Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes, Intelligent Design and Subparticles Do Not Contradict the Emergent Properties Concept
[Note: In this important article, it is necessary that I use a few terms taken from [1]. Further, a few very simple mathematical forms are utilized. The "reductionism" discussion follows the outline for "universe construction." In [1], I have neither given all the operators that generate a universe nor the order in which they are applied. In this article, all the universe-generating operators and their applications are detailed. Operators and their applications described below replace all others described in any other article that appears on this web site.]
Recall the following definitions.
(1) A defined physical-system is a collection of named physical objects, the constituents, which are so related as to form an identifiable whole. Specific relations between the constituents are the basis for establishing the behavior of the entire structure.
From the mathematically viewpoint, definition (1) can apply to a single physical-system as a whole, where the constituents are ignored.
(2) A "description," in the general GGU-model sense, is a generalized string of symbols that corresponds to human sensory-impressions. These impressions include observable machine sensory-information. The term "description" is often considered synonymous with the term specific information, where descriptions are used as but representations for specific information as discussed below. They can also simply be considered as representations for physical events.
(3) Given a term T that has a definition which includes a set of properties P. The *T (read as "star" T, or "hyper-T" or "hyperT") has a similar set of properties P' when discussed in a special way. But, when the sets of properties are compared, then there can be significant differences between the P and P' properties. Pure entities are neither the * of any entities nor a standard physical entity.
(4) An "operator" D represents a set of processes. These processes can take place in various domains or regions. The properties that D satisfies, usually, represent properties that the processes possess.
(5) The term "physical" refers to observable or assumed constituents or processes within our universe as accepted by science-communities. For this article, constituents of the "substratum" [1, pp. 106, 170] are often considered as "physical-like" in that they have characteristics that are similar but not identical with physical characteristics. I [For other applications, the substratum might be considered as physical.]
(6) An ultraword is a substratum object that behaves like a super-compressed collection of descriptions or instructions. Hence, it is considered as super-compressed specific information or informational instructions. It is like a "zip" file or one of the other forms of compressed data.
*****In the following sketch, first consider the formation of an object taken from a collection of universes (a library [1, p. 156]), where each is considered as a physical-system. Think of this as the production of the specific information contained in the illustrated DVDs [1, p. 159]. The entire universe-generating process is broken into steps and the mathematically represented subparticles [1, p.125] are used as a fundamental step in the algorithm-styled process.
A universe can be considered as a physical-system composed of numerously many other physical-systems. Recall that the GGU-model states specifically, that due to the presence of ultranatural events, the fine-details for universe generation need not be describable via any comprehensible language. Also recall that descriptions are for moments in observer time which are also moments in primitive time, while pure-descriptions are for non-observer primitive time. In condensed format, one form of the universe generation processes begins with an ultimate ultraword W [1, pp. 101, 106]. This ultraword will generate each physical-system. Ultimate ultrawords are only necessary when one wants to generate a universe from the bottom-up, so to speak, where one first defines a collection of physical-systems that, taken together, form a universe.
There is another ultraword w that generates a universe from the top-down and the notion of a physical-system is merely a man-made separation of a universe into named subsets. In order to somewhat simply this article, a universe is composed of finitely many physical objects. Hence, each description is composed of finitely many objects. [Note: Infinite object universes are determined by using the concept termed as the potentially infinite.] In its secular form, a relevant ultraword is obtained from a "purely random" set of descriptions and pure-descriptions. The ultraword W [resp. w] can be decomposed. When this occurs, an entire hyperfinite sequence d' of descriptions is obtained with respect to observer time and non-observer primitive time. For this scenario, descriptions directly correspond to events E(t) or E'(t'). Each member of this sequence is either a description F(t) or a pure-description F'(t') (t' is non-observer primitive time.) Hence, the sequence d' contains a physical event sequence d where each member of d is a description F(t) for a physical universe at a moment t in observer time. This description is called a "frozen-frame" (i.e. an observer or primitive time 3-D slice).
In what follows, I motivate the definition of various "operators" by relating them directly to human processes. Is this a legitimate procedure? Yes, and as an example consider the vary definitions for the operators (or operations) used within basic set-theory, where the motivation for these operators is based upon various human processes such as making choices, writing done strings of symbols, and using our imagination to form sets. "A set x is formed by choosing the sets which are to be members of x [2, p. 322]. . . . there is a stage after all the stages in S provided we can image a situation in which all the stages in S have been completed [2, p. 323-324.] To "form" means to either place sets defined as symbols between the symbols { and } or imagine that the choosing process can be continued in a specific manner. For example, consider the O' as the "empty set." This is defined as a set, where there are no sets used to form O'. That is, O' has no members. It is the only set not formed from other sets. All other sets must be formed from previously formed sets. Now we can form the set {O'} by choosing O' and placing it between { and } and write {O'}, which is defined as a set. Then we can choose the symbol-string {O'} and place it between the { and } and write down the set {{O'}}. Of course, we can also choose the O' and {O'} and write down the set {O', {O'}}. Or, even if we cannot actually write done all the formed sets, we can imagine them as being formed in a step-by-step manner. This is the case with the "axiom of infinity," where we can write down notation for previously obtained sets such as x', x'', x''', x''''' . . . (the dots are where imagination comes in). We can imagine continuing this notation of adjoining the ' to the previous notation in a step-by-step manner, but we cannot actually write down all the members of this formed "infinite" set A = {x', x'', x''', x''''' . . .} [2, p 326]. (In this reference, Shoenfield uses different symbols for the described members of this set.) In set theory the symbol x' is a set.
Objects that form sets can have refined definitions. In mathematics, x' it might be defined as an "open" set. For the physical world, and say quantum (measure) theory, a symbol such an Y is used to represent the physical process of observing a value y, that characterizes totally or partially a physical object or its behavior. One can use the language of set theory by considering each such Y as a set and investigating the set of all such physical observations. If these physical processes can be faithfully described, then each Y can be considered as such a description. As mentioned above, for the GGU-model, what constitutes a description is generalized so as to include all forms of human sensory-impressions. All such generalized descriptions are then coded. The actual mathematics investigates these coded descriptions using special techniques.
The first basic operator used for the GGU-model is S [1, p. 104]. It is modeled after a simple mode of human thought used billions and billions of times a day. It yields the ultralogic *S that is applied to W [resp. w] and it decomposes W [resp. w] into its individual constituents, which, after a few more steps, leads to the production of an entire physical universe and its step-by-step development. To achieve this, this operator is followed by application of the *finite *ordered-choice operator *O applied to d' and this yields, in a step-by-step manner, the *ordered d' sequence of the physical or physical-like descriptions along with the observer time ordered physical event sequence d. (The general term event sequence, usually, includes the *event sequence as well. The event sequence term combines the notion of the developmental paradigm and the physical or physical-like events it describes.) The operator *O is modeled after the operator O, where O models the human process of placing, by selection, a finite collection of objects into a specific order.
The d is the event sequence that yields the step-by-step development of a physical universe. As mentioned, each member F(t) of d corresponds to a moment "t" in observer time. Under the most general notion of what constitutes a description, a specific description F(t) is related to "specific information." For the GGU-model, specific information is associated with an instruction r(F(t)), modeled after the notion as used in biology. These instructions yield the E(t)s that correspond to the F(t)s. (From the GID viewpoint, this process, F(t) plus r(F(t)) yields E(t), is designed by a higher-intelligence.) An instruction is also called an M-process. For more details about this M-process r(F(t)) again consult specific information.
Often the term specific information is used in place of the term description. Or one might write that F(t) or F'(t') contains "specific information." There is an important operator *IN. The *IN relates each description or pure-description to a corresponding instruction that is denoted by r(F(t)) for a description or r(F'(t')) for a pure-instruction.
Although this section is mainly concerned with secular physical notions, the following aspects are related to intelligent design. A computer programmer can take a description in words and write a program that will change the word description into an image displayed on a monitor. However, there are many different languages that can describe the same physical event E(t). Each entity in the description and its image-representation is identified by its physical characteristics, which can also be described in many different ways. It is the "meaning" that different programmers associate with different descriptions that leads to a unique monitor image.
In the GGU-model, various seeming pure-descriptions F'(t') can be but descriptions F(t') obtained by repetition. But, even if there is repetition, F(t') still has meaning for non-observer primitive time t'. As discussed in the next paragraph, assuming that specific information is not just a convenient notion, then, for a physical description F(t), the M-process is coupled with another operator *G that "forces," so to speak, ultrasubparticles to combined in such a manner that when the "st" operator is applied a physical event E(t) occurs, an event that corresponds completely to F(t). The composition of the three operator *IN, *G and st form a bridge between sensory-produced descriptions, of all forms, and physical or physical-like things. One can, of course, start with the image itself considered as but a representation for the physical entity being depicted.
All physical characteristics for entities within the description are represented by ultrasubparticles. There are mathematically operators that model the actual way that subparticles are to be combined. They yield the *finite subparticle combining operator *G. This operator is modeled after the human process G of following instructions and gathering together a finite collection of objects in order to construct a specific physical object. Operator *G is defined on the set of all needed instructions *I'. The appropriate M-process is always required. For a type w ultraword, the result *G(*IN(F(t)) [resp. *G(*IN(F'(t'))] corresponds directly to all of the physical characteristics for the universe-wide E(t) [resp. E'(t')]. For a type W ultraword, the composition *G*IN is applied to each of the physical-system ultrawords. In review and in general, all of the processes used take an F(t) [resp. F'(t')] and yield an E(t) [resp. E'(t')], where t [resp. t'] is observer [resp. non-observer primitive] time. It is the construction of an event sequence that yields physical events that occur at moments of observer time and physical-like events that occur at moments of non-observer primitive time.
There is a simpler way to generated an ultraword w that generates a universe from the top-down, (see New Ultraword Generation) whereas the ultimate ultraword W generates a universe from the bottom-up. As noted, for *G(r(F(t))) to become a physical event within a universe, one more step is needed. This step is the application of st. This yields a particular universe-wide "frozen-frame" that corresponds to F(t), where using w the entire frozen-frame occurs without consideration of subphysical-systems and using W the frozen-frome is composed of a collection of physical-systems. Using the notion of repeating F(t) descriptions, there need be no F'(t') description different from a F(t) description. However, for the usual interpretation, there are F'(t') descriptions that contain, at least, one symbol that is not a member of the general language used for any F(t) description. These pure-descriptions yield physical-like entities that are employed to sustain a universe's development. In certain cases, this process can also yield, via comparison, some knowledge as to how physical-like events behave. In symbolic form, given any universe generating ultraword W, the ordered composition (*) is
The result C({W}) is a physical universe. (This is a restricted composition notion.) Thus, the C represents a right-to-left ordered application of each of the individual operators. That is, the order of application is *S => *O => *IN => *G => st. This ordering is not a "time" ordering. It is merely C being separated into its constituents. When the composition st *G*IN is applied to F(t) [resp. F'(t')], then a physical universe is realized at the moment of observer [resp. non-observer primitive] time. Recall that a moment of observer time is also a moment of primitive time.
Consider the primitive time t + 1. Either the same W or w generates the corresponding F(t + 1) or, depending upon how alterations in behavior come about, a different W' or w' is utilized. It should be self-evident, that, for the case where altered behavior occurs, when the st operator is applied to *G(r(F(t + 1))), then the previous realized F(t) no longer exists as a realized frozen-frame. But, the unrealized F(t) has not been removed. A type of inverse of st yields what is termed as the covirtual form. Each equivalent F(t) is "different," at least, relative to primitive time. So that the behavior can be properly described, the primitive time location is included in the retained F(t). [As my computer illustration indicates [1], for a theological interpretation each such F(t) can be considered as placed in a "history" file.]
[For informational purposes, a general logic-system RI determines an operator C as follows: Consider any set of hypotheses X. Then the set of all deductions Y obtained using X and RI generates the operator's results. That is, the operator C takes X and yields Y. Notationally this is written as C(X) = Y. This operator has certain characteristics and any operator D with these characteristics will generate a general logic-system RI(D) that will generate that same D. However, it has been shown that for the language used by science-communities, there are infinitely many different general logic-systems that generate the same operator C. Technically, this can make this subject somewhat difficult. However, when S is applied to W, the extraneous results are contained in describable sets. Thus, the choice part of the O operator includes a finite choice made from four characterized sets. Further, it has been shown that the "ordered" part exists as a function.]
For our universe, there is a special relation that exists between the successive members of d that represent physical-systems and alterations in their behavior. For this secular scenario, the relation must be considered as produced in an uncontrolled "random" manner. Assume that this stance is accepted. The production of all defined physical-systems and alterations in their behavior is consistent with a collection of comprehensible physical laws and physical theories. It is known that, in this case, the standard portion of this *finite *ordered-choice process *O corresponds, in a step-by-step manner, to applications of a unification *U for all physical laws and theories as established in The Best Possible Unification for any Collection of Physical Theories [Result 3.8, where *U is the usual hyper-extension. In 1 p. 186, the *U is one part of the two composition capital omega.]
The joining of successive frozen-frames is consistent with the application of *U. However, due to the construction of physical laws and theories there are other physical-like laws and theories that are part of the hyper-unification *U. Coupled with *U are ultralogic operators Pi = Pi(P(p(m))) [1, p. 150] that generate physical events that satisfy various probability model distributions [1, p. 150]. The operator Pi is modeled after a very simple but progressive mode of human logical discourse. However, it is not a hyper-process of a completely describable human mental process. The Pi operator is the one that yields a basic probabilistic property that has been a stumbling block for physical science in that such behavior, usually, does not reveal itself until many events occur. Moreover, in this article the symbol Pi also signifies probabilities generated by elementary Bernoulli trials [1, p. 147].
Due to participator alterations, there may be a collection of the Pi operators for each selected universe-producing ultraword, where (Pi*U) represents any member of this collection. What this symbol means is the *U is applied first then Pi is applied. In modern physical science, it is claimed that all physical behavior is probabilistic in character and, in all cases, Pi would apply. However, Pi can also be utilized if a specific science-community requires that specific physical behavior be certain (i.e. 100% probable). As above, let F(t) denote a description for observer time t. The unification U yields a single element set {F(t+1)}. This allows Pi to be applied if necessary. When *U operates on {F(t)}, then *U({F(t)} = U({F(t)}). On the other hand, if F'(t') is a pure-description, then *U({F'(t')}) is a pure-description. If it is assumed that our universe "began" with an event E(0), then, for each moment in observer time i and F(i), there is the hidden pattern
[Note: For (1), there are also non-observer primitive moments of time k, where *U applies to {F'(k)}, "between" certain observer times.] If it is assumed that there is no standard "beginning" relative to the standard notion of a sequence of physical events, then it has been shown that there is a "nonstandard" beginning, denoted by j, to the sequence that yields the physical events. In this case, there exists a pure-description F'(j) that "begins" at j. This yields the pattern
where i is observer time. (As with case (1), for case (2), there are also non-observer primitive moments of time k, where *U applies to {F'(k)}, "between" certain moments of observer time.)
[For informational purposes, it is shown in evidence, that each physical law is representable by a general logic-system. Each physical theory is generated by a general logic-system. The problem is that the corresponding consequence operators,PL, often generate a vast amount of extraneous information. Once one generates the consequence operator PL for each physical law or accepted theory, then PL can be used to define a PL', where PL' has only one piece of extraneous information. (This "behavior or theory-signature" is defined in this article.) This piece is removed by using a single step and leaves the "realism relation" that generates no extraneous information. The same result can be obtained by a choice operator. In either case, it is assumed that these additional processes are applied to the physical laws and theories that comprise the unification U and, hence, *U. Significantly, this shows why PL, U and *U are considered as representing physical or physical-like processes. Thus, to be consistent, such a representation is accorded the operators C and C'.]
Neither (1) nor (2) need an "ending." For pattern (1), when a specific member of a library is selected [1, p. 163], then each description F(i) is used along with *G, the process that combines ultrasubparticles as either intuitively obtained or more formally via other *G operators, and this yields a vast collection of unrealized subparticles {H(i)}. The final step in the process is application of the standard part operator, st, to {H(i)}. This results in the physical realization of F(i), all the objects in universe-wide event E(i). If pattern (2) holds, then, the *G is applied for physical-like events but the application of the st operator has no effect if applied to the corresponding {H'(i)} for a pure-description F'(t'). Again due to the existence of ultranatural laws and theories, we can have little or no knowledge as to the exact events being generated by the (Pi*U)(F'(j)), . . ., portion of the sequence. [Note: Various observable objects are often claimed to be composed of atomic or subatomic objects and these are determined by subparticle combination which are part of {H(i)}. On the other hand, subparticle formations can by-pass such atomic and subatomic objects and directly produce each physically object that is observable.]
The production of the physical laws and physical theories that humanity can comprehend can come about in two ways. These comprehensible regulations simply exist for our randomly produced universe. Then by some remarkable and also random means, one species has evolved and produced languages that allow for the production of comprehensible descriptions that faithfully represent these regulations. On the other hand, these regulations are built into the development of our universe by a higher intelligence for a definite purpose. There is vast number of necessary relations that exist between adjacent frozen-frames, a vast number of frozen-frames, a vast number of physical-systems, and there is the fact that human beings are the only earthly entities that seem able to describe and comprehend physical laws. Claiming that this has all occurred via evolutionary processes for the development of the human brain, a development that has not occurred for any other known biological form, is a rather unsatisfactory explanation. Further, since many laws and accepted scientific theories require abstraction, then these considerations imply that it is highly improbable that such laws are produced by unguided chance. Note that each physical law and accepted physical theory is intelligently designed, at the least, on the human level of intelligence.*****.
The above ***** statements are used as a way to comprehend the processes. But, due to the lack of knowledge aspects of the GGU-model and the model's analogue character, these described processes need not be the actual way that F(i) is transformed into E(i). The entire process or portions can be considered, in their entity, as a single process.
As mentioned, a science-community can define a universe as composed of various physical-systems. In that case, the *S applied to W yields the ultrawords W(k) for each defined physical-system. The same ***** process, applied to each of the W(k), generates from E(i,k) the event E(i+1,k).
Each instruction in *I' contains the moment t or t' at which the instruction is to be applied. Thus, there is a sequence d and corresponding hyperfinite sequence d' of instructions or *instructions. There is an ultrawords, #w, that represents the set of instructions or *instructions, for the top-down generation of a universe. In this case, *S({#w}) contains a *ordered set of identified instructions or *instructions. Thus, in this case, the operator *IN is not needed. The collection of composed operators takes the form
The material on the secular use of Pi and *U is not altered.
In the following, for (*), the intelligently designed interpretation is detailed.
The following describes, in general terms, the GID-model intelligent design interpretation that are obtained from the secular GGU-model interpretation by simply noting that the each event sequence and the operators are intelligently designed by the higher-intelligence H. Moreover, each operator either has a higher-intelligence signature when applied or is modeled after intelligent human activities.
For the w, the hyperfinite sequence d'' of descriptions and pure-descriptions is somewhat more controlled since, in this intelligent design interpretation, the sequence of descriptions and pure-descriptions, for corresponding events, is generated prior to the formation of the corresponding ultraword w by intelligent actions as partially described in [1]. In this case, the notion of what constitutes a physical-system is a man-made separation of the entire universe-wide frozen-frame into physical-system constituents. Whether W or w is used to generated a universe, the collection of pure-descriptions obtained from W or w, respectively, does not include all of the actual pure-descriptions. Hence, it can be assumed that the pure-descriptions that are obtained from W or w by application of *S are required in order to generate a specific universe, while the other pure-descriptions may be used for other purposes. Using the hypothesized processes and as mentioned below direct and indirect evidence, each of these statements can be considered as fact.
1. Our universe as a whole is designed and produced by actions taken by a higher-intelligence. Each ultraword W or w used for universe generation is the product of the actions of a higher-intelligence.
2. Every defined elementary object, if such exists (a neutrino and the like), is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence.
3. Every combination of elementary objects, if any exist, used to form any other physical object is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence. Examples: a hydrogen atom, water, an ocean, the world, the solar system, our galaxy, etc.
4. The physical laws and theories are purposely designed by a higher-intelligence. These allow intelligent beings to construct additional physical-systems. Based upon physical laws or theories, every physical change in the behavior of every system composed of physical objects is controlled by the same higher-intelligence. (Controlled does not mean personal choice is removed. Statement 1 always applies even if there are no known physical laws or theories that yield physical changes or basic patterns.) Examples: objects move from one position to another, water temperature change, indeed, anything that changes its known physical characteristics, appearance, etc.
5. This higher-intelligence can design and produce our universe in a manner that follows a strict (literal) interpretation of the creation statements make in Genesis 1. Example: things appear suddenly in mature form, water, light, dry land, or objects formed during but one 24-hour day even without sunlight. This higher-intelligence can also design our universe so as to correspond to any of the proposed cosmologies.
The previous 5 statements summarize conclusions obtained from interpreted characteristics for each formal operator used. For this more formal outline, as in the secular sketch, an arbitrary member of a library is considered. Each W, applicable W(k) and w, results from of a pre-designed sequence d of physical events as represented by descriptions {F(i)}. The methods that produce these ultrawords are intelligently designed by a higher-intelligence H [1]. It is shown that these ultrawords determine another designed event sequence d' that can contain pure-descriptions distinct from those in d, where d is called a subsequence of d'. In general, each F(t) = d'(t)= d(t). But, if the F'(t') is not a repeated F for non-observer primitive time t', then F'(t') = d'(t') produces an event E'(t') not equivalent to any physical event. The event E'(t') is physical-like. In all cases, the sequential members are generated, in a general way, by a higher-intelligence H [1]. Recall, that H denotes a higher-intelligence that designs every aspect of the GGU-model. Certain of the higher-intelligence processes exhibited by H, when restricted to a physical universe, model specific human mental processes. It is not difficult to show that no biological entity within any universe can replicate the universe-generating H processes.The finite consequence operators S, IN, and U are intelligently designed via specific general logic-systems [1 , p. 67] and, when applied, each exhibits an intelligent agency signature termed its ID-signature. The *S, *IN,*U, st' and pure consequence operator Pi are intelligently designed by a higher-intelligence and they display, upon application, their ID-signatures. (The st' operator is a slight extension of the st operator. It has all of the same effects as does the st operator.) These signatures correspond to the use of *logic-systems. *Logic-systems differs from a logic-system in that the language *L is employed and hyperfinite is substituted for finite in the algorithm that generates deductions. In general, applications of S, G, IN, O, U [resp. *S, *G, *IN, *O, *U, st'] correspond to equivalent mental [resp. *mental] processes. These mental [resp. *mental] processes are describable.
For the GID-model, designed event sequences that corresponding to ultraword W and W(k) or w, are generated in a special manner. This adds to the construction as it appears in [1]. For (1) [resp. (2)] above, the higher-intelligent action Pi*U is repeatedly applied to F(0) [resp. F'(j)].In refined summary, all the operators employed are intelligently designed by H. The ultralogic operators *S, *IN, Pi, *U, st', when applied display a higher-intelligence signature and, necessarily, the structural and behavioral patterns produced are intelligently designed. The non-ultralogic operator *O is modeled after the operator O, where O models the human mental process of placing, by selection, a finite collection of objects into a specific order. The basic notion of "combining *finitely many ultrasubparticles," although mathematically represented by operator *G, is a higher-intelligence process that when restricted to our physical world is equivalent to the human mental process of combining finitely many objects from a set in order to obtain, for a specific purpose, a specified object.
Further, the production of an event, whether physical or physical-like, and alterations in the behavior of each such event, display another higher-intelligence signature in that the production of or alteration in a physical-system or physical-like system is equivalent to generating an event sequence by repeated application of the (Pi*U) operator. This shows, in a more specific manner, how each member of an event sequence can be designed by a higher-intelligence so as to correspond to the physical laws and theories deduced by some biological entities. Hence, in contrast to the secular scenario, there is a specific "reason" as established below that such laws and theories exist. Also, they give yet more indirect evidence for the existence of a higher-intelligence.
The following is the GID-model interpretation for the higher-intelligence language *L. (i) Each member of *L that is not a members of L and (ii) each *term and each word with the "ultra" prefix (ultraterm), where each *term and ultraterm object does not have the same properties that characterize the object designated by the original "term," is a member of the a higher-language.
In all cases, application of the st' operator displays a higher-intelligence signature in that it is applied to objects represented by specific (ii)-members of the higher-intelligence language. The ID-signature displayed by the ultralogic Pi is not equivalent to any ID-signature displayed by a *C operator, where C is any finite consequence operator obtained from a logic-system defined on L.
Summary in terms of operators.
(1) Each event sequence is designed by a higher-intelligence.
(2) Each W, w and W(k) ultrawords are constructed by a higher-intelligence.
(3) Each of operators S, *S, G, *G, IN, *IN, O, *O, U, *U, Pi and st' is designed by a higher-intelligence.
(4) When applied the operators *S, *G, *IN, *U, Pi, and st' display an identical higher-intelligent signature. When *O and *G are applied they mimic higher mental-like processes.
(6) Due to (3) and (4) each structural or behavioral pattern (i.e. what results from their application) is designed by a higher-intelligence.
(7) (1) - (6) and direct and indirect evidence imply, in all cases, that a higher-intelligence is the direct and ultimate cause for the production of and alterations in the behavior of each physical-system within our universe.
The Bible describes God's creationary processes linguistically. In terms of linguistic notions each ultraword has the same properties as a higher-language "word" and models "rhema" as used in Hebrews 1:3. Hence, C transforms a "rhema" into physical or physical-like events. At the time when specific Biblical creationary statements were originally presented, how could this linguistic model for creation be understood? The properties of the operator C can be considered as a model for the idea that the term "command" means "to direct with authority." Hence, C directs W, w or the W(k) in such a way that physical or physical-like events are produced. Further, depending upon the circumstances, the Biblical word used for "to speak" can be defined as "to think." GGU-model processes model these human-like procedures. For example,
"And God said, Let there be . . . ." (Genesis 1),
". . . for he commanded, and they were created." (Psalm 148:5).
All of the physical laws and theories, which include probabilistic models, are represented by U. Each of these physical laws and theories is obtain by application of a logic-system. The U results from a combination of all of these logic-systems. Hence, the logic-systems can be individually applied and, as the Bible states, this allows humanity to have
"dominion over . . . all the earth" (Genesis 1:26) and "subdue it" (Genesis 1:28).
I have mentioned previously that the term "subparticles" need not, in general, refer to "particles" in a physical sense. The term is rather unfortunate and I should have retained the original term "infants" or something else. Note that in relativistic cosmology even galaxies can be "represented" by the particle notion - a galactic gas or point masses.
Also, the GID-model satisfies Romans 1:20 and shows, via indirect evidence, a m,major aspect of God's "invisible attributes" and that His power is infinitely greater, in comparison, to the finite and highly restricted power of His created.
There are various notions termed as "reductionism." One major form of reductionism is the claim that every physical event that exists is produced by a small number of basic objects that behave in describable ways. Further, such describable behavior leads directly to the behavior of each physical event. A major claim comes from the particle-physics community and it may be false. The claim states that particle-physics interactions lead to the behavior of each physical-system. Various philosophies of science reject this statement. Rather, it is believed that many physical properties "emerge" in that they may not simply be the "sum" of all of the parts and their interactions. These emergent properties cannot be produced through application of the properties that regulate a more fundamental level. Can subparticles produced entities that display emergent properties?
I have emphatically stated that subparticles are typically considered as only operational in content. Within physical science, a physical object, whether it exists on a fundamental level or as a more inclusive physical-system, differs from another such object in that it has different physical characteristics. These differences are based upon physical measurements, descriptions, images, and human or machine sensory-impressions. The prefix "sub," in the term subparticle, refers to characteristics represented by measured quantities or by human or machine sensory-impressions. These impressions include other descriptions for physical behavior not related to measured quantities. A coding process represents all such characteristics. The "ultrasubparticle" is a mathematical way to represent, in a distinctive way, each of the basic characteristics that will operationally yield the characteristics for a specific physical-system.
What does the phrase "operationally yield" mean? Subparticles may be deemed as but one of the fundamental steps for the universe-generating process. This means that the rules that direct subparticle formation, although related to a real procedures, are described mathematically in such a way that the objects to which the rules apply are not detailed in physical terms. I have presented [1, p. 127, the straws] an "illustration" for subparticle formation that is not intended to be an actual physical description. How a universe is generated depends upon the scenario selected. Subparticles are used for all of the scenarios. Due to the notion of the ultranatural laws [1, pp. 127, 141] (part of the lack of knowledge model), descriptions for certain of the scenarios must remain somewhat vague.
The properties that govern subparticle formation of physical-systems are not dependent upon the atomic-world. Assuming that they may represent actual universe-generating substratum objects does not contradict the philosophy of emergent properties. Depending upon the theory used, their combinations could represent actual physical objects at various levels. These levels need not include the atomic realm. The combinations could represent directly observed physical-systems and their behavior. This is how the top-down ultraword w behaves.
The GGU-model unifies all physical laws, theories and describable properties. Physical emergent properties are, at the least, describable properties for physical behavior. Hence, there are rules that satisfy these emergent property descriptions. Further, until the st operator is applied subparticle combinations are part of the substratum that is not part of physical-world. Subparticle "coordinates" are related in various ways and these relations are what produces variations in physical-systems. These relations, including the descriptions for emergent properties, are classified as physical laws. Hence, the unification *U along with Pi yields the physical events that display the emergent properties. For the maximum secular interpretation, one could follow the philosophy of Feynman.
[W]hile I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But, you see nobody understands that [1, p. 99].
Thus, from his viewpoint, among the many (even infinitely many) collections of possible physical laws, humankind, by evolutionary chance, has been able to deduce the physical laws that generate U. Thus, such describable behavior, including any emerging properties, simply exist. But, these humanly comprehensible and applicable laws cannot include the Pi, which, as mentioned, has been the major stumbling block for secular science. The Pi operator is the one that yields a basic emerging probabilistic-property - that such behavior, usually, does not reveal itself until many events occur. And, the Pi "law" cannot be a member of U, since it represents "ultralogic" behavior, processes that cannot be mimicked by humankind.
Moreover, Feynman's's statement is wrong in its major implication. Since, as stated in Genesis 1:28, multitudes of Bible believers know why Nature behaves as modeled by U and Pi and why we are able to describe physical regulations. Moreover, as Einstein wrote [1, p. 186], many such laws cannot be the result of our sensory experiences that evolutionists claim lead to the necessary deductions. But, if such physical behavior was originally incorporated into an event sequence, is there "something else" that "forces" all physical objects to follow these laws and emergent properties? Are there entities that are used to guide behavior so that it "must" follow the original event sequence patterns? These are interesting questions but, most probably, they cannot be answered while humankind exists in its present form. As pointed out many times, there are ultranatural laws and, hence, ultranatural rules and *events of which no entity within a (physical) universe can have any descriptive knowledge. One can conjecture that such presently incomprehensible items are required to produce and sustain all physical-systems within any such universe. And, they do answer such ultimate questions.
[1] Herrmann, R. A. 2002. Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed, Xulon Press, Fairfax Va and other addresses.
[2] Shoenfield, J. R., 1977. The Axioms of Set Theory, In: Handbook of Mathematical Logic, (ed. Barwise), North Holland, New York, pp. 321-344.
Note: For the actual mathematical statements that lead to the above two displayed sequences, (1) and (2) see this PDF file.