Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

Essay Abstract

The depth of this subject is much greater than can be given adequate coverage in 25,000 characters. I have tried to address several key areas in as much detail as possible given the restrictions. It would take a complete book on each of some of these areas to fully explain all the variables, but I have tried to condense them down the best that I could with the purpose of stimulating thought concerning them and other areas that I just couldn't directly include. I hope it helps others to better understand the complexities involved. The areas covered are: 1. Comparison of the laws of the universe with man's attempt to model them. 2. The structure of man's intelligently designed complex devices. 3. The structure of the universe. 4. A comparison between them. 5. What does the Big Bang theory tell us? 6. Could the universe create life? 7. Is evolution practical? 8. Has God provided us with information about himself, and the universe?

Author Bio

The author has long desired to know how the world works and how it began. As man's science advanced over time, its great complexity convinced him that it is a device created by an intelligent being. This began the search to fully understand this being, which still continues.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Joe,

I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the commenter, of course, depends on whether he is only interested in giving me his current beliefs or actually desires to know the truth if his beliefs are in error, but that is for him to decide. I just give the information. If I am in error, I desire to change my beliefs to conform to reality and if our beliefs are the same, we can work together to gain more knowledge.

You say "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it." Your implication seems to be that an amoeba is a very simple creature and it is in comparison to the structure of a man, but it is really a very complicated structure that man has not yet perfectly come to completely understand. It contains well over 100 protein machines that function in various ways to allow it to take needed resources into it, to process those resources to produce its needed energy and materials that it uses to repair damaged parts, and even build all the new parts needed to make a complete copy of itself when it divides to form a new amoeba. It also must be able to 1. Get rid of waste materials, 2. Move itself to find new resources, 3. Detect and take those resources into itself, protect itself from external attack, etc. When it reproduces itself, it first reads the required instructions recorded into its DNA. An amoeba has about 300 billion to over 600 billion DNA base pairs depending on the type of amoeba you are talking about. It must then copy the instructions to make all of the new protein machines for the new amoeba to be generated and transfer those instructions to the machines that build those protein machines following the supplied instructions. Those machines assemble the new protein machines by gathering and assembling amino acids together in the proper order one at a time out of about 20 left handed amino acids that are used by living creatures to build their protein machines. There are also right handed amino acids and a total of about 60 other amino acids that are not use in living creatures. If any of these were used to assemble a protein it would be ruined. Each machine must be assembled with the proper amino acid in each of its positions in order for it to function properly in the amoeba. This is effectively a very complex assembly line production plant on a microscopic scale. Man cannot yet build such a system on that size scale. Of course, all of those base pairs of DNA must also be copied and inserted into the new amoeba. There are no living creatures that just gather together a bunch of assorted amino acids and wait for them to self-assemble. They would die before even one protein would be made that way. They all have special machines that build proteins. That is why it is impractical to believe that the first living creature came about by some type of self-assembly. With 80 amino acids each of which comes in both left handed and right handed varieties for a total of 160 possibilities, only 20 of those possibilities (1/8) can be used in valid proteins used in living creatures. Since each position in the protein requires the exact correct amino acid of those 160 possibilities, constructing a protein machine that required 100 amino acid positions to be filled would be like picking the right 100 digit number in a 160 base math numbering system by chance. If you were really very lucky and you picked the right number the first time you would still have to do it again about 100 to 200 more times to get the number of protein machines needed for the first living creature. This doesn't even begin to cover the more difficult and even less probable self-assembly of the DNA or even RNA that would actually contain the valid code to produce the first creature. All of these parts would have to be produced close enough together to somehow self-assemble into the living creature quickly enough to avoid the natural destruction of them by entropy processes. To get some idea of how low the probability would be to just produce the first protein machine by self-assembly, lets simplify the problem and in the process make it easier than it would be in reality to produce the needed protein machines for the first living creature by self-assembly. We will start by using a system with only 10 possible amino acids instead of the 160 that are really present in the world. This will allow us to just use the decimal system without having to convert from the base 160 system to decimal. Of course, you will need to keep in the back of your mind that in reality the probability of producing the needed protein machines would be much lower than it is in the example that we are using. To make it still easier we will assume that the living creature will need a total 200 protein machines with 2 each of 100 differently coded machines. This means that after you have assembled the number of protein machines that would build all of the possible different protein machines once, you would very likely have produced the first 100 needed protein machines by chance and only need to do it all one more time to produce the other 100 machines. Let's also assume that in each place in the universe where protein self-assembly takes place, 1 trillion protein machines are produced in each second of time. Since each protein machine can have any one of ten amino acids in each of its 100 positions the total number of possible combinations is 1 x 10^100 combinations. Man's current estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If we figure that it would take about .8 billion years for it to cool enough to generate stars with planets around them that are cool enough to allow protein self-assembly to get going and to produce the first valid usable protein machine, there would still be 13 billion years left to produce the other 199 machines necessary to build the first living creature. Since there could be many places in the universe that could all be producing 1 trillion machines per second, it would likely not take long to produce the first one. After that things change, however. Even though it might be that all of the machines could be produced in a relatively short time with one in one galaxy and another in a second galaxy, etc. they could not come together to form the living creature because of the great distances between them. This would mean that the other 199 protein machines would have to be made by self-assembly on the same planet and even in the same local area on that planet that the first one had formed in order for the 200 machines to be close enough together to somehow assemble themselves along with the DNA, RNA, and any other needed parts to form a living creature. 13 billion years would equal about 4.1 x10^17 seconds. Figuring 1 trillion protein machines produced each second, a total of about 4.1 x 10^29 protein machines would be produced in 13 billion years, which is way short of the 1 x 10^100 machines that would need to be produced to make the first 101 valid protein machines that are needed to produce the living creature by chance self-assembly. You would still likely have to go through about as much time again to produce the other 99 machines. Another consideration would be that if one valid machine was produced and the next one was not produced for several million years, the first one would surely be destroyed by some entropy interaction over that long a time, let alone the many billions of years that it would take to produce all 200 of them. If they all were somehow produced and survived, you would have 200 proton machines mixed up in a mountain of invalid proton machines and they would somehow have to by chance be separated from that mountain and joined together with all the other parts and somehow become a living creature. Remember that I limited the amino acids to only 10 instead of the actual 160 possible amino acids that could be positioned in each of those 100 positions in each of the protein machines. This means that it would even take tremendously longer than I showed in my example to produce all 200 valid protein machines for the production of the living creature.

There are always those who will completely ignore reality to believe what they want to believe, but I can't do that because I desire to know the truth of how things really work. Given the complexity of the structure of living creatures, the math just does not support the concept of self-assembly of living creatures by chance occurrences.

Reality starts out simple, but as those simple motion machines are joined together hierarchically to produce more and more complex structures, things become progressively less simple as you advance through those levels of increasing complexity. By the time you reach the level of molecules, things can get very complex. Man has not yet made all possible chemical combinations because the number is so large.

You are right that there is only one reality. When we look at the world around us we see things that move in relation to us. Sometimes these things intersect and their motions are changed in certain ways. There are other ways that we can imagine that the motions could change during an interaction between them, but they never act in those other ways. This tells us that the ways that we see the motions change during an interaction are a result of the way the things are made. Their structures only allow the generation of the interaction results that we see. Written into these structures are the laws or paths of action that allow for the production of the observed interaction results and disallow any other results. These laws are not men's abstract laws, but are operational laws that are built into reality. Men only use abstract language forms to model or represent those laws that are built into natural structures.

When I look at the world around me I don't see just one unified visible infinite physical surface. I see many objects each of which has its own complete surface that may or may not be connected to any other visible surface. As an example, I can take a balloon and add just enough helium to it when I blow it up, so that it will stay where I place it in the air when I carefully let go of it and will not be touching any other visible surface. If the surface of the balloon is painted so that each side looks different than the other side, I can first look at the one side that I can see and then walk around the balloon and see its complete outside surface and that it is not touching any other visible surface. I can even place mirrors behind it such that I can stand in one place and see one side of its surface directly and at the same time I can also look at the mirrors and see the light that has reflected off of the other side of its surface and hit the mirrors and then reflected off of the mirrors and entered my eyes allowing me to at the same time see the back side of the balloon also. You would have to tell me what you understand this one infinite dimension to be and how it works to let us see all that we see when we look at the world around us before I can make a comment on that because you apparently define dimension differently than is commonly done by most that I have seen in this world. When 2 things intersect and their motions are changed in some way as a result of that interaction, what do you understand to have caused their motion changes? Is their surface in any way involved in generating those changes? I ask this because light can cause motion changes also that are similar to the changes that are generated by the interaction of 2 things that have surfaces. Light does not appear to be infinite to me because when I turn on a flashlight I see that light begins to come out of the front of the flashlight. Since it has a beginning at that point, it cannot be infinite because infinite light would not have a beginning or ending point.

I will try to read your paper and make a comment on it as you requested me to do. It may take me some time, however.

In past years I have had trouble keeping track of the comments that I make on other people's papers and blogs, etc., so this year I am trying a new way to better control things. I will place my response to any comment on my page on both my page and on the commenters page unless the commenter requests that I don't do so and I will place my comment on anyone else's page also on my page, so I will have an easily accessible copy of it to refer to.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?

An amoeba's surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man's standard concept of a 3 dimensional world, but at the same time you must have a way to explain the concepts of directions that one can go or move relative to other things that he can see around him to go from one place where he is near some things to another place where he is not near those things, but is near other things, and to go there faster or slower etc., which are very easy to observe with our eyes. A theory that can't explain how these simple every day observations of things in this world work could not be true.

It is just as logical for every object to have its own complete individual surface and that surface can be in contact with the surfaces of other objects.

Do you consider the air around us a surface? I ask this because you say that surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, but when I am in a room, the ceiling, walls, and floor surfaces are illuminated by light from a ceiling light, but the air does not appear to be illuminated by light. It appears to be invisible. I see right through the air and see the walls behind it, but the surface of the walls blocks vision of anything beyond the walls. If I turn the light off, all I see is black. Did the ceiling, floor, walls, and myself all suddenly turn black, but are still illuminated by the infinite non-surface light or is the light not always illuminating all of the surface so that some of it is not always visible?

At the bottom of page 7 of your paper, you say "Infinite non-surface light requires no empowerment because it is a nonentity." An entity is something that exists, therefore, a nonentity is something that does not exist because the prefix non means not. Also, on page 2 in the next to bottom paragraph you say "I use the word "am" because using the word "is" implies that there was a different physical condition prior to the is, best described by the use of the word "was".". This does not get away from the connection with the word (was) because (am) is the first person present tense word for state of being (I am here.) The first person past tense of (am) is (was). (I was here.) You were referring to the third person present tense word (is) (It is here.) and the third person past tense word (was). (It was here.) Only the second person word for state of being does not use the word (was). The present tense form is (are) (You are here.) and the past tense form is (were). (You were here.) You could change from (am) to (are), but it still has the past tense state word (were), so I don't know that it would really help much to get your point across. You could try using a modifier word like endlessly or eternally, etc.

Do the radiants have a surface and what is the speed of their travel from the sun to the earth? How do the radiants turn into light when they hit a surface? From what you have told me so far the radiants seem to be a lot like energy photons to me. How does your theory handle light that is not visible such as microwaves or radio waves?

Why can't there be more than one object, each with its own complete surface and its own physical state that may or may not be illuminated by light depending on whether light is present and hits (interacts with) it? That sounds just as logical to me. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional object to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a spherical baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional object. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles and the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional object. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some things that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these things. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, things would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many objects that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course, there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that

When you say, "All real visible entities have a real visible surface.", are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man's definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?

So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.

Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn't work, look to see why it doesn't work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man's current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.

Sincerely,

Paul

Comment added to Carlo Rovelli's paper page.

To All,

In looking at this page it seems to me that there is some confusion about information structuring concepts. There are two general categories of true information. They are structural information and abstract information.

Internal Structural Information is information that is built into and is, therefore, a part of the structure that contains it. It is written into the structure in the form of its construction. An example of this type of information would be the information that is contained within a matter particle. The matter particle contains a sub-energy particle that travels at the speed of light as its basis. A sub-energy particle contains three basic information structures that generate its normal independent operation. First is its current spatial position. Next is its direction of travel from its current position and last is its motion amplitude level that determines how quickly it changes its position. The sub-energy particle only has one independent operation, which is to continually change its position in accordance with the contents of the above mentioned internal informational structures. It can access its current position information and update it to its new location as it changes to a new location. It can read its direction and motion amplitude information to determine where it is to change its position to, but cannot change the contents of those two information structures.

External Structural Information is information elements that are built into two or more structures and are parts of the structures that contain them. It is also written into those structures in the form of their construction. It contains information elements that are only used or changed during an interaction between two or more structures. In the case of sub-energy particle interactions, this would include the ability to change the direction and/or motion amplitude levels of one or more sub-energy particles during an interaction between them. The particles position information cannot be accessed during an interaction, but changes in their direction and motion amplitude information can cause changes to the particle's future position changes.

To build a matter particle, you next need to increase the sub-energy particle's motion amplitude level to be greater than the speed of light. This excess speed is transferred to the particle's fourth dimensional motion. This motion is constructed and behaves the same as the particle's basic linear motion at the speed of light. Its motion amplitude information is variable as is its direction of travel during specific types of interactions. Its change of position works the same as in its linear motion. The fourth dimension is very small, so the motion travels a small distance and then interacts with the end of the dimension. This interaction changes its direction information to the opposite direction, but does not change its motion amplitude because motion cannot transfer into or out of the dimensional boundary. The motion then travels to the other side of the dimension and interacts in the same way with the boundary at the dimension's other end. This creates a cyclical back and forth motion. This motion gives the sub-energy particle the frequency and wavelength wave effects that change it into an energy photon. This motion's motion amplitude information can only be changed during an interaction that would either increase or decrease the sub-energy particle's linear motion amplitude or due to a direct motion transfer to or from this fourth dimensional motion to another entity during an interaction. This motion effectively increases the particle's cross section, thus increasing its probability of experiencing interactions and its angular motion at ninety degrees to its direction of travel gives it a dynamic mass effect such that if the fourth dimensional motion amplitude is great enough it can knock an electron out of an atom in what is called the photoelectric effect, etc. If an interaction causes an energy photon's linear motion amplitude to increase, the increase is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion amplitude and if it causes a decrease in its linear motion amplitude motion amplitude is transferred from its fourth dimensional motion amplitude back into its linear motion amplitude to servo its linear motion amplitude to the speed of light. An increase in a photon's fourth dimensional motion amplitude increases its frequency and decreases its wavelength. It also increases its dynamic mass effect. A decrease causes the opposite effects. Note that going from the lower hierarchical level of construction by adding another motion to it increases the number of information structures in the particle's construction and also increases the complexity of the operation of those information structures both internally and in external interactions. This kind of information increase is sometimes called emergent information. The next hierarchical increase in structural information content requires that the energy photon has an adequately high fourth vector motion amplitude and come in contact with an adequate angular motion source. When this happens, some of its fourth vector motion is transferred to its fifth dimensional motion. This motion travels in an inter-dimensional cyclical pattern. First it travels from the fifth dimension to the lower three dimensions in a cyclical rotating pattern from one dimension to the next with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and first dimensions. This causes the energy photon to take a repetitive enclosed curved three dimensional path. That enclosed path is a matter particle. The great angular motion thus created gives the matter particle its rest mass. This extra motion would cause its linear motion to exceed the speed of light, but the excess motion is transferred to its fourth vector motion amplitude keeping it at the speed of light. All that survives of its introduction into the lower three dimensions is its angular component that generates the enclosed path structure. If the fourth vector wavelength fits properly into the enclosed curved path the extra motion amplitude is transferred back into the fifth vector motion and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. Notice how the addition of the fifth vector motion not only adds more structural information to accommodate the added motion, but its internal structural information for that new hierarchical motion introduction is much more complex than that for the other motion structures. Both the fourth and fifth vector motion structures also require more structural information connected to the addition of two more dimensional structures. This completes the lowest level of hierarchical structure level.

The next level involves the production of atoms from matter particles and field structures composed of sub-energy particles. This level goes through a much larger hierarchical structural growth from the lowest level hydrogen atom all the way up to the top level of that hierarchical structural level. In this level two of the components of the lowest level (sub-energy particles and matter particles) are combined together. The matter particles provide the main structure of the atom and the sub-energy particles provide the binding structures that allow the matter particles to be held together in the atomic unit. When this happens, new internal and external information usually is produced that is not just the same as that in its components, but new internal information of the atom as a whole is generated that relates to the joining together of its parts in new ways and also in the atoms external interaction information which must also accommodate the new internal structure into its external interaction information structure to allow for new types of interactions, etc.

Then comes the molecular level, which is hierarchically much more expansive than the atomic level in number of and complexity of its internal and external information structures. This type of hierarchical multilevel expansive structuring ability is only produced by living creatures in the output products of the highest level intelligent creature known, namely man. The intelligence contained in the structures of this world is much greater than that which man can produce, however.

The other type of information is abstract information. It is information that is contained in a structure that is not used directly by that structure in its normal internal and external existence operations. A good example of this type of information is the information contained in a DNA molecule that abstractly represents or models some other structure such as a particular protein's structure. Again, man is the only known living creature that produces this type of information about the structure of complex devices and stores it in other structures. A good example of this in a man's device is the memory of a computer that contains complex structural designs to build a complex device. Again, man cannot come close to abstractly modeling the structure and manufacture of a man as is contained in a man's DNA molecules.

To summarize, at the lowest hierarchical structural level both the internal and external information structures are very simple. These get more complex when we: 1. Add new structures that may have existed, but were not used by the lowest level such as another dimension, etc. 2. Add existing components to that new structure like the motion that is added to that new dimension. 3. Addition of new external interaction information structures such as the mechanism that automatically transfers motion between the new dimension and the other original dimensions under certain circumstances. 4. New ways that the complete assembly (energy photon) can interact with other entities, such as the ninety degree angular motion component that is now present for interaction.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Satyavarapu,

I looked at your paper as you requested and the greatest problem that I found in it is the concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a byproduct of the fusion of light elements such as hydrogen into helium would be changed back into more matter (presumably hydrogen) as it passes near large masses. It is possible for energy photons that possess a great enough fourth vector motion (i.e. has a high enough frequency) to change into matter particles when they come into contact with a large enough angular motion source, so a small amount of such photons could be converted back into matter, but a very large percentage of the photons that are emitted by stars is too low in frequency to change into matter particles because the photons just do not contain a large enough amount of motion to generate matter particles and would not pick up the additional motion needed to become matter particles from gravitational attraction. In fact, the increased density of sub-energy particles near large bodies of matter would increase the likelihood of interactions between them and any energy photons that were near the large bodies of matter, which would result in the transfer of some of the energy photons' fourth vector motion to the sub-energy particles involved in the interaction(s). This would lower the frequency of, or red shift, the photons, thus taking away some of their existing fourth vector motion. In addition to this, many of the photons that could be converted to matter particles will not come close enough to such an angular motion source and will be dissipated throughout space and not converted back into matter particles. Even if they all converted, the loss of all of the motion contained in the photons that were too low in motion content to convert would ultimately cause all of the lower elements up to about iron to be fused into higher elements then the existing stars would all burn out and no new stars could be formed. In my paper I explained how during an interaction that transfers motion amplitude from one entity to another the motion generally transfers from the entity with the greater motion amplitude to the one with the smaller amplitude. This is what is happening in the star as it converts the large amount of motion that is freed during the fusion process into energy photons most of which do not possess enough motion to convert back into matter particles. I also mentioned that motion concentrations naturally tend to disperse evenly throughout space. That is what is happening to the energy that is emitted by the stars, which would include most of the photons that do contain enough motion to be converted back into matter particles. These things are a large part of what man calls entropy and they are not reversible unless an even greater amount of motion is applied to cause it to reverse and then that greater amount of motion is lost to entropy, so the end result is always a loss of available useable motion. This universe is a temporary structure that was built by God to be used for the purpose of building a body for himself to live in. He made us to become parts of his body if we choose to join him in the way that he allows us to do so. Once his body members or parts are all made, he will have no more need for this world because his body members will live eternally and he knows all things, so he will not need to make a new body like a man might need to do in order for it to do some new thing that he just figured out how to do. He is also replacing this world with a new larger one that is not subject to entropy and will not end for his body and him to live in, which will be a much better life than can be possible in this world. He will then take all of the motion that he took out of himself to make this world back into himself. Since his motion is much greater than that contained in the stars, etc. of this world, this universe will effectively be burned up in the process along with everything in it. This end of the universe will occur long before the stars all burn out, etc. Only his body members will be saved from that and enter into the new world with him.

When I work to give people in this world new information, I have found that if it goes too far beyond their currently accepted beliefs, it will be rejected. I, therefore, try to work within man's currently accepted framework of knowledge as much as possible so that there is some possibility that the new information will be accepted. If it is, it will then be possible to progress to the next level, etc. There are times, of course, when man is in a negative progression portion of the advancement cycle, such that very little new advancement growth can occur. The big bang theory is one of those areas that I cannot currently address in detail for this reason. In other cases to properly explain something that man does not currently understand correctly would require giving out information that man is not yet ready to receive because it would be used destructively, etc. That can also not allow me to completely explain the correct answer. Everything must be given out at the proper time that is according to God's will to fulfill his purposes.

Comparing the continual formation of stars and galaxies to biological reproduction is a bit of a stretch. When living creatures reproduce, their offspring are either equal in complexity to the parent(s) or grow up to become as complex in structure, etc. If the galaxies were the offspring of the universe they should each grow into a new universe, but they don't. Stars do not generally divide or in some other way reproduce themselves. New stars just coalesce from clouds of gas by gravity until the pressure and temperature is increased by the compaction to the point that fusion begins, etc. The fusion reaction is a normal part of entropy that removes the lower elements by transforming them into higher elements because the atom of the higher element that is created contains less total motion content then the two atoms of the lower source element used to create it. The excess motion that is freed in the interaction is radiated away from the interaction point. This changes the lower elements up to about iron into midrange elements while on the other end the higher elements break down into midrange elements because the elements in the middle contain the least amount of motion for their size structure. Both of these entropy processes radiate the excess motion that is freed up by the motion transfers. On the other hand, living creatures must build the complex structures that make up their offspring through the use of protein building machine(s) that build a specific protein according to a plan that is delivered to it by a messenger RNA molecule. The RNA molecule first copies that plan from a specific part of a DNA molecule. The DNA molecule(s) contains the complete plan information to build a complete new same type living creature written within its structure. Many such protein machines and other structures must be built by the machines contained within the living creature's cell(s) including a complete new copy of the DNA molecule(s) in simple living creatures that reproduce by cell division. In more complex living creatures reproduction is even a much more complicated procedure. Although the living creatures free more motion than they trap into these highly complex molecular structures and, thus, generate an overall increase in entropy, they use much of that motion to build these complex structures and, therefore, operate against entropy in their local environment. The stars normal operation does not do this. If a living creature cannot find enough food to produce the motion that it needs to continue to operate and reproduce, it will move in an attempt to find its needed resources and it generally has sensors of some kind to help it find what it needs. Stars simply consume the available resources and then cease to operate in some way like a fire. When there are no more gas clouds in space that contain enough of the right materials in them to form a star, all star formation will cease.

The real universe is not free of body-body collisions. Many collisions occur in a wide range of body-body size ranges from meteor collisions with planets to interactions between galaxies when they intersect that would surely cause many collisions even between stars.

When you say that the central dense mass of a galaxy is getting dried up, where does that dense mass go? If it just moves out from the center of the galaxy what is the source of the motion that causes it to overcome the great gravity attraction that the central mass would possess that would greatly resist the pulling away of any of the matter contained in that mass?

I do like that you have included information concerning specific real galaxies. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of the information that you presented about them that would make the information that you provided more intelligible to the average reader by describing how the given information was derived from the red shift values given, etc.

The universal gravitational force is a good concept. The actual force experienced by any object would be determined by its present position compared with the positions and masses of all other objects in the universe. This force and its direction would be continually changing on any given object because of the changing positions of all objects in the universe. This opens up the concept of gravitational null locations where all gravitational forces cancel out leaving no net gravitational force applied to those places. Their locations would also be continually changing. So that is a good insight on your part because gravitational nulls can be useful in some advanced experiments.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear James,

Your concept of God is common among those who don't actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can't fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the universe and the other is that God does not exist and the universe came about in some other way. Putting blinders on oneself and only looking at and trying to work for justification of only one of the two possibilities will likely end in false results because they will be founded on the wrong assumptions. Only a balanced approach that honestly looks at and analyzes both possibilities and looks for all the information that can be found that would support both possibilities and also all the information that would be against both possibilities can after full analysis be expected to be able to likely give a truly valid answer to the question. As an example, suppose that God does exist and that he created the universe and everything in it, but suppose that he made it such that it works automatically, so that you find that it appears to you that no God is needed. If God made it for some purpose, such as to create a body for himself and left signs of that purpose hidden in the structure of the universe in such a way that you would not see them unless you were purposely looking for them and also gave explanations of his purpose to certain men who then wrote them down in a book for people to read and get an understanding of his purpose, which included that he made us to become parts of his body which will live eternally in a new universe after this one is destroyed by him when he has all of his body members made, but we must choose to become members in a certain way that he has provided for us to do so, you would likely not read that book because you would think that you have the answer that you desire to have. The result would be that you would spend a lot of time coming to a conclusion that would leave you out of the whole purpose of the universe and the life that can be had after this one. A true scientist looks at and analyzes all of the possibilities and then makes decisions based on all the information available. Even then he always keeps his mind open to new evidence that could possibly change that decision.

I spent over twenty two years looking for that answer in man's science as that advanced over the years and in other sources all of which together ultimately led me to understandings that go well beyond man's current understandings of how the world works. I then, by what I at that time thought was just by chance, happened to open and read a part of the Christian New Testament scriptures and found to my amazement that it contained information that was not currently known by man in this world. That a book written about two thousand years ago contained such advanced information caused me to decide to read it all and I have since found much more information, some of which I still don't yet completely understand about many different areas of knowledge. I also found that the Old Testament contains similar information. I included a small amount of that information in my paper, but the paper was too short to include very much of that information in it.

When I first started my quest to determine whether God exists or not, I found it relatively easy to believe in a natural universe because the accepted theory at that time was the steady state theory, which held that the universe has always existed and that stars would eventually burn out and explode and that the dust from that explosion would eventually come back together to form new stars, etc. Evolution was also easy to believe because living creatures were said to be composed of cells that were filled with protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious unknown life force. This sounded simple enough to possibly come about naturally and evolve. As the steady state theory was ultimately disproven and it became evident that the universe had a beginning and that living creatures were made of cells that were actually very small factories that produced very complex structures that are even today beyond man's ability to make, etc., it became evident that the universe could not have created living creatures because it tends to break down such structures instead of making them and since the universe had a beginning, that also fit into the concept that it was created by God. I still did not fully accept the existence of God until I saw the information that was provided in the scriptures about him and the world that he created. Since then I have also come to understand other problems with concepts such as evolution. As an example, If you use a DNA copy error rate and a positive result rate that are great enough to possibly allow the production by evolution of all of the types of living creatures that have ever existed, those rates would cause an exponential increase in evolution due to the population increase of all of the creatures, so that today we should see many major evolutionary changes happening all around us, but we don't.

You are right that entropy is a natural process and that it governs both animate (living creatures) and inanimate (nonliving structures) and applies to things of all sizes. The main difference between the living and nonliving things is that the nonliving things behave completely according to entropy while the living creatures apply some of the motion (energy) that they use to build very complex molecular machines and thus work contrary to entropy in that respect. The nonliving things don't do this. Of course, living creatures use more motion than they place into the building of these complex structures, so they still can't completely escape entropy. All of the fossil fuels that man is currently using and has used in the past are the remnants of that stored motion that living creatures have produced over a long time. The natural world does not generally build and store such motion. Instead it tends to break down and disperse any such stored motion over time.

I looked at your paper and found some of the usual attempts to justify the concept that the universe somehow created life. The idea that entropy could drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties ascribes an intelligence to inanimate matter that it does not possess. Inanimate matter can only act in accordance to its built in structural information which means that it behaves in accordance with entropy and tends to average the motion contents of all entities in the system toward the center or average of their motion amplitude range and tends to disperse evenly throughout available space. Larger entities that are more subject to gravity tend to be pulled together by it, etc. There is a long way from matter that is placed in an environment with a lot of motion forming clumps and the generation of complex protein machines and DNA molecules. If that is a natural tendency, why do we not see naturally produced protein molecules and DNA molecules everywhere? The planet Mercury receives a great amount of energy that needs to be dissipated. It should, therefore, by the theory that you support generate a very great amount of life on that planet to help to dissipate all that energy. The same could be said about Venus. If that theory really worked it would be very good because if I made a kettle of chili, every time I warmed it up it would reproduce and automatically make more for me in order to dissipate the applied heat, so I would never need to make more. I might, of course, have to add some dirt or something for it to convert into more chili every so often or something like that. One of the problems with the concept that life would form as a natural process to aid dissipation of energy is that building complex molecular structures is not energy dissipation. It is energy storage. Nonliving matter would tend to dissipate all applied energy, but living creatures would store much of the applied energy into the complex molecular structures that they make. This would actually hinder energy dissipation, not aid it.

Evolution does not intrinsically increase complexity in living creatures. It would only support successful adaptation to the environment. If the environment were to change so that no creature larger than an ant could survive, we would all die out, but ants would still survive and that would be evolution in action even though it would be supporting less complex living creatures over the more complex ones.

The earth's environment could support the 7+ billion people on this planet if man would stop burning the fossil fuels and use solar energy to generate needed power. If this was done properly, man would take energy that hits the earth from the sun and needs to be dissipated anyway and use it to produce the motion that is needed and then allow it to dissipate back into space normally. This would also get rid of the pollution problems.

It took me quite a while to fully accept the evidence that the universe and life were created by God, so I can understand why those who desire a natural answer to the question of the source of the universe and of life would tend to rationalize some way to look at the world in a way that would support that result, but it is evident that entropy works against life which is why all living creatures have machinery to repair the damages that it causes to them. If the big bang actually happened to create the universe, its cause cannot be discerned because all of man's theories break down before getting all the way back to the actual beginning of the expansion. With two possibilities (created by God or by some natural occurrence) and no way to determine which it is, any reasonable person would say that it is a fifty percent chance either way. The only thing that could change that understanding would be if the universe's structure indicates that it was created by an intelligent being or by natural random processes. In that respect its complex multilevel hierarchical structure implies that much intelligence went into its construction, especially into the production of living creatures. To me an attempt to convince people that the thing (entropy) that works to break down and destroy living creatures and the things that they make actually is what works to create life is the ultimate misinformation campaign. Of course, each has the right to have his own delusion if he desires to do so. I just desire to know and understand how things really work too much to continue down that path when it is now so obvious that it is a dead end path.

I find it interesting that we are coming to the end of a complete cycle of understanding. If you go back into history in the United States, when the country was more Christian oriented, someone with the naturalist philosophy would have been considered either very naïve or foolish. At that time there was little scientific evidence either way. Later scientists bought into that philosophy which gave it much credence in the intellectual world and it got to the point that those who believed in God were considered very naïve or foolish. When I came on the scene, I did find that most Christians that tried to disprove evolution did not understand its concepts, so that led me to tend to agree with the scientists of the time. As time went on and the true complexities of the world and the life in it became more and more known, it became apparent that a natural explanation was not practical. Now I find that some scientists are purposely trying to reinterpret the facts of how things actually work in the world to continue to support the naturalist philosophy when the scientific evidence is actually showing it to be wrong. In addition to that I am now finding some Christians who have gone into scientific fields such as genetics and biology who recognize the problems and are beginning to publically address them. The main good thing that has come out of all of this is that science has greatly advanced in the process of trying to prove it in one direction or the other and in the end God still wins because his works prove him.

Sincerely,

Paul