My gGlobe(tm): Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

The key may well be in the ‘all possible paths’, Mike. And if you look carefully in your My gGlobe(tm), at the specific history of one single particle in that single carbon atom, the one that was in you, and traced the ‘all possible paths’ that it had taken, would you find that it was lying alongside itself in that atom? And the atom lying next to it was made of it, itself, too.

That is to say, that one, single particle was in fact every particle in existence at all points of time. That that one single particle was all that is. That is , that that single particle is God itself. The particle that is creating for itself an infinite variety of forms and combinations.

I think I want a cup of tea. Maybe the Universe is what happens when God wants a cuppa too.

I can’t conceive of another universe I’d rather be in, since that would be the one that I’d be in!

There is an overpowering tendency, to which no one is immune, of forgetting that the observed does not exist without the observer. While it may exist as a mathematical conception, a universe that is not appropriately tuned to my existence cannot exist. I am, and therefore it is. This situation is eternal, for if I weren’t, then nothing ever was.

I don’t want to be accused of hogging it all to myself: I’m not really me. Just a temporary window shining from God’s consciousness. And all the other windows I see are of that same one consciousness. I know they are because at times I merge with some of them, in love, in anger, in empathy. It truly hurts to see a loved one suffer. The suffering becomes my own. And it is true joy to know another’s happiness.

Again, begging the FAP, when the chalk dust clears (and I have great respect for the paths they have left behind and those who have laid them), TOE will be found to be a three letter formula so easy that a child could understand–GOD.

What a nice nutshell! Somewhere God is looking down on you Mike, and smiling.

So, since you have his ear, tell him to make sure both Joyanna’s earlobes get to hear the Beatles songs I’ve never heard in that other dimention.

Thanks.

I always love when you write about this stuff…it’s like eating an juicy peach and wondering by just what miracle did it evolved to be so delicious!

jjtaup says, “There is an overpowering tendency, to which no one is immune, of forgetting that the observed does not exist without the observer. ”

This is an error, a misreading of Quantum Mechanics.

But it has been used as a rationale for God being the observer, He being the only one to exist before there were any other sentient beings in His Universe to do the observing for to enable existence of anything. But even that is an error. God cannot be limited, we posit, so He cannot be limited in His ability to create an item that needs His observance or not need it. He can, if He chooses, create something which does not need Him to even know of its existence, shirley?

But I’m not quoting QM scripture. I’m making it up. God CAN choose to do lot’s of things, including the things He can’t do, but, in the end, He done what he done.

As I’m driving to work I’m thinking, “What does that flesh in the car next to me feel and experience? Where is it’s consciousness?” One very stubborn fact is that I’ve never “been in” it’s consciousness. Come to think of it, I’ve never been in anyone’s consciousness except my own. But Shirley must possess consciousness–this is not a solipsism.

Actually, I HAVE been in others’ consciousnesses. I’ve been in my wife’s when she was delivering our son. I–and many of us–have been in the Challenger 7’s when they lifted off even beyond the confines of gravity. I felt sick when Terri Shiavo was dessicated. We all have moments when our consciousness extends a little bit farther than our own bodies. In fact, it happens all the time. The things we interact with are actually part and parcel of what we are.

Imagine something–I don’t know…a cup of tea–but not the one you want. One that is floating far, far out there, which no one will ever see, hear, taste or touch, which will never interact with any particles or energies–just an isolated cup o’ tea. Could it exist? No. There’s nothing to observe it. I.e., if it has no consequences and connects in no way to any consciousness, and therefore is devoid of meaning, then it doesn’t exist.

Now, does this mean that God needs to commission observer lieutenants to either bring into existence “the observed?” Yes and no. The observer IS the observed.

While I contemplate your gGlobe universe in a nutcase theory, reading it brought up some deeply buried questions about science, unless you charge some kind of fee for professional science therapy…

Some questions about science:

This group of sophisticated atheist materialist intellectuals currently controlling the sciences, why do they ridicule and ruin as superstitious fools anyone who believes anything supernatural is real, including intelligent design?

Are atheist materialists genuine scientists or are they part of the despair subculture that are street gangs with spray paint defacing the sciences like they have vandalized every other part of our culture?

Are atheist materialists taking control of sciences developed by deeply religious people and forcing everyone to deny credit to their true source, and give undeserved credit to atheist materialists as the only ones who could possibly understand science and who are the true protectors of the sciences?

Can anyone please give me a list of all the scientists who made significant scientific advancements in the history of the world, who were atheist materialists?

Is scientific advancement even possible by people who have an atheist materialist world view?

Does the skepticism of the atheist materialist world view suppress their creativity?

Chas,

Good questions, all. I chalk some of it up to the need for control. Even those who refuse to see God need to know their universe is stable, despite the lip service they pay to ultimate full entropy. I would think for some that TOES and such provide ultimate security–not that they aren’t true, but rather they are not the only or the end of truth. (The next question, in fact, must be, “Who wrote the TOE?”)

I think some scientific advancement is possible by atheistic materialists, just as some advancement is possible by a car whose alternator has failed. But it is mostly technological advancement, the fundamental science already having been perceived by those who see more deeply. Once the Turing machine was articulated, 1GH PC’s surely followed. It seems to me that if you deny (can’t see!) God, you’re fundamentally running on empty.

Mike, IQ is, generally speaking, a good thing, but as you known there are plenty of Dawkins to go around. However, if we’re ageless (eternal?) then that denominator might appropriately be set to 0, which should do the trick.

I said, “Potentially, the TOE may, for scientists and theologians alike, offer the ability to scientifically infer God’s Existence, and perhaps even His Expectations.”

What I mean is: in a universe in which the apparent rule of chaos is the explicit condition, then who hunts Chaos? (Chaos was bested by Itself when Khaos bore Eros…)

Inflation and Contraction are observer-dependent processes. Thus, neither the Big Bang nor the Heat Death could have occurred without a “live” observer.

In my view, this is an epistemological proof for the existence of God.

Final anthropic principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle

Put another way, in as much as the religious right has made Charles Darwin a bone of contention, I would like to suggest instead that Charles Darwin and his remarkable discovery should be seen as a guarantor of God’s Kingdom to Come – because, as we all know, mindless chaos is no match for an impulse to create order from useless bits.

In short, the process of evolution is a natural phenomenon that Will Lead Inevitably to God’s Supremacy over the whole of Heaven and Earth. God has skewed the odds of nature itself to favor His Own Existence.

To attempt to contemplate or describe biblical creation is a most complex and confusing thing, and even more so for a nutcase like me. The universe doesn’t express God’s image it expresses his handiwork and some of it even expresses things God never intended. Only humanity expresses the image of God, and almost immediately that was defiled by the serpent. Moses wrote that in the beginning of a recent re-creation or a billions of years ago creation, the Spirit of God was brooding over it, God said… John gives credit to Jesus as the one who spoke the word, was with God, and the word was God, through him all things were made, the word who became flesh. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were together however many billions of years ago, and I really don’t care if there was a big bang or not. The only thing I see them actually making with their hands is humanity. Everything else God commanded and others carried out. Solomon wrote about one of these spirits who always follows God, who says her name is Wisdom. She is clearly describing herself as a personal spirit being and in the feminine. The first statement makes me think it can’t be the Holy Spirit being described, “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,” and the description continues “before his deeds of old, I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning before the world began… I was there when he set the heavens in place… when he marked out the foundations of the earth then I was the craftsman at his side… “ “she cries aloud to you O men I call out I raise my voice to all mankind… whoever finds me finds life all those who hate me love death…” then she describes another personal spirit being, described in the feminine, named Folly, who opposes God’s ways and entices people to do the same, “Little do they know that the dead are there and her guests are in the depths of the grave.” There are many personal spirit beings, who were ordered by God to create and maintain the universe, some obey God and some oppose God. Satan tried to steal the whole thing from God and run it his way. Isaiah 11 shows us that many things we think normal that God will fix when Jesus returns, the wolf, the leopard, the lion, the bear, the cobra, the viper… have all been twisted by evolutionary processes by spirits that oppose God. When he describes the shoot from Jessie’s stump “the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him” that’s the Holy Spirit. Then look at all the other personal spirit beings described “Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Power, Knowledge, Fear of the Lord. What is idolatry? This is the demands of personal spirit beings who oppose God who are oppressing people with their demands. Jeremiah said, “Tell them this: these Gods who did not make the heavens and the earth will perish…” The idea that you will become like whatever you worship is in Psalm 115, “Their idols are silver and gold, made by the hands of men… those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust them.” Psalm 106 says, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons… whom they sacrificed to the idols of Cannon… therefore the Lord was angry…” Deut 32:17 “they sacrificed to demons which are not God” All the blessings and curses of Genesis are supernatural forces that were commanded by God are the best description for the reality of the world.

Two books that helped me in getting outside the box of western thinking when I was training for missions are “God at War” and “Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts.”

http://www.amazon.com/God-War-Bible-Spiritual-Conflict/dp/0830818855

http://www.amazon.com/Communicating-Christ-Animistic-Contexts-Rheenen/dp/0801093120

chas said, “John gives credit to Jesus as the one who spoke the word, was with God, and the word was God, through him all things were made, the word who became flesh.”

The word is “logos“. This is a Greek word. It’s a stand in for logic, reason and principle. As I understand it, the word references the four corners of a perfect square.

This goes to my point: Christianity is in good harmony with theoretical mathematics, modern cosmology and quantum physics. (IMO, of course.)

> E=MC2 is a formula that describes the theoretical escape velocity of
> matter. The formula also describes TIME as a dimension akin to the 3
> dimensions of space.

Erm, not to be a nitpicker, but there’s a problem with your basic TOE premise here – e=mc^2 first has nothing to do with velocity, and it also says nothing about time/space dimensionality. e=mc^2 is a mass/energy equivalence – the only velocity involved is “c”, which is a constant. The end result is that the energy equivalence of a specifc mass is equivalent to that mass multiplied by the *square* of the speed of light. Meaning your output (in metric, for simplicity) is in kg-m^2/s^2, or joules. Trying to describe that as a “velocity” is like trying to use a pound as a measure of length, or describing a distance in “miles per gallon”, or saying you made the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs. (Consequently the universe can’t expand at “c^2″ because that’s not a rate. )

Similarly, the space/time thing – and this is a very common mistake – is from a different theory of relativity. Uncle Albert had two – special relativity which gave us the famous formula, and general relativity which gave us relatioships between space, time, gravity and reference frames.

I’m also not sold on the TOE as being elegant and simple. Elegant, sure, I’ll give you that, but simple? I liken it to a good ballet – it’s certainly elegant, but as anyone who’s tried to dance can tell you, it’s not simple by any means. Theoretical physics is kind of like that too – e=mc^2 is supremely elegant, but trying to explain why that exactly works is not simple.

Mr_Null – thank you for nitpicking….

mr_null said,

> E=MC2 is a formula that describes the theoretical escape velocity of
“> matter. The formula also describes TIME as a dimension akin to the 3
> dimensions of space.

Erm, not to be a nitpicker, but there’s a problem with your basic TOE premise here – e=mc^2 first has nothing to do with velocity, and it also says nothing about time/space dimensionality.

time/space dimensionality:

mc^2 is the escape velocity of matter. If you can get matter past this “speed” relative to the observer, that matter will effectively leave this universe.

How does this apply to “time/space”? Naturally, matter occupies space over time. That is almost a definition of matter. How can you then say that mc^2 does not address dimensionality? How can you have matter without time and space?

e=mc^2 is a mass/energy equivalence – the only velocity involved is “c”, which is a constant. The end result is that the energy equivalence of a specifc mass is equivalent to that mass multiplied by the *square* of the speed of light. Meaning your output (in metric, for simplicity) is in kg-m^2/s^2, or joules. Trying to describe that as a “velocity” is like trying to use a pound as a measure of length, or describing a distance in “miles per gallon”, or saying you made the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs. (Consequently the universe can’t expand at “c^2″ because that’s not a rate. )

I stand corrected: I agree “velocity” is the wrong word. Light isn’t expanding at a “velocity” because it isn’t expanding relative to anything but us observers.

Perhaps you could help me figure this one out…. according to Inflation theory, the universe is inflating at a constant rate, in that the farther an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us – up to the speed of light. From our point of view, objects moving faster than the speed of light have disappeared from our universe, in that these objects are moving faster than the light that is radiating from them.

I trust you can agree with the above statement.

This means that, theoretically at least, material objects in space that are separated by the width of our universe are moving away from each other at speeds that exceed the speed of light squared.

How could that be if the object were not shrinking relative to the light wave being emitted from it? In other words, from the POV of a light ray, the wave frequency is expanding at a constant rate: c2. But if the distance between the object and the observer is greater than between the observer and the object’s light ray, then, from the observer’s point of view, the object is actually deflating.

But how can that be if the universe is supposed to be EXPANDING?

Do you see what I mean? If the prediction is true, two objects separated by the full length of the universe and that pass outside of each other’s respective event horizons would (theoretically) continue to “expand” relative to us and to each other. Yet, it appear – when an object passes OUTSIDE of the event horizon of our universe, these objects actually begin to contract.

well, first of all, according to theory nothing in the universe that ever had mass moved/is moving at or beyond the speed of light. So nothing can move outside the event horizon of the universe – it’s bounded by the speed of light. (and even then, it gets mathematically weird – more on that later).

I’m not sure what you mean by “In other words, from the POV of a light ray, the wave frequency is expanding at a constant rate: c2″. Again, c^2 isn’t a rate. Regardless, nothing according to relativity can exceed c, and only light can actually attain c. That’s kind of the whole point of general relativity, to prevent paradoxes like the one you mention from actually happening. Lorenz transformations kick in demonstrably at about .6c and mess with time and distance in order to keep this house in order. It’s neat stuff, but pretty heavy on the math.

mr_null said,

well, first of all, according to theory nothing in the universe that ever had mass moved/is moving at or beyond the speed of light. So nothing can move outside the event horizon of the universe – it’s bounded by the speed of light. (and even then, it gets mathematically weird – more on that later).

Are you saying that our universe is bounded entirely by the “visible” universe? I have always understood that the universe is actually much larger than what we (from our vantage point) can physically observe. So, when we witness galaxies rushing away from us at the edge of the observable universe, why can’t we suppose that other galaxies – now moving faster than the speed of light relative to us – exist OUTSIDE the event horizon of this universe?

BTW – I believe that during the first moments of the Big Bang, matter was accelerated faster than the speed of light.

In the article, I said:

“E=MC2 is a formula that describes the theoretical escape velocity of matter. The formula also describes TIME as a dimension akin to the 3 dimensions of space.”

mr_null has objected to this statement, saying,

“e=mc^2 first has nothing to do with velocity, and it also says nothing about time/space dimensionality.”

I would respond by saying that matter cannot exist without first having time and space as a precondition. (Matter does not exist without time or space.) Therefore, you cannot argue that mc2 has nothing to do with time/space and dimension.

Furthermore, the movement of matter through space is itself a definition of energy. E=MC2 is the same as saying that E = “the totality of matter in which all potential motion has already occurred.”

Mike, you repeatedly talk of massive objects receeding at speeds greater than c. What objects are you speaking of? … or are you just speaking hypothetically?

According to Special Relativity (SR) no massive object can break the light speed barrier. It doesn’t say massive objects cannot travel faster than light, it only prohibits a crossing of the light speed barrier by a massive body either by speeding up or by slowing down. This is essential in order to preserve causality.

Now, SR is a local theory and cannot be used to explain or predict events on a global scale. The theories you propose tend to use SR to explain phenomena where General Relativity (GR) should properly be employed.

SR is local in the sense that SR only applies where local spacetime is flat or approximates flatness. In any area of space where the spacetime geometry is flat (either small enough spacially or where a short enough time period is observed) SR can be used to explain or predict events and phenomena. However, on a global scale SR breaks down and GR must be used. Hence, SR is a special case of GR … where the local spacetime geometry is flat.

You queried:

“This means that, theoretically at least, material objects in space that are separated by the width of our universe are moving away from each other at speeds that exceed the speed of light squared.

But how can that be if the universe is supposed to be EXPANDING?”

The answer is that, although locally, all massive objects are bound by the light speed barrier, globally thru expansion, it can appear to be doing just that. It is the expansion itself that cause the phenomena.

Also, your gGlobe(TM) is a poor representation of the universe, and hurts your understanding of it’workings. Implicit in its’ design is the big bang at the core of the globe. This implies that there is some sort of center to the universe. However, this goes manifest against the big bang theory. It would be far better to view only the surface of the globe as the entirety of the universe itself, and the interior of the globe as being not part of the universe at all. This way one can understand that there is no actual center of the universe, and serves to demonstrate how all observers situated anywhere on the globe observes all other objects in space as receeding from them as the universe expands. Locally, all observers see themselves as the center and everything moving away from them as the universe inflates. However, globally it’s to discern that no actual center exists.

Mike wrote:

“I would respond by saying that matter cannot exist without first having time and space as a precondition. (Matter does not exist without time or space.) ”

Yes and no.

According to GR, matter is a fundamental element of spacetime. .

So you’re correct in your assertion that matter cannot exist without space and without time. However, GR goes further and states that space and time cannot exist without matter. Time, space, and matter, taken together form the geometry of the universe.

spectre – thank you for your responses.

in respect to the gGlobe model: why is it such a bad thing to have the Big Bang in the middle? It’s just an arbitrary starting point. Why not the middle? Seems to me it fits quite nicely with the Hubble model of the universe that places the observer at its center. That’s really all I am trying to represent – that the universe had a beginning, and that that beginning has a corresponding physical location in space (relative to any observer).

Does it not make sense to suppose that an explosion occurred – in a more or less uniform fashion – just as we have already observed in nature? So why not a sphere to represent the farthest reach of the explosion? I appreciate that the model is idealized, but – that’s what it is: an idealized view of how man might navigate the corners of time and space.

Hey Mike, thank you for your thought provoking theories and hypotheses.

Everything I understand about the big bang theory leads me to suggest that it’s far more productive to ignore the interior of the globe (it lying outside the universe) and just let the surface of the globe represent the entirety of the universe.

The big bang theory, as I understand it, supposes that the explosion that occured was not a spontaneous explosion of matter and energy into empty space. Instead, it was an explosion, and the very creation, of spacetime itself. Therefore, it’s not helpful to view this explosion as being the epicenter of creation into already existing but otherwise empty space. This explosion was the event that created space itself. Therefore, everywhere in the universe is the center, and therefore, there is no true discernible center to intelligently speak of.

It’s much better to let only the surface of the globe represent the universe. This actually fits in waaay better with the hubble model. According to the hubble model, all observers situated anywhere within the universe observe themselves at an area of space where everything else is receeding away from him. By using only the surface of the globe, all observers situated anywhere on the globe would deem himself at the center and everything would seems to be receeding away from him as the globe balloons (expands).

By only concerning yourself with the surface of the globe you avoid the faulty concept of a singular physical discrete center to the universe, can appreciate how all observers could deem themselves to lie at the center, and can explain how all observers observe everything else receeding away as the universe expands (or the globe balloons).

Also, by using only the globe’s surface, it serves to demonstrate how the universe is curved. And therefore, to get from one place to another you must follow a curve to get there. In GR, there is no such thing as a straight line.

spectre – thank you for the wonderful concept: the entire universe as a two-dimensional skin wrapping three dimensions.

Just a point of clarification on the gGlobe model. Most of the “globe” in my model is not actually part of the universe. Instead, the universe is defined by the vortex within the globe. It is the interior of the vortex that represents the universe. (I used a globe because it’s easier to explain the globe sitting on my desk than an out-of-context vortex.)

If we were to lay the vortex out flat in two dimensions, the big bang would still be at the center, and all matter (and the space it is bounded by) would surround the big bang in a circle, where space/time begins at the center and ends at the perimeter of the circle. In this model, time and causality are 100% completed, and so you are looking at a universe that has completed a full cycle in which all the mass in the universe has expended all of its potential for relative motion.

I talked about this concept in the MND forum a few years ago (LINK).

In THIS GRAPHIC, I show the universe as a two-sided coin in which one side begins with the potential to expand, and the other side begins with the potential to contract. (As the observer, you can’t know which side is which until the process of observation has already begun.)

So you see, the gGlobe is just a globe that takes up space on my desk. Only some of that space – the two-dimensional vortex that begins at the center and ends at the surface – contains anything “real”.

Having said all that, I will continue to stand by My gGlobe(tm) as a viable thought experiment.

BTW – my bicameral universe model is essentially the same as that of the gGlobe, with the exception that the imaginary “other” vortex located at 180 degrees from the center of the original vortex is NOT represented in My gGlobe(tm). This is because it is physically impossible for the observer of Vortex A to simultaneously observe Vortex B. In the bicameral universe system, the observers of A and B are quantitatively different observers, though each might appear as an identical mirror image of the other to any THIRD observer of this bicameral pair.)

This is a better representation of the universe in that the two vortices are depicted in the context of a globe… (note that Vortices A and B are in red; the blue vortices are also imaginary, and represent yet another bicameral pair iteration. Ignore the blue ones for now and focus on the red pair….)

Assume that each vortex represents the universe as I have described it in My gGlobe(tm) above. The reason I cast the big bang in the center of the globe originally is so that I could make room for the second imaginary vortex that occupies imaginary space/time outside of what you – the observer of the first vortex – could observe.

In my opinion you have to have a bicameral pair because Conservation demands that something be done with the problem of Observed Inflation.

Maybe I can explain my reasoning here by painting up another analogy. Let’s say that the universe is represented by a train that journeys from its home station in St. Louis to a final stop in Chicago.

If the train were only visible to me in the context of a route map, this map would have to show the train as well as the beginning and end points of the track (not to mention a little context about the environs between St. Louis and Chi town).

If I wanted to actually witness the train as a “train” (and not a prediction of a train), I would have to zoom in sufficiently to “catch the train in the act” of moving somewhere between these two particular geographic points of travel. If I wanted to find the train as it passed from Missouri into Illinois over the Missouri River, I would have to find the train as it existed at 10am. If I want to see the train passing by a particularly tall, blue silo somewhere in the vast cornfields of central Illinois, I would need to see it around 3pm. If I want to see the train arriving in Chicago, I need to look at 9pm.

Over a space of 11 hours the train existed somewhere – but not everywhere – along the entire line between St. Louis and Chicago. Because this is the macro world, you and I are able to predict the location and time of the train at any point along the line to a very small margin. If this were a quantum puzzle, you would not be able to link the train with both time and place.

Mike,

WOW! You’ve really put a lot of thought into this subject. It appears I’ve come into this discussion very late in the game.

I’ve taken a cursory look into the links you provided … and well, much of it I don’t fully understand. Either my capacity to understand what you are saying is limited, or your ability to clearly explain yourself is lacking … or both. Either way I would enjoy analyzing this further as I am interested in new ideas, and clearly you have put a lot of work into your theories.

Hopefully, I can contribute to the development of your thoery, and learn a few things in the process.

A few questions for clarification:

You state that the “south” region of the model is imaginary, do you mean that it doesn’t have a physical reality? Also, why do you claim that the southern portion needs to be contracting … as opposed to be expanding but in a different universe.

You state in your Bicameral Universe model, the Big Bang is a single explosive event that propels massive ejecta in two equal but opposite directions in SpaceTime.

… Are you proposing that spacetime had a preexisting existence prior to the big bang?

You state that we should think of the southern region of the model as an equal-but-opposite version of the northern region. It is almost a mirror-image, and that the most important thing to grasp here is that the relative movement of mass-through-space in one chamber must be offset by an equal-and-opposite relative movement of mass-through-space in the opposite chamber.

… Why would each “chamber” need to move inverse lockstep with the other if they don’t interact?

When you speak of simultaniety or simultaneous events, you seem to imply that there exists an underlying actual reality of simultaniety that exists independent of the observers frame of reference, is this what you are saying?

Sorry that I’m not up to date on all this, and that I don’t fully digest what you’re getting at.

“If this were a quantum puzzle, you would not be able to link the train with both time and place.”

This goes to the long conundrum of QM. Is there an independent underlying reality independent of observation?

Schroedinger’s cat …

Schrödinger’s cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger’s cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.

Here’s Schrödinger’s (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed.

Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer’s paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)

We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

spectre – thanks so much for participating.

“… Why would each “chamber” need to move inverse lockstep with the other if they don’t interact?”

They don’t interact because that would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Instead, the chambers are in a perfect dance of random synchronicity. Because they each spring from the same Cause, they are identical, and the narrative of randomness unfolds for each universe in exactly the same way.

Why matched pairs? Why not? It is certainly allowed under the Many Worlds Interpretation to have two practically identical universes adjacent to each other. I would propose that the fabric of reality is made from the orderly distribution of random universes (the bicameral universe model being the most elementary unit of the matrix = strings of matched pairs).

Also, I think the Bicameral Universe model fits quite well with Hawking Radiation.

Hawking proposed that the particles appearing to emit from a black hole are actually disembodied bits of creation. According to the theory of vacuum genesis, paired +/- particles spontaneously come into being and then promptly annihilate themselves all the time all around us. But when these Vacuum Genesis particles form around the event horizon of a black hole, Hawking Radiation shows that one side of the particle falls into the black hole, while the other side spins off into our universe as a free particle, appearing then to have emerged from the black hole.

I suspect our universe is something like one of those particles – apparently free standing, but actually paired with an invisible and opposite partner universe.

Mike,

Yes, the Pauli exclusion principle precludes massive particles from occupying the same state. However, this principle does not apply to massless particles such as photons. Therefore, if the southern portion of the vortex doesn’t represent an entirely separate universe, what’s to prevent these particles from interacting with the northern portion?

All I can say to that is that these two universes appear to be rushing towards each other as much as they are exploding in opposite directions.

Bit of a moebius strip, what? Maybe this would help explain dark matter after all…

I have also tried to explain that the concepts of “inflation” and “deflation” are anthropic in nature, and are dependent on an observed flow of causes. (The universe does not inflate or contract unless you look.)

The observed universe will never “contract” – it will always expand. This is because, in normal causality, effect will always follow cause. Since the normal flow of time is dependent on this principle, the universe will never be observed in the act of “contracting”.

That’s why the opposite universe must be “imaginary” – if it exists as one of the pair of Genesis Particles described by Hawking Radiation, its destiny is not to observe its partner universe but to annihilate it.

Hey Mike,

I re-read your blogs regarding this topic, and I must say that there is nothing I can say to refute your primary theses. I’m certainly no expert, but your theorizations/applications of the various accepted principles in physics reveals no obvious flaws to me.

You obviously have put a lot of thought and work into this and have come to some provocative conclusions, as valid as any other hypothesis I know of. Although your work suffers from the same maladies that effect all theories in the same vein, ie. the blending of the two radically different theories of GR and QM, and although I question some of your assertions, eg. objects travelling FTL … lockstep parallel universes … and others; your work reflects a well thought out scheme with no obvious fundamental flaws in its’ application of accepted principles.

Well done!

I do have some questions about some of your assertions, perhaps you can clarify or explain further:

You say inflation is observer dependent. But why? Simply applying Schroedinger’s Cat is troubling. There is nothing to indicate QM applies in the macro world. The universe is either expanding or it is not …. correct?

If gravity wins out and the universe contracts, why does this necessarily imply a violation of causality? Simply asserting that time flows one way if the universe expands, and another way if it contracts is merely theoretical speculation unsupported by … anything. Couldn’t the universe contract and the flow of time remain the same? This would be more plausible than postulating that the arrow of time reverses.

Why couldn’t the opposite universe be entirely physically real? Couldn’t the big bang have produced several entirely real universes forever separated by different dimensions?

Why must the alternate universe in the southern portion move lockstep with the northern? Existing in another dimension apart from our own would physically preclude any interaction whatsoever.

Why would it necessarily have the same physics as our own? Given that our premordial universe in its early moments was not smooth and homogenous as evidenced by ripples observed in the microwave background radiation, wouldn’t it be more likely that the alternate universe would likewise have been created neither smooth nor homogenous … and that its’ assymetry would be slightly different than our own; hence giving rise to a universe destined to unfold differently than our own.

spectre said,

Hey Mike,

I re-read your blogs regarding this topic, and I must say that there is nothing I can say to refute your primary theses. I’m certainly no expert, but your theorizations/applications of the various accepted principles in physics reveals no obvious flaws to me.

You obviously have put a lot of thought and work into this and have come to some provocative conclusions, as valid as any other hypothesis I know of. Although your work suffers from the same maladies that effect all theories in the same vein, ie. the blending of the two radically different theories of GR and QM, and although I question some of your assertions, eg. objects travelling FTL … lockstep parallel universes … and others; your work reflects a well thought out scheme with no obvious fundamental flaws in its’ application of accepted principles.

Well done!

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I honestly believe I have re-discovered something that has been discovered before many times in human history. And I don’t think it’s coincidence that the bicameral universe can be construed as the ‘Holy Grail’ – for I think that this model is indeed the simplest key to understanding how God’s universe works.

I do have some questions about some of your assertions, perhaps you can clarify or explain further:

You say inflation is observer dependent. But why? Simply applying Schroedinger’s Cat is troubling. There is nothing to indicate QM applies in the macro world. The universe is either expanding or it is not …. correct?

I’m not sure that’s true. How is the universe expanding, if not that someone is actively observing the process? Nor can you wait for the universe to finish its expansion before you can say, “there, the universe has finished expanding.”

This is a problem is quantum uncertainty applied to the entire universe. I hold that the question is legitimate if you assume that all event horizons must eventually close. (For my money, I think the answer is both yes and no, depending on your point of view. For instance, if you are inside an event horizon that appears to be receding from you, then you could credibly say that the event horizon will never close. On the other hand, if you are outside of an event horizon that is receding from you, then you could say that event horizons do close, because you observed one doing just that in the form of a black hole.)

If gravity wins out and the universe contracts, why does this necessarily imply a violation of causality? Simply asserting that time flows one way if the universe expands, and another way if it contracts is merely theoretical speculation unsupported by … anything. Couldn’t the universe contract and the flow of time remain the same? This would be more plausible than postulating that the arrow of time reverses.

As I understand causality, it works equally well irrespective of whether you are moving forward or backwards in time. My point is that, as human beings, we are oriented toward understanding causality from a remembered past to an uncertain future, with an experiential “present” in the middle.

Thus, we can only comprehend causality (and make use of it) when it is pointed from the big bang to the heat death and not vice versa.

Also, I think it might help here to realize that TIME and SPACE are entirely accounted for in the My gGlobe model: outside of the lightcone of the universe, nothing else exists. So, from that point of view, it doesn’t really make much sense to talk about the unpredictable outcomes of time, when the model here assumes that all possible events have already occurred.

Why couldn’t the opposite universe be entirely physically real? Couldn’t the big bang have produced several entirely real universes forever separated by different dimensions?

Why must the alternate universe in the southern portion move lockstep with the northern? Existing in another dimension apart from our own would physically preclude any interaction whatsoever.

Why would it necessarily have the same physics as our own? Given that our premordial universe in its early moments was not smooth and homogenous as evidenced by ripples observed in the microwave background radiation, wouldn’t it be more likely that the alternate universe would likewise have been created neither smooth nor homogenous … and that its’ assymetry would be slightly different than our own; hence giving rise to a universe destined to unfold differently than our own.

I am accounting for these variables in my assumption that the Multiverse in fact does produce every possible outcome for every possible universe. All I am saying here that that the Multiverse must be Organized in like-pairs where variability between iterations are marginal for “nearby” objects. (eg., the bicameral pairs are never exactly aligned.) So when the opposite pairs complete their mutual annihilation, any “inexactness” between the paired opposites will result in an incomplete destruction. So, I speculate that some residual evidence of the universes will be leftover after they do their mutual annihilation. That residue might then impact the particulars of the next Big Bang explosion of paired opposites. (I know I am way out on a limb here – but I think it must be something along these lines.)

Mike, I find it interesting that your model postulates that all events have already occured.

As you wrote:

” … the model here assumes that all possible events have already occurred …. ”

I’ve come to the same revelation, but in a different way … thru SR but equally valid employing GR. Now, I hope you can follow me here as I am unable to post any diagrams:

When I studied SR, I employed the use of cartesian grids to map out a ’stationary’ observer’s spacetime coordinate system. The x coordinate representing a spatial dimension, the y coordinate representing time.

Now, when you superimpose on this grid the “skewed” spacetime coordinate system of another observer travelling relative to the first ’stationary’ observer at the moment when/where the second ‘moving’ observer passes the first, and then superimpose their lightcones (identical because at the moment of passing they occupy the same place in spacetime) … a particularly startling revelation appears …

An event which is above the line of present simultaniety (the ‘x’ axis) for the stationary observer , may fall below the line of present simultaniety ( the ‘x*’ axis) for the ‘moving’ observer.

This means that an event that is in the ’stationary’ observer’s future, may have already occured in the ‘moving’ observer’s past, at the moment when they pass each other.

However, taking this to its’ logical conclusion this means that all events in the universe have already happened in some frame of reference. And if an event happened for one observer it must ultimately happen for all observers.

Therefore, everything has been predetermined!!!

This event(s) are indeed outside the light cone. Because of this, even though the event is in one observer’s past at the time in question (t = t*= 0), he cannot know about the event at the time. Also, even though the event is in the other observer’s future at the time, he can never have an effect on the event after. In essence, the event (when it happens, where it happens, how it happens, etc.) is of absolutely no consequence for these two observers at the time in question. As it turns out, anytime you find two observers who are passing by one another and an event which one observer’s coordinate system places in the past and the other observer’s coordinate system places in the future, then the event will always be outside of the light cone centered at the point where the observers pass.

This relativistic picture of the universe presents an ambiguity in the concepts of past and future philosophically … but not physically. You see, the only time you can see these ambiguities is when you are looking at the whole space-time picture at once. If you were one of the observers who is actually viewing space and time, then as the other observer passes by you, your whole picture of space and time can only be constructed from events that are inside the lower half of the light cone. If you wait for a while, then eventually you can get all of the information from all of the events that were happening around the time you were passing the other observer. From this information, you can draw the whole space-time diagram, and then you can see the ambiguity. But by that time, the ambiguity that you are considering no longer exists. So the ambiguity can never actually play a part in any physical situation.

Finally, remember that this is only true if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

spectre – is there a diagram you can make or have a reference to? I have to give your example a bit of a think before I can visualize it…. but I think I have the basic concept, and yes, it is in line with my idea of an ordered multiverse.

Also, you have taken issue with my proposal that matter can move at relative rates that are “faster” than the speed of light.

First, the speed of light is a constant for any observer. Therefore, My gGlobe(tm), as a model for the lightcone of the universe from beginning to end – does not depend on the speed of anything. My gGlobe is simply a map of space/time – it makes no considerations as to rate of travel between any two points within space/time.

Secondly, as I understand it, the visible universe (that which is bounded by the speed of light) is not inclusive of the ENTIRE universe, which is actually much larger than we are able to observe. In the first moments of the big bang, relative matter was ejected at speeds exceeding the speed of light. Therefore, we must assume that matter exists outside the event horizon of our visible universe. (This makes perfect sense – since the Hubble Expansion shows galaxies rushing away from us at speeds approaching the speed of light relative to us. At some point in the finite future, those galaxies are predicted to pass outside of the event horizon and will be traveling, according to our prediction, at speeds that are faster than the speed of light relative to us. (These galaxies will no longer be visible because their matter is now receding faster than its light can radiate from it, relative to us. From their point of view, we are also PREDICTED TO BE traveling faster than the SOL relative to them. The important thing to note here is that this “observation” of a faster-than-light object is strictly IMAGINARY, because once an object passes outside of our event horizon, it can no longer be directly observed, but only inferred.)

The speed of light is the carrot: a hypothetical condition that can never actually be observed.

I like the idea of a horse straining for an unreachable carrot because to me it epitomizes what I might call an “anthropic impulse.” I might describe this as a set of commonly held ideas that unfold in a narrative arc over generations. These are narrative tales that describe analog events… simple events from the Big Bang to the birth of Khaos and her offspring, Eros. (Even mathematics can be described as a narrative… a mathematical formula is a process that describes a conclusive result.)

I hope this metaphor helps to illustrate the quantum problem of c2 (as well as the Melioritive Utility of the bicameral model).

As to the question of faster than light travel: I think this might be a red herring, because, outside of the event horizon described by the edge of our universe (the heat death), no other object can exist, and therefore it is not realistic to suppose that a POTENTIAL (or imaginary) object could be traveling faster than light, much less that it is there at all – no matter its “speed” relative to a hypothetical observer.

This was a question posed by Hawking: Do Event Horizons actually ever close? The answer, as I said earlier, is that it depends on your point of view as to whether you fancy yourself inside or outside of said Event Horizon.

–> note Meliorism.
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Mike – I think you need to make a distinction between objects that are not visible that lie well within our universe, and theoretical objects that purportedly lie outside our know dimensions. I cannot say one way or the other whether anything exists outside our universe … there would be no way for me to know. I understand that anything sucked into a black hole, for instance, is squelched out of existence in this universe. Whether, it continues to exist or not in another universe is not known.

However, the receeding galaxies you speak of are bound by same laws of relativity that we are. Locally, they cannot accelerate to a speed faster than light(FTL) to any observer. Globally, they may appear to do so. However, that does not imply that they are leaving the universe at all … and I believe GR applied correctly also discounts actual FLT for these objects.

The theory goes that globally, deep inthe empty voids of space, new space is continually being created, and this creation (expansion) of space is what accounts for the seemingly greater distances between galaxies. Not that the galaxies are undergoing any further acceleration … but that the newly created space in between them and us make it only appear so.

Therefore, these objects never violate SR. Just as importantly, they need not be viewed as leaving the event horizon because their light will ultimately reach us. They never physically leave the known universe nor travel FTL.

The universe is indeed comprised of objects that we cannot see or observe. For instance, right now there may be a supernova explosion going on somewhere a billion light years away. We cannot now see it, observe it, or have any other way of knowing it exists. Not because it lies outside the universe, but because of signal delay …. it will take a billion years from now for the information to reach us.

**********************************************

You assert that in the first moments of the big bang matter was ejected at speeds greater than light. On what basis do you make this claim?

A couple of observations:

1) We know nothing about what the speed of light may have been at this time in our early universe, it may have been different than what it is today. Plus, time as we now understand/measure it, may have had an entirely different meaning at this very early stage in the evolution of our universe. Therefore, what you assert is only speculation and conjecture.

2) Where would the matter be ejected to? Remember that the big bang was the event that created space itself. Therefore, the matter could not have been ejected any further than tiny spatial dimension of the universe existing at that time. It seems you view the big bang as an explosion that hurled newly created mass into the void of space that already existed.

Also, on one hand you state that it is not realistic to suppose that a potential object could travel faster than light (FTL). However, a few paragraphs, and posts, above suppose just that …you state that there are receeding galaxies that are expected to, and even now, are receeding FTL.

Both viewpoints cannot be held simultaneously.

I want to present a demonstration regarding observed events, and the importance of interpreting phenomena correctly.

Say for instance, Adam sets off in a rocketship at 6/10 light speed while Bob stays home on Earth. Relativity can be applied by both the observer whom we call stationary (Bob), and by the observer whom we call moving (Adam). The moving observer, Adam, could say he is the one who is stationary, and that Bob home on Earth is really the one who is moving away.

Both observers consider themselves at rest, and the other as the one who is moving. Both observers would measure the others’ clock as running slowly, and observe the others’ yardsticks shorten.

Adam says Bob’s clock is running slow, but Bob say’s that it Adam’s clock that is running slow?

Who is correct?

What happens if Adam turns around and reverses course in space and returns to earth, do Adam’s and Bob’s clock read the same? Are they the same age? Why?

Now, suppose you are on the beach looking out into the ocean and see the moon rise over the horizon. Then you twirl and all the while observe the moon spin around you doing a 360 and then back to its’ original vantage point. From your perspective the moon did a 360 around you, traversing a circle over a billion miles in less than half a second. Relativity can be applied by both observers(you and the moon), so has the moon infact, relatively speaking or otherwise, travelled FTL? Why or why not?

We both agree that the speed of light is a constant for any observer. Now, given that agreement … we must by necessity also agree that nothing can travel faster then light (FTL).

Why?

Because, if FTL travel is permitted … 1) it violates SR, and, 2) FTL travel implies, by necessity, backwards in time … leading to the creation of very troubling unsolvable paradoxes and the obliteration of cause and effect.

I don’t believe you are trying to imply that SR, where it applies, is wrong.

There are some particle physicists who claim, when applying QM, that due to inherent uncertainty, massive subatomic particles under certain conditions may travel FTL for very brief periods. However, claim so only with trepidation … and make clear this state is extremely temporal and make provision so that causality is not violated. The radically different theories of realtivity and QM produce such ingruences, however, no credible physicist to my knowledge has ever claimed SR is wrong where it applies.

Mike Thanks as alwalys for the site. It keeps the few of us fairly occupied. In any respect if there is the intent to provide here a fairly rare outlet for rational and objective thought, that’s fine but please don’t over-reach and attempt to describe the supernatural with quasi-sophisticated derivations of the natural world. This is what females and libs do, and not to their edification. While I have beliefs in the supernatural, I hold those to myself as articles of faith without earthly correlates. There is not good prosletizing accomplished by proving.. ummm, a lack of facility and grounding in the obvious laws of the physical world. One shouldn’t, I believe, try to fool others into a faith by intellectual prestidigitation. If one is indeed saved through grace, leave it at that. All else is peripheral and anything else is insincere and will be seen as such eventually.
If god wants us all to become one on a spiritual plane, I doubt one will get a science quiz which needs passing beforehand. In fact much of the argued details harken back to discussion of pointless details of celestial minutiae which have nothing to do to achieving whichever plan your god has for you. One thing I don’t need is someone else acting as gods unimpeachable spokesman, a job that any self-respecting god can do well enough himself should he wish to eschew obfuscation…

Red Pill Wrote:

“Mike … please don’t over-reach and attempt to describe the supernatural with quasi-sophisticated derivations of the natural world ….”

I can appreciate your skepticism Red Pill, but, it has also been my experience that my belief in God has been solidified by the actual, observable, and verifiable results of experiments in QM and Relativity.

For me, the revelations implicit, observed, and discovered experimentally, lead me to conclude that a God must exist.

I don’t think Mike is trying to act as God’s spokesman. I believe he’s merely trying to explain and put forth a model of perhaps how our universe, created by God, works … using the established immutable principles of physics already established. I don’t think Mike is proclaiming that his model is absolutely how the universe works to the exclusion of other hypotheses, but that he’s merely producing a model to explain it’s workings consistent with known physical laws … a model internally consistent and good as any other.

What I’m doing here is engaging Mike in a conceptual discussion in order to test whether his models are internally consistent, and whether his ideas/models comport with observable, verifiable, solid physical principles. I’m sure he enjoys the challenge and discussion … I do!

BTW, this is not what women and lib’s do …. it’s actually what men do, or at least used to do before their attentions and concerns morphed into who’ll play quarterback on Sunday.

red pill – the purpose of this thread is to explore media descriptions of scientific and technological topics.

I have been discussing these issues on MND on and off for several years, so this is certainly not something new. Also, this thread is in the context of a recent news item, so again it’s fair game for discussion.

MND has – as you know – a very liberal publishing policy in which authors are allowed to opine on any topic remotely of interest to men. This topic is well covered by that policy.

In any case, I’m glad you enjoy the site. Please enjoy your g(G)od(s) in peace…

And may the Force be with you…

Mike:
Fair enough. Let us know how your god feels about pointless dissipation. Mine hates it but thankfully there’s grace. We will one day find what the exact and specific truth is regardless our primitive assumptions but for me the impact is naught whether god gave his grace to mud or a monkey. Fretting about pointless details is, I think, the devils work and takes away from the objective tasks at hand and whatever supernatural aspects there may be in it. I’m not attempting to tell you what not to write or support, my feeble admonishments are intended as rhetorical only, and represent my observations and musings only. Maybe it’s just selfishness on my part as I get dizzy trying to ponder assumptions based on allusions derived from allegations steeped in fervent hopes and pious interpretations of the undefinable. The basis of any psuedo-objectivist theologist is the assumption that somewhere and somehow the supernatural can be rationally defined and proven by the natural. My point somewhere lost within is that when one forces a square peg into a round hole of equal size, either the peg, the hole or both are spoiled and at very least the result is less than ideal, unless it was by design….
Wise words; A mans gotta know his limitations…

spectre – I agree that space is defined by matter in as much as matter defines space. But this goes to my point: space and the speed of light is only subject to physical rules within the bounds of the visible universe. Outside the “border” of our visible universe, we can make good predictions about what may happen (eg., a hypothetical particle located outside of our visible universe can travel FTL relative to us), but we can never OBSERVE it to be true.

In short, I don’t think we are in any fundamental disagreement.

Interestingly, both spectre and mr_null targeted my contention that FTL is theoretically possible, provided that matter can pass around (not through) the SOL.

In my view this is a disagreement in perspective on the problem, not a fundamental disagreement over the science of GR/SR.

Obviously I have to figure out a better way of expressing myself. But then, that is part of the purpose of this very discussion.

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to define terms a bit. As a layman, I’m not entirely well versed on all “terms of art”, so I may be assigning faulty meanings to terms you use.

The only distinction I draw between the terms “universe” and “visible universe” is that the latter refers to parts of our universe that we presently see. The universe itself comprised of that which we see and perhaps cannot see.

My contention is that parts of our universe that we cannot see are still within our universe and subject to the same physical laws.

Mike – I don’t think we’re in any disagreement that distant galaxies may be receeding from us FTL. The distance between two objects can be increasing faster than light because of the expansion of the universe. This does not violate SR because SR is a local theory, globally FTL speeds may indeed occur. However, it is meaningless to say that the universe is expanding faster than light because the rate of the expansion is measured by Hubble’s constant alone which does not even have the units of speed.

That said, I would still contend that those receeding galaxies are still entirely within our universe, and hence, are still subject to the exact same physical laws including the light speed barrier … but again locally as SR is a local theory.

However, the area within the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole, although within our universe … may indeed contain physics beyond our ken.

Hey spectre – I took a minute to re-read some of your posts above. Two things jumped out at me:

spectre said,

Hey Mike,

I re-read your blogs regarding this topic, and I must say that there is nothing I can say to refute your primary theses. I’m certainly no expert, but your theorizations/applications of the various accepted principles in physics reveals no obvious flaws to me.

That’s very high praise, and I appreciate it. Thank you for your interest.

Secondly, when you said in post 23 that the entire universe could be viewed as a two-dimensional skin enfolding three dimensions.

This is literally my view of our (+) chamber in the bicameral universe: we see the universe just as you say, but in our case, the observer occupies both the center of the globe as well as its two-dimensional surface. (In other words, think of what the skin of an orange would look like to an observer if the orange were inside out).

In order to add the (-) chamber to the mix, the entire surface of the inside of the orange would have to converge to a singularity on the theoretical “opposite” side of the orange.

In the same way that our universe contains a minority of “anti-matter” particles, I suspect that the (-) majority chamber would somehow contain a (+) minority component, and this would function as a conduit to a (-) minority component within the (+) majority chamber.

Again, I know this is wild speculation. I’m just trying to figure out how the 0,0 point of the bicameral universe model unites the (+) universe with the (-) universe.

BTW – please note that the twin chambers I have just described look like two inside-out oranges united at the navel.

Symbolically, it’s the number “8″ – the sign of infinity.

(ooohhh weeeee oooohh…)

I have said elsewhere that I think the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same event. I will clarify this by stating that the “Big Crunch” represents something of the flip side of the Heat Death. In other words, over many years of thinking about this issue I have come to the conclusion that the beginning and the end of our universe occur at the same space/time location, and only differ depending on point of view.

Last year I posited that any object in our universe smaller than a Planck’s Length contained at least one black hole. To clarify, I think it’s all the same black hole – but one that can be located through a virtual infinity of Planck’s Length sized passages.

Speculation: this black hole is a passage that leads to the surface described by our own visible universe – the full globe of the universe articulated by the curving plane of the radius. (In other words, the inside surface of the orange, where the radius is the distance between the observer and the edge of the visible universe.)

I know that these are old symbols: the hour glass, the figure-8, the Holy Grail, even the Moebius strip. These symbols have been around almost as long as civilization and always in someway identified with mathematics, architecture and religion. (No coincidence that Christ himself was a carpenter: an intelligent trade of creation and construction.) I think people have known the Final Theory for thousands of years. It’s only now we’re able to put the pieces together into a coherent whole that is supremely acceptable both to man’s spirit as well as his intellect.

Ok riddle me this (because the intelligence of the proposed designs proffered heretofore are above my understanding):
If Darwinian genesis is evil because the suggestion of being made from slime or monkeys, why is it better that we be made from dust or clay as in the genesis story? What was the dust made from? And if a soul can be breathed into dust or clay and provided grace why not so breathed into an australopithicus? Who would have made the australopithicus? Is one design no less intelligent than another? Could not the deity in his amusements intellegently designed an evolutionalry process just to pass time? After all he’d control that anyway.
Oh and please use small easily definable words for me…

I can’t speak to dust or clay, but how about this: BOWLING STRIKE VIDEO

In my view, God is the bowler, the bowling ball is the Big Bang, and the pins are causality.

According to atheists, since there is no God, their conclusion is that the bowling ball just “happened” to get a strike all on its own.

Therefore, when religious Conservative takes sides against Darwin and the well-documented process of evolution, they are effectively reinforcing the arguments of the atheists by denying the ability of the Holy Bowler to make full use of His Own bowling lane.

As a matter of fact, in this case, the Holy Bowler also happens to Own the whole bowling alley, and occupies all the seats at the Universe-Wide Bowling Federation.

A lesson for atheists and Darwin-bashers alike: you just can’t fight City Hall.

Mike – I feel that you do indeed deserve high praise for your theories. Although, as a pure layman I’m really not the one to be critiquing your work, plus you know much more about this stuff than I do. I only know a bit about a few things in this realm. That said, there really is nothing fatally flawed in your work that I can see, and I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about and developing this … not an easy thing for a non-physicist to do.

You’ve really done a nice job, perhaps you should submit your theories to those who may be in a much better position to evaluate than I.

I forgot to do so, but in post #35 you asked me to refer you to diagrams regarding observers’ spacetime coordinate systems that I wrote about in post #34.

Being the dum-dum that I am, I had to search far and wide for material that explains relativity and QM in a way that I can understand … yet detailed enough to be a valuable learning tool.

The spacetime diagrams you asked for can be found within this document:

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html

This is a neat FAQ written for the startrek newsgroup regarding FTL travel. However, there is an excellent discussion about SR (and GR) that you may find interesting, and may strengthen your understanding depending on what you know or may not know. Worth reading in its’ entirety. The diagram you want is diagram 2-9 and it’s discussion.

Oh, by the way if you want a great read explaining QM, but without any of the math. Pick up a copy of “QED – The Strange Theory of Light and Matter”. It explains quantum electrodynamics in a very simple easy to understand way WITHOUT any math, but yet is a complete description , accurate in every detail of a framework onto which more advanced concepts can be attached without modification!

The author is Richard Feynman.

When I was a kid, a remember a parable – maybe it was a cartoon on Sunday morning TV – in which a little humming bird was enabled to soar into the stratosphere farther than any bird had ever flown.

Red Pill might find this an impossible story to believe – at least until he learned that the mere hummingbird journeyed to this height while nestled in feathers of eagles.

All I know is the lilies of the field or birds in flight need no equations or erudite examinations of what plainly matters and what is functionally pointless. Is their god any different from ours? If none know the hour or the day, then why do men still seek it and proclaim it as such?…

Mike posited:

“… I have said elsewhere that I think the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are one and the same event … I have come to the conclusion that the beginning and the end of our universe occur at the same space/time location, and only differ depending on point of view….”

I believe we are headed toward an eventual big crunch, not a heat death. And, it’s interesting you came to the conclusion you describe.

Using the model of the universe that I described earlier, a similar conclusion must be drawn which is implicit in the model itself. Remember that I model the totality of the universe as comprising the surface of a globe … with anything in the middle as lying outside the universe. In this model, any point on the globe can be construed as being the center of the universe. Therefore, at the point of the big crunch (pick anywhere on the globe), that point by definition must be the center of the universe. Furthermore, since space and time are inseparable that point must also represent the same “place” in time as well.

However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the events of the big bang and big crunch are one and the same event. But, I have no problem saying that they’re one and the same process.

Mike La Salle,
Since science is not my forte, last night after atempting to understand your “bicameral universe”, I began counting sheeps to get to sleep.
Do you think if Leonado Da Vinci, Einstein,Moses. Conficius and discoverers of DNA and nuclear bomb etc would be alive and get together, they could decipher the “La Salle Code”?

AAG – I put up a series of books on the home page of MND called “A Primer in Intelligent Design”. If you can read these books…. and understand them, I think my bicameral universe model — what I now call “Stereo Cosmology” — will become clear.

For the crash course, read “The Fabric of Reality” by David Deutsch, “The Universe in a Nutshell” by Stephen Hawking, and “The Physics of Immortality” by Frank Tipler. For extra credit you should also read “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” by Barrow and Tipler.

I have not yet read Tipler’s “The Physics of Christianity”, but I expect he addresses many of the same points he raised in his article, “The Omega Point and Christianity”, available online here.

Now, should you believe that an ordinary fellow like me could have discovered the Theory of Everything just by cobbling the pieces of the puzzle together in a logical fashion? Under the circumstances, I think it’s entirely possible.

Why? For the same reason I mentioned in the article above: “…career scientists in the here-and-now may be unwilling to advance the simplest solution for the TOE because – in the here-and-now – any reputable scientist who asserted a TOE that strongly implied the Existence of God would likely suffer a catastrophic end to an otherwise promising career.”

Since I have no scientific reputation or academic career to protect, I can say whatever I want without fear of repercussion. That’s the real “LaSalle Code” in a nutshell.

Here’s some good reference links:

Theophysics: God is the Ultimate Physicist

Omega Point Theory

Here’s an audio interview of Frank Tipler from Australia’s The Sci Phi Show wherein Tipler outlines the basic Omega Point Theory in easy to understand language.

http://thesciphishow.com/audio/tspsoc45.mp3

Also, this video of Frank Tipler:

http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/mov/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/terasem/Tiplerdsl.mov

and this powerpoint presentation on the Omega Point Theory

http://www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast/ppt/Tipler.ppt

Please allow me to quote myself from the article above, published on April 26, 2007:

Two generations may pass before practical science could catch up with such a Theory were it to be announced today. (It was nearly half a century between Einstein’s theory and the creation of the first atomic bomb.) But career scientists in the here-and-now may be unwilling to advance the simplest solution for the TOE because – in the here-and-now – any reputable scientist who asserted a TOE that strongly implied the Existence of God would likely suffer a catastrophic end to an otherwise promising career. (Sure – vindication is sweet, but often time consuming.)

Now, here’s a quote from Dr. Tipler’s new book, The Physics of Christianity:

…everyone has an image of “God”, but to really understand what God really is and how He could interact with the universe, one must use a theory beyond everyday commonsense physics. Contrary to what many physicists have claimed in the popular press, we have had a Theory of Everything for about thirty years. Most physicists dislike this Theory of Everything because it requires the universe to begin in a singularity. That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists, and most contemporary scientists are atheists. They don’t want God to exist, and if keeping God out of science requires rejecting physical laws, well, so be it.

That’s from The Physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler, page 2.

Ah, yup. The cat’s out of the bag. Barrow and Tipler cracked it with the Anthropic Cosmological Principle — following up on Brandon Carter’s work in the 1970s. But for over a generation modern career physicists and their prop hands in the “Science Journalism” profession have acted in prejudice to keep the lid on the fact that “God” is a mathematically predictable outcome of the Universe.

Spectre asks in #26, “… Are you proposing that spacetime had a preexisting existence prior to the big bang?”

David Bohm would have said ‘Yes’.

He would also say that all matter and even space-Time itself, the entire Universe, is the Explicate Order subtended by an Implicate Order (the supernatural? , or maybe the Undernatural). That is to say, what we are and see and exist in and of, is an *expression* of an underlying order of existence that ‘pre-dates and post dates’ (as it underlies time too) all material existence. The ‘Big Bang’ and the original singularity too are an expression, an Explicate’, of that Implicate order.

Now Bohm was no mystic but a quantum mechanic physicist. He did the math, though don’t ask me to explain it!

Bohm posited that there were an unknown (as yet) number of sub orders in the implicate realm, perhaps going down? to a single fundemental *God* Order that all things and all nonthings depend upon, derive their existence from, and the vast majority of which are non-physical, including that ‘God’.

Here’s a wiki rundown on David Bohm for the benefit of our readers…

David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania – d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project.

Youth and college

Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to a Hungarian Jewish immigrant father and a Lithuanian Jewish mother. He was raised mainly by his father, a furniture store owner and assistant of the local rabbi. Bohm attended Pennsylvania State College, graduating in 1939, and then headed west to the California Institute of Technology for a year, and then transferred to the theoretical physics group under Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was to obtain his doctorate degree.

Bohm lived in the same neighborhood as some of Oppenheimer’s other graduate students (Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, Joseph Weinberg, and Max Friedman) and with them became increasingly involved not only with physics, but with radical politics. Bohm gravitated to alternative models of society and became active in organizations like the Young Communist League, the Campus Committee to Fight Conscription, and the Committee for Peace Mobilization all later branded as Communist organizations by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover.

Manhattan Project Contributions

During World War II, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley’s physics research in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos, the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the bomb, the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, would not approve Bohm’s security clearance, after tip-offs about his politics (Bohm’s friend, Joseph Weinberg, had also come under suspicion for espionage).

Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, until he completed his Ph.D. in 1943, under an unusually ironic circumstance. According to Peat(see reference below, p.64), “the scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!” To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research. He later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

McCarthyism leads to Bohm leaving the United States

After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University, where he worked closely with Albert Einstein. In May, 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism period, the House Un-American Activities Committee called upon Bohm to testify before it— because of his previous ties to suspected Communists. Bohm, however, pleaded the Fifth amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues.

In 1950, Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted in May, 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After the acquittal, Bohm’s colleagues sought to have his position at Princeton re-instated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant. The university, however, did not renew his contract. Bohm then left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of São Paulo.

Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion

During this early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly in the area of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. While still a post-graduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas, discovering the electron phenomenon now known as Bohm-diffusion. His first book, Quantum Theory published in 1951, was well-received by Einstein, among others. However, Bohm became dissatisfied with the orthodox approach to quantum theory, which he had written about in that book, and began to develop his own approach (Bohm interpretation)— a non-local hidden variable deterministic theory whose predictions agree perfectly with the nondeterministic quantum theory. His work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Bell’s inequality, whose consequences are still being investigated.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect

In 1955 Bohm moved to Israel, where he spent two years at the Technion at Haifa. Here he met his wife Saral, who became an important figure in the development of his ideas. In 1957, Bohm moved to the UK as a research fellow at the University of Bristol. In 1959, with his student Yakir Aharonov, he discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect, showing how an electro-magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vector potential did exist there. This showed for the first time that the vector potential, hitherto a mathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects. In 1961, Bohm was made Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College London, where his collected papers are kept.

Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition

Bohm’s scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm’s approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity.

The holonomic model of the brain

Bohm also made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain.[1] In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram’s theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view— much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow— a view which is quite different from the more conventional “objective” approach. Pribram held that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.[2]

Thought as a System

Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only ‘man’ and nature, but among peoples, as well as people, themselves. Bohm: “So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction.” He goes on to ask:

What is the source of all this trouble? I’m saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That’s part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It’s like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it’s far over 20%.

In Bohm’s view:

…the general tacit assumption in thought is that it’s just telling you the way things are and that it’s not doing anything – that ‘you’ are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don’t decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.

Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn’t know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn’t want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call “sustained incoherence”.

Bohm thus proposes in his book, Thought as a System, a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:

What I mean by “thought” is the whole thing – thought, felt, the body, the whole society sharing thoughts – it’s all one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it’s all one process; somebody else’s thoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up into my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings… I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way people commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent – not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as a system – it has this department, that department, that department. They don’t have any meaning separately; they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on.

Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, “felts” and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society – as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process of development, change, evolution and structure changes…although there are certain features of the system which become relatively fixed. We call this the structure…. Thought has been constantly evolving and we can’t say when that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probably very simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much more incoherence than before.

Now, I say that this system has a fault in it – a “systematic fault”. It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say “I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem”. But “my” thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I’m trying to look at, or a similar fault.

Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it’s creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. (P. 18-19)

Bohm Dialogue

To address societal problems in his later years, Bohm wrote a proposal for a solution that has become known as “Bohm Dialogue”, in which equal status and “free space” form the most important prerequisites of communication and the appreciation of differing personal beliefs. He suggested that if these Dialogue groups were experienced on a sufficiently wide scale, they could help overcome the isolation and fragmentation Bohm observed was inherent in the society.

Later years

Bohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993), resulted from a decades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil Hiley. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy, a concept he borrowed from London psychiatrist and practitioner of Group Analysis Patrick De Mare, and had a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990.

David Bohm died of a heart attack in London on October 27, 1992, aged 74.

GNU Free Documentation License.

Thanks Mike. An encapsulation which picks up on part of Bohm. It is impossible to capture the whole of a man’s essence but here we are looking at conceptions of the Universe and ‘Everything’, and Bohm may have some useful insights. I just wish I had the mind for the maths.

Never mind. There are other issues that might have a bearing on your fine model.

For instance: These Implicate Orders of Bohm’s fancy could be another way of looking at Dimensions. The Model, indeed we and our daily perception, is three dimensional. A forth, Time, is bolted on almost as the bolted on understanding that guides our forward looking and moving life. The model also assumes ‘imaginary time’. Another dimension. (We won’t even go into any second Time dimension, as posited recently). All very fine mathematically. But is it cherry-picking?

The Model needs to integrate ‘n’ dimensions or at least allow for them. How many ‘n’ I can’t say, but the allowance has to be made for development that includes ‘n’.

We live in three spacial dimensions, but there is a stong suspicion – since Einstein – that what we percieve is just the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional hyperspace. Or even more dimensional than that.

As conceptions of Universal origin, development and end goes, it is advanced, but…. limited to known ‘everyday’ dimensions. Or have I hurried past something you have included that says otherwise?

Or maybe I – and you – have to develop hyperthickness to compensate for the everyday thickness we suffer from!

We think in the three dimensions we are familiar with and try to represent them in one less. We are trying to get to think in four but it is ‘unatural’ in our evolution. We are like flatlanders trying to concieve of a solid world instead of a planar one.

Maybe God, up there in the ‘n’th dimensional world can take pity and throw us a hint.

I think it’s important to state that the discussion here should not be dismissed as merely “academic”. In fact, I would say that our discussion is on the leading edge of a folk-movement (and yes, an academic movement) popularly known as “Intelligent Design”.

I have been listening to the podcast archive over at IDtheFuture.com.

While much of the developed arguments there have to do with biochemistry (and not physical cosmology), I am beginning to get the idea that the anti-Darwinists may have a point that dovetails with our discussion here.

Honestly, I have never considered this before. In fact, readers may know already I have always been satisfied with the general process of Evolution to explain the history of life on earth, and that I have always been skeptical of “Darwin skeptics”.

But in listening to the Podcast interviews of credentialed scientists who propound “ID”, I am struck by the astronomic odds required to evolve colonies of simple single celled organisms into a complex biosphere within the allotted 3.5 billion years of life on Earth.

The argument goes something like this: The sheer mathematical complexity inherent in the bio-mechanical operations of certain organic molecules is so great that universal statistical methods can show that 3.5 billion years is simply not enough time to evolve a biosphere such as the one we encounter today. In fact, the odds are so great against such an outcome as to be probabilistically insignificant.

I wonder to what extent the Anthropic Principle could be applied to the “evolution of life on earth”?

And if the Anthropic Principle applies to a macrosystem such as “evolution”, just when does it stop effecting what we humans perceive phenomenologically?

Now… finally… I begin to understand why Academic scientists and their pet Jornos are so fearful of this concept.

ID proponents would argue that scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution as a sound explanation for the arrival of life on Earth — and who have thus ignored an insurmountable Wall of Improbabilities — do so because they are “Philosophically” at odds with the Intelligent Design explanation.

In other words, ID proponents have accused pro-atheist Scientists of practicing bad Science because they show willful contempt for the statistical evidence against using Natural Selection as a satisfactory explanation for how the biosphere — with us included — emerged on this planet at this time.

And so the paradigm turns.

Paul Davis’s ‘The Fifth Miracle’ is an excellent primer for the probabilities issue, Mike. We make an assumption, inherent in Darwinism, that evolutionary principle – the survival of the fittest – is inherent across time. It may be a phase. There is evidence that way back nearer the beginning of that 4 billion year Earth history, genetic exchange was not solely a verticle process but was horizontal. But that is just a small part of the issue.

The urge to ‘life’, perhaps even intelligence and spiritual extension, is inherent in the very fabric of the space/time continuum. Just how, we don’t know. The ‘laws’ of evolution are clearly built into the system, and must be inherent even in the ‘particle’. Teleological drive has never been ruled out, just the mechanisms not known or hinted at as yet.

Here’s a quote from Leonard Susskind, the inventor of “String Theory”:

…the biggest news is that in our pocket the notorious cosmological constant is not quite zero, as it was thought to be. This is a cataclysm and the only way that we know how to make any sense of it is through the reviled and despised anthropic principle.

Interview with Susskind available here.

The Anthropic Principle must be an essential component in any comprehensible Theory of Everything — just as Deutsch proposed in his Four Strands that make up the Final TOE:

1. Quantum Mechanics
2. Computational Theory
3. Epistemology
4. Omega Point Theory

Excerpt from chapter 14 of Deutsch’s book:

“the omega-point theory is an excellent example of a theory which is… about the fabric of reality as a whole. It is not framed within any one strand, but belongs irreducibly to all four.”

While Deutsch does not like Tipler’s conclusion that God is the final solution to the Anthropic Principle, he cannot deny the importance of Tipler’s Omega Point Theory.

Amfortas – I know you’ve read Colin Wilson. Somewhere he mentions a colony insect in Africa — I can’t recall the name of the species. Apparently different members of the colony have differently colored integuments. And when the colony assembled itself, it would appear — when viewed from a distance — to have the characteristics of a particular flower. In other words, the colony evolved for the purpose of mimicking a contemporaneous flowering plant where by doing so, some survival advantage was bestowed upon the colony.

Now, one might rightly argue that the colony insect and this flowering plant evolved together over time, and that the colony was thus able to change via natural selection to its now highly developed and specialized state.

But Wilson thought otherwise. He invoked Lamarck, and it was this that made me wince. I understood, of course, that LaMarck was really quite wrong — almost laughably so — to assert that giraffes — over generations — exercised a “will” to have long necks!

Even now, I find the idea hard to swallow. But if the Anthropic Principle helps explain the evolution of life on earth, then we must believe that “Will” does indeed play a part in evolution.

To be fair to Lamark -hard though it may be for some to swallow – a lot has been attributed to him. The details seems to have come after him, generally. The gist though is that there is more to ‘changes to genes’ than meets the eye. It is fashionably up to date to go all the way with Darwin but even he only really otlined ’survival of the fittest’ and only posited mechanisms – random mutations. Lamarkian ‘will’ isn’t a necessary mechanism , in the sense of the organism ‘willing’ a change to itself, physically – although we humans seem to do a reasonable pro-tem job. Alterations to genes in situ (via mutations or behaviour) and their then having an affect on the gamete has always been poohoo’d. But it isn’t inconceiveable.

But, to the ants. Funny lot, ants. Was it Colin Wilson? He got into some strange ideas once he’d knocked Existentialism on its arse. he even wrote a book about a group of suddenly ‘advanced’ folk who turned the Moon, by sheer willpower, to show the world’s leaders that they were serious contenders for having their own way!! Maybe his ants were just showing off, too. Can’t say that I have seen these ants, even from a distance.

But, bouncing back up from the shrubery to the heavens, I think (!!) that it is entirely reasonable to think that God has brought everything into existence, evolving away under his direction, in order for it to become Him, or at least find its way to Him and understand Him. It must be a bit lonely being God. That ‘urge to develop’ would have been set in place within the most basic froth of the beginning. So ‘Anthropic’ might be a tad parochial. Maybe the ants are signaling to Him!

“I think (!!) that it is entirely reasonable to think that God has brought everything into existence, evolving away under his direction, in order for it to become Him, or at least find its way to Him and understand Him.”

This does appear to be the only viable conclusion left — much to the discomfiture of those defending the old paradigm.

You have also made a good point in citing the trouble with using the word “Anthropic” in this discussion.

For instance, if the organic molecules of the primordial froth “Willed” themselves toward life, in what way is this an “Anthropic” process?

Well, the Bible says that God created man in His own image. If we “reverse engineer” this literary concept, we might conclude that man’s “personality” is a reflection of the “Personality” of God.

In this case, if the Anthropic Principle is to be accepted as a critical constituent of a new Theory of Evolution, the next step would be to introduce God’s Divine Will as the underlying force that impels life itself.

Shocking.

…. Here is an extraordinary recording of a lecture given by author and futurist George Gilder.

Let me quote a few lines…

No philosophy of our time can succeed if it doesn’t come to terms with the distinction between Ideas and Information, and the material embodiment of it. They are different things and can’t be merged into some muddle of what I call a “Materialist Superstition”. All science is based on this distinction: The independence of Mind separate from the physical substrate is critical to lending authority to any finding of science. If the mind is just a flux of material indistinguishable from the objects it is scrutinizing, there is no reason to trust its analysis of these objects. The mind has to be an independent phenomenon.

Badda bing, George.

Further, Mike, further. ! “we might conclude that man’s “personality” is a reflection of the “Personality” of God. ”

What vistas this opens to.

What does this tell us of God? Or of man, for that matter. We are wedded to the idea of rationality as the high point of mind. It is very useful, without a doubt. Like hands. It has grown and ‘flowered’. Evolved, with places to go yet. But even the blooms have patterns and variety, some quite extraordinary, most beyond the visual limitation of the eye. Is God an obsessive-compulsive; a Being so intense that were He a man we’d think Him quite mad?

Look at Gaudi’s architectural work in Spain. The most brilliant, ‘natural’ projections of mind in his field come from, like his, a very strange mind, one ‘driven’. Is God ‘driven’? Only God, surely, could design that Cathedral in Barcelona. Is it in His nature to be phenominally complex and eschew the simple? Just listen to Beethoven or Motzart. If what their inner ears heard was ‘true’ then they must have caught God whistling. Or maybe they were simply instruments in His orchestra. Rationality never alighted the swaying branches and twigs of these men’s minds. They soared in clouds through which the everyday man looks, listens and flops back in wonder.

I am always just that ‘edge’ confused by scientist’s talk of ‘elegance and simplicity’. They are definitly conceptual frameworks easier to grasp but everywhere we look and to whatever depth we peer, we find the hugely complex and convoluted. At each turn another particle pops up, a fraction of that one we thought the most basic. Every person we look at, listen to, get to know, is far from the simpleton, far from the easy to grasp. Even individually. I’ll lay a bet that the DSM is an invention of Lucifer who must, like us, get a headache trying to figure out people and pin them down, like butterflies in a collection.

But, back to Big G and His drive. The catechism may well be near to the mark. “Who made you?’. ‘God made me”. Why did God make you”. ‘God made me to know Him and Love Him”. We are an early bloom of the Universe. We are the ‘knowing’ bit that enables the Universe to find God. We are a ‘part’, a ‘quality’, containing an ‘essence’. There is a long journey ahead and Tipler may see through the glass darkly. Not that we are destined to build a computer the size of Andromeda, but we are the computer, each person, each generation being the wires and points of solder, the layers of silicon, the splashes of exotic material. And our thoughts are the impulses flashing hither and thither, ons and offs, reationals and loonies.

Reference post #62 above. This, from Colin Wilson’s The Occult, p.159, The Evolution of Man:

In African Genesis, Robert Ardrey mentions an example that seems to me a conclusive argument against total, uncompromising Darwinism: the flattid bug. He was standing with the anthropologist L.B.S. Leakey, looking at a coral-coloured blossom like lilac. Leakey touched the twig, and the flower dissolved into a swarm of tiny insects. A few minutes later the insects resettled on the twig., crawled over one another’s backs, and once again became a coral-coloured blossom, a flower which does not exist in nature. Some of the insects were green; some were half-green and half-pink; others were deep coral; they arranged themselves so as to look like a flower with a green tip.

Absolutely fascinating stuff by the wonderful British writer and thinker, Colin Wilson.

(Note also this interesting article from creationism.org. It appears I am not the first person to suggest that 2 + 2 might in fact = 4.)

When we are taught arithmetic as children (before the crazy fuzzy math got into our school curriculae) some of us liked it because we like the idea that there is but one correct answer and every other answer is wrong.

Then we are introduced to algebra, where we learn the frustration of solving for x when we don’t know what a b and c are. Or even if we have the equation set up right.

Then in the shop, science, and engineering classes, we learn that EVERY measurement is an estimate. For shop and mechanical engineering, there is the concept of allowances and tolerances. The hole has to be a little bigger than the thing that goes into it, or it don’t go into it. A loose tolerance such as + or – 1/8 inch is cheaper to manufacture than a tight tolerance such as + or – .001 inch.

Even the definition of the meter and the kilogram are estimates! As our customary units such as the inch and the pound are defined in terms of the meter and kilogram, then every unit of measure is itself an estimate. The meter is presently defined as the distance a photon of light traveling in a vacuum will cover in 1/299,792,458 second. A perfectly reasonable definition of a unit of length as long as we all agree as to what precisely is a second of time! The speed of light in a vacuum does not seem to vary. The reason this definition is accepted is that it matches, within a slight variance, the Meter of the Archives, first determined by a pair of Frenchmen who measured the distance between Dunkirk and Barcelona in pieds de roy, the Royal Foot of Paris. A wee bit longer than the English foot we are accustomed to using. They extrapolated from this measurement an estimate of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator and took 1/1,000,000 of that distance as the meter. They were a bit off.

Then of course, from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle we learn we might as well accept that we can never measure anything precisely and accurately.

Which is what we experience in real life every day!

But I still insist that the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound regardless of whether anyone is around to hear it! Any mechanical engineer must presume that such mechanical physics occur without the need to be observed.

Such as the metal fatigue in a certain Minnisota bridge. It was not observed, until the bridge collapsed. But it was there, nevertheless.

Mike La Salle,
Thank you for resources for understanding the “La Salle Code (53) Since theology is not my area of expertise either, I did not read “Da Vinci Code” but saw the Hollywood version.
Recently I saw somewhere that Lilith, not Eve was Adam’s first wife. Because she disobeyed the Creator Lilith became a she-demon who seduced men in their sleep,causing nocturnal emission.
According this article on Mythology, medival monks would sleep with their hands over their genitals, clutching a crusifix to ward off Lilith. What do you know about her
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/lilith.html

Even though most of the Lilith legend is derived from Jewish folklore, descriptions of the Lilith demon appear in Iranian, Babylonian, Mexican, Greek, Arab, English, German, Oriental and Native American legends. Also, she sometimes has been associated with legendary and mythological characters such as the Queen of Sheba and Helen of Troy. In medieval Europe she was proclaimed to be the wife, concubine or grandmother of Satan.

If true that “Lilith” mythology appears across so many cultures — some of them separated by continents — then I would say that it must represent some elemental aspect of human nature.

Very interesting stuff.

I doubt any could argue with that Mike. That elemental is the urge to explode one’s seed upon the world, active even as we sleep. The succubus lurks in the depths – or rather the hormones. For woman it is the incubus, that horny little devil that takes them to orgasm in the night too. But as far as temptations go, and natural at that, lustiness is a great gift by the Prime Mover.

Mike La Salle
This is the first time I located a site that seems to vaildate your observation. Ironically the article describes Lilith that has methamorphed into a feminist icon,
I realy don’t know how authentic the article is since anyone can post their views on the Internet

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/Angels/Demons/Lilith.htm#

Wikipedia has 1800 century depiction of Lilith. She seems beautiful and seductive. The previlous link indicated that a “Lilith” nagazine is written by feminist and articles about her elsewhere. Somehow the picture is a condradiction of feminist ideal since women are not supposed to admired by their appearance but by their talent and what their do. Historically Lilitht deeds were semi-demonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

AMfortas in post #54 wrote in response to a question I posited to Mike:

“Spectre asks in #26, “… Are you proposing that spacetime had a preexisting existence prior to the big bang?”

David Bohm would have said ‘Yes’.”

Here lies the problem: the qualities of space, time, spacetime, are only useful in describing the geometry of our universe that we exist in. Space and time are absolutely meaningless concepts in a total vacuum … they can only be used to describe the geometry within our existing universe. Much like the penalty of “clipping” has no meaning outside of the game of football.

To posit that spacetime had an existence prior to the big bang is absolutely inapposite to the theory itself. Furthermore, even in our own universe space and time are phenomena relative to the observer. Not merely to the measurement thereof, but its actual intrinsic reality. Where an event occurs or when it occurs is dependent upon the observer making the observation. There is no such thing as absolute simultaniety or an absolute point in spacetime.

Intrinsic in the big bang is that that event created spacetime … period.

Why?

Because the concepts of “where” or “when” had no meaning until we had a universe where they were relevant properties.

To speak of time and space outside of our present universe is an exercise in futility, as the properties of “where” and “when” are meaningless expressions when used to attempt to describe anything outside our universe.

One can argue only very loosely that our universe is not the only universe … to say that another universe existed before or exists concurrently with our own strains credulity. Because one cannot make any reference to “where” or “when” beyond the bounds of our own universe.

I hope I’m not too confusing with this post … I’m merely trying to highlight the inherent problem in trying to posit the existence of things using measurements and properties that are only meant and that are only meaningful in the context of our universe.

I like Mike’s work, but to speak of alternate universes or spacetime prior to the big bang in terms and measurements meaningful to our own universe is futile because the concepts of where and when are meaningless beyond the scope of our universe.

That’s the problem I have with Mike’s thesis. It’s eloquent, but it attempts to describe a framework using the laws of physics where they do not apply.

Perhaps another universe does exist theoritically, but where it exists or when it exists are meaningless questions. It’s not the the measurement of where or when is difficult … it’s that where or when are meaningless concepts in any description of an alternate universe … or any state of reality prior to the big bang.

I like my “clipping” analogy. It has no reality, no meaning, outside of the game of football.

I still like the Picture of the Bicamerel Universe, someone REALLY cool must have drawn that……
drew~
wheres the credit, when credits due?…. I dont know,I maxed my visa out~

My sincere apologies to Amfortas that his previous comments were not carried over from the old server. Amfortas please repost them if you will. I do think you are correct, and I agree that my own explications are too abstract to be of much meaning or use to anyone but myself.

Drew here was my neighbor in Guerneville while I was writing up the Bicameral Universe idea in 2006. He took a look at this image of the model and saw the hour glass shape. He took the greyscale printout to his house and marked up the outline of the model. I still have that drawing. I talked with Drew about the whole concept on a number of occasions. I think Drew really “gets” the concept because he is a naturally gifted mathematician — and a sound engineer. Waves are his stock and trade.