On The Significance of the Genetic Contribution of Mary

May 2005
What if scientists built a time machine and a biologist traveled to Israel 30 AD? She could perhaps obtain a skin cell scraping or a lock of hair from Jesus and genetically analyze it. What would she find?

It follows from Jesus’ being truly human that he would have DNA in his cells but whose DNA would he have? It follows from current scientific understanding that Jesus must have had a blood type compatible with Mary and hence, a genetic affinity with her. If Jesus was truly human, this biological necessity would be fulfilled. Here we have an interesting irony in the biological descent of Jesus in that Adam (the first) begat Eve, whereas Adam (the second) was begotten of Eve (Mary). Further, the descent from Adam indicates that biologically, Jesus is begotten of God because Adam, genetically, was begotten of God. So this genealogy is very important as indicating descent from the original, divine genome. Moreover, it is (narratively) from this divine genome that apparently all humans are descended (barring, of course, the problematic narrative accounts indicating that there already were humans in the world before Adam and Eve descended from Eden.)

It seems the biblical accounts describe all human DNA as divine in nature and origin. It follows that Mary’s DNA is also ‘Adamic’ and this would not contradict the divinity of Jesus as a human begotten of God, since this is exactly what Adam was. So the scientist’s analysis would probably at least identify the x component of Jesus DNA to be from Mary. The y component would not correspond to Joseph. Statistical analysis, as part of the current, state of the art scientific theory, might indicate that there is a slight probability of a complete zygote occurring spontaneously and this would explain the immaculate conception indicated by the witnesses.

Adam was not God, yet Adam’s DNA was constructed entirely by God. So what, exactly, is the difference between Jesus and Adam if it is not purely biological, since both posses DNA and both were not the result of ‘natural’ zygotes formed by the combination of the DNA of a natural mother and father (and by the way, where did Adam’s x chromosome come from)? The question is one of identity. How did Adam know his identity – how did he define himself? Self-definition is the prerogative of consciousness, not biology. God gave Adam a DNA-produced ‘consciousness-machine’ and God communicated with this machine. According to the narrative, God’s presence was perceived by Adam’s consciousness-machine.

The story of Genesis 2 reveals that God walked in Eden, God was there and Adam perceived him and spoke with him. So God was perceived on a sophisticated level, the level of speech. God had already provided an environment for Adam, and created Adam’s perceptual apparatus to perfectly correspond to this environment. The environment was perceived as it was by the consciousness-machine. Since he could speak, Adam demonstrates a level of consciousness capable of self-definition (according to Dennett), so even if Adam is ‘metaphorical’, he represents an advanced stage of human development, a moral stage (cf, Persig).

Adam was able to make sophisticated discriminations about himself and his environment, and to articulate these, such as naming the plants and animals, for example. Therefore, Adam is able to discriminate between himself and God, the person presenting on his visual and auditory fields. Via the simple discriminations offered to his consciousness-machine, according to the narrative, Adam concludes, “I am not God.” As an aside, some apocryphal manuscripts indicate an altered physical state of Adam after the Fall – it is described that he wore a ‘garment’ which was taken away when he left Eden. It is also described that the animals in Eden could speak, therefore demonstrating a type of consciousness they now (post-Fall) do not. One could describe this as a ‘broken symmetry of consciousness’, in that where once there is believed to have existed a higher level of consciousness, this is not evident at our current lower level of consciousness.

In Adam’s naming of the plants and animals, he demonstrates a highly sophisticated discriminatory process and creative linguistic ability, thereby defining himself as well – “I am not any of these.” So Adam becomes an individual, self-defined, and discovers that he is alone. He discriminates differences as well as similarities between himself and God that rule out identity with God, even in ‘kind’. Adam has specified (i.e. ‘species’) himself. When God creates Eve, Adam defines her differently and even names her accordingly as attached to himself in ‘kind’ – ‘Adam’, ‘Adamah’.

The similarities between Adam and Eve and God are apparently overwhelmingly visual, hence, ‘image’ of God is the term used to specify ‘human’. Extra-canonical literature punctuates this similarity of God and his ‘image’ by giving the image special status among all created things. Adam and Eve are then given simple instructions about ‘what to do next’. They are to administrate their environment, which is given to them to look after. They are given one simple moral condition, a choice regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What is good and evil? Do they know or don’t they (assuming the snake is a liar)?

Yes they do, because on their own they comply with the moral imperative and once they break it, they know they have. Their consciousness already possesses this moral capacity, which is a thought-based conceptual realm, an abstract realm. How else could these abstract characters even live in this abstract ‘story’ environment – i.e., the story about them is the story from them. They possess the qualities from which the story derives. And so, we have ‘the fall’ of Adam and Eve. There is a distinct change in Adam’s perception of his identity, which he is able to articulate, meaning that he is conscious of it, and he is conscious of his alienation in time-space.

Alienation implies before/after (time-space). Eden was eternal for Adam – no before-Eden, no after, just ‘forever-Eden’, continual growth, beauty – consciousness of a different order, seeing the presence of God, speaking with the animals, eating the fruit of the Tree of Life. It is a static (myth-like) picture, as opposed to the dynamic, changing environments post-Fall. He is now separated from his former Eden-identity, his Eden-consciousness, his Eden-self. He now must redefine himself completely apart from God, a moral definition schematized in narrative. So he calls it ‘punishment’. Death is the result. Adam’s immediate physical perception, consciousness of God, had continually sustained and restored him. His alienation has real, physical consequences and so, Adam dies and returns to dust.

Contrast the identity of Jesus as it is revealed by his self-definition. Jesus is not conscious of alienation; in fact, he is conscious of complete identity – “I and the Father are one.” How he is conscious of this is a good question, which probably cannot be answered definitively, but there is evidence in favor of it. This evidence is presented by the witnesses, i.e., the New Testament documents, numerous historical persons, The Church, etc. This evidence is not for Jesus in the shaping of his consciousness, it is evidence of Jesus, given by him because of his conscious identity. Many of his speech-acts resulted in the evidence, indicating his sophisticated moral self-understanding: the resuscitation of Lazarus when he spoke to the corpse, as well as other resuscitations cited by the witnesses; his speaking to the physical elements, such as the storm which responded to his command. Jesus was born with this identity and he exhibited his self-differentiation in terms of ‘kind’, his species, by his authority over the whole entire created order as demonstrated by ‘miracles’.

There is no recorded period of Jesus’ life which exhibits any lack of this self-realization on his part. So, in terms of the question of genetics and their importance for the identity of Jesus as God as human, it seems the genetics are the physical setting for Jesus’s consciousness-machine which ran only the identity, “I am God” as his narrative centre of gravity. What it was like to be Jesus is impossible (and you know we do not use this word lightly in these days of probability theory) for us to know beyond the extent of our own conscious experiences, which for the most part do not include storms responding to our command or corpses coming back to life.

All I am saying, apart from the question of how he could have this consciousness, is that he did, and this is what defines him as God. We have also argued that the presence of DNA in his body does not rule out his divine identity but rather, was necessary as the seat of his consciousness, however mysterious the relation between the two remains at this point.

Adam’s Blind Spot

When Adam asked for a companion in the Garden of Eden, the Lord did not give him a video or a magazine, he gave him a real woman. Now here’s the punchline – even Adam, the perfect man, couldn’t handle her!

May 2005

It seems to be a blind spot among moderns that humanity is “fallen”, that the present status of humanity cannot be used for moral modeling. We all know that the story of the Garden of Eden contains an appropriated Goddess myth, re-modeled as a polemic against the goddess theology and ancient matriarchal paradigms, such as those of the Egyptians, since woman gives birth to, or creates, man. In Eden, man gives birth to woman, and God “gives birth” to both via creation from “dust.” Recursively, God creates life from nothing or, as later writers asserted, from his word. The myth also asserts that “the man” (“Adam”) which God created was able to live eternally in Eden, that there was no death.

Now, where does this notion of eternity come from? And the incredible idea of a human body that is indestructible, that does not age or decay? These notions definitely do not come from observation of anything in nature. Even the ancients could not help but notice that one of the fundamental qualities of nature is that things are “corruptible”, to use a Pauline term, that they decay, or degrade, or explode (as volcanoes), or are subject to catastrophe (disease, injury); that plants die, that nature does not exhibit, even at first glance, “eternal” qualities – mountains erode, sands shift – nature is in a state of flux.

Modern science, in its pursuit of the fundamentals of nature, has discovered that substance is fundamentally unstable. They cannot explain what holds it together, except to say that there is a “force”, defined by the Planck constant, an “energy”, but no particular reason for it.

In the search for fundamentals, the progression can be illustrated by, for instance, the question why there are two sexes. Genesis 1 and 2 also try to explain this theologically. So science asked, what are the fundamentals of humanity? Well, first of all, there are two “kinds” of human, male and female. So the next question was, what is the fundamental cause of this? And they found that, well, there are only two kinds of chromosomal patterns determining sex, xx and xy, a genetic basis. So, what is the fundamental cause of genetic differences? It was found that DNA is a double helix string of protein molecules, four in kind, which are arranged in apparently infinite combinations, like musical notes can be, and that one of these combinations was specific for sexual identity of two kinds. So then, what is the fundamental cause of protein differentiation? Well, it turned out to be that proteins are constructed of fundamental particles called molecules, in different combinations. In fact, all matter is constructed of these particles, so a greater fundamental cause was discovered which not only explained sexual differentiation, but material differentiation and properties, connecting humans and all living things to “the dust”; that is, to inorganic substances because they are made of the same stuff.

So science discovered a fundamental physical principle that placed humans in the universe as a variation of simple substances. But still, where did the life come from? There must be a more fundamental principle than just molecules, because there also exist non-living molecular structures, salt for instance, and “complexity” itself does not seem to explain the difference between living and non-living substance – especially since life could not be produced by experimental means from simple substances (i.e., Alchemy), or found anywhere else except Earth.

So what is the fundamental structure of molecules? Well, atoms and their combinations. So the properties of atoms were investigated to discover what fundamental qualities they exhibited and it was found that they were, in turn, composed of even more fundamental particles – electrons, protons, etc. – which explained how and why they were able to combine to form such a variety of substances, exhibiting such a variety of properties.

In the discovery of quantum physical reality, scientists also discovered that the whole entire universe is “dying”, that the substance of the universe exhibits the quality of entropy – the progression from greater organization to lesser organization, from higher energy states to lower states, and that, eventually, according to any theory (string and wave theories of the universe included) the universe will be destroyed.

So where does the notion of eternity come from if all observations of the world render non-eternal results? In a world that constantly and consistently exhibits death and decay, where could such an idea have come from? How is it even an evolutionary concept, since evolution appears to be a function of death? Evolution seems to require death as the basis for selection in that selection would not be necessary if death were not an inherent property of the world.

The notion of eternity is unexplainable in terms of the universe that we live in. The universe does not naturally present this idea to the mind and neither does evolutionary development. Eternity is an absurd notion from the point of view of the world in which we live. So where did it come from? It could have come from simple opposition – the logic that since things die, perhaps there are things that don’t die, that are opposite in quality. This is a sophisticated logic, not a “survival” logic; it is a playful logic, not a “serious” logic. It is a logic that came from stories, from fictions or myths, that allowed minds to play, to explore, to imagine worlds beyond their own where things were different.

Perhaps the impetus for this was the phenomenon of dreams or of recounting histories for the benefit of the group, or some combination of both, which blossomed into story telling and entertainment – pure mind-based activities that human beings found to be important for social cohesion – to share same understandings (“memes”) for the purpose of communication, so that individuals could operate in the same conscious frames of reference. In this way, they could decrease the options for interpretation, limit the scope of sounds into words that became ever more specific in reference, and place these words in contexts, or juxtapositions, leading to the development of social groups which could command more power by the cohesion produced by the commonality of language and of the epiphenomena of shared understandings of origin, of purpose, of meaning, of the relation between individuals in ever growing, more complex societies, as humans became ever more reproductively successful.

So we are back to reproduction again and the question of eternity. The story of Eden is an example of this playful logic of opposition – that woman is not God, or God is not woman, based on the creation of humans in her womb (related metaphors, “mother earth” or “mother nature”), and that man is not God, or God is not man, because man came from dust. But where did the dust come from? Where did the Earth come from? The ancients reasoned that they must have come from somewhere, from someone, that life has an origin, and it must be a living origin, a “father” metaphorically, because of the new, patriarchal paradigm, and that this father could not, in turn, have a father. A finite recursion of fathers must have had an original father, hence, “In the beginning…”; not the beginning of the father, however, but the beginning of the world. So where did the father come from? Logically, he must have always been, he didn’t come from anywhere – he is eternal (“ageless”).

So, why are his sons and daughters not eternal? A darn good question! Apparently they somehow “lost” this quality of their father, becoming no longer of the same “kind” as him. This seems tragically like punishment, but punishment for what? They must have done something to deserve punishment, and quite a harsh one, it seems, as the difference between living and dying is of primary importance. Why should people die if their original father is eternal?

This is a complex line of reasoning, a moral, intellectual level, which, according to Robert Persig, is higher than social, biological and organic levels (Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals, 1991). It is completely thought-based, conceptual, as opposed to practically or materially based, as in social communication, biological survival and organic existence. Therefore, the answer posed by the Genesis narrative is also posed on a moral level. They died because of a moral reason. This is profound – that physical results are based in moral causes. This reasoning also seems to explain a great many other causes and results: the existence of “evil” in the world and evil inclinations in human disposition. It is asserted that the entire world was degraded on a moral basis and that actual, physical death was the result. Moral degradation was also a result, entangled in the entire, complete separation of humanity from the physical and moral perfection, the “being of the same kind” (speciation) as the father.

The man and woman, humanity, are “cast out” of this state, metaphorically. They “descend” and God “ascends”; reality suffers a symmetry breakage and two realms of being emerge – one destructible and one indestructible. So, the notion of eternity appears to have a moral basis, developed from a sense of alienation created by the tragic reality of death.

That death is a moral tragedy and not just a physical one, is very important. It means that the Fall of humanity, illustrated by the story of Eden, is thought-based, not physically-based; it is moral, not scientific. This is the blind spot. It is our thoughts (consciousness) not our physical actions, that cause death. Thoughts and physical actions are not integral. One cannot derive thoughts from actions and actions cannot be derived from thoughts because it can be demonstrated that people often do not know why they do things. Otherwise, there would be no need for psychology or sociology or anthropology or neurology or cognitive behaviorology, etc., etc. It seems that no one can really say, definitely, what actions are derived from what thoughts.

Hence the moral dilemma of humanity – how to discern moral thoughts from immoral ones, actions being non-determinant or irrelevant. Who can say which thoughts are moral and which are not? No one; hence the studies of philosophy, theology, etc. It is a blind spot, this inability to discern, and people will deny it because it is a true blind spot – it does not register. We seem to think we know, in fact, we are often taught to think we know. However, it is a biblical (narrative) truth that we do not. Our thoughts, which are products of a morally bankrupt physicality, the universe included, cannot be moral of the “kind” that God is moral. We are faced with an impossibility (improbability) – to have moral thoughts. Just how “fallen” are we, some may ask? It is not a viable argument that we are only partially fallen, as death is as complete a punishment as anyone could imagine.

Further, how to discover moral truths from “revelation” or “revealed truth” if our thoughts are completely immoral? “Who will save me from this body of death?” (Paul).

A Matter of Perspective

Here’s something to hold us over until I get a better handle on Penrose’s argument for consciousness from gravity.

April 2005

If we think about geometrical concepts, e.g., circles, squares, or hyperspheres, we notice that they are, first of all, imaginary and second, perfect. These imaginary objects do not change, do not move, they are static, localized, timeless figures. In a sense, they are eternal. Conversely, natural, or real physical geometries are not perfect; they are dynamic, they move and change, form and decay, constantly, chaotically, some more slowly (i.e., stars, galaxies, etc.) and some more quickly (i.e., uranium atoms, weather patterns, plants, etc.). This reflects the biblical concept of the Fall, not only of humanity, but of the entire universe – that the state of existence in which we find ourselves is one of alienation and contingency, a probabilistic reality and not an absolute one.

Our ability to conceive these perfect geometrical objects is a spiritual ability, and one must agree that the great mathematicians were obviously inspired. They themselves admit that their insights are of God (e.g., Einstein). This makes them prophets in a sense, seers of the mysteries of reality, leading us toward an understanding, a communication with God through an understanding of the universe. In order to reach these pure geometrical forms, to touch them, we must enter their realm, the realm of perfection, of unchangeability, of timelessness, spacelessness, stillness.

The realm exists and is shown to exist by mathematical language which describes reality. Mathematics has been demonstrated to describe reality by the technological advances and scientific discoveries of the last century or two especially. So science supports the biblical assertion of a realm of perfection which really, physically exists in higher dimensions. Science also posits and even calculates the enormous amount of energy required to realize this realm.

It seems as though the biblical writers, the ancient prophets, received information, often in the form of mental images or of words, of a unified universe that exists eternally, right now. Somehow it is imminent and present, as God is imminent and present, only we, or most of us, cannot see it. I believe we are only blinded by our perspective, the way we look at things, or have been taught, conditioned, to look at the world – and in talk of dimension, perspective is the appropriate word. For instance, take the blindness of Aristotle and Ptolemy to the fourth dimension – time/location, or timespace. We had to wait 2000 years for Einstein, et.al. They could have discovered it but they put on blinders, in effect, blinding everyone else who followed their creed of 3D space.

In recent science, we discover the higher symmetries of reality in the mathematics of theoretical physics, such as the 5D symmetry of spacetime/matter-energy of general relativity, or the symmetry of the wave theory of the universe with the 0 cosmological constant, i.e., that infinite universes with infinite wormhole connections magically “turns into” a 0 cosmological constant in 10D space, and that rather than there being 10^100 times the observed amount of excess radiation appearing in the vacuum (the expected amount based on symmetry-breaking equations), there is none! Kaku calls this “magical”, one of the most astounding symmetries discovered to date. Then there are the symmetries of string theory, in which both gravity and quantum mechanics “turn into” each other in 10/26D space, or that certain modular functions reflect the numbers 10 and 24(+2) – the exact number of necessary dimensions for a field theory of gravity.

Add to these astounding correlations the fact that string theory was discovered “by accident”, or “too early”, that the equations cannot be solved, that modular functions were given to a child in his dreams (see Kaku, Hyperspace, pp. 172-4: “Srinivasa Ramanujan was the strangest man in all of mathematics, probably in the entire history of science. He has been compared to a bursting supernova, illuminating the darkest, most profound corners of mathematics…Working in total isolation from the main currents of his field, he was able to rederive 100 years’ worth of Western mathematics on his own…Ramanujan used to say that the goddess of Namakkal inspired him with the formulae in dreams.”), that the solution to Einstein’s gravity equation was given as if by answer to prayer by an obscure scholar using Reimann’s field equations in 5D, equations which had been ignored for 60 years – that the most beautiful equations ever seen by theoretical mathematicians, the general theory of relativity, were revealed conceptually and not discovered experimentally! – and we begin to see that even scientists are discovering some disturbing, coincidental, almost mystical emergences of answers to questions that cannot be proven, even though they appear to be right both intuitively and by mathematical “beauty” or correlation or “simplicity and elegance.” The string field equations cannot be solved and yet, there they are!

How do scientists explain this? Well, they don’t, and some won’t even acknowledge the equations of string theory because they feel they are an affront to science itself – not being provable, either by math or by experiment – i.e., the Plank length at 10^-35 m contains too much power to ever be “explored”, the 10th dimension is a realm of infinite power/energy – we can’t see it and we can’t go there, or the 10D field equations are too complex, infinite in length, and cannot be solved to a degree of certainty.

Thus we find that science does not adequately explain reality by its own standards, that is, by experiment, observation or theoretical or mathematical proof. Scientific speculation is fraught with belief systems, hypotheses, theories and models which science itself admits do not adequately or completely explain the phenomena it observes in the universe. In short, the problem of science can be epitomized by the question, “If science has explained reality, why is there still science?”

The SuperString Model: What Does It Mean?

500px.com

June 2005 (This was all Michio Kaku’s fault!)

How are we to understand the quantum model of matter? It appears that all particles are literally made of light. What the model shows is that the constitutive forces, the strong nuclear and weak nuclear Yang Mills fields are quanta of light which are exchanged within the atom, between the point particles – quarks and leptons. These fields hold the atom together. They are quanta of electromagnetism; they originated with the big bang; they are infinite in number; they are averages of constituent vibrations, apparently atemporal, crossing dimensional boundaries that are the result of the asymmetry of 10(/26) dimensional space caused by the breaking of the original supersymmetrical universe, which came apart in the creation of our 4 dimensional, visible universe and the invisible 6 dimensional universe, which collapsed.

The strong nuclear field (gluons) cannot be broken, i.e., protons do not decay. It is the force of a photon, an electromagnetic field vibration, fortified by the exchange of π mesons, also vibrations, localized light “strings”, the foundation of life. They originate in stars, formed by gravity. Protons are forced together in stars by gravity to form all the elements of which all other matter is made. Most elements are stable, except the heavier ones, whose protons may tunnel, emitting strong radiation from mesons. The strong vibrations which constitute these forces (Yang-Mills fields) look like waves in four dimensions as they total up statistically, sum over, and cancel each other out, so that their average locations in 4 dimensions make wave-like formations – forces – which seem to be non-local under special circumstances, when we look closely at their behavior (Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr).

Now here is the interesting part: the string vibrations are heterotic, they cross over dimensional boundaries. This is necessary for them to be self-consistent and to form our kind of universe. This translates into atemporality, i.e., the average, wave-like forces they create travel both forwards (“retarded wave”) and backwards (“advanced wave”) in time. This is part of their ability to localize – by acting non-locally. Actually, they localize themselves through all dimensions and we only see part of their interdimensional locality in 4 dimensions. We do not see their atemporal nature, but we do see some of its effects, i.e., non-locality, inertia, interference patterns, wave-particle duality, the constant speed of light, gravity, electromagnetism, visible light, black holes, stars, matter…everything that exists is formed by the effects of their geometrical, interdimensional properties.

Gravity and light seem to be the most basic components – gravity because the graviton is the smallest string structure and corresponds to Plank sizes, and light because of its mysterious atemporal and aspatial nature. Plank’s measurement of light quanta involves a constant, Plank’s constant, a very small number, multiplied by the frequency of the light waves to give the quantum energy of a particular group of photons. This amount of energy is produced by a string vibration (in erg seconds). Same for a gravitational quantum.

It is the combination of the geometric shape of hyperspace imparting its properties to the way the string is limited in its movement and vibration that results in the quanta of photons and all other particles. This geometrical principle, or shape, is what gives the photon its power to hold atoms together, but what gives light its speed? It is also the geometrical principle – the interdimensional vibration of light quanta gives the illusion of movement in 4 dimensions, because for the photon, space and time are symmetrical. The vibrations that form light quanta are time-symmetric and space-symmetric – they move both ways at once over timespace in 10(/26) dimensions. This is how they can behave non-locally and so, hold time and space together. This is how hyperspace is made of strings, vibrating over a complex topography.

This geometry is what holds atoms together and it is the geometry of all the particles in your body. You are made of light and so, the atoms of your physical structure communicate with the entire universe by the forces holding them together.

It was symmetry-breaking that caused the vibration of the strings. Symmetry-breaking caused the release of energy that was holding the symmetry together, unstably. Light came out of the fissure of the once unified dimensional plurality. The power of light comes from its release from the originally unstable, supersymmetrical state and it lends its power to the evolving structure of the universe, along with the other forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear), working together with them, entangled with them so to speak, in the unravelling of the original supersymmetric state of all ‘energy’ or ‘form’.

The particles which make up the world we experience have maintained their connections to each other in higher dimensions and we see this in the forces at work in and through them. The forces are evidence of the connectedness of particles in this way and of the original supersymmetric state from which they were released to form matter. The mathematics and experiments show that the universe is completely integrated – all matter (vibrations) appears to be aware (inertia), connected in an atemporal way, an instantaneous way, by forces and by the phenomenon of non-locality. All types of particles, photons, electrons, atoms, buckeyballs…, exhibit these properties.

Superstring theory model posits that all matter is symmetrical in 10(/26) dimensions; that is, all the different types of particles can ‘turn into’ all other types. It is even being argued that photons of any type can turn into matter, particles, of any type, and back again! This makes complete sense in view of the constituent role of photons in atoms at every level, i.e., that photons are matter. Also, the infinite quantity of photons emerging from atoms supports this view; whereas certain other particles, such as electrons and quarks, are maintained in the universe at constant levels – indicating a closed universe; that is, the universe must contain the photons in order for them to produce matter. Without the boundary of a finite universe, there would be no universe. However, the theory also requires an infinite number of connected finite universes. This results in the absorption by these other universes of the excess photons produced in this one.

So, ‘the universe’ is now all that is possible to exist, not merely ‘all that exists’. Without the concomitant universes, there would be an excess of energy emerging into our universe which would alter the balance of forces such that this universe would either expand more quickly than the speed of light or it would contract under too much gravity. So, in a sense, ‘the universe’ is infinite but in a more complex way, which is really kind of cool. This would explain the necessity of black holes as tunnels to alternate regions of the universe in an unimaginably complex topology, through which the excess energy must escape. It is a marvelous new world we are discovering ‘out there’ in our new quantum model.

So, we imagine that the original supersymmetric state was motionless and dark, but that this geometrical entity contained energy, or what we call ‘energy’, in the force that held it together – its form – like a giant, coiled up spring, a hyperspring. When the supersymmetry broke, vibrations of various frequencies began resonating, each frequency corresponding to a potential particle, and first came light (photons), then gravity, then subatomic, then atomic forces. The subatomic and atomic forces were resonances of light and gravity. At a certain point, quarks became ‘confined’ by gravitons and gluons. Leptons condensed from photons and became entangled with protons by bosons at slightly different resonances, dictated by 10(/26)D topology.

Time began and Space emerged from the broken symmetry, molded by gravity through interdimensional timespace symmetric resonances of the particles of which it was composed. Gravitational resonances entangled stars and galaxies, and massive black holes began to form, tunneling to new universes in order to allow this universe to normalize, or balance out its energy levels into a stable state [rather like the edge of a fitted sheet snapping off one corner of a mattress and finding a new, more stable equilibrium].

Where did the supersymmetric object come from? Why is the construction of matter so beautifully complex, astonishingly useful, astoundingly powerful, ‘magically’ integrated, mysteriously enormous and apparently impossible? I mean, all this still doesn’t really explain anything! It does not seem to have any intrinsic meaning.

Here is one fascinating implication, however. Rather than everything being predetermined, as some scientists surmise (e.g., Bell), it is possible, on the quantum model, to suppose that all of the elements in my body (my ‘consciousness machine’) are being constantly ‘oriented’ by these heterotic vibrations, these ‘future waves’, so that they know how to proceed in accordance with the universe. Therefore, my consciousness will be, to some extent (and this remains to be investigated) affected by the future, or by probable futures as a sum-over history of all trajectories. So, when I make a choice, consciously, I will, in turn, affect these trajectories and possibly alter or create outcomes at certain strategic points – as experience often shows in, say, realizations that I made the wrong choice or the right choice in relation to certain outcomes (as ‘hindsight’). It seems that I can imagine alternatives and this would not be possible if there were not really alternatives.

Perhaps relative futures that are predetermined by the heterotic nature of matter can be manipulated by the conscious will of an individual as part of the sum-over histories of these fields to either a greater or lesser extent – i.e., certain futures are more or less likely, depending on how close one is to the quantum level of determination, or on the extent that one consciously interferes with these determinations in time (or within certain macro-time and quantum atemporal limitations). That is, by a conscious act of will, I can affect the entire universe in the future; or, since it may be surmised that consciousness is, to an extent, atemporal, I may be ‘aware’ of the future in some sense…

Let’s Get Phenomenological

David C. Schultz, 500px.com

Here’s another old journal article from July 2005 where I attempt to create the universe from pure consciousness, along the lines of Husserl’s phenomenology combined with mathematics and quantum theory (Dennett probably also had something to do with it):

The argument for a subconscious or subliminal mind is an argument from silence. In terms of agency, one could just as well argue for spirits and demons. What the subjective reports suggest is the priority of feelings and inner voices arising from they know not where. Sometimes they accord with conscious, volitional tendencies and sometimes they are opposed. It seems to the subject as if he were two selves conversing, or that some powerful external agent were communicating with him, in his inner self, sometimes articulately and sometimes inarticulately, or a combination of both.

One could argue that spiritual and demonic agency is entangled in material agencies of various forms and media. This is how one can discriminate between the moral value of a thing or thought ‘in itself’ and the moral intention of a thing or thought. Things ‘in themselves’ are generally morally neutral; moral value arises solely from intention in relation to contingent moral models or frames of reference (narratives).

This is also why it is easy to confuse or to be unable to discriminate between one’s own conscious agency and those that are ‘foreign’. Psychologists label these foreign agencies subconscious or subliminal but this is merely an assumption, a working theoretical model of mind which tries to explain where certain inclinations or thoughts originate without reference to anything external to the brain. Therefore, this assumption reveals its biases and limitations in terms of its conception of reality in general.

Dennett’s position of memes as external shaping forces for consciousness is helpful in admitting and identifying one type of external source that informs and creates consciousness. However, these memes are also subject to moral discriminations in terms of their inherent and intentional values. His theory is also consistent with materialist philosophy.

However, if one’s understanding of ‘material’ should include that matter – physical matter, ‘particles’ and ‘waves’ – itself is conscious, based on recent, state of the art science which demonstrates that elementary particles exhibit non-local ‘awareness’ and that their very existence as solid, localized, ‘real’ things is totally dependent upon their being consciously observed, and that the evidence from experiment is now pointing toward the existence of higher spatial dimensions and time symmetric properties (i.e. that particles are aware of the future as well as the past), one’s understanding of ‘materialism’ will undergo, must undergo some modification.

I am going to go front to back on this one. Here is my theory:

God created a living universe that originated in a perfect geometrical concept, this being the nature of God who is consciousness. The consciousness ‘realized’ an externality by ‘speaking’, moving itself into original motion, breaking the silence of its concept into tiny bits, vibrations, which it observed. The complexity of this concept is evident by our observation of the universe, and reality as we know it is the epiphenomenon of this complex concept.

Therefore, vibration, movement resulted in the appearance of particulate matter – light – whose properties are yet mysterious and from which the entire universe, visible and invisible, is composed [see John Gribbin, Schrodinger’s Kittens, for a discussion on how all particles are made of light, or photons; see also Michio Kaku, Hyperspace, for an even more detailed discussion]. Light is a combination of concept (wave), and percept (particle). It is extremely malleable and powerful as a building material of the most intricate, hypergeometric, supersymmetric structures.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans: “…since the knowledge of God is manifest among them; for God has openly shown it to them. For his unseen qualities have been observable, by reason, from the things made in the creation of the universe, which [qualities] are his amazing power and divinity..”

We know from observation of nature that these perfect geometrical concepts are conceptual, virtual objects that exist in consciousness, by consciousness, yet they are the basis and the ground of all function, all universal laws by which particulate matter holds together and by which it works in its productions for perception, both of itself and by the ‘machines’ which it composes. ‘Mechanics’ is a conscious process, proceeding from design, which proceeds from the thought of God.

God did not hack off a piece of himself and make matter out of it. Matter proceeds from awareness by design, and so it seems to us and to God. Thus, this real-seeming universe, as a production of the alien consciousness, the spirit of God, APPEARS and we appear within it, as constructs of it and of God’s consciousness. Consciousness pervades every particle, ‘realizing’ it and so, each particle realizes every other, conceptually, immediately, hyper-dimensionally, geometrically.

So particles are pieces of God’s consciousness that he has observed. The meaning of observation in this sense reveals to us the nature of God as all powerful, because by our own observations of particulate matter, we find a tremendous force in their reality – that God’s observation enforces the particles with such energy [εργα] that we find them mysteriously indestructible. Protons do not decay, their lifetime is longer than that of the universe. We also discover, by different observations, that they maintain their purely conceptual nature and conscious properties, i.e., the corresponding wave form of a particle such that the particle does not exist until it collapses by observation into something real. Recent developments in the science of theoretical physics and mathematics reveal that particles are the geometrical manifestations of the symmetries of higher dimensions that have been dissected in our lower dimensional frame of reference, but that this perspective is what results in particles and their properties. From the perspective of hyper-dimensional geometry (‘space’), the differentiated qualities are united by the principle of supersymmetry, a symmetry that is above what we can observe in nature – a conceptual simplification of reality, of details, from a higher perspective (which explains certain ‘invisible’ forces, as gravity for example).

These dimensions are impossible to visualize in the sense of optical vision or images related to or based on optical images, but they can be ‘visualized’ conceptually, especially mathematically, but also metaphorically. The beauty of mathematics is its precision, both in terms of scope and in terms of definition. Math helps us to ‘see’ what we cannot see visually. Its symbols of representation are poetic, derived from specific aspects of reality and yet abstracted, pure. They are a combination of perception and concept, and so, mathematics moves upward from perception to concept, whereas reality moves downward from concept to perception.

And so, we and all matter are localized within a dimensional plurality which is not entirely perceptual but is entirely conceptual. This is reflected in our awareness of qualities of reality that only ‘appear’ to us abstractly, as opposed to literally, e.g. color – qualities of which our consciousness is constructed in concert with qualities consciously perceived. The conceptual and perceptual qualities of matter combine in design to form the great machine, the universe, and the various mechanistic entities existing in it, all of which are conscious and directed by the thought, the will, the intention of God.

God is a free being, unfettered and unhindered. His consciousness knows no limitation, especially no limitation in terms of his creation. His intention manifests in the universe as a necessity of its being entirely his production, just as we find our imaginations to appear limitless and without restriction in the creation of our thoughts, our personal universe, our selves. We are able to do this as an extension of the nature of the universe, the nature of the matter of which we are made, and the nature of God as its maker.