The Physical Nature Of Time by Paul N Butler

Narendra,

I hope you are right that we agree on nearly all issues. When I was young it seemed to be important to me to have my own individual identity based on my accomplishments, so that I could feel good about myself and also have others think well of me, but as I have gotten older it is not something that I consider that important anymore. I began to look outward from myself and concentrate on learning more about the world around me rather than concentrating on myself. In the process I learned a lot about the world and that knowledge was then used by God to lead me to him. After I came to know of God I found that he is the one that truly deserves my concentration and that my identity is only as important as I am to him and is based on my relationship with him and not on anything in me of myself without him because we are made by him to fulfill his purpose for us. Our identity as members of his body is of more value and worth than anything that we could ever attain by our own works. My goal is more that people come to understand God more. It is not important that others understand me except as I through my words and deeds witness to them about God's love for them so that they come understand him. I gave my history more to show how when I was young and foolish God gave me the knowledge that I desired about the world even though I at first tended to use it to doubt his existence. He knew that my desire to really know the truth about things would work through the information that he gave me and the knowledge that came from it to make me see that the concepts that I originally held to that had made me to doubt his existence were false. This left me in the middle ground not doubting, but at the same time not believing either. By giving me information and knowledge that was not yet known to man on earth and then leading me to open and read the parts of the scriptures that contained that information, he guided me into belief in him. His putting up with me for all those years when I was often working against him by trying to cause believers in him to doubt him and doing other things that I later found out to be against his will and his gentle guidance to bring me to him, has shown me the depth of his love for us. The joy that comes from knowing of his love for us and being joined to him as a member of his body (the only truly important identity) far exceeds all the joy that I had previously obtained from learning about how the world works. Not only that, but he has since given me much more knowledge of his works both concerning this world and also other places that I could never have hoped to have gotten by myself without him. It is good to know that you to are free from the working world so that you can help those that seek your experience and knowledge. Remember though that people must first know that you exist and have experience and knowledge to give them before they can seek it from you so don't be afraid to offer help to others when you see that they could use it. Then you can let them decide if they want it and will then ask for it. Also be aware that some would desire to ask, but are too shy or embarrassed to do so. You may still be able to help them if you work it right. Another thing that I have seen is that when you give information to another, it may appear that it was not accepted at the time, but later you will observe that they do or believe the things that you told them and think that they thought of it themselves. Those that get their sense of worth from their accomplishments may be offended when they see this happen because they do not get the credit that they think they deserve, but to me it is just good to see that the person was helped. Maybe Carlo will get something useful from what we have offered to him that will help him later, as an example. Whether he answers or not is not necessarily important. Or maybe what was offered to him will help another who reads it you never know. It is all up to God. He just tells us to sow the seed. He is the one that makes it grow in the ones that he desires.

John,

I see your comment, but I need to get some sleep tonight so I can be awake for thanksgiving tomorrow as I am spending it with my youngest daughter's family. I will try to answer it Friday if all goes well.

Dear Paul,

You gave me a lengthy post too. But i welcome it after what you posted for me at Carlo 's essay, indicating something 'low civilization' in my context. Ours is one of the oldest civilization , over 5000 yrs. ur ancient literatures on Vidanta Philosophy contains tips for the purpose of life and how it should be lived. Then , the literature of Patanjali on Yoga/ meditation is also over 3000 yrs old. The latter i quoted in my essay too. i am sure your remarks about Indian civilization on Carlo's post may have come inadvertently. I respect all civilizations that have enriched the modern humanity. As our essay contest posts close very soon, we both in the group of old retirees need to end such 'controversies' pleasantly, spreading universal love for the entire humanity!

John,

You are right and yet religion is really the most important area of life to get a good understanding of because of its long term significance to all of us, as it can make the difference between long term life and death. I am glad that you don't question Jesus' existence and holiness. You are right that Jesus said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. This does not mean that any man can do the works that Jesus did by himself, however, or that Jesus was just another man. The next verse gives the answer as to how it works. There Jesus says, And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Notice that the man does not do the works himself, but asks Jesus and Jesus is the one that does the works and also notice that Jesus is doing the works in accordance with God the Father's desire so that God the Father is glorified in the works. Those two verses are John 14, 12 and 13. In verse 6 of the same chapter Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me. Here Jesus is saying in his own words that he is the mediator between God and man and the only way that a man can come to God is by him. This is very significant because he is saying that if a man tries to come to God in some other way he will not be able to do it because it is not acceptable to God for man to come to him in any other way. God the Father has set Jesus up as the only way to come to him. In addition he is saying that he is the source to go to for truth and life. It is true that some have come into the church and perverted the gospel of God and preached lies and done bad works, such as in the dark ages. It is interesting that the scriptures predicted that time saying that Satan's seat would be in the church implying that Satan would rule the church institution for that period. As far as whether he made it to heaven, Jesus said he was going to God the Father who by all accounts has his throne in heaven. There were many witnesses that saw him ascend up to heaven and since the apostles did preach the gospel as Jesus had done and also asked in Jesus' name and did other works that Jesus had done while he was on earth even bringing men back to life, etc. that would be another witness that he did get to heaven to the Father so he could fulfill his promise to do the works for them.

You are right that consciousness and knowledge are two different things. Consciousness has to do with our awareness inwardly of ourselves and outwardly of our surroundings. It has to do with our ability to observe and input information, from our bodies, our souls, our spirits and the external world that surrounds us. Knowledge is the result of the processing of those observations and that information. Knowledge can be in several forms. I will just give a couple so I don't get carried away too much. If you see a repetitive pattern such as the sun rising and setting every day, you will at some point store that pattern in your mind and then based on that stored knowledge you will make plans and predictions of the future based on that pattern. If you combine that knowledge with knowledge gained from other observations such as how many days each season lasts, you can determine the best time to plant crops, etc. in the future. Another type of knowledge comes from categorizing similar things into groups under one general name. Many large plants that all have the same general traits are grouped together and called trees, as an example. This allows us to work on things in the world in a more orderly and less time consuming manner. Our consciousness is mostly lived in the present. It is usually mostly involved with present observations. We can, of course, also put our attention on and observe our stored records of past events or look at our stored plans for the future. We can also consciously process observations from those sources using stored knowledge to gain more knowledge and wisdom, etc. You are right that knowledge is generally stored in the structure of our minds in the form of records of events and the results of our processing of those events that make up our stored records of the past. They can then be called up in a later present time and be used in processing new observations. When you talk about consciousness pushing the reset button and starting fresh, as a new generation are you talking about reincarnation or just that those of the next generation possess and carry on consciousness as an existence so consciousness continues and does not cease to exist?

Your concept of the universal state of oneness is somewhat like what God is talking about in the body of Christ in that under God the Father is his son Jesus Christ and under him we are all equal members of his body, all joined together into one body in him. On the other hand it is not God's intent that we be in the state of lack of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding as a little child or of stem cells that have not taken on their later useful forms. Instead he says that we will know as we are known. So as God knows us, in the body of Christ, in the world to come, we will also know him and each other and be able and willing to work together in love for one another for the gain of the whole.

With God, good and evil (bad) are considered to be so for two main reasons. First God made the world and knows how it works. The things that God calls good for us to do are those things such as to love him and one another, to have compassion on others, to have patience and long suffering with others, etc. that if followed by us will make for a better world to live in and a better existence for us in the world. The things that are called bad by God are those things such as killing others, stealing from others, committing adultery against your spouse, cheating others, bearing false witness against others, etc. that when done by us will destroy the world and men's lives and make the world a worse place for us to live in and make our lives in the world worse. The second reason is that God's intent is to create a body for himself and just like you would not like it if your body or some part of it decided to not do what you told it to do or to do things that you did not want it to do, in the same way God requires us to do as he desires for us to do because that is what is best for all of us, for the whole body, his son Jesus Christ, and for himself, so that we all enjoy and gain from working together as one. Therefore, not doing the things that God says are good or doing those things that he says are evil, is also rebelling against God, the head of the body and it is God's desire to protect the whole body from such actions that could destroy the whole body if left unchecked. That is why when we do good we are really doing doubly good because we are not only doing things in a way that will make a better more enjoyable life for ourselves and the rest of the body, we are also doing things in a way that pleases the one that made us and the rest of his body and has the right to expect that we do what he desires for us to do. When we do evil we are also doing double evil because we are not only doing things that will negatively affect us and the whole body, we are also doing things that displease the one that made us and, therefore, has the right to expect us to do that which pleases him. To give an example that might make things clearer, suppose that one of your hands decided to stop doing what you told it to do so that when you told it to get some food and put it in your mouth because your body was hungry it instead threw the food on the ground so that it became no longer edible. Also suppose that it would make rude gestures to bullies so that they would come and beat up your body. At some point in order for your body to survive you would likely take some action to cause it to stop doing such things. If you went to a doctor and he told you that it was due to some disease that was at that time only in your hand, but would spread to the rest of your body if you did not have the hand cut off, you would likely have it cut off to save the rest of the body. In the same way when someone disobeys God (sins) it causes a separation between him and God. In the world it is evident that when people do those things that God says are evil to others it tends to encourage the others to do the same thing back to get even and so the evil spreads from one person to the next and increases and works in the world to destroy men's lives and generally make life for all worse. The opposite can be seen when people do good. God has created the world in such a way as to provide for the needs and development of the members of his body. Other lower creatures are parts of the machinery that supply the needs of the body members. In an area that man has not expanded his control into, the foxes control the number of chickens so every thing remains in balance. When man enters into the area he reduces the number of foxes and uses the chickens for his food source. From God's stand point it was good when the foxes ate some of the chickens when man was not there because it maintained the balance that God desired. It was also good for man to reduce the fox population so that he could have food for himself because the rest of the creation is made to support the production of God's body members, which are men. You may be right that if the chicken could think at a high enough level, it might consider that any other creature that would eat it was doing evil from its viewpoint, but from the stand point of the one who made the whole creation to fulfill his purpose, that which helps to fulfill that purpose is good and that which works against its fulfillment is bad. I should note here that in the beginning the scriptures say that all animals ate plants. It was not until after sin entered into the world that animals began to eat each other or people began to eat animals. This is just another area where the negative effects of sin can be seen. It also says that it will be restored back to the way it was in the beginning again in the world to come in that man will eat fruit from trees.

Take your time and think it through thoroughly. Remember that energy possesses mass also, otherwise it would not be able to knock electrons out of atoms to cause the photoelectric effect. This mass is primarily caused by the angular motion effects caused by the fourth dimensional motion.

It is true that energy tends to travel away from its source at high speed due to its motions in the first four dimensions and that the fifth dimensional motion of matter that generates the angular motion components that produce the rest mass effect and causes motion to take a curved path tends to draw matter particles (mass) together. My point is that if that was all there was to it we would live in a world with one large central black hole composed of all the matter in the universe that would have collapsed there, and all of the energy that did not get pulled into the black hole would be speeding away from it in all directions at the speed of light. Our world does not look like that though. That is because the whole world is created in such a way as to generate a stable equilibrium between the outward movement of energy and the inward movement of mass at all levels of structure. This delicate balance between expansion and contraction and other things that show that the universe was designed to make life possible in our universe has recently been seen by many scientists and has been called the anthropic principle. This great evidence that the world was created by someone with great ability for a specific purpose has caused atheists to scramble to come up with some way to explain it away. The results are the various multiverse, megaverse, and landscape theories that invent an extremely large place that contains an extremely large number of universes of which ours is just one, so they can explain away the extreme improbability that our world would have come out the way that it did by chance. This large place has been put outside of any possibility of scientific observation and testing so it cannot be disproven. Of course from a scientific point of view it would have no more scientific validity than the belief that God created the universe since neither can be observed or tested. They are nevertheless hard at work to convince people otherwise. Let's see how gullible people really are. My guess (though I could be wrong and hope that I am) is that they will be proven once again to be very gullible. It probably would be possible to have consciousness in the sense that one could observe himself and the world around him and see that he exists, but not have the processing ability to analyze the incoming information to produce knowledge from it or lack the ability to store that knowledge for future use. In either case the world would just look like a place full of random motions and events. It may be that some lower animals might go through life close to that way. Or it could be that we live in and have our consciousness in the present and old motions pass us and recede away into our past when they no longer interact with us and new motions come to us as part of our next present instant.

I was not talking about the measuring devices (sensors) in particular although that could also enter into the picture. I was talking about matter that existed (say a five pound block of iron) in the container. When that container and the five pound block of iron in it got down to absolute zero, the matter particles would still possess their fourth and fifth dimensional motions and the matter particles in the iron block would still be moving in the iron atoms, etc. so that even though all the electrons in the iron atoms would be in their lowest state so they would not generate any photons that could interact with a sensor in the container, there still would be a lot of motion going on inside of the matter in the iron block at absolute zero. The same would go for the matter in the sensor and the walls of the container even if they were both at absolute zero. These motions that would still exist were never originally intended to be considered in the concept of absolute zero. It was only intended to describe a condition where all free motion had been removed from the system so that no transmission of energy would occur from the place that was at absolute zero. Later some people said that there would still be some transmission away from the area at absolute zero due to matter decay. If you take this viewpoint, you would only truly be able to consider a place to be at absolute zero after all of the matter in it had decayed into energy and that energy had dissipated from that place or to say it in a different way only empty space could be at absolute zero. If you do not take this extreme viewpoint, however, the standard view of absolute zero leaves much motion in the system. It is just trapped local motion that cannot be transmitted externally.

Narendra,

Sorry if you were offended by my comment. It was not aimed at the Indian civilization or any other particular civilization (you should see that I did not mention any particular civilization). It was merely a statement of fact that the name calling propaganda tactic is a very negative and destructive trait to a civilization and, therefore is a trait of a low level civilization that has not yet advanced to the point that it has been eliminated from use. In this world it goes back to very early primitive civilization structures even before the beginnings of the Indian civilization. In this world, it has been propagated to the present on the coat tails of other negative civil structures that have not been replaced because of their perceived value to the control structures in the system. The problem is that those who are in control of the civilization and its advancement are not necessarily interested in the advancement of the civilization as much as they are interested in maintaining their position of control and maximizing their preferential gain that comes from that position. They realize that if all people were educated so that they could intelligently analyze all incoming data such things as the name calling device would not be effective any more and would pass away, but to them this would be a negative thing because they would no longer be able to easily deceive people into believing that something that would selfishly take from the people (and transfer it to them in order for them to get more for themselves) would be a good thing for the people that took the loss. It is, in general therefore, perceived by them to be better for them to keep most of the people at a low level of intellectual ability so they can get what they want from them and maintain control over them. In general the more that a civilization encourages and acts in accordance to the truth the more advanced it is and the more equitable and better will be the lives of all the members of the civilization. The more that the civilization functions on the basis of using lies, deceit and brute force to control the population the less advanced (more primitive) that the civilization is. On the surface one could say that this device could be used to overcome a bad argument as well as a good one, but in practice it is usually used more to try to defend a bad (false) argument because a good argument can be better defended by use of logical arguments based on the truth since the good argument is based on the truth. When an argument is stating the truth, if others analyze it and find out that truth, it only strengthens the argument. If the argument is a lie, if others analyze it and find out that it is a lie, the argument is destroyed. The name calling device and other such devices that are used to distract others from actually analyzing the argument are, therefore, almost exclusively used to defend a faulty or inferior argument. This and other such devices have been responsible for the propagation of lack of advancement, strife and wars over protracted periods of time throughout man's history and yet they have not been eliminated because they are supported by those that control the structure and see it in their advantage to continue their use. Since their use is so pervasive in the current world, people sometimes use them without thinking of what they are actually doing and the negative effects that can result. Civilization structuring is a vast subject and would require one to write a large book on it to even scratch the surface, but in the interest of saving your eyes from too much strain, I have tried to keep my answer as short as I could and still give enough detail so you could see that my statement was directed at the name calling device's status in terms of its placement in the advancement of civilization as a trait associated with a low level civilization. The age of a civilization does not necessarily translate into advancement level. This is because negative traits in a civilization can stagnate and delay its advancement or even reverse previous advancement so I give age very little importance in evaluating a civilization's advancement level. It would certainly please me for the knowledge of God's love for man to be spread to all men. It would please me much more if after learning about God's love all men would come to God and receive him and be joined into the body of Christ and be saved.

Paul,

I do take the extreme view of absolute zero. "Absolute" is not a subjective term. Energy and mass are interchangeable, so how do you have mass, yet say there is no energy?

I also push my religion to the limit, as well. To me, the default state, the absolute is "empty space," not a point. That's why I disagree with the fundamental assumption of both monotheism and Big Bang Theory. A point is a singularity, not the absolute. If you have one point, there is the potential for other points. As I see it, the points are effect and the fluctuation of the vacuum, the empty space, is the cause. Points are nodes in the network. They form as vortices of structure in this sea of virtual energy.

Good and bad are polarities. We are attracted to what holds our sense of self together and repelled by what breaks us apart, whether we are a chicken, a human, a government, or a religion. Do you think it is possible to have good without bad, anymore then it is possible to have up without down? We don't want our bodies to come apart, but they do. Whatever has a beginning has an end.

As for consciousness, I see it as something elemental, rather than a form which may be reincarnated. Not to say there might be some mental structures telegraphed through the generations, but my area of expertise is in dealing with animals and registering where their sense of self is focused. Also I have a teenaged daughter, so I've been educated about the Twilight series and vampires. Having that clue imbedded in my thinking, I've been noticing the concept being mentioned in various media as an analogy for the way that people plug into and feed of other's emotional space.

I think the essential point between physics and the psyche is whether structure or energy is more fundamental. As I've said, I see energy and information as two sides of the same coin, but our society is essentially based on structure as cause and energy as effect. In other words, nouns exist, verbs happen. Yet it seems the reality is the opposite. without the motion, there is no real physical basis. The "strings" are just external vibration and internal dimension.

As this applies to western monotheistic concepts, it seems our religions are determined to find the meaning in life, but the problem is that the concept of "meaning" is essentially static and reductionistic. What is left when all the "meaningless" chaff and extraneous details are blown and distilled away. Yet reality is wholistic and dynamic. No matter how much we postulate "block time" and "laws" it is still the motion and emotion which is the basis for all structure and knowledge. As individuals, we have purpose, or we cease to exist, as our energy and the hand of the clock moves on to other uses and others times. The information of our self falls into the past, as what is conscious moves into the future.

John,

I thought you might like that interpretation of absolute zero. You will probably like the next even more extreme idea about absolute zero as well and that is that absolute zero can never be achieved in any very large area of space or for any very long time if you believe in current quantum theory because of quantum fluctuations that would cause energy photons or matter particles to just pop in and out of existence randomly in your test area. So if you believe in absolute zero as empty space and you also believe in current quantum theory, absolute is not an attainable concept to you, at least as far as temperature is concerned. I don't say that I don't have energy when I have mass. To me the true energy behind both mass and photons is motion. Both matter particles that possess rest mass due to the angular motion components caused by their fourth and fifth dimensional motions and photons that possess dynamic mass due to the angular motion components of their fourth vector motion possess the true energy of motion and these motions along with their motions in the first three dimensions define and generate these entities and their interactions. My point was that originally absolute zero generally meant to most people that there would be absolutely no free energy in the system, not that there would be no energy at all in the system. That is why temperature sensors designed to measure such low temperatures were designed to only sense free energy not the internal motions of mass structures. They do exactly what they are designed to do and no more. As you can see there are at least three different levels of meaning to the concept of absolute zero and if one uses that term and does not specify which one he means, it can lead to confusion. This is common with a lot of words in use today. That is why I will often give an example or say the same thing again using different words in order to try to better pass on to others the meaning that I am applying in my statement.

It looks like your default state or absolute of empty space cannot be attained or truly exist according to current theories. The points, however, apparently can exist and can even pop into existence randomly anywhere. They seem to have control over the empty space and can even destroy it by their appearance because when they appear the space is no longer empty. It has ceased to exist as empty space. Beside that, if the empty space is a sea of virtual energy is it really empty even when no particles have appeared in it? I do agree that the empty space came first and then the points (motions) were added later. That is because God created the basic dimensional system first that would store the motions and then added the motions later. I can understand your viewpoint on the big bang theory because it starts with a single point, but I do not see how you extrapolate that to the concept of one God. I have not seen anything that would suggest that God exists as a single point. It is often considered that he exists everywhere much like the empty space in terms of coverage of a large area. If it is that there is only one of him and that seems to you to be a problem, consider that the empty space is just one all pervasive entity also. If I am not seeing your point please explain it in more detail.

It seems possible to have just good or evil and not both. First since God made both good and evil as part of this creation to fulfill his purpose of creating a body for himself, so we could see the bad effects of evil first hand and be led to chose to do good instead of evil, if we learn and don't do evil in the world to come, evil would no longer exist in practical terms. Another way that evil could be eliminated by God if he chose to do it that way would be for him to create the new world in such a way that anything we could do there would work for good and not evil. There could not be anything that was evil then because all things that we could do would be allowed and would not be evil as they would all work for good. It is also possible to have up and not have down in a world with monodirectional dimensions. People just limit themselves too much in their concepts. I have found that many of these thought limitations come from eastern religious philosophies that sound good on the surface, but have many logical inconsistencies with reality and logical thought extrapolations. It is true that in the world that we can observe, it seems that all things (including the world itself) have a beginning point and an end point of existence. It is also true though that each new beginning seems to be caused by something that is already in existence. If we extrapolate that back out to the beginning of the world, it would seem to suggest that something had to be in existence before our world in order to cause it to come into existence. Since the existence that caused our world to begin is not a part of our world, we would have no compelling evidence that the need for a beginning or an end that we see in our world would apply to that existence.

It is evident that the part of our minds that is made of matter and energy photons (the brain) is lost when we die as it breaks down after death. The spirit and the part of our soul that is not made of matter and energy may, however, continue to exist. In the scriptures those who are God's people are raised from the dead at the second coming of Jesus Christ and live with him on this earth for one thousand years in reconstructed bodies. Later at the end of this world all the others are raised from the dead for the final judgment. This world is done away with and a new world replaces it. Those that are saved live with God in his body in the new world from then on. People and at least some of the higher animals do communicate to others by body language (the way they look at you, stance, etc.) things about how they feel, etc. I have not seen that movie or the concept in the media so I can't comment on those things, as you did not give enough specifics.

The truth is that structure and energy are the different sides of the same coin of motion because both matter particles (your structure) and energy photons (your energy) are composed of the same more basic thing, which is motion. Both matter particles and energy photons contain information. Both contain information such as position, direction, and motion amplitude for each of their motions in the first four dimensions. Matter particles also contain the same information for their fifth dimensional motion. The most fundamental thing is the dimensional system because it not only contains the information that defines itself, but that information forms the framework that determines the specific needed information elements that each entity (motion) that exists within it must have in order to function fully and properly within it. It also contains the information that determines how the motions in the different dimensions work and interact together to form larger scale entities such as energy photons and matter particles.

Another word for meaning is information. It can be either static (within a dimension the part of its meaning that it is bi-directional remains the same) or dynamic (within a motion entity the part of its meaning that describes its direction within a bi-directional dimension can change). As an example, in a single dimension world a specific motion's meaning is defined in a way that separates it from all other motions by its position, direction, and motion amplitude information (its meaning or information structure). To remove all meaning is to remove all existence. Reality is the complete combination of all meaning and is composed of all of the individual meaning or information entities that exist. Motion and emotion both are concepts composed of information or meaning. If you remove their meaning or information entities, they also cease to exist. According to the scriptures, God has given all of us purpose. As individuals we can choose to become members of his body (the best choice of purpose) and continue with him in the world to come or the choice can be made to not join the body, which is the same as choosing to be a part of the machinery that is used to make, prepare, and support the body members while they are in this world. At death the body dies and over time deteriorates and turns back into dust. The soul and spirit are stored in one of three places until they are resurrected in either the first or second resurrection. Those who are of God continue with him in his body in the new world. The others are destroyed. You are describing what those of this world can see because you cannot see or detect the soul or spirit. In this world all that is seen is the death of the body when the spirit leaves it. The spirit and soul and the places that they go to are not seen. Remember nothing can go into the future, as only the present really exists.

Paul,

I agree with you that the absolute state, as I've described it so far, cannot be attained, or we wouldn't be here having this conversation. There is another facet to the absolute though, which is that it is both nothing and everything. Both the empty state and all energy contained by it. The difference between this state of oneness and a set of one, is that if you were to separate out ANY part of this energy or space, neither the isolated part, or the rest would be absolute, but relational to what is measured. That is why I have problems with monotheism, is that it conflates the absolute state with the set of one. The set is a distinction, as you make clear, between what is included and what is excluded. The problem is that any shape, form, distinction, knowledge, relationship, etc. is based on this breaking of the absolute. When you insist it is possible to have this state of subjective perfection, where good can exist without bad, where pleasure can exist without pain, where up can exist without down, you create hubris. As the old saying goes, the perfect is enemy of the good. We have to have movement, yet it needs to keep some perspective of the opposing elements, the blowback, in mind. There is no happy medium, as that is the flatline on the heart monitor. The absolute as nothing. So in order to feel, the price we pay is that some of it is pain.

John,

How do you perceive this energy to be generated or if it is always there how is it hidden at times and seen at other times? What is the mechanism behind it (its structure and interaction rules or that which determines when it manifests itself and in what form)? You seem to be suggesting that this empty space/energy state exists, but that it should just be accepted as fact without attempting to understand it and how it works, because to do so would be to break it into parts and you would then not have the whole any more, but only the parts. There is the concept that the whole is the sum of the parts, so that if you can understand all of the parts and how they work together in the whole, you can then understand the whole. Even if you say the whole can be more than the sum of its parts, learning about the parts and how they work and interact can get one closer to understanding the whole. This is how most science is done. It may then be possible to work with the whole to learn the rest. That is not to say that one cannot start with observing the whole and learn of it and how it works from that end also. That is usually how I work. It seems to me that if you join the absolute of empty space (the maximum state of nothing) with the absolute of all energy (the maximum state of all things) into one, you have by definition broken both of the absolutes (empty space and energy) and what you get is a non absolute combination of the two rather than an absolute of oneness. If the empty space contains the something of energy it is no longer empty space because it contains something and if energy contains empty space it is no longer the state of absolute energy because it now contains empty space where no energy can exist. Our world works this way in that you have some areas that can be called empty space and some areas that contain much material substance and energy and all of the variations in between those two states. You seem to be fixated on the extremes when the real world works in the middle ground of the combination of the extremes in most cases. The true joining together of empty space and energy into one entity that combines the two while allowing the two to still exist as absolutes is not possible because the two contain mutually exclusive properties. The presence of one destroys the absoluteness of the other because the absoluteness of one is the absence of the other. Empty space is the absence of energy because space with energy in it is not empty, as an example. If you are just saying that the oneness is the universe as a whole and, therefore, includes both the empty space and all the energy (motion) within it then I can agree that it could possibly be considered a state of oneness or of an existence as a whole. Within the universe, it is not that the two exist completely joined, but at the same time completely separate absolutes. Instead they are joined together and work together in many ways to generate all the complexity of the structure of our world by giving up their absolute conditions. Again, you could conceive of a world in which one half of the space is completely empty and the other half is completely filled with a uniform level of energy throughout it with a separation between the two areas so there could be no interaction between the two. You would then have a world that contained both the absolute of empty space and the absolute of energy, but it would be a very uninteresting world to live in as nothing would be happening. You have pointed out all of these dualities and there are many in this world. What I am pointing out is that the real interesting part of existence (where all the action is) is generally not at the absolute extremes of the dualities, but in the middle between the extremes where the two opposites of the duality join together to generate the entities that make up our world. It is the breaking of the absolutes that generates reality. There are things in our world, of course, that do not exhibit dualities. Electromagnetism contains the duality of both attraction and repulsion, but gravity only exhibits attraction. The fact that some things exist that do not express duality shows that duality is not a requirement of existence. The next consideration is whether things that do express duality could have been made in such a way that they could exist without the duality. I have already demonstrated that it would be possible to do so. With mono-directional dimensions in which you could only travel one way down the dimension it would be possible to remove the duality of up and down. In a three dimensional world made of such dimensions, instead of in and out, left and right, up and down, you might have in, right, and up, but there would be no opposites because you could not travel down the dimensions the other way. Those dualities would not exist in such a world. If the megaverse/landscape theory was true, there would likely be many worlds out there somewhere that did not contain the same dualities as those in our world and probably some that would not contain any dualities in their construction. You are right that in the beginning before God created the world he existed as the absolute set of one. It was by the breaking off of a part of himself (breaking the absolute) and using that separated part to create the world that he was able to create the shapes, forms, distinctions, knowledge, and relationships that exist in the world. I have already demonstrated that not all things in this world possess opposite dualities. I also demonstrated that at least some dualities that exist in this world could have been avoided by constructing the world in a different way. Because we see so many things in this world that possess opposite duality properties it is easy to think that there is no other way that things could have been done, but this is not really true. Dualities are useful, as they produce choices. If God had not created both Good and evil, it would not have been possible for us to choose his way (the good) or some other opposite way (the evil). It suited his purpose to have that duality in the world so that he could show us the bad results of not following his (good) way. His desire is not that we be in the middle in that duality both doing good and bad, but that we learn how bad the evil really is and that we then grow up and learn to do just the good and not the bad. In this particular duality the absolute of good is what is desirable. The opposite absolute of bad and the middle ground are not the acceptable positions to be in. In reality, however God says that we can not obtain that absolute by ourselves. We can only obtain it by God keeping us from temptations and keeping us from doing evil. He does promise to do that for us under certain conditions. In those that are God's the duality of good and evil disappears because his people only do the good so the manifestation of the evil disappears. In the world to come where all the people that remain are God's people, evil would effectively be eliminated by the fact that no one would make the bad choice. My intent is not to be insolent or arrogant and pride or passion has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am just making observations of the world and the scriptures and extrapolating them out to logical conclusions. There are many old sayings. Some are good and some are not or are of limited use. In your example saying, if the perfect and the good are one and the same they are friends not enemies. We live in this world and in it are many dualities that have aspects that are bad to us. They are there because God made them so we could learn how to make the best choices. If all of the people in the world only made the best choices many of the negative dualities would effectively disappear from our observation because their negative effects are the result of bad choices being made. It is reasonable that after we have learned our lessons from this world, so that we make the right choices, we may no longer need some or all of those choices to be available to us in the world to come, so the new world may be made with different dualities. Not all dualities have good and bad opposites. You can have your tea hot or cold, but as long as you like it both ways the opposites can both be good to you. Although I have given you one case where an absolute is the good choice (good better than evil), most of the world is composed in that medium between absolutes where they work together to generate structure in that the opposing absolutes create a stable equilibrium of motions that compose all of the energy and matter entities that exist in our world. In that case it is the absolutes of the outward motions of the first four dimension's motions counteracted by the inward motion of the fifth dimension's motion that generate all the structure of matter that is such an important part of our existence in this world. In that case it is the absolutes of either just the outward motion or just the inward motion without the other that creates the flat line dead world. So to sum it all up, God made some of the dualities so he could use them in the construction of the world. Others he made so we could make choices and learn to make the best choices. In some cases the middle ground choice is used by God or given as the best choice to us. In other cases an absolute choice is used by God or given to us as the best choice. In some cases God works without using dualities at all, but only allows one choice or path to follow.

Paul,

You do a good job of expressing the difficulties in describing the conceptual extreme of the absolute. Though I would argue to separate energy from the vacuum would be a distinction and negate the absolute. The absolute is the universal state. Since energy is neither gained or lost by it, there is no transfer of energy. When you make distinctions within this state, they are relational to each side of the distinction, not to some outer standard. Even if you isolate a very small part of the infinity as the point of reference, then all of infinity is relative to that reference. Using gravity as an example of a singular polarity may be dangerous to your argument if an opposing polarity were discovered. Essentially Einstein postulated the Cosmological Constant as the opposite polarity to gravity and dark energy has been measured to fit within this model, as a potential Cosmological Constant. You argue it is possible to have motion in one direction without necessarily having motion in the other direction. While it may be possible your point of reference only moves in one direction and never goes the other direction, how do you reference it? There has to be some broader field of reference which is effectively moving in the opposite direction of your point of reference. It's like saying the sun only moves one direction around the earth, but the fact is the earth rotates the opposite direction.

Many of the most evil people in history, Hitler and Stalin come to mind, succeeded at what they did, not because they committed those crimes personally, but because they convinced the people around them that there was only one way to go and therefore anyone who got in their way must be wrong. We are inherently attracted to what is beneficial and repelled by what is detrimental, but reality is complicated and what might be good from one perspective, is bad from another. Our current economic paradigm of unlimited growth for everyone on earth is a good example of short term benefit and long term disaster. Government economic policies which mitigate economic swings are an example of trying to balance these counteracting effects.

To me there are two sides of this reality, the expanding, entangled radiant energy and the collapsing discrete structured order. So even though this discrete gravitational mass seems particlized, it is still composed of and contained within the energy field, just as those relative distinctions exist within the absolute. So reality is this field of energy, of which structure is condensing out of, just as the order of the past collapses out of the complexity of the present, with the chaos of the future providing the wave of potential, as the expanding energy must collapse in order to keep the cycle going, yet all within the universal field.

John,

Thank you. I notice that you now have substituted the concepts of the empty state/space with vacuum. This is an important distinction because although it originally had the same connotation in the past as empty space, the concept of the vacuum is now not generally considered the same as empty space. In the present context it would be more appropriate to consider the vacuum as an all pervasive something (your energy) than as nothing. If you want to consider the space involved you could call it filled space rather than empty space because it would be filled with that energy. If all of space was filled with such energy the concept of empty space would disappear because it would not be possible to actually have any empty space. So there would not be any dualism in this case. You would be left with only the absolute state of all space filled with the all pervasive energy with no opposite alternative absolute. From that point it would only be a matter of whether a particular area of space was filled with this energy in a form that we cannot detect or with the energy in a form such as photons or matter particles that we can detect. From that state, in order for the concept to have any practical application you would then need to define how this energy would change to generate photons and matter particles, etc. Ideally you would show how this production can be controlled to generate desired results such as to form a new car for you to use, or to produce propulsion for your space ship etc. You would also need to define any interactions that photons and matter particles, etc. could have with the energy in its other undetectable form as they traveled through it. As far as the danger of discovery of opposing forces to gravity destroying my argument are concerned, I should say that so far in this very early experimental phase of information transfer, I have kept all of the information that has been presented within a vary narrow dispersion angle to man's present technology understandings. This means that I have of necessity presented concepts and used examples that are incomplete in their depth. In some cases I have used examples that make it easier to transfer the basic concepts that do not, however, actually represent the true reality of how the thing exists in reality. I have done this for two reasons. First it is often much easier to begin to present a concept in a way that avoids many of the more difficult areas of the subject. This is done to keep the material within the acceptable dispersion angle so it has some chance of being accepted by the desired audience. The second reason is to avoid giving information that is beyond that level which is acceptable to give at this time. You may have noticed that I did give a simplified example of a possible interface structure between the first three dimensions and the fourth dimension in my paper, but I only gave a relatively vague description of the effects caused by the fifth dimensional interface, as an example. There are many places and things that exist in the creation that man is currently completely unaware of, even within the acceptable range of currently allowable advancement in fourth vector structuring technology, so if I began to attempt to discuss these things it would appear to others as too far out to believe. If the information is given in small amounts, with time for each amount to be incorporated into present knowledge so that new things will be discovered, then the next more advanced amount if information will not seem so far out because the new discoveries will prepare the minds to receive it within their then larger context of understanding. It will then be understood that the examples that were only in part or in some cases were even not completely according to reality were just vehicles to gently move the mind from a state of a great error to the truth through a series of lesser and lesser errors or generalizations. I would guess that if these experiments do not generate any direct fruit, but at the same time if this material is somehow preserved for access to those in the future, it would likely cause those that read it a couple hundred years from now to on the one hand wonder how I knew some of the things that I am presenting and on the other hand they would wander how it would be that some of the things presented would indicate a lack of in depth knowledge and even a perceived belief in erroneous concepts. If this section is preserved, however, it may be less confusing to them. Then they will just wander how much I really did know. Sub energy effects and the effects that lower fifth vector structural levels have on our level are greatly responsible for perceived dark energy effects. It is true, however, that there are exceptions to many of the scientific beliefs that are currently believed to be true. It is possible using advanced fifth vector structuring technology, for example, to transfer (travel) to a planet in a distant galaxy within a single structural frequency cycle of the particles that are transferred. It is even possible using alternate cycle transfers (or more advanced methods) to effectively be both there and here at the same time. The same technology can be used to transfer energy from a distant star to earth to in effect provide what would be looked at by today's usage standards to be a limitless supply of energy. The resulting excess low level energy can be transferred away from earth into space to preserve the planet's ambient energy level to be within acceptable limits by the same technique. All of these things violate the present belief of the maximum transfer rate as the speed of light. They take advantage of variations in size and distance through multiple structural levels that are not yet understood by man in this world. A world constructed using mono-directional dimensions would certainly be a much different place to live in (if life would be possible) than this world. It would have many limitations that we do not have. We should be thankful that God was wise enough and benevolent enough to us to use bi-directional dimensions to give us a better place to live than that. In such a world rotary motion would not be possible because it requires motions in opposite directions. In order to rotate, parts of the earth must move in one direction in a dimension while other parts must move in the opposite direction in the same dimension.

It is true that those who are evil tend to spread that evil to others if they can. It is also true that we tend to look at those things that are pleasant to us as good and those things that are unpleasant to us as bad. Part of the problem that we have as individuals is the lack of a true global perspective of how our actions affect the world as a whole both now in the present and also in the long term. The only true global perspective can be obtained by someone that can at least observe the whole structure and has determined all the details of how it works. The only one who has this perspective is the one that created the whole structure and that is God. When God says that we should do something (the good) or that we should not do something (the evil or bad) it is not because that will give us the most immediate pleasure. It is because it is what will work the best for all of us both now and in the long run based on how he knows that the world that he created works. Without the global perspective that God gives, man is destined to destroy himself. This is mainly due to the fact that man by himself not only has a lack of understanding of what the long term effects of his actions will be, he also has built in laws that will cause him (if he does not receive the other information from God to change his actions) to be willing to cause even great suffering to others in order for him to gain even a small amount of pleasure for himself. As an example, God has created the world so that we have limited lifetimes in this world because this world is meant to prepare us for a better life in another better world as members of his body. We, therefore, do not need an eternal existence in this world any more than a car needs to remain forever in the factory where it was produced, neither is it truly desirable to have such, as our condition is better once we leave here if we become members of God's body. In order to continue the process of making more body members he has made us so that we have children that can become the next body members after we leave this world. It is his intent that as a part of our preparation to become body members, we take care of the children and bring them up to be prepared to become the next body members. Because it is a lot of work to properly raise children he has provided that two people a man and a woman are required to have a child and has commanded that they join together in a lifelong commitment of marriage to each other to allow the burden of raising the children to not be too great. He has also commanded that no one engage in sexual relations with any one other than that one's spouse so that unwanted children will not be brought into the world resulting in them not being properly taken care of. Each generation first gains the benefit of being taken care of by their parents when they are young and then returns that benefit to the next generation by taking care of their own children later. If we do these things according to his will everything works alright because we are working in agreement with the way that the world is structured to work. Without God as the guide, however, each individual will do things according to his local perspective colored by his desire to mainly only consider his own gain without regard to how others are affected. What tends to happen is that an individual will think of sexual relations as good under all conditions because of the pleasure gained from the act. The long term results such as unwanted children being brought into the world or the increased spread of diseases from having multiple partners, will not be considered because the gain perverts the person's judgment (God says that a gift (gain) perverts judgment (this is why scams always offer a promise of a gain to the sucker)). Each person goes into the act looking only for selfish pleasure and not for any true relationship with the other person. If a disease is contracted the person will likely rationalize that it is still ok to continue to have relations with others even though the result is to pass the disease on to them also. If the result is a child the man will likely rationalize away his part in making the child and feel no obligation to take care of the child. This leaves the mother to take care of the child alone, which is a great burden for one person to do and not possible for one person to do properly unless she is wealthy. In order to continue to have their pleasure and not have to bear the burden of properly taking care of the unwanted children they are likely to decide that it is good to kill the children so they won't have to take care of them. This, of course is not good to the children, but they are not in a position to do anything about it so they must just suffer the loss of their lives for the selfish pleasure of their parents. When the concept that it is not wrong to take a life in order to assure one's pleasure becomes established, it is easy to see why a woman would not consider it wrong to throw the child in the trash after it is born to escape the work of raising the child. This principle will then spread to other areas as well. It will be reasoned that those who are crippled or too old to take care of themselves should be killed to save all the labor that goes into caring for them. Later it will get to the point that those on top will consider only those who give them gain will be worthy to live. At some point the whole system breaks down in chaos and no one gets much pleasure as they fight to just survive. This is the difference between following God's global perspective (the one who designed the system) and man's self oriented limited local perspective. It is not wrong to attempt to help those who are in need around the world to get to where they are able to take care of themselves and to take care of the ones that can't take care of themselves. The problem is that the intent is not to truly give all people the best lives they can have, but only to give those on top the best lives that they can have by shifting most resources to them while giving every one else less. This can only be done for so long and then the lower and middle class people get so much in debt that they cannot pay so once again the system breaks down into a depression. God has provided a way for man to live so that all have enough resources to have a good life. Current government economic policies tend to work to consolidate wealth in the hands of the wealthy while removing it from the others so that they must continue to work and work harder generally for less in return.

What is the mechanism that causes a matter particle to condense out of the energy field? How is some of the field changed into a matter particle? What is the structural difference between the energy field and the matter particle? What causes the expanding energy field to expand in the first place and what then causes it to contract? If the universal field is not the same as the energy field, what does it do? Is it static or does it expand and contract along with the energy field, etc.? Does it generate the energy field or matter particles or act upon them in any way or is it just a medium in which they exist? The past has no order as it does not really exist except in our minds. The future also does not really exist except in our minds so it does not have chaos.

Paul,

I've been meaning to reply to the above post, but work, family and the flood of other submissions has consumed whatever time I have.

As for the distinction between empty space and the vacuum, it seems the energy filling this space is balanced between positive and negative. Matter and anti-matter. So it's like a point I may have raised previously, that zero isn't a point between 1 and -1, as it is the absence of any point, but with the potential for any point, ie, empty space. It's like the nadir of a swinging pendulum is the point where it swings fastest from one side to the other, but is still drawn to.. While effectively being nothing, it has the greatest degree of freedom, as definition is limitation and limitation is definition. Like the line from the old song, Me and Bobbie Magee, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose."

This also has to do with how we live and perceive our lives. Like the pendulum, when it seems we have traveled so long in one direction that it seems the only way to go, but the situation is slowed, we wait for things to pick up again. Sometimes though, the inconceivable is happening and we are going to start going the other direction. I think this applies to some of our scientific, political, religious and economic assumptions. With so much change dominating our lives, time seems linear, but for most of life, it is cyclical.

Reread with devotion the long postings of Paul and John and some others again. i am wiser about the nature of the world and the humans who inhabit it. Learning is life but we need to assimilate the same to be good in our actions towards the society around and the world at large. We tend to solve some problems in science ( it is true for personal lives too ) and new ones arise, it is a never ending business to make our life interesting. Let us all enjoy the opportunity this essay contest have provided. The organizers may have a tough time digesting all the contents of over 150 essays and thousands of postings!

John,

I understand that we all have other things that we need to do in life. Next to some other ways of serving God, taking care of the family is the most important thing to do in life.

It would seem to me that if space is the balance between matter and anti-matter, the matter and anti-matter must exist in other places that both feed into our space and if the amount of matter that feeds a certain area of space is equal to (balances with) the amount of anti-matter that feeds the same area of space the result in that area of space is empty space. What are these places where the matter and anti-matter exist and how do they interact with our space? It would also seem that if matter and anti-matter came together, the result would be that they would cancel out leaving only empty space, but in reality when matter and anti-matter meet the matter and anti-matter are converted into energy photons and not empty space. Only that portion of the entities that gives them their rest mass and allows them to remain in one place is cancelled out (their fifth dimensional motion (anti-matter's motion travels in the opposite direction in the fifth dimension compared to that of matter, so the opposite angular components of the two entities are canceled out and the fifth dimensional motions are transferred back into the fourth dimension causing the entities to become photons)). Although the state of being of nothing could be looked upon as the ultimate state of freedom because there are no limiting rules of definition to constrain the nothing, the lack of existence that comes from being in that state is really the ultimate restriction of action, because nothing can do nothing. Definition (information) actually creates things that an entity can be and do. The true ultimate freedom would be to contain all possible information so that we could know and do all things without limitation. We could make all possible choices and have all possible abilities, so we would always be able to make the right or most appropriate decision and take the best action for any situation. We see this in our everyday lives. The more information that we gain about ourselves and the world around us as we grow up from an infant to fully grown individuals, the more freedom we gain to allow us to control our lives. As an example a person might say that as a man you are limited by your definition (the rules that make you up (your internal information)), so that you are limited such that you can't fly. In reality it is a lack of information that causes you to not be able to fly. If your definition included that you had large enough and strong enough wings you would be able to fly. It could even include the ability to generate enough gas to allow you to be jet powered in your flight.

That is a good point because we do live in a world with many repetitive cycles. Science is greatly dependent on repetitive cycles because the scientific method is based on observations and the results of tests that can be repeated. Valid scientific laws and relationships are generally based on such repetitive cycles. In science the presence of repetitive cycles in theoretical concepts, however, is often an indication of a lack of understanding of the true nature in reality of the concept, relationship, or entity that is explained by the theory. A good example of this is the wave/particle concept of energy. At various times in the past such energy has been considered to exist as a wave, while at other times it has been believed to be a particle. In more recent times the two concepts have been somewhat joined together, but the underlying structure that generates both effects is still not for the most part greatly understood by man in this world. When one understands the fourth dimension, its interface with the first three dimensions, and how an entity's motion in the fourth dimension affects how the entity appears to us, it becomes apparent that it is truly neither a wave or a solid billiard ball type particle, but a much more complex variable structure in the lower three dimensions. Political cycles are more visible in countries like the United States where the visible rulers are replaced every few years, often by those that express great differences in beliefs from the ones that they replace. This does not mean, however, that such apparent cycles are not used by those with wealth and power to further their agendas by doing those things that are a part of their agenda that fit into the part of the cycle that they are in at the time. In the same way variations in economic cycles can be generated and used to make changes to further such agendas. In religion, one of the major overall cycles starts when God selects a people to be his (usually a downtrodden or mistreated group). He builds them up and gives them great wealth, power and many other benefits. Once they become rich and powerful, etc., however, they think that they no longer need God, so they leave him and go off and worship false gods or deny his existence completely. God then takes away their riches, power and other benefits that he gave them and puts them under the power of others that misuse them again. At some point when life gets bad enough, they cry out to God to deliver them from the ones that are treating them badly and the cycle starts over again. Man never seems to learn from past experience to avoid repeating the cycle by staying with God. Of course, some individuals do learn that lesson and stay with God and in the long run we all leave this world as individuals not as composite groups, so God's purpose is accomplished any way. The last forty to fifty years in the United States is a good example of this cycle in action, although the cycle has not yet quite completed. There have been a few cases where a good ruler comes in and brings the people back to God, so the people escape the cycle for a period of time at least while that leader is in power, so there is always the possibility to avoid the suffering if the people repent and return to God before the punishment comes. I would not bet on that happening now in this case though. It is true that the long periods and slow cycle rates of many cyclical motions in this world make it difficult to observe, recognize, and understand many of the cycles that exist here, especially the more complex ones, such as the one mentioned above, but if one knows what to look for they can still be seen. We can only recognize such cycles because we can record present motion conditions and then later look back through them to see the repetitive patterns that exist in them.

Narendra,

Thanks for the compliments.

Yes, we do seem to wander off the subject of time, though it all ties together at a fundamental level.

Paul,

I hadn't thought in terms of matter/antimatter stored in other dimensions, though this seems to be the dimension with the preponderance of matter over anti-matter. I've wondered whether matter/anti-matter isn't somehow tied up in positive and negative polarities and thus bound up in the nature of mass. You do bring it back to this space by pointing out they both bounce out as light. That makes sense to me, as I tend to view light(expansion) as the opposite of mass(contraction).

I also understand nothing would be no freedom, since it would be nothing, but the idea is that zero isn't the dimensionless point, since that is something, even if it is virtual. If you just had two points, you wouldn't describe one as zero and the other as one. They would two separate points. One point can be designated the zero, but the only inherent neutral position would be midway between the two points and that would be a third point! Since one point can't be zero, than zero has to be empty. As in the potential for any point, anywhere. Even those which don't exist. What you can't escape is the notion of space, not as some form of "fabric" of frame, but the complete absence of any absolute reference. So space is the essence of non-being, just as matter and energy are the essence of being.

As for the freedom of definition, the description you use is a function of time, that as we grow and can make more informed decisions, the more options are open to us, but the fact remains that as we make these decisions, the alternatives are lost to us. As well as the alternatives presented by the alternatives. When we chose one fork in the road, not only do we not explore the road not taken, but have no knowledge of the options it might provide. It's like the old saying that the more we know, the more we know that we don't know.

With your description of how God operates you show the conceptual limits to the model. What you are describing is a convective cycle, as it is expressed in human activity. When those at the bottom have the energy, the direction and the opportunity, they rise up and expand, just as hot water rises up and expands though cool water, thus cooling down so that it eventually sinks as more hot water rises up. Whether it's geology, or geopolitics, the pattern holds. As an example, look at Israel. For millennia the Jewish people have been under pressure and directed this energy to creating a strong and resilient culture, much like pressure turns carbon into diamond. Then after the holocaust, they saw the opportunity to rise up and claim their piece of ground. Now they are on top and it's the Palestinians who are under pressure and the Jews who have to reconcile their history of oppression with their current situation of colonization. The problem for the Muslims is that for its first thousand years, Islam was extremely successful at providing a cultural network to pre-modern peoples, as well as collapsing ancient cultures. Whereas Christianity and Judaism were formed as much by their struggles as their successes. So now that Islam has cooled off and been submerged by western technology, it doesn't have the organizational flexibility to respond and resorts to isolation and anger. These religious models seem ancient to us, but in the vast span of human evolution, they are a stage. By defining and limiting this concept of God to the top of the cycle, it creates an unstable and confusing situation. It is a natural societal function to look up to a particular leader and since any one individual is mortal, to create an ideal of leadership to which everyone can respect, no matter who fills that position. It's essential to a functioning group structure. The problem is by isolating that position from the larger process on which it is based creates instability, since those at the top, if they are not viewed as gods themselves, as the ancient Egyptians viewed Pharaohs, then they were viewed as representatives of God, or otherwise anointed by him. So that rather than being the leaders of society, they became the purpose of society. No matter how idealized or incorporeal the deity is modeled as, it still reinforces a social model based on a reductionistic ideal. Since this is generally an adult, or old male, it became a monopole, where all that otherwise balanced that particular concept were effectively impure. This especially applied to women, as well as youth. It should also be noted that Jesus wasn't trying to start a new religion, since he was a monotheist and that would amount to the worst form of heresy. Rather he was trying to reform Judaism. To push the reset button and clear away all the decay and corruption that had built up in it. He might have turned the other cheek to his enemies, but he took a stick to the money changers. The problem is that God as the father does represent the past, as the father is the previous generation. So how do you reset the father, other then by replacing him. The king is dead. Long live the king. It's the cycle at work. The fact is that our parents start as the model we follow, but eventually they become the foundation we rise from. God can't just be at the top of the cycle, but must be at the bottom as well. The start of the journey, not just the finish. Otherwise we end up idolizing what is old and encrusted and that only serves to empower the status quo. So it isn't surprising the religion of the establishment should be formulated around worshiping an old man up on a throne.

And sheer irony that it now takes the form of the sacrificed son.

Revolution co-opted.

Narendra,

I am pleased if you have gained any knowledge, wisdom, or understanding from that which I or for that matter others have provided here. Believe me, the survival of man in this world has already been provided for (for as long as this world is needed to fulfill God's purpose) though all may not yet know it. Those from anywhere and at any level that aid in God's work shall be rewarded and those who work against it will receive an undesirable end result at the proper time. These things have already been decided from above and cannot be changed. My intent at this point in this world is to try to not only provide the opportunity for man to experience a better life in this world by providing information that if received and used in the right way can provide for man's needs in the future and open up new opportunities for man to advance and at the proper time to expand to new societal connections with others, but to also do what I can to help others to be able to have a part in the endless life that is available in the world that will replace this one. I do not offer to solve all problems whether scientific or in personal lives. I will only provide the basic information that can be extrapolated into a new level of understanding through the labor of many, in the case of scientific knowledge, and through the labor of each individual that willingly receives it, in the case of knowledge of God. It is always up to each individual to decide how to react to these and other things, so that all things may be rightly judged at the proper time. New problems will always arise while we are in this world as part of our instruction and for other purposes. I do appreciate the opportunity that those who have created this contest have provided to allow this experiment to be carried out and I am sure that it will result in much useful information to me in my continued endeavors to fulfill my purpose here. It is true that the large number of papers that were entered in the last few days will likely make it difficult for the judges to properly analyze all of them and come up with a well reasoned judgment as to which ones should receive which awards. May God help them in that endeavor.

John,

You are right that matter and antimatter are opposites. They are not truly opposite polarities, but opposite directions of motion in the fifth dimension. The fifth dimensional motion of an entity creates angular motion components that cause the entity to take a curved path in the lower three dimensions due to the specific type of interface that exists between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions. With matter these angular motion components cause the entity to travel in a curved path in one direction while in antimatter the opposite direction angular components cause the entity to take a curved path that travels in the opposite direction. When these two entities (one matter and one antimatter) come together the interaction that occurs causes the angular components to be canceled out. As a result the motion that had been stored in the fifth dimension in both entities is transferred back into their fourth dimensional motions and without the fifth dimensional motion that caused the entities to take a curved path, the entities travel in a straight-line path as energy photons. The fifth dimension is the place that stores that motion of an entity that determines whether that entity is an energy photon (fifth dimensional motion equals zero), a matter particle (fifth dimensional motion equals greater than zero in one direction, or an antimatter particle (fifth dimensional motion equals greater than zero in the opposite direction. You are right in connecting matter's and antimatter's opposite properties to mass because it is the angular motion components in the lower three dimensions that are generated by the entity's fifth dimensional motion that are responsible for most of a matter or antimatter particle's mass/inertia effect. It is the fifth dimensional motion of a particle that determines whether it is light (expansion) or mass (contraction).

I agree with you that even a dimensionless point is something. Even a zero dimension world would contain one dimensionless point and that would be something. It would represent an identifiable point as the only place in that world. As you point out one of two points could be designated as zero and this is where perspective comes into play. If you were at one of the points and you wanted to travel to the other point you might call the point that you were at zero to signify that it is the beginning point (the zero point) in your travel, as you have traveled a zero amount of distance while you remain at that point. The way that the world is constructed, any absolute reference points that might exist are hidden to us because of our lack of a global perspective. In the framework of our local perspective we are left with choosing a specific point as our reference point that suits the need at hand. The fact that we can choose any point in space and isolate it from any other point in space by coordinates that connect the two points whether the points contain any energy or matter or is just empty, tells us that points in space do have an existence outside of energy and matter and that the three dimensional coordinate system that we use also has some basis in reality. The actual coordinate names that we use and measurement units that are used are man made constructs that point to inherent properties of the structure of the space that does have an existence because it contains those properties (information). As an example, the fact that any point in the space that we see around us can be identified by three coordinates is a property of the space that remains regardless of how (in which direction) we lay out the coordinates. There is an underlying structure to the empty space that generates this property (the ability to identify any point in visible space with three coordinates). Since space itself contains this property it must therefore have an existence in itself in order to be able to contain any property (information). When you gave an example of the mid point between two points as the zero point you were generating a local one-dimensional coordinate system. You can also generate a two dimensional coordinate system in visible space where the zero point is the point at which two perpendicular lines meet. A three dimensional coordinate system can also be generated as the place where three lines that are all perpendicular to each other meet at the zero point. You cannot, however, generate in our visible space a coordinate system where four lines that are all perpendicular to each other meet at the zero point. Even though we cannot see absolute directions to lay out all coordinate systems in, we do have direct evidence that the world is constructed in such a way that our visible space can only support coordinate systems of three or less dimensions. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that our visible empty space is laid out in a dimensional system that contains three dimensions. Points of empty space do not just come into existence when matter or energy comes into those points, but continually exist and are laid out in relation to each other and also in relation to those points that contain matter or energy particles. If they did not exist we would not see any distance of empty space between the earth and the moon because if all of the points of empty space between the earth and the moon did not exist there could be no space between the two. So, empty space has its essence of being as the place that contains the points that can contain energy or matter entities. By adding enough points between existing points it is possible to think of an analog continuum instead of individual points if you like that better.) It generally performs two important functions in reality. First, it is the place where energy and matter entities can exist and second, it provides the places of separation between such particles. The amount or quantity of empty space between two particles is every bit as important to the generation of our reality as the particles are themselves. Basically, space is the container that can contain the motions that make up matter and energy entities. Because all points in our visible space can be identified by three coordinates, we can see that this container is formed in at least three dimensions. Space, therefore, either has structure or form of itself or it exists as the output of some other underlying structure. It has not been proven that space does not have any absolute reference, but only that within the realm of our limited local perspective we do not see any such absolute reference.

You are right that when we choose and go down one of two alternative paths it can make it difficult or imposable to retrace our steps and go down the other path and that because of our limited local perspective we can not always determine by ourselves the best path to choose the first time. In my example, I was pointing out that if we had a true global perspective we would see all paths and where they would all lead and could make the best choice at any juncture so that everything would always work for the best. That is why I have found it best to follow the only one who has the true global perspective. Generally though even with our limited local perspective, experience has shown that looking at the options and going down the path that we determine to be the best path in the light of that limited local perspective is better than doing nothing. A child that decides to go down the path to try to learn how to walk could fall down and hit his head and die as a result, but in reality only a few suffer from that result and most learn how to walk, which opens up whole new areas of possibilities to explore to make life much more interesting to live. On the other hand the child that never tries to walk will much more likely suffer a bad end result. If one keeps his mind open to examine the results of going down each path that he chooses to travel in, it can many times become evident that the path is a dead end or will lead to a bad result before one has gone too far down the path, so that a change in path can be made to a better one. This can be a hard ability to learn because our minds are made in such a way as to encourage us to continue in the same old familiar paths by generating paths in our minds that bypass the normal processing that we would otherwise do to determine the best path to take. Instead an input automatically goes through the path without our thinking of it in terms of new data that we might have obtained after we have generated that path in our mind. In addition to that, after going down one path for a long time it is hard to admit that all that time was a waste (although it really wasn't because we eliminated that as a viable path). Ego can also be a problem if we went down that path publicly because it is embarrassing to admit to others that we were wrong. If your income or position in society were in some way based on having gone down that path, there would be other reasons that it would be hard to change to another better path. It, therefore, takes a great amount of will power and willingness to suffer if you have to in order to consciously keep in control of yourself to keep your mind open to new information and be willing to change your path when you see it is nonproductive and a better option is present. When you get more experienced, you can often proceed down more that one alternative path in your mind to the point that you can at least eliminate some paths as not practical or as dead ends and thus make it more likely that you will chose the best of the remaining paths. In the end though God promises to guide his people in the path that they should go in and that is the best choice because he made all of the paths that we can go in and knows the best one for us to travel in at any time.

I like your example using the convective cycle as a likeness to the way that a group of people reacts when God chooses it and gives it the energy, direction, and opportunity to rise up to a higher and more powerful position in the world and how it is that when it gets to the top it tends to leave the source of its energy, direction, and opportunity (God) and then falls back down to the bottom. A good example of the ones that stay with God would be someone that would rise up in a hot air balloon with an unlimited power source (God) so he could stay up at the top. I do see some problems with your description of Israel, however. First the essence of Israel began with Abraham who was the father of most of the people in that area of the Middle East. God had promised that land and even more to Abraham and through him to Isaac and through him to Jacob who later was called Israel by God. God carried through on that promise in the time of King David of Israel. At that time, Israel possessed a larger area than it now does. So instead of taking over someone else's land it is more that they were given back some of the land that God had previously given them and they had previously possessed. This was not taken by them by force either, but was given to them through the United Nations after World War II. It would not be reasonable to consider this as colonization either both because it was a return of land that they had previously possessed as their homeland and also because a nation can not truly colonize unless it first has a homeland that can rule over its colonies. The land that they got was and is their only homeland. It is interesting that the United States was founded by those who had come over from Europe and had displaced the native inhabitants (the American Indian nations) and people do not generally think of the United States as a colonial empire over the American Indian nations that should give all that land back and leave. Most nations on earth have similar histories in which various other nations were in control at one time or another of much or all of their land. Some later got the land returned to them and some did not. Another way to look at the interactions between the European nations and the Islamic nations is that when Christianity first spread in Europe those nations were often blessed when they embraced Christianity. Later many of those who were rulers in the church in Rome and later elsewhere began to leave God and do many evil things in God's name even saying that the pope was God on earth. These things culminated in the Dark Ages in Europe. During this time God raised up the Islamic nations against Europe and used them as a witness to the European nations of his disproval of what they were doing by taking away their peace. Later God Gave the printing press to the Europeans and a large number of copies of the scriptures were made, so that for the first time many of the average people in Europe had access to God's word. These people saw that much of what their religious leaders were doing was not according to God's word and sometimes peaceably and sometimes through conflict the church began to return back to God. God then blessed those nations again by giving them knowledge of new technologies while at the same time withholding that knowledge from the Islamic nations. This caused the European nations to be able to overcome and reverse the advancement of the Islamic nations and returned peace to Europe. Of course God is not done with using the Islamic nations. In the future there will be a war that will be started by four Islamic nations that will kill one third of the people that are on earth at that time, as an example. God's place at the top of the cycle is not a problem unless you believe that he really does not exist. If he exists as the creator of the universe, he would as the designer of the world know all things for all times in this world and would, therefore not get obsolete by not keeping up with the latest knowledge or through the deterioration that we are subject to as we age. Of course, the reason that we have a desire to look up to a leader rather than favoring solitary individualism or only local family ties could be that God designed us with the purpose that we would desire to look up to him. I do see your point about man not being able to fulfill the position of being God, but God can fulfill it very well. As far as reductionism is concerned the concept that the world came about by pure chance (probability) is one of the most reductionist concepts possible. It tries to explain the great complexity of the world as the result of simple chance events. There is generally no real attempt to determine all of such simple events and the order that they would have to happen in to generate today's world. Instead vague generalities are used to describe the world. On the other hand, in order to create the world, God has to be very complex and has to have gone through many complex steps to create the world. Unlike chance, which by definition has no purpose in mind or even a mind to have a purpose in, God being an intelligent being would likely have such a purpose for making the creation. So, from the reductionist standpoint God's existence is a much less reductionist concept than the alternative. God plainly says in the scriptures that he is not a man and that his ways are above our ways. So anyone who reads the scriptures should not consider him to be an old man. Man has likely sometimes drawn that conclusion because God said that he made man in his image, but the image is never as good as the real thing. Since God said that the woman is made in the glory or image of the man, what is really being seen through the image is that if a man marries a woman and the man perfectly does all things according to God's will concerning the woman and the woman perfectly does all things according to God's will concerning the man, those that observe them would see an image of the relationship that God intends to have with us. Of course, the real thing will be much better than the image. That along with the fact that God is very old is likely to be why man, especially those who do not really know him might view God as an old man, but that is not close to true, however. As a matter of fact in the New Testament, part of the first step that a man takes in going away from God is to think of him as a man or some other creature. In truth God is so much greater than any of us that to think of him as a man, a woman, or any other part of the creation is an insult to him because he is much more than the creation as a whole let alone any part of it. He, therefore, is the only one that can allow man to rise above his local monopole prejudices because there is no issue of balance between him and us in any way. He has given to us all that we are and all that we have, and there is nothing that we can do to give anything back to him that he cannot make or do better himself. You are right that Jesus did not come to offer another God to worship, but only a New Testament (agreement) with the same only true God of the Old Testament. Although God is the Father directly of Jesus Christ and by him of all of us, he represents not only all the previous generations, but also the present and all future generations, as he is the source of all of us. Although God has given us the freedom to choose to deny his existence to ourselves if we choose to do so, he has not given us the ability to change his existence in any way, so to deny him would just mean believing a lie. God is so much greater than we are that we could not hope to rise even up to be equal with him let alone higher than him. Although God is so much higher than we are, he humbled himself and came to us in his son, not as himself in all his glory, not as an angel, a principality, or even a power, but as a man. He came not as a rich or powerful man (king or ruler), but as the son of a carpenter (a working class man (a servant)). He gave us his New Testament (agreement) and did works that no man could do to confirm that his words were really from him (that it was really him and not just a man pretending to be him). He lived the perfect life without sin so that later when he suffered torture and death on the cross he would be an acceptable sacrifice to pay the ransom for our sins so that we could be redeemed to God and saved from our sins by our faith in him. God the Father was in him all the time except when it came time for him to die as the Father can't die and if he had remained in his son the son would not be able to die either. He pretty much covered both the top and the bottom so there is really no excuse to not believe in him. He was there at the beginning when he created the world and he will be there at the end of the world also. He got rid of the status quo in that he made it so you don't have to go through any man except his son to be saved and the only requirements are that you believe in him and receive him as your Lord and savior, so no establishment in this world can keep you out or require anything of you for you to be saved. Although the scriptures show that it was not easy for Jesus to give up his life, it also records the he did it willingly for his Father and for us. If the Father had killed him to avoid a revolution he would not have raised him up from the dead three days later. Before his death he said that the Father had given him the power to lay his life down and the power to take it back up again and the Father kept his word. It was really the greatest show of love and compassion for us that God could have given in that the Father loved us enough even though we had sinned against him and were, therefore, worthy of death, to ask his son to die for us so that we could have our sins forgiven and be restored back to him and be saved. The Son also loved the Father and us enough to go through death for us when he was the only one that was truly worthy to not die, as he had not sinned.

i enjoyed getting sandwiched between Paul & John on the postings on this essay. Hope we all are wiser, including others who have read the postings. The purpose of this wonderful essay contest gets served well to the credit of the FQX Institute.

Paul,

Sorry to have missed your last post. I was going by the number count and mine had been 34. I've noticed another thread(Sean Carroll) drop a number as well.

I have to agree with your description of space, as it is the vacuum in which fluctuation exists. As the basis of being it is absolute and the unbounded infinite as well.

I really haven't a desire to argue your religious convictions. They are the thread of narrative by which you explain reality. While I have some other thoughts on the subject and they are not as tightly bound into a particular narrative, that is only because it is not my inclination to have all of creation bound into a single narrative. While the singular defines, it also constricts. I find God's grace to be fleeting and it is most fleeting when we hold it too tightly. It grows when we let it go to choose its path, as we choose our own. Some of us are wheat and some of us are chaff, but we all end up as fertilizer to what comes next. The spirit goes into the future, as the memories fall away into the past, but without those memories, there would be no future. Without death, there can be no life. The ancients understood that. That's why they worshiped sacrifice. We, on the other hand, fear death and hide in our possessions and memories.