It's important you understand that I'm not criticizing the basic mental endeavors of scientists who engage in theoretical descriptions. If you remove all of the attempts that are made to force you to believe in the reality of a theory, then the actual pure theories themselves are the works of great genius. The mental abilities of these scientists are often beyond measure. Their errorless ability to recall the most minuscule aspects of a theory, their knowledge of their own and other disciplines, all contribute to appropriate awards and recognitions. However, I have and will continue to explain why many of these works of genius, as logically brilliant as they may be, can't lead mankind into a factual understanding of reality. Every cosmological theory and every theory of evolution which satisfies accepted scientific criteria is just as likely to be false, in reality, as it is to be true.
I mentioned on the very first page of this book that I made a startling discovery in September 1978, but I applied this discovery to certain philosophical questions and not to those of interest to the majority of the scientific community. In late August 1979, the actual events that led up to its application to certain scientific questions occurred in the air over the State of Minnesota.
On August 23rd, I was to present a paper at the summer meeting of the American Mathematical Association at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. I took a flight out of Chicago and who should be sitting next to me at the window seat but John Wheeler, the Joseph Henry Professor of Physics emeritus at Princeton. I could spend the next few pages listing his array of scientific achievements. They are, indeed, of considerable significance. One who is honored with such awards as the A. Cressy Morrison prize, the Albert Einstein prize, the Enrico Fermi award, the Franklin medal, the National medal of Science, the Herzfeld award, the Neils Bohr International Gold medal, among others, has a long list of accomplishments. All you need to do is the check such publications as "American Men & Women of Science" or the appropriate "Who's Who in ...." and read the list for yourself.
The Mathematical Association of America was simultaneously having its summer meeting at the same university, and Professor Wheeler was invited to present a major address to the attending members. We talked back and forth for a while about nothing significant, such as his belief that he had taken on a task that might be "over his head." He suggested that his audience, being mathematicians, most be composed of the most brilliant intellectuals within the scientific community; and they would probably find his address boring, inept and without any significance. [Since I'm still classified as a mathematician, I can truthfully state that this "myth" is not at all uncommon. Sometimes I accept this myth without correction; but, at other times, I try to explain that it's not true. It's simply difficult for a researcher in pure mathematicians to explain the motivations, intuition and mathematical methods to those who have not had many years of experience in rigorously establishing "abstract nonsense."] I assured Professor Wheeler he had nothing to fear from his audience and they would be most appreciative.
We were both watching a magnificent cloud display, below and to the left of our airplane. These Minnesota clouds, these thunderheads, were remarkable in their beauty as they "bubbled up," changed shape, size and even their colors. I had never before seen a more breathtaking display of cloud "pyrotechnics." Then Professor Wheeler turned to me and said, "You know, we can't do that."
I thought that this was a very curious statement. What could he possibly mean by the "we"? After further discussion, I became aware of exactly what this statement meant to him and how he had challenged me directly to find some kind of answer. My understanding of the physical significance of his challenge was re-enforced by his talk. You see, at these mathematics meetings many talks are scheduled during the same time periods. Fortunately, I could attend Professor Wheeler's lecture since my lecture was scheduled during a different period. I say "fortunately" since his presentation was much more to the point than his cloud observations.
Now I have the task of trying to describe to you what Professor Wheeler presented to me and my solution. Little did I realize, as my research developed, that my solution would also provide an answer to what Wheeler claims is the "greatest question on the books of physics" [32, p. 541], would create the MA-model, and have numerous other applications.
The Minnesota clouds can be used as a type of illustration. But it wasn't actually the thunderheads themselves that led to Wheeler's "we can't do that" statement. His concerns are about a general problem that continues to plague physics as a discipline. It's this general problem that the Minnesota clouds tend to illustrate.
I'm not going to discuss this problem as it was presented by Wheeler at his lecture or in his associated writings. As I've mention to you, a language has been developed that allows for a much simpler explanation. Let's recall some of this language. A developing Natural system is described in two pieces. First, there is a Natural system which is defined to be
an arrangement of physical objects that are so related or connected as to form an identifiable unity.The notion that goes with the term "developing" is that
the system is altered in some identifiable manner with respect to time.As you view a thunderhead from a window, it can be declared in its entirety to be a Natural system and described from moment to moment by strings of symbols. It's the content of these descriptions, especially if they happen to be in an encoded form reproduced by a video camera, a camcorder, and played back by a VCR, that impresses upon your mind the wondrous beauty of this changing system. On the other hand, you can also think of the thunderhead as a combination of subnatural systems that somehow or other combine themselves together to produce what you perceive.
A subnatural system is a Natural system that forms a part of another Natural system. You might go inside the thunderhead and describe a single water droplet and how it changes its appearance with time. The one droplet is a subnatural system in this context. Then, as I have actual read it in a book about the physics of the air [24, pp. 305-307], you could describe the violent vertical motion and great turbulence that vast collections of cloud particles undergo and study this as another subnatural system. Then you could study the subnatural system that incorporates the variations in electrical potential that are needed to produce a bolt of lightning. Scientists are trained to dissect Natural systems into thousands of "simpler" subnatural systems. Of course, these subnatural systems, if studied without reference to another containing Natural system, are themselves Natural systems.
Many difficulties are encountered with the languages used when scientists attempt to combine together the descriptions for subnatural systems and arrive at a description for the entire Natural system itself. In fact, even contradictions can occur if theories are included and such languages are mixed together. But Nature does the combining without our help. It just "does its thing," whatever that may be, and out pops the thunderhead. The problem is
does Nature really combine subnatural systems together, in a way that we can understand, to produce the entire Natural system or does it use an entirely different method so that contradictions are somehow avoided? Is there something else required, something more basic than science has yet described and that's needed to combine all the Natural systems together that comprise our universe? Indeed, how can a universe that's perceived by humans to have order and harmony really be a product of chaos?Let me caution you again that this is not the original way the problem was presented by Professor Wheeler. His simple observation about the difficulty science has in combining Natural systems together led me to extended the problem as stated above. I included the additional possibility that there may be something else involved that science has somehow missed - something else that would eliminate these difficulties. Also, the third question in the above problem was not conveyed to me by Wheeler. I thought to myself, "If you're looking for this all inclusive 'something,' you might make the problem more difficult and see if your findings can answer one of the great philosophical questions as well."
Watching the thunderheads alter their appearance and change from moment to moment leads to the first step in the construction of the MA-model. Suppose that you have an analog clock; not a digital clock, but one where the hands on the face seem to revolve in a continuous fashion. Mark on the face of such a clock, between the number marks that already appear there, millions of additional very thin "tick" marks. Something like this |. Suppose that you have a minute hand that is exactly the same width as these tick marks. As the minute hand revolves, it will cover each tick mark. When the minute hand "exactly" covers a tick mark you have, what might be called, an instant or moment of time.
I'm not going into a lot of technical details about the philosophy of time, this would waste yours. It's enough to say that at a particular instant the Minnesota clouds have a certain appearance. At the next instant of time, they probably have a different appearance. You might not perceive a change at all between two consecutive instants of time, then again the change could be drastic and obvious.
There's a slight philosophical problem with the concept of "change." The difficulty is most apparent when scientists interpret their theories about physical areas that are invisible to direct human observation. With respect to certain changes that Quantum Theory claims must take place in the subatomic realm, Feinberg writes:
"The changes in the physical situation . . . occur suddenly." [10, p. 84]But, on the other hand, Patton and Wheeler seem to contradict Feinberg when they write:
"But in quantum physic no change is sudden." [32, p. 569]For those that believe in what is termed a continuum of time, we would need more than the millions of tick marks on our clock face to satisfy them. They need to conceive of infinitely many moments of time, although in the Natural world no human being has even been able to place that many tick marks on a clock face. But other scientists are just as willing to accept finitely many tick marks over an hour of time represented by the minute hand as it revolves. The MA-model construction takes into account both of these philosophies of science and these two conflicting concepts need not concern us any further.
The basic absolute assumption is that at a specific moment of time there exists a word-picture - a description - for the appearance of a Natural system.I don't care how detailed the description might be, how many theories are used to describe the assumed hidden aspects of the system, whether you use words, television cameras, or whatever, to obtain a string of symbols that is claimed to be a description for the appearance of a Natural system at a moment. The reason that I don't care how refined your description might be is that the construction of the MA-model is mostly not dependent upon the content of any description. The description is considered only to be an abstract string of symbols, possibly composed of other abstract strings of symbols, and nothing else.
Have you ever been the first person to walk along a sandy beach after the tide as gone out? Your foot prints are the very first human things that now appear imprinted in the sand. I have done this a few times and have never discovered other meaningful strings of symbols scratched into the sand by the forces of Nature. What am I trying to illustrate by this example? I'm concerned with descriptions for the appearance of a Natural system, such as the Minnesota clouds, that are created by mankind and only by such a thinking biological creature.
No matter what type of description you select, it requires a vast array of mental processes to obtain. It's obvious that great mental ability has been expended to produce the processes of encoding a description by means of a camcorder and then playing it back on a VCR. What isn't obvious is that each of us also perform great mental tasks when we describe by word-pictures even the most superficial appearance of a Natural system. I'll demonstrate this.
You're driving down the road and witness an event. You stop the car to write down a description. Your mind, with what appears to be no effort, logically selects specific words from a vast store of such words and logically places these selections into the correct order so that the proper content of your description will be conveyed. You also have logically applied some of the rules of grammar. You write: The house of the man caught on fire. Now, if you were writing this as they did in ancient Greece, you would have written the following string of symbols. THEHOUSEOFTHEMANCAUGHTONFIRE Of course, it's not difficult to put the spaces in the correct position and still retain the same content.
The actual symbols you have used in this description, not considering the space and the period, are TTTHHHHOOOSEEEERNNAAMCGUUFFI. There are about 9 · 10^23 different permutations (i.e. different symbol strings written left to right) of these symbols not using the space. Certainly, your mind did not attempt to select the correct permutations from this enormous collection. No, by some process I don't understand, your mind selects the correct words, where each word describes but a piece of the event. Then your mind puts them together in the correct order. I say correct order since one of the permutations is THEMANOFTHEHOUSECAUGHTONFIRE, which when written in our modern form is The man of the house caught on fire. If this is not an illustration of how marvelous our minds are when describing events, just consider some of the great works of poetry.
Let me repeat again what I have learned from my scientific experiences. One of the most exhausting logical tasks is the process of selecting strings of symbols and combining them into meaningful expressions that yield a content that corresponds to a mental impression for a new concept. I've never been able to express some of my mental impressions in a symbolic form that conveys the content that I intend. For me, the content of many concepts is far greater than any description can detail.
I now came to the first step in the construction of the MA-model.
Using the above basic assumption, a description for a developing Natural system is an enormous sequence of individual descriptions for the appearance of the system at each and every ordered moment of time.Consider such a vast sequence of word-pictures. Play these word-pictures back, one at a time, as if you were using a special motion picture projector. (Of course, if the strings correspond to the camcorder-VCR concept and the like, just play back the tape etc.) By what may be called the persistence of mental vision, you should get a mental impression of the time development, or evolution if you wish, of the Natural system. For the Minnesota clouds, you would "see" the thunderhead bubbling up, the lightning flash and the beauty of the changing colors.
Continuing to use the thunderhead as our basic example, some scientists would add to the images we perceive a vast number of speculative descriptions. Although they can't clearly perceive what's taking place inside the thunderhead, they add descriptions that detail, at respective moments, how the water droplets or ice crystals are assumed to appear, how they may be charged and the like. These additional descriptions are obtained logically from some theory. Under my very restrictive definition, such added descriptions are probably best categorized as speculation. Although such descriptions might come from mental impressions perceived within a laboratory setting, they are not perceived by me when I personally gaze upon the thunderhead in its entity.
To be more scientific, let's assume you used the camcorder-VCR approach. Your camcorder records a digital clock display as it records the thunderhead in its development. You have a grid on your monitor composed of one hundred rectangles, ten horizontal and ten vertical. You've used a telephoto lens or magnified the output of your VCR so that you can see a single water droplet on your monitor. You play back the tape in your VCR. When the digital clock says 16:42:50, you freeze the frame and with a grease pencil mark the grid location of one single droplet. This droplet is in grid number 62. You now release the frame and continue the playback at normal speed. You watch the droplet's position change and at 16:43:00 it appears to have moved into grid number 63. You freeze the frame and mark its position. You turn off the monitor and investigate the two marked positions for this one single droplet.
It's very difficult using any know theory to predict the specific grid where that one droplet will reside at time 16:43:00 even if you know its grid location at 16:42:50. The behavior of an individual droplet within the thunderhead might be described by some scientists as random behavior. The actual meaning of the term random is highly misunderstood and varies from individual to individual. It's a term more relative to the philosophy of science, a term about descriptions, rather than a proper scientific term. It's a good idea to give you some information about its meaning.
If you're given a scientific theory Th with all of its means of measuring various forces, velocities etc. (i.e. the parameters for the theory), then with respect to that theory the droplet's position is random, with respect to time, if the following holds. Using the theory (i.e. its language) and all of the theory allowed measurements of the droplet's behavior at time 16:42:50, the theory does not allow you to specify the droplet's grid location at 16:43:00. One might further describe this theory related randomness, after the fact, by saying that there is no theory predicted relationship between this single droplet's grid location at 16:42:50 and its grid location at 16:43:00. A few scientists claim that this type of unpredictable behavior is produced by irregular or unknown fluctuations of the forces that cause the droplet's motion during the ten seconds that have elapsed.
Of course, the theory that is being considered might give a prediction that the droplet has a 20% chance of being in grid 63 at 16:43:00. This isn't a prediction that this particular single droplet will be in grid 63 at 16:43:00. This "prediction," if one wishes to call it that, isn't based upon observing a single droplet's behavior, but rather a very large collect of droplets.
In order to bring this down to the atomic level, the irregular unpredictable behavior for the single water droplet in the above example can be explained by the laws of "chance" coupled with an irregular unpredictable behavior within the subatomic region [2, p. 80]. One of the assumptions accepted, without further analysis, by the vast majority of individuals working in subatomic physics is that there's no cause other than the irregular behavior of certain subatomic Natural systems. In this case of such a subnatural system, you can, at the least, give a written expression that closes a cause and effect process. To arrive at this conclusion, you simply include in your list of causes the expression "irregular behavior." Of course, it's also necessary not to list irregular behavior as an effect although quantum physicist Bohm  did attempt to cross this barrier and show that there might be yet another level below the subatomic area where specific processes that are describable as somewhat precise could lead to the appearance of irregular behavior as well as to accepted predictions as to how large aggregates would behavior. Accept for such work as Bohm's and this author's subparticle theory, this seems to give a actual physical barrier that you are not allowed to cross, an area where investigation is forbidden. I repeat that you are not allowed to replace this irregular behavior concept by any other concept and, by definition, you are not allowed to seek a cause for such irregular behavior. As I'll point out in section 5.6, under certain cause and effect patterns, the assumption that a cause is but the laws of "chance" applied to irregular behavior objects does lead to meaningful scientific questions that should have scientific answers. How do many scientists stop such questioning?
Using this idea of theory dependent randomness, many scientists take a great leap outside of the realm of science into philosophy and accept the concept of absolute randomness. They actual require you, if you wish to associate with them, to accept that there is no theory that can ever be known which can be used to predict the grid location of the single droplet at the time 16:43:00. This type of randomness is accepted by many who work with various quantum and cosmological theories. Of course, such a belief is purely philosophical in nature and has no scientific merit since "ever" is a long time.
Finally, under the idea of scientism absolute randomness leads to the concept expressed by such previously quoted authors as Mirian Allen deFord with her notion of ". . . random, fortuitous forces . . . ." For our water droplet illustration, this type of ultimate philosophical and absolute randomness means that there is no relation between the droplet's two grid positions at all, whether describable in a language or not. Once again, this last type of randomness can't be scientifically determined. You can see how authors use this term with its different meanings to confuse you. They often employ its nonscientific meaning, claiming that it's somehow scientific in nature, for the purpose of controlling your thinking about "order" within Natural processes. Only the first type of randomness, the type that says that a specific theory can't predict something, is a scientific concept.
You continue observing the location of this single water droplet's development for three minutes. The path of motion does indeed seem somewhat irregular to you. But is this irregular path irrational to the your mind? Does irrational mean unpredictable? Well, you might conclude that the droplet's motion is "smooth" in character and doesn't produce mental confusion as it evolves. Indeed, you might rationally deduce that the droplet is, at least, moving somewhere. If what is observed is irrational to the your mind, no such deduction would be possible. What you can't seem to do is to write down a set of hypotheses that will predict this single droplet's exact motion from previous information.
What happens if you look at the billions of water droplets collected together into the thunderhead in its entirety? Consider a tape recording taken from a weather satellite. Play this recording back on your VCR. The entire thunderhead occupies grid location 54 at 16:43:50. Modern science can predict, with considerable accuracy, the position of this thunderhead at 17:43:50. Thus from human unpredictability or randomness comes human predictability or nonrandomness as I've defined the concepts. Notice that this last statement appears somewhat irrational in character. Unless one associates randomness with an admission that the human mind can't know something, the philosophical consequences of last statement leads to great controversy within the scientific community.
Yes, Nature puts together, somehow or other, randomness and generates magnificent nonrandomness. Nature does this and produces the describable entity. But those that believe that the human being can "know all," must force upon Nature a property that science can't verify. This very outspoken group declares that:
for certain Natural systems, Nature is lawless and arbitrary with respect to any detailed system behavior - that there are no Natural laws that govern specific behavior of specific individual objects, only general laws governing the general behavior of all such objects or large collections of such objects.
One aspect of science is that it's a quest for the truth. If scientists declare that certain Natural systems display arbitrary unpredictable behavior, this, usually, doesn't mean that a further in depth investigation isn't possible. Some scientists may be angered by such an investigation and reject the findings, but they certainly can't prevent the investigation, can they? For example, one can attempt to determine whether or not there is a describable cause for such arbitrary behavior.
Previously, I introduced the concept of the cause and effect statement. These are self-evident statements that are simply accepted by a scientific group. Cause and effect statements do, however, have certain basic properties. If the cause is a process, it's possible that the cause can be considered as the effect produced by some other cause. This sets up a possibly open ended sequence of descriptions similar to the speculation pattern (S) of human thought. You have in a list of accepted effects, effect number 100, E(100), that is claimed to produce effect number 99, E(99), and so-forth until you get to effect number 1, E(1), that is claimed to produce the last effect E. But, is there in your list a cause for E(100)? And, if there is, will there be a description for a cause "at the very beginning" of the sequence or will the list of effects simply never end?
In order to experience what is going on here, such an effect sequence can be diagrammed by
For that large group of individuals that believe in the concept of scientism, the question mark in the above sequence is a devastating philosophical problem. If human beings will ultimately describe all the laws of Nature, the question mark must be eliminated for it shows a lack of knowledge. These scientists must not admit to an ultimate ignorance. What is the clever and insidious method used to resolve this difficulty?
An ultimate cause might be described as a closing of the above sequence in a sense that there is something at the far left from which all effects emerge. The question mark is replaced by some description and, hence, for science, some actual Natural process that corresponds to this description. Nothing in the list of effects comes before this ultimate cause. Here are a few examples of how ultimate causes come about and their affects upon your mental well-being.
In order to illustrate what is going on here, a general effect sequence can be diagrammed by
Again, the basic question is whether or not this sequence is considered to continue "forever to the left," or "to the right" so to speak, or will it stop at some point beyond which the human mind shouldn't go?
As a prototype for three types of effect sequences, consider the Big Bang standard model. Weinberg [40, p. 140-144] claims that, for the standard model, there are three basic diagrams.
where E(B) is the beginning of our universe, the starting point, that occurs at a moment or over an interval of time. Then there is
where E(E) is the finish, the ending, of our universe that occurs at a moment or over an interval of time. The third scenario is
where I'll discuss the meaning of the term repeat shortly.
The advent of subatomic physics with its invisible world has allowed many scientists to close arbitrarily this cause and effect sequence. According to the standard model, for (A) and (B), E(B) and E(E) are quantum events. For the cases (A) and (B), the cause E(B) is describable. The concept of the irregular behavior of certain subatomic stuff is claimed to be the "starting point." It's kind of a scientific deity that produces "everything." But, there must be more. But, wait a minute. I thought the standard model is the Big Bang and this is the ultimate cause. No, it's not the ultimate cause in the standard model. A Big Bang without same Natural processes applied to the irregular behaving stuff that comprises the material that is postulated to have existed at the moment of this Bang would leave you with a universe that contained nothing but the original irregular behaving stuff, in the same condition (or state), and nothing else. You, at the least, need some Natural process to produce the Bang (expansion) itself and then to form a developing universe. From the viewpoint of human comprehension, one needs some sort of "encoding" in something or some sort of way to give information to entities that forces them to behave in a certain way, usually, quantum physical. For example, Natural processes that would yield material other than the original stuff. For (A) and (B), the assumptions accepted, without further analysis, by the vast majority of individuals working in secular cosmological physics is that
there was a collection of subatomic stuff and this stuff was behaving in a random manner. Then time began when some sort of Natural processes suddenly took control of this subatomic stuff.But the (A) (B) scientists have gotten themselves into a nasty dilemma. Whether the (A) or (B) occurs depends upon the values of certain parameters used in the standard model. Since both scenarios are possible, then it's reasonable to ask some significant questions. In case (A), under the assumption that the subatomic stuff simply existed, then is there a cause that produces the Natural processes that are required to produce a universe? Were they dormant but yet somehow encoded into the unknown composition of "empty" space itself and then a "chance quantum fluctuation" of some sort "turned them on," so to speak. Such a fluctuation would be in something physical, but what in the standard theory is "physical" about "empty" space? I'm sure you can think of a few more questions of this type for case (A).
For case (B), another definite possibility, the universe comes to some sort of end, where it returns to its state of subatomic stuff and the universe is not reformed. This means that the Natural processes are turned off. How is this "turning off" done? Is it the exact reverse of the beginning scenario? Of course, you could have a ultimate Natural process that would turn off all Natural processes, including itself, when the subatomic stuff arrived at a certain condition. All of these considerations are rather problematic since the language I have used to discuss and state these questions and give possible answers is a language that probably has no meaning under the conditions being considered. Patton and Wheeler claim that:
"It is difficult to avoid the impression that every law of physics is 'mutable' under conditions sufficiently extreme . . . ." [32, p. 568]In this regard, Weinberg seems to disagree somewhat with this statement, at least relative to quantum mechanics, for he writes:
"Above all, the whole universe must be described in the language of quantum mechanics at temperatures above 100 million million million million million (10^23 K), and no one has any idea what happens then. [40, p. 142]What this means is that it is probable that science can have no knowledge of the actual Natural processes that did occur at the very extreme moment infinitesimally near to the moment that, for the standard model, "time" began. There are descriptions that can only be considered as philosophical junk, that some claim answers this question. It's claimed that the Natural processes just created themselves or turned themselves on "all on their own." I mention that the phrase "created themselves" is, relative to human logic, a logical absurdity. In order to uphold the philosophy of scientism, the best thing to do is to ignore these questions altogether and rely heavily upon theoretical research that tries to develop option (C) or something similar in character. And, of course, many continue to claim that research must lead eventually to a (C) type option since scientism must make the questions raised relative to cases (A) and (B) meaningless. The (C) type option yields a never ending type of duplication process where the universe's starting (beginning) Natural history simply repeats itself over and over again. As pointed out by Weinberg  this is exactly what is being done. Theoretical research continues to be done on the concept of the "reprocessed" or "oscillating" or "cyclic" universe: ". . . an endless cycle of expansion and contraction stretching into the infinite past, with no beginning whatever." [40, p. 143.] Of course, this would also mean no future end to the universe as well and would completely explain case (C). Unfortunately, factoring this type of concept into the present Big Bang theory seems to produce theoretical difficulties since the term "repeat" in the diagram would not mean an exact duplicate start at each cycle. Indeed, it leads to a logical contradiction in that a Big Bang interpretation of electromagnetic and particle radiation would imply that there was but a finite amount of stuff at the beginning of our present cycle. But, due to technical considerations, an additional amount of stuff is added to each cycle. A never ending cyclic process would imply that there would have been an infinite amount of stuff at the beginning of our present cycle.
It's because of the technical difficulties in reconciling the Big Bang cosmology with a cyclic universe creating process that research continues into Steady-State  type cosmologies and the previous mentioned plasma cosmological theory advocated by Nobel Prize winning Hannes Alfven, for in both types there also would no beginning to the universe. Some scientists will do almost anything to avoid what Weinberg calls the "Genesis problem."
The cyclic universe, the plasma universe, as well as similar speculations, are very cleverly constructed and could be one of the most philosophically destructive of all such notions if it were not for the existence of the MA-model.
Notwithstanding the belief that the correct pattern for the evolution of our universe is either (A), (B) or (C), the enormous sequence of individual effects or events, as defined in the next chapter, depicted by the Es for the moment-to-moment development of our universe is the bases for any time dependent scientific investigation. What happens automatically and without requiring any additional assumptions to such a sequence of effects, whether they are of the (A), (B), or (C), when a mathematical analysis is applied? What happens is that the MA-model emerges. Among many of the MA-model consequences I'll discuss in the next few chapters is the fact that it mathematically yields meaningful speculations that answer rationally all of the above questions for the type (A) and (B) patterns. It yields the same cause, the same creation process, for each of them. More startling is the fact that the exact same creation process yields pattern (C) as a possibility and infinitely many variations. The MA-model actually predicts logically the existence of a single beginning process E(U) that yields each of the three patterns, and it does this without using any hypothesized "beginning" concept.
In the next chapter, I'll introduce you to a very simple concept, similar to the worst case scenario (C), that's the basis for all of the general D-world model linguistic and MA-model physical results. Except for subparticle theory, the construction of these models requires only five related self-evident statements, the construction eliminates speculation about the behavior of both the visible universe or invisible micro-world, and no (A), (B) or (C) type of cause-effect is required.
A small remark. If this was a mystery novel, it would be poor practice to give away one of the most startling of the MA-model "universe creating" conclusions - a conclusion that affects directly the deBroglie and C. S. Lewis speculations. But, it might be motivating to state this conclusion now. For, although you might find the information contained in the next chapters exciting on many levels, it may also be somewhat "tedious" in character. As you'll discovery, if we look at the MA-model as a whole, there's a way to describe its universe creating characteristics. These characteristics mirror or parallel the behavior of an inconceivably powerful super, super, super to an infinite degree mind. I'll show how this relates to specific Bible statements.
e 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.