You may not have noticed it but, at the end of section 5.4, I actually described the first step in the construction of the MA-model. Although the model is obtained by investigating the general properties of an enormous sequence (i.e. an ordered collection) of individual descriptions for the appearance of a Natural system at each moment and, as such, is content independent, I do need to explain the context of two contrasting sequences and the explicit self-evident requirements prior to abstracting their general properties.
Is it important that you have a working knowledge of the two concepts I term developmental paradigms and event sequences? Yes, yes, yes, a hundred times yes. It's the fact that due to the existence of different types of these things that statements (1),(2), (3) (4) of section 4.2 are true. And, it's these statements that establish scientifically that there exists a great scientific deception. These statements prove that positive statements cannot be used in discussing assumed far-past or far-future behavior of any Natural system. It's these statements that were used as the bases of my warning letters to the editors of Johns Hopkins Magazine, to numerous newspapers and the major news media. This working knowledge is needed to answer any criticism of my findings.
I believe that there's even a more significant reason why you should, at the least, try to gain some insight into these concepts. In chapter 8, I'll discuss some of the different types of "event sequences" that are produced by the MA-model's universe creating process. One such sequence of events duplicates the Big Bang model. But, some of these event sequences will logically justify other significant creation scenarios. Thus this fact will allow you to select a mode of creation that corresponds to your personal world-view or belief system. For the origins question, what could be more important than this?
Prior to detailing these two concepts, it's best that I state the fundamental self-evident statements associated with the MA-model construction. The following are three of the five and only five self-evident requirements.
(1) Human beings can describe, at the least, portions of a reality that exists.The first type of sequence of descriptions is illustrated by the water droplets. You have a detailed description that describes a water droplet's location and other detailed information about its behavior. This would also hold for a detailed description of the cloud as well. Recall that since certain behavior of an individual water droplet is called random, there's no set of hypotheses, it's claimed, that can be used to predict the droplet's exact grid location from moment-to-moment. However, even though it's not predictable, by (2), a description does exists that will give its actual location for each moment during its period of motion. A complete set of detailed descriptions for the behavior of the water droplets, the bubbling portions of the cloud, the entire thunderhead and the like as they change in time is called a detailed developmental paradigm.
(2) At each moment during the development (i.e. evolution) of a Natural system there exists a description, in the broad sense of section 5.4 and expressed as a symbol string, that yields the "truest " depiction of the Natural system that is comprehensible by any biological entity.
(3) Application of these descriptions to yield a description for the development of a Natural system follows specific human logical patterns.
Why did I select the name "detailed developmental paradigm" for this set of written statements? Since this is a new concept, I had to select a name for it that hadn't previously been used in scientific or philosophic literature. I could have selected a completely new string of symbols such as "yexcertical" or something like that for its name. But "yexcertical" doesn't contain any information that might help you to recall some of the properties of the concept being defined. The name I chose does contain terms such as "detailed" and "development(al)." These terms, if you have some idea of their content, would be an aid in recalling some of the properties of this new concept.
I repeat that many scientists claim that certain detailed developmental paradigms can't be predicted in their entirety using any form of human logic. They claim that no finite set of hypotheses exists from which to generate logically such detailed developmental paradigms. Indeed, each thunderhead would correspond to a different - significantly different - detailed developmental paradigm.
On the other hand, there is a less detailed moment-to-moment description for water droplets and cloud behavior that's common to all thunderheads that have been observed. The language used is not very specific and, usually, doesn't give much numerical information.
Originally, the mathematical processes discovered by your author were applied only to such general descriptions. I've already given you some of these general descriptions. The water droplet at time 16:42:50 is
smoothly moving to another location.At 16:43:00 you could write that
the water droplet has arrived at another location and is beginning its movement to yet another location.Then you can write that
this water droplet may carry an electrical chargeand other such very general descriptions for its behavior. As to the cloud, it's certainly true that at 16:42:50 as well as 16:43:00,
the water droplets have gathered together to form a bubbling portion of the cloud.Such a time ordered sequence of general descriptions is called a general developmental paradigm. [Another name selected specially for this new concept.]
For certain Natural systems, it's also claimed that the system's general developmental paradigm is not predictable from any humanly expressible finite set of hypotheses. Recall Weinberg's Big Bang cosmological theory . His entire book is a description, both detailed or general, for the assumed evolution of our universe throughout its first three minutes. However, he can't go back to the very beginning itself and begin his description since very near, in time, to such a beginning the conditions are so extreme that Weinberg has no idea what laws of physics might be governing the development. Hence, for this Big Bang theory, his science does not have a set of hypotheses that can be used to predict the general development from the very beginning. Moreover, Weinberg's Big Bang is not necessarily an infinitesimal starting point cosmology. Then as before we have the perfectly reasonable question, "What Natural process is there that would allow for an explosion to occur 'simultaneously everywhere'?" Again there appears to be a missing piece to this cosmological puzzle.
Also recall that Patton and Wheeler stress the inability of their science to predict a general developmental paradigm under extreme conditions. They claim that the laws of Nature, as their science describes them, may be altered by extreme conditions and that their science has no apparent way of discovering what these alterations may be. Recall that Patton and Wheeler wrote that:
"It is difficult to avoid the impression that every law of physics is 'mutable' under conditions sufficiently extreme . . . ." [32, p. 568]The MA-model eliminates this unfortunate dichotomy. If a physical theory is accepted as describing in complete detail the moment-to-moment appearance of a Natural system, then this can be used as a detailed developmental paradigm since it corresponds to one produced as in (2). By (3), the development would follow the specific logical processes used to obtain (2). But, even if no such detailed theory exists, then (2) states that a detailed developmental paradigm exists even though it isn't predicted by any known theory. For this reason, I use but one term and replace the phrase "detailed developmental paradigm" by the phrase developmental paradigm. Since the theories that exist today may be altered radically many times in the future, no General Grand Unification theory for our universe and no cosmogony that claims to generate universes can be dependent upon any specific Natural system theory as it exists today. This leads to the following facts that differentiates the MA-model approach from any that has ever been attempted previously.
(*) The developmental paradigm used as a basic object within the structure of the MA-model represents all that "science" can know about the actual appearance and development of a Natural system, and it's independent of any humanly constructed physical theory.And, I repeat, that the MA-model approach eliminates all of the known contentiousness associated with the mathematical modeling of physical behavior. This approach removes all controversial concepts by modeling only the common and most simplistic aspects of scientific communication, and it uses the most empirically consistent mathematical axioms known.
(**) One of the major MA-model findings is that there is a logic-like process that yields for a Natural system a developmental paradigm as it's produced by (2) and this developmental paradigm is independent of the human logic that may be used to obtain the developmental paradigm.
One of the basic difficulties a scientist has is relative to meaningful communication. As in the first chapters of the book, language always constrains communication. Does an individual have the language skills to "understand" the content of a particular description? Better still, one might ask whether an individual has the experience to "understand" the content of a description? Most elementary scientific education is concerned with acquiring the basic language associated with a discipline along with a certain additional amount of content. A teacher might use the everyday experience of riding in a car to indicate the concepts of force, acceleration, and velocity. In a popular discussion of scientific theories, the use of these terms would have meaning to the majority. Today, through the use of the magic of special effects, an individual might get an idea of what the term "black hole" signifies.
Unfortunately, I can't communicate the forthcoming new ideas to you unless I invent and use new terms. My desire is to communicate some of the remarkable processes that might exist and that can actually produce a complete universe. All of the basic scientific terms to which you have been exposed refer to stuff that is assumed to be within our universe. Thus in this popular account, I'm more constrained by language than are other scientists. I don't believe that there has been some motion picture or TV program that tells the story of a group of scientists that are planning to use certain processes to create, in their laboratory, various types of universes. Maybe some science fantasy writer has thought of a way to describe such processes, but I'm not aware of such a writing. If there were popular scientific accounts of actual universe creation, my task would be much simpler. But attempting to describe new notions to which society has never been exposed is very, very difficult. I intend to do the best that I can in presenting the smallest number of new concepts, new terms and the like so that I can give a meaningful description for these new processes. I'll attempt to associate these new terms with concepts with which you are familiar so that you can immediately have some "feeling" for their content. But you'll need to help me in this endeavor by slow and careful reading, and by not supposing that these new ideas will immediately be understood to any great depth.
As mentioned previously, I use two interpretations for objects within the mathematical structure. These two interpretations are very closely related, however. The linguistic or language interpretation, when presented to you, will probably cause the greatest confusion.
I'll try to minimize the difficulties experienced when the linguistic interpretation is used. I've mention that when the mathematical theory is linguistically interpreted the model is called the deductive world model or D-world model for short when even the slightest confusion might result. Some of the results stated in the first chapters relative to linguistics, theories, logic, what scientists can or cannot describe, and the like that are attributed to the MA-model are actually produced by the D-world model interpretation. On the other hand, when the mathematical theory is interpreted by means of new physical-like terms, the model is called the MA-model. Statements such as facts 1, 2, 3, 4, of section 4.2 come from the MA-model physical interpretation.
In what follows, I'll discuss both the linguistic interpretation of a specific mathematical entity and its corresponding physical-like interpretation. But, often, the exact same term is used for both interpretations. The interpretation being used will depend upon the context. Further, consider the very important fact that certain linguistic interpretations need not us used at all. The fact that a mathematical entity has a linguistic interpretation with which you may not agree does not in any manner eliminate the physical-like interpretation. They remain valid.
What do I mean by a physical interpretation? A written scientific description, although it's technically exterior to the brain, is designed to evoke mental impressions. These mental impressions I term as subjective. On the other hand, these subjective impressions are supposed to refer to things occurring exterior to the mind - things that are happening outside of the mind. For this book, some of these occurrences are Natural phenomena. Of course, whether or not these things "really" occur within Nature is another matter.
A phenomenon that actually occurs in Nature is sometimes said to occur in objective reality. A Natural phenomenon that occurs in objective reality is called an event. This term as used in this book should not be confused with its other scientific uses. One might say that "events" are the things that descriptions are describing. The fourth self-evident statement is:
(4) Events are considered to take place in a intuitive time ordered sequence. [Note: a time ordering can be replaced by something called a sequence of universal event numbers if you are not comfortable with an intuitive time concept.]It's now possible to state the very important fifth self-evident statement that further details (2) and that must be assumed for any discipline to be considered as scientific.
(5) A developmental paradigm corresponds to a time ordered sequence of events.The set of events that correspond to a developmental paradigm will be called an event sequence or a sequence of events. By a time ordered sequence, I mean that one event follows directly with respect to time from another event which follows directly with respect to time from another event and so forth. This concept of an event sequence is very important and I'll use the phrase many times. Its greatest importance within science lies in the fact that one must believe that such an event sequence exists and corresponds to a developmental paradigm before one attempts to construct a humanly comprehensible theory that will duplicate the same development paradigm.
I've given, in section 6.1, the (**) linguistic interpreted. In terms of the physical interpretation and event sequences, it reads as:
(***) One of the major MA-model findings is that there is a special force-like (i.e. physical-like) process that upholds, sustains and guides a Natural system's event sequence and this force-like process is independent from any of the Natural processes that occur within any Natural universe.Shortly, it'll be necessary to differentiate between two types of events. But, for the moment, the events I'm discussing are also called Natural events or N-events for short. When the mathematical theory is interpreted in a physical language by application of the event idea what's obtained is a portion of a much larger physical interpretation called the nonstandard physical world model or the NSP-world model. The meaning of the word physical in front of the word "terms" requires some explanation. The usual meaning for a physical term is that it's a string of symbols that names objects, processes and the like that are assumed or imagined to exist or occur in Nature. Terms like "force, Earth, electron." These terms all come from a discipline language and often you are introduced to their content through your education and experiences. However, it's necessary to introduce new physical-like terms that refer to objects or processes that, at least, have similar physical-like content as their corresponding physical terms, but they need not refer to Natural entities or processes.
Now I could hid from you the intuitive concepts that have produced these necessary new physical terms. Many scientists that give popular accounts for speculative theories take the approach of hiding the intuitive intermediate steps since it's these hidden steps that are often controversial. The philosophy and the intuitive stuff must come first before a physical theory is produced, and this is why such things are often hidden from you. But, I don't intend to follow this scheme. Whenever the concepts are not particular "deep," I'll explain why I've chosen a particular term and attempt to describe its significance.
It should be self-evident by now that modern science proceeds along the following path. Events lead to descriptions. In the opposite direction, it's claimed that scientific descriptions correspond to events. A set of hypotheses coupled with human deductive processes leads to descriptions that are often interpreted as predictions. These deduced predictions then correspond to Natural events, it's assumed.
I've quoted from scientists and philosophers their belief that there is some specific relationship between human thought and actual Natural events. What this signifies is that within Nature itself there could be processes that are mirrored by the known patterns of human logic and other mental procedures. Indeed, this must be so for such things as the cause and effect sequence. This physical concept, as pointed out, corresponds to the logical pattern displayed in section 2.3. If a Natural process is indeed following such an identified logical pattern, I call this process an intrinsic Natural process. Now the word "intrinsic" is chosen to indicate that it's a basic and hidden process. We don't actually perceive such a process while it's operating for, unless you are especially trained, you don't consider the mental processes that produce a set of descriptions or the patterns of logical deduction you've used to obtain your conclusions. You simply let the mind do its thing, so to speak. Moreover, recognizing that such processes might exist takes a certain amount of mental effort and may be constrained by your training in perception.
[I should mention at this point that I've sent years looking for appropriate terminology for these new concepts. This new terminology should not appear in previous scientific or philosophic writings. Although you may substitute other expressions for these new terms and obtain a meaningful interpretation within certain areas of science and philosophy, great care has been exercised in new term selection to insure that these terms convey some of the content of the concept they are naming. At the same time, it's hoped that these new terms don't clash with other similar terms you may have read. I, especially, don't wish to forced upon you any of the content of these similar terms.]
Let's consider an example of a mental process that I've not yet mentioned. A scientist is pumping air into a balloon. He measures the increase in the air temperature and pressure inside the balloon as well as its increase in size with respect to a laboratory clock. From experience, he then selects a theory coupled with appropriate Natural laws in which to substitute the data. The theory predicts that the balloon will explode at 3:00 PM. Indeed, at 3:02 PM the balloon does explode.
Mentally selecting the correct theory and Natural laws from an enormous collection of theories and laws isn't necessarily an easy task. Such a selection is called technically finite human choice or selection and this can be modeled mathematically. Since the mental process takes place within the Natural world, it's a Natural selection process. But, this mental selection process may also be considered as imitating an objectively real Natural selection process - another type of intrinsic Natural process. Since I'm going to use the expression intrinsic Natural process many times, let's use the abbreviation IN-process for it. I might say that the notion of scientism makes it almost indispensable to accept the real existence of such IN-processes.
For the present, IN-processes refer to linguistic processes and they may have a dual interpretation. There's the original linguistic interpretation, such as finite human selection, and there may be a physical-like process that mirrors the behavior patterns of the linguistic process. Other, usually not linguistic, Natural processes are termed simply as N-processes. There are NSP-world processes that when viewed from the Natural world correspond to IN-processes. But there are some very interesting new processes being describe by the NSP-world model that differ greatly from any known Natural world process. These NSP-world processes correspond to IN-processes in the sense that they only exist because the IN-processes exist. But, since these NSP-world processes are not the same as their associated intrinsic Natural processes, I tend to call them intrinsic ultranatural processes or IUN-processes for short. [Another, specially selected, new expression.] Whenever you see the prefix ultra placed before a term it means a process or object that cannot be a Natural process as such processes are cataloged by the Natural sciences. If the term "intrinsic" is included, it means that the object or process is similar to one of the Natural processes that I've listed as "intrinsic," BUT, the object or process has many additional and highly different characteristics.
In the next section, I begin my explanation, as best as I can, of the results that are generated when any sequence of events is analytically investigated by means of a modern mathematical theory. Let me mention the name of the mathematical theory I use to investigate these concepts. There are many different names for this theory, but I've chosen one that signifies that it's being used for this specific purpose. I call it the Grundlegend structure (a fundamental structure) and abbreviate its name to the G-structure. Also, I use the expression embedded into the G-structure to signify a consistent correspondence between linguistic objects and abstract G-structure entities. This correspondence is the standard interpretation. Most of the mathematical entities are too complex for me to discuss in this book since I'm not assuming that you're a mathematician. Comprehending this correspondence has even proved difficult for some mathematicians. I know of a Nobel Laureate whose narrow minded philosophical bias contradicts the MA-model approach and, hence, he can't have any understanding of how it's constructed. If, however, you're interested and have the appropriate technical training, the mathematical material is available .
Let me also point out that the G-structure is constructed from a mathematical theory that is the most consistent and oldest known. The mathematical theory is our modern version of number theory.
The scientist who pumped up the balloon based his predictions upon a set of written Natural laws. Indeed, he had to select those special laws that applied to this particular situation. What happens when the complete set of all written Natural laws, as we could ever know them, is embedded into the G-structure? The mathematical model states that there exist other "expressions" that have all the properties of being a "Natural law." But no being within our universe, human or otherwise, could write down these "laws" - no such being could have any comprehension as to their content. Whatever these "things" are they behave like laws or principles, but they can't actually be Natural laws. To differentiate these "laws" from the Natural laws, especially for those many scientists who believe that we will someday know all the Natural laws, I have termed these new objects as ultranatural laws or UN-laws for short.
I've used the term "Natural law," but what does this term signify exactly? If you go to some dictionary definitions, you'll discover that if you remove the philosophical bias from the definition, then there are no Natural laws. I came across the following definition for Natural laws.
A Natural law is a correct statement of the invariable occurrence of certain natural phenomena in the same way under specific conditions.The italicized terms are the portions that need further discussion.
Notice that a Natural law is a statement. It must state correctly that under a specific set of described conditions a Natural phenomenon will always occur. Need I point out the impossibility of establishing the "always" part of this definition. Thus it's technically impossible to know that what is stated is "correct." Natural laws are but statements that are "accepted" by a group of scientists. They need not be accepted by others. To be invariable, the law would need to be observed for all of universe "time." This is again impossible. The statements may need to be altered as our universe changes. There is no Natural law, only a human law, that states that what is assumed to be a Natural law will not change at some moment during the development of our universe. Scientists will be kept busy just checking to see if any alterations need to be considered. Yes, collections of such statements seem to work to predict present day behavior; but, as the MA-model shows, this may be the limit of our scientific knowledge. Thus you have the concept of what a Natural law should be countered by the fact that what are perceived today may not be THE Natural laws. Using the same idea as the developmental paradigm, one can simply assume that such things as perfect Natural laws might exist. But, simply considering Natural laws as restricted to specific time periods during which they are checked out, so to speak, is enough to predict the existence of the ultranatural laws.
Natural laws are written statements. But, they are descriptions that either singly or coupled together are considered to yield Natural processes. Thus the idea of Natural law has a dual interpretation. As I'll later discuss at considerable length, under the rules of interpretation used in this analysis much of the special physical behavior dictated by an ultranatural law takes place in a background universe or a substratum universe. These UN-laws are interpreted as having an indirect effect upon how our universe behaves. Indirect means that although we can't know what these laws are stating exactly, the processes they yield sustain or hold together our universe. Later, I'll explain how it's possible to have some small knowledge of what this background universe contains. It might contain objects that are exceptionally different from anything that could exist within our universe.
If one doesn't accept such a notion as a background universe, then the special physical behavior dictated by UN-laws could also be interpreted as behavior within a separated portion of our Natural universe, but behavior that can't be humanly described or comprehended. Whether one conceives of physical behavior as taking place in another universe - a background universe - that's very different from the one in which we dwell, or taking place within a separated portion of our Natural universe - a portion we can't describe specifically nor comprehend - has few non-religious philosophical implications. Indeed, in the non-religious case, the only differences lie in the use of the expression "universe in which we dwell" and the theories one selects for the evolution of "the universe in which we dwell." It seems that it's somewhat easier to conceive of a background universe in which ours is embedded in a special way.
You may disagree with the idea of that there might be some "other universe" and consider this as complete nonsense. This does not lead to any difficulties, however. Since following the idea of Lorentz or Bohr, you simply need not interpret these aspects of the mathematical structure at all, but rather refer to them as parameters or catalysts. But I warn you that this does not follow the modern idea of realism which requires abstract objects within such a mathematical theory to correspond to physical terminology.
Now that I have brought up the subject, let's discuss the idea of "other universes." Did you know that today there is a body of scientists that seem to believe that there are millions of other objects that correspond to each object that exists within our universe and these other objects exist simultaneously along with each Natural object? Now you can consider these other objects as forming another Natural universe of their own. One could say that these scientists believe that there are millions of other Natural universes and taken together these Natural universes form a Natural multi-universe universe. If I use a physical interpretation that tends to imply the existence of just one other universe, then shouldn't this be accepted just as readily as the existence of millions of other universes? Yet, must scientists who accept the existence of these "other universes" - the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds interpretation for a mathematical expression within Quantum Theory - find it difficult to allow anyone to accept the NSP-world background universe due to its philosophical implications. If you think these scientists don't really believe in millions of other worlds or "universes," let me quote from Bruce DeWitt so you can judge for yourself.
"I shall focus on one of them that pictures the Universe as continually splitting into a multiplicity of mutually unobserved but equally real worlds . . . . This is constantly splitting into a stupendous number of branches, . . . moreover, every quantum transition [a subatomic process] taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies of itself . . . the laws of quantum mechanics do not allow us to feel the splits . . . the splitting of the universe is unobservable . . . . All the worlds are there, even those in which everything goes wrong and all the statistical laws break down. If the initial conditions were right, the universe-as-we-see-it could be a place in which heat sometimes flows from cold to hot . . . it [this theory] can never receive operational support in the laboratory . . . the view from where Everett, Wheeler and Graham sit is truly impressive."[5, pp. 30-35]I'll not discuss the Everett-Wheeler-Graham view of our universe in any detail. But please notice that DeWitt admits that human beings can't know whether or not these other many-worlds exist. There's no observation, scientific or otherwise, that can establish that they are there. But he asserts specifically that all the "worlds" are there. And you must accept this lack of any evidence for their existence when you accept the Everett-Wheeler-Graham theory. Many, many scientists have done just this. However, there could be indirect evidence for the existence of the above background universe - the NSP-world.
I leave DeWitt's description as an indication that some scientists seem to have selected an "interesting" interpretation in order to satisfy a mathematical theory. Such "strange" interpretations are not as foreign to modern scientific discourse as you might have believed.
First, let me make as clear as possible one of my basic concepts. When I write linguistic processes, I mean any mental process associated with a human language or any imagery that is describable in a human language as broadly described in 5.4. Secondly, let me apologize to you. I'm having difficulty in writing this section. There are simply no words - no descriptions - whether I use old words or newly concocted ones that are adequate enough to give you as deep a comprehension of "ultranatural selection" as I would like. This is one of the cases where experience with a mathematical theory leads to intuitive understanding that is not describable. There are many facts about this process that, at present, can only be explained in a mathematical language. But I'll try to give you, at least, a superficial indication of how this new process functions since it's one of the paramount intrinsic ultranatural processes.
The Weinberg Big Bang theory is based upon the concept of initial conditions. For a scientific theory to be useful for more than one situation, it will contain general statements that represent parameters. In order to have the theory apply to a certain specific case, these parameter type statements must be made specific.
A set of initial conditions is a specific list of statements that will yield the theory predicted behavior for a specific case.The initial conditions differentiate one set of behavior patterns from another. A set of initial conditions, in this sense, is supposed to yield a set of statements that describes unique behavior. It is very important to remember that different theories often use the same sets of initial conditions.
In the balloon example, the scientist chose a theory and than substituted into this theory the rate of temperature and pressure change and other such values before the time of balloon failure could be predicted. Other types of initial conditions also determine what theory one selects from a collection of theories. In the case of the balloon, such an initial condition would be a statement as to the material of which the balloon is made. Of course, in all these cases, much like the concept of UN-laws, you also have a set of ultranatural initial conditions.
Under a certain set of Natural initial conditions, what is it that selects one event sequence for the behavior of a specific Natural system over another one? Is there some sort of "selection" process? This second question was the first question answered in my original publications about developmental paradigms and depends upon interpreting a very complex mathematical theorem. This is the first theorem established in the section entitled Developmental Paradigms in . For this mathematical model, the answer is that there logically exists such a selection process. Now, how do I describe the properties of this process and is this process actually some type of physical process?
Well, start with "human" finite selection. This must be a physical process within our brain. Somehow or other we select the words or phrases or whatever and put them together into, hopefully, meaningful collections in order to express ourselves effectively. This gives a finite set of symbols and nothing more mysterious than that. This process seems "simple" and its properties can be described adequately and modeled mathematically . But what results from this modeling is not very simple at all.
Now dictionary definitions for the term "finite" are usually very inadequate. Whatever the term means to you will suffice for this discussion. Mathematicians define this term, in various ways, by using a technical language in the hopes that when they prove theorems about its properties then these theorems will convey most of the intuitive properties that you might associate with the "finite." Suppose that you where to describe some aspects of the concept of finite selection. For example, if you selected two different finite sets of Natural laws, then these Natural laws combined together form one finite set of Natural laws that you could have selected. It's not easy to decipher or comprehend what occurs, from the linguistic viewpoint, when this simple process is modeled by the G-structure. But, just conceive of the possibility of two different languages, a Natural language that has meaning for human beings and an ultranatural language that has very little meaning to the human mind. If what follows is difficult for you please, don't get discouraged for the more meaningful physical interpretation appears in the next section.
(i) The model says specifically that there exists an IUN-selection process that selects developmental paradigms written in a Natural or ultranatural language, Natural and ultranatural language descriptions for Natural and ultranatural processes, Natural and ultranatural language laws and the like. When this process is viewed from one perspective, it has all the same simple "behavior" patterns that you associate with the linguistic process of "finite selection."However, with respect to (i) it's hard to believe that IUN-selection is indeed simple. As (ii) below indicates, there is a difference between how things behave when they are viewed from different perspectives or from different locations. What I might consider to be a simple mental process for me, could be considered from your viewpoint a very complex thing to do. This is approximately what occurs within this mathematical model.
Notice that in (i) I have written the expressions "viewed from one perspective." When this special selection process is viewed from another perspective then "nonfinite" things can occur. A "simple" process as it can be understood by our minds, produces results, from another viewpoint, that are not simple for our minds to comprehend. When viewed from this second perspective, IUN-selection has the following properties.
(ii) IUN-selection can select finitely or infinitely many Natural and ultranaturally described developmental paradigms, Natural and ultranaturally described Natural and ultranatural processes, Natural and ultranatural laws and the like when this process is viewed from the second perspective. Indeed, IUN-selection can select any developmental paradigm.Now comes a most interesting aspect of this new process as viewed from the second perspective. This aspect leads to the very first steps in the construction of the MA-model.
(iii) This IUN-process can not only select any Natural language developmental paradigm but it can select developmental paradigms that are composed entirely or partially of ultranatural descriptions. Moreover, we cannot have any detailed Natural language description for the behavior being described ultranaturally when they are part of a selected developmental paradigm.The reason why we cannot have any "detailed Natural language description" for such behavior is due to the fact that descriptions for such behavior would need to be expressed in terms of "something" that behaves like a "language" - the above ultranatural language - but a language that cannot have any scientific meaning for any biological entity within the universe.
One further aspect of IUN-selection is that such a selection process can be considered as a preselection. IUN-selection can be applied and held aside, so to speak. That is that the corresponding events themselves do not immediately occur but are set aside waiting for further instructions such as a specific time or a specific list of initial conditions to occur.
I now re-interpret statements (i), (ii) and (iii) in terms of physical-like processes and event sequences. By comparing the two different interpretations, it's not difficult "see" how this and other physical-like interpretations are obtained from the linguistic.
(i) The model says specifically that there exists an IUN-selection process that selects Natural and ultranatural events, Natural and ultranatural processes, Natural and ultranatural laws and the like. When this process is viewed from one perspective, it has all the same simple "behavior" patterns that you can associate with the process of "finite selection."As in the linguistic case, one further aspect of IUN-selection is that such a selection process can be considered as a preselection. IUN-selection can be applied and held aside, so to speak. That is that the corresponding events themselves do not immediately occur but are set aside waiting for further instructions such as a specific time or a specific list of initial conditions to occur.
(ii) IUN-selection can select finitely or infinitely many Natural and ultranatural events, Natural and ultranatural processes, when this process is viewed from the second perspective. Indeed, IUN-selection can select any sequence of Natural events.
(iii) This IUN-process can not only select any Natural event sequence, but it can select event sequences that are composed entirely or partially of ultranatural events. Moreover, we cannot have any detailed information as to the behavior of any of the ultranatural events when they are part of a selected sequence of events.
Do you think that such a selection process is absurd? From the Natural world viewpoint, can I justify scientifically the possible physical IUN-selection must exist? Well, if science believes that there exists for any Natural system such a Natural selection process, then the mathematical model says that it's mathematically consistent to assume that such an IUN-selection process exists.
In the Darwinian Theory of Biological Evolution, you have the notion of Natural selection. This is a complex Natural process that allows certain biological entities to survive while others do not. As my dictionary defines the term, "it is the process in nature by which plants and animals best fitted to their environment tend to survive and perpetuate the variations or peculiarities that enabled them to survive." This process is supposed to be a real process that repeats itself throughout biological history. This Natural selection process viewed as a whole would yield similar Natural event sequences, I suppose, if the environment and species are similar. Hence, as we're told, specific initial conditions would trigger such a complex Natural process. A MA-model construction predicts that a like process exists logically within the NSP-world. If this particular IUN-selection process is restricted to the Natural world, then the corresponding events are Natural events. In this case, this process is an intrinsic Natural process I speculated about in section 6.3. By the way, there is an additional argument for such an interpretation. It's based upon all those unknowable UN-laws.
It may be unknowable UN-laws that are combined with known or unknown initial conditions that yield an IUN-selection of the various events sequences.Later, you'll see exactly how (iii) is utilized to help rationally produce the MA-model. I point out that the IUN-selection process can select trillions upon trillions of event sequences from the behavior of the smallest conceivable subatomic object to event sequences for the behavior of an entire universe. These event sequences behave in accordance with specific Natural and ultranatural laws. In other words, the MA-model (our cosmogony) has a built in process that also produces (or legislates) the physical laws that govern the behavior of each and every event sequence. This model answers the number one question as posed by Patton and Wheeler in their paper  entitled "Is physics legislated by cosmogony?"
Now, an additional explanation of the physical meaning of the IUN-selected event sequences as well as the selected Natural and ultranatural laws may be useful. Just like in the N-world, in the NSP-world physical activity (i.e. phenomenon) can occur. In the NSP-world, physical activity can occur that does not occur within our Natural universe. These are ultranatural events or UN-events. Now some of these UN-events can indirectly affect our universe, their behavior patterns can be comprehended partially, or be describe partially in general terms by an individual. But, on the other hand, certain NSP-world events can occur and they can directly or indirectly affect our universe. Unfortunately, we can't even partially comprehend their behavior patterns. I call such events pure NSP-world events. Of course, this implies, like the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds theory, that no scientific method could be devised to verify that such pure NSP-world events have occurred although it can be shown that, from the logic viewpoint, such events must necessarily occur and even produce Natural objects when Natural events occur.
Many things can occur within the NSP-world that are incomprehensible to the human mind. I began to believe that the physical interpretation for IUN-selection of event sequences, as it's motivated by the "strange" linguistic interpretation, and the next concept to be discussed, probably fell into this category. There seemed to be no simple way to describe, even slightly, such linguistic concepts as they relate to physical-like processes. However, after years of reflection, I think that I've now been able to give you some idea as to a possible physical interpretation for such entities. Remember that these results are being generated automatically by a mathematical model over which I have little control. After I struggled with this problem in scientific communication, I discovered that there was, at least, one other scientist who simply conjectured that these processes might exist. I found a quotation attributed to one of the foremost mathematicians of the twentieth century. Referring to how our world has developed as a whole, the extremely brilliant Hermann Weyl is credited with writing:
"Is it conceivable that immaterial factors having the nature of images, ideas, ' building plans' also intervene in the evolution of the world as a whole?"Notice how Weyl has used the mental concepts of "images, ideas, building plans" and their immaterial nature. Science can now answer affirmatively Weyl's, albeit vague, question. Yes, it's not only conceivable that mental and linguistic concepts, interpreted appropriately, "intervene in the evolution of the world," but "something" that contains, in a "compressed form," the images, ideas, and building plans is predicted by a mathematical model. I call this "something" an ultraword.
In order to show the intimate relation between the following linguistic-like and the physical-like concepts, I'll use the time honored process denoted by "[resp. . . . ]." When this notation "[resp. . . . ]" appears after a few words, then you'll get another correct statement by substituting for that set of words, the words that appear in the "[resp. . . . ]" at the place the . . . appear in the notation.
What in the "world" is an ultraword? If you've read any of my older writings in this subject, then an ultraword is a more consistent term for what I've called previously a "superword." This fact, of course, doesn't explain what the term means. Indeed, I'm sure I can't explain its complete meaning since many of its properties are intuitive in character and, except in a negative comparative sense, have no corresponding Natural language properties.
Associated with each moment of time, t, let F(t) represent a Natural event contained in a Natural event sequence. At this point, I have no interest as to the composition of the individual event F(t) only that it has a physical meaning. The event F(t) is made to correspond to an object that exists logically within the mathematical theory in such a way that if you are given one of these mathematical objects, then you can reproduce the string of symbols that describes a particular event or, in other words, you can obtain the event associated with the mathematical object. Repeating this correspondence between events and such mathematical objects, for all the moments of time being considered, is what I mean by "embedding" the event sequences into the G-structure. What happens in the G-structure when such an embedding is used?
(i) The existence of a mathematical object - an ultraword - is automatically obtained through simple deductive procedures.To understand the concept of the ultraword, I again use the specific scientific principles of interpretation. Thus, ultraword properties are interpreted by physical [resp. linguistic] terms. But, it's difficult to find physical [resp. linguistic] examples that correspond to ultrawords. What is an ultraword is gleaned from its properties, how it differs or is similar to describable physical [resp. linguistic] processes or objects. I mention that this is the exact same method used within Quantum Theory and cosmology studies, among numerous other areas.
One important reminder. I tend to use the term "humanly" and other similar expressions to refer to things intelligent beings can actually do. Now let's describe some of the properties of an ultraword.
(ii) An ultraword, at least, has certain Natural world physical [resp. linguistic] properties.I'll try to give you a feeling for some of these physical [resp. linguistic] properties in a moment.
(iii) An ultraword, however, also has additional ultranatural properties, properties that it does not share with any Natural world object.For example, an ultraword has properties that can't be described in any language by any human being. Indeed, they probably can't be described by any entity within our universe. Also an ultraword contains millions of ultranatural events [resp. descriptions] that behave, in general, like Natural events [resp. descriptions] or behave, in general, in an incomprehensible manner. And such events [resp. descriptions] do not occur Naturally. Indeed, we can't write down a description for these individual ultranatural events although the model says that they can occur.
(iv) An ultraword may be interpreted as a necessary intermediate object that is needed to produce logically an event sequence [resp. a developmental paradigm].The ultraword alone would not be a "cause" that produces an event sequence [resp. a developmental paradigm]. A possible cause is yet to be described. The next result about ultrawords is necessary in order to answer Wheeler's basic questions. Let's recall these basic questions.
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?Before proceeding, let's illustrate the ideas involved. As far as the Chapter 5 thunderhead is concerned, it can be classified as a Natural system. Each single water droplet and various collections of such droplets can be considered as subnatural systems. Of course, there can be hundreds of other subnatural systems that appear to influence the appearance of the thunderhead as a whole. I use the term sub-event sequence [resp. sub-developmental paradigm] for the concept that corresponds to the time order evolution [resp. description for] a subnatural system. A sub-event sequence [resp. sub-developmental paradigm] represents events [resp. descriptions] for a subnatural system as they occur from one moment of time to another.
(v) Each sub-event sequence [resp. sub-developmental paradigm] has its own distinct ultraword. And there is yet another more general ultraword, the ultimate ultraword, that produces logically each of the ultrawords for each of these sub-event sequences [resp. sub-developmental paradigms].Physically, what does (v) say for our thunderhead illustration? Suppose that you have 1,000,000 sub-event sequences that, taken together, comprise the entire thunderhead. Then there exists one ultimate ultraword that actually produces each of the 1,000,000 sub-event sequences. This ultimate ultraword word is an intermediate object, a "something else," that can be used to combine together those many subnatural systems that comprise the entire thunderhead, although many of these subnatural systems exhibit discordant behavior. This ultimate ultraword has within itself the ability to bring logically together all of the 1,000,000 subnatural systems in order to produce the remarkable beauty of this spectacular Natural phenomenon. You can substitute for the term thunderhead the words "our universe" and substitute any (whole) number you choose for the number 1,000,000 and the mathematical model still predicts the existence of an appropriate universe generating ultimate ultraword.
I remind you that mathematics is the basic tool used within modern theoretical science. Scientists can't escape results (i) - (v) or those yet to be discussed. The mathematical theory exists. It can be ignored but can't be eliminated rationally.
The new interpretations given to certain objects within this mathematical theory are directly based upon concrete real objects that are abstracted to obtain the mathematical theory itself. Such extended interpretations lie at the very heart of theoretical science and I've done nothing more than to apply this cherished scientific method. Some individuals claim that it's nonsense to consider the idea of objects the details of which can't be expressed within human thought. They reject these results based upon the philosophical stance that ALL natural events can be understood by the human being. But many of these same individuals accept the many-worlds concept, as detailed previously, that states that millions of different "worlds" exist, worlds that the human being can't perceive or comprehend. Such a philosophy can't have it both ways for this would yield a contradictory philosophy.
I have tried for years to find some way to describe physically an ultraword as a single entity. An ultraword contains almost everything needed to produce a Natural system. It can also contains almost everything needed to produce an ultranatural system, or a system that is partially Natural and ultranatural in character. BUT the conditions must be just right before such systems are actually produced and a final procedure must be applied. Well, remember the "superball"? It seemed to be filled with an extra amount of energy. An ultraword is certainly filled with a lot of extra pieces that can successfully be interpreted physically. If you through a superball into a loose pill of sand, the conditions are such that it will not display any different properties then those of an ordinary ball. But when you bounce it on a concrete sidewalk, them it displays properties of a different sort than one usually experiences. Ultrawords have a similar property and, indeed, seem to model explicitly Weyl's quoted statement.
Oh! let me answer one question you might have about describing things. How can I use strings of symbols to describe things that I claim can't be described by strings of symbols? First of all, I don't completely describe them. But more importantly, I have added new strings of symbols to the previous strings of symbols that describe Natural world physical behavior. This is the idea of the metalanguage - a language containing a given language and having many more expressions. This is exactly akin to the fact that you most use a much larger and different language to instruct an individual in how to write a computer program, say in some form of Basic.
In statements (iv) and (v), I've used an important term that hasn't been described as yet. What kind of "logical" process is involved? Does this logical process have interesting properties? Can this logical process be related to a physical process that may have created our universe and even sustains its time evolution? These questions are dealt with in the next chapter.
greatest kindness by the general, who had a tent pitched for us near his own-took us to his own table, and treated us with the kindness of a father, rather than as strangers of another country.
"For several days, this single idea wholly occupied my mind, that we were out of the power of the Burmese government, and once more under the protection of the English. Our feelings continually dictated expressions like these: What shall we render to the Lord for all His benefits toward us.
"The treaty of peace was soon concluded, signed by both parties, and a termination of hostilities publicly declared. We left Yandaboo, after a fortnight's residence, and safely reached the mission house in Rangoon, after an absence of two years and three months."
Through all this suffering the precious manuscript of the Burmese New Testament was guarded. It was put into a bag and made into a hard pillow for Dr. Judson's prison. Yet he was forced to