**
**

**
**

It's now time to consider a significant mathematically generated scientific alternative, not just to your favorite cosmological theory, but to such controversial concepts as biological evolution. This is a scientific alternative. The language I'll use is scientific in character, not philosophic. And the methods are precisely those used by theoretical science. Let's discuss some interesting aspects of this scientific alternative.

It has been apparent for a few thousand years that it's possible to collect words together into a meaningful set of sentences, but when ordinary human logic is applied, great mental anguish occurs. I'll give you two examples.

(I) I say to you, "I'm lying." Well, if I'm lying, then what I said is true. So, I'm not lying. On the other hand, if I'm not lying, then what I said is true. So, I'm lying. Consequently, I'm lying and I'm not lying.

The last sentence in (I) is a contradiction and you know had bad such things can be for your mental well-being. I know how you might explain the logical difficulties with (I). There may be a difference between putting things in quotation marks and not putting things in quotation marks, or maybe other difficulties such as what "true" means. Of course, there would be no quotation marks if I were to speak the statement to you rather than write it. It's also possible to given a set of specific orders for an individual to follow; but, in a certain instance, it could be very difficult to know exactly what to do.

(II) Suppose there were ten men on a ship, all with different first names, and each man must have a shave each day. Unfortunately, not all of the men had shaving kits. So, the captain selects one man, Joe, who has a shaving kit and instructs him to shave all those and only those men who don't shave themselves. Joe has no problem with determining who to shave and not to shave until he comes to the very last person on his list. The last name on the list is Joe.

For many years, mathematicians have tried to structure mathematical communication so as to avoid producing contradictions. This is done by using very concise rules for writing mathematics and, especially, by introducing precise axiom systems. (Consider high school geometry, for example.) Mathematicians are particularly concerned with determining whether or not the modern axioms for their own subject are consistent. Not being consistent is just another way of saying that a contradiction can be produced. Obviously, this is of extreme importance if one wishes to have a mathematical theory that is not meaningless. The empirical evidence shows that this is the case since no one, to my knowledge, has found a contradiction that hasn't been purposely introduced into the subject. Yes, some have claimed that they have discovered contradictions produced by our modern axiom systems. But, upon investigation by myself and many others, these claims have all be shown to be false.

Only claiming that a contradiction has not been found is certainly not the strongest evidence to support a continued use of mathematics as some sort of bastion of absolute logical rigor - a necessity for physical science as suggested by our Ferris quotation. For this reason, mathematicians attempt to give formal proofs that certain basic axiom systems are consistent. This means they use a very specific set of rules that allows them to write down a finite list of very specific strings of symbols. The last string of symbols in this list is the thing they want to "prove." Apparently, this would leave no doubt that the last string of symbols is obtained in a very rigorous manner since every mathematician, and even a machine, could check out the proof by a strict step-by-step process.

One of the greatest onslaughts against human pride is to state that a human
being, or possibly any biological entity, can't do some mental activity.
Can't you hear the hue and cry? "`How dare you say
I can't mentally do something. I'm a
human being. The most intelligent
of all creatures.`"
Well, in 1931, the mathematician Kurt Gödel apparently showed that
mathematicians **cannot** do what they previously
thought they could do.[13] He showed that they can't use formal procedures
to establish the usual concept of consistency for certain axiom
systems. So, although mathematics is used by science because of its rigorous
logical construction, apparently mathematicians can't formally show that the
basic axioms for the subject are consistent.

In time, most of the mathematical community has accepted this far reaching and extremely influential Gödel result; but, not all. Some individuals, even today, claim they have found errors in Gödel's work and, therefore, in the works of thousands of other mathematicians who have not only accepted Gödel's result but base there own research upon his methods. At least as of this writing, such claims have also fallen short and have been rejected by the mathematical community. But who knows what tomorrow might bring? Anyway, what does this human attitude and historical example have to do with our present subject of cosmology, biological evolution and all other such theories? As you'll see, it has a great deal to do with the general properties associated with the MA-model.

The MA-model has **no** specially built in processes. It uses only the must
basic mathematics with no special mathematical axioms included. The
MA-model is constructed from the most empirically consistent axiom system
available. To obtain this
model, only the standard logical processes, such as those used to argue
for **any**
scientific theory, are employed. It's not, in its most fundamental form, a
theory or model about the origins of our universe. The MA-model gives
predictions about **any** theory that claims to describe mechanisms for the
evolution of our universe or, indeed, **any system** that is assumed to have
existed in the far past. The far past can range from say 100,000 years ago and
further backwards in time.

You see, the MA-model, in the interpretation that I first consider, is a mathematical model about theories themselves and how descriptions are put together by the human mind to produce a theory. The most general aspects of the MA-model are not related to the content of these descriptions.This first interpretation does not yield a general process for the creation of universes, but it does yield some of the most startling of the MA-model conclusions.

I need to define just two more, rather simple, notions.
A Big Bang formed universe would
be what
is called a **developing**
*Natural system* since time is an ingredient for some of the descriptions
for mechanisms
that such a theory describes. Scientists *declare*

an arrangement of physical objects that are so related or connected as to form an identifiable unityto be a

the system is altered in some identifiable manner with respect to time.This means that as time passes some portions of the description for the Natural system also change. [I point out that "time" in this context refers to "sequential" behavior. Actually "time" can be replaced with something called the "universal event numbers."]

Now, the Big Bang and other theories do lend themselves to certain interpretations for the electromagnetic radiation and particle bombardments we are apparently undergoing. Also, a few laboratory experiments can be performed to verify some theory predictions.

With the above definition for a developing Natural system in mind, I can now present three of the startling results relative to the MA-model. I'll explain the meaning of these three results more fully after I state them.

The term MA-model is an abbreviation for the very scientific sounding expression(1) Any scientific description that describes a developing Natural system and that includes any statements relative to mechanisms that atany timeT, in the far past, could produce or sustain such a development has the MA-model as an absolute alternative.(2) For a given scientific theory that you might select as consistent with your personal philosophy, whether it be a Big Bang, biological evolution or otherwise, the MA-model and the scientific theory are the same theory for time periods

afterT.

(3) There areinfinitely manyscientific descriptions for how the Natural system may have developed prior to T. Further, there maynever bea scientific language that can describe in any detail how the Natural system developed prior to T.

Let's say you assign zero to the very moment of time you read this
sentence, and you pick some theory *Th* and a time
T = 2,000,000 years in the
past. Your theory specifically describes our universe in a word-picture at
the moment T and probably other word-pictures for various times between
zero and T as well. The theory *Th* tells about forces that may have
produced our universe at time T or forces that may have existed at T
and that may have
changed and altered our universe's appearance as it developed in time so that
it has
acquired the present condition you observe on a cloudless night. None of these
descriptions will contradict the descriptions obtained from MA-model.
The MA-model is there. Its influences may be somewhat hidden, but the MA-model
tells us that there may be other processes that aid in the time evolution
- the development - of our universe.

"`Now wait one minute,`" you say. " `How
can the MA-model describe
behavior when different theories could be
picked or different times
considered?`" The reason is that the MA-model doesn't use the specific
language of any physical theory; it uses a general language that
characterizes the **common aspects** of all such scientific theories.
Using these common aspects of theory construction, the MA-model says

These hidden aspects may just as well be the actual cause that has produced what your theory claims is the condition of our universe 2,000,000 years ago. These hidden aspects can be the actual cause that sustains the development and has produced what you observe today, and tomorrow, and every day there after. These hidden aspects are just as likely to exist in objectively reality as do any of the not directly observed aspects of any theorythat no matter what theory you use there exist numerous other rules and procedures governing hidden aspects of the evolution of any Natural system that cannot be expressed in any human language nor comprehended by any human mind. This includes our entire universe as a whole.

Our previous analysis has established that many scientists tend to select
theories that correspond to their own more general philosophic world-view
although other theories exist that are consistent with competing
philosophies and yield the same laboratory verifications. If you are aware of
the insidious mind controlling influences behind the selection of some theory
*Th* and don't like its
philosophical implications, you might
discard it entirely for another one. But, you see, it doesn't matter
what theory you choose. The MA-model will always be there lurking in the
background.

Steven Weinberg [38] in his popularizing book on his Big Bang theory attempts to give descriptions for how our universe appeared during the first three minutes of its existence. His descriptions are science fiction; for what he has not explain, as the MA-model does, is that at various times during the development of our universe it is just as probably that a gigantic, possibly universe wide, event - a time fracture - could have occurred which would make it impossible to have any exact knowledge of how our universe appeared prior to this fracture. I'll explain more fully in a later section what is known about such a time fracture possibility, but what this signifies is that we can know almost nothing about what actually took place 2 million, 1 million or even 100,000 years ago anywhere within our universe by observing any of the radiation falling upon us and applying theoretical science.

The D-world and MA-model interpretations do not alter the theory you use to explain the data received by any of our present day scientific instruments such as the now orbiting, but hardly operative, Hubble Space Telescope, or the predictions you choose to accept about what has or will occur after a specific time in the far past. For example, you may keep your cosmological theory, if it is philosophically pleasing to you, but your theory is pure speculation and can't have any scientific truth value. Those that create such theories are simply playing the "game of rational deduction" without any scientific hope of knowing what actually occurred so long ago.

In Chapter 3 on deceptive tactics, I gave you tactic (iv). For cosmological
theories, let me expand
somewhat on (iv). It's not only that many outspoken scientists are attempting
to promote the belief that
Nature follows the patterns of human thought and that everything that exists
in reality is describable in a human language, but they claim arrogantly
that though theories might change or be rejected that some scientist,
someday, will
discover the **absolutely true** cosmological theory. The MA-model shows
that what is "true" in reality can't be known through the methods of
scientific description. The grandiose program of searching for such a theory
is doomed to failure, not in the sense that by some slight chance a theory
*Th*(1)
might be concocted that does describe partially the correct mechanisms, but
science can't tell us whether or not *Th*(1) is the **correct** theory.

Let me rephrase one of the most significant MA-model conclusions in terms of more physical-like expressions. I note that the term "scenario" can be considered as a description for a physical event or the physical event itself.

Prior to the discovery of the methods used to establish the MA-model's results, certain philosophers and, in particular, religious theorists claimed that mankind could not know the true laws that govern the workings of our universe or give any mechanistic description for how it came into being. Their arguments are based upon certain logical processes known as(4) Scientifically there are infinitely many different scenarios, different "beginnings," and the like that could have produced the universe in which we dwell, the earth on which we live and everything about it, and even you yourself. Also there are infinitely many different scenarios for how our universe actually appeared 100,000 or 1 million or 2 million etc. years ago in the far past. But each of these infinitely many scenarios can produce the exact same results, the exact same images on photographic plates, the exact same readings on any data gathering machine as we observed these machines, today, within every laboratory.

Let's diverge for a moment and discuss one of the terms I've used. Please don't worry if the next section is confusing to you since you can actually skip most of it and still comprehend the significant facts discussed throughout this book. I present one minor piece of technical information at this point for those who might be slightly interested in a more detailed understanding of the concept scientists call mathematical modeling.

During my career as a professional mathematician, I've written down the statement of and the proof for literally thousands of new "theorems." One exciting aspect of this profession is that the string of symbols one writes down as a new result is a meaningful expression that has never, I suppose, been previously expressed in human thought. While many other attributes of this discipline excite mathematicians, and probably only mathematicians, the most useful contribution modern mathematics has made to the physical sciences is its logical rigor. Significantly, mathematicians are the keepers, so to speak, of the keys that unlock the processes of extremely accurate step-by-step logical argument.

Strangely enough, within pure mathematics, many of the terms we
use for basic objects
are **undefined** vague entities where they are assumed only to obey a
few simple axioms. Take, for example, the term *vector*. There is a
general list of axioms for such an object and from these axioms
a mathematical theory is created. What is significant
outside of the subject matter of pure mathematics is that a single
mathematical theory can be used to further explore many **different**
disciplines and discipline theories. Let's see how this is done.

A physical *force* can be represented by two concepts, the idea of the
*direction* and the *strength* of the force. Now substitute
for the word vector in the axioms of the mathematical theory the word force.
The mathematical axioms are now written in terms of a physical language.
Go to
the laboratory and set up experiments that will check out every one of the
axioms. If you can verify the force "axioms," then the assumption is
that what we perceive about the behavior of forces will follow the patterns of
human thought. This, of course, is a very strong assumption that need not be
true. But, nevertheless, this is the scientists assumption. Since the
mathematical theory is created by rigorous application of the laws of human
thought, it would follow that all of the mathematical "theorems"
with the term force replacing the term vector would hold for forces. What one
has done is create what is called a *mathematical model* for the
physical concept of force.

The process of assigning a term such as "force" to an undefined
mathematical term such as vector is called a *(physical) interpretation*
for the mathematical
theory. But is "force" the only physical concept that behaviors like a
vector? No. For the physical concept of *velocity* also appears to
satisfy the vector axioms. Under the same assumptions, you can create, using
the same mathematical theory, a physical theory about the behavior
of the velocity concept. Thus we have a new interpretation and a new
mathematical model since it's written in terms of velocity rather than in
terms of force. There are many other physical concepts that can also
be interpreted as a vector, each generating a new mathematical model.
Scientists us these mathematical models in their deliberations and
predictions.

Notice that I've qualified the term "interpretation" with the word *
physical.* The reason for this is that not all interpretations come from the
discipline of physics. The first interpretation for the MA-model is actually
related to the discipline called *logic*, the discipline that studies
the laws and processes that humans follow when they write down symbols
strings and claim that one symbol string "logically" follows from another.
It's very interesting to note that it's the process of
assigning two very distinct concepts to the same mathematical theory that has
created the entire computer industry.

Most pure mathematics today is like the simple geometry you may have
studied in high school. But, rather than use geometry, let's consider a
nonvisual pure mathematical theory and see how it is used to model mathematically reality. [If you find this section difficult, them jumping to section 4.3
will not adversely affect comprehension.] Consider the
following relations between the meaningless string of symbols "nitt" and
"elin." Technically, for mathematician, these two strings of symbols have
no meaning, no content, they are just marks on paper and are called
**undefined (technical) terms**. These two terms are then combined with meaningful
expressions into sentences - our axioms.

(1) Every elin is a collection of nitts.You might well ask, what does "rall" mean? Well, this is a relation that is defined relative to these "nitt" and "elin" things.(2) There exist at least two nitts.

(3) If x and y are different nitts, there exists one and only one elin that contain x and y.

(4) If E is an elin, then there exists one nitt not in E.

(5) If E is an elin, and x is a nitt not in E, then there is one and only one elin containing x that is rall to E.

Two elins E(1) and E(2) are called rall if there does not exist any nitt in both of them.It does seem hard to believe that intelligent people would start with such "nonsense" and then try to establish deductive conclusions (i.e. theorems) from these five statements. Even though this is somewhat of an artificial illustration, this is actually what many mathematicians do. Well, using these five axioms and one definition one can "prove" thousands of theorems. One such theorem states that:

How are the axioms and theorems used in real world situations? Consider a collection of four children, Laura, Diana, Bill and Bob. Now form them into pairs. Let the term "nitt" mean one of these "children," the term "elin" mean a "pair of children." Why don't you try writing down some of the possible pairings of these children and check out whether or not the five axioms hold true for your selection of pairings, where you have substituted each child for a nitt and a pair of children for elin at the appropriate place in each axiom.

Of course, I gave you this example since the axioms do hold with these meaningful expressions substitute for nitt and elin. I think you will find that the theorem also holds for certain pairings of children as well. Say, why not try combining nine different horses into various combinations, maybe not pairs this time, so that the axioms hold. If you believe that this human process of combining real things into combinations is following human logic, then I suggest that you try combining them into groups of three. Another theorem states that if you have n nitts and r is the number of nitts in each elin, then n = r · r. Notice that if you want to interpret the nitts and elins in some other concrete manner, you couldn't use a set of only ten nitts and ever hope to construct the elins so that the axioms would hold true from the viewpoint of everyday human reasoning.

Mathematical modeling is often much more difficult than simply giving an interpretation to members of a known mathematical theory. What you may need is a considerable amount of knowledge about a nonmathematical subject. Let's consider the subject of logic and its relation to the computer. You search for the most basic written communication processes, processes that produce new sentences from old ones.

Here's a few very simple examples. Suppose you
have the following sentences that describe real events.
"If John crosses the road, then
John will get wet. John crosses the road." Even without seeing John, you
would probably agree with me that: "`John, got wet.`"
When we observe such arguments over and over again then it's possible
to **abstract** the process being observed in the form of a
group of symbols and a relation. It looks like
this p -» q, p => q.
But, interesting enough, it's discovered that most people will also accept the
following argument. "If John did not get wet, then John did not cross the
road. John
did not get wet. Therefore, John did not cross the road." Once again, this can
be
abstracted into the symbolic form ¬q -»
¬p, ¬q => ¬p.
Although it's very
trivial, you might even consider the following as a
correct logical argument. "If John crosses the road, then
John will get wet. Therefore, if John crosses the road, then
John will get wet." This can be symbolized by p -» q => p
-» q. The symbol => is a symbol for the **concept** expressed by the
word "therefore."

The symbol => incorporates the unknown processes a human mind follows in order to arrive at the conclusions on the right of the => if the majority considers that mind as thinking rationally. I've actually tried to communicate with individuals whose mental processes did not follow the above patterns. For me, an impossible thing to do. I'm not saying that these individuals' mental patterns were incorrect. You see, rational thinking simple means mental patterns that are common to the vast majority of individuals. Since this vast majority constructs the society in which we live then it follows that, in order to live with us, your mental patterns would need to be similar. [Notice the logical pattern of the argument I've just presented.]

After literally thousands of years of effort, logicians and mathematicians have discovered special properties - axioms - about the symbol => and its relationship to the symbols that appear on the left and the right. You then give these symbols abstract names and created a mathematical theory. Thus from the basic properties associated with =>, thousands of theorems are produced. Hence, a mathematical theory has been created from a concrete every day experience, the experience of thinking. But is the mathematical theory only good as a short cut to the study of how our mind puts expressions together and arrives at deductive conclusions?

Using accepted laws of logic, mathematicians discovered that if you substituted
zeros or ones for the
p and q symbols that appear on the left and right of =>, you can
construct a type of arithmetic that could replace the ordinary arithmetic
based upon the number ten that most of us use everyday. Now a big scientific
breakthrough
came in 1938.[36]
Shannon discovered that
the symbols that appear on the left and right
of the => could represent combinations of electrical switches or relays.
The properties that mathematicians had discovered about these symbols also
hold true for these switches. This **switch** interpretation for these
abstract strings of symbols and their mathematically determined properties is
what has lead directly to the modern computer. Indeed, the basic theory of
microchip and microprocessor design uses the exact same Shannon concepts.
Of course, the
language interpretation still holds, but is completely different from the
switch interpretation. The same thing holds for the mathematical theory
associated with the MA-model. There are two distinct interpretations for the
mathematical theory. I tend to call both interpretations the
MA-model but the context will indicate whether I'm referring to the language, D-world,
or the physical, MA-model, interpretation.

By the way, this illustrates one major
method that leads to modern mathematical theories. Concrete everyday
experiences often lead
to abstractions of their common features and, thus, to mathematical theories.
These abstract mathematical theories carry with them the
interpretations that originally inspired their creation. After this, these
mathematical theories are *re-interpreted* to provide a mathematical model for
something totally different in character. The notion of "re-interpreted" simply
means that the abstract mathematical symbols are now given names taken
from another
discipline or even, sometimes, the symbols take on names used within
a portion of another mathematics theory.

There is another kind of modeling that really confuses even some of the most eminent scientists, but it's of considerable significance to this subject. You take a mathematical theory and use it as a model for some other mathematical theory. You take a set of purely mathematical axioms such as those about the nitts and elins. You take another mathematical theory in which you have great confidence, say a simple set-theory. Then you set up a correspondence between the nitts, the elins and objects in this set-theory.

For example, let the
nitts be the set of four natural numbers {1,2,3,4}. Within simple
set-theory, you can define objects called **ordered pairs**, something
you might have first seen in high school geometry or algebra.
For the set
of natural number {1,2,3,4}, ordered pairs of such numbers are denoted
by the symbol (2,4) or (4,2). Now, I haven't given you the actual
definition
for an ordered pair or, according to the set-theory, the properties that
exists between ordered pairs. But using the definition of what it means to
say that two order pairs are equal, and the like, one can show that the set
{1,2,3,4} can be consider as the nitts and the set of ordered pairs
{(1,2), (1,3), (1,4),(2,3),(2,4),(3,4)} the elins. By the way, this is not
the only set of ordered pairs that can be used for elins. Technically, these two
sets of mathematical objects form what is call an **abstract model** or,
in many textbooks, simply a **model** for the set of axioms (1) -
(5). Of course, you can also correspond these four names for numbers with the four names Laura, Diana, Bill, and Bob. I suppose that since these "numbers" are also "not equal," we might need to assume, in this case, that these are four different individuals.

Since there also exist scientific models that are not mathematical models at all but are physical theories used to represent the behavior of distinctly different physical objects, such as the water flow model for the flow of electrical current, you can see what confusion can occur when the term "model" is used in the literature. You're supposed to know what the term model means from the context if you are a scientist. However, many don't know these differences in meaning; and, when the term model is used in your daily newspaper, it can mean almost anything.

In the previous section, even if you either didn't read it or didn't
understand it, I gave what might be considered some strict rules for the
concept of an interpretation. It's these strict unbiased rules that are used to give
meaning to the MA-model. In many cases, however, there are no such strict rules
in assigning meaning to scientific discoveries.
This is were
the notion of the **general interpretation** appears and, probably,
produces the greatest of all controversies. The MA-model has a lot to say
about the general interpretations as well.

Two examples are enough. First example. Suppose you live on the edge of the Mojave Desert and
you're digging a deep well in your backyard. You uncover two bone fragments
100 feet
below
the surface. You call the police and they call the medical examiner. The
medical examiner says, "`They don't appear human to me.`" To check
further, an anthropologist is called to the scene. She says, "`They don't
look like they have come from any human species I know about.`" Next, a
zoologist exams the bones which still have not been removed from the position
in which they were found. "`No,`" he says, "`they haven't come
from any animal I've ever dealt with.`" Finally, the ultimate of all
investigators, a paleontologist is called for from the New York Museum of
Natural History. He states, "`As far as my
knowledge is concerned these
bones do not fit any known species.`"

Within a week, the hypothetical "Cal Laboratory" applies tests that indicate that the bones are, at least, 100,000 years old. Three days later one of those tabloid newspapers you see at the checkout counter of your local food store displays the following headline.

Bones of Alien Creature Who

Visited Earth 100,000 Years

Ago Found in Backyard Well

Second example. Suppose
you're digging a deep well in your backyard. You uncover two bone fragments
100 feet below
the surface. You call the police and they call a different medical examiner
than used above. The
medical examiner says, "`They appear human to me.`" To check
further, a different anthropologist is called to the scene. She says, "`They
look like they have come from the human species X42.`" Next, a
different zoologist exams the bones which still haven't been removed from the position
in which they were found. "`No,`" he says, "`they haven't come
from human species but are the remains of an ancient type of horse.`"
Finally, the ultimate of
all investigators, a paleontologist is called for from the
Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. He states, "`As far as my
knowledge is concerned these
bones come from the back section of
an amphibian of some sort or other.`"
Within a week hypothetical "Cal Laboratory"
applies tests that indicate that the bones are, at least, 100,000 years old.

Which of these interpretations is correct? Are they from the human species X42, an ancient horse, or are they the remains of an unknown amphibian? Three days later one of those tabloid newspapers you see at the checkout counter of your local food store has selected its own interpretation from those presented by the "experts" and displays the following headline.

Ancient Bones Prove That the

Mojave Desert Was Covered

By Water 100,000 Years AgoFrom a Species of Amphibians

In the first example, all the investigators seem to agree that they have little knowledge as to the proper interpretation for the bone fragments. The tabloid has embellished their "nonfindings" somewhat to sell papers.

In the second example, the
investigators are working from the rules and knowledge
accepted by their own scientific discipline, and they use specific theories.
The same can be said for the
tests conducted by the hypothetical Cal
Laboratories. This is what leads to the basic controversies. In the first
example, *the bone fragments don't fit any of the investigators theories.*
In the second example, *the
bone fragments fit more than one interpretation.* The greatest controversies occur in the second example.
Different authorities using different theories **for the same evidence**
come to different conclusions. Which one is correct? As I've pointed out many
times, usually it isn't the question of which is correct, but rather
the question of which interpretation does not contradict a personal
philosophy.

The MA-model is not concerned with personal philosophy motives. It presents its results without being clouded by such constraints. It is not concerned with whether a group of scientists all agree or they disagree upon the proper interpretation. The MA-model says that it makes no difference which, if any, of these different general interpretations is correct for the most basic principles used by each of the disciplines and each of the investigators may be faulty. Each of these disciplines bases its rules of investigation upon Natural processes that have only been described scientifically for the past few thousand years.

The MA-model specifically states that it is just as probable that the Natural processes that produced those so-called bones are not the same as we have observed and described over the passed few thousand years. We can have no scientific knowledge as to what were the Natural processes at the time these bones were formed.What does the MA-model have to say about scientific "truth" and its relation to the far past and the far future? Scientific truth is obtained empirically from evidence, evidence that's gathered at the present time and that verifies specific theory predictions. But, due to the existence of the MA-model, scientific theories that describe events that may have occurred in the far fast or might occur in the far future have no scientific truth value. Such descriptions are not "true in reality," not partially true in reality, not 90%, 50%, 25% or any percentage "true in reality." You cannot associate the concept of truth as it is empirically determined by the scientific method with any of them.

The MA-model appears to have some interesting statements to make about modern scientific endeavors. This is especially so since this model is obtained by means of the same basic scientific tool and same logical process used to obtain our most cherished of scientific theories. It should be obvious why many scientists have attempted to prevent you from knowing the truth about the validity of their work. I still have more details to reveal.

In the first four chapters of this book, I've present some of the ideas associated with scientific communication and, in particular, how members of the scientific community are purposely, I think, using invalid linguistic techniques to alter personal beliefs. It's up to you to continue this analysis by checking those so-called scientific articles that appear in newspapers and magazines. Notice how they are stated incorrectly in a positive language. Then listen to those educational TV programs that also claim to be scientific in nature. Is the program material also stated incorrectly in a positive language? Is the same thing true about the material that appears in textbooks used by our educational systems. Do any of these sources indicate in any manner that what they are describing about events that are assumed to have occurred in the far past have NO scientific truth value? Judge for yourself. I'm confident that you will arrive at the same conclusions I've discussed in these previous chapters.

After you've made your own analysis, please recall what I've written about
contradictory statements. The scientific community knows fully well that
the use of such linguistic tricks, if you accept these positive statements
as implied truth, will force you to accept certain personal beliefs and reject
others. I'm again confident that you can determine easily which personal
beliefs these insidious methods would force upon you and which you would need
to reject, **if** such "scientific" descriptions had any truth value,
which they don't.

Now let me detail an important procedure you should follow. You first development a personal belief-system, including religious concepts, not based upon some scientific theory but, rather, based upon your personal experiences, personal evidence and various writings. Then you can, if you wish, select a scientific model for the origins of the universe, origins of life and all that sort of stuff that does not contradict your personal philosophy. Although I won't discuss it in this book, you could then compare your selected model with others based upon its technical scientific merit. However, I point out that the scientific rules for model preference are concocted by the scientific community and need not be valid in reality since they are based upon human comprehension.

I've promised to take you step-by-step through the discovery process itself and discuss such things as what is meant by "sudden change" or "distortions," and the like. This I shall do next.

newspapers that they assign reporters to investigate my claims and that their conclusions be reported to the newspapers' readership.

The scientific community has only itself to blame for any repercussions this book might produce. They have been told many times, one way or another, the same general conclusions that I'm about to reveal directly to you. The concerned scientists could have analyzed the mathematical arguments themselves; but, as stated, they have chosen to ignore them, purposely I think, in an attempt to co