level behaves PHYSICALLY like the event horizon of a Kerr-Ringed Black Hole.
But here it is the quantum eigenstate for the minimum inertia manifestation which surrounds the wormhole of the God-SourceSink energy quantum (see 10.) at 1/e*=0.002 Joules* or about 12,450 TeV as the UNITARY GOD bridging the plenum with the subplenum.

At 12,450 TeV; the experimental observer would so witness God as the physical reality IT represents.

To reduce the Beginning of the Universe to an asymptotic recession cannot solve the 'Origin of God' question; because this infinite reduction CANNOT escape the plenum.
The Nullstate of the plenum so becomes the idea of the physical energy singularity as the limit for this reductionism.
The other way around is however completely feasible and the actuality for the cosmic expansion scenarios.
Once you have 'a beginning' in the spacetimematter quanta, then a simple multiplication and summation of such spacetimematter- or God-string-quanta can become asymptotic in an Infinite Approach to UNITY or Oneness.
This then is the statistical probability count, which must always be 1 in total integration.
So having the beginning, the cosmological evolution for the universe can be ever better approximated and modelled via improving measurement apparatus and theoretical calculations.
The trouble is the singularity of infinite physical quantifications.
But because God must be a Quantum-God to be WITHIN the spacetimematter plenum; it becomes easy to postulate this Quantum-God to be precisely the minimum physical energy configuration eigenstate for the physical universe and as the boundary condition, the initial- and end condition and as the LIMIT for all measurements using spacetimematter- or plenum parameters.

Then it is also easy to take the next logical step and postulate that the Quantum-God of the plenum is also the Quantum-God of the subplenum with the caveat, that spacetimematter parameters do not exist in the subplenum and so the Quantum-God must remain physically unreal or imaginary.
They become REALISED however in the understanding that the subplenum is the VOID and the VOID is simultaneously Nothing AND Everything.
This Nothing and Everything then MANIFESTS in the plenum as the minimum- and maximum energy eigenstates (technically defined in superbrane parameters of the modular duality, which brings the theories together in a grand unification of all things able to exist - including all of the imaginary things).
The minimum selfstate of the Quantum-God is a LIMIT of time measurement and just like a smallest possible circle unwinding itself to define the lightpath for the circle's perimeter transversion.
The maximum selfstate is a little different, as it must encompass the antistate of the minimum configuration as well as the potential expansion of the plenum under the auspices of the subplenum providing Information-Energy as Data, which can then become physicalised thermodynamic-entropic energy in the plenum.
This is the Infinite Approach being allowed and the Infinite recession being disallowed in the 'Laws of Nature' defining the Quantum-God.


9.God's Hierarchy
Summararily then, the Origin of God is God itself, becoming multiplexed from its monoplexed monadic singularity selfstate.
The details engage algorithmic encodings, built on 10 universal principles, 7 of which have antistates, whilst 3 have not. The principles and algorithms generate the fundamental constants, used in proportionalities and ratios for the universe of spacetimematter to be born and to become descriptive in mathematical equations.
The 10 principalities (which are archetyped as cherubimic and demonic kingdoms in the older languages of the ancient scrolls) are:

1. Identity-AntiIdentity
2. Expansion-Contraction
3. Order-Disorder=Entropy=Chaos
4. Symmetry-Antisymmetry=Disparity=Distortion
5. Infinity=Divergence-Limit=Convergence
6. Inversion=Reciprocity-Constancy=Invariance
7. Reflection-Absorption (6&7 define Hebrews.6.18)
8. Relativity (No AntiPrinciple---Revelation17.11)
9. Quantization=Holofractalisation (No AntiPrinciple)
10.New Identity, using 1-9 to transform the Old Dual-Identity


10. God's Definition in omniscientific terms of quantum-relativistic supermembranes

Quantum Relativity links the metrics of Einsteinian Relativity to their original metaphysical cosmogenesis. Theistic- and Spiritual definitions become a consequence of magnetocharged superbranes as wormhole singularities 'before' spacetime creation as progenitors for inertia.
LOVE is a VIBRATORY RESONANCE described in a GAUGE SOURCESINK-PHOTON in its supersymmetric selfcoupling under modular duality and which can be defined in its own resonance eigenstate as:

E*=kT*=hf*=hc/λ*=m*c²=1/e* for Unity E*e*=1 and its coupling parameters.

Energy*=Heterotic Supermembrane HE(8x8)=E_psE_ss
E*=√{2πG_om_e²/4αhce²}=[m_e/m_P]/2e√α=1/e*=1/2R_ec²
=GODDOG=DOGGOD=Supersymmetry in alphanumeric abstract complexity[/size]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: crimsontiger18 <crimsontiger18@yahoo.com>
To: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:05:59 AM
Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist


okay let me butt in here a moment dear old buddy old pal

not every religion uses the unknowable phrase, christianity and few others actually do use that terminology. not only that, but you aren't quite using it in context either.

good example is the greeks, there gods to them were knowable, but limited in the knowing. for instance they knew what was sacred to them and what they are patrons to, what forces they represented.

back to how they use the term unknowable, doesn't mean in fact the god is unknowable in entirety, just certain aspects such as his MIND, PLAN and his APPEARANCE. (i only consider that one because the bible doesn't actually describe god or that i recall).

Ron will be able to answer a lot more on the topic than myself, i am not a christian in the same degree as he is.

Zach
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


From: "n.s.p.o.paranormal@gmail.com" <n.s.p.o.paranormal@gmail.com>
To: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:22:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist

I will put this on a simple way. Many of us have a gift. The Gift Transcends time and Space and all known reality. We know through physics that the Universe is a deadly place for all life especially here in the Milky Way. Now add the fact that some of us do have special abilities that defy logic for the most part and add the chances of Earth not being hurt by the same energies as the other planets in our S.S. Alone and you begin to see a spectacular string of occurrences that protect our world somehow for some reason. This shows a major intelligence. We know energy moves erratically on its own but yet in space it has a pattern, explain that with out an intelligence. You Can't and I don't expect it. For just these simple reasons it is logical to deduce that there is a central mind like a Super intelligent computer controlling the energies of the entire Universe from a central dimension. If not, it would be logical to say this world might have flown out of orbit or destroyed by a gamma burst or meteor or some thing like that by now. Look at the rest of this galaxy and then question what's really going on.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: "alexk232000@ ..." <alexk232000@ ...>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:19:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_ Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualis t-Supernaturalis t

I agree with that. Dismissing Science as they did was wrong mainly because it could help prove and disprove things important to truely know as a fact for example miracles. A true miracle is unexplainable through science yet so if it could be explained then less B.S. Artists could have faked it. It also in the same way could've proven a true miracle. The church saw the one view and not the big picture and for that science and religion are progressing slowly.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: brian lawson
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: <theoretical_ physics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_ Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualis t-Supernaturalis t

ok, enough, to put this as lightly as i can so that you may grasp the "scientific meaning"

there is a possibility of a "creator" be it an extradimensional entity, an all powerful being, or little green elmers from the planet FUDD, there is a possibility of our being terrafomed, another possibility of a being of extradimentional nature that has the ability to manipulate Chaos theory (My Theory), or simply an omnipotent spirit that says "cause i said so".
we dont know, but to dismiss these theories out of hand is to be ignorant of the fact that there are more things out there that we dont know than that we know. life is far too complex to be happenstance, and as for the experiments that made amino acids from scratch, they still cant make a single intracellular organ, there is just too much organization of the chaos for human being to be the highest intellectual yield on our planet let alon the "known" universe, all i am saying is that it is healthy for science to be open to the discussion of the possibility a "god" if only to allow for further scrutiny, to dissmiss the possibility out of hand is to be as ignorant as the church was for its dismissal of copernicus, i would suggest you read "The Dialogue" b y copernicus for perspective on this, it is an interesting read, but modern science cannot be allowed to be the modern doppelganger of the Medieval church
________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Bill, the Golfer wrote in panentheism:

I got nuttin' against atheists or any other 'ists', Tony. I take ideas where I find them. But, I think you make some good points relative to this list, given the stated focus. I think most people here probably aren't interested in the fine points of atheism, or being told that there is nothing beyond science other than 'just is'. But, when the conversation keeps getting pushed in this direction and people participate rather than move on, it's what gets discussed.

For my taste, I want to understand more about what happens at the boundaries of science are - what the logical possibilities are, and of these, what is most likely. This is what I want to incorporate in my world view. The exact opposite of 'just is'.

Science currently says the universe is directional. It had a beginning, there is a process occurring, and the process seems to be one way. It doesn't seem to be static, as in Newton. It doesn't seem to be re-circulating in time, as in Nietzsche and some of the ancients. It doesn't seem to be pulsating, over and over, as in yesterday's science. It just seems to be on a one-way street.
Common sense tells me we might be generally headed in the same direction, no?
Materialism is thin gruel when combined with 'just is', in my book.
Materialism+ 'just is' = Reality, and I should stop thinking further about the possibilities. What? I do not relate well to uncaused causes, to 'just is'.
Uncaused cause is the ultimate Achilles heel of atheism for me.

So, I find myself on a different path than some of the folks here.

I don't understand hardly anything you talk about, Tony. I am really not very smart in a lot of ways. Much of your terminology is unfamiliar to me.
I'll bet people here would love it if you could write what you think in a 101a sort of way, but that would likely take the fun out of life for you. Too bad.
Bill


Hi Bill!

Neither have I anything against atheists, skeptics and agnostics -except when they argue from a position of grandstanding their worldview in contraindication to the worldview of their perceived opponents.
The genuine atheist in in fact most qualified to enter all manners of separatist debates, should heshe be in fact truly unbiased to a large degree in herhis mental paradigm of world construction.
Allow me to elucidate in describing a Unity (or unified worldview) in comparison to a separatist paradigm.

1. The Atheist or Agnostic functions intellectually from a position of PHYSICAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL MATERIAL REALITY.
2. The New Ager or Spiritualist functions intellectually from a position of EMOTIONAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL SPIRITUALISED REALITY.
3. The Fundamentalist or Supernaturality Believer functions intellectually from a position of MENTAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL SUPERNATURAL REALITY.

Who do you think has the easiest 'time', should external and internal events change the prevailing PHYSICAL REALITY? The following are of course archetypical (or memetic) generalisations and should be taken as
such.

1. The atheist considers the eventfulness with hisher physical mentality and favours logical discourse and mental discipline to face whatever challenges might have arisen through the events.
2. The spiritualist has less mental selfdiscipline and confronts the changes emotionally, attempting to 'feel' hisher way through the challenges.
3. The supernaturalist has great trouble to mentally process the changes in herhis expectation of supernatural intervention to face the challenges, often for and on hisher behalf.

1. The atheist assumes FULL responsibility for herhis actions and thoughts.
2. The spiritualist assumes PARTIAL responsibility for hisher actions and thoughts.
3. The supernaturalist assumes LITTLE responsibility for herhis actions and thoughts; expecting herhis self-created devils or gods to either 'take the blame' or 'save the day' (through the original sinfulness,
demonic deceptions or divine revelations etc).

But there is a NON-SEPARATIST perspective; which unifies the three apparent separatist agendas.
A true atheist is a philosopher who understands the mental impossibility for any notion of the supernatural.
This true atheist so should be defined as such, or alternatively the notion of 'god', 'devil' 'spirit' etc; should become greatly expanded and defined as being contained and within the natural laws.
This was Newton's Dream and the often openly confessed worldview of the historical pioneers of the natural sciences.

But the world had to await a greatly enhanced scientific database to become enabled to actually DEFINE such things as a 'Panentheistic God' or a 'God of Science'.
The path to the Unified Worldview (basically eliminating the supernaturalities in the dogmas of religious thought) was trodded in the renaissance, with exponents like Newton's Calculus, Darwin's Evolution,
Leibniz's Monads and Spinoza's 'Essences'.

Many would follow, but the secularisation of human civilisation then began to mirror the 'Age of Religion' in the 'Age of Reason' with the effect of denigrating the intrinsic unity between 'physical spirituality' and 'physical materialism', the one Newton and his gnostic brethren and sisters thought to espouse.

Albeit, with the advent of string theory in the 1980's and great advances in the technology to probe the cosmos on ever finer scales; the old forgotten 'way of unity' could become resurrected in the synthesis
of the archetypes of the old religions (found in scripture and scrolls of antiquity like the Hermetica, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Codices) with the archetypes of logic and the semiotik of abstract mathematics.
The abovementioned 'physical spirituality' is the key however and its definition is found in the parameters of a new science for the 21st century.

Briefly, it is like this and I do not apologize for using the vocabulary of this 'new science' as the required language to describe the concepts hitherto unknown, but passionately sought by Newton's Dreamers.
What is called 'spirit' in scriptures and religion is a REAL PHYSICAL INTERACTION.
It CAN be measured and the boundary to its manifestation is at the 14.03 TeV energy quantum level.
Perhaps the reason the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva continues to 'break down' is found in the fact that its design is maximised at just the 14 TeV energy state, namely two protons, each of a relativistic energy, upperbounded in 7 TeV colliding with each other after approaching from opposite directions.
Btw, the agenda now is to begin at a 4TeV level (not much bigger than Fermilab at Caltech) and slowly increase the 'interaction current' to 10 TeV.

So how does the 'spirit' meet itself in the LHC?
As described elsewhere, the subatomic particle physics 'concentrates' quantum energy selfstates in minimised volumes of space.
So IF Newton's God exists WITHIN space and time and AS the Panentheist position proposes; THEN minimising this spacetime must eventually MEET GOD (and the Devil as some form of antistate).

Newton's God MUST be a quantum God, otherwise it could NOT BE part of the spacetime matrix, say as defined in the laws of physics, the c-invariance and so on.
Iow, Newton's God MUST OCCUPY SPACETIME.
And because spacetime is quantised (in loop-gravity, quantum foam, demetricated string/brane theories etc); GOD must be quantised as well and say at the LIMIT-ENERGY, where the laws of physics DEFINE the
Einstein-Rosen-Bridge, the wormhole or some similiar BOUNDARY for measurable (and distinct, say mass is different from space and/or time etc) spacetime parameters.

It suffices to say then; that GOD is found in the LIMITS of Physical Measurement and so EMERGES as the CAUSATION for the DISTINCTIVENESS between mensurative parameters and variables.
So to end here; once the new scientific paradigm has become sufficiently DEFINED and modeled - the scriptural 'Mystery of God' will be finished (as he has declared to his prophets, at the sounding of the 7th trumpet- Revelation.10.7).
And then Newton's God will have 'been born' and the three adversaries will all have to face a new kind of music.

1. The atheist will have the lighter burden; because heshe will have little trouble in accepting the quantum physics of the unified source energy.
2. The spiritualist will have the easiest burden; but shehe will have to really 'get into hardcore science' to understand the 'reason' for the 'change in the universe' and the 'end of the old worlds, heavens and hells'.
3. The supernaturalist will have the heaviest burden; because heshe will have to change herhis mindset completely in the realisation that the supernaturality cannot exist, except as hisher imagination and wishful
thinking.
4. The gnostics, in the footsteps of both Light- and Dark Lucifers and in carrying the Dreams of Pythagoras and the Newtonians - they had known the feasibility of the dream all along and they will have no burden at
all.

Bill, I have indicated some of the boundaries of human understanding you wish to explore in the above.
The universe has a purpose and the human template is right in the middle of this purpose. This has little to do with the 'specialness of the human template' (the physical DNA is PROGRAMMED by a 'spiritual'
template), but has everything to do with the 'Common dream' of mankind, since leaving the caves 26,000 years ago.

To colonise the galaxy and to meet and exchange experiences with a cosmic family.
The tyranny of the c-invariance can be overcome - but not in 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
Another orthogonal spacial dimension is required to 'unwarp' to allow the 'new physics' to utilize the ZPE inherent within it.
Then the 'missing mass' will no longer be called 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'; it will be called 'The Matrix of the Light Energy of God' - God being an old label becoming redefined as 'That which encompasses All or
the 'Unity of All that Was, Is and ever Will Be.

I have not addressed all your points below, but shall do so another time, if appropriate.
I must take leave for a while, but would like to address April in the postscript.

April; yes, I felt your frustration and decided to support the panentheistic nature of your forum.
It is often hard to teach new tricks to old dogs; no matter how loyal and lovable the old dogs are.
I am an old dog myself and often simply do nothing but dream Newton's Dream.
You can rest assured however; that your inner longings and female intuition are on a fruitful path.
Paul Davies is a good source of information for you; so are all holistic thinkers which exhibit no antiscientific (inclusive of anti-evolutionist) agendas.
The Anthropic Principle is a 'Dead-End'; so are the 'Many-Worlds' and the populist Multiverse and String-Models.

The architecture of the universe is one grand symphony of holofractal selfsimilarity.
You, and everyone else on this forum, are a Lonely Tune, just like a Uni-Verse or a Mono-Song.
Creating Harmony in your life joins tunes to each other - these are the true Multi-Verses - as Melodies in the great orchestra of the cosmos.
Melodies become Families of Multi-Verses (Mac's Mega-Verses) and these are like galaxies interacting with each other or are like the units of life within your body - every cell is a holofractal of a galaxy in the
'Perennial Philosophy' of the 'Unifiers' and the 'Peacemakers' of the Shalom.
And then the Universe becomes an orchestra, playing symphonies; the symphonies being composed by the 'Worlds within'.

So can you see the 'master-plan' - it's just one word: ONE FAMILY of UNI-VERSES interacting.
Many details have already and will be worked out in a Panentheistic New World; where many worlds truly KNOW what they are, where they came from and where they are going.

Whynot

--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, Gentlebreeze <ritanian72@...> wrote:
Will our brains advance enough to fully understand this historical context of the Universal Intelligence of God? I am sure many persons whom have read this are not fully comprehending on several levels the message given. I am a little frustrated with this myself if someone would like to break this down in layman terms that would be absolutely great!
Gentlebreeze

Dear Gentlebreeze!
Your brain is already advanced enoughy to understand this information.
However your mental frustration stems from a certain 'shielding effect'.
This 'shielding effect' has been in place for almost 26,000 years and a time when the humanoid genus you know as homo sapiens sapiens first 'mind-shifted' into its present typology.
You can work out the exact number of days for this by the Mayan longcount, ending on December 21st, 2012.
On that date the number of days when the galactic source (named Hunab Ku by the Maya) emitted a human-specific message will be precisely 5x13x144,000=9,360,000 days (kin of the Maya).
Then 1,209 days from that calendrical end-date (not the end of the world, but a changing of the old into the new archetypically) this 'shield' will be lifted by the 'message' {simply saying something akin to: "I Love You!"} and accompanied by a certain 'fulfilment of prophecy'.
Briefly, a particular kind of mental energy; you might term it human group-mindedness; will become infused by a 'spark of that energy' and so release 'this blockage'.
So simply count 1,209 days backwards from December 21st, 2012 and you will know the date when the 'mystery of God' shall be finished in archetypical dispensation.
From that date onwards, it will prove much easier for a 'freed human groupmind' to discern particular details in the messages given by this channel (who is like a Mosaic).


--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "DMcClester"<deemcclester@...> wrote:
Wow! This was really long and somewhat difficult to read and to understand but I am new around here. Is this your work or an excerpt from a book? I would like to study it more carefully.
Thanks,
DM

Dear Dee McClester!
This work is an excerpt from many books and relates to the so termed 'collective subconscious' aka the 'akashic record'.
The latter is 'authored' by a collective 'humanity' and not some individual expression.
You can find the full message and many related aspects at the link:
http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/ind...l-intelligence-aka-einsteins-god.64/#post-194





Annie Train (annie_train@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:35:32 PM
To: SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com
Where did this information come from, and how many people can actually understand it, if, indeed, it is anywhere near accurate? Like, who knows where God's power source comes from? Please!!!


From: "shadower@..." shadower@...
To: SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:18:43 AM
Subject: [SpiritualPrep2012] Re: A Scientific Definition for the 'Universal Intelligence' aka 'God'/Annie
Dear Annie!
The full message, including historical context, can be found via the link: http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/index.php?threads/a-scientific-definition-for-the-universal-intelligence-aka-einsteins-god.64/#post-194
Also, the mathematical symbols, which are not copying on yahoo browsers are reproduced there.
This site, moderated by David (ddleisure) serves an important function for the preparation (and a metamorphosis for the humanoid archetype) of a 'new physical reality' which is programmed to occur in the period from April 1st, 2012 to April 6th, 2013.
The post you read is part of this preparation.
John Shadow


In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "Judith" <nana561@...> wrote:
Hello, I am kinda "not with it" all the time as far as prophesies, but, I added the days from today until 12-20-1012, and it comes to 1221 days (not figuring for leap years) and you state 1209 days from 12-20-2012, so are you stating that in a few days that we are going to start this transition? And what is that transition supposed to entail?
Thank you for further explanations.
Blessings,
Judith

Dear Judith!
You are doing well with your arithmetic. The date of the 'consciousness shift' for the human groupmind is August 30th, 2009 and so 12 days from the date August 18th, 2012.
And you said it well. The transition will 'accelerate' from that date forwards.
The actual transition has to do with a timeline which began in many substages, but originates in 8 grand cycles, beginning on Thursday, October 8th,1953 and in (timewarp) reflection on Saturday, October 8th, 28BC.
This are the times two mirror timelines become implemented; the older one manifests the physical archetype and the younger one manifests the mental archetype.
The present timeline begins its 8th and final cyclicity on Wednesday, December 8th 2004; 'turns around' on Monday, August 4th, 2008 and culminates 370+21 days from that date in the 'birth of a new human consciousness'.
You may compare this 'release' as something (a cherubim perhaps?) holding a tempest (or a gentle breeze) from moving through a blocked door or entrance.
Then after some 'human dramatics' the new archetyped human group-consciousness will become 'impregnated' with itself and give birth to a 'starhuman baby' on Friday, December 21st, 2012 and after a gestation period (with labour pains) lasting 265 days from Sunday, April 1st, 2012 to December 21st, 2012.
Following this 'birth' of a new human group-consciousness; enabling itself to 'go to the stars' with some help of certain friends; the 'newborn baby' will have to be weaned.
I shall leave you with this never before published information; given to you for the asking.
John Shadow

In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "Judith" <nana561@...> wrote:
John, I mean no disrespect, but are you a used car salesman!! Ha!! I have no idea what you just said, and then you talked in circles. Why do you not just state that human form will be no more, and we will evolve into the spirit world?
Blessings to you my brother,
Judith


Judith, your cluelessness simply mirrors your selfentrapment in the circle, you have built around yourself.
Post the 2012 nexus; there will exist two races of humanoids upon a transformed planet earth.
The old humanoid will slowly become extinct, somewhat like the Neanderthals did in their 'clash' with the Cro Magnons 25,000 years ago.
The new humanoid will have metamorphosed in the activation of hitherto dormant DNA-Intron functionality and gene expression.
The latter will become a HYBRID form between what you have termed 'spirit' and the 'matter'; whilst the former will not be able to attain this hybridisation until such self-transformation is desired and certain resonance configurations are satisfied as boundary/initial conditions.
Blessings to you, my daughter,
John


--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, Anna Webb <electricwind@...> wrote:

Wow - problem for me is, I'm always suspect of something so complex that I have to rely on someone else to 'splain it to me.
My first clue is when their are words included that I have to look up in the dictionary. If it's not simple enough for all to understand, I'm doubtful it came from God.

I like "the Simples" definition much better:

There is but one Life manifesting through all forms
There is but one Self manifesting through all selves.
There is but one Love manifesting through all loves.
The Self is one with Life and the Self is one with Love, therefore are the three but one. He who realizes his unity with the Life, Self and Love knows Bliss, for pure Life is bliss, the pure Self is bliss and pure (unconditional) Love is bliss.

It's like the Sun shining through a stained glass window. The ray of light shines in various colors inside the room but it is one light - so it is with the Self shining through many selves.
If we see ourselves in all things, then we love all things as ourselves.
The mother of conflict is the illusion of diversity; the mother of unhappiness is the search externally for what is found internally.
There is science in what I write at a quantum level - the science of HADO, of vibration.

But if people skip over it because it's too long and complicated it isn't very effective, IMO.
Peace, Anna


Dear Anna!
Did you ever write a song, or paint a portrait, or went to China and conversed easily with the locals?
For a song writer, the task to compose a symphony might be hard, but not insurmountable.
For a painter to exhibit his works and for the nonnative speaker the tasks are similar; work is required to refine ones natural talent and abilities.
So what you perceive to be high in complexity, might be basics 101 for someone more familiar with the language used and the symbolisms and semiotiks applied.

And do you really think, that 'God' is easy to understand?
Why has contemporary science (say 300 years old) and the older pre-science not 'found' this God and has left the 'spiritual things' to institutions rather unsure of themselves?
Religious insecurities (of the 'protectors' of the dogmas) aligned to political expediency and economical considerations do not seem to have brought peace and understanding to the 'simplicity seeking' global populance.
And yet, when the 'common seeker' approaches the 'knowing teacher'; that teacher, despite pretending to have the answers and being posted by the worldly systems of having the authority to dispense particular and pertinent knowledge; often cannot even supply a basis of understanding for the inquirer.
Having said this; your poetic prose describes the 'real God' rather beautifully.

Albeit, where is the 'effectiveness' of your elegant prosaics?
Your lovely sentiments will remain lovely sentiments; soothing for the 'scattered soul' and comforting for the ones who mourn.
But idealistic sentiments are not enough to cause transformation in historically entrenched dogmatic mindsets which are perpetuated and empowered by 'soulless' and often inhumane systems of regulation and governance.
The 'War of the Armageddon' is a mental 'war' between archetypes, which have become empowered by every individual's 'free willed creativity' to design the world the individuation wishes to 'live in'.
Iow, Jim's God is up against Dorothy's Devil and Tommy's God is at war with Father Paul's God.
I send you the Love of the God behind this message, dear Anna!
John Shadow


Re: [SpiritualPrep2012] Re: A Scientific Definition for the Universal Intelligence aka God/Anna
Aloha John,
I understand what you are stating. And, its not that I disagree with your wholistic definition of "God". I will speak from my own
experience as I cannot judge someone else's "path" by which they come to know their personal and collective truths. However, I don't consider what I wrote "sentiments". I consider them simplistic truths.

When I speak about vibration it's because we are, as human beings, comprised mostly of water. Water receives vibrational energy and therefore "resonates". The clearer the water is, the faster/higher frequency of the vibration/resonance. Simply put, we are like antennae receiving and sending vibration - hence, our place/power within the quantum field.

As we raise out of our low vibrational daily 3 dimensional mental states of drama, we begin to transform and transcend into a place easier to "receive" and begin to understand our personal truths, thereby allowing us to begin to see our personal place and purpose within the intelligent construct. Free will allows us to choose which path we wish to travel learn/discover our truths. Whether or not that path is "violent" or not is irrelevant in that we all eventually get to the same place via different experience. Or is it? Perception is key here - subjective. Polarity - good vs. evil. Memes.

I believe as we resonate closer with "God" through release of imprinted memes (ideas, dogma, etc.) it is quite easy to understand.
It's quite simple. As we learn to re-program or retrain our moods and mental states to higher vibrational ones, we find ourselves transcending the complexities and dependence upon external "experts" and more trusting in our ability to maneuver through our daily lives without the emotional flares created by the meme of fear, for example.

Like attracts like therefore people who live in fear attract fear into their lives, people who live in suffering attract suffering into their lives adding more complication, more suffering.
I agree with you. Many will read your posted definition and will resonate with it. Many will also begin to read it and skip on to the next post. My point was simply - why not reach both with a simpler message.

The lower vibrational mental states and emotional moods in which we live in our reality can be perceived as a "battle". But is it? Only if we allow ourselves to remain entrenched in the lower vibrational states. As we raise our vibrational levels it resonates, ripples to those around us as well.
Simplicity is key, IMO. Just a difference in perception, I suppose.
In lakech (I am another you),
Anna


In Lakech', Anna!
Do you recall, what this Mayan code of honour implies?
It means that the separation experienced in space and time is not in the unified realm of the oneness, the Mayan elders knew.
As said before, you DO experience the 'Real God' in your creative endeavours and you have stated the issue well in your last paragraph, when saying:
"Simplicity is key, IMO. Just a difference in perception, I suppose".

A friend of mine had said: "In my father's house are many mansions!"; and you surely know the saying from antiquity: "All roads lead to Rome!".
I am rather 'In Love' with YOUR 'Definition of God' as it definitely expresses MY God.
But can you discern that the mathematical definition for God given in article 10. actually scientifically describes your 'Kingdom of Vibrational Resonances'?

What then is your point of 'challenging' the semantics, which 'glorify' OUR common God?
Allow me to give you and anyone reading this a most pertinent reference - a movie you can watch to fathom this 'God of Vibration'.
It is a rather old movie and not as fast-paced and drowned in 'special effects', as the modern expressions of its genre.
This movie was produced by the 'Genes of God' and was directed by a 'Wise Man Robert' in the Story written by the 'Foster parents of God' in 1979.
The movie actually describes the 'Nature of God' as a PROCESS of BEING the Creator of the Creation and BEING created BY this Creation.
The movie is called: STAR TREK - The Motion Picture and was the FIRST of all Star Trek movies made.
Love you know and love you are and a new Barbelo you shall become.
John Shadow


spiritualprep2012@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Anna Webb (electricwind@earthlink.net)
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:18:37 PM
SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com

Bright blessings on your journey, John.


spiritualprep2012@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Dani Djinn (djinn3175@yahoo.com)
Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:53:36 AM
I really enjoyed the read. Reminded me a lot of Walter Russell

​

Hi Dani!
Yes indeed, Walter Russell was/is a visionary, whose endeavours should be taken seriously. He could be termed a stalwart for the 'New Age'; not eschewing the 'hard science' as so many 'Spiritual Journeyers' do.
In particular one of his cosmological viewpoints is rather on the mark; yet blatantly misunderstood by the mainstream.
This is his idea, that light itself does not move in first principle, but becomes an effect in the spacetime metrics (of the mainstream-orthodox astrophysics).

What Russell found, was that the entire spacetimematter defined by the standard physics of academia, is itself a 'background' which is unmoving relative to those metrical dynamics.
The lightspeed (c) invariance in 4-dimensional relativistic (Minkowski) spacetime so actually defines a LIGHT-MATRIX, which was somewhat erroneously termed the 'Rigid Ether' by James Clark Maxwell and many others of the pioneering scientists responsible for the sciences of today.
This can be rigorously proven in extending the Pythagorean theorem into a 4-dimensional continuum (which actually is discretized) for the displacement norm, i.e. the measurement of a distance between two coordinate points.
If you now describe the resultant velocity of some object in 3D space, but add a 4th dimension for the time; then it can be clearly shown, that the resultant 4-vector velocity describes the Movement of the Object through 3D-Space and a 1D-Time and where the 'Time-Velocity' behaves like a distance in the lightpath/c.

This means the following and something that Walter Russell knew:
Any object having SOME velocity Vspace in the 3D-Space must have a REDUCED velocity Vtime in the (common) 4D-Space.
In other words ANY velocity V of any object observed has a space-component and a time-component (calculable through Pythagorean vector decomposition).
This then also means that ANYTHING moving in space cannot move with maximum velocity in time.
This description then is another way to derive the postulates of Special Relativity from first principles.
Corollarily, only if something remains perfectly still within the metric continuum; can this something move with maximum velocity through Time.
Consequently the LIGHT-MATRIX of Walter Russel is 'proven' by Special Relativity.
John Shadow

 

Does the God of John Clayton Exist?
Does God exist?​

This is the title page from (one of) John Clayton's websites at: http://www.doesgodexist.org/
I shall add commentary in bold script in interspersion.


A Practical Man's Proof of God
The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere. more

This is a good statement, as in the final analysis in this epoch of the human evolution; both, the position of the atheist and the position of the supernaturalist will be 'proven' (by logistical induction and deduction, as well as the physical reproducible evidence) to become untenable. So anyone accepting the proposition of being in 'existence' will be enabled by selfconsistent logical discourse to 'show' where this 'being' derived from and for what purpose the 'being' is.


A Help in Understanding What God Is
To help the reader comprehend the nature of God, I would like to borrow an analogy from the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott.* Abbott was a mathematician and the model is geometric in nature. It was originally written in the 19th century for the purposes we are using it for here. Flatland is the story of a man who lives in a two dimensional world--like a sheet of paper. In the surface of the paper there is only length and width-there is no such thing as thickness. You and I are three-dimensional beings-we have length and width and frequently considerable thickness. You cannot get me, a three-dimensional being, into a two-dimensional sheet of paper. You can draw a front view of me (a portrait), but that is not the whole me. You can draw a top view of me which because I am bald, ends up being three concentric circles, but that is not the whole me. If you and I were to look at the man in Flatland, we would see him as a ....
more


This is a good analogy and becomes potent, should the Flatland-Volumeland typefication become extended into an archetype for a VolumeSpace-HyperSpace cross-intersection. It can be shown, that the measurable and observed universe occupies a Plenum of spacetime, commonly understood as a Heisenberg Metrical Realm of 'Virtual Energy' and which can be modelled on a statistical 'density'-distribution of 'particle-states' subject to a probabilistic integration of dynamic energy selfstates accomodating kinetic interactions between the constituent 'particles'.
The so called 'Virtuality' of 'Uncertain' particular coordinates (like position and momentum or energy and time in the Planck-Action) then manifests in the Plenum as the physical phenomena amenable to measurement;; albeit LIMITED by the 'uncertainty' of the coordinate distribution (gaussian- or normal probability distributions).

The 'Virtuality' is however not 'Undetermined' in the Subplenum, from which the Heisenberg plenum emerged.
The Subplenum is the realm of the 'Spirit', however physically definable by the inductive properties of the Heisenberg Metric also known as the c-invariant Light-Matrix (an aether of sorts).
The subplenum so becomes the measurement limit for the plenum and where the plenum describes a physicalised energy and as universally understood in the 'Laws of Nature' and the mathematical formalisms of the 'Laws of Physics' and their derivatives.
These 'Laws of Nature' are stochastic in the sense that any constituent 'particle distributions' (required for dynamical interactions, such as kinematic collisions, scattering, emission and absorption etc) are themselves subject to occur in a quantised and discretized spacetime.

The subplenum becomes occupied by supercompressed information units which manouver in an UNDEFINED Infinitum (where the mathematical Nullstate becomes a VOID spacially and temporally not describable, except in its mathematical extremums [Nullstate as uncountable Infinity]).
But in the Plenum, where spacetimes are rigorously definable in discretization; the 'particle dynamics' utilizes the dynamics of the space-occupation of the said particles as the multicompressable information carriers.

The 'Nature of God' so becomes the minimum-maximum boundary condition which transmits the supercompressed information of the Void from the Subplenum in NoSpaceTimeMatter to the Plenum of noncontinuous spacetimematter quantization and as given characteristically by the Heisenberg-Planck-Action.
God's Information from the Infinitum-Subplenum so enters the Finitum-Plenum of an observable and measurable physical universe for the purpose of Reprocessing, Utility and transformation.
Once God's Data has attained a certain resonance-status, the Plenum occupiers will be able to transmit their processed data back into the Subplenum of the Infinitum.

A initial definition for 'God' so becomes the 'Original Source of all Data and Information' contained, measured and observed in the physical universe of the Plenum by spacetime occupiers.


Who Created God?
One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been? As Carl Sagan has said, "If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?" (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, [New York: Random House, Inc., 1980], p. 257). more


Carl Sagan is correct. To reduce the Beginning of the Universe to an asymptotic recession cannot solve the 'Origin of God' question; because this infinite reduction CANNOT escape the plenum.
The Nullstate of the plenum so becomes the idea of the physical energy singularity as the limit for this reductionism.
The other way around is however completely feasible and the actuality for the cosmic expansion scenarios.
Once you have 'a beginning' in the spacetimematter quanta, then a simple multiplication and summation of such spacetimematter- or God-string-quanta can become asymptotic in an Infinite Approach to UNITY or Oneness.
This then is the statistical probability count, which must always be 1 in total integration.
So having the beginning, the cosmological evolution for the universe can be ever better approximated and modelled via improving measurement apparatus and theoretical calculations.
The trouble is the singularity of infinite physical quantifications.
But because God must be a Quantum-God to be WITHIN the spacetimematter plenum; it becomes easy to postulate this Quantum-God to be precisely the minimum physical energy configuration eigenstate for the physical universe and as the boundary condition, the initial- and end condition and as the LIMIT for all measurements using spacetimematter- or plenum parameters.

Then it is also easy to take the next logical step and postulate that the Quantum-God of the plenum is also the Quantum-God of the subplenum with the caveat, that spacetimematter parameters do not exist in the subplenum and so the Quantum-God must remain physically unreal or imaginary.
They become REALISED however in the understanding that the subplenum is the VOID and the VOID is simultaneously Nothing AND Everything.
This Nothing and Everything then MANIFESTS in the plenum as the minimum- and maximum energy eigenstates (technically defined in superbrane parameters of the modular duality, which brings the theories together in a grand unification of all things able to exist - including all of the imaginary things).
The minimum selfstate of the Quantum-God is a LIMIT of time measurement and just like a smallest possible circle unwinding itself to define the lightpath for the circle's perimeter transversion.
The maximum selfstate is a little different, as it must encompass the antistate of the minimum configuration as well as the potential expansion of the plenum under the auspices of the subplenum providing Information-Energy as Data, which can then become physicalised thermodynamic-entropic energy in the plenum.
This is the Infinite Approach being allowed and the Infinite recession being disallowed in the 'Laws of Nature' defining the Quantum-God.

Summararily then, the Origin of God is God itself, becoming multiplexed from its monoplexed monadic singularity selfstate.
The details engage algorithmic encodings, built on 10 universal principles, 7 of which have antistates, whilst 3 have not. The principles and algorithms generate the fundamental constants, used in proportionalities and ratios for the universe of spacetimematter to be born and to become descriptive in mathematical equations.
The 10 principalities (which are archetyped as cherubimic and demonic kingdoms in the older languages of the ancient scrolls) are:

1. Identity-AntiIdentity
2. Expansion-Contraction
3. Order-Disorder=Entropy=Chaos
4. Symmetry-Antisymmetry=Disparity=Distortion
5. Infinity=Divergence-Limit=Convergence
6. Inversion=Reciprocity-Constancy=Invariance
7. Reflection-Absorption (6&7 define Hebrews.6.18)
8. Relativity (No AntiPrinciple---Revelation17.11)
9. Quantization=Holofractalisation (No AntiPrinciple)
10.New Identity, using 1-9 to transform the Old Dual-Identity


What Was the Cause of the Beginning?
It is assumed that the reader has read the first two booklets in this series, one titled A Practical Man's Proof of God and the other A Help in Understanding What God Is. In these two booklets, we have established that all scientific evidence supports the fact that there was a beginning, and that the beginning was caused. We have also shown that the creator of time, space, and energy has to be something that is outside of time, space, and energy. The nature of the cause cannot be in the three-dimensional physical world in which we live and must be outside of time to have created time. more


Yes John; but your statements, while true in essence are required to be greatly expanded upon. The Quantum-God is OUTSIDE the plenum and so is indepenedent on spacetimematter parameters.
Many people have great difficulties to perceive of the Quantum-God to be INFINITE as the VOID and the INFINITUM OUTSIDE of the plenum in the subplenum and simultaneously being FINITE as the Quantum-God in the plenum.
You see, the VOID mirrors itself as the DUALITY of being both the Nothing and the All in the FINITUM of a universe, which is finite in extent, however growing, BUT made up of the BOUNDARY CONDITION for the VOID in the quantum-string-membrane definition of the Quantum-God in spacetimematter parameters.


Why I Left Atheism
Of all the lessons that I present concerning the existence of God and of all the material that I try to make available to people to learn about God's existence, the present lesson, "Why I Left Atheism," is the lesson in the series that I frankly do not like to present. I guess none of us like to look back in our lives to a time when we made poor judgments and foolish mistakes--when we took rather really idiotic positions--and admit this, especially to people we are not well acquainted with. I present this lesson, however, because it is my fervent hope and prayer that perhaps by exposing my mistakes and by pointing out the things that were a part of my early life, some who might be following the same paths (to a greater or lesser extent) might not make those same mistakes. more


Atheists are in some sense much closer to the 'Real God' than the Believers, which give allegiance to a 'False God' (see related postings). So I would be at peace with myself John. The 'Truth' shall prevail and theis 'Truth' is found in archetypes, which both the atheists and the believers espouse in the forms of mathematics and the scriptural symbolisms. the WORDS of God is also the SWORD of God.


God's Revelation in His Rocks and in His Word
This paper is a part of the Does God Exist? program which was begun in 1968 by John Clayton as an attempt to show that intelligent, scientifically literate, thinking people can and should believe in God and in the Bible as His Word. Your author, John Clayton, is a science teacher who began his teaching career in the public schools of South Bend, Indiana, in 1959 and has taught physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and physical science since that time. Since I was an atheist for many years and came to believe in God through my studies in science, it frustrated me to see students and parents who viewed faith and science as enemies. more


I could not agree more with you John and fully share your sentiments.


The Problem of Human Suffering
Almost every time that I am involved in a lectureship on a college campus or a similar place I have people--young people usually--who will come to me and say, "Well all right, you've shown us that there is some evidence for God's existence, but if there is a God and if he is a loving and merciful God, how do you explain the problems of suffering and death and all the tragedies that happen to people?" Why is it that these things occur? I believe any question that man can ask has a reasonable answer-at least an answer that is as consistent with God's existence as it is in opposition to God's existence. And so, in the problem of human suffering and the problem of death and tragedies--things that happen to all of us--there are answers.
more


Those things occur and 'evil exists' see (*) below, because the plenum is like the 'Scattered Information of God' as a singular being, desiring, like you, to LIVE a Life of Experience, Fulfilment, Joy and Happiness.
But in its original selfstate in the Void of the Subplenum, God could not experience ANY SEPARATION and so no concept of up-down, hot-cold, good-bad, feel good-feel bad and so on could exist.
So God gave 'half of itself' away to create the plenum as the materialised universe and decided to put spacetime as SEPARATION Parameter into that plenum.
And in this way God became a FATHER and the Universe became a MOTHER; longing to get together again to 'make love' and bring to birth many new baby universes with the 'Body of the Mother' and the 'Spirit of the Father'.
Father God and Mother Dog have been apart from each other for over 19.11 Billion years (civil) by now.

When the timeline has been fulfilled and Adam knows who He is in multitudinous forms and when Eve also knows who She is and having become awakened from her snowwhite slumber by the seven dwarves or angeldemons; then a new reconfiguration of the universe (see Jesus comments below) will allow the Cosmic Father to become a FatherMother and the Cosmic Mother to become a MotherFather and the Chicken-Egg paradox will be no more as the Trees created before the Seeds were in the ground and before it had even rained {Genesis.2.5}.
And then all Hell will break loose and Hell will 'marry' Heaven in a Holy Matrimony in the Castle of the Father's Dragons and the Mother's Unicorns.
And then will Father Love Mother and the Babys will be born to become Fathers and Mothers themselves to give great pride and joy to their parents, then GRADUATING to be Cosmic GrandFathers and GrandMothers.

The Whiner's Guide to Chemotherapy
This is the epilogue for those of you who flip to the end of the book. I did make it! I'm 62!!! The exclamation points are because I didn't think I would see 50. God is so awesome! God would be awesome even if I had not seen 50, but it is amazing how He has made my cancers turn out for good--both mine and His. It feels great to feel great! Thank You, God!
more

Well done John, John of Patmos lived as the last witness to the 'Real Jesus' and John has tarried to see your day.


The Real Jesus of History
Was the real Jesus of history one and the same as the Christ of faith whom we read about in the New Testament and worship in the church? Was Jesus really raised from the dead? Is he really the divine Lord of lords? Or is it possible that the portrait of the divine Son of God is an exaggeration, at best, or a complete fabrication, at worst, of the original Jesus? Could the one whom Christians worship be merely a mythological creation or is he real?

These questions have exercised many great minds and have been the dominant issue in New Testament studies during this century. Between 1910 and 1950 approximately 350 lives of Jesus were published in the English language alone. Since then the numbers have increased significantly.Not only are Christians writing about Jesus, but also Communists, Jews, atheists and agnostics are taking up their pens to paint a portrait of Jesus. more


It will become understood in the 'latter days', that the 'Jesus of Christian Faith' is the doomed 'Fake-Prophet' in the 'Book of Revelation'.
The 'True historical Jesus' remains basically unknown by the vast majority of humans until the details of the gnostic cosmogony (as say found in the WORDS of the scriptural Jesus in the Nrew Testament, the Gnostic Gospels [Gospel of Thomas, Hebrews, Revelation, Secret Book of John are foundational] and related literature are understood and made available to the general populance.
The 'Real Jesus' represents THE holofractal archetype, allowing the plenum of spacetime to communicate with the subplenum. The 'real Jesus' so forms a necessary 'Boundary Condition' for the reconfiguration and the Metamorphosis of the Plenum and its holographic subsets in toto.
The 'Real Jesus' manifested a first reconfiguration of the plenum on April 1st, 31 AD (Gregorian).
This transfiguration of the plenum negated a particular archetypology, which hitherto disallowed any direct communication and data transmission between the Father's Subplenum and the Mother's Plenum.
The old archetype is none other then a 'False God-Image' known under many labels, such as Yaldebaoth (the abortion of Barbelo) or the 'Jealousy God of the Old Testament'.
The 'Real God' of the Old Testament is found in the God of Genesis and the 'Burning Bush of Moses'.

The next discourse is highly gnosticised and the few will understand in the beginning, but will become the many as the 'True Story of God unfolds'.
The Lord God, walking in the garden and NOT KNOWING where Adam and Eve (all archetypes from the subplenum btw and not real personages except as everyone in image existence) were is the 'Fake-God'.
Adam, in archetype BECAME God before the sabbath and therefore the usurper-God assumed the title of Lord God in HIS jealousy of Adam.
As soon as Adam KNEW (because the Christ-Serpent induced Eve to lose their common Ignorance=Sinfulness about the true state of archetypical affairs); the 'Real God' went voluntarily into Exile to await Adam's and Eve's Rescue attempt.
The 'True Meaning' of the Sabbath is the Day of REFLECTION as the 'God's Rest'.

The 'Real God' is both WITHIN and WITHOUT the plenum and the subplenum as the great mystery, now solved.
But for the purpose of the timeline, archetypically to allow Adam and Eve, namely YOU as any Man and YOU as any Woman, a 'False God' must EXIST to allow the CONTEXT for the Distinction between 'Good and Evil' and 'Light and Darkness' and 'Hot and Cold' and Yin and Yang and and and to evolve both physically and mentally, but mainly mentally as the mentality can 'tap' the 'spirit' (of the ZPE) in frequency resonance to then induce the physical.

This is an open thread for now.

Whynot

• Checkable Biblical Accuracy
• Evidence for Design in the Universe
• Bibliography

 

The Axiomatic Incompleteness of God and the Hole in the Earth

Hans Dieter, the Bavarian Logician wrote:

Dear John!
Why should God be "universally intelligent" or in which sense?

"Intelligent design" has two choices:
a) what is not allowed, is forbidden
b) what is not forbidden, is allowed.

Mathematical reasoning is somehow half a) half b), mathematical logic, and other systems of logic, is a).
If nothing were forbidden and b rules then b) has no rules and that is objectively random.
Now it seems to be so that everything "exists" as a result of distinctions. Then the things of everything are in any order no matter whether or not these things are orderable by our intelligence but it is forbidden that they are in no order at all.
Now we have the scholastic question how can God be omnipotent if the creator must follow rules which he imposes on himself?
Now well you see what I am up to: without restrictions no creation that could somehow "work".
And that is the question again: what is intelligence? Is it "in" the proper restrictions or in the proper propositions ( hence plus proper rules of inference)?

Btw. , if the earth were created with a hole, say, a hole between North pole and South pole, would we see the same world and suppose the universe is governed by the same laws as with a hole-less earth?
Hans Dieter


Hi Hans Dieter!
You have raised a good question befitting a more rigorous definition regarding the logistics of God.
-Allow me to begin with your statement defining 'Intelligent Design":

"Intelligent design" has two choices:
a) what is not allowed, is forbidden
b) what is not forbidden, is allowed.

What is the distinction between those two logical statements relative to the 'Intelligence'?
a) assigns the NOT BEING (Defined) to the NON EXISTENCE; whilst b) assigns the EXISTENCE to the BEING (Being Defined).
This in scriptural terms is simply John.1.1:
"In the Beginning was the Definition and the Definition was with the Intelligence and the Definition became the Intelligence."

So your statement of a) with b) becoming the mathematical 'reasoning' here is valid and in a sense indicates the Gödelian paradox in the second incompleteness theorem.
The 'stronger' axiomatic system then is the concept of the Definition being the Intelligence not becoming a one-to-one correspondence, which could be 'proven' by axioms; but requiring the inclusion of a CONNECTING parameter, which becomes directional.
Now physically and cosmologically; this ALLOWS an INFINITE APPROACH of particular physicalizable variables, such as 'entropic arrows' from a minimum eigenstate to a maximum (and potentially infinite) selfstate; but DISALLOWS an INFINITE REGRESSION from a maximum (or infinite) initial condition to a minimum boundary condition.

-When you state that a) describes mathematical 'logic', then you can translate this into the semantics from above as: NONDEFINITION implies NONEXISTENCE and this imo is a beautiful illustration of the 'Nature of the Intelligent Designer' and in full concordance with John.1.1.

-The 'randomness' of b) then presupposes the 'Existence' as the 'stronger' axiomatic statement to allow the 'Mathematical Order' to Exist in the One-to-One correspondences.
Iow, the randomness of the statistical distribution of physical parameters remains valid as the 'weaker' axiomatic foundation, but becomes the emergence from the 'stronger' axiomatic existant (say the probability summation to unity) - a logistical 'proof' for the existence of God of sorts.

-You wrote: "Now we have the scholastic question how can God be omnipotent if the creator must follow rules which he imposes on himself?"

This is easy, should you have followed the post you replied to. The omnipotency of God is in the subplenum, where the VOID is simultaneously the ALL, separated and not separated from the ONE.
The ONE then becomes the axiomatic One-to-One correspondence between the plenum of the stochastic 'weaker logic' and the subplenum of the 'stronger logic', where the One-to-One is semantically One-to-Three in a redefinition of the 'Wholesome Trinity' of sorts.

- So you are right; 'the creation cannot work without restrictions'; with 'God's Intelligence' being 'IN' the 'proper restrictions' (in the plenum) AND (not or) 'IN' the 'poper propositions' (in the subplenum of the inferences described by John.1.1).

-The earth has a multidimensional 'hole' at its core. This 'hole' is a Black Hole/White Hole Equivalent and scientifically calculable in the Schwarzschild metric of Radius~15 millimeters and as a hyperspace Riemann 3-sphere of so 66.6 cubic centimeters. This volumar also represents a 3-dimensional surface bounded in a 4-ball as the latter's 'Boundary Condition'.
Because the 'hole' is 'higher dimensional', it requires the 'unfolding' of the 4-ball in a 4th spacial dimension to become 'measurable' in the 4-dimensional metric of the spacetimes.

Should this topological transformation occur, then this Black Hole equivalent would change into a White Hole and the Earth would begin to transmit information energy into the universe as a PlanetStar.
I have indicated much of this in previous dispensations.

John Shadow


Dear John!
I am not quite satisfied with your response but at the moment this is not important. I have to make it more clear. Let me reformulate the last question - actually it is a new question - as such.
Suppose the earth is a 3 sphere without hole. We are in an event space.
Now we reverse the Babel towers tale and assume a crazy Wallstreet oligarch and a not less crazy Russian oligarch drill a hole from the north pole to the south pole - it is a thought experiment - then after the hole is completed is the event space unchanged?
Hans Dieter



Dear Hans Dieter!
The topology you are describing is that of a manifold exhibiting multiple curvatures.
The earth is mathematically modelled as a 2-sphere embedded say in a nesting of such 2-spheres to describe the common Riemann 3D-space R³.
Archetypically, this geometry can be described in an encompassing circle (as a 1-sphere) of radius 2R and centered on a point of origin 0 and defined in an abscissa (x-axis or real number line).
Also define an ordinate coordinate axis in a y-axis or i-axis for the complex plane.

Two tangential circles, each of radius R then become centered on abscissa coordinates +R and -R in symmetry about the origin 0.
The 3D-volume of the greater 2-sphere is simply 32πR³/3 and the volume for each of the encompassed 2-spheres become subvolumars of 4πR³/3 volume units in a proportionality of 8:1.
The curvature topology relative to the origin as the point of tangential intersection of the smaller spheres is so is negative in a concave-hyperbolic geometry; whilst the curvature topology relative to the origin as the center of the larger sphere is convex-spheroidal.
We can now extend the volume ratio of 8:1 in rotating the complex plane about its y- or imaginary axis, rendering the inscribed spheroids as a 2-torus in the traced out locus in 'volume of solid revolution'.

The volume of the generated 2-torus becomes 2πR.πR²=2π²R³ volume units, which is now in a 16/3π:1 or 8(2/3π):1 or 1.6976...:1 ratio to the encompassing 2-sphere.

Now the origin relative to the encompassing 2-torus can be defined as the archetypical 'wormhole' within the 2-sphere and becoming descriptive in the negative curvature of the 'physicalised universe' with 'missing energy constituents'.
Those 'missing bits' are however found in the differential volume between the subset of the 2-torus and the encompassing 2-sphere, which 'envelopes' the selfrelative concavity of the origin in convexity.

Now, as you know, there are only three basic singularly connected topologies of zero curvature in the geometry of Minimal Surfaces: the plane, the catenoid and the helicoid.
These are basic to certain derivatives like the Costa-Minimal Surface (see wiki reference below) and the Enneper Surface.

Begin Quote:
Costa's minimal surface

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Costa's minimal surface, cropped by a sphere. Higher resolution video
In mathematics, Costa's minimal surface is an embedded minimal surface discovered in 1982 by the Brazilian mathematician Celso José da Costa. It is also a surface of finite topology, which means that it can be formed by puncturing a compact surface. Topologically, it is a thrice-punctured torus.
Until its discovery, the plane, helicoid and the catenoid were believed to be the only embedded minimal surfaces that could be formed by puncturing a compact surface. The Costa surface evolves from a torus, which is deformed until the planar end becomes catenoidal. Defining these surfaces on rectangular tori of arbitrary dimensions yields the Costa surface. Its discovery triggered research and discovery into several new surfaces and open conjectures in topology.
The Costa surface can be described using the Weierstrass zeta and the Weierstrass elliptic functions.
End Quote

Now topologically 'wrap up' the trivial zero-curvature plane and allow (an opening to infinity) as the 'inlet valve' of a ballon say.
This will result in a basis for the 'Exotic Spheres' of (Simon) Donaldson's Theorem, the Witten Conjecture and related work on the 4-manifolds being 'special' in their properties with regards to this 'opening to infinity' and their 'smoothness'.

In particular it leads to Poincare's Conjecture for the 3-Sphere and so the boundary condition of the above decscribed inscribed 2-torus also being a 3-dimensional surface, bounded by the Riemann space R⁴ in the 3-sphere of volume π²R⁴/2, i.e the 4-ball.

Perelman's proof for the Poincare Conjecture for 4-manifolds is now accepted and the 'Ricci Flow with Surgery' is now used to 'circumvent' and 'paste and glue' the 'singularities'.
The 'Ricci Flow' expands the negative curvature and contracts the positive curvature and this can be applied to the inscribed 2-torus above in allowing the latter to 'approach its encompassment.

However this will require an UNFOLDING - a turning Inside-Outside at the singularity.
This can be easily visualised in the 2-dimensional case, where the 'Infinity-Loop' or the geometry of the '8' cipher is considered two circles connected at the tangential intersection point.
Forming an embedded 0-Loop from the 8-Loop so must UNFOLD at the wormhole singularity in a TWIST of the 1-sphere about its abscissa axis, so OPENING the 3rd dimension archetypically in a SIMULTANEOUS generation of the 2-sphere from its 1-spherical lower dimensional (by one) progenitor.

This then becomes the key to REDESIGN the 'opening to infinity' of the minimal surface connection of the 1-sphere as say the complex plane.
Knowing the necessitations at the topological origin of the transformation; one redesigns the complex plane algebraically to change from its 2-torus definition to become a Klein-Bottle.

Formally, the Torus 2-manifold as a two-dimensional surface from the square: {(x,y) ε R²: |x|,|y| ≤ 1 }, is generated by identifying opposite edges 'without a twist' in (-1,y)→(1,y) for all y; and identifying (x,-1) with (x,1) for all x.
Now change the 2-torus into a one-dimensional surface by generating the Klein-Bottle by identifying the edges of the square defined above, by identifying the edges x=±1 'with a twist' and the edges y=±1 'without a twist'; that is by identifying (-1,y)→(1,-y) for all y; and identifying (x,-1)→(x,1) for all x.

This topological definition therefore allows the twosidedness of the within-without and nested geometry of the 2-sphere to become onesided in the transformation of the 'hollow sphere with a hole to infinity' to become selfenfolded in the geometry and topology of the Klein-Bottle.
John Shadow

PS.: The disclosure on August 30th, 2009 is closely related to this description and is topological in a form of the 'Ricci-Flow', which so can 'rip and reglue' the 4-manifold as it is presently known as the Minkowski metric of flat Euclidean zero curvature.


HANS-DIETER:
Tony are you saying the earth with hole cannot be embedded in the manifold on which Minkowski metric is defined?


TONY:
If the tunnel is continuous, then there will be no selfintersection of the 'earth-sphere' with itself.
However this 'hypothetical' case is very different in the selfintersection of a fractal selfsimilar 'center of the earth'.
This center of selfsimilarity can transform its topology and 'rip and glue' its 'spacetime'.
The Sink-Black Hole nature then becomes a Source-White Hole nature in the twosidedness of the 2-torus manifold becoming onesided as a Klein-Bottle through the regluing of onesided Moebian strips (from the decomposing Torus), the latter having boundaries within the 3D-space for embeddedment therein.
As the Klein-Bottle has no boundary in the Minkowski metric, IT cannot be embedded in the 3D-space, but can become dimensionally extended and embed itself in a 4D-Klein-Kaluza space through and by the 'Ricci Flow' of the 'ripping and gluing'.
In this way then a fifth dimension is 'opened' for the Minkowski spacetime and then the 'tunnel-VORTEXED-earth' cannot be embedded in Minkowski spacetime.
John Shadow


HANS-DIETER:
So could we this way decide whether matter consists of "particles" - then the physical earth is not a manifold - or of "waves"?
In my opinion -which is however mythology based where vortex plays an important role - the earth , "vortexed" earth cannot be embedded in Minkowski spacetime.


TONY:
Indeed, the 'particles' of physics are nought but discrete agglomerations (as quantum mechanical waves) of the discretized minimum energy selfstate, the latter AS the 'bridge' for the selfintersection of the manifold as described (in rather primitive skeletal and heuristic terms).
The topological earth so becomes a holofractal of the entire universe in a template for the selfsimilar archetypology.

And I concur with your 'mythology'; the earth as this physically descriptive hologram, cannot be embedded in Minkowski spacetime restricted in the c-invariance.
A change in the topological base structure of the Minkowski spacetime can however 'curve' the 'flatness' into a symbiosis of all three curvatures in the 1-sphere becoming a 2-sphere becoming a 3-sphere becoming a 2-torus becoming a selfdual Klein-Bottle.
The 'earth' itself becomes a VORTEX and a data transmitter for the selfinteraction of the universe with itself.
John Shadow

HANS-DIETER:
Goodness....what you state here is almost exactly the Saami mythology.
With one however remarkable exception : the myth goes from concept or model that allegedly serves understanding to introduction of , say, totality of one's relations with the concept and its consequences, to pure feeling- this last depicts the earth, as well as the universe, as vortex. One could translate the ancient texts, and petroglyphs ( the Saami are known as taciturn ) such as the universe is a personality consisting of "mutually communicating" self similar images of itself. Btw the idea of cummunication is spread in Northern mythologies for ex in the word run which means today execute a fixed plan ( i.e. a program ) or move, but the etymology of run is murmur (rinnan- runan) ( resembling a creek , and also a sign ) so the universe came into being as it ordered itself run.
About the data transmitter : the Saami had a stone maze which was destroyed by christian missionaries , it was believed to serve as a landing place for stone men and these were messengers which carries messages throughout the universe in no time- apparently they did not mean messages consist of signals.
Thank you John
Hans Dieter

TONY:
You are most welcome Hans-Dieter and it is my 'feeling' that you will 'love' the message which will be sent on August 30th, 2009 to this forum.
For one, this message will fully justify your quest for a 'Theory of Memory' and a 'Theory for the Universal Personality'.
What you wrote above about the Saami mythology becomes a universal memetic construct and you will know, after discernment of this message, just why and how you yourself have searched and pondered the Saami mythology - thence demythologised.
Allow me to state here, that our present semantic discourse serves as an exquisite preparation for the dispensation released in 7 days from today.
Love and Honour to the Memory Awakened!
John Shadow


HANS-DIETER:
Tony, the secret is the boundary of continuous and discrete.


TONY:
Yes, the plenum is discrete and the subplenum is continuous and its boundary is indeed the secret.
Here is the proportionality in a science-verified example:
The proportionality is that of a 'special read focal' earth as relative to not only the harbouring galaxy (Milky Way), but to the universe as a whole.
How can this be?
The subplenum assigns particular boundary conditions onto the 'energy' manifestations in the plenum; but 'coordinates' which are NOT mappable onto the subplenar 'topology' or manifold.

1. Mass of the Earth=6x10²⁴ kg
2. Mass of the Galactic Core known to be a 'galactic constant' about 500 times the central Black Hole.
3. Central Black Hole aka Sagittarius A* =4.4x10⁶ suns or 9x10³⁶ kg.
4. Mass-Seedling of the Universe at the Big Bang = 2x10⁵¹ kg

Now form the ratio: (2/1)=constant.(4/3) and evaluate constant=(2x3)/(1x4)=(500x81x10⁷²)/(12x10⁷⁵)~3.4 and so of the order of unity (1). and say as a 'Upper Bound'.
But the seedling mass defines cosmologically a substructured, albeit still extremal Black Hole in the gravitational attraction between supercluster and so the homogeneity and isotropy of the standard cosmology.
The encompassing 'universal' Black Hole mass is extradimensional (like the golfball Black Hole defining the central earth) and is calculated to 'topologically close' the 'string-universe' in your mentioned 'Calabi Yau' 6-torus geometry and is:

5. Mass-Superseed of the Universe for the 17 billion year 'heartbeat' (or Hubble Oscillation)=6.5x10⁵² kg.

Using this constant=(2x3)/1x5)=(500x81x10⁷²)/(39x10⁷⁶)~0.10 again of order unity, but now as a 'Lower Bound'.
And you should like this, the Evolution of the 'Lower Bound' for the encompassing cosmology in the higher dimension (11 or 8 or 5 or 2) towards the 'Upper Bound' is that of the 'Universal Consciousness'; well understood by indigenous peoples all around the globe; but labelled as 'dark matter' by the physical materialists and scientists.
The 'Dark Matter' is the 'Spirit' in particular string-membrane coupled associations.


HANS-DIETER:
The model of void is trivial topology of empty and void. It is "indiscrete" as no distinction is possible. The "world" is discrete and so coverable.


TONY:
Yes, but the trivialness of the empty set is not trivial in quantum relativity, as it is precisely this 'non-distinctiveness', which allows a distinction to be made between the plenum and its originator in terms of order.
Your mathematical logic cannot be applied here, as it is Gödelian incomplete and 'weak'' in the plenum of measurement, yet 'strong' in the subplenum.


HANS-DIETER:
I came to the conclusion that there is no mathematics of a continuum as this must have negative fractal dimensionality


TONY:
Beautiful and the negative fractal dimension is -0.618033...


HANS-DIETER:
I came to the conclusion that said boundary is consciousness.


TONY:
This is the ultimate gnostic insight of the universal logos.


HANS-DIETER:
A mapping of the void is not possible by means of intellect as it is not metricable and not a chartable manifold. It is narratively between empty and a point but is neither of these. It is not a point cut in half but a point with holes something that "reminds" of Calabi Yau manifold but is not.


TONY:
Yes, all of this is well stated; but why do you suppose that the intellect is not metricable in the subplenum.
Remember, the subplenum is a manifold relative to itself, but a manifold which cannot, by selfreference be mappable. And indeed, it is the 'story' of the boundary which not only 'caused' the subplenum to emerge the plenum from itself; but also manifested the logistic distinctions between them, which then CAN become intellectually 'graspable'.


HANS-DIETER:
We must be humble. We cannot explain consciousness.


TONY:
Wrong, if you could 'feel' the logos, then you would know that it desires nothing more, than to be understood across the boundaries.
The logos despises nothing more than the false 'humility of man'; which justifies the killing of each other and the environment; but calls as 'blasphemous' or 'heretic' the nobility to 'partake in the mind of all creativity aka God'.


HANS-DIETER:
We can only be amazed. Perhaps the boundary of continuous and discrete is God and consciousness is God.


TONY:
Absolutely and once man has come to know and understand 'God' as the all encompassing consciousness, then and only then will true peace become realisable.


HANS-DIETER:
But then we must be humble enough to accept God is in every worm and in every bacterium and we are on a par with those so mean and common and little that we never give attention.
We must also admit that birds and we are in the same space but they and we use different geometries to navigate the same space.
Then we have another secret: a bird, or a bee, is not in our space unless we call it by killing it - with help of our geometry.


TONY:
Yes, this is the true consequence and you have spoken as an elder of great wisdom in your words.


HANS-DIETER:
When we understand this mathematically we may understand whether or not it is possible to defy death as a hunter.


TONY:
There will be a time of metamorphosis, when the 'mutual eating of each others consciousness' will no longer be necessary in a physical hunt for food and sustenance. Then will a 'blending of consciousness' become enabled in hybrid 'bodies' of biophysicality.
This will be a time, when the 'aliens' in the garden will meet the aliens from the non-isolated earth.
The first contact will be from Sirius.
Hans Dieter with John Shadow

 

The God Delusion versus the Devil Delusion​

The below critique is anti-Darwinist in linguistic expression, but raises a valid pro-scriptural foundation to SYNTHESISE the valid parts of Darwinian-Lamarckian Evolution (already generally mainstreamed, albeit not publisized) with the Intelligent Design scenario. I shall clarify this synthesis in detail at the appropriate time, but forward this critique as background material, fostering the 'Existence of God' perspective.
John Shadow


What did Darwin really accomplish in 1859 that was so remarkable? Well, he for the first time provided, to my way of thinking at least, the possibility that a serious intellectual could reach the judgment that human beings were nothing more than accidents of creation. He didn’t provide the justification in any complete scientific sense, but something entered the human imagination in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species, and it was that possibility: Human beings are really not as we had all thought—I’m speaking collectively in behalf of the entire human race—an expression of the divine; they were nothing more than accidents of matter. Now, Greek philosophers had speculated along those lines, but Darwin, it seems to me, provided for the first time a scientific rationale for that. Human beings, living systems, are accidents of material objects—nothing more, nothing less—and not entitled to any form of divine sanctity or protection.
That to my mind was the decisive event. And everyone in the late 19^th century saw it. Even before Darwin, think of Matthew Arnold’s poem: “And we are here as on a darkling plain/Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight/Where ignorant armies clash by night.” That is the expression of the receding wave of faith, when the Darwinian wave is coming in to replace it. But Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Joseph Conrad—all of the great figures from 1860 to 1914, 1918—saw the same thing: that once that divine mandate has been withdrawn, great evil would come into the world. And they were absolutely right. It did.

“EXPELLED”:​

Jewish Intellectuals Challenge Tyranny of Darwinism
Christopher A. Ferrara
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New Jersey
From the film Expelled: Dr. David Berlinski (r) speaks with Ben Stein (center) and Dr. Gerald Schroeder in front of a remnant of the Berlin Wall. An Afternoon with Dr. David Berlinski
(Posted June 2, 2008 www.RemnantNewspaper.com)

​

When I went to a local movie theatre to see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” during its short run, I went with very low expectations, and more out of a sense of duty than anything else. The critics had uniformly savaged this documentary exposé of the academic tyranny of the Darwinian establishment, and even allowing for their liberal bias I had expected to encounter a schlock production along the lines of other such films produced with the backing of evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Imagine my surprise and delight when I realized that the critical savaging of this film was probably motivated primarily by fear—fear that “Expelled” might actually succeed in tearing down what the film, in a thematic allegory, likens to a Berlin Wall in academia, behind which are confined in lonely exile the hardy few who have dared to challenge the teaching of Saint Darwin by stating the obvious: that the emergence of life in all its unimaginable and irreducible complexity can only have been the result of creation according to an intelligent design. With Ben Stein, the lawyer, former presidential speechwriter and Hollywood celebrity as its front man and narrator, “Expelled” is a lavishly mounted and brilliantly executed piece of anti-Darwinian propaganda, in the best sense of the word.

First of all, Stein and his director (Nathan Frankowski) deftly allow the paladins of Darwin in today’s academy to make fools of themselves by putting on display their own comical pomposity, bigotry and lack of credible answers to the most basic questions. One by one, pop culture’s leading lights of Darwinism and scientific atheism, so accustomed to being carried hither and yon on the cushy sedan chair of media adulation, are seen ranting, smugly pontificating, or stumbling and bumbling in Stein’s hot seat. Richard Dawkins of Oxford, Daniel Dennett of Tufts, William Provine of Cornell, an almost self-parodically school marmish Eugenie Scott at the “National Center for Science Education” (a think tank that oversees Darwinian orthodoxy in the public schools), Michael Ruse of Florida State, P. Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota—all of them cooperate handily in making the case against themselves by simply speaking unguardedly to the camera. The last few minutes of the film are worth the price of admission: Stein makes an absolute ass of Dawkins, the reigning pope of the Church of Darwin, with nothing more than a few simple questions and a well-timed incredulous grin. Without the cover usually provided by a deferential interviewer, the upper hierarchy of the Darwinian establishment comes off as a rather sad and clownish lot.

But there is much more to the film than a demonstration that the “Darwiniacs,” as Joe Sobran calls them, are empty suits who rely on bluster, intimidation, censorship of opposing views, pseudo-scientific razzle-dazzle, and the fawning media to maintain their dominance. Ben Stein, a Jew, dares to present the evidence, so abundantly present in the historical record, that Darwin’s theory of natural selection producing man and all other species through “survival of the fittest” inspired the early 20^th century eugenics movement, the medical experiments of Nazi doctors on living human subjects, and ultimately the Holocaust itself. In a major segment of the film Stein interviews—on the very grounds of Dachau, no less—the author of From Darwin to Hitler, Cal State historian Richard Weikart, and Stein journeys to Darwin’s home, now a veritable shrine, to stare down a marble statue of the great man, as if to ask: “Who are you, and what have you done to this world?”
The film concludes with a tableau of three Jewish intellectuals: Stein (valedictorian of his class at Yale Law School), nuclear physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder (formerly of MIT and now a professor at Hebrew University), and mathematician and philosopher Dr. David Berlinski. The three men are standing next to a remnant of the Berlin Wall, lamenting the tyranny of Darwinism and calling for an academic resistance movement to breach the wall of Darwinian intolerance.

It hardly needs to be explained how stunning a breakthrough this film is, even despite its flaws (including a rather painful-to-watch appeal to Jeffersonian liberalism as the antidote to Darwinism). I paid three times to see “Expelled,” for the sheer pleasure of watching over and over again such an unexpected bombshell of a movie, hardly believing that Stein would have lent his name to the production, since it surely means the end of his Hollywood career.
On each viewing, I was particularly impressed by the segment involving Stein’s interview of Dr. Berlinski, an American expatriate, in his rather splendid Paris apartment. Berlinski seemed to transcend what one would expect from a typically brilliant product of Columbia and Princeton in the 1960s. There was something Catholic about the precision and the respect for categories and distinctions with which he critiqued Darwinian thought—almost as if he had been given a Jesuit formation back when the Jesuits were still Catholic.

Intrigued, I bought a copy of Berlinski's latest book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. I was amazed to read, from this professed agnostic Jew who “cannot pray,” one of the best defenses of religious faith against scientism that has ever been written. George Gilder of National Review rightly calls it “a promethean work” and “the definitive book of the new millennium.” Confirming my intuition about the catholicity of his thought, Berlinski cites Saint Thomas and the Summa Theologica extensively (praising the “faith and genius” of the Angelic Doctor), depicts Saint Robert Bellarmine's handling of the Galileo affair as an exemplar of the correct relation between faith and reason, and offers this defense of the Church against the feckless accusation that Christianity, not atheism, is the cause of war and suffering in the world:
"Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican."

The book is filled with such delightful gems. Two weeks after reading The Devil’s Delusion I found myself walking up the steps to the same Paris apartment seen in the film, located in the shadow of Notre Dame Cathedral. There, accompanied by my friends and colleagues Dr. John Rao and Andrew Bellon, I conducted my own interview of Berlinski for The Remnant, the day before the start of the annual 72-mile pilgrimage from that very cathedral to Notre Dame in Chartres. What follows is a partial transcript of my encounter with a man whose conversion to the Faith would be a worthy Rosary intention for every reader of this newspaper.
Meanwhile, I heartily recommend that Remnant readers rent “Expelled” when it comes out on DVD and buy multiple copies of The Devil’s Delusion for themselves and others (it appears to be available only at amazon.com). As the interview makes clear, people like Stein and Berlinski are saying things, at great cost to themselves, that too many Catholic churchmen no longer dare to say in their craving for respectability in the eyes of the world. This embarrassing truth is just one of the many symptoms of what Paul VI, that supremely tragic figure, all too belatedly decried as “the invasion of the Church by worldly thinking.”

The Interview​

Christopher Ferrara (CF): We’re interviewing Dr. David Berlinski in his apartment in Paris on May 9, 2008. Thank you for having us here.
David Berlinski (DB): It’s my pleasure.
CF: And we’re here to talk about your book, first of all, The Devil’s Delusion.
DB: Nothing I’d rather talk about.
CF:…. So the title, first of all…. How would you explain it?
DB: The title came to me. Everybody always says, “Well, you were just reacting to Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.” In fact, it never occurred to me. I was reacting to the line from Shakespeare: “He must have a long spoon that must eat with the devil.” And I thought that was a perfect image for the book: a long spoon dining with the devil. And when I presented The Devil’s Delusion, of course my editor at Crown Forum said: “Well, what does the book mean?” So I said, “Atheism and its scientific pretensions.” I thought that would be a sufficiently lucid explanation of what I was after. It’s not just atheism. It’s not just religious belief, but it’s the particular nature of the debate as it’s taking place in the United States, and to a certain extent in Europe right now. It’s always in the name of science. It’s being promoted in the name of a very wicked, very orthodox, secular ideology….

Stigmatizing the Opposition to Darwinism​

CF: Do you think that these scientific pretensions of atheism have been ramped up recently?
DB: No question about it.
CF: What’s going on?
DB: It’s really hard to say. I think September 11 scared the living daylights out of a lot of people… they saw a specter. It’s like the famous line from the Communist Manifesto [speaking German] “Specters Haunting Europe.” All of a sudden they said to themselves, there’s a specter haunting the world, Islamic radicalism, and it was very easy to generalize from Islamic radicalism to religious intolerance. The step was easy to take, and it was taken easily.
CF: So then, the idea is that to question Darwinism is to engage in a sort of dangerous—
DB: —to be an ally of forces that are dark and noxious in the modern world, that is, fundamentalist intolerance, religious fanaticism.
CF: Of course we’re dealing with fundamentalist intolerance on the other side of the equation.
DB: Of course we are, but the point is, of course, all these animadversions directed toward the Moslem world are based on complete and perfect ignorance of the Moslem world too. And that’s not an impediment to polemics.
CF: Well, what do you mean by that?
DB: You get somebody like Christopher Hitchens, or Martin Amis for that matter, the novelist, who are extremely eager to offer their own anathemas, vigorous objurgations, that the most radical force for evil in the modern world is Islamic fundamentalism. And you ask them whether they can read a word of Arabic or paid any attention to the literature, which is now extensive and vast—complicated in many respects, extremely interesting—and the answer is no. We have no idea what these people actually think or write. Why should we?
CF: So then the tactic would be to conflate with Islamic radicals anybody who stands up to the Darwinian establishment.
DB: It’s not a tactic, it’s more a strategy. It works to perfection.

A Jesuit Formation?​

CF: Let’s talk about the book…. [W]hat comes off the pages for me is a kind of a rigor and a respect for categories, and the ability to make distinctions, and an insistence upon distinctions which, for a Catholic, would suggest a Jesuit formation….
DB: I’m more than happy to take that as a compliment… But my own background is so strongly influenced by logic. I went to Princeton in 1965. I studied with Alonzo Church, the great logician, and then for ten years thereafter I really worked in mathematical logic, not alone, but with friends, and I think that kind of education makes an indelible mark…. And Jesuits say exactly the same thing about their education. Of course they do….

Evolution as Tautology​

CF: Well, applying logic to evolutionary theory, and particularly the mechanism that it holds forth as the explanation for everything, natural selection, where do we encounter a logical problem? Is natural selection a tautology?
DB: You know, nothing is so apt to provoke the indignation of Darwinian biologists as to remark that the centerpiece of their theory is perfectly empty because it is, in fact, a trivial truth: whatever survives, survives. And Darwinian theory does not really get beyond que sera, sera. And there are all sorts of elaborate strategies designed to circumvent that objection, but whenever they’re investigated seriously, they always return to the same point of triviality. Darwinian biologists simply have nothing much better than what survives, survives. They’ll call it differential reproduction—namely, what survives, survives. This may be just a fact of life.
It is not necessarily an annihilating point of criticism. After all, you can go back to Newton’s Principiaand say force equals mass times acceleration. What is force? Well, it’s mass times acceleration…. But on the other hand, when you look at Newtonian mechanics, there is a wealth of detail, predictions that flow from the theory. The remarkable coverage it offers of phenomena is completely unlike Darwin’s theory, which really has very few predictions.
CF: Can you give some examples of why Darwinism fails as a predictive science?
DB: What has it ever told us beyond what survives, survives? We have no independent assessment in any respect—and this is a point of difference in physics—as to what qualities in a living system will establish its survivability. That is to say, we cannot look at an organism and say: “These are the qualities from a theoretical point of view, a general theoretical point of view, that we would predict would be favored under certain environments.” There is no mapping from an environment of such-and-such a nature and an organism of such-and-such a nature to a prediction about which organism is possessing which qualitative – forget about quantitative, they’re nowhere near that – will survive and which won’t. We can’t say that. All we can do is look at what happens in the evolutionary record, but that’s not scientific. We could have done that before Darwin.
CF: Or an attempt to reconstruct history?
DB: You’ve got one eel that has to travel across the Atlantic to the Sargasso Sea to reproduce and another eel that doesn’t. Can we say in advance, looking at the eels, given the saltwater environment, this is what we will predict? No, we can’t, we just have to look and see. There’s nothing wrong with looking and seeing, but, you know, we don’t need a theory for that.
CF: So not only do they say whatever will be, will be, they say whatever was, was.
DB: Yes, and I have no objection to all of that.
CF: But that’s not science, that’s history—or an attempt to write history.
DB: I don’t think it makes much difference whether we say it’s science or history. It’s certainly interesting, but we haven’t reached any deep level of explanation as we have in physics…. I don’t need a school of biology to tell me that things that have survived, have survived. I know that. We’re here.
CF: Is there any aspect of the theory that is legitimately testable?
DB: No.
CF: OK.
DB: No, there’s no part of it that’s really rigorously tested.
CF: Do they even claim that there is some—
DB: — Oh sure—
CF: What’s their chief example of a testable application of the theory?
DB: You mean in terms of—
CF: —I think Miller mentioned that they had deleted a gene in the gene sequence and that within seven generations, the missing gene reappeared.
DB: Yes, the literature is full of stuff like this where something is observed, and biologists say: “Well, my goodness, by golly, that’s just what Darwin’s theory predicted.” The fact of the matter is, they never go back and show us, the rest of us, that is, how Darwin’s theory actually predicted it. That’s the crucial test. Almost anything can be brought into alignment with Darwin’s theory. That’s pretty easy. But why did human beings develop an astonishingly large brain over what is a geological blink of the eye? Well, it was advantageous. How does that follow from Darwin’s theory? I mean, what are the principles that specify large brains better, small brains, no good?
CF: And, of course, if you’re dealing with a process of mutation that’s random, how do you account for the conservation of the different mutations required for the ensemble of the new organism? How does the organism “know” what to conserve?
DB: Don’t forget, it’s not only the process of mutation that’s random. And contrary to what people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins claim, natural selection is also random…. The best that we can do is say, over geological time, that environments change randomly, because we don’t know why environments change. So you have environments that change randomly, natural selection is random, and mutations are random. So, you’ve got what statisticians would call two random variables, and the product of two random variables is again a random variable, which means the entire theory is essentially stochastic [random] in nature…. It is science with a category of chance and accident—all the structures of living systems.
CF: Which is why it can’t predict anything.
DB: Which is why it can’t predict anything.

On “Catholic Evolutionists”​

CF: Let’s turn to the Catholic Church, which is our focus here. Let’s talk in particular about somebody like Ken Miller who piously assures us that “as a Catholic, I have no problem reconciling the theory of evolution with my faith.” But then he’ll turn around and deny intelligent design. Now my question would be, isn’t that a disingenuous position?
DB: Well, I hesitate to talk about Ken Miller’s Catholic faith because I regard him as being disingenuous across the board…. As I understand Miller, he’s not denying intelligent design. He’s simply pushing it to a level such that it will never be an impediment to any particular dogma in the here and now. And he’s perfectly prepared to say that the cosmos is in some sense intelligently designed. He’s prepared to say that because the evidence is overwhelming that it is. He’s just determined not to see evidence of intelligent design in any process of living systems.
CF: And why?
DB: Because that would put him squarely in conflict with prevailing orthodoxy…. Like so many other people, Ken Miller wants to serve as many gods as he can.
CF: …. So that’s the issue. Where is there a place for God in the system of someone who says, at one and the same time, I am a Catholic, but life arose through a stochastic process? Where is there room for God in that system? A verbal affirmation?
DB: He [God] is very far away where he can do no trouble and interfere with no human activities, and that is exactly the point of the exercise: to retain the piety of devotion without any inconvenience of faith.

From Land Mammal to Whale?​

CF: … [O]ne of the more ludicrous claims of Darwinism is the transition from a land mammal to a whale… I’m reminded of something Miller did during a debate in 1996 in which you participated—you were one of the panelists—and he came in with placards… which purported to show what he called three “transitional” forms [between land mammals and whales]…. and your comment on that was interesting.
DB: Well, it is interesting that there have been at least seven or eight hypothetical intermediate forms. And what Ken Miller had was an elaborate arrangement where one intermediate form led by an arrow to another intermediate form. And he was very, very lucid in explaining where the structures themselves were discovered and how they were reconstructed. But the question he could never answer was: where were the arrows discovered? And the fact is that these arrows were placed there by Ken Miller and the rest of the evolutionary community. That represented a completely gratuitous intrusion of a theoretical perspective…
CF: Now you said you did some algorithmic …
DB: No, just some back of the envelope calculations; nothing serious about it… All I said was that it’s remarkably easy if you’re trying to understand how many changes a land-based mammal required to become an ocean-going mammal, and restricting yourself just to morphological changes—skin, teeth, dentition, lactation, every system, digestion, feeding mechanism, behavior—I sat down, and I said I can come up with fifty thousand required changes. I don’t know. Maybe that’s off by an order of magnitude, maybe it’s five hundred thousand changes, or maybe it’s fifty thousand changes or maybe it’s five changes. I don’t know. The point is, no one else knows either, and the question is not being raised in literature because once it were raised in literature… then somebody could ask: Let’s compare the number of required changes with the number of intermediate organisms actually found in the fossil record. And that could be a very disconcerting discovery, if you say fifty thousand changes. If you say of those fifty thousand changes, there should be fifty thousand intermediates—because, after all, changes occur in very small steps—and we only have five, or we have six, what conclusions might be drawn?... If we’ve only got five, some people—not a Darwinian biologist—but some people might scratch their head and say: Well, that sounds like the theory is false. I mean, I’m not saying that, of course—God forbid! [laughter]—but some skeptics perversely might conclude from that that the theory is false. The point is, it’s never put to that kind of test.
CF: Well, even the forms that they posit as “transitional” are actually discrete and morphologically non-transitional. So for example, if you’re talking about a whale fin, the transitional form would be some sort of appendage that is neither hoof nor fin, but something in between. They have never produced anything like that as far as I know.
DB: All the fossils that we know represent completely coherent organisms.
CF: The idea of a mammalian snout migrating to the top of the head and becoming a blowhole presents some interesting questions on transitional forms.
DB: Given the sheer promiscuity of blowhards, I don’t know why blowholes should be an especial difficulty for Darwinian evolution. I just prefer to regard that as one of the mysteries that biologists are not prepared to investigate too closely, for obvious reasons.

The Problems with Evolutionary Cosmology​

CF: Let’s talk about evolutionary cosmology. In the book you talk about how at first the Big Bang was greeted with great enthusiasm by the scientific community, until they figured out—just a moment!—this means the universe began, which suggests causation for the universe. What happened with that?
DB: They got rid of that real quick. God forbid there should be a beginning to the universe as Genesis might suggest…. You know, the first generation of cosmologists who looked at this sort of said: My God, we’ve seen this story before in Bible class when we were six. How very odd that we should be seeing it all over again.
Of course, the smarter cosmologists figured that’s just not going to do. Where would we cosmologists be if we had to cede authority to someone else?... So they immediately enlisted the philosophers, and told them: “We’ve got a job for you philosophers…. Let’s show how a universe finite in temporal extent did not really have a beginning.” At least two dozen philosophers who have been working just on that say it’s not a particularly challenging Jesuitical problem for anybody who has a minimum degree of mathematics, because it’s always possible to say: beginning, beginning, what does that mean? Is this space open? Is this space closed? Maybe there’s a finite and temporal extent as far as we can see, but if we get into it, it converges, and the convergences—all sorts of elaborate and logical postures and hypotheses are offered. And by now the subject is so thickly covered in a cloud of confusion that it resembles me during allergy season.
CF: You talk in the book about this concept of the Landscape as a way to avoid a beginning to the universe and the problem of causation.
DB: Have you read Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion? Talk about first love. Dawkins is just bright enough to figure out that contemporary cosmology, as it’s interpreted and talked about this way, leads to a lot of uncomfortable questions about atheism. And so he’s discovered the secondary—certainly not the primary—literature about… string theory, which is an attempt to unify the four fundamental forces of nature, bring gravitation within the fold of quantum theory—actually not quantum theory, but quantum field theory.
And string theory was a darling thing in the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Certainly the smartest guys in the world were avidly pursuing it. And what they discovered, somewhat to their embarrassment, was that given the most reasonable way of interpreting the theory, the damn thing had 10⁵⁰⁰ solutions, which is 10⁵⁰⁰ minus one too many solutions. So they developed the interesting notion that these solutions corresponded, each of them, to a different universe, a different organization of material objects—different laws of nature, different fundamental constants. And the ensemble of those universes was dubbed “the Landscape,” the Landscape of the universes. And of course, once the Landscape is in place a great many embarrassing questions immediately disappear.
CF: Like how did this universe begin?
DB: You can answer every question of philosophical or theological significance by just saying the perspective was infinitely pullulating [teeming, swarming] group of universes. Well, it [this universe] is just one of those things. Why does the fine structure constant[1] have the value it does? Well, in some universe it doesn’t have that value. Why are things so admirably set for human life? Well, in some other universe, it’s pretty crummy over there.
CF: … [A]s you say in the book, if there were only one universe, then this universe is obviously “a put-up job” in which the fine structure constant and all the —
DB: —all the fundamentals—
CF: suit one thing only—us. Then they’d have to admit to a problem.
DB: Forget about what they would have to admit in a logical or a rational sense, they would at least [have to acknowledge] that there is a kind of an intellectual problem that needs respectful attention. And Dawkins, to his credit, does recognize this, and that’s why he has embraced the Landscape and the “multiverse” [multiple universes] hypothesis with such voluptuous abandon. But you have to say, with respect to Dawkins, it’s not an embrace based on any knowledge of the primary literature; it’s just based on what his buddies at Oxford have told him: Not to worry, Richie, we’ve got the solution here.
CF: And what is the empirical, verifiable, testable basis for the Landscape hypothesis?
DB: Zero. Zero. There is none.
CF: …. But then you don’t answer the question how the Landscape itself came into being.
DB: No, of course not, of course not. That’s the characteristic of the discussion: that every time you you’ve solved one set of problems, the same kinds of problems reemerge on the higher level.

Aquinas and the “probability” of God’s existence​

CF: You explored the aspect of how it isn’t sufficient to cast doubt on the probability of God’s existence, which is not a probability question in the first place…
DB: …. [D]on’t forget that this [The Devil’s Delusion] is a polemical book. It’s a counterattack, not an attack. Somebody like Dawkins says I’ve come really, remarkably close to proving that God does not exist…. And in the chapter in which I discuss Dawkins, I take that claim as seriously as I can—and see, it’s a pretty silly claim to begin with—but I take it as seriously as I can.
CF: He posits of God a probability of existence that is—
DB: —very low, very low.
CF: But what is the problem with conducting a probability analysis as to the existence of God?
DB: Because it’s clear that he [Dawkins] hasn’t read Aquinas for one thing… [E]very point that Dawkins discusses was discussed in the Summa Theologica with far more lucidity than Dawkins can bring to bear. Aquinas says if we think of God as kind of a clanking material object responsible for the creation of the universe, you immediately encounter the question: Well, who created the clanking material object? And Aquinas says you can go on forever that way, and that’s not satisfying. What conclusion does Aquinas draw? Don’t think of God that way, as a clanking material object. Think of him as a necessarily existing being, not a contingent being. The mind is forced in that direction….

Gravity and the question “Why?”​

CF: A basic question for the unlearned: What does science know about the nature of gravity? What is gravity?
DB: A terrific question. Newton talked about gravitational force as instantaneous action at a distance, and he immediately said that’s nothing we could understand. It just seems to be a fact, though Einstein improved on that. Instead of talking about instantaneous forces acting at a distance, he talked about local forces acting in response to the structure of space and time, which when it occurs is not a difficult concept to define. This pillow is curving right now….
CF: Is it possible that gravity might be, when all is said and done, “the love that moves the sun and the other stars,” as Dante says? Could it be that mysterious?
DB: I don’t know how it could be any more mysterious than it really is. You know, physicists, no less than evolutionary biologists, are fully prepared to present what is, while fully denying that what is, is remarkable. There’s a certain placidity of thought in the idea that a material object like you and me can influence the curvature of space and time. How is that brought about? How is that done? Isn’t that absolutely astonishing that it should be that way? That the curvature of space and time should influence the way objects move within space and time? How does that come about, exactly? There seem to be physical forces at work, there seems to be a recrudescence of action at a distance, which carries throughout the physical sciences, which is never really examined.
CF: So what you’re saying is that—
DB: —it’s a lot of magic.
CF: Yes, a lot of magic. So what you’re saying is that at the end of the day we have observations of what appears to be, but the question “Why?” cannot really be answered… How far can you get with “Why?”
DB: Three great questions: What is? What is what is? And why is what is?
CF: Where do we stand scientifically with “Why?”
DB: We don’t have a clue. Are you surprised?
CF: No, I’m not. That’s a soft ball. [Laughter]. And so when we talk about why, aren’t we necessarily talking about the need for something like God—the minute we begin to ask why?
DB: Well, we are talking about God.
CF: So, what do you say to Dawkins? Has Dawkins told us why at all?
DB: Well, to ask “What would you say to Dawkins?” is to suggest one of those unlikely encounters where Dawkins and I would be talking frankly away from television cameras. And I kind of suspect that under those circumstances, which recreate the atmosphere of a fraternity keg party after midnight, Dawkins and I—newly discovered friends that we are—would reach roughly the same kind of conclusions, but give the conclusions completely different emotional emphasis. Dawkins would say something to the effect of: “Well, Dave, you’re asking some pretty good questions there, there but let’s face it, we can’t answer them. We do what we can. We’ve got to go back to science to answer the questions that we can answer.” And I would say something like: “That’s easy to say, Dick, but you’re evading the difficulties that are inherent in your position.” And then we’d have another round.
CF: Do you think Dawkins, in his heart of hearts, knows that he’s promoting a lie?
DB: No, no—
CF: —that’s he’s persuaded himself there is no God?
DB: Oh, oh, I certainly do. And he’s also persuaded himself, as he said in his book, that he’s a deeply religious man.
CF: What does he mean by that?
DB: God only knows. [Laughter]

Why does the universe persist?​

CF: What theories do they [atheistic scientists] have on the persistence of physical laws? How do they account for their persistence?
DB: Why does the universe not collapse, is another way of putting your question. Or, to put the matter somewhat differently, why is the universe so astonishingly stable?.... In the history of thought in the 20^th century you find very few physicists addressing this question. Until about 1967. Freeman Dyson published a fundamental paper on the stability of matter. And he very honestly, very generously, recognizes that this is a real question: Why does the universe go on? Why isn’t it a miracle each time it continues for an instant of time? And he established some interesting results, but very partial, very diminished in scope, particularly with respect to particles, not with respect to anything more substantial—and certainly not with respect to the universe as a whole….
CF: Well, what I gather from what you are saying is that despite the interesting results, they have no answer whatsoever.
DB: No, I think that’s too strong. They have partial answers…. If you have a certain Lagrangian[2] that behaves in a certain way under certain conditions, under certain initial conditions, then you can expect that as time goes to infinity the underlying form of the equation will not change, and the underlying properties, the qualitative properties….
CF:…[T]that being the case, who did the math, who wrote the equation?...
DB: Good question.

The “anthropic principle”​

CF: Let’s talk about the idea of the anthropic principle—another gimmick that they’ve come up with.
DB: In 1973 a bright young physicist asked why the structure, the fundamental parameters of the universe, should be so finely tuned as to permit human life. And the answer that physicists have sometimes given is that if they weren’t tuned that way, we wouldn’t be here. If these are necessary conditions, and the necessary conditions for life happened not to obtain, then obviously we wouldn’t be here….
CF: So, that’s another way of saying that “It’s just one of those things.”
DB: Yeah, just one of those things—a lucky break. But if it weren’t a lucky break, we wouldn’t be here. But we are here, so we had a lucky break. What is the problem? [Laughter]
CF: But the only way it could be a lucky break is if there were [an infinity of] multiple universes, and this universe would be one roll of the dice. But don’t they have a problem if there is only one universe?
DB: If there’s one universe, the only possible thing to say is: “My, that was a lucky break [laughter], and lucky breaks happen.” Look, that’s how I got this apartment. Who am I to gainsay lucky breaks?

God Conserving the World​

CF: Let me put the question this way: Why is the universe not an ongoing miracle?
DB: Exactly. That’s just the reverse of the question…. f you go back to the 12^th century you will of course discover Catholic theologians discussing exactly that question… And the orthodox Catholic answer, which a great many Catholics have certainly forgotten, is that God is everywhere conserving the world: Deus et ubique conservans mundus—or is it munda? Well I’ve forgotten my Latin endings. God is everywhere conserving the world. Without that, the world would simply collapse….
Don’t forget that that Catholic doctrine, as I’m sure you know, leads to what? You don’t know! You see? That point of metaphysics leads to the doctrine of the ubiquity of the Body of Christ. That’s why Christ’s Body is ubiquitous. It has to be…. You find people scoffing at these theological details: The ubiquity of the Body of Christ? Get out of here! I’m not commending this as a theory, but it is infuriating, when you talk about this in a general secular setting, that people just refuse to realize that there are some very deep issues that this addresses. This is not an idle speculation by papists taking a few idle moments out from papal debauchery. It’s nothing of the sort.

Darwin, the Banishment of God, and Genocide​

CF: Everything you’re saying leads to the problem of no explanation for first causation. Wasn’t it a commonplace in science before the 19^th century simply to assume the existence of a divine creator?
DB: Well, I think the great physicists never put that issue in doubt, or even at the forefront of their speculations. It was the inevitable background against which physical inquiry was conducted. Darwin had an immense role to play in overturning that, because he seemed to suggest—for the first time, really for the first time—that it was possible to do away with any kind of intervening modality, divine modality, in explaining the properties of living systems. Dawkins says Darwin made it “possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” And once that was on the table, a great deal changed within the structure of the sciences. A great deal changed.
CF: I believe you covered this in the documentary [“Expelled”]… which is just a staggering breakthrough, because here you have—I am thinking of the tableau at the end of the film—three Jewish intellectuals, standing by a remnant of the Berlin wall, lamenting the tyranny of the Darwinian establishment, after the film has drawn the explicit connection between Darwinian theory as a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for Hitler. What happened to Ben Stein as a result of this film?
DB: That’s an interesting question, and I cannot speak authoritatively, because Ben Stein and I have met only a couple of times. So I really don’t know the details of his personal life. But from the point of view of his public life—that is, the figure he cuts, the positions he’s being offered, the role he can or cannot play, the degree of respect accorded, the historical value of his long associations in Hollywood—that’s all over. He’s just been ostracized—mercilessly ostracized…. The degree of vituperation to which he’s been exposed is just astonishing. Just astonishing.
CF: Give us a brief explanation of the link between Darwinian theory… the Holocaust, Stalin’s genocide, the whole de-privileging of humanity.
DB: There are things we cannot talk about. It’s one of those subjects that just will not be allowed into discourse—it simply won’t…. [N]obody cares deep down, that he [Ben Stein] made a fool of Richard Dawkins at the end of the movie. [Ben Stein is like] the Siberian forces under General Zuhkov’s command during the Battle of Moscow. There was a wonderful passage where the German forces trespass, unknowingly, into the preserve of the Siberian forces, and all hell breaks loose. Ben Stein is exactly that. It was perfectly obvious what would happen. We were all sitting here—the producers, Ben Stein and yours truly—saying: “You know, this is explosive. People are gonna react with blind fury.”…
The fury was more than blind. It was apoplectic. It clearly was. Because that’s the sort of connection that violates every one of the principles of the secular society. Principle number one: There can be no connection between a scientific theory, which is a matter of fact, and a moral judgment or a moral conclusion that is not a matter of fact. Principle number two: That Darwin has been promoted to the first vacancy in the Holy Trinity and therefore he’s irreproachable. [Laughter]…
I wish I had more time, more energy, and was younger. I would write about these things. There’s a whole brilliant essay to be written about that particular issue: Why does the secular scientific community—or the media organs that are associated, ancillary to it—react with that kind of dull, dimwitted fury to what is, let us be honest, a plain matter of fact.…. There is a connection between what Darwin said in 1859 and what the Nazis believed. There just is. The literature is overwhelming. No serious historian disputes it. Not one….
So you have wretched boobs like Hector Avalos, a professor of theology at Iowa State, who say: “Hah! It’s not Darwin. Be serious. It was Luther, five centuries before.” In the privacy of his chambers Hitler was studying Luther! [Laughter] The fact of the matter is, Hitler wasn’t studying Luther, and he wasn’t studying Darwin. He was not a student. He was not a highly educated guy, although, as Churchill remarked, he was quivering with intelligence. It was the ideology as a whole that was influenced by Darwin.
Step by step you can trace the intellectual history: It goes from Darwin to Haeckel. It goes from Haeckl to various subsidiary biologists. It goes from the biological community and the community of physicians, who were remarkably Darwinian in German society. And it finally finds its efflorescence in the ideology that the Nazis practiced. That’s not to say it was the only influence. But to say that it was an influence is irrefutable. It’s simply a fact.
CF: You make the argument in the book, and in the documentary, that Darwinism was a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Why is it is a necessary condition for the genocidal events of the 20^th century?
DB: That’s the interesting question. That’s the untouchable question. I guarantee that if you publish something to this effect, there will be a storm of protest.
What did Darwin really accomplish in 1859 that was so remarkable? Well, he for the first time provided, to my way of thinking at least, the possibility that a serious intellectual could reach the judgment that human beings were nothing more than accidents of creation. He didn’t provide the justification in any complete scientific sense, but something entered the human imagination in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species, and it was that possibility: Human beings are really not as we had all thought—I’m speaking collectively in behalf of the entire human race—an expression of the divine; they were nothing more than accidents of matter. Now, Greek philosophers had speculated along those lines, but Darwin, it seems to me, provided for the first time a scientific rationale for that. Human beings, living systems, are accidents of material objects—nothing more, nothing less—and not entitled to any form of divine sanctity or protection.
That to my mind was the decisive event. And everyone in the late 19^th century saw it. Even before Darwin, think of Matthew Arnold’s poem: “And we are here as on a darkling plain/Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight/Where ignorant armies clash by night.” That is the expression of the receding wave of faith, when the Darwinian wave is coming in to replace it. But Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Joseph Conrad—all of the great figures from 1860 to 1914, 1918—saw the same thing: that once that divine mandate has been withdrawn, great evil would come into the world. And they were absolutely right. It did.
Why not make that connection? It seems to me an obvious connection. Not only to me, but to all the people who were carrying out the impermissible evil. It seemed to them the same way. I mean, they thought it was a great liberation. I don’t know if you remember Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. There was a great scene there where the old Communist who was interrogating the jailed Communist—who is modeled on Bukharin[3]— cheerfully admits that all they were doing was experimenting with human life, killing 30 million people. “Well, what of it?”—Ivanov is his name—“Yeah, that’s what we’re doing. We’re killing 30 million people a year. So what? Cholera killed that many anyway. Why shouldn’t we be entitled to play that role?” And Bukharin—who is called Rubashov in the book—struggles to express his revulsion, and he can’t find the language. He can’t bring himself to say because it’s not right. He doesn’t have the vocabulary. It’s been lost.
So, not only do observers of the 20^th century say this, but participants, when justifying themselves, say exactly the same thing. “Why shouldn’t we do this? We feel like killing nine million European Jews? Well, you know, that’s what we like! So what?”
CF: And if there is no God, everything is permitted.
DB: Too bad.

Darwinism and the Loss of Human Nobility​

CF: You discuss the problem of how the absence of God means everything is permitted, and there’s no alternative to that conclusion once God is removed from the picture.
DB: I think that’s true.
CF: So what do you say about these evolutionists who talk about the nobility of the human being, any kind of human decency in the absence of God. Isn’t this just a sham?
DB: Well, if I knew of an evolutionary biologist who actually discussed the nobility of the human enterprise, I would certainly be prepared to find his views interesting. I don’t know of a soul. In fact, they all draw the obvious conclusion: There is no such thing as human dignity—neither human dignity nor any intrinsic nobility to the human animal. You get somebody like David Barasch, for example, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Washington, who really thinks of human beings as a kind of excrescence on the face of the earth—perfectly prepared, for example, to see them merge with other forms of life. A totally odious and repulsive kind of guy.
CF: I’m thinking in particular of a section from The Descent of Man, quoted by Ben Stein in the film, where he [Darwin] says something to the effect of “any breeder would well-advised not to breed his worst stock,” applying that to the human condition. And Stein was attacked for taking that out of context, because in the following paragraph Darwin says but of course we can’t apply that principle to humanity, because the noblest part of us would be swept out. So I look at that as a literary convention, a bit of irony, typical of writers of this kind, who are introducing the devastating concept, but then they have to clothe the nakedness of it by talking about the nobility of the human species.
DB: With a certain degree of hypocrisy. Because to what could Darwin have appealed in talking about the nobility of humanity? Or the nobility of a part of humanity? Why is one part nobler than another? There are no concepts left in the Darwinian world for you to explore that, except the concepts we might make up.

On the Charge that Religion is the Cause of Inhumanity​

CF: …. They [evolutionists] turn it around and say: “On the contrary, it’s not Darwinian thought, it’s Christianity, it’s religion, that is the cause of all the wars and suffering in the world.” And so I’ll quote from your book: “Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Nylon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.”
DB: I think it’s unavoidable to say something like that. You know, you get the scientific community with its preposterous declarations, who are unbelievably humble—I quote in the book—just remarkably humble fellows. And we’re all so great and pure as the driven snow—twice as pure, because we bleach our teeth! [Laughter] Not a speck of moral distemper attaches to anything we do. Then you look at what the scientific community has done in the 20^th century in the name of pursuing science, and you get Ben Stein coming out and saying: “No, here’s a real close link between what science is and what science does, and the horrors of the 20^th century.”…
You know, you go back to the Manhattan Project… and ask yourself: How many of the guys working on the atomic bomb—at least, I don’t remember the exact number, 1500 incredibly smart people working on the Manhattan Project—but how many of them stood up and said: “This is the devil’s work. I won’t participate for a moment in developing a nuclear weapon that is designed to kill a great many of my fellow men.” It’s an open question: How many do you think there were?
CF: I would venture to say, not one.
DB: There was one.
CF: Who?
DB: A rabbi at Columbia University.
CF: That’s not surprising.
DB: A physicist. Beyond that, not one. And these guys want a pass on any kind of moral evaluation? Now, bear in mind that the circumstances were undeniably tragic, because the thought that Hitler might achieve atomic weapons was a very real possibility…. So you had two diametrically opposed forces working for the same monstrous weapon, and on either side of the Atlantic no one said: “Not me. I’m not participating in this, no matter what.” And there was a tragic dilemma. I can certainly understand the argument… [that] “We’ve gotta do the devil’s work. We’re gonna be damned for all eternity for doing it, but the alternative is worse.” That’s a reasonable argument. But nobody made that argument. They were all thrilled to do it. It was a “sweet research project” in Robert Oppenheimer’s words.
CF: Is that what he said?
DB: Sweet.
CF: Unbelievable.

The Galileo Affair, Faith and Reason​

CF: I was arrested by your extended allegory to the Catholic cathedral at the end of the book—
DB: —You can see my model right across the street—
CF:—and we’re sitting here within a few steps of Notre Dame. I want to talk about your obvious affection for, and your championing of, Saint Robert Bellarmine.
DB: First of all, get the pronunciation of his great name straight: its Bellar-mi-ne.
CF: Italian, of course.
DB: He’s a remarkable figure. The kind of figure that I think is admirable in so many ways. Obviously, obviously, highly intelligent. Sensitive. Perceptive. But at the same time—and this is the interesting point—completely aware of his position as a prince of the Church, and as responsible not only for his own thoughts, but for the welfare of the entire Christian community, which in 1620 still extended across… the civilized European world…. Painfully aware that there was far more at stake, far more at stake, than discussing obscure issues of Ptolemaic astronomy….
CF: You’re talking about how in the midst of the Galileo affair he [Bellarmine] said that should it be established empirically beyond any doubt that the geocentric theory is false, then we would have to suppose that we had interpreted scriptures incorrectly….
DB:….[T]he thing is, in the face of this importunate pest Galileo, constantly yammering about freedom of inquiry, Bellarmine has the wherewithal to say hold on: Something more is at stake than your freedom of inquiry; something of great importance for the nature of civilization itself. We’re not going to deny the conclusions of unquestioned empirical research. We’re going to hold off until they aren’t questioned….[T]he Galileo affair was not as it’s commonly portrayed. It was not an attempt to suppress anyone’s freedom of speech. It was an attempt to portray Galileo and very radical new doctrines in cosmology and to balance them against the needs, historically, of the great community of the Christian faith. Those two things were, of necessity, requiring some form of balance. Now when you read Bellarmine, when you read the transcript of the Galileo trial, these are not insensitive thugs. These were men burdened by a sense of enormous responsibility.
Now we may say from the perspective of the 20^th century: “That’s ridiculous. What sense of responsibility?” But that’s not historically accurate. That is failing to recreate the atmosphere of 17^th century Europe, or the papacy, confronted by massive problems of rebellion in the northern countries brought by Martin Luther—a crumbling of the edifice of faith, scandals, corruption, powerful currents of vested influence running everywhere. At every single moment the Catholic faith has faced the problem of perpetuating itself for another generation; it was a real problem.
CF: … He [Bellarmine] is talking about the interpretation of Sacred Scripture having to be modified in the hypothetical case—
DB:—hypothetical, hypothetical—
CF: —he said, it’s hypothetical, first of all, we haven’t yet been confronted with this dilemma. But he was willing to say that reason could not be contradicted by faith. So my next question is: Do you hold Bellarmine up as the example of the correct relation between faith and reason, and are you saying in your book by implication that of all the religions in the Western world, Catholicism has gotten it right with respect to the relation between faith and reason?
DB: Yes and yes.

Waiting for the Gift of Faith​

CF: And now I want to ask you the hardball question…. [Y]our reason has brought you—as I read this book—to the threshold of faith. Would you reject that conclusion? Now I’m going to make you a little bit uncomfortable.
DB: Not at all, not at all. I’m waiting. I’ve done my part. Now He’s got to do His.
CF: …. That was my next question: Not only that, your reason has brought you to the conclusion that the grace of faith is a gift?
DB: And how. And we are all on a parched, narrow desert waiting for the gift. Well, maybe not you, but me. But if not you, then how come you’re going to put yourself through the torture of 72 miles [laughter], if not perhaps in the expectation that you’ll be vouchsafed the gift?
CF: Would you object if we prayed for you to join us as a member of the Church?
DB: A member of the Church, yes. A member of the pilgrimage, no. [Laughter].

On Churchmen groveling before Darwin​

CF: One other subject. There’s a problem in the Church of churchmen in contingent matters wanting to embrace what is au courant and always being about 50-75 years behind the times.
DB: Oh, let’s use the right word: groveling. [Laughter]
CF: Tell us, first of all, just by way of background: You’ve had an encounter with the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences… for the purpose of trying to get somebody into the Academy or at least to make a presentation of a paper to the Academy—
DB: —I never got close enough. You know, they couldn’t have been more decent and welcoming. But there’s a wonderful story in Kafka, where he talks about some courier, he’s got a letter to transmit, and he’s in the center of the imperial city. And he talks about the difficulties in getting out of the center of the imperial city because there is layer upon concentric layer of massive, teeming populations, guards. No matter how far he penetrates, he can never get out. In reverse, that was my experience with the Vatican—as it should be. It’s a huge institution. I couldn’t even find the right door. [Laughter]…. They [two staff members from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] took me out to lunch. Extremely bright, extremely decent guys. But that was it, really….
CF: Did you discuss with them the problem of evolutionism having basically taken over the secular thinking of churchmen?
DB: We agreed completely.
CF: Oh , they do?
DB: But these were two young guys. We were just sitting around schmoozing over lunch. It wasn’t an opportunity where any of the dignitaries behind them would have a chance to interact and make their position known….
CF: What do you say today to churchmen who are surrounded by Darwinian thought and seem to be, as you say, groveling before it? What’s your advice to the Church today in terms of taking up arms against Darwinian thought?
DB: Stand up and declare yourself like a man. That’s what I would tell them.


Notes
[1]The fundamental physical constant expressing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction in various systems, whose currently accepted value is about 1/137. The slightest variation in this constant would cause the material world to disintegrate.
[2] An equation that expresses the dynamics of a physical system in a way that allows one to predict its future state. Named after the mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange.
[3] Nikolai Bukharin, Bolshevik revolutionary and Stalinist apparatchik, ultimately executed for his opposition to the worst excesses of Soviet communism.

 

Does God exist - Co-Darwinian Evolution​

Hi John V!
THANK YOU for reminding me where I had seen that stuff about walk ins. I remember reading her along with several of Lopsang Rompka's The Third Eye paperbacks so very many years ago. I had been trying to figure out where in my spiritual travels it had been encountered.

I still have a paperback by David St. Clair about bringing out ESP abilities somewhere.
I was unaware of Cheryl's kaballah view point put forth today though.
I guess among this group no one has any insight into when a soul was inserted into mankind's Darwinian ancestor?
Paul Swanson


Paul!
I guess I wasn't clear enough. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. The facility for self reflection is brought into being in mankind by the word building a temple for the soul. Man's/Woman's particular type of soul is mediated by the word and by our words and acts we are known. This in no way disallows other terrestrial animals with very different logos/words/spirits from being self reflective and therefore possessing souls. Many examples come to mind on the land, under the waters, and in the air.
Clarence


Hi All!
Yes, a good thread, which seems to have engaged a few participators.
Lobsang Rompa; yes I read most of his books (paperback) and rather liked them for the time. Like Isaac Asimov was a pioneer for bringing the sciences to the underinformed public, so Lobsang popularised the realms of the spirit with scientific overtones.
He was of course an advocate of Tibet, writing he was a walkin of a 'saffron' monk for an English gentlemen who got tired of the embodiments. And he loved his cats, not so much the humankind.

Cheryl's cabala is a powerful esoteric link across all spiritual disciplines, as it embodies the 'secret' or alchemical 'bible' or scriptures on which the western cultures are based.
So combining the 'hard to read literally' scriptures with the occultism of the kaballah can shed much light onto the exoteric and endoteric meanings of both.

When was the soul inserted into humankind? The answer was given in a general manner by Clarence. Here is some more elucidation.

1. The Darwinism can describe the human lineage from anthropological evidence.

Primate evolution (proconsul, aegyptopithecus etc.) so 20 million years ago led to the australopithecines, of which many 'prehuman' genuses evolved.
So one finds today different species of tiger, say Siberian, Indian and Bengal or different Rhinos in Sumatra, White- and Black African, Indian and Javaian.
Or Giraffes or Lions (African and Indian) or Elephants etc.
BUT there is only ONE human species now, differentiated in say 5 races: Mongolian, Caucasian, Australian, Indian and Negroid.
But australopithecines came as boisei, robustus, africanus and afarensis with afarensis today considered to be our ancestor.
So the question is: If afarensis was our ancestor, leading into homo erectus to homo habilis to Neanderthalensis to Cro Magnon and CONTEMPORARY to a great variability in the flora and fauna evolution; why then did only one homo sapiens sapiens genus survive the process?

Allow me to tell you a story.
There is a tribe of australopithecines, which lead a normal life of survival and based on normal animal behaviour with dominant males and females and territorial instincts.
Then a genetic abnormality occurs. A baby is born with different pigmentations on the skin and so on.
A certain turmoil infiltrates the group. Normally abnormalities of any kind are killed or abandoned; but this baby has no defects as such, but simply is a little different.
Maternal instincts (antilogos), normally 'overruled' by the domionant male become supplemented by a paternal instinct (logos) which 'protects' the baby.
The baby lives and grows and mates with a similar opposite sex baby and so on. Families become groups and so on. A 'smarter clan' begins to dominate other clans and tribal dominations and allegiances shift about.

This is how Neanderthals 'evolved' from habilis and how Cro Magnon evolved from the earlier stock which drove Neanderthals to extinction and made Cro Magnon the ancestor of modern man.
It was not linear of course, but adaptation pressure in true Darwinian fashion.
This then is the Darwinian evolution scenario and there is nothing wrong with it as I can see.
But a question remains.

2. Is the Darwinian evolution only half of it?

What caused the paternal instinct to SUPPLEMENT the maternal instinct to protect instead to destroy?
Something must have INDUCED the primitive male australopithecine mind to abandon 'common practice' of infanticide and to harbour the genetically mutated offspring.
This then brings in the issue of 'Creationism' in a new and scientifically feasable fashion.
There is a evolution pressure in the DNA itself. Not as a chemical substructure, which then becomes biologically active (as biochemistry or organic chemistry say), but as a 'survival of the fittest' cliche' now rephrased in terms of 'mental survival'.
This mentality is 'spiritual', yet electromagnetically and so physically based on the ideas of consciousness etc.

Did the primitive australopithecines have soul? Yes, they did. But their souls were more like the souls of their contemporary fauna, than that of even todays animals.
Yes, one can say, that animals in mentally stimulative environments have 'more evolved souls' than their ogliocene ancestors.
A chimpanzee of today is 'more evolved' physically and mentally, than a chimpanzee of 100 years ago and all the way back to a 'common ancestor' of the primate evolution say 20 Million years ago.
Animals kept as pets, have a much more 'evolved soul' than their feral counterparts.
There is immense feedback mechanism in the 'evolution of souls' of all sorts. especially if affection, play and 'love' stimulate common environments.
So a minimum soul has minimum consciousness. It would be an isolated soul and it would be a Hydrogen atom.
Ergo, a mountain has 'soul' and the soul entered the mountain via its physical creation and composition.
The earth has a soul, so 4.7 Billion years old and it is evolving all the time. It is often called Gaia-Consciousness or such.
The point of physical conception so defines, when a soul enteres a 'would-be' embryo. It enters when the physical body is created in fusion of the logos and the antilogos.

But this gives it all away.
All souls are babies of the logos-yang and the antilogos-yin. Call it God the Father and Dog the Mother if you like - or anything else.
The dominant australopithecine father was INDUCED by his own mind to save his mutated baby. His own mind here means that a DNA function 'woke up' or ACTIVATED a process called PERCEPTION, which then led to THINKING AWARENESS or MEMORY or such a notion.

Is this 'Intelligent Design'? I could call it that, as a harmonisation between a 'Oversoul' and the individuated soul of the australopithecine father.
So did God cause the mutant baby to survive to eventually allow MENTAL EVOLUTION to supplement the PHYSICAL EVOLUTION?
Call it what you like. One is required to DEFINE what one means by 'God' and 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creationism' etc. etc.
The Darwinian evolution is well defined and so stable in its nomenclature. It is SCIENTIFIC RELIGION.
The mental Co-Darwinian evolution is not. From this stems a most unwarranted, insideous and imo vile war, which is completely unneccessary, should the 'warring sides' reexamine each others and their own definitions of what EXACTLY they are warring about.
The MENTAL EVOLUTION is a GROWTH in consciousness and selfawareness. It just so happens that this consciousness is a energy residue in spacetime itself. So one can say, that EVERYTHING is consciousness, even the consciousness/memory/growth of GodDog and the universe itself.

A physical Darwinian evolution is and was always complemented by a mental Co-Darwinian evolution. Souls are associated with any polarised duality, but differ enormously in their electric capacity and magnetic inductiveness. A mineral, a rose and a complex animal and a complex homo sapiens differentiate then in just how those electromagnetic parameters are installed and evolving in co-evolution with their respective environments (described as groupsouls or oversouls etc). The World-Soul or the soul of the universe is of course the GodDog, also co-evolving with its creation.
The universe was born BECAUSE the unbifurcated and sexless distinctions separated allowed and led to new ways of experiencing THE SELF (The I AM of the scriptures and the OM of the New Agers). But this is another story one can tell, as long as one is capable to do so.

Tony B.

 

The Collective Human Race is the Messiah for the Universe

JOHN SHADOW:
Sure April!
First the holocaust. Would it not have been for the filmindustry and the technological advancement the collective human consciousness found itself at this nexus point of the human (and cosmic I might add) evolution as a 'Gaian civilization'; THEN the abhorrence of 'HOW NOT TO BE A CIVILIZATION' would not have been archived in film and literature as it has been.
Even without the gases and the bombings and then Hiroshima and Nagasaki; (all archived as witness accounts); do you think the inhumanity of man to man was any more 'vile' than perpetrated by the Nazis, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot , Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Alexander the Great Hannibal, the Caesars, the Spanish Inquisitors, the Witch Hunters, etc.etc.etc. in the past?

In the past, written testimonies and historical accounts are all that is left of the 'EVIL=LIVE'.
The problem of EVIL is archetypically a mirror for HOW NOT TO LIVE.
It serves as a testimony for the archives of the cosmos.
NO other civilisation in this universe, which spans almost 40 billion light years across; will EVER EVER EVER have to EXPERIENCE the evolution of any cosmic civilization in such selfdenial and selfnegation of itself.

The 'false humility' of many, which belittles the human importance is the true 'blasphemy' to God.
It is this selfnegation, which caused the tyrants and the thoughtsystems of 'class distinctions', of apartheid and of 'we are better than you', or 'we know better than you' and 'only through us can you get to be or know as we do; to have arisen.
You see it is written:

This might show to anyone, just how the 'truth be known' and One claimed of being 'The Truth' (Ripleys).
So the holocaust was not just a human atrocity committed by man on its fellow man.
The holocaust was a COSMIC EVENT, witnessed by the universe and filmed by the universe to SHOW to the children sitting in a classroom in some 'faraway galaxy' what can happen to the collective groupconsciousness, of such a cosmic civilization, if in IGNORANCE about itself, its purpose for BEING and so on.
The collective humanity; since the Big Bang; became IMPLEMENTED by the collective starhuman intelligence (ah, what might that be? The Shadow knows) to 'GO INTO THE WILDERNESS' of collective forgetfulness to 'Pull OFF the greatest Coup' imaginable.

Namely, this collective human race; finding itself in exile on some outpost of some galaxy; would quarantine itself and in its pure genius, develop and create a human civilisation built on killing each other and warfare and stupendously deceptive financial- and political-military- and socio-economic- and religious systems.

This isolated civilization would then EXTROVERT its inner 'forgetfulness' in becoming more and more technologically literate and INVENTIVE.
It would eventually create a physical communication system from messenger to postman to telegraph to telephone to satellite to internet.
Then when the global communication system would exist, then and only then would SOME of the exiled humans (exiled from the rest of the cosmic sentiences) REMEMBER themselves and begin the Grand Homecoming (as Shadows of themselves) and the integration of the 'exiled heroes and heroines' into the cosmic intellligent communication networks.

It would take about 26,000 lightyears for this exile to end and when the golfballed earth (as a Black Hole Information library) would have collected enough DATA to terra-transform Gaia the MotherPlanet (for the entire universe; naysayers eat your shadows) to Gaia the Homeplanet for the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, inclusive OF ALL ET's that seem to be as yet labelled as 'Alien'.
The star-transformed Gaia shall SHINE and broadcast its 'sad, violent and troublesome' history as a CONTEXT of the epitome of COSMIC SUFFERING in its 'new' nature as a 'Dark Star'.
Yes, indeed Earth itself is the 'Nibiru' of the 'Visiting Planet of the Ancestors' and the 'Nemesis' of the 'Second Sun'.

The Human Race, COLLECTIVELY is the MESSIAH for the UNIVERSE.


--- In Panentheism@yahoogroups.com, "april0203ebay" <april0203@...> wrote:
--- In Panentheism@yahoogroups.com, "John C. Attamack" atomicj@ wrote:

JOHN C.A:
Hi April,
Here are my comments on your comments....
"How can ascribing consciousness to God limit Him/Her/?"
Because when we think of consciousness, we think of *our* kind of consciousness, and our consciousness is extremely limited.


APRIL:
OK, but consciousness is the most complex thing there is. Maybe God has higher consciousness.


JOHN C.A:
"Well, I'm not so sure that the Christian notion that God is allowing evil to take place for a greater reason couldn't hold true, even though we don't like it, which in and of itself wouldn't be enough reason to reject it. (I'm not saying you're doing this, however.)"
True enough, but then my #4 is still false. God wouldn't be all-good.


APRIL:
Define all good. Maybe he's a utilitarian.


JOHN C.A:
"Well, He/She would be justified [in allowing evil] if there was a greater reason for it. A utilitarian position would state that the greater good would indeed justify it."
Possibly true, as we even do it. We jab our kids with needles to protect them from diseases that could kill them, for instance. However, most of what I'm thinking of as "evil" is far beyond such trivialities.


APRIL:
Right. And the good promised in the long run is far beyond our everyday notion of good too.


JOHN C.A:
Personally, my own consciousness "is designed" so that it is extremely offensive, and possibly even a factor in determining that someone needs serious mental
help, merely to *think* that there could be some greater utilitarian purpose to 9/11 and the Holocaust -- even if there could be. (Therefore, I have just offended myself, if not everyone else on the list at least in principle, except possibly for whoever one certain person is calling him/herself these days. I apologize.)


APRIL:
You have not offended me. Thought experiments sometimes take us to uncomfortable conclusions. As horrible as the holocaust was, and may we never forget or trivialize it, it was still a finite event that took a finite amount of time. If there is a greater, eternal good, then it would outweigh any finite suffering.
My internal mechanisms for survival and empathy cannot allow for things like this, and there are certain levels of evil that I do not believe can be justified for any utilitarian purpose.


APRIL:
Well, I tried to above, but it still makes me wince.


JOHN C. A:
"I'm not sure number 4 is defined correctly. Our knowledge is limited, so how can what we want equal what God wants?"
I don't know that it is, either, but that is part of what I'm talking about.
The "problem" is, how can a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good, allow evil? But it is we limited humans who are doing the defining. We're assuming things like that God doesn't want us to die, because we don't want to die, or that God doesn't want us to suffer, because we don't want to suffer. But maybe God *does* want these things. Maybe our deaths and our sufferings are mere trivialities in an equation that spans multiple universes.


APRIL:
I suppose you're right. We may serve some utilitarian purpose to the whole ball of wax, and *our* survival might not be the goal.
I hope that's not the case, though. J.S.? Help?


JOHN C.A:
But if that is the case, then we're back to God not being "all-good", because we're defining good in terms of what is good for *us*.


APRIL:
I can't argue against this at this time. Can't find fault with it, though I don't like it.


JOHN C.A:
Personally, I think that, in addressing almost every philosophical, religious, and metaphysical point, we tend to overrate our own consciousness and importance. I think that we do this because, in normal everyday life, we have to, to survive.


APRIL:
I think it also in part due to simple observation. As stated above, we haven't seen anything more complex.
If my own existence weren't the most important thing in the world (to me), then I might just decide to let myself get eaten by that mountain lion.


JOHN C.A:
Yes, indeed the love of our lives is what contributes to our survival.
But when we step outside of our physical existence and start questioning what is beyond the beyond, it may well be that whatever is beyond the beyond really doesn't care whether I'm here or not.
The fact that I have a mind that can comprehend even a tenth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of existence, and that my mind might want to aim for two tenths, could well just be an accident of evolution.


APRIL:
Yes, it could be. But this is the hardest thing for me to accept. I can't articulate why I feel in my soul that this isn't true. I shall keep trying.


JOHN C.A:
Some subset of that first tenth is all I need to keep this body running and pass on my genes. The second tenth is icing on the cake.
-- John Attamack


APRIL:
Excellent post. Though I "should like to find a genuine loophole," said Hoyle?
- -April

 

The 'Seat' of the 'Soul' and of Whales and Mites and Black Holes


In La'kech! - I Am Another Yourself!

The Mayan observer of the occurrences on planet earth bears witness to a great upheaval in the human groupmind. There seems to be a monumental change going on with particular locations on the planet manifesting intensifying scenarios of great tragedy infused with pockets of great hope.

In 2003 there was discovered a 'hidden sanctuary' in the Gulf of Corcovado at the western coast of Chile. This location was found to be a 'breeding ground' for the greatest and most massive creature that ever existed on the earth in its recorded history - the blue whale.
Now today, this sanctuary has come to worldwide media attention in the attempt to disseminate this information and to ensure the continuance of this sancturay through and by the public awareness of this factual occurrence.

​

Gratitude - (of the Real ETs as the Gaian nonhuman aliens)

...The Whale... If you read a recent front page story of the San Francisco Chronicle, you would have read about a female humpback whale who had become entangled in a spiderweb of crab traps and lines. She was weighted down by hundreds of pounds of traps that caused her to struggle to stay afloat. She also had hundreds of yards of line rope wrapped around her body, her tail, her torso and a line tugging in her mouth.

A fisherman spotted her just east of the Farallon Islands (outside the Golden Gate) and radioed an environmental group for help. Within a few hours, the rescue team arrived and determined that she was so bad off, the only way to save her was to dive in and untangle her. They worked for hours with curved knives and eventually freed her.

When she was free, the divers say she swam in what seemed like joyous circles. She then came back to each and every diver, one at a time, and nudged them, pushed them gently around as she was thanking them.
Some said it was the most incredibly beautiful experience of their lives. The guy who cut the rope out of her mouth said her eyes were following him the whole time, and he will never be the same.

May you, and all those you love, be so blessed and fortunate to be surrounded by people who will help you get untangled from the things that are binding you. And, may you always know the joy of giving and receiving gratitude.

God Bless You!

On the other hand the scenarios of human tragedy and the suffering of human souls through the inhumanity inflicted by some souls onto others have reached a point of localised and international panic.

In a country called Zimbabwe, people are set on fire whilst alive and left to die; some are maimed and hacked to pieces in front of their families and atrocities are committed, which are on a par with any of the holocausts and genocides and massacres, which litter the sorry and violent history of your human civilisation.
But the Mayan knows, that things are more intricate, than as they appear.
The outward appearance of the scenarios, both peaceful and harmonious and violent and chaotic, are both an image of an internal conflict experienced by the human groupmind as a whole and the individuated human mind in localised isolations and as defined in the physical awareness contained within some region of volume, defining the consciousness for this awareness.
The African nation of Zimbabwe so manifests a certain internalised war or 'armageddon' in its collective experience.
The Zimbabwean consciousness so suffers an immense frequency shift, manifested in a physical disintegration of its ecological and communal structures. The experience of the 'suffering' on many levels then is witnessed by observers, say as an international community.

A cosmic playwright might now name a certain character as BE A MUG and develop the story of 'The Mug' as leading his country of Zimbabwe into chaos and disarray.
One plot of the story might engage the question: what will the observers do, will they invade Zimbabwe and depose 'The Mug'. Now there will be little economic benefit of mounting a militarily enforced expedition to 'redeem' Zimbabwe from 'The Mug' and his cohorts.
There are no resources of value in Zimbabwe and it will cost a lot of money to 'save' Zimbabwe from 'the infidels'.
Some observers know, that 'The Mug' is the projection of a character and that a 'bit of the mad Mug, who has lost the plot', resides in all of the human consciousness carriers.
Some observers will understand what happened in the mind of 'The Mug' and that he simply has allowed pride and prejudice coupled to fear to 'cloud' his self-awareness.
The trouble with 'The Mug's' way of thinking is the trouble of the generalised human way of thinking.
A history of 'divide and conquer' at any location of the planetary habitat will always induce a search for a 'new identity' for the location under question, the locale which experienced of having been 'divided and conquered'.

So many human onlookers know this experience of the localised groupmind rather well. But something is a little different in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe was 'colonised' in a sense of the past and much benefit derived from this colonisation for the country of Zimbabwe in terms of infrastructure being built and provisional things like food was grown and distributed.
Then and as has so often been experienced by other locations of the planetary gropumind in the past; the 'invaders' of a different groupmind culture as the colonisers came into mental conflict with the original inhabitants as the colonised and a rebellion ensued.

The 'whites' were exiled from the country and the land of the 'blacks'.
Now this kind of scenario is an ongoing theatrical stage, however mind-disturbing, on planet earth.

One has the 'reds' fighting the 'white invaders' in one place called Northern America and one has the 'whites' fighting the 'yellow' invaders in a place called Europe or the Middle East and one has the 'blacks' fighting the 'white' invaders in a place called Australia, as well as in Africa and one has the 'browns' fighting the 'white' invaders in a place called Southern America.
The 'whites' also fight the 'white' invaders and the 'yellows' the 'yellows' and so on and on in say places like subEurope like say England, France, Germany, Spain and Ireland and subAsia in places like China and Japan and X-Korea and Y-Korea and X-Vietnam and Y-Vietnam.

All this warring and fighting is a search for Identity: Personal-Clan-Tribe-Nation-Group - and so affects the evolving self-awarenesses and the collective consciousnesses.
But the Zimbabwean example for the projection of the inbred search for identity in the human self-recognition apparatus serves as a dramatisation for the onlookers and the observers, both on earth and the extrapolated ones like the Maya.
For in most other conflicts of violence, there is something to gain for the invader, for otherwise the universal motto of 'conquer and divide' is of little consequence.
Invading Zimbabwe would mean that the invader would have to repair and 'fix' the destroyed infrastructures and provide aid and relief operations to 'heal' the suffering people in Zimbabwe.

So the Maya sees the 'dispossessed poor blacks' killing and abusing the 'other dispossessed poor blacks' and witnesses the insanity of it all.
But this 'insanity of the human mind' serves as an example of how the saying of 'the blind leading the blind into the abyss' was never more appropriate as at the given time.
And the international onlookers, who could intervene are also struck with this 'blindness', because they do not understand of how to 'reharmonise' the scenario and of how to begin to heal the land, its people and its collective understanding of its selfhood.
The internationals do not understand their selfhood either; and so the 'fear of loss' of Self-Identity, historically attained in the national agendas, constitutions and records; permeates the human groupmind from the individual through the families and clans and towns and cities to states, nations and continents.

A historical perspective of 'divide and conquer', which underwrites the above scenario is now in a process of being realised by the international groupmind in its confrontation with an uneasiness in individual human minds not hitherto experienced in a collective sense since the demise of a previous human civilisation with slightly altered physical parameters with respect to the technology utilised.

Will there be enough water for my grandchildren, many of you ask?
Will I have to grow my own vegetables in my nonexistent backyard garden, because the price of foods is to high due to transportation and distribution costs?
Will I be unable to fly from one country to another because the price of fuel is too high for me to pay?
And the climate is 'playing havoc' with the seasons of the year out of season and with either too much or too little of the elements causing disasters with great loss of life and property.
Where will it all end and what kind of planet will my children and grandchildren inherit?
You see, it becomes a question of identity. Who am I and Where and What is my Country and my home? Where do I belong and What am I doing here in this place and at this time?

So the purpose for this information from Hunab Ku through the pathway of the Kuxan Suum and in the Loom of the Maya is to share the Mayan understanding with the family, which finds itself presently self-imprisoned upon a beautiful planet in the galactic hierarchy of planetary councils.
I shall elucidate, but will take a 'time out' to clarify the nature and meaning of these messages.

Much of the information given, will create a great feeling of discomfort in many of you. I shall explain why, but the prime directive from Hunab Ku entails an agenda to allow you to gradually remember your own Mayaness and your own identity as time travellers.
All of you are Mayas and all of you know about the 'masterplan' which is now unfolding on the planet Gaia.

So your discomfort will be mental. Some will understand and most will not, but here is a key.
You are feeling the discomfort, because you are not sure from deep within yourself, as to the appropriateness of ALLOWING yourselves to 'get it'.
For the 'few' who will 'get it' or who experienced a kind of 'electric shock' when reading this, I humourise this discourse and state: "Buckle Up, you are in for the ride of your life!".
For the 'many', who cannot yet 'remember', it does not matter and you also shall 'get it' at an appropriate time of your own choosing.
In a sense it would prove detrimental to your state of mind to give you all the information all at once, such as Running Water attempted to do in a more technical and convoluted terminology.
And practically noone on any forum could understand the convolutions now, could they?! The reason for this is as was outlined above. You disallowed yourselves from understanding much, because of certain 'veils' (or EVILS isn't your English language infused with encoded meanings?) you placed upon your perceptions of your own choosings.

So I shall caveat the forums this one time. Should a moderator evaluate these messages as inappropriate in subject matter or receive complaints from contributors with respect of appropriateness; I shall willingly resign from that forum and cease to convey the Mayan heirloom.
All Mayan messages will be freely available at the CosmosDawn website, linked at the signature of this message and everyone and all are invited to freely copy, distribute and share the Loom of the Maya and the data on this website with anyones choosings. There is no sense of copyright or intellectual propriety on this information, as it is your earned inheritance as 'Exiled Mayans' and as embodied spiritual ambassadors and ambassadoras and galactic genetic inheritors through and by your human DNA as a seedling for your galactic starhuman DNA.

And so I shall continue with elucidations of your true identity in due course. This identity spans the creation of the universe and though Hunab Ku is the galactic centre of the Milky Way, it also resides in your own holographic bodyform in the gestalt of what many of you know as the Crown Chakra and or as the Pineal Gland in terms of your anatomy.
The galactic Hunab Ku is physicalised as a Vortex SourceSink of Source Energy, which has a funnel like geometric form.
Your scientist speculate on this and partially accept its existence in the form of a Mother-Black Hole or MBH located at the galactic centre. Your scientists then postulate a Power Engine for this MBH and something they associate with Quasars and Gamma-Ray-Bursters or GBRs.

Mathematically, Hunab Ku is well defined as a Wormhole Singularity known as a Kerr-Toroidal-Ring or as a Einstein-Rosen-Bridge or ERB.
But you know, there is a galactic wedding planned and this galactic wedding between Perseus aka the Milky Way and Andromeda represents a rather intimate encounter with all of you.

The basic physics is one of galactic selfawareness on the, well, galactic cellular scale.
Andromeda is a female spiral galaxy, because relative to the male Perseus galaxy, it rotates anticlockwise in a symbolisation of 69 and in drawing the ciphers from the 'loose ends' and with the circles of both the 6 and the 9 coinciding.
Perseus aka the Milky Way is a male galaxy in the mirror images of the 69 and to see this simply draw the mirror image of 69 onto a piece of paper.

Perhaps you are now ready for the solving of another mystery.
This mystery engages a sensitive subject dear to many of you.

Where is the 'risen' body of the character known as Jesus Christ?

I shall not here delve into the mysteries of Yeshuah Ben Joseph Bar Thomas. Much valid information can be found on the CosmosDawn website about this; but shall concentrate on the physical Whereabouts in association with Hunab Ku and Kuxan Suum.
There is a particular encoding in your scriptures known as the New Testament, which ALWAYS names the 'risen' Jesus as Christ Jesus and the 'human Jesus' as Jesus Christ. These scriptures are known as the Letters of Paul.

Now those selfsame scriptures also state, that Jesus has risen to 'sit on the right side of the father' awaiting judgement day following an armageddon of the worlds.
The 'left side of the father' is never mentioned, because it is considered Sinister or Evil by the scribes and just as EVIL is the mirror image of LIVE, so is Jesus Christ the mirror image of Christ Jesus.

So the key to the encoding includes the realisation that the Cosmic Christ is universal. You all carry the Cosmic Christ within yourselves, but a particular external manifestation of the Cosmic Christ is the 'Body of Hunab Ku' and that is the 'physicality of the Milky Way galaxy in total.
So the Body of Christ as the 'New Church' is the Milky Way Galaxy and everything within it and that includes all of you as a collective 'church' and a collective 'body of christ'.

You see then there are two 'emissiaries' of 'Jesus', the One sitting on the right side of the father'.
The Jesus on the 'right' is the Jesus Christ of the human incarnation and this Jesus has a 'Comforter' which is called 'The Holy Ghost', as say in the gnostic gospel of John.

So what does this mean?

It means, that all and every 'male' Adam (or Adam Kadmon as the Cosmic Man Vitruvius or Purusha and similar) in the Milky Way can receive and become 'The Holy Ghost' as the christ embodied on the right.

The Jesus of the left is so the Christ Jesus of the Pauline Letters and only 'female' Adams (or Eves as Eve came out of Adams chest as a rib) can receive and become 'The Holy Spirit'. But this duality of the sexes is reunified in the 'Tree of Life', which is the 'Tree of the Quabalah', which is the Matrix of the Maya and the Mandala for this and that. I shall address this in more detail in a later message if appropriate.
The 'Holy Spirit' is the energy of the 'Holy Mother' and the 'Holy Ghost' is the energy of the 'Holy Father'.

Now the Cosmic Christ in Mayan language is called Pacal Votan and manifests in the 'office' of the Plumed Serpent, also known as Kukulkan or Quetzalcoatl or Gugumatz.
The 'office' of the 'Plumed Serpent' is also the 'office' of Melchisedek in your scriptures and the scrolls known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This 'office' was known to the previous civilisation of the human race on planet Gaia and the remnant of this previous civilisation became a new seed for your present civilisation in what the historians call 'Ancient Egypt'.
In 'Ancient Egypt' the office of the Serpent was the 'Uraeus' and the Egyptian mythologies served as the seedling 'stories' for all of your other spiritual belief systems and were then modified by the 'wisdom keepers' and the scribes relative to the global envirnments which developed the 'new human civilisation' which has now come to its predicted end of 'it's rope', and as I shall further elucidate in the times to follow if appropriate.

But the Mayan synchronisation of 2012 will open certain vortexes for the galactic communication between Hunab Ku as the 'Cosmic Galactic Mind' and its subsystems and including your solar nebulae star RahSol to the planet Gaia as a 'female receptacle' of the 'male' 'courtship'.
Now as the galactic vortices open on the Kuxan Suum, as the 'greater body of christ' the 'smaller bodies of christ', namely all of you, both male and female, will also experience an opening of vortices and many of you are already experts on the details and the nature of this occurrence.

The galactic Kuxan Suum is your 'spinal column' and the galactic pathways are the Acupuncture meridians or energy points within your physical anatomy and the chakra-energy centres linked to organs and glands.
Then the 'Coming of Pacal Votan'; which is the 'Coming of the Cosmic Christ', will be the SERPENT=97 as a PRESENT and as a SON OF MAN and the awakening of your 'kundalini' as the 'coiled up serpent' encoded in the number 97 as the 95 2 in the Mayan hieroglyphics (95=IAMTHATIAM as the 'holy' name given to Moses by the 'burning bush' in Exodus.3.14).

Now recall the 69=96 from my earlier information and you can begin to understand the Mayan language in its alphanumeric correspondence to your own anglosaxon tongue.
You have designed the words in a certain way, to decipher the Mayan hieroglyphics you know -some may begin to remember this now.
So SONOF=69 and MAN=13+1+14=28 and 69+28=97 and what appears as just a 'coincidence' in the reading of the exoteric skeptic, becomes an esoteric encodement in Mayan hieroglyphics translated into anglosaxon alphanumerics.

But if Andromeda is the 'Bride' and Perseus is the 'Bridegroom' on the galactic level and occuring in say 5 billion years from now, then what is the 2012 galactic synchronisation all about, you may ask?
The 'bride' is yourself as the 'Holy Spirit' and the 'bridegroom' is yourself as the 'Holy Ghost' - the Cosmic Christ reassembled and the 'Wedding of the Lamb'.
So a few of you may feel a little happiness by now. Your belief in the 'Christening' wasn't such a form of 'spiritual self delusion' and 'wishful thinking' after all. So many skeptics tried very hard to make you feel uncomfortable with your beliefs in the 'truth' of the 'holy books'.

But to be skeptical is a very good thing - if it is engaged in in a manner of logical discernment and a sieving of the wheat from the chaff, as the sayings go. To be skeptical for skepticism's sake can however rather be a 'foolish' thing, as it hinders the raising of the self-awareness in the acceleration of the numbers of the frequencies.
But to 'run around' proselytising the 'Word of God' without more than a very superficial exoteric meaning of this 'Word of God' can lead to an even greater 'foolishness' in the affairs of the human mind and heart.
Many wars and lowering of self-awareness has resulted in the 'foolish' interpretations of the 'holy scriptures', and especially the ones which experience a great following such as the Christian Bible, the Jewish Torah and the Qu'ran of Islam, all defining their genealogical ancestry correctly to Abraham and Sarah as the starseed of the Maya.

Yes, Abraham as the 'Friend of God' was one of us and as one of all of us.
Reanalysing the human history from the Mayan perspective, will heal the misunderstandings and the Imams and the Ayatollahs and the Popes and the Bishops and the Lamas and the Monks and the Babas will find out and understand that they are all are trying to describe the same ultimate reality and inclusive of the nirvana and the maya.

And so the prophecied 'Second Coming of Jesus', the 'Return of Peter as the last pope', the 'final incarnation of Krishna', the 'last incarnation of the prophet as the 12th Imam' and so forth are all encompassed in the 'Return of the Maya' in the form of Pacal Votan, the 'plumed sepent' of Uraeus.
And to end with this dispensation; I ask you to recall another movie, which is pertinent for the present time.
In my last messsage, I mentioned 'Independence Day' as a distorted depiction of Mayan reality.

The movie: 'Star Trek - The Journey Home' was a much more realistic depiction of Mayan reality and is filled with hope and not despair and fear.
In that movie, the last Star Trek with original castings; the Blue Whales of Chile have become extinct on a doomed planet earth and the Star Trek Crew must travel back in time in true Mayan style to 'save the whales' for the future and to avoid total physical destruction.

Now the Blue Whale population in the Gulf of Corcovado is doing very well, the numbers have increased, albeit slowly and the Chilean awareness is expanding into a global awareness as to the necessity and importance to 'stabilise' the Blue Whale population and to ensure its habitat.
And the whales, the gentle giants of the oceans sing their songs of joy and appreciation and the melodies travel along the Kuxan Suum towards the galactic centre to tell the tales of an awakening humanity understanding, realising and honouring their stewardship as cocreators with their common mother planet Gaia.
And concurrently with this, the human stewards experience the symphony of the whales as the serpent energy of their individualised Kuxan Suum, and in the form of their vertebrata and their energy meridians.
This is the true nature of the Mayan Loom and I shall further share the Mayan understanding if appropriate at a later time.

Much controversy revolves around the concept of the Cartesian mind-body duality and the ideas of an immortal part of a living entities colloquially and historically termed 'soul'.

Four references from the KJV Christian bible read as translated.

It is proposed in QR (Quantum Relativity Theory of Thuban OmniScience); that the scriptural accounts describing creation in actuality reflect an encoding of a story, which can today be translated into the nomenclature of modern physical theory.
So the 'seed in itself' translates as the programming of the DNA inherent in the sexual chromosomes of reproduction in modern genetics.
This then implies, that the 'Lord God' and as the creator somehow must be responsible for this 'programming' as say the primordial and/or underpinning and/or intrinsic intelligence or mind for this 'creation' and 'before it materialised' in the Big Bang cosmology and the creation of space and time et al.

Furthermore, man (and all lifeforms in flora and fauna say before it) does in fact derive from 'the dust of the ground'; namely as the first selfreplicating biovital precursors in the Darwinian evolution in the form of clay-crystals.
The growth of crystalline inorganic structures can be shown to relate to chiral differentiation with say the biochemistry of DNA manifesting in righthanded sugars and lefthanded proteins. Also this can be further examined and analysed in the weak parity violation of the weak nuclear interaction and so the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in fundamental particle physics.
Subsequently, nature's favouring of compacting information in its most efficient manner possible leads to geometric forms for the selfreplication of crystalline structures to proceed; say as in the well established form of fivefolded symmetries in the Fibonacci patterns of quasicrystals and the more regular packing arrangements as say embodied in the five Platonic Solids: Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Dodecahedron and Icosahedron.

The topic of this post is however a particular 'decoding' of the scriptures; namely why are 'whales' mentioned in the genesis account and in context with the 'moving creatures', say as distinct of the 'stationary' trees?
First, the informed reader might realise certain biological anomalies.

Only whales share something termed the female human menopause with scriptural 'man' (meaning mankind as male with the female as a bisexual unity).
Secondly, whilst the evolutionary historical record shows diversity in the great mammals generally having 'shrunk' in size; the whales have greatly 'expanded'.
A mammoth; a dimetrodon, a wooly rhino and a smilodon; all clearly show scaled-up versions of the modern elephant, the modern rhinoceros and the modern lion say.
But the ancestry of whales is believed to derive from landdwelling Mesonychids, which were doglike carniverous ungulates (one-hoofed) and from ancestors of the hippopotamus in artiodactyla (hippopotamidae) of the early paleocene about 60 million years ago.

​

Basilosaurus cetoides (and say Zyggorhiza Kochii) were primitive whales in the Eocene oceans, about 40 million years ago, having returned to the aquatic environment, say 50 million years ago.

​

Those primitive whales, as cetaceans, then 'split' about 35 million years ago into evolved into the toothless baleen whales and the toothed dolphins, porpoises, killer whales and sperm whales of today.
The greatest and most massive mammal that has ever existed still exists today under threat of extinction - the Blue Whale of say 150 tonnes in weight and 30-40 meters in length.

​

One blue whale was dated as being over 200 years old and their average lifespan is the same as that for the human in so 70-100 years.
So is there a familial relationship between humans and whales? Modern whales are related to pachyderms in the hippopotami and some 'decipherers' of scripture identify the biblical 'behemoth' of the Book of Job with the hippopotamus and the Leviathan of that book with the whale.

Actually, according to QR, the Jobian mythological creatures relate to something rather different, namely the Mazzaroth or Circle of Ourobos as the 'zodiac' of the 'Milky Way'; but this has been discussed elsewhere.
But according to the cosmogenesis of QR; the Big Bang occurred 19.11 billion years ago following 'stringed inflationary epoch'.
This inflation ended at the 'instanton of time', namely t_o=3.33..x10^-31 seconds after 'Planck-Time' and related in the cycletime n=H_o.t. This quantizes a linear 'flow of time' as dn/dt=H_o~1.88x10^-18 Hz and as a superposed 'cosmic frequency' for the expansion of the universe (as a nodal Hubble-Constant of 58 km/Mpc.s say).
This marker, initialising the thermodynamic Big Bang as a Planck Black-Body Radiator; then manifests a 'Unified Field' (UF) of the four gauge interactions (Gravitation, Electromagnetism and the two nuclear interactions).
This UF manifests the merging of two opposing wavefunctions, which repeats in intervals of 8π radians and manifests the gauge interactions as a collection of monopolic current 'knots' or 12 intersection-points.
As the timeinstanton defines the c-invariance in lightpath x=ct_o and as a wavelength (lambda or λ) say; one can now metricate the minimum displacement as a Schwarzschild Radius in say General Relativity and giving a boundary/initial condition for the relativistic Big Bang.
Setting 4 Lambda=(8π.r_o)=2GM/c², then specifies the 'Black Holed' inertia or mass as M_min=4π.r_o.c2/G=162,000 kg in the QR calculation, using string parameters.

What does this mean?
This means that any mass observed and measured in the universe can be differentiated in terms of its Black-Hole equivalence.
A classical Black Hole would become limited in an 'ordinary' manifested mass of 162 tonnes and as the precise mapping of the 'Unified Field' onto a subsequent cosmic evolution, which began over 19 billion years ago and in a sense defining the 'finiteness' of the universe, compared to its stringed 'pretime'.

So any of the 'living moving creatures' of the scriptural account would PRECEDE the manifestation of a physical universe as the 'seeds of themselves', now translated into modern semantics as the Black Hole inertia equivalents, which in QR are also monopolic and superconductive source-currents.
So if 162 tonnes is a minimum and say as the scale of the most massive living creature that ever existed; what then is the minimum scale of such a creature?.
As the 162 tonnes specify a maximum in say the baleen whale as the END of the inflationary string epoch; the minimum is necessarily defined in the beginning of that epoch and so in the Planck-Mass M_P=√(hc/2πG)~1.6x10^-8 kg.
Should one use the mass of a human preembryo at implantation of the blastocyst (100-150 cells) at say 7 days after fertilisation as a marker; then using cellular mitosis at the twelfth division - after the creation of the first generation of the daughter cells from the parental spermatozoa and ovum -of the (totipotent) stem cells; the Planck-Mass is also attained.
Here one uses a characteristic cellular mass of 1 nanogram for 214=16,384 cells for a total mass of 16,384 nanograms.
So the lightest 'living creature' should weigh about the Planck-Mass and is found in the world of the microbes.

The Etruscan Shrew (of thumbsize) is described as the lightest living mammal, weighing 2 grams; the lightest vertebrate is often said to be the stout infantfish (of so 8 mm) at one milligram and the lightest insects are say fairy flies (hymenoptera, wasps), which also weigh in the milligram region and the millimeter scale of size.

​

The smallest invertebrata can be smaller, then the largest protozoa, say the bacterium paramecium (350 micrometers) as compared to a fairy flie of 200 micrometers.

​

Microscopic mites like Archegozetes Iongesetosus (from taxonomy of acari and arachnids) weighs 100 micrograms and is often called the 'strongest animal in the world', as it can lift over 1182 times its own bodyweight (expected value is about five times). Such microorganisms date back to the Devonian era of so 400 million years ago and still dominate the overall lifeform in number on the planet.

​

But Archegozetes Iongesetosus is a 'larger' mite at half a millimeter and at 10^-7 kg and smaller mites reduce to less than one tenth of a millimeter.
This reduction in size corresponds to a say fivefolded reduction in mass and now characterises the Planck-Mass of so 16 micrograms.

So what am I saying?
I claim, that say the extreme forms of inertia found on the planet, say the 162 ton baleen whale and the tropic mite at 20 microgram, are both related to the creation of the universe before space and time existed - as DNA/RNA templates or architectural blueprints subject to evolutionary genetic mutation or similar.
And this is just, what the scriptures claim in genesis. The 'seeds' existed, before they were planted.
And the human scale of say 50-100 kg is near the geometric mean of the two extremes at √(162x103x1.6x10^-8)~0.051 kg by a factor of 1000 - the mean describing a 'weight' of 51 grams (a typical chocolate bar or a small bird).

So where then is the location of the 'souls'?
The souls of all 'living things' are located inside the Black Holes of their inertia equivalence.
And as this equivalence predates the Big Bang, the 'souls' of living entitities from mite to blue whale must also predate the materially manifested universe in the selfsame primordial 'mind' or 'cosmic intelligence', which programmed the 'seeds' in say the genetic encoding and which is historically known under many labelings, including that of the 'Lord God'.

Subsequently, when a mite or blue whale 'dies', the information 'collected' as say 'memory' in 'consciousness' throughout its 'lifecycle' will become 'processable' in a scenario transcending space and time in a 'return to the sourcing of the seeds'.

Commentaries:
Fantastic hypothesis, Tony. Are you saying that there is a sort of 'blueprint soul' from which all others are made and to which they return?
I don't really understand inertia, but I think I was able to grasp most of what you were alluding to above.
Thanks,
April

Yes April, and this blueprint is the same 'thing' from which the entire universe was born. It is the 'singularity' of mathematical physics as well as the 'source of all things' of the ancients, as well as the 'IAm' of Moses' 'burning bush' in Exodus.3.14 as the 'most holy of names' as well as the 'IAM' of omniscience of the New Ager.

Because this 'singularity' is responsible of having 'made' space and time from itself; it was described by the ancient mind of insight (gnosis=scientia=knowledge) as some 'LIGHT moving out of its own darkness to create all things.
This is just like the mythology described in genesis. So the 'bible bashers' in a sense are not far off the 'truth' at all. Using GNOSIS=SCIENCE=INSIGHT, one can DECIPHER the mythologies in just a manner which reductionistic science can (and will imo) eventually accept as its own ontology.

The trouble is that any mythology becomes by necessity FILTERED by the 'decoder'.
So saying, that the 'spirit of God' moved across the void (which is the same as the Greek Chaos differentiating into Uranus=Sky and Gaea=Earth or the Egyptian twinship of Geb=Sky with Nut=Earth) can and has been interpreted in many ways, including in exoteric (open and outward for the masses as Jesus or similar adepts would have said) and an esoteric (hidden or occult and inward for the disciples as Jesus or similar adepts would have said).

Then the so called sceptics and antispiritualists lose impartiality in critisizing the exotericism of say the dogma-bound religions as being undifferentiated from the esoteric interpretations (reserved for the 'disciples' or whatever).

Stephen and Herb's addresses below relate to this. Both are fundamentally correct in their critiques.
Stephen and Herb here actually converge in stating that the biblical 'soul' refers to the 'breath of life'. But this is precisely what I have said in quoting Genesis.2.7.; and which I then 'deciphered' in terms of modern physics.

One can see here what I mean by 'filtering' of the decoders.
Stephen justifiably draws upon his own database of his gnosis and differentiates between spirit and soul and then applies his brand of esoteric alchemy (as genuine part of the perennial philosophy) to describe say the harmony of the elements.

His spherical 'merkabah' is the same as the 'singularity' of QR above; it is the same as the Circle of Vitruvian Man of Leonardo da Vinci or the 'Cosmic Box' of the Hinus 'Purusha' (or 'Cosmic Man').

Stephen now could even go further in showing parallels between 'spirituality' and reductionist science.
Namely, he could invoke the destructive nature of Oxygen as the 'breath of life' and so the dual nature of being both life-giving as 'food for the brain' and as the 'fuel for combustion' and as destroyer in say that same combustive chemistry.

Herb is also correct in his critique, as the 'breath of life' can be said to be the 'soul' of ANYTHING LIVING after dispensation from 'God'.
And this is just what I tried to explain in my post. Namely, that all living things are 'made' from say 'Nature's DNA/RNA Code of Life' and manouver in between minimum and maximum boundaries which can so be utilised by modern science to further their classification procedures.

Herb misses the major point of reducing the 'God' which say 'by his spirit' gave the 'soul' to the living things to something inherent in the created beings themselves.
It is Herb's responsibility to justify his 'godless' nature in showing how this 'soul' came to be the 'motor of life' so to speak.
To then say, that science is still learning and trying to find out is to 'hide' behind the ignorance he so easily dispenses onto the peoples of faith and 'believers' in the database and libraries of the myths.

Lastly, April's question on the 'souls return to their source' requires deeper analysis.
Logically, all speculations must be selfconsistent and should also be reducible to a basic simplicity.

So the 'singularity' is in fact defined in a generalised way by many thinkers, ancient and new. One can term it the 'Lord God' or the Big Bang Singularity of a Planck-Superstring or the Source-Energy of the IAMTHATIAM or whatever.

Note here an important FACT. God is God UNTIL he has created his own image in Man (AdamEve) and RENAMES himself as the Lord God thenceafter. Why? Because Adam has now become God as his Veritas Eikona (Perfect or True Image), being empowered to NAME all the created fauna and flora in the manner of scientific classifications and taxonomies etc. etc.(Gen.2.4,20).

God's Spirit becomes the ENERGY, not only of his own selfdefinition (after emerging out of his opwn darkness or void by becoming AWARE of himself); but also of the lifesustaining 'breath of life' dispensed to his environment (say Stephen's bubble of being, which is Isaiah's 'Vessel of the Lord', Noah's Ark, the New Age Merkabah, Moses' 'Ark of the Covenant' and the 'Body of Christ' as the 'Body of the Church' in the eucharist etc. etc.).

Modern science then will one day discover, that this 'spirit of God' is closely related to the foundations of the physical sciences in being the boundary for spacetime as metric limit - limiting to what displacement scale measurements can be reduced.

Because of this, all science must eventually converge at its source of origin and it will then become understood what 'God' truly is and always was.
Namely, God can only be the energy reservoir for everything that exist, did or can exist including all thoughts, memories, speculations, dreams and inventions.

BUT, this energy reservoir must necessarily be independent on physical parameters such as space and time and mass.
So, modern science must CHANGE its paradigm of reducing everything to spacetimematter and REPLACE this with a reduction to the ENERGY equaivalence of this spacetimematter.

This will DEFINE 'God' unmistakenly, as all global science will find commonality and reproducibility through the scientific methodology.
I can elaborate if asked specific questions on this and have already often done so in my posts.

So the 'souls' are REDUCED energy concentrations independent on mass and space and time. Whilst 'enlivening' some 'vessel of life' (and a vessel of the lord in terms onf man as the image); the 'souls' ARE the living entity, might it be an ant or a dolphin or a child.
Their 'souls' are however CONNECTED to the source of all in their ENERGY EQUIVALENCE, say modelled on Black Hole physics.

As the entire inertial universe is most definitively describable as a "Mother Black Hole' (because the critical density in General Relativity demands a harmony between elementary parameters in first principles); whatever is contained in this universe is automatically bilocated in terms of the INFORMATION processing of this selfsame universe.

The boundary of the universe is colocated with the centre (and just as Stephen propounds in his 'merkabah'-sphere).
This means, that all information in between is MAPPED onto the surface (of the so called Hubble Horizon of the universe so 17 billion lightyears from the Big Bang centre) and from where it is 'processed' by the centre.

So the 'return of the souls' is rendered as a REMEMBRANCE or RECOGNISANCE of the 'souls' which had embarked on a journey, of say into embodiment, to discover more of their 'own identity' as the vertias eikonas of their source.
There is of course much more to all of this and certain elucidations can be found in the postings of Tony B. and on my site (where the mathematical symbols print properly).

PS.: Btw, I have elaborated on the Planck-Mass, linking it to embryogenesis in human gestation in my last post.
Tony B.

Excellent points. Very intelligently written Tony! What a great mind you have friend! However, I would like to add my two cents in - now I'm not saying you are wrong, or that your exegisis is flawed, but according to my sources the breath of life that was breathed [inspired] into the nostrils of man is the spirit - not the soul.
There is a difference.

{The word inspire is related to the word spirit, and inspire means to breathe in. That is why often times you will hear someone say, in the same sentence, that scripture is inspired by the holy spirit, that is, it is God breathed.}

In what I practice, the element of air represents the spirit and higher intellect, and may be depicted as an eye in the clouds. The soul is akin to mans will - it is a projection of thought, or illumination
just as fire projects its light. It just so happens that the fire of the soul consumes the flesh unto death, just as a flame consumes a log - in other words the nature of the soul destroys the flesh.
Stephen


Genesis.2.7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".
KJV

The King James version of the bible is full of mistakes.
The true interpretations of Genesis 2.7 is:
from the Tanakh [a Jewish source]
"the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
from the New Jerusalem Bible [a Catholic source]
"Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being."
In either case, "the breath of life" is interpreted as the "soul."
In other words, the soul is that which animated life, and therefore all organisms which have life, has a soul.
When one dies, the soul is gone, kaput, finished. There is no memory existing in space. Memory only exists in the brains of living organisms.
Herb

To: quantumrelativity@yahoogroups.com
From: light.rock@...
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 01:44:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [quantumrelativity] RE: [Panentheism] Re: The Devine Mind/Bill

It is a nagging thought that keeps popping up...
If existing is as in a HoloGram, then energy itself is illusory and a supernova takes no more energy than no supernova - to the processor.
The reason this keeps popping up is that a HoloGram is tremendously energy efficient, capable of being 'run' or 'observed' by multiple observers in the whole variety of directions. Or even the same exact directions simultaneously by multiple observers.
In a word: Elegant.

Science ? No. I mention it due to an experience, a religious or shamanic type experience.
I'm left with the... the... awareness or 'belief' that reincarnation is not restricted to happening in the future. i.e., the awareness is not bound by physical time, except say, while 'running a view' or 'focusing'.
( Interesting, Terry Pratchet, sci fi / fantasy author, seems to have made the same observation at the close of 'The Truth' )

Pre-destiny - perhaps actually, but during focus or 'life'.
In this way perhaps everyone was once Cleopatra or Napoleon.
No dilemma.
Must a thought be energy ? Or merely a crystalline 'memory' in 3D ?
Is awareness the same as a thought ? or is it perhaps merely the observance ?

Maybe something most everyone can relate to on that is a rough emotional experience such that your body is going but you seem to be looking out from behind your eyes while everything is just happening, like 'you' are the observer on the inside not exactly the participant. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often, to
me anyway, but for a few times in my youth.
I can imagine maybe it is fairly common however.
Or I needed the guys in white coats....


Hi Allan!
No, no guys in white coats. You are indeed Napoleon and have bedded Cleopatra and been bedded as her.
The trick is imagination - thoughts are real and most men understand that one can 'make love' to an object of one's sexual desire in one's thoughts.

But men are wired slightly differently than woman in the functionality of the libido and so the biological impulses for men are more visually stimulative than the opus operandi for the feminine - less spontaneous and requiring more 'foreplay'.
But then in all men is the goddess and in all women harbours the god so there; stereotyping is to be eschewed.

Where is Napoleon now and what of Cleopatra - the sexy bitch?
There is imagery, pictures, portraits, sculptures, photos -memory and remembrance, movies made and stories written and told.
Where is the aborted child of Bejing and the starving infant of Zimbabwe, which has just died?

The aborted child had no material experience in its brief journey into embodiment, except as part of another's body and the starving child's interaction with its environment was predominatedly one of suffering, pain and deprivations.
But there WILL BE MEMORY!

As the mother cried in the burial of her child, memories were formed and transmitted throughout the holographically defined universe for all who wished to 'tune into'.
As the 'soul' of little Azassa found itself separated from its enclosure of nagging hunger and the experience of chronic pain; it suddenly felt the warmth of its grandmother which had 'passed' a year before.
Then older and more ancient memories flooded Azassa - images of roaming the woods and playing with others; of being a father of children, noble and proud and subject to strange moods and feelings; images of being a grandmother with pets and of little children to care for and being of a whiter skin; images of a strange world, where unfamiliar animals crawled about and were two suns could be seen during the day and images and images and images...

And little Azassa felt the warmth of being home; it was itself, but not as separated as it had felt for the last 6 years or so. The familar warmth of grandmother became more encompassing as the remembrances became more 'real' and more applicative to reidentify Azassa as the REALITY of its past experiences.
Then new decisions had to be made from this new perception of itself; Azassa also was Delilah and Kistrak and... and... and.. what to do next what to think next whom to meet next whom to ask next????

On the question of energy!
Thought equals energy; but this energy is ANCESTRAL to the energy described in the physical manifestos and the conservation laws. It is here that the laws of entropy become double-arrowed and it is here where the linear 'flow of time' becomes bidirectional from the NOW into past and future as linearly perceived.
So the best one can do from the paradigm of reductionist science is to align the ANCESTRAL ENERGY with the ZPE, which so must be REDEFINED not so much as a VIRTUAL Heisenberg Vacuum of matter-antimatter interaction, but as a REAL potentially INFINITE reservoir of SOURCE-ENERGY albeit definable as the metric limit for the materiality including Big Bangs and anything associated with spacetimemass creations.

Then Allan's notion of awareness as memory and say consciousness becomes reductionistic in being definable in terms of the REAL SOURCE-ENERGY aka the electromagnetic monopolic 'magnetoelectricity' colloquially, historically and universally known as SPIRIT or Energy of God.

Subsequently and logically then; the Ancestor of the physically measured energy is the 'Love of God' or the 'Spirit of God'.
Quantum Relativity then gives PRECISE definitions in term of Quantum Mechanics and string parameters, as to a modern interpretation or labeling for the 'Spirit of God'.
This by necessity, must PREDATE in linear terms anything at all to do with material manifestations as described in the metrics of created space and superimposed temporal times.
Tony B.


On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Bill the Golfer wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Panen...Rlw3K7lASRDBXBg4oYNAesmLescF_KxsyHnuXuYDMuHb]

BILL:
Tony, I cannot fully connect all the dots on this on first read, but I do get the general point of your thinking. More importantly, I can see how it has the potential to move the endless debates of monism versus dualism to new ground. These debates suggest to me what it must have been like a little over a hundred years ago when people were debating wave versus particle theories of light. Ultimately, somebody had to step back and come up with new, more encompassing science to resolve the paradox. This is what you are attempting to do.


TONY:
Yes, I agree with you what is requiered is a MORE ENCOMPASSING SCIENCE, which I term omni-science incorporative of an SPIRITUALITY as old as historical sentient man and the classicism of materialism.
Most of the debates between say evolutionist and creationist or between atheist and believer will be looked upon as archaic and underinformed in a hopefully viable future of humankind and terralis pneumasophia.
Unfortunately, a misreading of the Cartesian paradigm has resulted in the materialistic tunnel vision now prevalent in some avenues of mainstream science...

BILL:
'Unfortunately, a misreading of the Cartesian paradigm has resulted in the materialistic tunnel vision now prevalent in some avenues of mainstream science...'
Tony, I am interested in your ideas on mind and matter. I am confused by your use of the word 'misreading' here. Misread suggests to me a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding, as opposed to (or in addition to), disagreement. Are there aspects of dualism you feel are misunderstood - as opposed to disagreed with - by those who don't accept it? 'Disagreement' began before the the ink was dry on the paper, as I read it (eg. Hobbes supposedly wrote that the statement should be changed to something on the order of, 'I think, therefore material substance is capable of thought').

TONY:
You are quite correct here. 'Misread' is somewhat an iappropriate label here. I should have used misinterpreted or misunderstood in the meaning of a selfrestrictive viewpoint say.
And Hobbes supposed statement here exemplifies this point. It presupposes a noncausative connection between the thinker and the material substance in not allowing one or the other or both.
Either the mind (thought) creates the substance or vice versa or both in a manner of mutual induction or feedback say.
But if the nonmaterial mind created the substance of the body; then the origin of the nonmaterial remains unexplained. If the material brain creates the mind, then the origin of the matter similarly remains unexplained.
This is the dilemma in a nutshell.

Solution - find the common denominator of both the material and the nonmaterial and discover and analyse the genesis of that.
One common denominator is ENERGY, as say given in bosonic massless photons and inertial fermions. But the photons are all 'made' by material sources (fusion in stars say); so modern physics must eventually reduce the energy transformation of say nuclear fusion and the binding energies inherent in E=mc[sup2[/sup] to some mass precursor. Then this mass precursor or ancestor of inertia will have properties, which must encompass both material and nonmaterial properties etc. etc. To accomodate a Big Bang cosmogenesis, this ancestor must be high in energy and very small in size and so very high in kinetic potential and so on. Eventually, science will so and has found the metric measurement limit in the Planck parameters and the string models to describe the quantum physics of a selftransforming metric.

So the material universe becomes 'explainable' in the models of the energy transformations of the string bosons (say). This leaves us with associating the nonmaterial ancestor with the genesis of the say planck-parameters, the nature of fundamental constants like c and h and k and pi and e and so on. Then abstraction and mathematics with zeroes and infinities enters the fray and with it the worlds of 'purity of thought'. So now the question becomes: 'What is a thought?' It must have energy or energy equivalence, otherwise it could not have resulted in a material cosmology of Big bangs and strings.

So the energy of thoughts become ancestral and prerequisite for anything material to exist. And who thinks? Well, people do and most likely fauna and flora does to in graduated forms of electric- and magnetic self- and mutual inductions (say called instinct and rationality via perception of the senses etc.). So if people are in a manner ancestral to their bodies, where did they come from? Well, the bodies came from genetic encodings, which in a sense are reducible to 'programs of pure thought' and so can be made nonmaterial in origin. So again, people must be reducible to 'pure thought' as ancestral energy and have a 'common origin' in the say PRIMAL THOUGHT of some idea or manifesto of some I AM MYSELF and.. and.. and... Ergo, one can introduce spirituality as the universal 'Impulse of Remembrance' of that selfsame I AM connecting all thinkers of thoughts UNIVERSALLY.

So if the atheist says: 'God is just a Thought'!; heshe is absolutely correct. But the skeptic himself is just such a God or Thought herhimself also.
And Descartes': COGITO ERGO SUM! or "I Think therefore I am!" becomes a most appropriate selfexpression of the Universal Primal I AM ITSELF.
Tony B.

 

About the Life of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Life

by Maria Odete Madeira

Any production of knowledge is supported by an organizing activity that acts in accordance to rules that have, as their objective, the resolution of problems that promote the organism's survival and adaptive fitness.
The discovery of the double-helix, by Watson and Crick, allowed the application, to the notion of living organization, of the cybernetic scheme of a machine governed by an informational program, inscribed in the structure of the DNA molecules, that organizes and directs all the activities of the cellules (Morin, 1986).

In this way, a living organization can be signaled and referred as a self-cognitive, self-organizing and self-replicating agent that is capable, through exchanges with the environment, of concentrating, in itself, the flows of order that feed it and sustain it as a spatio-temporally localized individuated structure.
The knowledge of the life of the systems introduces us to the life of the knowledge, itself. Being, doing and knowing are, thus, inseparable.

The development of communication networks, between the different agents, allowed the transformation, of the natural flows and turbulences, in the subjugated motricity that was at the origin of the human space of millions of years ago, and that can be signaled as a bio-anthropological space aimed at the satisfaction of the biological needs of survival and of the immediate and practical interests, full of feelings and emotions, fantastic visions and terrors, but also full of techniques and precise calculations, synchretically linked to the objects.
In that historical time, the time of the myth, the interface with the environment was profoundly biological, accompanied by that which Damásio (1999) designates by core consciousness, characterized by a weak grasping ability and a weak reflexive operativity that did not allow the exercise of abstract thinking.

The type of thinking produced was profoundly linked to the aleatority of the motion of the natural forces, whose nature revealed itself as powerful, threatening and dramatic.
In this way, the production of judgments exhibited a perceptual and conceptual pattern that allowed the hominidian networks to signal, identify an classify the ecosystemic space, as a fluid and fluctuating nature, determined by local dynamic, unstable, coevolutionary and organic rules, foundationally conditioned by locally emergent mechanisms of territorialization and deterritorialization, rhizomatically aleatorial, producer of myths (meudh, mudh, myo, mytheo, mythos) and of rites, linked to the vital emotions and feelings of immediate survival and creators of visual, tactile, acoustic, and olphactive action spaces, conceptually non-schematizable, but that interacted with the strategic calculus that allowed the development of techniques of working the stone, then the bone and, also, the metal, as well as the development of cognitive memories, associated with the knowledge of the plants, of the animals and of the environment.

From the passage of the mythological thinking towards the so-called rational thinking, the knowledge came to be explicitly referred to as kosmos, or order, and as logos, term of Greek origin, derived from the verb legein that, originally meant to gather, to enumerate or to choose.
In turn, the noun logos, that initially meant collection and (re-)collection of the multiple, came to mean the discourse or language.
The kosmos and the logos, that substituted the myth as an attempt of interpretation and explanation of the reality, in its complexity, corresponded to the development of the capability of the organismic human grasp, accompanied by the expansion of consciousness.

The core consciousness, thus, lost operative protagonism to the extended consciousness, which came, since then, to operate in the interface with the environment. In accordance with Damásio (1999), if core consciousness is the indispensable foundation of consciousness, extended consciousness is its glory.
Unlike core consciousness, extended consciousness allows to work on temporally more expanded interaction surfaces, connectable to mechanisms of retension and protension. Available at: http://cmathphil.blogspot.com/2008/06/about-life-of-knowledge-and-knowledge.html

Tony B. commentary on the article above.

This reply shall address the basic blending of the ancient, but ubiquitous mythologies of the 'prescientific' cultures with the premises of modern cosmologies, which form the 'standard' paradigms of today. The extension or finetuning or illumination of this 'status quo' so must include both perspectives, that of the modern reductionist materialistic scientist and some proposals of hitherto labeled as 'fringe'- or peripheral omni-scientists, such as Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton.


Why every baby is a fractal universe in the cosmos of consciousness of Maria's Collective

When a baby is born after a typical gestation period of 266 days, a biological process of cellular communications and selfreplication (in terms of the genetic code and the biochemistry of nucleotidal basepairings and amino acid permutations) results in a 'bundle' of protoplasm, say as the material of 'cellular life' and weighing in at so 7 pounds or 3.5 kg and consisting to a large percentage, say 80%, of water.
There are so 62.5 Trillion cells in a typical human adult body, each of mass 1 nanogram for the average weight of 62.5 kg used here.

I shall show, how the cellular communication of the preembryo, say given in basic totipotent sex-cellular mitosis of parent-daughter stemcells of the protoplasm, can result in a baby born after due course of the pregnancy.
This will introduce a particular part of the modern cosmology, based on Planck-String transformations and so describe the 'birth of a baby' as the birth of a 'fractal universe' in a monadid form of consciousness (Maria's and Damasio's ground consciousness), which becomes however extended in a dualism of this 'ur-consciousness' to a form of intracellular communication mechanics. I first recall parts of an earlier post relevant to this (On the whales and mites).

The greatest and most massive mammal that has ever existed still exists today under threat of extinction - the Blue Whale of say 150 tonnes in weight and 30-40 meters in length.
One blue whale was dated as being over 200 years old and their average lifespan is the same as that for the human in so 70-100 years.

But according to the cosmogenesis of QR; the Big Bang occurred 19.11 billion years ago following 'stringed inflationary epoch'.
This inflation ended at the 'instanton of time', namely to=3.33..x10^-31 seconds after 'Planck-Time' and related in the cycletime n=H_o.t. This quantises a linear 'flow of time' as dn/dt=H_o~1.88x10^-18 Hz and as a superposed 'cosmic frequency' for the expansion of the universe (as a nodal Hubble-Constant of 58 km/Mpc.s say).
This marker, initialising the thermodynamic Big Bang as a Planck Black-Body Radiator; then manifests a 'Unified Field' (UF) of the four gauge interactions (Gravitation, Electromagnetism and the two nuclear interactions).
This UF manifests the merging of two opposing wavefunctions, which repeats in intervals of 8π radians and manifests the gauge interactions as a collection of monopolic current 'knots' or 12 intersection-points. It also specifies a 'marker mass', called Weyl-Mass M_W=h/t_o.c²~2.2x10^-20 kg.

As the timeinstanton defines the c-invariance in lightpath x=ct_o and as a wavelength (lambda) say; one can now metricate the minimum displacement as a Schwarzschild Radius in say General Relativity and giving a boundary/initial condition for the relativistic Big Bang.
Setting 4 Lambda=4L=4λ=(8π.r_o)=2GM/c², then specifies the 'Black Holed' inertia or mass as M_min=4π.r_o.c²/G=162,000 kg in the QR calculation, using string parameters.

What does this mean?
This means that any mass observed and measured in the universe can be differentiated in terms of its Black-Hole equivalence.
A classical Black Hole would become limited in an 'ordinary' manifested mass of 162 tonnes and as the precise mapping of the 'Unified Field' onto a subsequent cosmic evolution, which began over 19 billion years ago and in a sense defining the 'finiteness' of the universe, compared to its stringed 'pretime'.
So any of the 'living moving creatures' of the scriptural account would PRECEDE the manifestation of a physical universe as the 'seeds of themselves', now translated into modern semantics as the Black Hole inertia equivalents, which in QR are also monopolic and superconductive source-currents.

So if 162 tonnes is a minimum and say as the scale of the most massive living creature that ever existed; what then is the minimum scale of such a creature?.
As the 162 tonnes specify a maximum in say the baleen whale as the END of the inflationary string epoch; the minimum is necessarily defined in the beginning of that epoch and so in the Planck-Mass M_P=√(hc/2π√G)~1.6x10^-8 kg.

Should one use the mass of a human preembryo at implantation of the blastocyst (100-150 cells) at say 7 days after fertilisation as a marker; then using cellular mitosis at the twelfth division - after the creation of the first generation of the daughter cells from the parental spermatozoa and ovum -of the (totipotent) stem cells; the Planck-Mass is also attained.
Here one uses a characteristic cellular mass of 1 nanogram for 2¹⁴=16,384 cells for a total mass of 16,384 nanograms.
So the lightest 'living creature' should weigh about the Planck-Mass and is found in the world of the microbes.

The Etruscan Shrew (of thumbsize) is described as the lightest living mammal, weighing 2 grams; the lightest vertebrate is often said to be the stout infantfish (of so 8 mm) at one milligram and the lightest insects are say fairy flies (hymenoptera, wasps), which also weigh in the milligram region and the millimeter scale of size.
The smallest invertebrata can be smaller, then the largest protozoa, say the bacterium paramecium (350 micrometers) as compared to a fairy fly of 200 micrometers.
Microscopic mites like Archegozetes Iongesetosus (from taxonomy of acari and arachnids) weighs 100 micrograms and is often called the 'strongest animal in the world', as it can lift over 1182 times its own bodyweight (expected value is about five times). Such microorganisms date back to the Devonian era of so 400 million years ago and still dominate the overall lifeform in number on the planet.
But Archegozetes Iongesetosus is a 'larger' mite at half a millimeter and at 10^-7 kg and smaller mites reduce to less than one tenth of a millimeter.
This reduction in size corresponds to a say fivefolded reduction in mass and now characterises the Planck-Mass of so 16 micrograms.

So what am I saying?

I claim, that say the extreme forms of inertia found on the planet, say the 162 ton baleen whale and the tropic mite at 20 microgram, are both related to the creation of the universe before space and time existed - as DNA/RNA templates or architectural blueprints subject to evolutionary genetic mutation or similar.

And the human scale of say 50-100 kg is near the geometric mean of the two extremes at √(162x10³x1.6x10^-8)~0.051 kg by a factor of 1000 - the mean describing a 'weight' of 51 grams (a typical chocolate bar or a small bird).
We now continue in further emphasising the importance of the Planck-Mass in terms of 'Matter Waves' after Louis de Broglie.

The Planck-Length L_P=2π.R_P=√(Gh/2π.c³)~2x10^-35 m relates as a minimum radius to the Planck-Mass MP=√(hc/2πG)~1.6x10^-8 kg via the expressions:
E=hf=hc/L=mc² as de Broglie wavelength L_dB=h/mv and where the matter speed v has taken the place of a (Compton) lightspeed c.

We know, that the Black Hole equivalence describes the metric curvature of spacetime as a Schwarzschild-Radius R_S=2GM/c².

Replacing lightspeed c in that 'boundary condition' with a matter wavespeed v gives us a well known expression for the 'Escape Velocities' of 'particles' or objects from 'gravitating' massive bodies of mass M say.
So for the earth of radius R and mass M; the escalpe velocity is simply V_escape=√(2GM/R)~11.2 km/s, whilst for the sun, this would be over 617 km/s.

Next we recall the Planck-Mass as a biological determinator in the sense of the afordescribed boundary conditions for the 'heaviest and lightest' living creatures. So instead of describing a Newtonian macrophysics of gravitation, we allow the crystallized 'string-epoch', which preceded the Birth of the material Universe; to play a determinative role in the 'prebirthing' of a typical human protoplasmic unity, namely the "COSMIC BABY" being born from a "COSMIC WOMB" and so 'mapping and revisiting the 'Quantum Big Bang' of the contemporary standard model. We then simply allow the Planck-Mass evolving via transformations into the Weyl-Mass to describe a Quantum Physics, which is magnified or say mapped holographically, as the Newtonian Macro Physics of the Planck-Mass as the 'lightest living' creature 'growing' into a mass , which defines the human birthprocess. The 'escape velocity Vescape' from the 'cosmic womb' so becomes a fundamental physical parameter in any cosmological model and will relate in a generalised Schwarzschild metric as:

R.V_escape²=2GM_P or V_escape=√(2GM_P/R).

Quantum Relativity (QR) then claims, that this escape velocity as a universal parameter is precisely defined in the modular duality of the definitions of the bosonic superstrings.
It does not only apply to the birth of human babies, but the propagation of a particular 'resistance field', which can be defined to relate to the concept of a 'ground consciousness' EVOLVING into its extension as a 'group- or collective consciousness'.
Modular Duality defines the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in c lightspeed or c-invariance as the inversion of what is known as gravitational radiation.
The electromagnetic form is intrinsic to the standard models as say the expression wavespeed=wavelengthxfrequency and which so defines lightspeed c in the limit for the inertia defined velocities.
The gravitational form describes the same physics, but uses a different operational definition for displacement (around a circular perimeter), which says that a high frequency 'vibration' can be made identical to a low frequency 'winding' about quantum mechanical 'operators' describing momentum and position vectors in say Fourier transformations.

QR then generalises this modular duality in defining inverse wavespeed=wavelengthxfrequency in velocity units of mensuration.

This gives a general radial extension of 'inverse lightpath' = Time/c (m/s) and calculates as so 10.5 cm/year. This allows us to state, that any Big Bang 'singularity' or Now-event will carry a 'Centre of Growth', from which the inverse lightspeed propagation, will define a kind of 'evolutionary resistance field' related to the 'seedling consciousness' about which some material structure might develop.

In other words, in terms of an 'evolving' earth in 'consciousness'; there would exist a 'Sphere of Seedling Consciousness' around the planet, extending the 'Inversed Lightpath' as X=(Age of Universe)/c~2 Million km and encompassing the satellite Moon (384,000 km away) and extending so 5% to the nearest planet Venus (41.6 million km away).

In terms of the 'birth of the earth', a 'smaller' sphere reduces in the 'age-ratio' to about 4.8/19.11~0.25 to 500,000 km and so 'envelopes' the moon in a 'collective' of extended consciousness for a Earth-Satellite system.

The 'speed' of electromagnetic radiation is constant as 'c' and is the effect of the acceleration of Coulombic charges, the latter ALWAYS associated or coupled with inertial mass (say charged proton and electrons defining atoms and molecules).
Accelerating those inertial masses then create gravitational radiation at lightspeed 'c' to define the so called gauge graviton of the standard model of particle physics.

The 'new' physics, which extends this standard model is the inversion of the graviton gauge speed onto local 'consciousness systems' and which is described in the NATURE of the mapping of the Coulombic electric charges of classical Maxwellian electromagnetism onto the inertial mass carriers.
So whilst gravitational graviton radiation at c-invariance requires large inertia, the 'consciousness radiation' is modular dual to the former and becomes defined in the lightspeed inversion, not requiring the acceleration of large masses.

In particular this relates to the equivalence principle, where all inertial mass is a consequence of a noninertial and massless cosmology of the bosonic string epoch (see Origin of Mass articles).

Our Planck-Mass now defines a conglomeration of cells, say as the blastocyst embedding into the placenta so 7 days after conception.
Taking the mass of a singular parent cell as 1 nanogram for 2¹⁴=16,384 geometric divisions then 'recreates' a 'critical mass' for the 'lightest living being' in the Planck-Mass.
The escape velocity now is 1/c and we solve V_escape=√(2GM_P/R) for the characteristic 'size' R=2GM_P.c²~0.24 meters. Letting this be the displacement path D=time/c gives a time T=72 million seconds or 833.33 days; the latter reduce to 266 days of gestation in a factor of about 3.1 with (266/365.25)(10.5 cm)~7.7 cm as the 'radius' of the 'baby bubble'.
As a rough approximation then, the gestation period describes an inner boundary of 7.7 cm and a volume of so 1.9 litres (and 1.9 kg for water), surrounded by an 'envelope' of about 24 cm and a greater volume of 58 litres or a 'mother's' weight of so 60 kg.

The mother's body so becomes a quasi-black hole for the emerging baby to be 'birthed' from the womb; if one 'unmodulates' the 'escape velocity' back into the lightspeed of a Schwarzschild metric. And using the yearly 'consciousness extension' of 0.105 meters or a volume of about 4.85 liters; the 'average' typical birthweight will be 3.5 kg or 3.5 liters in the ratio (266/365.25)=0.73.

So what is this 'consciousness' infusing the cells as they replicate in mitosis and 'grow' and develop the physical body of the baby under the inverse light propagation?

This 'consciousness' is a 'spacetime awareness' of spacetime itself, namely it can be defined in QR as magneto charge or inverse 'source' energy which creates the spacetime from itself as its own essence say.

The string parameters defining the boundary conditions for the cosmology in say the Weyl-parameters, also define a Weyl-Energy as the 'Source-Energy-Quantum' and as the so called ZPE or VPE of the standard models.
The INVERSE of this Weyl-Energy becomes the Magneto Charge and so a physical representative for this 'spacetime consciousness' say.

Furthermore the magneto charge e* maps the electro charge (as the ordinary Coulomb charge) between the 'dimensions' of the massless string universe (of inflation) and the inertial universe of the classical and relativistic standard models.

As e* is defined in terms of the 'Classical Electron Diameter' (2R_e) as a displacement in terms of the Weyl-Length (which is itself a transformed Planck-Length) and the energy/mass proportionality E/m=hf/m=c² , and as e*=2R_e.c² , the mensuration units for this reductionistic definition for 'consciousness' becomes the StarCoulomb (C*) as the product of displacement and 'Awareness-Area' or Volume and Angular Acceleration and where 'Awareness' becomes the timedifferential for frequency (df/dt) as this angular acceleration acting upon some volumar of spacetime infused by matter.

Extending this 'core consciousness' as a 'source energy' then maps cellular communications in the dynamical adaptations in the intracellular environments and so justifies the many 'fringe sciences', which postulate a mediating 'aether' or delocalised and unified holistic background for the physics of matter and its inertial parameters.

Nervous impulses then travel at speeds on the scale of 10-100 m/s as medium of communication and cells themselves 'drift' or flow or are being carried at speeds measured in microseconds and milliseconds to form the extended centres for the 'group consciousnesses', say of organs and tissues and the hierarchies of the bodies.
Tony B.


MARIA ODETE:
Thank you Tony, for the very interesting perspectives.
I would like to place a few questions to you regarding a conjectural scenario. I, then, ask you to think, hypothetically, about this cosmos (our cosmos) as having had origin in an anomaly that occurred within another reality (another cosmos for instance?!).

No god, nor gods, nothing like this, having been present in that origin, simply an anomaly, like for instance a persistent vortex-like torsion in some substance, thus forming a knot-like shell, that expanded (cosmic inflation for instance).
Continuing with this hypothesis, we may consider that we are linked to that other reality, or other cosmos (if it is one), by something like a "cosmic umbilical cord", and the question that might be posed, if this scenario was indeed the case, might be why has not this connection been severed? What would happen if this severing would take place? What "is", in this scenario, feeding us?



TONYB:
Aye Maria, thank you for responding.
First of all, yes of course, I agree with your 'no gods' hypothesis. So many people get me 'wrong' on this all the time.

There are no gods and devils, except those created by the cosmic sentience out from itself and then as immaterial entities of its own psyche. So the Christian theology, the Islamic cosmologies, the Hindu writings, all represent metaphors and symbolic recognisances of something underpinning this selfsame 'essence' or what have you, which gave rise to the 'cosmic sentience', say.
This 'cosmic intelligence' (let's term it CI from now on) then 'invented' the gods etc. to describe itself in some allegorical manner and using the experiental environment of a created spacetime scenario to do so.
Imo, this is where your imagery of the unsevered umbilical cord derives from. All 'creation' in a materially definable spacetime is selfcentered and must by the nature of the CI, be so. So my aim has always been to introduce this CI to the world, and naturally filtered as to how I perceive it.

So then your Vortex of the Chaos (I term the subplenum for the lightmatrix precisely in such terms in the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE as a synonym for the ZPE of physics) becomes my Weyl-Singularity as the final superstring transformation.
The strings are of course simply symbols or labellings for something immaterial transforming into materialness in abstract mathematical equations like E=mc²=hf=kT.
So the creation of the universe into materialness becomes a simple emergence (or birth) of the Vortex-Energy into a transmuted form - this then is called the Quantum Big Bang.
But as you have also realised, this Big Bang emerged from a prior 'substance', coupled to the mechanism of 'quantum inflation'.
Furthermore, your 'anomaly' becomes something describable in an 'Energy-Gradient'.

This 'Source-Energy' can of course be labelled as 'Omni-Present God', because it is certainly omni-everything, but is has NO personal qualities, except say an encompassment of all possible 'personalities' and so on.
This is where the true nature of the circular unities, say the zodiac derives from. All 'characteristic permutations' are represented in a wheel, then subdivided into sectors and houses and 'influencers' (planets in astrology as precursor for astronomy say).
So the 'Omni-Thing' BECOMES something IN AN EXPERIENCED SPACETIME, which IT, the CI, already IS in a NON-METRIC SPACETIME or say the UNDEFINED VORTEX OF THE CHAOS.
So in a very very REAL SENSE, every woman IS the entire universe, able to give birth to the CI.
So many readers cannot follow this; as it transcends ordinary perception of the 'human' (I feel nonhuman minds can perceive this more easily) mind or mode of thinking. But you have hit the occuli tauri, in imagining this 'umbilical cord'. The umbilical cord is also the 'silver thread' said to connect the 'incarnated soul' to the 'afterlife' and what have you. But this umbilical cord represents your own 'Cosmic ID' (let's call it CID) in describing your own birth into materiality and your 'giving birth'.

So here you can induct the three generations, necessary to recreate certain genealogical sex-chromosomatic permutations; namely you require Father-Son-GrandSon in a coupling to Mother-Daughter-GrandDaughter in ONE to ensure the continuity.
Now the CI seems to KNOW all of this and everything else AS IT IS FILTERED, IMAGINED and CREATED by the COSMIC ID's, namely all the consciousness carriers.
So what is called as 'God, Allah, Krishna, Absolute, etc.' is continually creating itself AS the 'imaginers', dreamers and story-tellers. There are NO external gods or sentiences if the holographic principle of theoretical physics is taken to its ultimate conclusion.
Everything is simultaneously WITHIN the Chaos Vortex as an 'abnormal singularity' (READ mathematical abstraction, albeit definable in many terms) and WITHOUT it as the MAPPING of a say MINIMUM spacetime onto a MAXIMUM spacetime at any time-instant or NOW-Moment in the linear unfoldment, which is also a circular continuum.

Iow, the goddess is whoever CAN PLAY the role and 'tune into' the characterisation however the multiplicity of it. Similarly, every CID is also 'god' and particularly say the TRANSCENDENT GOD of say the scriptures (and less the more real 'gods' displaying the 'human characteristics' say).
So your question of the 'feeding' is most relevant. You are feeding yourself from your disembodied CID - in terms of perception, creativity, thinking and so on. Your embodied CID so is in constant communion with itself, irrespective of self-recognition.
So the question of the 'suffering' and misery of say earthly life is really a question of IGNORANCE (as definition for the 'sinfulness'). The problem of humanity is one of REMEMBRANCE, namely the selfremembrance of the CID as genetic (and otherwise) 'HEIR' of the CI.

The CI EXISTS AS the CID collectively!
So because the human 'animal' has evolved physically into 'dominance', but has FORGOTTEN to evolve mentally-perceptively say; the human selforganisation has resulted in the humungous inequalities apparent on this planet.
The great problem today is MINDCONTROL and political manipulation on the greatest scale possible at humanities present technological nexus.
There seems to be a change waiting in the wings; not at least caused by the internet communication having outmanouvered the 'manipulators' which have not have gained the necessary control over it.
But having said this, I now delve deeper as to WHY.
There is a deeper 'gnosis' as to why the human evolution has bifurcated into such a deplorable imbalance between the physical and the mental.
One avenue is that of the CI of course.
The CI experiences everything the CIDs experience.

So a human is eaten by a crocodile - how to share this experience UNIVERSALLY for all the CIDs? The 'shared' local experience engages modes of 'survival' and fear, protectiveness and apprehension say.
Every CID is selfcentred and must be so to allow the CI to manifest evolutionarily, say as a specific 'role' or characterisation of itself.
So the 'sharing of the experiences' will FORCE MEMORY to function and this will in turn engage the GENETIC PROGRAMMING, which is ultimately related to the development of the human embodiment, say the reptilian brainstem, the mammalian brain and the cortex.
So the reptilian basic impulse of say 'flight or fight' as the OLDEST MEMORY will 'clash' with the OLDER MEMORY of the midbrain say (mapping say the evolution of mammals from pecylosaurs for example) and the YOUNGER MEMORY of the Cro Magnon 'DreamTime' say of so 30,000 years ago.

So allow me to project the perspective of the 'alien observer (AO)' onto this scenario.
The AO KNOWS of the great discrepancy on the planet earth. SheHe has clear recognisance of the Cro Magnon evolution, which resulted in a single race of human sapiens sapiens populating the continents and which carried a morphogenetic 'gestalt' or body-type sufficient for the programming of the DNA/RNA at this stage of the say galactic plan of expansion and colonisation.
The AO so 'keeps track' of the Cro Magnon development through the 'inventiveness' cycles of Bronze and Iron and Steele and Steam and Petroleum and Silicon and so on up to the nuclear age of today.
Accompanying the technical creativeness, is however a clear imbalance in the 'sharing' mentality of this human race. There seems to be a clear discrimination between the 'havers' and the 'nothavers' and the 'knowers' and the 'notknowers'.
Of course, the AO also knows, that this is the result of the OLDER MEMORIES and the STAGNATING EVOLUTION of PROCESSING this OLDER MEMORY into the NEWER MEMORY.
So the AO ponders on ways as how to accelerate or enforce the PROCESSING OF MEMORY.

Why does it appear as so a terrestrial species simply REFUSES to GROW UP mentally to take 'its place' in a galactic community (say)?
But then the AO remembers; it is designed to be so for the benefit of the AO's of the galactic community.
For the 'earthlings' can serve as an example for the CIDs in this and other galaxies. They can show the difficulties a race experiences when it cannot process its older memories of 'fight or flight' and its inheritance of the 'soma-evolution' of the 'bodyness'. The AO then might also recall the galactic directives of not 'interfering' with this 'development' for the reasons of contingency. The next question then is as to how the AO differs in his 'being' from the human, both being CIDs?
This the AO understands rather clearly. The AO is conscious of the holographic holism of the universe, whilst the human is not - HeShe has remembered HerHimself.

The AO knows, that it is a principle of quantum relativity, which distinguishes the observer in one reference frame from the observer in another reference frame.
So the human observer is selfreferential to its environment and distinguishes the complementary polarity components of sayright/left or plus/minus or even/odd or yin/yang or female/male in the electromagnetic universal bifurcations which define the consciousness circuitry of natural superconductive currentflow.
So the human externalises itself as say the magnetic component being nonhuman terrestrial and the electric component being nonhuman nonterrestrial.
Then the global evolution would link to planetary expansion of the consciousness on a multitude of levels - say the inner-middle-outer earth/space).
This means that the human is nonsuppressed in both components, but its external environment suppresses either/or -say in the nonhuman terrestrial lifeforms suppressing the electric component (of say abstract thought in favour of 'instinct' or intuition) and the nonhuman nonterrestrial lifeforms suppressing the magnetic component (of say emotional thought in favour of abstract intellect).

One important fact relative to the AO would be, that this allows the AO to PROJECT HisHer (electrically intelligent) presence onto the earth, where the disembodied alien intelligence is physically present in the form of the earthlings biovital environment in say the flora and the fauna as the magnetic component.
But, leaving the AO now; the 'feeding' of the CIDs occurs via the definition of the spacetime itself, namely as the 'Source-Energy' of the VPE.
This VPE is so all the things associated with the 'gods' and the 'antigods' - it is 'nourishing' as it must be the 'essence' of everything, including space and time and matter and antimatter and so on.
The major major point however is, that this VPE must be rooted and defined as 'consciousness' of the Self in the grandest terms expressible in whatever words or labels one might choose to use.

In string parameters, it is the equation (there are many alternatives) on the introduction page of quantum relativity. But to name this 'God=' is of course completely arbitrary and of literary licence.
Chardin's Noosphere imo, is nicely described in my 'lightspeed inversion' scenario described in the thread.
Thanks Maria!
Tony B.


MARIA ODETE:
One may conjecture about the nature of the other reality (maybe cosmos?! Or, perhaps, chaos?! Why not?! Why not a permanent, very vibratory, and disordered flow of some substance?).
Perhaps the decay and entropic nature that occurs here is a result of the individuation of the shell, in the sense that nothing, inside the shell, is capable of persisting too long, because the flow of that "thing" that might be sustaining this reality is insufficient, the separation, responsible for this existence (the hardening of the shell?!), is, under such a scenario, also responsible for the decay of this existence.
Also, what would life be in that other reality? If there was one? In the end, we return to the same question of what is life?

I must disambiguate an essential issue regarding these questions that I am placing. Even though I have a Catholic education and a Christian matrix that in some way contaminated my intellectual growth, in this moment, and in this age, I feel very comfortable in my agnostic position.
All these things were though from a very earthly, very materialistic perspective, very much rooted in the physis, without any religious, ideological or political conditioning.
We are extremely vulnerable in a cosmos where there is much suffering. We do not control anything and we know very little about anything. All that we can do is to go on learning. Regarding core consciousness, and the self-awareness of the space-time, it is perfectly pertinent, I agree with you.

What do you think about Chardin's noosphere?
Best regards,
maria odete

IAmWhoIAm and bring you the Shalom of the Wisdom of the Maya

 

Raven - April 10th, 2014 at 9:42 am


Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

Posted by R&S in Psychology On January 12, 2014

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“ has stirred up the Internet, because it contained a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.



http://xposethereal.com/scientists-claim-that-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death.html

[8:42:34 AM] Allisiam: http://xposethereal.com/scientists-claim-that-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death.html
[8:42:42 AM] Allisiam: what do you think of this Tony?

"Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe. This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely. It’s almost like a cosmic Russian doll afterlife effect."

[8:43:12 AM] Allisiam: not so sure about this, but maybe you can say something about it

[8:45:57 AM] Allisiam: this stuff specifically
[8:46:09 AM] Allisiam: their many worlds theory
[8:52:38 AM] Allisiam: like why do they always say this about the microwave background , that it is showing evidence of a multiverse? I still don't understand what makes them think this.

[9:01:17 AM] Shiloh: Humbug Juju
[9:01:57 AM] Allisiam: i am watching this video
[9:02:12 AM] Allisiam: this Lanza guy is all over the place with his ideas
[9:02:13 AM] Shiloh: I made it clear previously, that the microwave anomaly stems from their erroneous assumptions regarding the inflation occurring AFTER the Big Bang
[9:02:34 AM] Allisiam: yes well i found this little gem all over fb
[9:02:48 AM] Allisiam: being circulated and so i thought maybe you could address it
[9:02:59 AM] Allisiam: if you like, no worries hon
[9:03:09 AM] Shiloh: All this is disinfo trying to justify their eternal steady state thermodynamic nonsense
[9:03:38 AM] Shiloh: I HAVE addressed this many times - this multiverse independent from each other BS
[9:03:40 AM] Allisiam: yes i realize that
[9:03:52 AM] Allisiam: but he is also talking about biocentrism
[9:04:03 AM] Shiloh: The multiverse is INSIDE the omniverse of the Logos not outside as a collection of universes either in spacetime definable or not
[9:04:26 AM] Shiloh: As the status quo despises the Logos, it tries all sorts of maneuvers to get rid of it

[9:04:53 AM] Allisiam:

[9:05:02 AM] Allisiam: i thought this was interesting what he says here
[9:05:23 AM] Shiloh: I agree with that
[9:05:43 AM] Allisiam: yes and i do too
[9:05:47 AM] Allisiam: this is in the GOT

[9:06:09 AM] Shiloh: But their astrophysics is wrong on this basic flaw of time ordering of events
[9:06:16 AM] Allisiam: is this multiverse thing a confusion of the potential field?
[9:06:46 AM] Shiloh: Penrose tried to show them this, but also fell into the trap of conjuring universes before the Quantum Big Bang creation event
[9:06:57 AM] Allisiam: yes i see that
[9:07:07 AM] Allisiam: he is mentioned in this article
[9:07:15 AM] Shiloh: Inflation first and THEN the Big Bang - it is as simple as that
[9:07:34 AM] Shiloh: reply with those facts on facebook
[9:08:06 AM] Allisiam: but why do they think that these darker patches in the microwave background indicate interaction with other universes?
[9:08:27 AM] Allisiam: what could be another explanation for what they are seeing in the say temperature fluctuations
[9:08:44 AM] Shiloh: And the inflation is by definition superluminal and so this fact accepted alone, should tell them that the inflation must have come before the classical thermodynamic Planck-Einstein Big Bang, modelled as a 'Planckian Black Body Radiator'
[9:09:14 AM] Shiloh: Because of energy gradients related to the dark energy and dark matter
[9:10:03 AM] Shiloh: And Lanza is right when he says, that this dark energy phenomenon must be related to consciousness as basic prerequisite for any material manifestos of that energy
[9:10:23 AM] Shiloh: IT IS the consciousness as a timespace parameter fundamental
[9:10:32 AM] Allisiam: no i am not going to reply to the nabs fury over this. As you know you can't tell them anything, especially if it has to do with science. Even i have trouble because my science background is no where it should be to really have an effective rebuttal
[9:11:16 AM] Shiloh: Point them to the Penrose pic of the WMAP which shows those concentric circles



Shiloh wrote: Dec 2nd 2010

​

Roger Penrose, whose work I often use in Quantum Relativity; is basically on the right path of reconstructing the cosmogenesis.

However the cyclic universe is built on its own protoversal seed and the 'Big Crunches' are electromagnetic and not intertial.

This means, that there will be no gravitational contraction in a shrinking of the protoverse; but the electromagnetic lightpath becomes multidimensional and multivalued. One can so model this on a cyclic electromagnetic cosmology with a 'Hubble heartbeat' of a semibeat of so 16.9 Billion years.

Indeed, the Inflation PRECEDED the Big Bang and this is the simple solution for the 'inflation paradoxes' as some might term it.

The WMAP data in the picture in this post actually is descriptive for the wavequark model in Quantum Relativity with an inner gluonic (anti)neutrino kernel or core, an Inner Mesonic (down quark) Ring and an Outer Leptonic (strange quark) Ring.



For further details, a consultation of the Thuban archives on http://cosmosdawn.com is suggested.

Tonyblue

http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/en.wikipedia.org/passage/?page=post&id=6E1EE5E0-5883-41CE-964C-46B649051073&fid=C5EA21C7-6B16-4728-89A7-F6377F366F9A

[9:11:57 AM] Shiloh: It is because of this experimentally verified symmetry, that they are fiddling in their matter based cosmologies
[9:12:23 AM] Shiloh: Or post this convo on Moa say and link facebook to that
[9:12:28 AM] Allisiam: yes and they always come up with this multiverse idea and parallel universe shit
[9:12:53 AM] Shiloh: And nabs morons like DD and co buy this, because they dislike mainstream science indeed
[9:13:05 AM] Allisiam: yes, why i wanted you to address it
[9:13:27 AM] Shiloh: Share this convo and then link the places where you get the info from
[9:13:37 AM] Shiloh: I find the penrose link for you wait
[9:13:47 AM] Allisiam: do you have a link of the Penrose WMAP, i will insert it
[9:14:03 AM] Shiloh: I am getting it

[9:23:39 AM] Allisiam: i am doing this on Moa first then
[9:24:02 AM] Shiloh: There is a better Penrose article I am trying to find
[9:24:14 AM] Shiloh: Ok I can edit later and add it

[9:51:34 AM] Sirius 17: nice thanks
[9:51:49 AM] Sirius 17: yes i get so tired of all the nabs misinformation on fb
[9:52:02 AM] Shiloh: It is obnoxious
[9:52:08 AM] Sirius 17: it really is
[9:52:11 AM] Shiloh: I added links to the post too
[9:52:17 AM] Sirius 17: they are spreading BS
[9:52:36 AM] Sirius 17: i put a link on fb
[9:52:43 AM] Shiloh: With a little truth interwoven yes and this is as it must be now
[9:52:49 AM] Sirius 17: you should too from your fb and thuban
[9:52:53 AM] Shiloh: The executive is active cosmically
Sirius 17

shiloh wrote:



SUSAN - Posted Dec 1st 2010

Have Physicists Found Echoes From Before the Big Bang?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/11/29/have-physicists-found-echoes-from-before-the-big-bang/
.

​

The Big Bang was not the beginning, Roger Penrose believes.

The eminent Oxford physicist has long advocated the wild idea of “conformal cyclic cosmology,” a cyclical universe without beginning or end in which the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago was simply one of many. This month, Penrose pushed his idea further: His team says it has detected a pattern in the cosmic microwave background—radiation left over from just after the Big Bang—that represents the echo of events that occurred before the Big Bang itself.

Penrose examined the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the mission that just completed nine years of surveying the cosmic microwave background across the sky. His study points to concentric circular patterns in the WMAP data where he says he found something surprising:

The circular features are regions where tiny temperature variations in the otherwise uniform microwave background are smaller than average. Those features, Penrose said, cannot be explained by the highly successful inflation theory, which posits that the infant cosmos underwent an enormous growth spurt, ballooning from something on the scale of an atom to the size of a grapefruit during the universe’s first tiny fraction of a second.
Inflation would either erase such patterns or could not easily generate them. [Science News]
By Penrose’s thinking, those circles are the calling cards of something big that happened in the universe before our Big Bang and reverberated after it. Like the birth and death of previous universes.

From calculations made by Penrose, he believes that as each universe evolved, the catastrophic collisions between supermassive black holes (the black hole behemoths living in the centers of galaxies) would have generated gravitational waves within that universe’s lifetime.
When the next universe exploded into being, these gravitational waves were converted into energy, ensuring their “fingerprint” bled through to the next universe.
The pulse of energy caused by the transfer of gravitational waves from one universe to the next would have caused a kick to the distribution of dark matter, creating uniform, spherical patterns in the current universe. [Discovery News]
So what are we to make of this? I put it to cosmologist Paul Davies, who says the question rests with inflation.

“Penrose was always been a doubter of inflation,” Davies says. “It’s against the fashion of the moment, but that’s fine. (And) if you abandon inflation, what happened before the Big Bang could leave an echo.”
That’s because inflation would smooth out that echo. (Another possibility, he says, is idea of “incomplete inflation,” in which inflation could have existed but not been thorough enough to smooth out all echoes.
That theory wouldn’t require abandoning inflation to accommodate an echo in the microwave background.)
However, Davies says, even if the finding is correct, this explanation for it —a black hole smash-up from before the Big Bang leaving its fingerprint after the Big Bang —isn’t the only possibility. “People have been looking for concentric rings in the cosmic microwave background for a while,” he says, because such a finding could support several different ideas.
One of those alternate explanations plays on the idea of our universe being a “bubble” created by inflation; if two bubbles collided, he says, the result could leave a cosmic microwave echo.
Lastly, he says, the source of the study makes it a tad suspect.
“You’d expect people at the sharp end of the data to make an announcement like this.
You wouldn’t expect a mathematician.” So I asked Charles Barrett, who was the lead investigator of WMAP, and in his reply email he too expressed skepticism:
“Unfortunately, the paper does not provide the necessary detail on how they performed their calculations.
I am concerned that the noise properties and pattern of the WMAP instrumental sky sampling were not properly taken into account in their analysis.
If these are not handled correctly then spurious results are likely. In my opinion, the paper should have specified the data analysis steps in detail, but it did not.”

Penrose counters that he looked at not only WMAP but also data from a second mission, BOOMERang, which confirmed the pattern he saw.
At the moment, then, these huge claims about the nature of the universe are bogged down in competing calculations and critiques of calculations. The future of this question could lie with the Planck mission by the European Space Agency, which is presently mapping the cosmic microwave background in greater detail than WMAP.
In the meantime, we get to wonder. Says physicist Shaun Cole:
“It’s a revolutionary theory and here there appears to be some data that supports it.
In the standard Big Bang model, there’s nothing cyclic; it has a beginning and it has no end.
The philosophical question that’s sensible to ask is ‘what came before the Big Bang?’; and what they’re striving for here is to do away with that ‘there’s nothing before’ answer by making it cyclical.” [BBC News]


Shiloh - Posted Dec 2nd 2010

Roger Penrose, whose work I often use in Quantum Relativity; is basically on the right path of reconstructing the cosmogenesis.
However the cyclic universe is built on its own protoversal seed and the 'Big Crunches' are electromagnetic and not inertial.

This means, that there will be no gravitational contraction in a shrinking of the protoverse; but the electromagnetic lightpath becomes multidimensional and multivalued. One can so model this on a cyclic electromagnetic cosmology with a 'Hubble heartbeat' of a semibeat of so 16.9 Billion years. This also allows a cosmogenetic Black Hole-White Hole evolution, which resets the wormhole singularity every 4 trillion years or so to eschew any theorized 'heat death' of the universe, due to the stellar generations 'running out' of their nuclear fuel of the nucleosynthesis of the primordial elements, based on hydrogen, helium and lithium.

Indeed, the Inflation PRECEDED the Big Bang and this is the simple solution for the 'inflation paradoxes' as some might term it.

The WMAP data in the picture in this post actually is descriptive for the wavequark model in Quantum Relativity with an inner gluonic (anti)neutrino kernel or core, an Inner Mesonic (down quark) Ring and an Outer Leptonic (strange quark) Ring.

It is just the 'New Standard Model' of Unitary Symmetry for the quarkian waves as "matter waves". The smallest quantum as microcosmic reality written in the galactic sky of the macrocosm.

Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.

By Susan Kruglinski, Oliver Chanarin|Tuesday, October 06, 2009





http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/

For further details, a consultation of the Thuban archives on http://cosmosdawn.com and www.cosmosdawn.net/forum is suggested.