CHAPTER 8
The MA-Model
8.1 The Mind of God As every reader of the Bible should know, in many aspects, it's a linguistic model for much of, what I call, God's Divine behavior. "And God said, Let there be . . . ." In section 7.2, I give the general ultralogic statement (LU) and, elsewhere, many others relative to a linguistic interpretation of the mathematical structure. If you write down all of these, and a few more I'll mention shortly, you'll discover that they model an enormous number of Bible descriptions for Divine behavior. Of course, there are numerous Bible linguistic styled statements that describe the method God uses to create. A brief list would include Genesis 1:3 - 14, 20, 24, 26 and, of course, Hebrews 1:3. But since the restriction of many forms of Divine "thinking," not just *S, is a comprehensible form of human "thinking," the GGU-model methods also model the Scripturally described process through which God communicates mentally to humankind. Further, the Scriptures also compare the Divine attributes with those of humankind and other gods. Such comparative statements are also implied by the GGU-model methods. The following is but a partial list.
Numbers 23:19; Deuteronomy 33:26; 1 Kings 8:23, 27; 2 Chronicles 2:5; Job 9:4, 10, 11:7, 8, 12:13, 15:8, 28:12-13, 20-24, 32:8, 33:12, 14, 37:23, 38:33, 36; Psalm 35:10, 53:2, 77:13, 86:5, 93:5, 94:11, 119:27, 99, 100, 139:2, 6, 17-18, 147:5; Proverbs 2:6: Ecclesiastes 2:26, 3:11, 8:17; Isaiah 55:8-9; Jeremiah 10:10-13, 17:10, 31:10; Daniel 2:21-22, 46; Matthew 10:20; Mark 13:12, 13; Luke 6:8, 10:21, 22, 21:15, 24:45: John 8:47, 10:16, 27, 12:40, 14:26; Romans 11:33-34; 1 Corinthians 1:10, 19-20; 2:10, 13, 16; 2 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 2:3, 4; 2 Timothy 2:7; James 1:5.
The fact that the GGU-model methods satisfy the Bible's description for supernatural Divine behavior is remarkable, but this leads to anguish among atheistic philosophers and secular scientists. The humanists and others have claimed for hundreds of years that the Bible doesn't follow scientific or everyday common logical patterns and, therefore, must be rejected by an "intelligent" society. The GGU-model methods prove them all to be incorrect. Also, I emphasize, that this is the basic reason that so many individuals and organizations have tried to prevent you from knowing about the existence of the GGU-model methods.
The linguistic GGU-model interpretation also answers a question that has troubled theologians. The answer it provides also tends to eliminate almost all false Christian doctrine. For this reason, some cult groups that claim to be Christian are also trying to prevent you from having any knowledge of the GGU-model. I'll give one very significant illustration. The Bible makes many statements that often raise questions of the following type. Carl might think, relative to a Bible statement I'll denote by G, the following:
"Where did that come from? It's confusing. It's written there. I'm told to believe it. But, there must be some simple Bible statement that leads logically to this statement! No, that doesn't appear to be the case. I've searched the Scriptures from cover to cover and can't find an hypothesis that works. Well, I'll go outside the Bible and think of something or other that I can use so that I can argue for G."Of course, Carl has assumed that God's logical patterns are the same as his. Clearly, the Scriptures state many times that this can't be assumed. The GGU-model methods actually show the following Divine behavior. There are Divine hypotheses from which a statement like G can be deduced by the "mind of God." But, the hypotheses can not be communicated to Carl. The only statement that can be communicated to Carl, while he's in his present Natural state, is the conclusion. It's the conclusion and only the conclusion that's written in the Scriptures. Carl, by faith, should believe statement G, should follow the precepts stated in statement G. But, as I'll discuss near the end of this book, although Carl may not understand why he must follow statement G, there is a way, a supernatural way, that he can use to verify that statement G is from God.Now I'll continue with the physical interpretation for the mathematical structure the leads to the GGU-model. Remember, the linguistic interpretation is called the D-world model and a restricted interpretation of this is the General Intelligent Design Model (GID). The physical interpretation is called the GGU-model and the MA-model is a special GGU-model interpretation. It's very important to remember that
a rejection of the D-world model does not under any condition require you to reject any of the findings of the GGU-model or the MA-model. And the findings (1), (2), (3), (4) of section 4.2 are scientific fact whether or not one accepts the D-world, GGU-model or MA-model.
8.2 It's Nearby Many theoretical scientists cringe when they realize my intent. If you are a student and discuss these results with them, I'm sure they'll do their best to dismiss these discoveries or persuade you that their discoverer is an insane malefactor or a malcontent. They'll do almost anything to continue their control over your freedom of choice and continue their often worthless research - worthless, that is, except to those that accept a corresponding personal philosophy. I'm aware that I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, so to speak. I'm aware of the dangers I face when I report my conclusions. As pointed out previously, I have no choice but to continue no matter what the personal cost may be.
I've previously discussed GGU-model properties that reduce certain types of theoretical science to mere logical games. These logical games can't really harm your personal beliefs if you don't pay any attention to them or consider them as science fiction, which they are. Of course, you also can't rely upon these same theoretical sciences as justification for a belief-system.
I point out that, if we had only finitely many theories for the origin of a Natural universe, origin of life, origin of the Earth, etc., then certain technical considerations might make one theory "better" than another. I'll not discuss these technical requirements within this book since the fact remains that there are not but finitely many such theories.
I can now present additional and startling properties of the GGU-model. Remember, that I've used the most hallowed of scientific tools - mathematics - to obtain these properties. Hence, from a theoretical viewpoint, they are "scientific" in character. Please don't forget that the language I tend to use is a direct translation from the mathematical model. It's the model that's "saying" these things. Further, I'll often drop terms such as "possibly" or "it might be" and the like. You may insert these terms throughout my description. I'll describe certain new properties of the NSP-world as interpreted by the GGU-model in a realistic language as if they exist in reality.
Remember why I'm delving into the actual technical results expressed by the GGU-model. I don't want you to accept simply my word for the existence of this important alternative to any and all scientific theories that claim that something or other has happened in the far-past. I refuse to follow the game other scientists play. I refuse to state, "Just believe me. You can't understand why these results hold true." I want you to understand why my conclusions hold true so that you are armed with the proper tools to ward off the often devastating effects of the mind controlling influences of certain sciences. As I've written before, I've written this book for your benefit. I've not written it for mine.
Consider a single geometric point a few feet in front of you. A geometric point in this sense is a position in a Natural universe and, for the present, has no other meaning. Now, I'm able to magnify this point for you by using a mathematical microscope with a power that's greater than any power that can ever be obtained by human means.
Suddenly, you see the point open up, like the iris of your eyes. What's revealed to you is a background universe, a substratum, or whatever you might like to call it. The Natural world point is still in your field of view with a small portion of the background universe surrounding it. You can't make out much detail, but there's definitely something there. The detail you see is sharper and clearer near to the single N-world point. Then clarity fads slowly as you proceed further from that one solitary N-world position. You can find no clear outer edge within your view. Recall that this background universe I've termed the nonstandard physical world - the NSP-world. This term is also used for other applications.
Our Natural universe is embedded inside the NSP-world as I've just described it. And what I've described occurs at every single point within our Natural universe. The NSP-world is just that near to every Natural world point. This is a very unusual mixture. The NSP-world is also very much "larger than" a Natural universe. This means that a vast amount of NSP-world "space" exists that contains no Natural world points. A Natural universe is an exceptionally small piece of the NSP-world.
The above single point view isn't the only way the NSP-world can be viewed. I've used this method to illustrate a very basic property of the embedding. You might characterize the NSP-world as being omnipresent. However, this term doesn't include any detailed characterization of how such an almost totally hidden universe can exist everywhere and at all times. Fortunately, the mathematical methods do reveal addition attributes that aid our comprehension.
8.3 A Time Fracture The IUN-process of intrinsic ultranatural selection is capable of producing many diverse event sequences. At a particular moment of time Tf during the evolution of a Natural system, or even the evolution of an ultranatural system, a remarkable situation occurs. A kind of "fracture" takes place - a break in what is ordinarily accepted. This fracture doesn't take place in any material stuff or anything like that. What happens is that a type of break in time occurs. Since I'm dealing with Natural systems that includes our Natural universe, this fracture in time occurs for any sub-natural system, any combination of sub-natural systems or even throughout the entire Natural universe itself.
The mathematics tells us that there may be NSP-world objects that can mediate or produce this fracture. The mathematics states that there should exist objects that I call ultrafast subparticles. These objects can deliver information or mediate Natural world effects throughout an entire Natural universe in a manner that would appear to be instantaneous to a human observer. I note that some scientists still believe that within the Natural world there may exist objects - tachyons - that have speeds great than the speed of light. If they exist, ultrafast subparticles do not "travel" within the Natural world. They only "do their thing" in the pure NSP-world environment. I'll write a little more on this subject in section 8.7.
With respect to a time fracture, I don't mean that something strange has occurred with our concept of time. Indeed, the fracture is simply a time boundary. This time boundary, whenever it occurs, separates two diverse portions of an event sequence and, hence, portions of the system development itself.
We can actually investigate what occurs prior to this fracture and what occurs after this fracture. We can also partially understand what occurs "between" what we perceive to be time prior to this fracture and the time after this fracture. What can it mean to say that there is some type of "between" time?
The magnification procedure of section 8.2 is applied to the concept of a point in time. Look at the minute hand of a clock as it indicates a moment in time. Freeze that moment and magnify it. This yields a vague view of time within the NSP-world. There's a great deal of additional time to do things in the NSP-world, time that doesn't exist in the Natural world. Does your mind rebel at this strange notion of different times? Probably. But, remember, even if this is difficult to understand, this is what the mathematics implies.
It's very difficult to grasp the content of the term time. The idea that time has properties of its own and is something else than a man made construction has produce extreme mental anguish for many philosophers and scientists. Rather than accept the limitations of human mental abilities, these agitated "scholars" have filled libraries with their misguided attempts to explain why time behaves in certain strange ways. This is especially true with such theories as the Special Theory of Relativity.
I've no such difficulty with NSP-world time. I know that no human language can ever explain in any detail such facets of the NSP-world. In my research, I simply accept certain statements that are automatically determined by the mathematical model and leave it at that.
8.4 Sudden Changes [Note: After you read this section, then you should look at figures 1,2,3,4 ,5 - especially 5 - at the end of this section. These might help you in understanding the concepts involved. Remember that when you study these figures they do not represent a geometric configuration. They simply represent change.]
The first symbol in the term MA-model, the M, is an abbreviation for the word metamorphic. If you check your dictionary, you'll find that this term has something to do with a change that takes place in a more or less sudden fashion. For the MA-model, the nice scientific term metamorphic refers to changes that take place instantaneously within the N-world. For this application, the metamorphosis occurs at the time boundary Tf. The changes are only instantaneous within the N-world. They occur over a large amount of NSP-world time, however. What is it that changes suddenly?
There are two extreme situations. The first and the maximum scenario is wondrous to say the least. Prior to Tf, there is no Natural time and the system may contain only ultranatural events or nothing at all. After the moment Tf, the system developments by means of Natural events. If you're able to observe such an occurrence, the Natural system would seem to appear suddenly out of nothing. It could appear in any physical condition.
What if the system is our entire Natural universe? It may not be easy to accept, but the mathematical model states specifically that our entire Natural universe could suddenly appear with millions of galaxies, star clusters and even our solar system already formed. No Big Bang, just a Big Appearance. The exact some thing could occur for just our solar system or for some animal species. The sudden formation of such Natural systems depends upon the application of an ultralogic and also upon initial conditions. Although it's known that such initial conditions may exist, it's also known that humankind can have knowledge of only the simplest of such conditions.
Assuming logical consistency and depending upon the "size" of the universe at the time things just popped into existence, the electromagnetic and particle radiation would need to contain a past history that need not have actually occurred. If for example one of the objects was the remains of a supernova, then the radiation might need to contain information about how these remains were produced although no supernova actually occurred to produce these remains. "But, would this not be a deception on the part of Nature?" you might ask. Of course, not. Nature does not have to follow the rules we select. We cannot associate such a statement with Nature. "Nature is as Nature does." Indeed, the "strangeness" that Nature might display has absolutely nothing to do with Nature itself, but it has a great deal to do with human pride, a pride that tends to insist that Nature must behavior in a nice humanly comprehensible way. (This aspect is discussed elsewhere and in "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Design" where there are objects termed as "covirtual" universes.) Let me mention again that the model also states that there are infinitely many other possibilities for how our universe came into being and evolved into its present state that will remain, for the live of the Natural universe, impossible for any life-form within the universe to comprehend. Now that is a truly fantastic scientific fact. But, Nobel Prize winner Max Planck wrote as much in his philosophy for the concepts needed to produce theoretical models.
Nature does not allow herself to be exhaustively expressed in human thought. [39, p. 2]The second extreme is the minimum scenario. In this case, prior to Tf, Natural events are occurring. After Tf, Natural events still occur. So, what's the difference between the prior time period and the after time period? What has happened is that a subtle difference has occurred in a Natural law (the A part of MA). There are many assumed Natural constants such as the speed of light in a vacuum. You can also have a sudden and very slight change in one or more of these constants along with the change in Natural laws. You could also just have a sudden change in something unknown. Thus suppose that you do have a theory that predicts Natural behavior as we observe it today. Then you can't extend that theory backwards to the far-past for you could have no knowledge as to the Natural system's behavior prior to Tf. Once again such alterations would appear to occur instantaneously if viewed by an N-world object.
Of course, you also have the infinitely many intermediate scenarios. In these cases, more pronounced Natural system alterations occur at Tf or both Natural and ultranatural events occur prior to the time fracture.
As mentioned, various initial conditions could yield any of these scenarios from the maximum to the minimum. The most obvious would be a NSP-world "time" condition. An event sequence is programmed to yield one of these scenarios when the sequence reaches a specific time Tf. The basic conclusions of the MA-model are not dependent upon which of these two extremes has occurred or any scenario lying between these extremes. It's just as probable for any of these situations to occur as for them not to occur. They all come about by application of IUN-processes. In the MA-model, you may assumed that such sudden changes have indeed occurred for various Natural systems or even throughout an entire Natural universe at time Tf. Of course, the degree of such changes at different "positions" or times would be unknown.
The mathematical model has specifically stated that there are infinitely many possible scenarios for the origin of any Natural system. These include the usual "standard models" so well popularized today. The following contains some other rather "interesting" possibilities.
If Tf is in the far-past, then, for the first extreme case, you can't have any knowledge about what has occurred prior to Tf. All information you receive by means of any form of radiation can't be extended to any events that you may claim occurred prior to Tf since no Natural events occurred. The same holds for the second extreme case and those in between. But it's the second case and those in between that lead to the anamorphosis effect, an effect that can be described partially and comprehended partially.
Figure 1.
Sudden Changes - Minimum Scenario
(1) The MA process takes place at standard substratum time Tf. The
processes that change all aspects of the Natural system U1 into the
Natural system U2 take place, while
Natural time is suspended, during a positive portion of a NSP-world time.
(2) The appearance and behavior of the Natural system U1, if such could be
perceived by entities within U2, could be
described partially (i.e. comprehended) by such entities. However, the
appearance and
behavior of U1 cannot be perceived by entities within U2.
(3) There exist ultranatural laws, ultranatural events, ultranatural objects and an
ultralogic process that produces all of the alterations in an ultrasmooth
manner that changes U1 into U2. The
ultralogic process cannot be replicated in the Natural-worlds U1 or
U2.
(4) The Natural-world laws in U2 produced through the GGU-model process are
distinctly different from those that apply to U1. All aspects of the
U2 system conform to these "new" Natural-laws. This includes
radiation-paths, particle-paths and the like. Thus, for consistency, certain "histories of previous Natural events" might be encoded within such radiation although such Natural events did not occur in objective reality.
(5) After the N-world time suspension, the system U2 begins its
development under the U2 Natural-laws without any memory of the
U1 configuration.
(1) The MA process takes place at standard substratum time Tf. The
processes that change all aspects of the ultranatural system U1 into the
Natural system U2 take place, while
Natural time is suspended, during a positive portion of a NSP-world time.
(2) The appearance and behavior of the system U1 cannot be perceived
by entities within U2 and cannot be
described in any human language.
(3) There exist ultranatural laws, ultranatural events, ultranatural objects and an
ultralogic process that produces all of the alterations in an ultrasmooth
manner that changes U1 into U2. The
ultralogic process cannot be replicated in the Natural-worlds U1 or
U2.
(4) The Natural-world laws in U2 produced through the GGU process are
distinctly different from those that apply to U1. All aspects of the
U2 system conform to these "new" Natural-laws. This includes
radiation-paths, particle-paths and the like.
(5) After the N-world time suspension, the system U1 begins its
development under the U2 Natural-laws without any memory of the
U1 configuration.
(1) There is no system of any type prior to Tf.
(2) The ultraword w is the "building plans" for U2. This includes the Natural-laws that will produce the development.
(3) When NSP-world initial conditions occur - conditions that are "incomprehensible" to entities in the to-be-formed U2 - then ultralogic operator *S is applied to w and, during a positive portion of NSP-world time prior to Tf the system U2 is formed.
(4) There exist ultranatural laws, ultranatural events, ultranatural objects and an ultralogic *S that produces U2 in an ultrasmooth manner. At least, the ultranatural laws and ultranatural events cannot be comprehended by any entity in the to-be-formed U2. The ultralogic process *S cannot be replicated by any entity within the to-be-formed Natural-world U2.
(5) After the NSP-world construction, the system U2 begins its development under the U2 Natural-laws without any memory of the construction processes.
Repeat each of the previous scenarios with U1 and U2 replaced by the concept of a subsystem within the Natural world in which we dwell.
(1) In this a combined scenario one and two scheme with universes produced at the time Tg prior to Tf.
(2) The ultraword w is the "buildings plans" for U1. This includes the Natural laws that will produce the development.
(3) When NSP-world initial conditions that are "incomprehensible" to entities in the to-be-formed U1 occur, the ultralogic operator *S is applied to w and, during the positive part of a time monad about Ta, the universe U1 is formed.
(4) There exist ultranatural laws, ultranatural events, ultraobjects and an ultralogic *S that produces U1 in an ultrasmooth manner. At least, the ultranatural laws and ultranatural events cannot be comprehended by any entity in the to-be-formed U1. The ultralogic process *S cannot be replicated by any entity within the to-be-formed Natural world U1.
(5) After the NSP-world construction, the universe U2 as in the first and second scenario begins its development under the U1 [resp. ultra] natural laws without any
memory of the construction process.
(1) This is how natural subsystems [i.e. subnatural systems] are constructed
and controlled from the NSP-world viewpoint.
(2) A subnatural system can be altered at any time Tc in accordance with
the procedures stated for figures 1, 2, 3.
Although the GGU-model predicts infinitely many possible "beginnings" to our Natural universe, certain speculations are, of course, possible and I show in the next section that science can't know by any means which is the correct one, God may have left His signature upon what can be perceived. I'll refer to the previous figures whenever possible. But, they represent a special type of change. The Big Bang (standard model) theory is similar to figure 1 or 3, with a modified description. I've simply not drawn the specific diagram. It's an GGU-model possibility, however. If it's a type 3, then from the atheistic scientific viewpoint, simply remove statements 2 - 5. Replace them all with the statement: "Well, it just started that way all on its own." For the figure 1 type, remove the descriptions 1 - 5. Replace these with the statements:
"Well, there was stuff prior to the 'expansion,' which occurred all on its own. It was of type U1 except that Natural time was not suspended since we'll measure Natural time from the moment of the expansion begins. So far, we know nothing about the Natural laws that governed the behavior of the stuff represented by U1."For the reprocessed or cyclic universe, consider the figure 3 with "infinitely" many arrows extending from *S{w}. There is an ultimate ultraword that will yield each and every one of the cycles and yield them in a proper "order." There would be no Natural world beginning at a time such as Tf. However, there is still a NSP-world beginning.
I now speculate that the Big Bang type theory will not survive scientifically for very long. I speculate that what might be interpreted from the data received by our scientific instrumentation is more like figure 5. There will be many distinct Natural systems observed. They'll give the appearance of intelligent design. They'll be magnificent in their beauty. But, although the GGU-model implies that they are all produced from one ultralogic applied to one ultimate ultraword, when they are compared, certain inexplicable contradictions to any proposed atheistic theory for creation will be deduced. The theory that Maddox hopes will be accepted is illustrated by figure 5, but the *S{w(0)} and the arrows from it are missing. Further, the other *S{w(j)} occur at different "times" and there are no contradictions in system developments. But, I speculate, that contradictions will be of the following type. Data inserted into these atheistic styled humanly constructed theories will imply that "young" objects are where "old" objects should be or "old" objects are where "young" objects should be. One way to reconcile these differences is for scientists to admit that they can have no knowledge as to how the Natural universe began. Or worst still for the scientific community in general is to accept that there were millions of different piecemeal beginnings that could only be controlled by a supernatural being. I'm sure that the majority of scientists will not consider either of these two possibilities until ? Well, I'll write it . . . until Jesus returns. There is no question in my mind that such contradictions will occur since God confounds the wise. And this will provide yet another part of God's signature. [I also predict that you'll probably not be told the complete truth by the atheistic scientific community about what the received data indicates.]
But, this is not a contradiction of the GGU-model relative to the Big Bang astronomical time table. The GGU-model states explicitly that, relative to figure 3, a Natural system can "appear" to be old as observed by our scientific instrumentation, but it was formed much later. Indeed, much of the data, but maybe not all, would imply that the Natural system is old relative to the human concept of time. This problem with the scientific concept of time has a Scriptural foundation. To read how different God's time concept is from the human concept of time simply consider 2 Peter 3.8 " . . . be not ignorant, one day is with the Lord a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." God is the creator of the time concept and can alter it in any manner He wishes.
Is there a more directly knowable signature of God within our Natural environment? Well, there are thousands of Natural systems right here on Earth. Many of these appear to be old systems, that is systems that appear to have began their development many, many years ago based upon certain scientific dating procedures. But based upon other dating procedures they appear to be young systems. Which procedure is correct? Then there are systems such as the Earth's magnetic field. The behavior of this field based upon the Earth as being an old system with a uniform development from "small" stuff and a specific modern theoretic view as to the field's generation, imply certain field characteristics should have existed 5,000 or 10,000 or 25,000 years ago. But, the field's strength as actually measured over the past 140 years tends to indicate that the only way the Earth could survive is that the Earth's magnetic field is a young Natural system. Once again, the GGU-model explains such behavior based upon figure 5, where you consider the Earth's magnetic field as one of the diagrammed sub-natural systems and the Earth itself as the object generated by the *S{w(0)}. I conjecture that such "time" contradictions will continue to occur. A theory will be developed by the "wise" to remove one "time" contradiction only to yield elsewhere another contradiction. Although there is no contradiction from the GGU-model viewpoint, the "confounding of the wise" in Natural science matters may be an important part of the signature of God.
This portion of this book is concerned with various creation possibilities. But, to complicate the matter even further, it appears likely that a model can be constructed that will show that the Genesis Flood was produced by a physical process that would "destroy . . . the earth [land]" Genesis 6:13. Such an alteration from a distinctly youthful and different "land" prior to the Flood, could leave the "land" within the solar system as having the appearance of great age. I'll discuss in the last section how, among all the possible creation scenarios, the MA-model upholds logically a literal translation of the Biblical Genesis account of creation, and you can select such a scenario without fearing that it's an irrational selection although you'll probably by accused of some form of insanity. Further exploration and speculation would require me to write another complete volume on this subject. However, the purpose of this book is an introduction to these concepts and not a detail exposition. I continue with this introduction.
[Important remark. The NSP-world model can be used to investigate event sequences that mirror the uniformity of nature and millions of other types as well. However, almost all scientific use of the NSP-world is independent from the concept of the event sequence. The NSP-world is an exceptionally useful tool in all branches of science and should not be abandoned simply because of the conclusions of the MA-model. MA-model conclusions are not relevant to a vast number of NSP-world research findings.]
The Greeks, I believe, invented an interesting device. (Its name is Greek away.) It takes a distorted image and restores the image to a normal shape, normal that is for the times. The device is called an anamorphoscope and the distorted image an anamorphosis. I'm aware that in biology and elsewhere this term has a different meaning from how I'll use it. Relative to the MA-model, the type of distortion I'm about to describe, the anamorphosis effect, is very, very significant.
Suppose that prior to Tf, where Tf is about 100,000 years in the past and a long way from Earth, a star exploded entirely and all that remains is a vast amount of particle and electromagnetic radiation. The radiation conforms to the governing Natural laws for times prior to Tf. After the time fracture Tf, the radiation must now conform to a few slightly altered Natural laws. Further, suppose that no other time fracture has occurred between the time Tf and the very moment that a team of scientists records this radiation on photographic plates and with other instruments. A distortion of this radiation's properties has taken place at the time boundary. Interpreting the attributes of this radiation with respect to the (altered) laws Nature and an accepted theory, the team members conclude that the star did not explode entirely but a small very dense dark body remains behind. The statement that it's a dark body would mean that this assumed object didn't radiate any identifying signature. But the scientists' theory would not be complete unless this object existed. Thus, although that object does not actually exist, the scientists claim that it exists not based upon the actual Natural laws that existed at the time of the explosion, but based only upon the altered Natural laws. Now these altered Natural laws are the only Natural laws that scientists can test for in the laboratory.
Since all the information science can obtain about cosmological events is in the form of similar types of radiation, it's not possible to have any information about how the universe behaved prior to Tf by observations conducted from the time-bubble that surrounds not only the scientists but, possibly, all of the universe itself. It's as if you and I and all the universe are inside of a universe size anamorphoscope. What we have is a time horizon. Radiation and other objects that pass over such a horizon, so to speak, are distorted into what is actually observed. And such entities have no "memory" of how they behaved prior to Tf. That is to say there is nothing about these entities that will scientifically reveal their prior behavior patterns. Consequently, we have no scientific knowledge as to the entities' behavior prior to reaching the horizon. It's like looking into those distorted mirrors in fun houses, except you don't know the mirrors are there.
Even if a slight time fracture occurs at the very moment you read this sentence, you couldn't probably determine that it had indeed occurred. Why not? Since Natural laws are subtly altered, this alteration would also influence our human abilities and perception. We would all perceive things as they are, although they are, in reality, slightly different than they were. Theories based upon Natural law, universal constants and the like, as well as modern laboratory experiments, can't be used, according the MA-model, to predict events either in the far-past or distant future. These theories can't be extrapolated in either direction.
Secular scientists seem to believe in an unverifiable philosophical axiom that states that macroscopic and large scale objects behave in a smooth and continuous manner, and that such Natural systems have behaved in this manner for their entire lifetimes. This seems to be consistent with our everyday experiences with Nature. It's felt from our experiences that macroscopic Natural systems just doesn't make such "jumps" if we could "feel" such jumps. There appears to be something buried in the deepest confines of our minds that rejects specifically such behavior for macroscopic and observable large scale objects. But this is how we observe Nature. What if these apparent alterations were actually, in the NSP-world, more continuous in character than anything that has previously been conceived of by the human mind? Would this make a difference in your acceptance of these MA-model conclusions?
When a pot of water is heated on a stove it may reach such a condition that it will change its state into what we call steam. What does this illustration have to do with alterations in Natural law? Some scientists might claim that alterations in Natural law have never been observed. But as illustrated, rapid shifts in the state of a Natural system do take place throughout our universe. Whether or not this is a shift in Natural law depends upon what Natural laws are known within the system and from where such laws are perceived. We externally observe the pot of water and develop our perceived Natural laws. But what if we were confined deep within a water kingdom and had all of the behavior patterns associated with water? Then we could not probably perceive such a change since we would be part of the change itself. Of course, in general, alterations in Natural laws that took place prior to human science can not be known scientifically, especially if the alteration did not include any memory of the previous state. But more importantly the GGU-model can't be rejected for any scientific reason since, strange as it may sound, you can assume that the true laws of Nature haven't changed at all.
This model states that the true laws of Nature are the Natural and ultranatural laws. The true development of a Natural system, including our universe, is controlled by unknowable regulations and sustained by unobserved ultranatural events. It's perfectly rational to assume that when our universe, as viewed from the NSP-world, reaches a certain condition then the ultranatural laws simply dictate that it will change its state, like water changing into steam. To human observers this state changing process may seem to be instantaneous, but to the NSP-world the change is "slow" and very continuous. I note that one of the major theories of how our universe came into being uses such a state changing concept to avoid the single "infinitely small starting point" Big Bang theory.
I've already discussed the meaning of ultrauniform behavior. The extreme situations and all of those in between as discussed in section 8.4 come about by analyzing the types of event sequences that are obtained by intrinsic ultranatural selection. All of the Natural and ultranatural events, including those that lead to an apparent alteration in Natural law, are produced by an ultralogic in such an ultrauniform manner. Usually, for science, the concept of a smooth continuous change is of a different sort. What science seeks for large scale objects like galaxies and solar systems is a smooth continuous change in the numerical quantities that measure behavior.
Recently, I published a paper about what happens when fractals are viewed from the NSP-world [20]. Once the scientific community becomes completely aware of the findings in this book, I doubt that I'll be allowed to continue such publications. In the last part of that paper, a theorem is proved that's relative to this discussion.
According to my interpretation of that theorem, over a finite NSP-time period and according to ultranatural laws, any alteration in Natural laws as measured by Natural world numerical or even vector quantities are actually changing in an ultracontinuous and ultrasmooth manner. How can I describe ultracontinuous and ultrasmooth to you?
First, the terms used in my paper [20] are *-continuous and *-differentiable or hypercontinuous and hyperdifferentiable. Of course, simply stating the technical names for these ideas still gives you no intuitive feeling for the concepts. On the most simplistic level, when viewed from the NSP-world there are no jumps in the measured quantities. The quantities are changing in a remarkably "smooth" and continuous manner.
The dictionary defines "continuous" as something that proceeds without interruption. This is an exceedingly poor definition for the MA-model. One way to describe continuity is by using measuring machines. A process is continuous if no matter how good you build a machine to measure an interruption in the process, the machine will never be able to measure that such an interruption has occurred. Ultracontinuity is intuitively the same thing, except that the machines used are built not just by using Natural laws but also by using ultranatural laws. Ultracontinuity is a remarkably beautiful concept that really requires a considerable amount of mathematical intuition to appreciate.
If you were to draw a geometric picture of a continuously changing numerical quantity over a time interval, you might place a marking pen on a piece of paper and without raising it off the paper draw a nice curve. Let's say you draw a curve that looks like ¬. Although this is a picture that approximates the idea of a continuous curve, it has a very sharp turn at the top line segment. The pictured broken line is different than the curve ~ in the sense that ~ does not take a sharp turn. This difference is the concept called smoothness. ¬ is not a smooth continuous curve, but ~ is.
As far as curves are concerned, ultrasmooth means that there are no such sharp turns as measured by any NSP-world machine. In fact, the turns are remarkably nonsharp in character; so remarkably nonsharp that I can't even draw a picture of such curves. No matter how I would try to prevent a sharp turn, those microscopic turns that would occur as I draw would contradict ultrasmoothness. Once again, considerable technical training is necessary to appreciate this concept. I hope I've described successfully the basic idea of ultracontinuous and ultrasmooth.
From the viewpoint of NSP-world ultranatural laws, our universe or some specific Natural system arrived at a certain state at time Tf. The conditions that prevail after Tf require that certain numerical quantities be altered. They are altered ultracontinuously and ultrasmoothly within the NSP-world. The next phase in the development of our universe as a whole or some other Natural system then continues. If it were possible to observe such a change from the Natural world and not be influenced by the change itself, the change would appear to occur instantaneously.
The change in Natural law at a time boundary is not unreasonable being that it's based upon interpreting a mathematical theory. Even in modern science it's conceded that Natural law may change under certain conditions. I point out again that Patton and Wheeler [38] claim that Natural laws are mutable, that under certain extreme conditions they may be altered. Of course, no mechanism for such alterations is given, just that alterations might occur.
There need not be an anamorphosis effect or an alteration in Natural law for a Natural system to change in time in an ultracontinuous manner. Indeed, every Natural event and ultranatural event is connected within the NSP-world by an ultracontinuous IUN-process. No Natural or ultranatural event is truly independent from any other Natural or ultranatural event that occurs. Remarkably, a Natural event taking place in one galaxy is related to events taking place in every other galaxy. They are related, at the least, by the ultralogic *S. (Of course , this solves the General Grand Unification problem.)
A "natural" question to ask is does there exist same mechanism within the NSP-world that could mediate sudden change and provide information about every event taking place throughout our entire universe? The conditions that prevail throughout our universe at any time Tf are spread out over vast Natural distances as many scientists believe. Can information about the conditions present at every position and time as well as conditions necessary to produce sudden alterations be transmitted "fast enough" throughout our universe?
In the first section of chapter 3, I discussed briefly the idea of the subparticle. I'll now discuss some additional subparticle properties. Recall that in the remarks at the beginning of section 8.7, I mentioned that there are many NSP-world research conclusions that are independent of the event sequences. Many of these results have helped to explain what had previously been characterized as Natural world paradoxes. It's possible by techniques not detailed within this part of this book to give partial descriptions for the behavior of certain unusual ultranatural objects.
When I first published some information about such unusual objects I called them infants [24]. The name was changed in September 1985 [26] to subparticles. I now wish I hadn't used either of these two terms for the terms seem to convey a content that is not intended. They are not particles or anything that is imaginable. A much better name would have been things. So, if you'll bear with me, I'll use the term thing, mainly because I want to minimize the use of mental imagery.
One of the conclusions that emerges from NSP-world research is the possible existence of ultrafast things. These pure NSP-world objects do not violate any prohibitions you may have read about such as the so-called maximum velocities that certain material objects can attain within the Natural world. Collections of these things propagate through the pure NSP-world for the sole purpose of influencing their intended Natural world objects. These influences are sometimes termed as informational transmissions.
The term ultrafast, like many others in this book, is a substitution for the technical term hyperfast; and, at present, not much is theoretically known about these ultrafast things. What can be surmised, however, is that ultrafast things are able to transmit information about conditions that exist throughout our entire universe at time Tf in a Natural world instantaneous manner. In a converse sense, they can instantaneously transmit information about necessary alternations in Natural laws throughout our entire universe.
These ultrafast subparticles also answer one of the most perplexing physical problems, the perturbation problem. The ultrafast subparticles are of significance in that they can be used to provide seemingly instantaneous informational transmissions throughout the Natural universe. This is significant for the ultralogic and ultraword generation of a universe. One important question is relative to the fact that an ultimate ultraword such as w' generates a preselected or theory generated ideal universe. How can this be made to correspond to the actual universe in which we live where each Natural system is perturbed or altered within certain limits dictated by Natural law from this ideal case? Such alterations can also be produced by partially independent agencies such as biological entities. There are different ways to attack this problem, but the existence of the UN-events would require that speculation be restrained.
One method is slightly similar to the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds interpretation (parallel universes) but is much less esoteric in character. One can consider a collection of ultimate ultrawords {w'(t)}, for fixed t, containing the allowable alterations in Natural system behavior starting from the moment t. Denote the corresponding set of universes by U. At any instant of substratum time t, every universe but one is a virtual universe. This does not necessary mean that they actually exist in some type of NSP-world reality. This simply means that they exist potentially. When any one or more Natural systems are perturbed, then the UN-events react first, so to speak. Information relative to this reaction is transmitted within {w'(t)} by means of ultrafast subparticles. This information causes a w'(U(t)) to be selected from this collection such that U(t) is a subset of *S{w'(U(t))}, where U(t) is a member of U. For the "next" instant, this generated U(t) becomes the Natural universe objective reality. Now technically there would be a "next" instant within the NSP-world and the only possible alterations would be in the UN-events. This process then continues throughout all of Natural universe time.
Ultrafast subparticles are not the only possible NSP-world objects that might exist in the NSP-world and be useful for universe creation. As discussed previously, there is another possible signature of God. The mathematics states that there can exist an ultimate subparticle, an object with a single list of characteristics and each characteristic is measured by the exact same numerical quantity. Collections of this exact same entity can be used to form every single material object, and even immaterial objects such as fields or photons, if they exist. The process that might be used is remarkably "simple" within the NSP-world although it's remarkable complex if viewed from the Natural world. Further, the process can't be duplicated with the Natural world. These subparticle possibilities were first announced in my September 1986 paper "D-world evidence" [21], where D-world, in this case, means NSP-world. Further, the ultimate subparticle can be used to construct the ultrafast subparticle as well as other pure NSP-world entities.
For a Christian, this and the next section are very important. Statements (1), (2), (3) (4) of section 4.2 are not speculation they are facts. They are irrefutable. All scientific arguments against them will fail. It doesn't matter how many individuals or organizations attempt either individually or collectively to counter these statements, they will remain fact. Why? Because they are facts relative to scientific communication and, even without the GGU-model, they are philosophically somewhat obvious. The GGU-model simply makes them fact from a scientific viewpoint. Further, the theory of subparticles yields more fundamental entities within the subatomic micro-world than previously conceived of by humanity. Hence, what the "true" fundamental building blocks of the universe may be need not be Natural entities at all. Distinct from the fact that these results expose the great scientific deception and counter any arguments for the philosophy of scientism, these facts are also significant to the Christian for yet another basic reason.
Just recall the fact that there can be no scientific truth value attached to any humanly constructed theory of how our universe came into being, how life began on Earth and all other such scientific theories about the far-past. Hence, how can it logically be possible for any Christian or Christian organization to select any one of these worthless theories and then re-interpret the Bible, even slightly, to correspond to such a "nontruth"? Doesn't the Bible teach that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of truth? I'll let you decide what must come first, a scientific theory that has no truth value or the Bible, a document that a Christian is supposed to believe is the Word of God, the Word of Truth.
In section 8.5, and elsewhere, I describe various MA-model scenarios for how a Natural system or subnatural system might come into being and development [i.e. evolve] over a time. Human experience seems to indicate that things do not simply appear abruptly or suddenly out of something that can't be perceived. Many individuals seem to believe that Natural systems do not appear in a structure form, like a complete Earth, or a complete galaxy. Natural objects often seem to start from something "small" then grow to form a complex structure. Of course, this is human perception, this is human comprehension, and some believe that if there is a god who creates, then such a god must follow only those humanly comprehensible procedures. Need I remind you of the scriptural prohibition against pride. Need I repeat the many, many Bible verses, such as Isaiah 55:8-9, that state that God does many things in ways not comprehensible by the human mind. Oh, I know that He also allows us to comprehend some of His attributes for otherwise there would be an excuse. Indeed, how could we "reason together" otherwise?
Closely related to the above material on human comprehension is the weak argument that God would not have created objects, say about 10,000 standard years ago, in structured form that have the scientific appearance of extreme age. It has been said that such a process would be a "deception" and that God dose not deceive, not even for His own special purposes. However, the Bible teaches that God does allow deception [or delusion], especially during the end times. In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, we are told exactly why God would allow this to occur. "That they might be damned who believe not the truth, . . ." (KJ). I suppose that this refers to various "truths," including how God might have created the universe.
Even though the MA-model implies that abrupt appearance is a logical possibility, some individuals within the secular scientific community argue that only a fool would believe it. However, as I've pointed out, there is a secular scientific theory accepted by almost all secular scientists working in quantum theory that requires one to believe that structured objects, virtual particles, do abruptly appear from the "vacuum," a vacuum that does not have any of the structured form of the abruptly appearing virtual particles. But, I suppose, since these are "small" things it's OK for them to appear in structured form but this isn't OK for large objects since we can perceive large objects. But, don't most quantum physicists also assumed that these virtual particles exist in reality, even though they can't perceive them? The claim is that the "vacuum," whatever it is, is within our Natural universe and is not simply "nothing." [I mention that subparticle theory provides a dense substratum as a replacement for this "vacuum."]
The secular Big Bang scenario of figure 3, or possibility 1 or 2, with descriptive modifications and this virtual particle type of "small" world abrupt appearance is also accepted by many Christians. And they reject the sudden appearance in structured and complex form of big objects. As mentioned above, these Christians then attempt to re-interpret the Scriptures to conform to an almost atheistic scientific theory. Why? Well, maybe it's because such Christians wish to be a part of the larger scientific community, wish to associate with the Nobel Laureates, so to speak, or wish to gain the same accolades and prestige as showered upon atheistic science by the news media. Or, maybe, just maybe it's because they don't want to be called a fool. The majority of the scientific community is atheistic. They will continue to alter these "truthless" theories, continue to search for humanly comprehensible theories, cyclic or plasma or something, that are not just almost atheistic but totally atheistic in character. They must find theories that correspond in content to their belief-systems. How can Christians continue to re-interpret the Bible to correspond to theories driven by atheistic desires? Christians are supposed to believe in an active supernatural God that exists in realty. Atheists do not. There appears to be a contradiction here.
Well, I'm not going to continue with these interesting observations, but, rather, I'll discuss just a few of the infinitely many possible beginnings for the universe in which we dwell, a beginning which does have support from Bible text. But, I don't want you to accept anything I write in this section as a proof that such an MA-model interpretation is true in reality. There is no scientific or scholarly or purely intellectual process that I know of that will allow you to select with complete assurance one beginning scenario rather than another. On the other hand, I'll mention, in section 8.10, the only way, albeit not yet scientific, that I believe that a Christian can know the truth.
I'll attempt to describe a few of the rational, not irrational, MA-model possibilities for abrupt appearance. The first description follows the well known finite logic tree pattern.
Figure 6 is a diagram of such a creation pattern for the Natural universe. Creation begins at the bottom of the tree and works its way up and to the right. You can think of this upward movement and right movement as presenting a forward in time pattern. The Scriptures indicate that this is one of Gods' attributes; in general, the arrow of time is forward. Isaiah 46:9 - 10 writes:
"Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." (NIV)The dots represent ultrawords with the ultralogic *S applied to them. The number 0 is THE ultimate ultraword. From this is produced 6 other ultrawords for the generation of 6 Natural systems, in the "time" order from 1 to 6, one each for each creation day as stated in Genesis 1. From these 6 ultrawords, millions of other ultrawords are produced for the generation of all of the Natural systems associated with each creation day. The Natural systems produced by application of *S are abruptly produced, as if the process illustrated in figure 4 is repeated many times, where many of the event sequences begin with an event that represents an entity in structured form having great complexity.
These Natural systems are produced at different times, some giving the "appearance" of old Natural systems while others give the appearance of young Natural systems. (For a more detailed description, please see my U-cosmology paper.) The number of Natural systems produced would be finite and, at the least, the last one in the creation tree would appear to human comprehension to be designed wonderfully and intricately. Each of these individual and humanly comprehensible entities would indicate a design that could only be produced by a higher intelligence. But the entire tree, the abrupt appearance, the appearance of old objects mixed with what appear to be young object all mixed together would also indicate a higher intelligence of immeasurable power. Please note that this is a rational MA-model possibility. Of course, you might not agree that creation occurred over 6 creation days. To correspond to a different number of creation days, distinct from the Bible's number, simply remove or add new labeled dots.
To obtain abrupt or sudden appearance over one creation day, consider figure 5. The ultrawords for some of the subsystems on the left in figure 5 have an event sequence that begins with an event that represents an entity in structured form, already formed with great complexity.
Another possibility would be obtained by simply removing the dot labeled as 0 from figure 6. Then continue with the remaining figure 6 explanation. Obviously, there are numerous variations for the illustrated abrupt creation model. For example, many entitles may not appear in a complex form. And, of course, the most trivial and not a very impressive creation model is the abrupt or sudden expansion required for the standard Big Bang model. The MA-model predicts such a possibility [Figure 3] by indicating how the required Natural laws could abruptly "appear," so the speak, or how the actual "stuff" that expands came into being.
The MA-model, as diagrammed in figure 3, also gives a logical foundation to a recent theory developed by Humphreys' [51]. In the Humphreys' model, there would be the sudden appearance of a large mass of actual water, along with various Natural laws. However, Humphreys' "water" notion contradicts the "water" statements in Genesis 1. In the Humphreys' model, the abrupt creation of the Natural laws are required so that the water can undergo various alterations in order to develop into our present day universe. I mention that I do not agree with Humphreys' use of the Einstein General Theory of gravity. The Einsteinian theory contains certain logical flaws that cannot be eliminated under the procedures used. On the other hand, there is a new theory of gravity [50], that does not contain these logical errors and that can be used as a theoretical basis for the Humphreys' model.
Now, I haven't revealed which, if any, of these creation models I accept. There are, after all, infinitely many possibilities. Further, I've not mentioned any possible date in the past when such a creation tree or any of the other creation models began, so to speak. There is no scientific way to find out exactly which of the creation scenarios is correct. But there is a way, albeit it's not a way that's accepted by atheistic science.
In this section, the term Christian means a Holy Ghost indwelt Christian. Considering that this is supposed to be a modern society, these are difficult times in every respect. For this reason, I use one method to determine the truth. It's a supernatural method that Christians have at their disposal. Christians are certainly being seduced by secular science, almost everywhere. John gives in 1 John 2:27 the exact procedure an individual Christian must follow to avoid all such seduction.
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (KJ)A Christian is indwelt with the Holy Ghost, the supernatural Spirit of God. This is your supernatural connection with the truth in all matters. So, why not inquire of God what is the correct creation model to choose? The Holy Ghost will tell you. But, how does it do this? All I know is how the Holy Ghost does this for me. In this matter of "Holy Ghost verification," you can't dissuade me by any logical argument since it's based upon my personal experience.
First, when I think, I don't hear some different voice speaking either mentally or otherwise to me. When I think, I think mostly in words. Sometimes I force myself to think in images, but it's usually words. My mind doesn't write these words, it speaks these words to me. I suppose that as you read from this book, your mind often does the same thing unless your one of those speed readers, which I am not. Mentally, unless I try purposely to imitate another voice, I never hear any other sounding voice but my personal mental voice. Or, when I speak out loud, I hear my exterior voice. This holds true for me no matter what mental or external sounds I make. Since I believe that I'm indwelt by the Holy Ghost, I don't consider all of the mental and even external sounds that I make as being internally generated by me. There are special words, special phrases, special sounds recorded by my brain that have a new content, a new meaning for me. How do I know which of these special sounds are generated by the Holy Ghost or by some other entity?
Of course, whatever these special thoughts or sounds maybe, if they are from the Holy Ghost, they should not contradict the Scriptures. But, which version of the Scriptures should they not contradict? Fortunately, I need not concern myself with this technical interpretation problem since the Holy Ghost verifies for me, and many others, which thoughts are His. I can only attest to what are my personal experiences. For me, and especially for significant concepts, the Holy Ghost verification occurs in a tangible and physical manner. For me, this verification process never varies in form. I've not made any statistically significant survey, but since Christians are indwelt by the same Spirit and God shows no favoritism, I'm assuming, without any compelling evidence, that most Christians have a similar form of personal verification. On the other hand, I don't wish, in any manner, to denigrate any Christian who might not have experienced, as yet, such a personal or physical verification. The Bible indicates that there are probably different degrees of Holy Ghost activity within indwelt Christians.
My experience has been that if I should speak or think of something of significant spiritual importance many times, but not always, the verification occurs. What is very significant to me is that I've no control over this physical manifestation. This physical manifestation can happen anyplace and at anytime. The situation need not be associated with any emotional event. Oh, this Holy Ghost event does occur during some church services. And this is where many who are not so indwelt observe it happening. They sometimes attribute it to some type of hysteria. But, if they would allow themselves to be so indwelt, they would quickly find out that it can happen anywhere, at anytime and without any emotional trigger. In order to eliminate an obvious possibility, I've tried to produce it myself. I've experimented on myself, so to speak. But, I can't produce it. I've found no secular method, no method that was not related to Spiritual concerns that produces the effect. Then there are those many times that under the most emotional and spiritually charged situations the manifestation does not occur even though I wish it world. I'm convinced that I have no personal control, whatsoever, over this manifestation.
It's this manifestation that I term Holy Ghost verification in order to differentiate it from other verification methods. It's this supernatural process that happens often to me when it's absolutely necessary that I know the truth. It's also what you can use to select, from that infinite list of creation scenarios, the correct one that God employed. After all, a Christian certainly loves God and follows His precepts. Isn't it true that Jesus promised this supernatural connection first to His original disciples? Recall what Jesus said as recorded in John 14:15 - 18.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (KJ)Then Peter tells us in Acts 2:38 - 39
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call." (NIV)As recorded in John 16:13, and paraphrased by John in 1 John 2:27, Jesus tells His disciples:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." (NIV)And finally, as recorded in Luke 21:15, Jesus tells us that, in these the last days, we should have no doubt as to the correctness of our Holy Ghost verified conclusions and our ability to defend them against all scientific adversaries. Jesus said:
"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict." (NIV)Hence, to find out the truth, in all matters, you simply need to ask Jesus. You don't need to wait, you can do it right now. He's nearer to you than any entity can ever be. He will personally guide you into all truth.
I began writing the first draught this book on May 30, 1990. It's now 10:03 PM, December 26, 1994. I have no idea when I'll be satisfied with my exposition. On the other hand, I'm never satisfied with my exposition. Every time I re-read one of my published articles or books, I wish I could recall them all for revision. But, unfortunately, I'm not able to reverse the arrow of time. I began rewriting the mathematical theory on Feb. 21, 1990. It's now complete although I've just corrected a few typographical errors. And, so it goes.
I'm sitting here at my home PC wondering whether or not I've succeeded in presenting to you all that I've intended? I don't know what linguistic training you have. Have I selected words that are familiar to you? Have I combined them together in such a manner that they convey the appropriate content and are not confusing? I don't know the answer to this. All I can say is that I've tried as best as I can. I must stop with the continual re-writing. I must let this project go. I must get this information to the Christian community now.
Obviously, this book is not addressed to the scientific community. I suppose that some professional scientists will read it. I hope the truth does not offend them. I'm definitely not going to repeat much of what I've written previously. I think the evidence is irrefutable as to how some scientists are attempting to control your mind and especially your freedom of mental choice. I've written enough about that. Check it out for yourself. Notice how they present their conclusions, especially within the "media," in a positive language designed to convey truth, when a term such as "truth" can't be attached to their conclusions. Don't simply accept what I claim as fact. However, be forewarned. You are dealing with some very intelligent and clever individuals and powerful organizations. They will argue against every aspect of this book, of that I'm sure.
The GGU and MA-models may, at this time, seem fantastic to you. But then many new scientific innovations seemed fantastic when first disclosed. What has been presented is a brief encounter with innovative theoretical science. The properties of the GGU-model are all obtained by accepted scientific means, the same means that produced the Big Bang and other cosmological theories. Because of its properties, no description for the origin of our universe or the origin of any long term developing Natural system that's theoretically obtained can be verified scientifically. They have no scientific "truth" value. This includes the MA-model speculations. It's all a theoretical "game." But, in certain cases, it's not a very pleasant game considering the philosophical consequences.
The conclusions of my research have so freed me intelligently that I've personally selected an origins theory based upon other considerations, other feelings, indeed, Holy Ghost verification. [Of course, individuals need not use such a verification process.] But, my selection is not based upon any scientific theory or presently accepted scientific method. It's my absolute desire that you obtain and exercise the same freedom that I've acquired. I hope sincerely that this small book will aid you in that goal.
It's now January 1995 (the original date of this books completion). I've tried very hard to find a publisher who has enough "guts" to publish this book. Although I would personally travel and do all that I could to market this book, almost all publishers or agents I've contacted are actually afraid to take on this task. All have indicated that it's well written, but it tells the truth about the most "worshiped" of scientific commodities, theoretical science. Except for the fact that it's an exposé and hence controversial, the standard marketing schemes might not apply. It's impossible to have a forward written by some Nobel Prize winner, no well-known literary critic will give this book an even chance, no reviewer for any well-known scientific journal will have a kind word to write about my conclusions. Why not? Because they are part of this scam and many would hardly incriminate themselves. Then again, who knows? Some might wish to clear their conscience. Well, I'll try a few more publishers and see what happens. If I do find a courageous one, I'll thank all concerned in the preface.
[Note added 7 NOV 2007. A great deal more is known about the logical design of our universe as of this date. I suggest the you now consider all of the newer material that can be found on my web site relative to "intelligent design."]