Dear Cristinel,
After I sent my previous comment to you, I noticed that I didn't get the second letter i entered in your name. Sorry about that.
It appears that we are using different definitions or different parts of the definition for the word nature. When I talk about the nature of something in the immediate primary sense, I am talking about what it is. If it is a thing like a matter particle, for example, I mean what substance(s) it is made of and how is that substance(s) organized, structured, or built up in it to make it to be the way that it is. If it is not static, but contains one or more active functional internal processes going on within it, what are they and how do they work. If it interacts internally with other thing(s) in such a way that it and the other thing(s) act as a unit together in some way, what is that and how does it work. Also, how and in what way(s) does it interact with other external things. There are other parts to the meaning of the word nature that can apply under certain circumstances like the thing's origin or source of its existence, but I don't usually go into that unless I think that the person that I am talking to will likely have the ability to understand and also the desire to understand because it took me over twenty two years of scientific study to come to the conclusion that the creation could not have come about naturally by itself, but had to have been created by a being that exists outside of it, existed before it, and is extremely intelligent to have allowed him to have been able to create it. He would also need to be powerful enough to create it, of course, and possess the resources needed to make it, etc. I came to this conclusion after analyzing such concepts as evolution, the various creation from nothing arguments, the arguments for how the first living creature came into existence, and the possibility that evolution could have created all of the various living creatures that exist now and those that have existed in the past, but have gone extinct, in fourteen billion years, etc. I found that the math just does not add up to allow for natural random creation to occur. Once I came to the conclusion that God had to exist, I looked at various religious documents and found that only the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament contained the information about the creation that I had found during all of those years of research. I had searched through man's scientific works and did not find that anyone else had found and come to understand such things. For the most part, man still has not understood these things although I have freely given out some of them over the last ten years. Of course, it may be that there are those who work in the secret (black) scientific community who have received the things that I have given out and understood them, because man in that community has come to understand how to make plasma field engines and cloaking devices for high speed air and space vehicles, etc. that indicate that such concepts may be at least somewhat understood by them. Of course, it is possible to make structured field engines without the plasma effect, but as far as I know they have not yet gotten that far. My point is that I did not find this information in any of man's works, or in any of the other religious texts, but it is clearly in the sources mentioned above which were written more than two thousand years ago. As I have continued to search these scriptures, I have found that they also contain much information about many other things. I mentioned a few of them in my previous comment. One of the problems of current science structure is that the concept that the creation was made by a being rather than by some natural cause is automatically considered to be unscientific. This is usually based on the lack of our ability to directly observe God. At the same time man has had no problem believing in the existence of molecules, atoms, and matter particles, etc. long before they became even indirectly observable from the way that things interacted with each other. If we look at the creation from the standpoint of the ways things are made and how they interact with each other it becomes apparent that what we call intelligence had to have been involved in its creation. First it is constructed in a multilevel hierarchical form starting with simple structures and combining them together into sub-assemblies, which are then combined into still more complex assemblies, etc. until the total device performs all of the desired functions. This is exactly the way that man who is considered to be intelligent builds complex structures. Secondly, the design is such that each hierarchical level creates a complete environment of actions and capabilities to operate at that level internally within each object and externally in interactions with other entities. As an example, at the top large scale object level of structure even if you don't know anything about the smaller hierarchical levels of its molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic matter particles, you can use stone to build buildings and other large scale structures because of its compression strength and other properties that it has at the large scale. This was designed to allow man to use large scale objects before he was able to understand anything about the smaller hierarchical levels of structure. This has allowed man to develop at a controlled rate of progress by providing the keys to the next level at the desired time. The discovery of the next level gives man new abilities of use of the materials to allow for controlled advancement. Man uses similar hierarchical structuring in the complex things that he makes. As an example, a computer programmer who understands the C programming language can write useful programs without any understanding that when a C language instruction is executed it likely causes the execution of a large number of machine language instructions in the next lower hierarchical level of structure or that the machine language instructions execute hexadecimal coded words at the next level and those words actually are executed in the binary form by the computer circuitry in the next level or that the binary likely takes the form of an electronic or magnetic circuit that can be in one of two states at the hardware level, etc. The higher C language level will likely produce a larger program than would be necessary and do things less efficiently than if it was written in machine language, so there is an advantage of also knowing how to program at that lower hierarchical level, but it is not necessary to produce a program that will accomplish the task. It is the same with the creation's hierarchical levels. New doors of knowledge of the next lower levels can be given out at the desired time for man to understand them, thus opening up more new abilities for man when appropriate, but from the beginning man was able to live and function adequately just using information provided at the top level of structure. To get the complete understanding of the nature of something you have to understand its complete structure at all hierarchical levels, but when you are operating within only one or a portion of those levels, it is adequate to define the objects being to be the substance(s) and structure(s) and the structure's internal operations, and external interactions included within the level(s) being used at the time. From this and other things it should be apparent that creation was designed to start man out with a very limited understanding of the world around him, but to increase his understanding over time as necessary or as desired by the creator.
If all things are made of just one thing and that thing is simple linear motion, then you have reached the end of that chain of structure because all you have in existence is simple linear motions and the dimensional system that they move in. From there the only other thing to understand is the structure of the dimensional system that allows the linear motions to move in it in such a way as to construct field particles, energy photons, and matter particles. Once that is accomplished a complete understanding of what we call the universe can be understood. The only thing lacking is that you still could not indirectly observe matter particles, energy photons and field particles. There is a next level of structure, however. Once it is understood that a matter particle is formed by transferring some of an energy photon's motion into its fifth dimensional motion and that this motion then returns down into the lower three dimensions in a sequential manner, such that it causes the photon to take a curved path that encloses back upon itself to form a repetitive cyclical three dimensional enclosed path and that path and the photon traveling in it is what we call a matter particle and that If you then add linear motion to it to accelerate that matter particle toward the speed of light, some of the added motion is transferred into its fourth and fifth dimensional motions, you can then see that the motion added to its fifth dimensional motion causes an increase in the curvature of the matter particle's enclosed path. This causes it to become smaller. The closer you get to the speed of light the larger is the portion of the added motion that is transferred into the particle's fifth dimensional motion and the rate of reduction in its size greatly increases. The next step is to understand how interactions between matter particles work. There is what is called an interaction cross-section. Interactions generally do not occur between field particles because their structural points of their motions are very small making it very unlikely that they will intersect each other and come together to interact. Energy photons on the other hand not only possess a field particle in each of them that travels at the speed of light, they each also possess a fourth dimensional motion that travels at ninety degrees from its direction of travel. This gives a much larger cross-sectional area in which an interaction can occur and thus increases the likelihood that two photons can interact with each other. If one photon possesses a very high fourth dimensional motion amplitude (it generates a very high frequency) and another one has a very low motion amplitude in its fourth dimensional motion (it generates a very low frequency) and they move toward each other, the likelihood that the low frequency photon will be in a place in its cross-section where it will interact with the other photon is greatly reduced. Matter particles work in a similar way except instead of a cross-sectional area there is more of a cross-sectional volume. You can look at a matter particle's path as a small three-dimensional sphere. When the paths of two matter particles begin to intersect an interaction can take place, but the photons within them must be located on their paths, such that they will intersect at a time that their fourth dimensional motions are also in the proper positions within each of them to allow the interaction to take place during the time that their paths still intersect each other. Again, if one particle is very small because it possesses a large fifth dimensional motion amplitude because it is traveling close to the speed of light and the other particle is much slower in that respect, which means that it is much larger, the likelihood of an interaction is greatly reduced. If you visualize the small particle intersecting with the motion path of the much larger particle you will see that the small particle will pass completely through the motion path on one side and then travel through most of the larger particle in the internal volume of the larger particle where it can't interact with the larger particle's photon because it is located on the enclosed path of the larger particle and not internally within it. It will then travel through the other side of the larger particle's enclosed path. This greatly decreases the chance of an interaction between the two particles. The net effect is that our energy photons and matter particles can only interact with each other when they are both within a specific frequency range with respect to each other. This means that we live in a universe that only includes energy photons and matter particles that possess frequencies within this range. There are other universes that exist in lower and higher frequency ranges and it is possible to travel to that nice little world in a very small galaxy near, near away in your desk drawer. Of course, if you accelerate close to the speed of light, you can observe the matter particles of our frequency range to understand their composition and operation, etc. If you learn how to slow down your fifth dimensional motion, you could also be as large as one of our galaxies or travel to a very large world in an extremely large galaxy where our galaxy might be in someone else's desk drawer. As to whether there is a bottomless pit of frequency ranges or just a few, etc. is another story. At that point you could completely understand how our frequency range functions and its internal substances and structuring at all hierarchical levels. If all of the other frequency ranges are constructed the same way you could extrapolate that knowledge to all of them and completely understand them all. There is more to the story, of course, but that is enough of that for now.
My point is that all observational evidence supports the concept that we are continually living in the present. We don't jump back into the past and become a child again once we are grown up. Neither do we go into the future and observe things from that perspective and then jump back to the current present. We can experience the past only in the form of recordings that were made either in our minds or by other devices when that past was the current present. We can only experience a possible future in the form of extrapolations from observed patterns that we observed from past records and from present observations. We cannot actually observe the real future because it has not yet occurred. There is no observable evidence for a continual existence of the past or the future. The relational stuff that highlights the present is the observations of normal continuations of motions in their paths and the expected results from interactions that show a continuation of motion transfers in the normal expected patterns as have been observed to happen over and over in their linear motion flow patterns, etc. Clocks are only useful to us because of this continual orderly motion flow. If the clock were to suddenly start to run backwards because we started to go backward in time to the past or if it suddenly jumped forward 6 hours because we moved into the future, the clock would be useless to us to help us record the continual passage of time. They don't do that, but just continue to move forward at the rate that the motions contained in them provides. I have found that the scriptures themselves, at least in the King James version that is not copyrighted, are very consistent and accurate. The works of men, however, are not. Even those who are said to be followers of Christ, often mix men's science or other works into their works and since man's works are usually at least partially in error they can't be counted on to be completely valid. An example would be when leaders of the Roman church adopted the then current scientific concepts that considered the earth to be the center of the universe and that the sun and planets, etc., went around the earth. When it was later noticed that the planets sometimes went back and forth they just added the concept of epicycles to try to explain them away, so that they would not be seen to have made an error. Ironically, today I see just the opposite in that atheists now in the same way often make up many obviously false theories to try to continue to support concepts like natural creation of the universe or of living creatures, etc. even though current scientific observational evidence no longer supports such concepts as practical. To get a complete understanding of anything it is necessary to both understand what is in that thing (the positive way) as well as what is not in it (the negative way). Both approaches used simultaneously work best. Yes it is not just limited to science.
I am not sure what you mean about the relata and ontology that is not about the structure or relations of things. Please give me what you would consider to be the relata and ontology of matter particles that does not include the structure or relations of them. If you can, give it to me in non-mathematical terms.
Sincerely,
Paul
