Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed
Ultrawords and the GID-model
It is important to remember that the GGU-model is an "analogue model for behavior" in that it rationally represents behavior and properties, where generalized descriptions F(t) represent actual physical objects. Indeed, this is all that physical science does. It deals with descriptions as substitutions for physical events E(t). But, directly related to such descriptions is the notion of informational "instructions." These instructions r(F(t)) use subparticles and yield an event E(t) that corresponds to the F(t). Thus, it is not the F(t) that generates E(t) but rather the r(F(t)). Each instruction is distinct since, at the least, it carries a different primitive time, t, identifier. An instruction can be considered as a member of the set of all generalized descriptions. There are now two choices as to the objects to which the ultralogic *S applies. They can both be used for the GID-model interpretation. But, one may be more appropriate for the maximum secular GGU-model. In either case, there are "ultrawords."
Recall that for the GGU-model, ultralogics are termed as "intrinsic ultranatural processes," or IUN-processes within a background region. They are also sometimes termed as force-like processes. Using this terminology, they are considered as producing physical-systems, and producing, staining, guiding or controlling physical-system behavior. Their relation to intelligent design can be considered as an extraneous interpretation that is ignored as is done in quantum logic. Further, for the GID-model, ultralogics have the same GGU-model "meanings" except their relation to intelligent design is not ignored and these IUN-processes are coupled with the intelligent agent characteristics that are considered a general signature for the intelligent design aspects. The term "signature" is also used for certain characteristics displayed by consequence operators or equivalent logic-systems.
For simplicity, first consider an ordinary language L constructed from the set of our 25 language symbols. For our use, also include a spacing symbol |||. Technically, a (Markov) "word" is a finite combination of these symbols written left-to-right. (I note that the actual foundations of much mathematics are human experiences.) Thus aaabcaa is a word distinct from aacbaaa. There is an intuitive operation defined for "word theory" called by various names. Let's call it "juxtaposition." Usually, it is not represented by a symbol, however. Thus, aaabcaa is considered as formed by juxtaposition in various but finitely many ways. For example, juxtaposing aaab with caa, and aa with abcaa yields aaabcaa. There are words like it|||is|||cold.|||, which are used to replace "itiscold." so that one does not confuse the meaning. I introduced the notion of "meaningful" into word theory and few seem to know this. Certain combinations of such symbols will change their meaning when the spacing symbol is put in different places. Then a method is introduced that allows one to suppress the finitely many different left-to-right juxtaposing operations that yield the same combination. Also, one can replace the alphabet symbols with "images." This yields a generalized language. Word theory is studied in abstract algebra and mathematical logic.
The methods introduced allow one to examine each member of a word as well as how the words are constructed by juxtaposition. One can construct certain "words" that correspond to the sequential "appearance" or descriptions for a physical-system as it develops. This is done by considering a set of symbols P(n), where n varies over symbols for a finite set of natural numbers. Each P(n) is interpreted as a description or "image." These "words" correspond to objects within a basic form of human logic - propositional logic. (Propositional logic is the foundation for the construction of a computer microprocessor.) Using a simpler logic-system that is a sub-system for propositional logic, one obtains a consequence operator S (see ultralogics) defined on the simplest language P that contains these constructed words. These words have various algebraic properties and one can "count" the number of positions a word will require for its actual expression. All of this is then embedded into a special model.
Now what is discovered is that there exists an object w in *P and not in P. The ultralogic *S applies to this w. It is a "single" word hypothesis. It is not a set of words. And, at this point, all that is needed is to state that w is composed of more language symbols than any member of L.
HOWEVER, for the GID-model, a higher-intelligence can work with such a w as easily as we work with a word from L. This can be technically established. Such "easy" work is called hyperfinite work. Due to the method of construction, the interior construction of any such w can be analyzed. It contains the original P(n) images or descriptions in an ordered set d and these are contained in another ordered set d'. It is here where one can establish that d' contains symbols that construct words in *L, and these symbols and the words are not members of L.
When the ultralogic *S is applied to w and another higher-intelligence process is applied, you get the d' as well as the coded images or descriptions in d and they appear in their required sequential order. Since it behaves in a general way like an ordinary words, but, in comparison, w is a member of *L, not a member of L and it is longer than any word taken from L, then such a w is called an "ultraword." I often state that such ultrawords as w are composed of "supercompact information" and *S decompresses w so as to obtain the specific information represented by each image.
Due to the type of special (i.e. nonstandard) model being used, one can show that if you take the ultrawords that comprise the development of each physical-system within a universe, then there is another single ultraword w' with a very special property. When *S is applied to w', each of the other ultrawords that generate each developing physical-system is produced as well as the individual physical-system developments. Such a w' is called an ultimate ultraword. Then if a model requires multi-universes, you have another ultraword w'' that when *S is applied to w'', each w' or w is produced and then each of the ultrawords contained in each w'. I suppose that one would call w'' an ultimate^2 ultraword or something like that. I discuss in the Book how one interprets such ultimate ultrawords for the GGU-model.
Now the ultraword w is used as a top-down approach that generates a universe, while w' is a bottom-up. Your author has recently shown that the w are better ultrawords to use where emergent properties, if they exist, are included. So, one can think of all of these "ultrawords" as containing all the specific information or informational instructions that will lead to the formation and development of every physical-system within a material universe or within a collection of universes. However, one does not obtain the physical-systems and their developments unless an ultralogic is applied. Thus, we have that ultrawords are associated with the GID-model notions of intelligent design by a higher-intelligence and, when realized, the patterns produced by *S are designed by a higher-intelligence. In the book, I show that GID-model ultrawords can be considered as pre-design via, at the least, two processes.
For the GID-model, each ultraword has associated with it a set of instructions I'. There is another ultralogic that relates each member of d' with an instruction in I'. It is the instruction that is used to actually produce the physical entities at each moment in the development of a universe. Thus, ultrawords are considered as objects that contain "supercompressed" specific information or informational instructions, which are released when *S is applied. Finally, no physical entity displays, in any way, written or coded characteristics. For the secular GGU-model, only the set I' needs to be employed. For the GID-model, both the descriptions and their corresponding instructions can be used. Thus, based upon ones choice, the technical GID-model may be slightly different than the GGU-model. Whichever approach one chooses is it possible that an instruction actually correspond to "something" physical or physical-like that has the same characteristics. Instructions can be considered as a pure analogue notion in that they are but auxiliary objects that aid in human comprehension. On the other hand, symbolically expressed instructions can be considered as representing actual physical or physical-like objects that behavior in a similar manner. They represent actual behavior that we cannot otherwise comprehend. There may be actual physical-like processes that "force" physical objects to conform to a description and the processes are guided by a set of linguistic-styled instructions? Indirect evidence as used in atomic physics and early history cosmology could be used to declare that such processes exist in the substratum region. Can we describe such processes? Assuming they are in the substratum, the chances are that we cannot so describe them. The reason for this is that the GGU-model specifically states that are ultranatural processes that are controlled by ultranatural instructions of which we can have no knowledge. Thus, we will probably only be able to comprehend these processes via a analogue model.