Dr. Robert A. Herrmann

Facebook Postings to the ID Groups

#1 13 JULY 2017

(Part 1, as a reminder and for new members.) Consider at the moment "i," during our universe's development, a 3-D slice of the entire universe. Let F(i) represent this slice. Consider one grain of sand on the beach at Atlantic City NJ. This is a physical-system. Physical science employs various language representations that "describe" a physical-system and behavior. The linguistic entities represent the physical entities, the events and behavior they depict. Of course, "nature" does not itself display the linguistic forms we use. GID-design is based upon language and I won't continue to mention this. This grain of sand is related to ALL other physical entities (physical-systems) throughout our entire universe. Each such physical-system is GID-rationally designed. For F(i), each such fixed (at the moment) collection of physical-systems is produced in a specific step-by-step intertwining "ordering." This ordered production is represented by a "measurable rational" process. However, in a moment or two Bobby is going to step on the gain of sand and move it. So, there actually needs to be many, many and I mean many, different future GID-designed slices to accommodate all such actions entities like humans take to alter what is this small particle's "normal" (physical law) behavior.

Then we have the very "next" moment's slice F(i+1) and the fact that the grain of sand and all other entities in our universe are related in a slightly different manner. But no matter, there is a specifically described "rational" process that takes the entire collection of all slices and produces these slice in the specifically required order. Now how do we mathematically model such an idea when three of the four type of slices are not finite in "size"?

Well, being only a finite human being of limited intelligence, I'll do it only for "finite" sized and "finite" duration universes. I can conceive of limited descriptive designs for the known physical-systems and, for the "rational" processes, apply the most basic form of human deduction. Descriptions of all sorts are used to "represent" what they are attempting to depict, the actual physical events. So, as a bases, I'm using actual human related behavior to obtained the descriptions that represent the designs as well as their use to represent the rational production of our universe. Of course, that is what we do, apply rational thought to predict the described behavior.

Now the fun begins. Modeling this stuff and embedding it into that extension of standard mathematics called a nonstandard model. And this implies that what I have mathematically modeled is highly rational in content AND a lot more happens. Indeed, the other three types of non-finite universes that might exist are now possible, BUT they need to be designed by an "higher-intelligence." Part 2, will be shortly presented and will consist of a much shorter posting. Gee, after I post this I might save it to my fb page. Dr. Bob

#2 20 DEC 2017

2.(I doubt I will repeat what I am writing in this posting. This posting is a little long.) On my website one of the most read articles is on what mathematics is about. A particular aspect is the concept of mathematical modeling. It's this aspect one sees used in the physical sciences - non-mathematical terms that correspond to abstract mathematics entities. Due to a 1961 discovery of a new mathematical concept, the nonstandard model, theological concepts can be so rigorously modeled. This implies their strict rationality and counters the atheists statements that the concepts are irrational. I originated such modeling as well as the scientific approach to intelligent design via a measurable form of intelligence.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) originally accepted that "The universe and the solar system were suddenly created." (Impact 95-96, 1981). They were formed in mature and functional form. The Complete GGU-model allows for such a form of creation as it does for such creations as described during the six-day period. They used the notion of "In-transit Information" to explain the apparent age of the universe.

Still, as late as 1998, they accepted the notion of eternal life of animals and man. (Back to Genesis, No. 117, 1998). Rationally this needs to include an eternal Earth and cosmology, that is all the created supporting environment.

One needs to define the concept of the "eternal" in order to mathematically model it. The basic structure I use is ZFC set-theory with atoms. (I'll give technical references to this if asked at my email address drrah@hotmail.com) In order to maintain the notion of "design," the entities employed use a rather complex double, double sequence of (formal) integers and natural numbers.

(Definitions for some of the following terms are found in my glossaries on my website, one of which I list below.) Since 1979, the GID and GGU-model have been especially constructed to include the four proposed types of universes. Relative to "observer-time," for earth related measurements or devices, and their rational extensions, one can conceptually consider, the expressions ("the beginning" and "ending) (the beginning and no ending), (no beginning and an ending), (no beginning and no ending). These four notions are modeled formally and for the "no beginning" and/or "no ending" only the "potential infinite" is employed. That is an increasing finite sets.

BUT, when this is embedded into the structure something is automatically "predicted" mathematically. What was the "potential infinite" now become something considerable different. When fully analyzed it has transformed into the other type of infinite. And as I discussed in the "far past," so to speak, an infinite of "greater size" than most standard types such as the real numbers.

Now comes the rather "interesting stuff." The developmental paradigm designed for such a modeled "no beginning" universe, if one wishes to choose such, has a "beginning" but we cannot be fully described via the mathematical model notions the actual step-by-step ordering that leads from this beginning to us. Yes, its predicted that "we actually only know in part." That is we can only partially describe the "ordered" process.

I note that the model "predicts" that there is a higher language AND in this language there is a fuller description. Paul mentions such a Third Heaven language. As he states "I (we) shall know more fully . . . ).

The point is that if the atheists think they can escape from Divine creation by accepting such a "no beginning" universe, they are incorrect. Further, there is a strict Genesis creation scenario that includes such a "no beginning" cosmology that might be present today. This creation scenario includes the originally eternal styled Eden period.

Next time I'll explain why the predicted indexing for a "no beginning" exterior cosmology, which can actually be obtained by rapid formation, implies how we lack the knowledge to fully comprehend its "step-by-step" production. As I mentioned, apparently its a problem we have comprehending the atemporal. By the way, a closed mind will not allow new concepts to enter. Dr. Bob

#3 22 DEC 2017

Did you know that, as presented in your text books, the Special Theory and, hence, the General Theory of Relativity (GR) as well, are inconsistent. It appears that it's Einstein's additional requirement that there be no base from which an absolute measure of speed can be considered that leads to the contradiction. In 1994, I announced to the Creation Research Society and others that I had constructed a new derivation using nonstandard analysis, an "immaterial" field concept and an absolute measure for speed that eliminates the contradiction. (Does anyone care?)

Along with this derivation as it appears in my book "The Theory of Infinitesimal" and published papers (first one March 1994) , I show that, via the most basic of quantum physical requirements, gravitational fields, in general, reduce even elementary particle behavior. In particular, using this basic fact and a GR metric it's predicted that all "time" dependent behavior is affected. That is, compared to no gravitational field such time dependent behavior would slow down in accordance with the "slowing done" of the time measuring devices.

I mention that simply applying a General Theory metric one can predict that gravitational fields have this affect upon time dependent behavior. This is used to present a "Day-Four" cosmology that appears to be accepted by IRC. But, the approach contradicts the Eden period and seems to have a technical problem with its application of GR.

Why do I bring up these two "time" altering notions? To try to eliminate confusion with "time" related notions that may seem in some way to correspond to what I'll present next. The observer time, which does include measured time, used for the Complete GGU-model will be altered, but NOT by any physical means. And yes I sincerely hope the "secular" physics world does accept an eternal something like a Higgs field, or eternal universe for you will have the power to defeat their desire to eliminate a creator and a "beginning."

"But how can this be?" I wonder can the temporal be replaced by an "atemporal" sequential notion? Dr. Bob (Well, here we go. I shall now move the arrow to the "post" and a "pointing hand" appears. I now click . . . .

#4 23 DEC 2017

Overheard from the physics office at A. University. "We are the most intelligent of entities. We will very shortly know all there is to know about how our universe functions. We WILL be able to describe its behavior in complete detail. 'But does that contradict the Bible?' The what? Don't ever mention that garbage again, or you will be doing just that collecting garbage. 'But garbage collectors are very, very important to our society.' Get out, don't come back and don't slam the door when you leave."

(Note: Don't let your previous training in what is probably atheistic science get in the way of what comes next. AND, by the way, I accept the Eden period of the created eternal stars as a reality. But how can our present universe, which is degenerating, have come into existence?)

So, here we go. The designed developmental paradigm cuts our universe into universe-wide fixed slices the UWFF. These are indexed (named) by a double sequence of mathematical entities F(i,j), i is an integer and j is a natural number. Since I think I'm a human, I started by considering only finitely many such sections as they are sequential produced relative to observer time (i.e. measurable time).

There are such finite collections depending upon the type of proposed (beginning, end, or not) universe. Now this is technically embedded into a special nonstandard model. And something WONDERFUL is predicted.

The slices now change their notation and a little superscript * is placed in the front. They are denoted by *f(i,j). These take on various names depending what's in them. They can be the same as the original f(i,j). But they can also contain entities we would consider as "immaterial" stuff. This is discussed in the paper below and I won't discuss in this post.

#5 24 DEC 2017

Consider the slice for our observer time at this moment. Call it i = +32. That is *f(32,j). There is another very, very near designed "future" slice denoted by *f(33,0). Now remember Isaiah 55:8-9. There is an "infinity" of DESIGNED additional slices PREDICTED. They are denoted by the changing j numbers. Their names are *f(32,0), *f(32,1) . . . *f(32, a), *f(33,0). The "a" is not a natural number but rather it is what is called an "infinite natural number," the stuff Newton and Leibniz wanted to use but they did know how they behave.

Now the ordering obtained extends the ordinary ordering of the natural numbers, you know 1 < 2 < 3 . . . . BUT, for any natural number n, it's the case that n < a. The *sequential stuff, this is "greater than" any natural number and less or equal to this "a" is called the "primitive sequence" portion of the sequence and is NOT observe time denoted. Such a "sequence is often denoted by 1 < 2 < 3 < . . . < a.

Everything I mention is intelligently designed by a higher intelligence, via atemporal procedures (in no time at He gets it done). Now the intuitive idea starts with a step-by-step physical realization of each UWFF, But, the predicted mathematics does NOT allow us to have the additional knowledge that is needed to describe and, hence, comprehend this type of step-by-step procedure for the ". . ." part of the last expression. As Paul says, we only know in part. But there is the predicted higher language *L, maybe a Third Heaven type language, which does have the necessary *linguistic terms. (Such stuff is part of the predicted "lack knowledge model.")

Now the term used for the sequence 1 < 2 < 3 . . . a, is the term "hyperfinite." It's an "infinite" sequence of "greater" cardinality (infinite size). But certain "subsequences" (potions of it) behave like they are finite although they are infinite. Yes, that word again. This is the same "infinite" that characterizes the Divine attributes. All of this stuff is produced and created by a higher intelligence that is actually "external" to the stuff created. Obviously, all that has been done is but a partial yet rational description for the behavior of a higher intelligence that satisfies various Biblical statements.

Well, what happens when a scientist insists that our physical universe has no observer time beginning? Next time. Dr. Bob (Now, let's hope this goes only to the group intended.)

#6 25 DEC 2017

Later you might consider that the strict Genesis implications are that the physical-systems during an Eden period, from the Fall to about 2456 BC and, since that observer time, behaved and today behave in distinctly ways. I point out that I use the most ancient known copies of the appropriate portions of first book of the Bible, these include the Samaritan Pentateuch (127 BC) as well as the LXX and the appropriate Dead Sea Scrolls. Generally, the title of the first book is not Genesis, but rather "In the Beginning." This fact is not the only difference between say the modern NIV or even the 900 AD Hebrew Text and these ancient copies. But, this posting is not to discuss this, but, rather, complete what I started last time.

This is based upon my last posting. Suppose it is decided by the majority of atheist cosmologists that to destroy any rational thought that our universe is intelligently designed by an higher Biblically described intelligence, that we must accept that our universe is eternal in some manner, like the Higgs' field. Or, even a no Bib Bang styled universe.

If one models via the f(i,j) stuff, increasing large FINITE pieces of such a universe, the mathematical model predicts that an eternal universe is generated by a hyperfinite primitive sequence {*f(i,j)} starting at the "hyperinteger" name b and ending with the "hyperinterger" name a. This is a "hyperfinite-sequence." All of the standard UWFFs named by the complete set of integer index numbers . . . -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . ,at least for the "i," have the property that b < . . . < -3 < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < . . . < a.

(This is new) There is also a step-by-step operator f. The math. predicts the higher form of step-by-step operator is *f. Now this is defined for the set {b, . . . , (2456)}. It is not defined for other types of subsets of the above hyper-sequence. (If we investigate them, we find we have little knowledge anyway.) The Eden model states that the cosmology after the Flood can be such a cosmology. BUT, it is formed from the corresponding b UWFF to the 2456 BC UWFF by an atemporal primitive sequence application of *f. That is NO observer time passes for Noah and his Ark entities.

Now since the atheists do not accept such an atemporal formation, they will apply their notions of observer time to what they perceive via all of their instrumentation etc. They will not accept that what they view was being developed over a period of zero observed time. So, they will describe such a development only in terms of the set of integer names and theory predicted observer time. (I have rushed this a little but I have a something else I need to do the rest of the day.) Dr. Bob

#7 26 DEC 2017

General Intelligent Design (GID) has been on my website since April 29, 1997. Before that the concept of the development paradigm (the foundation of GID) and the creation and development of our universe by a "supermind" was first published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4)(1985):189-198.

What would one assume the term "supermind" indicates? The term now used is "higher intelligence." Among other things the original approach to GID is used to show the rationality of sudden appearance in mature and functional form, the Genesis 1 concept, and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) concept of in-transit information. The entire strict Genesis 1 scenario is shown the be rational from the original GID viewpoint. Creation via the designed ultraword and an ultralogic operator. The ultraword is a special presentation of the designed developmental paradigm. So, prior to 2013 and the major refinement, one can say that my form of design yields our universe operationally. In 1983, I informed ICR of my findings.

BUT, here is what I have faced. I have just come across an article in my files from ICR. It's a Back to Genesis April 2006 article written by Morris, published a few months after his death. I quote

"But the ID people (creation by intelligent design) insist that there are two different systems and Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism - especially not Biblical Creation."

Morris continues to identify what he seems to imply is the only ID that exists - the Dembski and the Discovery Institute form, what I call Restricted ID (RID). It is also the only ID mentioned on Wiki, (I'm glad mine is NOT mentioned since I could not correct all the lies the atheist editors would state about it.)

Obviously I can only continue to fight this exceptional confusion for a short period of time. It will be up to others like members of this group to popularized General Intelligent Design. Dr. Bob.

#8 1 JAN 2018

One of the worlds foremost scientists wrote "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." H. Dumpty

Now H Dumpty and his friends have decide to change the primary meaning of the string of symbols "science." They have actually done this in various dictionaries and are proud of it. As they now teach their students and the "world," the single term means what was once called "physical (natural) science."

"If you use the original meaning as used by say ignorant people like R. A. Herrmann that a science is 'a systematically organized and studied body of knowledge about a particular subject, where the subject determines the rules employed for this purpose,' then you will fail my course." (H Dumpty)

I wonder what the people with degrees in a say a social "science" say about the modern definition. Then there is "library science." And then I guess I must drop the quote from Gauss who wrote that "mathematics is the queen of all the sciences."

But for H Dumpty and his highly intelligent friends, this now "correct" primary definition certainly makes intelligent design a pseudoscience. Dr. Bob a Ph.D. in a now pseudoscience.

#9 15 JAN 2018

Consider the physical science contributions Max Planck. Among other things he is the originator of quantum. In his 1932 books on Theoretical Mechanics he wrote,

". . . a finite change in Nature always occurs in a finite time interval and hence resolves into a series of infinitely small changes which occur in successive infinitely small intervals of time."

Notice he does not use the concept of the "limit" when discussing the series. Indeed, all of the great physical scientists prior to 1932 used the same idea - "the infinitely small" concept. Well, at that time what does the phrase "infinitely small" actually mean? I'll return shortly to continue this. Dr. Bob

#10 15 JAN 2018

There is this movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity." Its about Ramanujan, a young early 1900s mathematician, who today is recognized as a remarkable mathematician but in his time had great difficulty in attaining any status. His interest was is the rather abstract area of number theory and I have seen a few of his remarkable abilities.

One might write down a few terms of an infinite series generated by an expression such as (n+6)/ (n^2 +10), where "n" is a natural number. After a few moments starring at the series Ramanujan would write down an expression in terms of "n" that he claimed was the "value of the infinite series." That was his claim and he would not recant his results. But, the mathematics community would not accept this result unless he "proved it." Since he had no training in what that community considered a "proof," when he was discovered, so to speak, he could not write an acceptable "proof."

Students lean how to prove a mathematics theorem in a manner acceptable to a particular mathematics-community by "proving" even thousands of them and having the proof methods checked by an "expert." So he had to be taught what was an acceptable proof, and he did acceptably prove most of his results but in a few cases in rather unusual ways. His idea of what are the "simple properties" are of great significance and this was not recognized until 2000. (He died in 1920). Some of his major "unproved" conjectures have been "proved." And why do I bring this up for this group?

It's the idea of "methods of proof" that is significant to GID and the GGU-model. They are NOT the methods to which most of the world is exposed. Then are the methods actually rational in character and have similar ones actually been used by a small mathematics-community for, at least, last 100 years?

And then we have the remarkable fact that a mathematician first writes a theorem using technical terms but may not immediately know exactly how to rationally prove it in an acceptable manner. How does one "know," prior to the proof, that it "can be proved?" There are many meaningful theorems that cannot be so proved using the methods accepted by a specific mathematics-community. Then there are infinitely many that cannot be established by standard rational means since they are "false."

With this introduction, I will next discuss the notion of the "infinitely small" as the actual foundation, as indicated by Planck, for modeling of "finite changes in Nature." Dr. Bob

#11 16 JAN 2018

Newton claimed that his "mathematical" model is a product of his observing actual physical motions. He introduces his notion of the infinitely small "number," which he denotes by a little o, and uses it relative to fluxions (Summer 1665) and the ultimate (instantaneous) velocity (speed). He calls his approach "dynamic geometry." In the physical sciences, what mathematicians call a "mathematical proof" is called a "derivation." But the exact same reasoning processes are applied and the only difference is the names given the symbols employed. When one states, as Feynman did, that Nature is rational this is what is meant. On pages 77 - 78 of my book on infinitesimal modeling, I present Newton's derivation that yields the expression q/p = (3x^2 -ab)/(2dy), where p and q are fluxions.

At one point he has the equation, x^3 -abx + a^3 -dy^2 = 0. Then he substitutes for x (the distance measure of a line moved over with a "velocity" p by an object), a little change in distance produced by speed p, and writes x as x + p o. He then does the same for y distance. Thus the "o" represents a "small" moment in time. (This is his "observed" motion property.)

During the proof of his final equation, he makes a statement about what he believes to be the correct algebra for the little o. He applies this assumption and continues to apply the known algebra of his day to achieve the final q/p. (Note in equation (3) I have written 0 for o in one place. This is in error since o is not supposed to be 0. If this still appears on the achieved version of this book that is unfortunate. I won't correct it.) However, as I point out his step leading from (3) to (4) is not justified using the known properties of the o. (Another such lack also exists in this proof via a second unjustified assumption). So, although it is a derivation (a proof) the yields the quotient it is not, from a modern viewpoint, fully justified. BUT, using the actual modern approach it can be corrected and the quotient obtained. So, the quotient is correct; its just that two additional (mathematics) axioms that, for a truly acceptable proof (derivation), need further justification.

I point out that from the time of Newton and Leibniz, even until the 1932 books by Planck, accept for pure geometric models, all of the mathematical modeling that derived measures that model physical behavior used the informal theory of the Newton and Leibniz infinitely small and large numbers. This was done although it was known that the algebra employed could lead to contradictions. If this created a problem, definitions would be changed or after 1885 the intuitive idea of the infinitely small would be transferred to measures that "approached" zero but were never themselves zero.

Of course, at that time, there was criticism by some (in particular Berkeley) that his ultimate speed was not real and only physically observable physical behavior is acceptable. (Note that this would eliminate quantum theory as acceptable.)

I end this little historical introduction, which I will not continue since this and a lot more can be found in my book, by giving a quote from Newton, which is a translation from the Latin in which all scientific papers were written.

"Perhaps it may be objected, there is no ultimate proportion [q/p which should be Q/P] of evanescent quantities; because the proportion, before the quantities have vanished, is not ultimate, and when they are vanished is none. But by the same argument, it may be alleged that a body arriving at certain place, and then stopping, has no ultimate velocity; because the velocity before the body comes to rest, is not its ultimate velocity; when it has arrived, there is none. But the answer is easy; for by the ultimate velocity is meant that which the body is moved, neither before it arrives at its last place and the motion ceases, nor after, but at the very instant it arrives; that is, the velocity with which the body arrives at the last place, and with which the motion ceases. (etc. for the ultimate ratio)." (Talk about sudden stops.) Dr. Bob

#12 17 JAN 2018

(A rather long post.) Physical science is based upon general languages and the rational rules for deduction associated with such a language. Language elements correspond to physical entities that have no such language elements attached as identifiers. The behavior of such entities is further described by language elements and this behavior is not expressed, in general, by Nature in any such way. We associate our physical senses with the terms used in certain expressions for linguistically described behavior that we can physically perceive.

But, as I will show, there is a vast amount of physical science that predicts such descriptions from entities that are not classified as "real" physical entities. These are the analogue models.

When the "infinitely small" measures were conceived and used to form the foundations of the calculus, the prevailing notion was that matter was not divisible into small atomic or smaller "sized" entities. But, that seemed to be what was being done with the calculus. Berkeley rejected the idea that physical predictions should be based upon the predictions of an imaginary analogue model. But, the calculus was and is today the major tool used to predict observable and measurable physical behavior. AND it is an analogue model and remains such even today, due to the subatomic structure of matter that most accept as fact. This fact about the calculus is not often, if at all, mentioned. The process of turning the calculus into such an analogue model is called "infinitesimal modeling." Of course, it's hoped that it can be done in a rational manner.

[As an aside, one of the comprehensive examinations I took for my Ph.D. was in the foundations of mathematics. One question was on the Zero Paradoxes. When I discussed the Tortoise and Achilles one, I did not do so in the usual so-called infinite series explanation but rather explained that it was physical nonsense since Achilles, as he is described, could not near to accomplishing the task set out for him. What many of you may not know is that there are hundreds of natural language statements that lead to various contradictions. IF you wish to waste you time, many can be "explained away," But why bother. Just acknowledge that natural languages simply lead to such stuff and stay away from it.]

In the late 1800s, Maxwell considered an infinite collection of what are (electromagnetic) lines of force. He then used an infinitely powerful microscope to "look at" a portion. This gave him but a finite collection. Using this finite collection, by infinitesimal modeling, he derived his 20 differential equations for what we now call the electromagnetic field. It was probably Heaviside who re-expressed them in Gibbs vector operator form. (By-the-way, Faraday originally postulated these lines of force but would not absolutely accept that any such "lines of force" existed in physical reality.)

Since so much physical science employs the calculus and the original intuitive notions of infinitesimal modeling, it seem significant to try and remove the contradictory nature of the infinitely small numbers. This became the 300 year old problem of Newton and Leibniz. It was considered a major mathematical project. The contradiction was removed by Abraham Robinson in 1961. The highly successful processes of infinitesimal modeling could now be rigorously applied. BUT, in 1966 a great deal more was done and shortly thereafter I come into the picture, so to speak.

There is a great Calculus Text that returns to the fundamental idea of Newton, Leibniz and others and shows the analogue nature of the Calculus. I have one of the original printings and it was worth \$600 but no more since Keisler has put it on the internet free of charge. If you go the H. Jerome Keisler Home Page that comes up in a search, check out the free online calculus book. In particular, look at the infinite telescope views in chapter 1 pages 24, 26 and in chapter 2 pages 44, 46. Please don't expect to follow any of the derivations. Of course, you could begin studying, since the derivations use standard techniques. However, such techniques are greatly added to for the actual derivations one uses in Nonstandard Analysis (NSA). The GID and GGU-models use aspects of NSA, but, since 1966, what else has been achieved using NSA? Dr. Bob

#13 18 JAN 2018

Robinson solved the problem by giving the correct algebraic properties for the infinitesimals. They are a subset of the extended real numbers *R but form (are you ready for this? "No") a "maximum ideal in the ring of finite numbers." (The what?) Think of this algebraic ring as having all the real number field properties except for "division." (You should have had field properties in one of your high school math courses.)

The basic idea of an "ideal" is that its members "absorb" numbers under multiplication. Thus, if e is an infinitesimal then 10^100 x e is an infinitesimal. Zero is the only standard real number infinitesimal.

(Newton language)

Theorem (I mean derivation). Let the measure of a falling body over time be, as Galileo geometrically proved, S(t) = Ct^2. Then the ultimate speed (velocity) v(t) of the body at a moment of standard time t is 2Ct.

Proof. Consider the extended function *S(t) and a nonzero infinitesimal e of time. Then consider the quotient (*S(t + e) - *S(t))/e = (C(t +e)^2 - Ct^2)/e = (Ct^2 + C2te +Ce^2 -Ct^2)/e = C2t + Ce. From this we have that the st((*S(t + e) - *S(t))/e) = v(t) = st(C2t) + st (Ce) = C2t + 0 = C2t since the standard part (st) a of standard number is the number and the standard part of the infinitesimal Ce is 0.

And yes the standard part operator does have the same properties but NOT the definition of the standard limit. Of course, in a calculus book you would drop the physical terms and consider v(t) = S'(t), the derivative.

In 1966, Robinson showed how his approach to NSA (Nonstandard Analysis) could be applied to every area of mathematics and all areas where math. is used to predict or identify rational physical behavior. BUT, NSA methods are NOT those you find in ordinary math. courses. They are the general methods used in the subject Mathematical Logic and one needs knowledge of this subject to produce and "understand" the proofs and theorems.

Are any physical science majors ever required to take a course in Mathematical Logic to obtain their degree? I know of no such requirement. (But they can learn enough on their own from my online book on the subject.)

From the 1970 - say 1990, NSA was applied to many, many areas of math. and physical science. It has solved many previously unsolved problems. In my case, the GGU-problem among others. It has corrected and removed from Special and General Relativity the basic Einstein error that produces the basic contradiction.

BUT for us it has shown that the Biblical God is a rational concept and produces, among infinity many, a cosmology that yields a strict Biblically based creationary scenario that shows that this too is a "rational" concept.

Now the "really big" fact. After being considered as "one of the most significant mathematics advances of the twentieth century" why can't I find a basic course in NSA taught at any college or university in the USA? Maybe its just "too difficult" for the USA student. Or maybe it just might be something else like its ability to model theological notions.

For those from other countries who just might read this, do any college or universities in your country give a basic course in NSA? If not, why not? Dr. Bob

#14 18 JAN 2018

TRUTH. Short little note on a third form of truth. In 1993, Robinson applied his discovery to the semantics of a formal language. (I applied it to the syntax of formal and informal languages.) I note that most "scientific" languages can be reduced to such a formal language since they use classical logic. Many of your do know of the truth tables that correspond to the basic linguistic structure of the propositional language. For science, the term "occur" is more appropriate in many cases.

For example. You have a cause and effect physical process that states that "If A occurs, then B occurs" . Or symbolically, A -> B. Then you have A occurs, A -> B, B occurs. (A is true, A -> B is true, then B is true.) All of thus depends upon the "truth" of A -> B, which by the way, for technical reasons, is "true" in all but one case. But for a true A, the statement A -> B is "true" if and only if B is true.

One will often see 0 and 1's of the binary number system substituted for the T and F. Anyway, there is another way to discuss this form of linguistic associated "truth." It's by a function called a Skolem operator or function. Robinson used this function and predicted what he calls an external "truth," a third form of truth. For us, this would be a "higher form of truth." Theologically a very interesting rationally predicted notation. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to express this in a "simple" manner. Maybe there is no such "simple" manner and one would simply state that such a higher form of truth exists. Dr. Bob

#15 18 JAN 2018

(Rather long.) In his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton unfortunately dropped his ideas of the infinitely small and how, relative to these measures, God may have intelligently designed the universe and instead used geometry, He claimed that the motion we observe teaches us geometry. But why in the first Calculus textbook is a curve defined as an infinite collection of infinitely small line segments and the curvature is the measure of the angle in which they intersect. The notation is the "d" notation of Leibniz with the proved rules for symbolic manipulation.

It turns out that although the Galileo's result is correct and Newton's are as well, the proofs are unacceptable since they use the Merton Rules, where a distance measure is in area units.

(Of course, it's all written in Latin.) Example. LEMMA X

"The spaces which a body describes by any finite force urging it, whether the force is determined and immutable, or is continually augmented or continually diminished, are in the very beginning of the motion to each other as the squares of the times."

Proof. (He is writing about sides of a triangle as pictured.) Let the times be represented by the lines AD, AE (AD a leg of a right triangle and AE the same leg extended.) and the velocities generated in these times by the ordinates DB (A line segment perpendicular AD) and EC (a longer line segment perpendicular to AE.) The spaces described (distances) with these velocities will be as the areas of ABD, ACE described, that is, at the very beginning motion (by Lem. IX) in the duplicate ratio of the times AD, AE. Q. E. D. (It's Lem IX that establish the "duplicate notion," where he does uses such language as "ultimately be to each other" which a type of progress (exhaustion) notion.)

I point out that a triangle is used when the velocity is not constant and for constant velocity a rectangle is used. In various "Proofs" there is no ratio but a direct equality of a distance measure being the same as an area measure. These proofs certain fail a unit analysis test even if the numerical values are equal.

Well, anyway this approach was ignored and infinitesimal reasoning and its language took over. So, until say 1885, the universe was, relative to applications of the calculus, intelligently design via the notion of combining infinitely many infinitesimal measures for "simple" behavior. And this yields the measures for the actual complex behavior we observe.

But for me this is still the case. The GGU-model uses propertons and the basic building block is the ultra-properton, which is characterized by an n-tuple expression (a,b,c,d,. . .) where the a, b, c, . . are alternating infinitesimals of a special form + or - 1/10^omega, where omega is an infinite number (i.e. it is 1/e for a nonzero infinitesimal e.) Then to get such things as a measure for rest mass = m, using one of my best results, there is an unique infinite number say lambda. Then combining lambda (linear algebra stuff) of these we get the intermediate properton with the mass coordinate +lambda/10^omega and st(+lambda/10^omega) = m. To get to this point is the reason I've presented all of this stuff. I will now take a vacation while maybe some members of this group actually consider what I have written. Dr. Bob

#16 19 JAN 2018

So far, no one has mentioned any college or university that presents a full course in Nonstandard Analysis. I shall continue to wait for confirmation of my contention as to the real reason for this. Dr. Bob

#17 19 JAN 2018

Well, since Larry brought up the ideas, let me state that General Intelligent Design is based upon concepts from "universal logic," which studies generalizations of the stuff you will see in a first course in math. logic. It extends "formal logic" and studies non-special form and non-truth table dependent notions in linguistics.

Its main concern is with "modes of deduction." The area I use employs the notion of the "consequence operator (or operation)" and, what I showed, the corresponding logic-system notion.

In my math. logic book, I have an introduction (pp. 93-97) to the notion of the consequence operator that was originally introduced by Tarski in 1931. BUT, all less relative to these two notions only appears in my published and archived papers.

On the other hand, I have purposely used only two of the basic forms of deduction human kind uses billions of times a day. The major one modeled, via a logic-system, is the that given descriptions "A," and "if A, then B", then "B" is deduced.

The other one that is less used is for a given "A and B" form. Then there is are two axioms "If A and B, then A" ((A & B) -> A) and "If A and B, then B" ((A & B) -> B). This allows one to deduce the "A" and "B" separately. (By the way, the fact that these can be used as axioms is that the truth table correspondence can be applied to them and they are "always" true. The notions of universal logic apply to the formal logic as well.)

So, although universal logic concepts are used, the actual procedures employed are the most basic we employ continually within physical science. This are all encoded and embedded into a "nonstandard structure" where additional "new" stuff is rationally predicted. Dr. Bob

#18 20 JAN 2018

I forgot to mention that there is often considerable standard math done prior to * transfer. Some is rather specialized. Especially the search for certain types of relations. This is seen in my papers. Dr. Bob.

#19 21 JAN 2018

When one considers the ability of NSA to rationally present significant theological concepts, then accept for my last remark I cannot understand why there is no course in the subject given at each college and university founded on Biblical truths and principles. Dr. Bob.

#20 21 JAN 2018

Remember the Galileo formula for the ideal case of a rock dropped from a height to the ground in a constant gravitational field. S(t) = Ct^2 = 1/2gt^2. The symbol "t" is considered as a variable. The time "t" is taken over standard real number measured time intervals. (usually > 0). Let R be the set of real numbers. The nonstandard extension is *S(t) =1/2gt^2, where t is a member of *R. But *R includes the set of all infinitesimals m(0). If you start with *S(t), then, by restriction, you get S(t) = 1/2gt^2, the thing we can test.

Of course, I cannot "prove" the following but I am now ready to accept it. Since NSA counters the lies of the atheistic community, (apparently the only mathematical structure known way to do this), and generates the Biblical higher-intelligence GID and the GGU-model, and solves other stuff, I now accept that this is the basic mathematical way God intends us to employ so that we can properly predict His designed physical-system behavior AND, due to its Biblical correspondence, always retain the identity of the creator.

Relative to why basic NSA is not taught, maybe the Prince of the World is a lot stronger than most believe. Dr. Bob

#21 21 JAN 2018

Besides the fact that it establishes the rationality of many Biblical statements, why do we need Nonstandard Analysis? Maybe its that, apparently, our universe actually requires the notion of the infinitesimals, continuity and the like and that God has designed the alterations in physical systems in this manner so that we can predict future behavior.

"That's nonsense. Quantum physical behavior controls our universe and this is discrete behavior. Things just 'suddenly' change."

Well, quantum dynamics requires particles to "move" in continuous paths (Feynman). "But they interact 'suddenly' with other entities." But, there is this idea of the "Discreteness Paradox" that takes on various forms and seems to lead to various contradictory statements when continuity and discrete behavior are combined.

In 1983, in the foremost journal of its kind (that few have read and long ago ceased publication) "Nature and System" appeared an R. A. Herrmann article titled 'Mathematical Philosophy and Development Paradigms" 5(1/2), March - June 1983,17-31

The paper covers a wide range of material, and in one section the Discrete Paradox problem is "solved." As an example, it employs the Feynman diagram for neutron decay, an assumed discrete process from our viewpoint. But from the now GGU-model view of the step-by-step decay process it satisfies a higher non-discrete process that when restricted to our world simply appears discrete. The description for this process is rather long but the first statement of what is mathematically predicted is sufficient. I'll somewhat explain the terms after I write the statement. I point out that the * notation I have used previously is often translated by the prefix "hyper."

(A) The standard discrete neutron altering process is the restriction of a hyper-continuous and hyper-smooth hyper-altering process defined on a hyper-time interval from t(0) to t''. ETC.

An hyper-time interval is an infinitesimally long time interval. No 'clock' that I have can measure such a time interval but such an interval concept can still be used by an higher intelligence. When mathematically presented by a function, the term "smooth" means that the function is differential. Physically, smooth means "no sharp turns and the like." I assume you have the idea of what standard continuity means from a physical viewpoint. For this case, hyper-continuous and hyper-smooth have, at least, the same intuitive meaning, via t*-transfer, BUT are restricted to infinitesimal time intervals.

The formally proved theorem which is interpreted to produce (A) and the ETC appears on pages 83-86 of my book "The Theory of Ultralogics" that can be found at arxiv.org,. vixra.org and on my website. There are other problems that have been solved only by NSA the most significant being the GGU-problem.

Could Planck be correct, that the proper model for physical changes within our universe requires the use of infinitely small measures. Dr. Bob

#22 24 JAN 2018

A personal note. There is an important reason why I have persisted in my attempts to present General Intelligent Design to as many individuals as possible. For a subject that has been around since 1979, the very first form of scientific ID, it's remarkable how few have any in-depth knowledge as to its content.

I believe that I am at present the only Christian member of my immediate family. If you have read my testimony, you will discover that I come from a family that was associated with the occult. In 1949, I almost become an assistant to the foremost occult "healer" in the world. I rejected all such stuff and instead turned to physical science, engineering, and mathematics at the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute.

I am again in the presence of occult practices. Although I was promised that my website would continue after my death, at present, I have little hope that this will, indeed, happen. The only things that will survive me will, probably, be my published and archived articles. And, as I'll shortly discuss, that is presently not encouraging. So, when will the major source of my ID etc. material no longer be available? I'm 83 years old.

#23 25 JAN 1018

Relative to the notion that assumed random sudden changes in physical behavior are not intelligently designed, I previously discussed that the word "random" should be "mindom." Further, I have previously discussed how assumed sudden quantum physical changes possess a hidden *continuous etc. design feature that models a special higher-intelligence control that is beyond our ability to model completely. (GID is a type of partial model where hidden features are predicted, in a general way, but one most supply the specific types as assumptions.)

In my paper, "Fractals and ultrasmooth microeffects," J. Math.Physics 30(1) April 1989:805-808, I show that apparent sudden changes, in say numerical measures for physical behavior, can also actually be produced by hidden *continuous, *smooth etc alterations in such measures over a connecting infinitesimal moment. (The ultrasmooth microeffects.) The theorem that establishes this is 4.1. I wrote, "Propositions such as Theorem 4.1 are being employed to model the behavior of natural objects which appear to alter suddenly some numerically expressed characterizing property."

The same approach is used with respect to fractals. The non-smooth behavior is shown to actually be *smooth when viewed from the infinitesimal world. Further, higher forms of "integration" yield *length measures relative to fractals. A continuous derivative is usually used as model for basic smoothness. This all takes place in what I term as the Nonstandard Physical World (NSP-world).

But, for the ID concept, I wrote, "A major application of the procedures established within the present article is relative to the design and order that can rationally be assumed to influence the development of a natural system." One most be careful as to how one expresses such notions in a journal of this type.

Th reviewer of this article stated that the idea of the NSP-world was rather interesting. I note that this journal is considered rather prestigious and the article appeared 7 years prior to the Dembski's restricted intelligent design (RID) theory. Of course, my original idea originated 1979. Dr. Bob

#24 26 JAN 2018

Also I mention that the following fact, which can be ignored for those that want a secular General Grand Unification Model. GID satisfies (i.e. rationally upholds) over 55 Biblical statements relative to God's attributes and His creationary activities. This counters the atheists well publicized statements that such attributes and activity is "irrational." Resisted ID does not point to a particular source.

#25 26 JAN 2018

A piece of sad history. Since from about 1885 - 1966, the original notion of the infinitesimals was not employed to model what is considered "standard" physical science behavior. Although, as I mentioned, physical scientists still used the term "infinitely small," the math they use since then is the standard stuff you see in ordinary calculus books. Nonstandard Analysis is an extension of standard math. I started my studies in Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), which includes the proper notion of the infinitesimals, in about 1970. The foundations of the area were in great flux at the time. Robinson presented the material using the most difficult of formal languages a "theory of types" with a special requirement. But there was a book published by Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes 94, published in 1969. I decided to use that approach as there appears for my 1973 Ph.D. dissertation. It uses notions generally described as "pseudo-set-theory." Not only that, but maybe ten of my published papers are written using this approach. Well, that approach died. Indeed, that approach only appears in that one text. The approach developed since the early 1970s is very, very different. Of course, the results in my original work are translatable into the "modern" superstructure approach.

As you know my model that verifies the rationality of Divine attributes, GID and even the secular GGU-model employ NSA notions. Indeed, standard mathematics is used to model physical behavior in our universe. NSA has been used by others and myself to model an underlying substratum world. You can compare the NSA results predicted with standard math. described physical behavior. It's because of this comparison that we can have a strong theological interpretation. Further, from a secular viewpoint, it's the behavior of what is not listed as physical material that solves various physical problems and corrects logical errors for such theories as the Special Relativity etc. Of my 137 presented articles, I published 48 journal papers using NSA. Then 19 articles of mine in the arxiv.org archives and 18 in vixra.org use NSA. I published the journal articles in 13 different countries in the hopes of popularizing NSA. I presented from 1972 - 1994, 20 papers at conferences using NSA.

But, today, if one does not simply "believe" what I claim has been predicted via my mathematics, there are few that could, or, even if they could, would verify my technical results. I mention that, for the papers on GID and the GGU-model, I have used the simplest NSA approach.

I have some books that I wrote using NSA. One NSA book that was used at a university in Japan, since it is about the subject matter of real analysis, does not use the general superstructure approach but goes directly to the nonstandard model for the real numbers. The method employed will not lead to GID. It's called "Nonstandard Analysis Simplified." I have others that also do not lead to the needed GID approach. But the one "The Theory of Ultralogics" does. You can find "Simplified" at raherrmann.com/ns1.zip and the other two at raherrmann.com/books1.htm Dr. Bob

#26 29 JAN 2018

The problem members of this group will encounter is the terminology I employ. Its been around for my years. More than one term is used for the same mathematical entity. The term used often depends upon the interpretation. You will see R as a symbol for the real numbers. For this posting, I have chosen the real numbers since they are rather well known. Then the model predicts the set *R. This set is termed the hyper-reals (hyperreals), or sometimes the nonstandard real numbers or just plain star-reals.

It is customary to consider R as a subset of *R. Technically this is not the case not for the nonstandard structure, but a perfect representation ^sigma R for R is in the structure. Indeed, we are at the lowest level, so to speak, of the model and the technical definition for a member *r in ^sigma R is that it is a constant sequence with image r. AND the entire set ^sigma R behaves exactly let R so why not just call it R? This is what is done. Are you confused yet? It gets worse since NSA involves up to six different language for its technical descriptions. THEN we have the GID and GGU-model interpretations using different terms than the technical ones, like "ultra" and "higher."

Now, for the set-theoretic axioms used, an element r in R has no set-theoretic internal structure. Its called an "atom" or "urelement." This is not the case for other "higher-up" representations for the real numbers one can construct. In fact, one uses ^sigma R since all of real number properties have been "embedded" into the nonstandard structure and ^sigma R satisfies them. Further, portions of *R behavior exactly like the set-theoretic expressible real number properties IF you describe them using a restricted language called the "internal language." (Note: ^sigma R is not internal. And, yes you can have sets of different entities satisfy the same real number properties.) But, the set *R itself does not satisfy all of the real number properties. Indeed, it contains the "infinite" and "infinitesimal" numbers that are not so describable. They are not "internal" sets. One of the most significant aspects of R is that it is "complete." *R is not complete.

But, GID is not about R or *R although they are a "small" part of it. GID employs a mathematical model for linguistic expressions which can be modeled by numerical coding, which is my approach. I have added Robinson's approach if someone wants to use it.

You know, it seems likely that individuals might, I say might, just need to trust my "interpretation" ( i.e. an association with specific discipline terms) for the mathematics since, in terms of such an interpretation, one can compare the properties of the "higher-intelligence" with say our intelligence. (I have a basic article that does just that and will share it after I have rewritten it.) This is where my glossaries come in. I have two on my website. They are the short one raherrmann.com/glossary1.htm and raherrmann.com/glossary.htm

#27 30 JAN 2018

In the article I'm re-writing, I have shown how one takes statements about human mental behavior and the like and how the model translates these into statements about a **intelligence and how, by comparison, this intelligence can be classified as a "higher" intelligence. Full comprehension of the comparison does require some mathematical knowledge. You will need to trust me that I have indeed mathematically modeled the terms so that such predictions can be made. This is significant since these are predictions and and not hypotheses. But, the paper must wait final editing until my vision clears up. I note again that this "higher" also satisfies over 55 Biblical statements. Of course, atheists can ignore this correspondence as they do other puely physical science statements that also satisfy certain Biblical statements. I need to stop using my eyes for the remainder of the day so my one good eye will return to :"normal." It's taken a while to write what you see here. Dr. Bob.

#28 30 JAN 2018

In Mathematical Logic, we model and generalize linguistic expressions and procedures we perform upon such expressions. BUT, this is done via "informal" definitions. I use the notions of "universal logic." This includes formal logic as it appears in elementary textbooks such as mine. We assume intuitive notions such as left-to-right ordering of symbols or finite sets of such order expressions and then correspond such ideas to formal mathematical expressions within a general set-theory. One describes, in an informal way, the rules for logical deduction. Then these are formally modeled. In all cases, members of this math-community accept the correspondences.

When Turing first devised the notion of the computer program, he put symbols for an expression in blocks located on a tape. These blocks were constructed in the same left-to-right ordering as expressed by the left-to-right ordering of the expression. BUT, his tape was "infinite" in extent. Such a tape does not physically exists in a finite material universe. BUT, we are considering "mental" concepts which are not so limited. The famous Godel coding also requires one to correspond the left-to-right ordering of a finite set of symbols to the unique prime number form of a natural number.

Throughout mathematics, many concepts are "defined" using the intuitive notions of "left-to-right," "top-to bottom" and "front-to-back." Instructors in math. mostly don't mention this and expect students to "figure it out for themselves." After all, how does one define in an elementary text book the notion of commutative law? One might write, a x b = b x a. Then one might state that this means that "the (left-to-right) order in which you do the multiplication does not change the result." Then again one might leave this to the student to describe. So we go from a "we do" procedure to a formal "model" for it. Usually, the informal idea exists before it is so symbolically modeled.

Anyway, I'm rewriting a website article that was the actually my second ID FB-saved posting to the other ID group.it I hope will very, very clearly show what GID actual models. Unfortunately, it may take longer to modify since a vision problem I have now and then has decided to jump on me today. It's taken me a while just to write this posting. Dr. Bob.

#29 31 JAN 2018

(Particle Physics Group) By the way the most significant analogue model ever devised, the one used to construct and maintain our physical environment is the “free geometric vector.” You know those little arrows u see attached to almost every entity. You mean u don’t see them.

#30 1 FEB 2018

When, in 1969, Robinson talked me into doing my Ph.D. dissertation in the subject of Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), it was considered as one of the most significant advances in mathematics during the twentieth century. Why would one not jump on this "bandwagon." But, being a new area, I had to teach myself the material. This I did and, believe it or not, I was allowed to do so for the degree. But, I also had to give classes to my graduate committee on the subject since none of them had any knowledge about its contents. As you know, today, it appears to be a dead subject. Why might this be? Certainly, it's not because it's a rather difficult subject. But. maybe, just maybe, its partly my fault due to my, at least for the non-atheist, significant applications. Further, if they have not burned all the books on the subject, I'm sure there are members of this group who could also acquire the appropriate knowledge. So that I can save this posting, I will give in the next posting the archived version of my published paper on probability models. Do you have any idea what it means to remove the atheistic notion of "lawless" random behavior from physical science? Obviously, the terms I use will not be properly understood and I don't present it for that purpose. It shows that a great deal of the math. is standard math. Then these results are embedded into a "nonstandard structure" and further information obtained. Actually, I've used the "simplest" form of the subject and only the last two paragraph in he first theorem's proof use NSA notations.

#31 1 FEB 2018

In order to solve the General Grand Unification Problem, which I originally solved via my GID construction as an analogue model, one major difficulty is including alterations in physical-system behavior produced by us. This is the "participator" requirements. This I solved using a lattice theory approach but it requires the higher-intelligence to be infinitely powerful. And, I mean really an INFINITELY powerful entity. The Participator Model requires a vast number of "universes" to be pre-designed. As ours develops, an active selection is made as to the one that corresponds to the version that we have altered by our participation while not altering the history of past events. I have not decided whether to actually direct members of this group to the archived article. Dr. Bob

#32 2 FEB 2018

This may not be new here. "One feature of linguistic expression is rarely considered in depth. We can all recognize that when we are attempting to express subtle thoughts, particularly those that are novel and as yet unclear, we may tentatively try this, now that verbal expression. . . . In attempting to convey some experience [or idea] it is difficult to give satisfactory verbal expression to one's thoughts. One searches for the right words and syntactic arrangement so that one can have hope that one's thoughts may achieve a clear expression to listeners or readers." John Eccles Nobel Laurent. (For identifying and explaining certain areas of brain activity.)

The GD, GID and GGU-models fall entirely within the region of ideas that had never, as far as I can determine, been previously considered. After all, where prior to 1978, does one find a mathematical model that establishes the "scientific" rationality of Divine attributes?

On my website, under index #9, is a series of articles that might help. I try to aid individuals in their comprehension of such notions as the "ultraword" and "ultralogic" and other stuff. I wonder if there is an article on my website that might help an individual comprehend the notion of the "hyperfinite."

Oh! by the way, I also have a published mathematical model for the behavior of the immaterial aspect of human thought that Eccles shows most likely exists. (See The Wonder of Being Human Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles, Johns and D. N. Robinson, (1984), The Free Press, New York.) Dr. Bob

#33 FEB 2018

This is an example of the how complex a theorem proof may be that is used for the GID and GGU-models. It is, however, mostly standard mathematics, where only the last two paragraphs use the nonstandard structure.

Probability and Ultralogics paper.

#34 4 FEB 2018

Since my publications have been saved to a doc. file, I thought it might be useful to some members of this group who may have interest in a particular area in mathematics or physics that I list the areas the journal publications cover. If anyone is interested in a participator paper in one of these areas, I can email them a copy. Of course there are also my achieved articles as well. The areas are

Mathematics.

(1) Mathematical Logic.

(2) Real Analysis.

(3) Abstract Algebra.

(4) General Topology.

(5) Differential Geometry.

(6) Fractals.

(9) Mathematical Modeling.

(10) Probability and Statistics.

(11) Nonstandard Analysis.

Physics + some other stuff.

(1) Special Relativity.

(2) General Relativity.

(3) Blackholes.

(4) General Physics.

(5) Physical Cosmology (in general).

(6) (One little thing in) Fluid Dynamics.

(7) Quantum Physics

(8) Information Theory (Gitt style)

(10) AND Intelligent Design

AND the most significanet of all, rationally justifying theological concepts.

Dr. Bob

#35 5 FEB 2018

In the old days, and mean rather old days, mathematics was a means to predict "physical" behavior. Thus, the terms used were usually relative to the observed behavior of a physical-system. Indeed, Newton states that physical observation comes first and then we consider representing it by geometry. Thus, originally the terminology was relative to such behavior. Hence, we have his "ultimate speed" which was later abstracted and called a "derivative."

For GID and the GGU-model, I have from the beginning used the "model language." I have not used, except in some of my technical papers, the actual "abstract" names for the entities I have modeled. I have used terms from Mathematical Logic, which is of course a model for certain linguistic behavior. And I have added to them.

As an example. Consider the standard language L. When you see the symbol (b)L, where (b) means bold face font., I also called this a "language." But, technically it is not. The entities in (b)L behave like those in L, when such behavior is described, but each member of (b)L is actually an finite equivalence class of partial sequences that code the actual language L. How we combine two "words" to form a second "word" is technically via an non-commutative abstract operator. The introduction of empty word (an empty equivalence class) turns (b)L into an algebraic monoid.

But, technically, what are the members *(b)L? Well, they are equivalence classes of sequences of the equivalences classes of members in (b)L. I won't go into how these are obtained by the ultrapower construction. You see, its because of their behavior and relation to those in (b)L, that they have certain comparable language-like properties. So, I call them "ultrawords" and I have shown how these properties can be "interpreted" as an actual word form. So, the language of GID and most of the GGU-model uses comparable terms that are "interpretations" for the actual technically defined mathematical entities.

On my website when it comes to further explanations for the terms I use, such as "ultralogic," usually, I don't use the actual technical terms. And, these methods are not the standard methods that don't lead to a description for the behavior of a Biblical higher-intelligence as God Biblically describes Himself. Dr. Bob

#35 6FEB 2018

I have been asked where one can get instructional information relative to the methods I use for GID. I'll give the only book that exists shortly. But, one important process one needs to know is how to express informal mathematical discourse formally. One can learn this by considering the material that is in my book "Logic for Everyone." This is a free book produced with USA tax payer money. It's the third one I wrote and used in my Mathematical Logic course at the U.S. Naval Academy. I have it on my website and it is also achieved. The website file is the recent. There is a standard font size version at the arxiv.org archive.

The formal language procedures needed to follow most of my proofs for GID are in file 3 and is the first pdf file in the zip file list. Shortly I'll give the only known book that applies nonstandard analysis to languages and is the one that contains all the required GID math structure information. But first see

raherrmann.com/cont1.htm

#37 6 FEB 2018

This is the only book that exists that applies nonstandard analysis( GID) to the syntax of a language. I discovered well after this was written that, in 1963, Robinson applied NSA to the semantics of a "formal" language. The book contains other references to general books in NSA but they are rather extensive. This one is free.

I choose to code the language via a function defined on the natural numbers. Then, so as to analyze the syntax of a "word," I used finite partial sequences that brake a word into elements ranging from the step-by-step alphabet letters, to pieces, to the entire word. This produces what are called equivalence classes of these "partial" sequences.

As noted at the end of the following, versions are also available at the archives, the best being at vixra.org. Now, be advised, that my recent papers (2013) highly refine the GGU-model stuff such as the developmental paradigm. Dr. Bob.

#38 7 FEB 2018

It is claimed that set-theory is the common foundations for mathematics. If so, then most individuals should have no trouble with the following. But, then again, if you have only been exposed to the trivial stuff, like the properties of the union and intersection operations, you might have a problem with what comes next. But, then again what I use has been around for almost 100 years. So, maybe, just maybe it should be common knowledge.

A very significant aspect of set-theory is how it deals with the "non-finite." Infinite stuff, as defined in set-theory, does not behave like the finite and maybe that is the problem. But one can learn its properties can't one? And, of course, there is the unfortunate notation used.

But, to continue, let's consider the Grundlegend-deductive (GD)-model. This is the first one I constructed in 1978 and it models comparative Divine attributes via my notion of adjective reasoning. The idea that when one states that someone is "very, very intelligent" then this implies they are also "very, intelligent" as well as "intelligent." One can use the number of "very"s as a strength measure for the concept being modified.

Consider wisdom, (very wise etc). The model predicts that it is rational to accept that an entity is "infinitely" more wise than any standard entity within any possible GGU-model generated universe. BUT, in 1974 Ward Henson gave us more information about this. His results applies to all aspects of the GID higher-intelligence. Mathematicians do use the word "size" relative to the set-theoretic infinite. They also use the more formal term "cardinality."

His result shows that the "infinity" used in this comparison is, at the least, greater in size than any such infinite notation used throughout standard physical science. I showed that this is set-theory dependent and in one form of nonstandard analysis this infinity can be so "large" that it is outside of the usual ways to "measure," so to speak, the "size." I call this, when I use it, the generic infinite. What I have just written using the term "size" and how one comprehends this set-theoretic notion (greater than) should be common knowledge. I don't believe it is, however.

Oh! by the way, after 100 years someone (me) came up with a method that can be used to, at least, imagine a "completed infinite," the "smallest" one. See raherrmann.com/infinite.htm

#39 8 FEB 2018

Be advised in part III of the book I discuss the MA-model which I have not mentioned to this group. I no longer employ this model as I have stated it. The same notions are used but in a different manner.

Significantly, in part I, I have the very important mathematics for what I now call the Grundlegend-Deductive (GD)-model. This is the model that shows that the comparable higher-intelligence "Divine" attributes are rational. This is a major counter to the atheists contention that an entity with such attributes is an irrational concept. Dr. Bob

#40 8 FEB 2018

The MA-model notions are now part of the GID-model design features. That is, the designs satisfy certain MA-model concepts. This helps in identifying the designed. Dr. Bob

#41 11 FEB 2018

(Particle Physics Group) For the multiverse concept, which some are about to accept, there can be infinitely many "different" universes one of which is ours. Of course, there is no need for evidence for such since this is one one approach accepted within physical cosmology.

#42 14 FEB 2018

I have modified my website and have replaced two articles with this one. I try to give simpler explanations for three of the major terms used for the GID and GGU-models. This will help, I hope, with the third article I'll place in the files.

#43 15 FEB 2018

Today, I will post to the files the major article. The article has a lot to say about the General Grand Unification Model as well as GID. The GGU-model schemes presented also imply that the substratum processes, the (intrinsic) "ultranatural" processes are intelligently designed via a higher intelligence. The major process that produces a universe is modeled by an ultralogic applied to ultrawords.

For the major scheme that directly corresponds to the GID-model scheme, the language *L is very encompassing in character. It can include diagrams and images, which carry "names." A major feature is the "counting" portion of the instruction paradigm. The rules of reference can contain many distinct collections. Consider the simple notion of counting. Start with the symbol 1. Then include the following "If 1, then 2. If 2, then 3. If 3, then 4. . . . .." Applying the rule denoted by underlined scrip A, yields the ordered count 1,2,3,4, . . ., a model for the simple counting notion.

Remember that this is a mathematical model and this "counting" models the combining of "ultra-propertons" to form immediate propertons from which physical-systems are formed. (What are they?)

The other schemes are again "modeled" via language and, say, names for substratum entities. Info-fields carry the same identifiers as the universe-wide frozen-frames (i.e. 3-D slices). Thus, we again have a model for the "rational" generation of the set of all info-fields via an ultralogic and ultraword signature that implies that the production is designed by a higher-intelligence. ETC. Well , the paper is very extensive and even presents a human experience that somewhat follows a GGU-model scheme. Dr. Bob

#44 17 FEB 2018

"You mean that your 'higher-intelligence' designs the relative location of every elementary particle in the ENTIRE universe. Then at the next moment in its development, it has designed a another 'slice,' where most of the particles have been altered in some relative way." Yes.

"That's ridiculous. I can't conceive of such an entity. Something 'somewhere' that is claimed to be 'everywhere' and yet has hidden itself from me. Something that, in an inconceivable way, is ' outside' of not only our universe but your substratum world as well. An 'atemporal' entity. I cannot conceive of such."

What do you mean by conceive? "You know, 'mentally imagine' and, I guess, describe in some way." Can you imagine quantum fields and of what they are composed? "Of course not, but I can describe in words their properties and how they behave. I can mathematically predict physical behavior using them. We have a vast amount of indirect evidence for their existence; so, I accept that they do exist."

So why not do the same with the higher-intelligence? "It's the ridiculous proposed properties you claim. It behaves like a 'mind'? Then you have the those claims made by the religious' folks' about its behavior. And, I know you have shown much of the claimed behavior to be 'rational'. Big deal. That doesn't mean it exists."

If there is a descriptive language that might allow you to 'conceive' of such an entity, do you think you would be intelligent enough to comprehend the language? "Of course."

Well, I'll come back to this a little later. But, for now I have four cats to feed. Dr. Bob.

#45 17 FEB 2018

(Somewhat long.) Well, since your scientific life is often controlled by what you can mathematical predict, via interpretation, let's see what I can predict. Let L represent the entire written language you use including diagrams and even images for your standard physical science and math. It certainly needs to contain symbols for the natural, rational and real number your use, today, to describe actual physical properties.

Consider an energy unit, maybe Joules. Then take a constant non-zero b and the set of all (non-zero) natural numbers N, where each member of N is denoted a symbol like n' that is a member of L. Now consider the set of all statements S={A photon has energy (b + 1/n')J| n in N}. I think you assume that photons can have such energy spectrum measures. This entire set forms a subset of L. I note that the "prime" notation is usually used only in areas of Mathematical Logic. Mostly one sees the symbol used with an appropriate contextual meaning. That is,a symbolic name used for an entity and the symbols behavior represents that of the entity itself.

Code the members of this set and embed it into the Nonstandard Structure, the NSA-model I use. Remember this structure also contains all the math. stuff you use within physical science to model physical behavior. The NSA- model PREDICTS the rational existence of another language *L that contains L. And the set of *L language elements *S={A photon has energy (a + 1/x)J| x in *N}. Notice that I put an x where the previous symbol n' would be. Indeed, the x can vary over the symbols for N and, hence, S={A photon has energy (a + 1/n')J| n in N} subset *S={A photon has energy (a + 1/x)J| x in *N}. Also it is predicted that *L has "a lot more" members than L. The members in *L not in L are denoted by *L - L.

Well, it turns out that there are representations for symbols in *L - L for the "infinite" members of *N - N. They are not members of our original language L used to denote members of N, but we either invent a symbol like |/ or maybe just use one from L and put into *L - L. This is what I do and use the symbol 10^omega for one of these "new" members of *L - L. And then the sentence "A photon has energy (a + 1/10^omega)J" is a member of *L - L. (Prior to the discovery of these "numbers" anyway, where they are now members of my L.) By-the way, this stuff is actually an interpretation of the formal math. that models the language L and extension *L with their linguistic properties.

Now the number represented by 1/10^omega is a (Robinson) infinitesimal, with all of the its discovered properties. Further, the form of this infinitesimal applies to a rather remarkable theorem I completely established. I use an +1/10^omega and -1/10^omega as the components for the ultra-properton representations; the substratum objects that can be combined to produce our universe. Shortly I'll give you just a little more predictions about this and *L. Indeed, I have done this in the past but not in this specific way. Notice that we can comprehend, I guess, the meaning of this one sentence and even the properties of the infinitesimals, which would use terms from *L - L under this interpretation. (We, of course have recently added these to L.) And the BIG question is can we comprehend the meanings of other members of *L - L? Maybe yes and maybe no. Dr. Bob.

#46 18 FEB 2018

I simply assume one "understands" what it means to understand the meaning of a linguistic expression. The standard language L I employ is, of course, continually expanding and, whenever I consider it, it is trivially understood to be fixed at the moment.

There is a subset M of L that contains all of the general expressions that individuals claim they "understand. That is, each has a comprehensible meaning for, at least, someone. Well, as before, M can be math. modeled and when this is done, a subset *M of the "higher" language *L is predicted to exist.

Analysis shows that *M has infinitely many higher-language expressions we cannot, while in our present form, comprehend. But, they have *meaning to the higher-intelligence. (Doesn't Paul mention such a "higher-language"? If so, then we have a rational prediction for its existence.)

Thus, its predicted that there is a vast amount of information that we cannot presently comprehend. But, various atheistic scientists claim that they have, or will shortly have, all the necessary knowledge to understand completely the workings of our universe. But, they do not and neither do we if such complete knowledge comes from expressions in *M that are not in M. I wonder, if the same assumption is employed by some so-called theologians? Dr. Bob.

#47 18 FEB 2018

One small aside I may have mentioned previously. Only one individual in my immediate household accepts the existence of an entity we term as God. The reasons for this are rather completed but one reason stems from a member being previously associated with a pseudo-christian group. These groups are rather destructive. So, I'm now rather isolated and never mention what I do relative to GID to any member of my present household.

Anyway, being a previous "fire-breathing" atheist myself, I would ask questions of those that claimed to accept such an entity, which I knew they could not answer in what I would consider a rational way. Although, since 7 April 1977, but what is now the far past, I have had some unusual experiences that have no physical explanation, none of this matters to other members of my household. They have found ways to "explain" them away.

The point is that such questions probably do have acceptable answers. But Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates that they may require knowledge what we cannot at present comprehend. What I just presented implies that this is a predicted rational possibility. Dr. Bob.

#48 19 FEB 2018

As far as I can determine, nonstandard analysis is the only mathematical subject that is capable of countering the atheists lies that are presented to millions of students on a daily bases. You need to counter the lie that the Biblical God and strict Genesis creation are "irrational" notions.

They present their physical cosmology arguments via interpreted mathematical statements. One rationally counters these interpretations by using the same methods. The basic method that predicts the the non-creationary Biblical attributes - the GD-model - and the creationary intelligently designed Genesis produced universe - the Complete GGU-model - uses the only known mathematical approach that can do this. Of course, that approach is Nonstandard Analysis.

Considering that the GD-model has been around since 1978, it's rather remarkable that, apparently, not even the most basic foundations of this subject are "taught" at any Christian College or University. Of course, one can "teach themselves" the subject if they can find a good textbook on the subject. There are still some remarkable results to be disclosed. I know some of them. But, I won't disclosed them. Others will need to do that.

There are more than 3000 members of this group. Surely some are associated, in some manner, with a Christian College or University. So rather than state that "I don't understand such and such you write" if you just happen to look at my book "The Theory of Ultralogics," one of my technical articles or even some of the stuff I present to this group, why not approach the "powers that be" and see if they just might present an introductory course in Nonstandard Analysis considering its significance to the rationality of basic Judaeo-Christian doctrine.

Oh! I have a basic book on the web (index 18A) and on arxiv.org that applies it to real analysis and I do not include some of the special properties used in the subject. Thus, the proofs are slightly longer than they might be. This book was (past tense I think) used at Kobe University.

I mentioned previously that a baby course in math. logic will also help. Try one using the logic book I wrote and, you know, it's also on my website and elsewhere. I also give some instruction in the first part my "The Theory Ultralogics." Among other applications, this is the book that applies the subject to "languages." Then we have my book on "Infinitesimal Modeling" that also has the basic foundations presented. ETC Dr. Bob

When I theologically apply GID and the GGU-model to Genesis 1, I use the most ancient copies of Genesis that exist in their original language. I do not use the later versions unless they correspond. How this is done by me will not change. I show the GID design aspects and, of course, these can be produced via GGU-model procedures. This means that this Genesis 1 account is a rational account. I am going to make one last revision to emphasize that "realization of physical entities occurs suddenly in mature and functional form" and change one term. But here is the one that is presently on the archives. Dr. Bob. vixra.org/pdf/1312.0122v8.pdf or vixra.org/abs/1312.0122

#49 20 FEB 2018

Many individuals have read my testimony on the web or in book form. Have any members of this group done so? If not here it is raherrmann.com/ph.htm

#50 20 FEB 2018

When I theologically apply GID and the GGU-model to Genesis 1, I use the most ancient copies of Genesis that exist in their original language. I do not use the later versions unless they correspond. How this is done by me will not change. I show the GID design aspects and, of course, these can be produced via GGU-model procedures. This means that this Genesis 1 account is a rational account. I am going to make one last revision to emphasize that "realization of physical entities occurs suddenly in mature and functional form" and change one term. But here is the one that is presently on the archives. Dr. Bob. vixra.org/pdf/1312.0122v8.pdf or vixra.org/abs/1312.0122

#51 21 FEB 2018

For those who might be keeping track of it, I have recently made a few alterations to my website raherrmann.com

#52 21 FEB 2018

I'll write this one more time. It does not matter which "theory" wins out. The majority of the atheistic physics-community will accept some idea that has as its underlying feature one or more eternal physical entities. They "know" such must be the case. It is from the behavior of it or they, that our universe came into being.

IF the GID and/or GGU-models became well-know, which at present is not likely, then this will force them to emphasize a likely probabilistic form of physical eternally existing mode for creation. To counter GID and GGU-model evidence, they would also have to show how their choice predicts, at the least, all known observable physical behavior. Of course, they would not choose something that does not have, at least, such indirect evidence.

Because of how ID (restricted ID = RID) was handled by he Discovery Institute, where their form is "officially" declared as unscientific, they have no fear from that approach. Although RID does not point to a particular God notion, for the atheistic community, they simply reject it as mere philosophic garbage. AND they paint ALL forms of "intelligent" design with the same brush. I can image what the editors of wiki would do with an article about GID. Please do not even consider presenting a wiki article about GID. I'm a wiki editor and I know there are thousands of individuals ,who do not identify themselves, who do nothing else but monitor wiki and, in such matters, prevent the actual facts from being presented. Dr. Bob.

#53 21 FEB 2018

Usually when scientific pronouncements or strongly held positions within physical science are threatened, concerted efforts are taken to combat the threat. Accept for the wiki junk, I have seen very few attempted counters to the "intelligence design" concept. Maybe others have read such attempts.

I read one individual's paper that claimed that he could design many features of nature in a better way than they were actually designed. Of course, how he knew that an higher intelligence did not designed them that way originally or what we now have is the product of many, many years of participator alterations, I have no idea.

Further, he was relying upon his notion of how an entity comes into being and behaves via application of physical processes, which is not how the Complete GGU-model produces any form of physical behavior. Physical behavior does satisfy appropriate physical laws. But such behavior need not do so. This is type of error he made. But, most certainly, he considered himself just as intelligent as any possible designer.

But, anyway, I have not seen any strong effort to defeat the notion of intelligent design. I wonder if other members of this group have seen such efforts. Dr. Bob.

#54 22 FEB 2018

A historical fact I'm sure few know about. Let's go "way back" to 1982. Then, as well as today, I suppose, the Smithsonian Institution had on a well its famous pictorial representation for the "evolutionary development of the human being." Congressman William E. Dannemeyer introduced a bill in Congress to stop their Federal funding unless they allowed a counter presentation on "non-physical," at least, "sudden" appearance of biological entities.

He asked me to rationally justify this approach. I prepared a paper on the subject, but did not use the Complete GGU-model, where there can be absolute sudden appearance that satisfies other properties. The reason for this, as I stated before the actual text of the paper, is that we wanted to go gently into full sudden appearance. If the model presented here was accepted, then we would later use the same approach to adjust it to the notion of complete sudden appearance in mature and functional form.

So what happened? Well, he could not get enough cosponsors and his bill was not accepted and that ended his efforts. Dr. Bob. raherrmann.com/pp5.htm

#55 23 FEB 2018

Yes that is exactly what they are accepting. If we can accept an eternally existing entity then so can they. But things like the Higgs field have way fewer properties. Its there form of god. This is Also the reason for the multiverse concept which is eternal.

Also for years the eternal cyclic universe was proposed. An eternal expansion and collapse notion. This has a few general problems and the present eternal expansion notion counters it - a notion that cannot be verified. We would be in a quantum fluctuation that is eternal and began via an eternal quantum field(s). But, who knows what tomorrow will bring as they continue to get their research money for such theoretical stuff. After all, when the universe reaches a certain density they might just postulate another imaginary scenarios that cannot be verified. Dr. Bob

#56 23 FEB 2018

The developmental paradigm is the GID-model's sequence of descriptions that is transformed into various realities. I do not want people to accept that this is the "complete" solution. This need not be the case due to the predicted higher language. Thus I have added to a major paper on the archives the following.

"Further, certain assumed sudden alterations in physical-system behavior from one universe-wide frozen-frame to another, such as quantum physical, can actually occur via hyper-continuous or hyper-smooth processes. Obviously, such alterations have not been incorporated into a standard developmental paradigm. In general, the step-by-step developmental paradigm concept for universe production is based upon what we can presently comprehend. It predicates *refined portions of the *developmental paradigm. But, for other portions, this is not the case. Hence, as presently modeled, the basic developmental paradigm approach may be but an exceptionally refined standard approximation for the actual behavior, which we cannot otherwise understand. It is a predicted possibility that such nonstandard behavior exists." Dr. Bob.

#57 23 FEB 2018

We most like cannot know all. I mentioned in that new version of the article the prediction of other behavior that we cannot comprehend. Here is how this occurs.

Let S be the set of all general language statements that occur in all physical science books and articles that exist at this moment in time. It is assumed that these statements have meaning for "intelligent" individuals past or present.

The set S is a subset of the general language L. Code it and embed it into the nonstandard structure. This yields a set of higher-expressions *S - a subset of the higher-language *L - where, by the appropriate interpretation, its members have *meaning for a higher-intelligence.

The description for the GID model prior to its embedding is in S. But, only finite portions of the model are considered as standard portions. It does include a convergence notion but only as finitely approximated. Although what I can predict includes some members of *S not in S, the set *S is highly infinite in character. We have the lack of knowledge model in that there can be a vast amount of *S *information that is not in S, *information we cannot comprehend AND it applies to our universe and us.

This is another reason people like S. Hawking and all the others that contend we do have, can have or soon will have all knowledge about our universe would, certainly, try and destroy GID IF it became a well known model. Dr. Bob.

#58 24 FEB 2018

I'm very unsure as to how many of the 3700 are actual group participates. Since I announced the Dannemeyer article, there have been only 5 additional hits on the article worldwide. The top viewed website article is the evidence article that details actual evidence for design by a higher-intelligence. But even at that, thus far for the entire month of Feb., only 48 hits have been made on that article. That's certainly better than 0. But, strangely, my website as been running since 1997 and I have an email address stated, but I have received only about 8 emails relative to the material there. I have received many more from individuals who simply wanted me to help them publish a paper. The daily views of the site material has dropped considerably. Of course, if I had a millions dollars to spend on the GID project, I suppose I could publicize it more.

I have purposely constructed the website for the serious "reader" who is seeking scientific information. It is not a gaming site. It doesn't contain a bunch of images, pull-downs, colors, animation, etc. Although at one time way back, it did have some of this stuff.

I make these remarks as an indication of the actual interest in the original ID and the predictions of design by a higher-intelligence, not design by an intelligent alien. Dr. Bob

#59 24 FEB 2018

I have discovered that I did not remove a section from one of the articles I placed in the files. This article contains the entire bases of the GGU-model. Unfortunately, this article appears with the section included at an archive where I probably cannot alter it although I'll try to do so. I will shortly replace the file with the corrected version. Dr. Bob

#60 2 MAR 2018

Prior to continuing, it is a good idea that members of this group know exactly what I mean by the phrase "rational thought." So, see raherrmann.com/rational.htm

#61 3 MAR 2018

(Rather long but great stuff.) The reason I mentioned the paper on rationality is so members of this group will know more explicitly the basis for GID and the ID portion of the GGU-model.

Using the (standard) developmental or corresponding instruction paradigm as LINGUISTICALLY expressed, the described rules for rational deduction can be applied. Such expressions can be written or mentally conceived. And, now by using the method I have described on my website, you should even be able to mentally conceive of a completed infinity of symbols.

One can physically or mentally express the results of application of the described rules. These are the deductions. Now, various measures relative to these perceivable linguistic entities are definable and an actual mathematically expressed and characterized object that replicates the rules for deduction are used to characterize standard GID. Such measures include the length of a linearly presented collection of symbols. Although I was not aware of the fact in 1978, I discovered that Abraham Robinson used such a measure in a 1963 publisher paper on nonstandard formal languages. GID uses universal logic concepts of which formal logic is a subset.

Mathematical Logic does depend upon certain human abilities, such as the intuitive notion of a "left-to-right" presentation of finite collection of symbols. Then there is the selection from a infinite set of specific symbolic forms various ones and other stuff. In Word Theory, such a "form" is termed a "word." (Of course, basic matrix theory includes the additional notion of counting from the "top" to the "bottom" of a display. But the left-and-right notion and this can lead to other ways to express the matrix operations. Then there is geometry. These "human" procedure definitions may or may not be symbolically representable. These facts are almost never mentioned.)

There are other measures such as the number of hypotheses one might use. Of course, in practice, this requires the human activity of "counting." Since human procedure definitions are the mainstay of Math. Logic, I added one. It is based upon an aspect of IQ tests. It is a measure of an individual's ability to apply the rules for deduction using a set of hypotheses and obtain deductions. I tested this, in other ways, many times in my course in Math. Logic at the U.S. Naval Academy.

A specific measure for standard GID intelligence is the number of deductions that an individual can produce from a finite set of finitely long hypotheses as presented either on paper or mentally over a specific period of time. The rule for deduction is the logic-system algorithm, which can be mathematically characterized as it is applied to a well-define mathematically expressible rule of inference.

Then all of this stuff is embedded into a nonstandard mathematical structure and wondrous things are predicted, when consistency interpreted with respect to the standard the standard (human) intelligence defined objects. Due to the fact that one has "numerical, measures" that characterize GID and it applies the rules of physical cosmology and mathematical modeling, it is a properly expressed scientific model. But what is predicted relative to the measures when it's embedded into the nonstandard structure? Next time. Dr. Bob.

#62 5 MAR 2018

From the number of individuals who have looked at the "what is rational thought" article, I assume that most members of this group have such knowledge. I have previously stated that individuals need to alter their mindset.

GID and, especially, the GGU-models do NOT employ any Biblical hypotheses although I did get a basic idea from one. In 2013, I showed how one can use the methods humans can use to construct buildings and other objects as the basic hypotheses. To satisfy the Wheeler requirements, no GGU-model entity is a member of any universe it produces. They are members of the substratum, the "ultranatural" region.

The standard GID-model is embedded into a Nonstandard Structure, and by now some members should have some knowledge of what this means.

However, via an INTERPRETATION of the symbolism, the most important math. notion used in applications, GID and even the major concepts of the GGU-model "satisfy" well over 50 Biblical statements that describe God's character. The model, hence, implies that such Biblical characteristic are rational and not irrational as some claim. The Complete GGU-model, "models" these theological concepts, where its standard form models the building of a 100 story building.

The very important fact is that the GGU-model has a strict cosmogony interpretation makes it a scientific model using notions from the science of physical cosmology. Many physical models have theological interpretations, which are usually rather negative, while this one has a highly positive interpretation.

I note that the standard Complete GGU-model is simply an acknowledgement of the correlation of the notion of "rationally" produced and "rationally" operative universe. This requires a descriptive language and something like GID, due the vary definition of "rational."

Nobelist Feynman stated during his lectures on QED "The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why She works that way. But, you see, nobody understands that. . . you can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore." He uses the word "describe" and, in this case, what he describes is directly related to entities that She does not describe in any language. AND for his QED, its all done in a world that cannot be directly observed by us or our machines.

How does the quotation read if you substitute "ultranature" for "Nature and "it" for "She"? Maybe you should remove the "But, you see, nobody understands that." Shortly, I'll again describe more about the GID model and simply hope that by now you don't fall into the Feynman group. Dr. Bob.

#63 5 MAR 2018

Yesterday, I modified three papers on my website so as to strongly define notions such as direct evidence, indirect evidence and other such terms so they simply cannot be misunderstood. ("Oh! I refuse to understand.") If the Complete GGU-model were ever accepted by the atheists, then here might be their Feynman type statement. "The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how ultranature works, you won't understand why She works that way. But, you see, nobody understands that. . . you can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore." But then we have the following characteristics.

The describing part needs to include rational actions, that is intelligent agency, where I use this term so as to be as close to an agent without actually requiring one. That's correct the model actually does not require an agent. It can be totally atheistic in character. I believe in choice and that accepting the Biblical God as the agent requires other considerations not merely the rational predictions made by this model.

The Complete GGU-model produces universes that correspond to infinitely step-by-step descriptions and yield infinitely many additional universe-wide frozen-frames (slices). All, or none, or most, but not all, of these additional ones could be empty. Nonempty ones could contain some rather interesting stuff.

What stuff? As I have shown, they can contain the immaterial human spirit. These additional ones can produce totally hidden types of universes governed by ultranatural laws that yield an everlasting existence. If one accepts something like the human spirit as it might be associated with Eccles immaterial aspect of human thought, then all such predictions are obtained without using any additional Biblical notions. But, on the other hand, such invisible universes do satisfy a few Biblical statements from Revelations. AND you can read about this in an article I wrote three years ago this month. Seevixra.org/pdf/1403.0036v4.pdf

#64 5 MAR 2018

By the way, the article I mentioned in my last posting also pertains to such concepts as "near death" experiences among other "spirit" manifestations. Dr. Bob.

#65 6 MAR 2018

"Now here's how we will eliminate all those arguments that are our universe is very special with unique fine turning and all related notions. It must be something like the following: First, we must maintain that all aspects of our universe are finite in character. After all that's all that we can actually perceive anyway. Then we simply accept the existence of the multiverse concept composed of infinitely many finitely characterized universes and there is a maximal finite number of different configurations. That is, that actually there are only finitely many "distinct" universes formed. Then the chance of one forming, just like ours, is 100% under the usual ideal statistical conditions. AND the fact that it has formed certainly points to such a conclusion. Indeed, like most of modern physical science, it is absolute indirect evidence for these assumptions.

Of course, like other concepts within in physical cosmology, we need no actual direct evidence for the existence of these other universes accept that the assumption predicts that ours will definitively form, which it has. And that it has special features such as human beings. AND this need not actually be assumptions and it might placate members of the ID community since it seems Herrmann's Complete GGU-model predicts such a possibility.

This will stop all the arguments you see by those ignorant ID people that claim that ours is specially created by some "hidden entity" since the Complete GGU-model need not be associated with any agent. It's simply how ultranature does it, where GID is merely the descriptive part. And please, if you are unfortunate enough to have a student who has some Bible knowledge, don't allow them to relate Herrmann's model to theology, by the usual means of ignoring them etc. Or reminding them that various secular models also unverifiable theological interpretations.

Now you all know how to slowly instill this into society and especially the students you teach. But emphasize, like Feynman did, that this is NOT related to an actual hidden entity, Indeed, use the altered quote I gave you." Prof. A. Smart.

#66 14 MAR 2018

I will post a few things today. By the way, since 1978 I have countered the atheists lies that the Biblical God is an irrational concept. This is done in almost all cases by the GD-model and, for Biblical creation, by the Complete GGU-model. This certainly seem to be of considerable benefit to all individuals who accept the Biblical concepts. I was going to mention relative to a recent Hawking posting, that I can find nothing he has ever done in the world of physical science that is actually a benefit to humankind. The fact he has just died does not change my opinion. Dr. Bob

#67 15 MAR 2018

One of the major articles taken from my website is "Modern Math. - Its Relation to Physical Science and Theology" See raherrmann.com/math.htm

#68 15 MAR 2018

(This is not the posting I had planned.) Have you read this paper of mine A HYPERCONTINUOUS HYPERSMOOTH SCHWARZSCHILD LINE ELEMENT TRANSFORMATION Intern. J. Math. and Math Sci., 20(1)(1997):201-204. You can find a copy at arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0312007 Its an application of my non-Hilbert-Einstein equation derivation for gravitational field physical metrics that, in this case, leads to black-hole formation. My method to derive such metrics is rather unique and shows that the governing aspects of our universe are substratum controlled. It can be found in my book on "Infinitesimal Light-clock" applications. It shows that there is an interesting region just prior to the event horizon of a black hole. But, comprehending the paper might require a little knowledge that, apparently, no one in this group has acquired. Then when it comes to black holes I guess one pays more attention to the atheists who produce such stuff.

#69 15 MAR 2018

Again not what I was going to present today.) Why is my website not as popular as it should be? Maybe, its not that I expose the lies presented by the atheists but that I also expose the untruths about the work of some of the "gods" of modern science. Sometimes society gives to members of the physical science community honors and accolades based on other factors rather than on the individuals actual physical science achievements.

Did you know that every time you see one write the "Einstein" gravitational field equations it presents a false implication. David Hilbert was the first to present such equations and he did not guess at them as Einstein did after help from numerously many others. Hilbert derived them in a brilliant application of the variational calculus. Einstein stated that Hilbert was trying to behave like a "superman," whatever that might mean in this context. Hilbert also suggested the notion of the unified fields, gravitational and electromagnetic. Hilbert dropped his additional term, when he showed the combined equation leads to an empty universe requirement. You don't hear much about Hilbert's work in such areas, although it is extensive, since he stayed in Germany during WWII. But then the major math. structure used in quantum theory is called a "Hilbert Space."

Did you know that e=mc^2 is not actually Einstein's "idea." The basic notion was that energy is proportional to c^2. The problem was finding the constant of proportionality. He did generalize the notion, however. I have the entire story in an article on my website that has not been challenged as in error. So, maybe because I believe in giving the proper credit to the proper people, my website is being ignored.

I don't suppose anyone might be interested in the Einstein article. Well, I won't give you a direct link but you can find it at index #29 at raherrmann.com

#70 16 MAR 2018

(What follows you need to know if you wish to have any idea of how the GID and GGU-models function.) Consider the set of five symbols F = M x a. Then you can impress upon these rules for symbol manipulation. You might state that F = M x A = A x M. However, Newton would write this as "The measure of a force F is proportional to the measure of the acceleration A," where M is the the constant of proportionality. Today, one reduces this to "the force F is equal to the mass M times the acceleration A," where the "measure" notion is "understood." But is it?

What we have in both cases is now termed a "mathematical model," where the F is a real number with the name "force," M is a real number with the name "mass" and the A is a real number with the name "acceleration." Thus, we can use real number properties and also symbolically write F/M = A, and state this in terms of "measures" of the named symbols. Of course, two of the names we have chosen also correspond to "physical" systems and their behavior. For example, the thrust from a rocket engine "F" and the acceleration of the rocket "A."

I have separated physical science into two worlds, the language on one hand and the entities and their behavior on the other; that is, what I call the events being described.

"EVENT. This is a real or ultranatural occurrence of an entity or behavior that is being images. Events, in general, are considered to exist external to any description that depicts them."

I have applied the notions of mathematical logic, in particular model theory, to the languages employed since the notion of "rational" behavior is technically only relative to the language employed. Hence, the term model is used for GID and GGU since they use terms that refer to specific entities and behavior not merely to the symbols themselves nor to the properties of the nonstandard mathematical structure in which they are embedded. THEN one corresponds the results obtained to the "events" being "described." This is what one means by the statement "nature behaves rationally." Thus, for proper understanding one needs to break the habit of immediately correlating the language to events but consider it a two step process. (Although I was unaware of it when GID was produced, in 1963, Robinson also modeled formal predicate language properties via nonstandard analysis.)

For the GGU-model schemes, only the first "left" part of each scheme corresponds in this manner. That's why they are called "schemes." I note that in math. logic, we use a "greater" language to model languages. It's called the metalanguage. For the schemes, various terms are from such a metalanguage and are not part of the language modeled. I'll return later to complete this with but a small posting. Dr. Bob

#71 17 MAR 2018

To property counter the lies about special creation made by members of the atheistic community, a mathematically generated counter model is necessary. The GGU-model need not be such a counter model. The GID-model need not be one either, when it is considered as but a "description" for ultranatural behavior. Remember that the Princeton project was looking for just such a substratum world that produces our universe AND it yields what is defined is the behavior of "Nature."

I have previously explained the use of such terms as "ultra" and the like that correspond to a particular operator. This is one reason I use terms such as "ultranatural" for the entities and their behavior that the comprise the Complete GGU-model. I refuse to improperly force other interpretations upon individuals. I use such terms as "intelligent agency" not "intelligent agent." I force individuals to make a choice.

As previously mentioned, the "secular" model predicts everlasting "hidden" universes that can be composed of "everlasting" entities. Of course, they can also be empty since the notion of the "empty" word is part of the language notion. Again, one need not consider a deity as the cause of all of this.

A new highly rational model is obtained by consistently reinterpreting the symbols used. One replaces intelligent actions, with the term "intelligent agent" and other similar term alterations. Then one shows that the reinterpretation "satisfies" numerous properly translated Biblical God-related statements such as a strict Genesis 1 description among others. This means that the modeled creationary aspects of the Bible are highly rational in character. (As previous shown, the other Divine attributes are also highly rational in character.)

Is there a problem with this solution? Yes, it also demonstrates our ignorance since it predicts that many aspects of GGU-model universe formation cannot be described nor comprehended by any biological entity within a universe. This fact coupled with the lack of deep knowledge of a very important characteristic for universe formation allows the Complete GGU-model to be easily ignored by those that are convinced that they can comprehend "every aspect" of physical science as Hawking claimed.

I'll next look at this "deep" stuff. Dr. Bob

#72 18 MAR 2018

In physical science its a term that comes from models that use "coordinates" or "components" to represent or measure properties. For example in General Relativity (GR), "space" is not what you may think it is. Lawden states that it is the collection of all 3-D regular coordinate systems. Thus we have that it is but various coordinate modes for measurements. Time is an additional mathematical coordinate. And one needs to consider GR as a analogue model since there are NO actual spacetime physical entities. In quantum physics, the major math model is the Hilbert Space. The Hilbert Space is a vector space that uses vector components and component algebra. Relative to the components being "independent" the number of them used is also called the "dimension." Then we have all the science fiction uses of this term, "It can from another dimension."

o continue, in Newton's work, space measurements and the time measurement were independent. Newton always used the term "measurements" in his notes. In GR, they are related by physical metrics. In quantum physics, if one wishes to introduce such stuff as string theory or other extensions of this type, then from the linear algebra view point there can be ten, twenty or even infinitely many components (dimensions) that when related yield various "universes." My propertons can only be known via the component representations with modified linear algebra properties. Propertons can have infinitely many components but for our universe they are, most likely, finite dimensional.

#73 18 MAR 2018

(I repeat some of the comments I made on 26 DEC, with a few additions. This is not the one I was planning to present at this time. I might present a second general posting today.) General Intelligent Design (GID) has been on my website since April 29, 1997. Before that the concept of the development paradigm (the foundation of GID) and the creation and development of our universe by a "supermind" was first published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4)(1985):189-198.

Among other things, the original approach to GID is used to show the rationality of sudden appearance in mature and functional form, the Genesis 1 concept, and the original Institute for Creation Research (ICR) concept of in-transit information. They dumped this the notion and now, I believe, use the Humphreys model, which I reject for both technical and Biblical reasons. On the other hand, this can be replaced with the rapid-formation of the exterior universe, which is what I now accept.

The entire strict Genesis 1 scenario is shown the be rational from the original GID viewpoint. Creation via the designed ultraword and an ultralogic operator. (See my glossaries.) The ultraword is a special presentation of the designed developmental paradigm. So, prior to 2013 and my major refinement, one can say that my form of design yields our universe operationally. In 1983, I informed ICR of my findings. They have never gotten back to me on this subject.

BUT, here is what I have faced. I have just come across an article in my files from ICR. It's a Back to Genesis April 2006 article written by Morris, published a few months after his death. (Well after my work was published.) I quote

"But the ID people (creation by intelligent design) insist that there are two different systems and Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism - especially not Biblical Creation."

Morris continues to identify what he seems to imply is the only ID that exists - the Dembski and the Discovery Institute form, what I call Restricted ID (RID). It is also the only ID mentioned on Wiki, (I'm glad mine is NOT mentioned since I could not correct all the lies the atheist editors would state about it.)

Obviously I can only continue to fight this exceptional confusion for a short period of time. It will be up to others like members of this group to popularized General Intelligent Design. Dr. Bob.

#74 20 MAR 2018

A few words about modern "axiomatic set-theory." One of the axiom systems is called the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms with choice and atoms (or urelements or individuals). This axiom system can be written in a special "formal" language. But, the only sets that are expressible with these axioms and apparently of interest to physical science communities are the natural, rational, real numbers and a binary relation with special properties that represents the complex numbers. With a little help from me, these axioms have been informally shown to be consistent.

Thus, without additions to these axioms, you cannot apply them to physically defined sets that cannot be characterized by such measures. This means that we need to add informal statements to such axioms that define what a mathematician claims is a set, something that is a "set" of stuff. Indeed, the entire set of axioms are informally presented. "Informal" means in terms of an ordinary language such as English.

In Math. Logic, for example, Mendelson gives the general statement "Which collections of objects form sets will not be specified. [He does not restrict them.] Care will be exercised to avoid any ideas or procedures that may lead to paradoxes; . . ." A set is defined using an informal language description, which, one hopes, is rather easily understood so that unique sets are obtained and such definitions are often relative to simple human procedures and concepts such as writing symbols from left-to-right. This fact is almost never mentioned. It is simply "understood," when a set of a symbols is written in a specific "order." The term "sequence" is often used to indicate this "ordered" arrangement.

For us, this is how a (Markov) word is formed. He developed word theory. A word is a finite sequence of symbols. Then consider this instruction. "If P and Q are words, then PQ denotes the word obtained by writing Q to the right of P." (Actually this can be turned into a algebraic structure called a monoid.) Then from a given (usually) finite "set" called an alphabet, the language L is defined as the "set" of all words. We can then apply axiomatic set theory to L. This is what I mean by a humanly related (writing stuff let-to-right) informally defined set. (By coding, I have made L somewhat more formal in character. But, one need not do this.)

Often informal "finite" set definitions that refer to "forms" are readily accepted. Dr. Bob

#75 21 MAR 2018

Before I continue with what I had planned, theologically, I accept, as did ICR via a Morris pronouncement, the Eden period of everlasting life. The Complete GGU-model can produce such an GID-intelligently designed concept. But, if the accelerated or, indeed, continual expansion of our universe is fact, which I presently accept, then the Eden period cosmology would, most likely, not be the one present today. An application of the Complete GGU-model yields the rationally produced Eden model. I also personally accept that God created biological entities and the original Eden period entities as Biblically described say about 6000 Earth years ago. AND, of course, this is but one of a vastly number of possible GID-intelligently designed scenarios.

Please recall this is an interpretation and the GID and the GGU-model are NOT based upon a Biblically stated foundation. But, via prediction, they satisfy many interpreted Biblical statements. And, of course, the models can be otherwise interpreted. They can be classified as secular, where intelligent agency is not related to an agent but rather to a "higher" form of substratum behavior than what we observe from our internal position. And, recall that there is a vast amount of indirect evidence for this solution to the GGU-problem.

I have purposely restricted the foundations of the Complete GGU-model to the "finite" world, the world that corresponds to our experiences. In my next posting, which is somewhat of a repeat of one I posted last year and few have read, I'll try and explain aspects of the "infinite" world the models predict. Dr. Bob

#76 22 MAR 2018

As I mentioned, the foundations of GID and even a major aspect of the GGU-model are based upon our intuitive concept of the finite world. A counting procedure that, up to a point we can apply ,is applied to a nonempty finite set. The intuitive notion of using the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,.. to count can be further extended to any finite set of elements, at least mentally. This process can be represented by a logical "word" to which basic deduction is applied As an example, consider a set of "ten" objects.

Choose one member of the set and set it aside. Now choose a second member and set it aside. Do this until all ten have been removed. So name the objects by the ten symbols 1 - 10. You can write a set of instructions (a word) using these names that rationally yields this process. The word is "Choose the number 1 entity and set it aside. If you have chosen the number 1 entity and have set it aside, then choose number 2 entity and set it aside. If you have chosen the number 2 entity and have set it aside, then choose number 3 entity and set it aside. . . . If you have chosen the number 9 entity and have set it aside, then choose the number 10 entity and set it aside." To obtain the entities you apply basic propositional deduction and the result is the set of set aside entities with numeric names 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 expressed in that left-to-right order the process produces.

Prior to modern math., the infinite was, usually, a simply extension of this notion. The counting numbers (natural numbers) N with its basic properties were assumed to exist. You would take a set, say N itself, and start counting "n" members, then there is another member n + 1 in the set. If this holds for all "finite" "n", then the set was said to be "potentially" infinite (An Aristotle notation). Thus, N itself is potentially infinite under this definition. But does N contain other "infinite" sets not obtainable in this simple manner? This possibility along with another notions leads to be introduced the one-to-one correspondence and I need not go into that here.

Then we have the "(closed) interval." A finite collection [0,10] say, which contains the numbers n from N such that n = 0 or 0< n < 10 or n = 10. These can be used as well as the potentially infinite notion to discuss such intervals. The set [0] is a subset of N. Let n be in N and [0,n] is subset of N. Then show that [0,n+1] as a subset of N. (N is closed under + and n < n + 1.) Induction yields that [0,n] is a subset of N for any n member of N. I've been writing all this since the actual standard basis for GID and even part of the GGU-model are finite sets of descriptions and potential infinite intervals as represented by finite but potentially infinite words as above.

When the actual described entities are embedded into the Nonstandard Structure, a remarkable thing happens. The potentially infinite stops and a single "finite" type interval is predicted. It is called a "hyperfinite" interval. Why? Well, it has all the basic properties of a finite interval including a "word" that follows a "counting" pattern, where the "numbers" can be considered as "names" for the slices of a universe AND other stuff. Included in the other stuff is that this hyperfinite interval contains ALL of the other standard intervals, the ones that yield the notion of the potential infinite. For the GGU-model, it is an actual "hyperfinite" counting process.

Thus a higher intelligence uses a finite-like hyperfinite step-by-step process to design the slices of our universe and to produce the development. BUT, can we, at least mentally, replicate this step-by-step hyperfinite process? No, and the reasons why we can't satisfies Isaiah 55:8-9. I discuss the reasons next time. Dr. Bob.

#77 23 MAR 2018

Once again I mention that to have any knowledge as to the workings of the GID-model, one must know what the terms I use mean. Without such knowledge, criticism will have little meaning and will not be considered. The notion of an interpretation also needs to be properly applied. The interpretations I use do NOT change the basic definitions of the operators used. The new entity predictions made by the GID-model do NOT directly imply that the entities exist in any reality. Mostly the new entities are not directly observable. One can accept the existence of such entities based upon indirect evidence, which does not in any absolute sense establish their existence. What GID states is that the entities are "rationality" produced under the definition I give for the concept "rational." One can also "assume" being made in the "image" of God includes a corresponding mode of rational thought, so that we can, as Paul tells us, at least have partial comprehension. Its also interesting how God rationally argues with Job and presents a humanly comprehensible deductive description for Genesis 1 creation.

Now go to this short glossary and check the definition for GID-design and GID-intelligence. (Note I use the term "intelligence" since it is measurable and our ability to preform such tasks is one portion of an IQ test.) See raherrmann.com/glossary1.htm

#78 23 MAR 2018

Relative to the "hyperfinite," I have an article on my website that attempts to "explain" this notion. Unfortunately, I need to re-write it relative to the higher-intelligence. An interpretation can be somewhat difficult when one uses Nonstandard Analysis since there can be six different languages employed to describe the predicted results.

The internal language tells us that from the viewpoint of the higher-intelligence, a hyperfinite process is a "simple process" that has been shared with us since every finite set is also hyperfinite.

On the other hand when further analyzed using all the languages that characterize the hyperfinite, it is discovered that during a step-by-step (infinite) hyperfinite process, situations occur and, for these, the mathematics has no language elements that explain at our level how a "step-by-step" process can actually apply to the generation of a universe. Since different languages are employed, then the situations do not contradict the internal language description.

This is an example of the predicted "lack of knowledge" model. The fact is that this theologically models Paul's partial knowledge statement. Further, a higher language *L is predicted and this models Paul's Third Heaven language. Hence, both of these Paul statements are rational concepts since they both come from deductive predictions.

Further, I use a few members of the pure higher language *L - L for the the GGU-model's ultra-propertons. From this, one can hypothesize that there are members of the higher language *L - L that can more fully describe what we cannot at present describe about those step-by-step situations that occur during the hyperfinite step-by-step formation of a universe.

Here is how difficult it is, at present, for us to comprehend one such situation. As the hyperfinite process proceeds, from our limited intelligence viewpoint, it appears as if a step includes "moving," so to speak, from one "infinite vanishing point" to another "infinite vanishing point" and continuing the process. Indeed, this change involves going from the atemporal world to the temporal world. Thus far, nowhere within the mathematics are we given any descriptive information as to "how" this can be done. Maybe its because, at present, we are mere temporal creatures.

Showing how the "infinite" notion works is also difficult, for some, since it is counter to our experiences. I might again attempt a further "explanation." Here, however, is my present article on the hyperfinite. (It has, at least, one typo.) Dr. Bob.

#79 25 MAR 2018

I have a copy of an algebra 1 book used in the Baltimore County school system in the 1960s. On page 1, it introduces the "counting numbers" (later called the natural numbers) by simply writing the string of symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . . . It also does the same for the "even" and "odd" sets. It then states that "The three dots in each case above indicate that the sequences of numbers continue in the same pattern. It should be easy for you to see the pattern in each case and decide how to continue." On page 2, the book calls the set of numbers one gets by continually extending the pattern an "infinite set."

What the book is attempting to define is NOT the actual infinite used in modern math. The notion presented is related to the "idea" of the "potential infinite" in that one can "continually" extend the patterns by adjoining new numbers. But how long does one "continually" do this for it to actually be an infinite pattern?

This problem was supposedly corrected when, in 1879, Dedekind stated the Peano Axioms for the natural numbers. One axiom is the "successor" axiom which today we would denote as follows: For each natural number x, there is the successor natural number x + 1. This is one of the definitions for the potential infinite. I note that using the induction axiom etc., one then defines the usual ordering we often "see" 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < . . . . etc. In modern set-theory, however, you have the idea of the "completed" infinite. Not a continuing "growing" larger and larger but is a stronger property of being large in the first place and containing all of these increasing large finite sets of numbers.

The axioms state that "there exists a set W" such that W contains the empty set 0/ and if x is in W, then x U {x} is in W." The set {x} is called a singleton set and contains one element. Note this is intuitively understood from the notation. U is the union operation, which I found defined on page 2 of that algebra book. AND what individuals don't understand about math. is that if I present such strings of symbols "in a finite manner" then this is a sufficient definition under the concepts of the intuitive notion of symbol manipulation for math. proofs and other definitions. Now one begins an inductive construction by letting x = 0/ and showing that there is a SET N, which is subset of W, and satisfies the potential infinite properties and the Peaon axioms through a restricted form of the old induction axiom. . BUT, the difference is that the set N exists as a standard alone entity and under the definition for what constitute an "infinite" set, it is such a set. It is called a "completed infinite" set. BUT, can we intuitively comprehend such a set or must we simply assume it exists with its mathematically characteristics?

Most certainly I cannot write down the symbols for it on paper. BUT, maybe, just maybe, I can image it. For 120 years, it was stated that we cannot even image such an thing. Well, you might try. See raherrmann.com/infinite.htm

#80 26 MAR 2018

The mathematical notion of the finite corresponds to our intuition. Gauss stated "God made the integers . . . " ( . . ., -2,-1,0,1,2,3,. . .) The natural numbers, without the notion of them being 0 or positive is included. The 0 is a natural number within its set-theoretic definition. Indeed, the symbol 0 is a name for the empty set 0/. The symbol 1 is the name for the set {0/} that is a set that contains only the empty set. The symbol 3 is a name for {0/,{0/}} and I'll stop there. Prior to set-theory, the set of natural numbers N simply was assumed to exist and have various properties as I mentioned last time.

The "sizes" of sets (i.e. number of members) made intuitive sense for finite sets, from the counting view point. When the math. definition is given and its properties deduced, the definition and properties correspond to our experiences with counting stuff.

In a dictionary, the term "infinite" is stated as "something" that is "unlimited" and other such terms. But, the modern math. definition does not corresponds to any of our experiences. Indeed, when Cantor developed his ideas of the "transfinite," the Church, in has time, thought it was a great idea and wanted Cantor to use his ideas to kinda "model" God. Fortunately, Cantor refused to consider it such a model, since his basic definitions turned out to be contradictory. And, of course, we have the group (Brower etc.) that refused to accept his ideas at all, the "constructionists." Today, some so-called mathematics still have this view.

The problem I have in considering the "size" notion for the infinite, is that the modern definition of the infinite is a very broad extension of the definition of the finite definition. It uses purely mathematical notions. Thus, when I write that the attributes of the higher-intelligence are infinitely greater than any attributes of His created, what does term "infinitely" actually mean from a comparative mathematical viewpoint? What I can do is to compare the notion of the "infinite" intelligence predicted by the GID-model to stuff in the physical sciences, with which individuals have had experiences. They may have developed a type of intuition for the tools used to discuss physical-science measures. I will go slowly in presenting this material. Dr. Bob.

#81 28 MAR 2018

My next posting on the "infinite must wait until at least tomorrow.

#82 28 MAR 2018

Jello people probably can't do human mathematics. Why not, you ask. Well, in their usual cubic form, they don't have a unique left or right, top or bottom or front or back. What math teachers usually don't tell students is that the predicate rules used in math. definitions often leave out the required human notions needed to perform the rules. These are supposed to be "understood." But, are they?

A major real analysis book I have states the definition for the order pair as "An order pair of real numbers is (a,b), where a is the first coordinate and b is the second coordinate." Then we have the equality of such strings of these symbols etc. Basic math. are rules for symbol manipulation. So, a student must simply know "order" concept that "first" means the first symbol and "second" means the second symbol reading from left-to-right. Even in set theory, where (a,b) = {{a},{a,b}}, it is required that one "knows" what are the one and two element sets being displayed and then relate this to the "first" and "second," when applied to the other textbook definition. Yes, math. is "fun" we are told. I have a textbook in Nonstandard Analysis that has displayed a "left-hand orientated coordinate system" with a picture of a left-hand with three fingers pointing in "three" directions.

Why do I mention this "obvious" stuff? It's because the math. infinite is NOT defined in such a way that it corresponds to our intuition, in particular way. It does not correspond to our experiences. But, I wrote a paper that shows that ones lack of such knowledge does not prevent one from grasping this concept for a Deity.

In the physical sciences, we use the natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,. . .}, integers Z = {. . . -2,-1,0, +1,+2,+3,. . .}, (notice the . . . , which you are suppose to "understand") the rational numbers (fractions) Q = a/b etc, and the real numbers R with the added irrationals such as 2^(1/2) and pi. In modern math., functions (a special collection of ordered pairs) are used to define the notion of the infinite and mathematicians are very cleave in defining such. The results are rather non-intuitive from the viewpoint of the "amount" of material in a set. But, the definition has been used to generate a vast collection of theorems. Wilder uses the term "size" to indicate this "infinite" concept for a non-finite set.

The set N of natural numbers is the "smallest" size infinite set and as we know we use pieces of it to count. BUT, the sets of all even E, including 0, and O odd natural numbers have the "same" size as N. BUT, that contradicts the intuitive notions we have of the behavior of the finite. Here is how this is established. The function (rule), f(n) = 2n, where n is any member of N, satisfies the required definition for N that two sets have the same (infinite understood) size. But, the set of results of this rule (the range) is E. The definition states that N (the domain of f) and E have the same infinite size. Then we have g(n) = 2n + 1, with its range O, I think. Thus N and O have the same size. BUT notice that the combination of E and O (E U O) is N and E and O have nothing in common. The size has not changed, when in this case, two infinite sets are so combined. By-the-way, the integers and rational numbers also have the same size as N. They sure look like they have more members, but they don't.

Well, does this also happen for the real numbers used throughout physical science. Consider the function f(x) = e^x. You can use this and show that R and the positive real numbers have the same size. I wonder, is the size of N and R the same? I'll return to answer this and then discuss what I have discovered about the infinite I often use, when discussing the higher-intelligence. Dr. Bob

#83 28 MAR 2018

Prior to 20 Dec, I gave a little posting on the "power set;" that is, the set of all subsets of a set X. The notation is P(X). Take a set of 20 elements. The power set has 2^20 members, about 1 million. We can, of course, use this operator for infinite sets as well. In general, Cantor showed that for any nonempty set X infinite or not, and any of the special infinite determining functions f with the required domain X, P(X) has at least one member that is not a member of its range. But, P(X) contains a collection that has the same size as X. This collection is composed of all the sets {x}, where x is in X, and simply let f(x) = {x}. From one of those additional definitions, we have that P(N) is "greater in size," than N, at least by one member in P(N). So, what and why should you care?

Oh! by-the-way, these functions are one-to-one functions. That means that not only are there no repeated first coordinates in the ordered pairs generated by the rule, but no repeated second coordinates. In fact, if you can find a function with this property, then the domain and range are of the same size. The three functions I defined last time are one-to-one. In the first case, this is proved by letting f(a) = f(b). Then 2a=2b implies that a = b. But, the functions could be rather more complex, when extending the counting notion this way. From last time, we have that for the rational numbers Q, that can be considered as including the integers and natural numbers, we have that the set has the same size as the natural numbers.

For the real or the coupled complex numbers, the major ones used throughout physical science, one first shows that the interval of real numbers (0,1) = {x in R)&(0 < x < 1)} is the same size as R. But, again hardly from our intuition, we have that P(N) and R have the same infinite size. This is really strange stuff compared to the finite. I note that mathematicians must, of course, accept the definitions presented and they include the famous . . . notation. Since Q is smaller, so to speak than P(N), then the set that adds enough members to R so that P(N) and R have the same size are the irrationals such as pi. I know pi to 110 places and if I continued "forever" I would not find it to be a repeated decimal. BUT, how does this strange stuff apply to the higher-intelligence and do we need to take a course in axiomatic set-theory to have a basic idea as to the "infinite" notion as I apply it to GID? If I'm still able to continue with this, I'll explain this today, or maybe tomorrow or maybe ? Dr. Bob.

#84 29 MAR 2018

The following "proof" is just a little added stuff and is not really important if you except how to calculate the number of subsets of a finite set. Do you remember the High School algebra question "expand (x + y)^n" and you wrote ( x + y ) ^n and it was marked wrong. ?? You should have used the "binomial expansion" rule, where you calculated the coefficients a_r for the terms x^(n-r)y^r, where r varies from 0 to n. Recall that a_r = (n(n-1). . . . (n-r+1))/r!, where r not 0, and for r = 0, let a_0 = 1. (Numerator is a finite sequence of multiplications and r! = 1x2x3x. . . xr.) There is another form for this.

Anyway, the coefficients also give, for non-zero r, the number of combinations of n objects taken r at a time. But this is also the number of r element subsets of a set with n elements, where we can include the r = 0 as the empty set. But, if you expand the binomial and let x = 1 and y = 1, you get the number of subsets of an n element set X. Thus we have that they are (1 + 1)^n = 2^n = P(X), as noted for n = 20. QED

(What follows is not actually needed but its shows how mathematicians "think."). Let's really get some big sets. For a 20 element set X, how big is the set of all subsets of P(X)? That is P(P(X)). Well its "obvious" that its 2^(2^20) or about 2^(1,000,000). If I let the symbol |Y| be the number of elements in a finite set Y, then it's certainly a fact that |X| < |P(X)| < |P(P(X))|. Suppose that I continue putting the P on the left of the previous P expression? Then we have that |X| < |P(X)| < |P(P(X))| < |P(P(PX)))| < . . .

As Cantor showed, this type of ordering holds for infinite sets as well, where the idea is that we have an increasing "infinite" concept. Mathematically, there appears to be an increasing, of sorts, in the "size" of infinite sets. I can quote from math. books to show that they do think in terms of "bigness" and use such terms as an "extremely large, huge, enormous" and the like set in discussing such infinite sets. Do you actually need what I just wrote? Not really, but it helps when you consider what I have actually proved. I'll discuss why this is so shortly, but, first I need to feed my cats. Dr. Bob.

#85 29 MAR 2018

Well, here we go. In 1974, it was shown that the major GID-modeled sets I use and that are taken from the nonstandard model have the same infinite size. (In technically terms, they all have the same "cardinality," if you know the term.)

Using a coding process introduced in 2000, I have shown that there can be considered "infinitely" many such models. (I do not use any of these, however. I use one with one more additional feature that does not use the coding.) The attributes and intelligence of the higher-intelligence are "infinitely" great or strong or a similar term in each case, but as I have constructed them, this mathematical concept satisfies the previous idea of an "increasing sequence" of "increasing strong" infinities. That is a sequence like |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| . . . AND there is no bound to this sequence.

So, the mathematics only partially characterizes the infinite strength of God's attributes and His higher-intelligence. Of course, this models Paul's statement about partial knowledge.

Because of this result, I introduced the term "generic infinite", to mean just what the above implies, infinite properties that are "stronger than," at least, our mathematical ability to model them completely. That is, they are actually greater than, stronger than, etc. anything we can technically describe and, hence, linguistically comprehend. Such a lack of knowledge is truly a problem for some, especially the atheist and maybe some are such for that reason. And, the existence of such a powerful entity would probably be very frighting to many if it were not for Rom 5:5 and 1 Cor 1: 4-7.

I now need to alter my glossaries slightly relative to this concept since a few of the lines I just wrote are better than the ones I wrote there. Also I intend to alter the actual paper, where my proof appears, since what I introduced at the end of the paper may weaken the generic infinite notion, something I did not intend. Dr. Bob

#86 1 MAR 2018

I'm not sure members of this group understand the significance of my last posting. Mathematical modeling is the major tool used for physical science. From that viewpoint, what has been shown is that a highly significant Divine attribute - the infinite - as used to characterize the Biblical God, among others, appears not be completely "describable" technically. Thus it becomes more of an intuitive notion. Applying the Eccles immaterial aspect of human thought, it's an idea one might "understand" but it is difficult to "fully" describe.

Now below is the actual article, where Theorem 1 is the major result. However, I feel many members of this group may find the math. somewhat difficult to follow. vixra.org/pdf/1407.0052v5.pdf

#87 2 APR 2018

In 2013, GID and the GGU-model were highly refined. I have had on my website actual human physical constructions that parallel the "standard" (i.e. prior to embedding into the math. structure) GGU and GID models. The one displayed previously on the site what the construction of a 100 story building. I took from another paper a much simpler example, the construction of a globe of our world and have it the first example cited. You will find it at raherrmann.com/globe.htm

A GID-model Physical Illustration

All of the basic GGU-model processes are modeled in specific and significant ways. The mathematics directly predicts other fundamental objects. Each GGU-model process can now be directly related to real human mental and physical processes.

#89 2 APR 2018

I have been reading the article I mentioned in my last posting and have decided to rewrite the Book page concept since it is confusing and does not easily give a GID-model's basic logical pattern. Dr. Bob

#89 5 APR 2018

Well, here it is, a totally redesigned 100% simplified article with many displays. "Bob and his construction of a globe." I'm not kidding when I state that I can find no reason why even one with a below average intelligence, none of you of course, cannot now learn the "logic" behind the GID-modeled step-by-step development of our universe. This article even shows that the step-by-step process is how we would visually perceive such a development.

BUT, there is more to this than I have not stated in this article. It is the construction of the collection of all physical-systems that comprise a 3-D slice of our universe itself. But, logically, the step-by-step construction of each slice follows the exact same logical pattern. However, the mathematics gets somewhat complex when this is included. So, I have not included it. See, as before, raherrmann.com/globe.htm

#90 6 APR 2018

The globe universe. The GGU-model is very general. Hence, there can actually be a "universe" constructed that is the Bob constructed globe and nothing more. I'm also going to add another display after d''. d'' corresponds only to the "completed" laminate discs composed of two half pieces and was the original approach. The refined 2013 model, which is the one that needs to be used, includes the design of all of the physical-systems that compose the 3-D slices of a universe. For the Bob globe, this means the half-discs as well.

I will make this clear by adding a display at the d'' position in the article that is the refined "Bob-like" approach, the approach should now be used. Dr. Bob.

#91 7 APR 2018

As mentioned more than once, the GGU-model solves the 1974 Wheeler General Grand Unification Problem, which by its requirements needs a cosmogony that views our universe externally. Today, maybe due to the ID movement, atheistic science to a high degree of probability will not accept any "external" view for universe creation since it might also be interpreted as implying a Deity. Are they working towards "theories" that allow them to reject any external view as meaningless?

I have quoted previously from an article by Felder of Smith College and here is another quotation relative to the theories being considered. "In fact, some versions of the inflationary cosmology suggest that the universe had no beginning but has existed forever." For this to have physical meaning, this "forever" is, of course, a measurable "time" notation. This "forever" is a physical law and such a law most "emerge" from the Wheeler cosmogony.

Although obviously not strictly Biblical, those that don't accept Genesis 1 as a literal description for creation, need to know that the GGU-model intelligent agent can design and produce such a universe. And, for the agent, it has a beginning. Such interpreted agent behavior is predicted by the mathematics employed and counters any atheistic statement that such an agent is an irrational concept. Is this even slightly explainable in some sort of "plain" language or must we accept and admit that we are not as intelligent as the agent? This, of course, the atheist will not do. One displayed form in the technical area of the globe article can be modified to yield such a universe. BUT, what must individuals learn before they have a have even a slight comprehension of such a creationary activity? A lot. Dr. Bob

#92 8 APR 2018

Recall that Bob has two books the B "ordered" instructions book and the exact corresponding B' ordered descriptions book. Note that these instructions and descriptions exist prior to Bob beginning his construction. For the 100 story building illustration, the same thing holds, plains and instructions all exist prior to the actual construction. For the GID-model correspondence, this is also the case. I call this "pre-design."

The facts are that we change the future development of our universe, at least locally, by our actions. This fact is called the "participator" requirement. This requirement is included in the Complete GGU-model solution so that when the model is restricted to the physical world it satisfies this fact.

I have an article at the archives that shows that the standard participator model prior to any additional embedded has an interesting algebraic structure. For the Genesis 1 account, it corresponds to the statements that imply that humans have many left-path choices. So, before continuing with an deeper examination of the * stuff that appears in the "globe" paper, some might like to look at this. Probably not many, however.

#93 9 APR 2018

Prior to further investigating some stuff in the globe article, I mention, probably, again but few still seem not to understand the rules for "modern" science. The rules are determined by the science-community. For example, over 55 years years ago I was sitting in a lecture hall at Johns Hopkins waiting to start the lesson in the Modern Physics course I was taking. The professor entered the classroom upset over something and actually told us what it was. His specialty was spectroscopy. He was complaining that he had lost a Natural Science Foundation research grant to a "theoretical" physics group. His specialty was much more laboratory orientated.

Consider one such group, the physical cosmology group. They create and publish "explanatory" models that predict observable data. Individuals who practice this science have been awarded every meaningful prize from the Nobel on down for their scientific endeavors.

The Princeton, John A. Wheeler, group that attempted to solve the General Grand Unification Problem was composed of the foremost mathematicians and theoretical physicists of that time. But, no physical laws that predict any aspect of physical behavior can be used to produce such a model since such laws are to "emerge" from the model. These "famous" individuals found this to be a worthy "scientific" endeavor under the rules they accept. By-the-way, you might also check out, if you don't know, what Wheeler contributed to physical science.

The GGU-model satisfies all of the Wheeler requirements and, hence, is an acceptable predictive explanatory scientific, not philosophic, model for a cosmogony. Further, it employs a "Book of Instructions" for the rational generation of all of the physical-systems that comprise each 3-D slice of a universe such as ours. But, the intelligence needed to page-turn and apply the instructions is an higher-intelligence. If you check the dictionary definition for "intelligence," you will discover that a major aspect is "reasoning." The Complete GGU-model is based upon a measurable form of "reasoning" and can be mathematically modeled. This is also GID-intelligence. No other form of ID of which I'm aware actually has a proper definition for intelligence that can be so generally applied.

On more posting prior to my globe article stuff further presentation. I will give a short posting, which can be directly observe, that indicates the strength of even the standard restriction of the GID-intelligence. Dr. Bob.

9 APR 2018

Consider a view of the ocean surface over a short time interval. The view is, of course, very limited when one considers how much of our earth is water covered. Consider all of the alterations you view in this surface, even on a calm day. If your view is from the shore, then notice the waves, the breakers, the whitecaps, etc. as well. Relative to our entire universe, this is a rather "infinitesimal" view of time-altering physical-systems.

But, the GID-higher-intelligence has pre-designed each of these physical-systems and their step-by-step, but visually "continuous," alterations. People by their choices even alter the systems. So, I guess the higher-intelligence must actually pre-design a vast quantity of such altering systems so as to follow the GID participator model scheme. Joe the world famous atheist scientist states, "That's impossible. I cannot conceive of doing such a thing. No one I know can. As Hawking stated, we know all of the laws that yield such behavior and they state that its purely random in character. You are exactly what has been stated - backward, anti-science, and ignorant and I don't care what your bio. states."

This is why I went into the notion of the "infinite." First, as has been shown, no behavior claimed to be "random" is so. It is "mindom." It satisfies a step-by-step higher rational process that if restricted to our physical world does not display itself to us - created mentally finite people. The mindom process is hyperfinite. When more deeply analyzed for comparison purposes, what we perceive is a physical restriction of what is actually an "infinite" process. And this infinite is beyond all such standard infinite notions as used anywhere within physical science. Indeed, its the same infinite the higher-intelligence uses for its page-turning descriptions and instructions.

Now consider the fact that the same higher-intelligence has designed EVERY physical-system that exists anywhere within our entire universe as well as all allowable alterations. If it weren't for the Biblical descriptions for its other attributes, even considering such a possibility would be rather frightening. So, for many that don't accept the Biblical descriptions, they seem to accept the idea that its better to reject the entire idea that such an entity might actually exist. And various atheists try their best to persuade many individuals, especially students, not to consider such an alternative. Dr. Bob

#94 12 APR 2018

What is claimed to be the first empirical physical-science results are those of Kepler. Via previous telescopic observation for data relative to the orbital position of Mars, no experimentation, in the early 1600s he stated his three "Laws of Nature." Whatever "Nature" may be, these descriptions describe her behavior. The second law, however, refers to no known physical entities but is a mathematical statement about a 2-D notion, the area of 2-D region produce by planetary motion. His laws satisfy the data. They mathematically predict the data.

Today, the Complete GGU-model is based upon observable data. The mathematical model then predicts what, for the secular world, would be the behavior of a substratum form of Nature. I call this the "ultranatural" world. Why? For many reasons, but one the secularist might understand is that the behavior is highly distinct from what we experience or can even understand. Then when restricted to the physical world it satisfies the behavior of the secular notion of Nature.

I have added slightly to the globe article. Our world is an observable "finite" world. Since finite behavior is the basis for the Complete GGU-model, I have used a small portion of the globe articled and greatly simplified the article that discusses the higher-intelligence form of the finite, the hyperfinite. The design and production of our universe is produced by higher-intelligence hyperfinite deduction. In the new version of the paper on the hyperfinite, I discuss how we might conceive of the actual sequence of such deductions and establish a result that many atheists would not accept. I quote the last sentence in this article.

"The higher-intelligence applies its "simple" process of its form of ordered finite deduction and we can have no detailed knowledge of exactly how the higher-intelligence actually produces the results."

I have, hence, just altered two articles that appear on my website. You can find the new hyperfinite article at raherrmann.com/hyperfinite.htm

#95 13 APR 2018

(A comment on multiuniverses, ultiverses.) I have discussed this concept previously and exactly why some form of the "eternal" universe notion will be accepted if Biblical ID endangers atheistic physical cosmology in any significant way. This notion, and a proposed mathematical model, allows for the existence of an eternal universe producing process that yields whatever universe serves whatever purpose one wishes. Such universes need not all exist at the same "moment." They can each be produced by an eternal quantum field(s). The present universe in which we dwell, as well as many totally separated ones, occur due to "quantum fluctuations." We are in, so to speak, such a fluctuation. On the other hand, numerously many other universes may "exist" and this can be related by the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds model. The many-world notion comes about relative to a "series" of quantum physical wave function possibilities, where ALL exist rather than have the wave function simply collapse to one. The many-worlds notion is accepted by many in the quantum physics community, so one needs to accept these other "worlds" as being "somewhere." But we can have NO actual evidence that these other worlds exist. Each of us may exist in these other "worlds" but in rather different forms. Dr. Bob

#96 13 APR 2018

Although what I present next may, at first, not seem related to GID, the first scientific approach to what we call intelligent design. Interesting circumstances led to its development.

For years, the U.S. Navel Academy Math. Dept. administration had been breaking Federal Law in its retention policy. I came to the Academy Math. Dept. along with six others in 1968. The faculty of the Academy are members of the "Excepted" Federal Service like the FBI Agents. The Academy sets its own rules for hiring, promoting, etc. and even the pay scale for its faculty.

I came in, like the others, as a non-tenured Assistant Professor, under a contract. The Administration followed the standard rules for promotion to Associate Professor, relative to teaching, research, publication and service. BUT, under normal circumstances, the dept. is allowed only a certain number of Tenured Associate Professor positions. I mention that the pay scale at the Academy is one of the highest of all four year colleges in the country. Further, they have a lot of research grant money.

When it came time for me to be promoted, there was only one or two slots available and as it developed they were illegally "grooming" one individual for promotion. At that time, I had done more research and published more journal articles than any previous member of the dept. I was shocked with a receive, at home, a certified letter that I had not been promoted and would not be retained on the faculty. After investigation, I discovered that my not being retained on the faculty was contrary to Federal Law. I'll post this much and return shortly to continue. Dr. Bob

#97 13 APR 2018

To continue the last posting, who was it that discovered that the Math. Dept. Administration was breaking Federal Law? I discovered this fact.They were, no less, breaking the Federal Veterans Preference Law. This law stated at that time that, even for the Excepted Service, if you are a military veteran, then you cannot be removed from your position accept under the same conditions as members of ordinary General Service (GS). Members of the GS become "tenured" after a short probationary period and then the removal rules apply. It is not easy to remove a tenured GS. No GS reason applied to me and I'm sure this holds for many, if not all, of those veterans previously removed from the faculty.

I took this to the then Civil Service Commission and the Federal Courts. They could not but rule in my favor but it still took almost a year to settle. I was preparing to return the high school teaching.

When settled, they created a new position Assistant Professor with Civil Service Tenure, but not the much stronger academic tenure. And I would still be considered for promotion with academic tenure under the same conditions as all other assistant professors. This all occurred from 1975 through the Fall 1976. Now we come to the interesting material that led me to begin developing the notions needed to mathematically model theological concepts.

During the 1977 Fall semester, I and a group of math. faculty members decided to have a "lunch-time" study of some of the books of C. S. Lewis. It was during this period that I got various ideas as to how to mathematically model a bunch of the Lewis statements. Indeed, it was during this time I did the math. for the first chapters of my book,"The Theory of Ultralogics." I wrote a book, "The G-model Applied to C. S . Lewis" (G = Grundlegend). When the C. S. Lewis Foundation rejected my use of his quotations, I dumped the project. This is the method I used in 1978, however, to establish the rationally of numerously comparable Divine attributes. But I was not being promoted although I had all the requirements and a lot more nor was I getting the salary increases the other faculty members were getting.

As I learned by a remark made to me by one of the few Christian members of the promotion and tenure community, that due to my applying mathematics to these Lewis theological concepts as well as showing the rationality of comparable Divine attributes, I was being explicitly denied promotion by this atheist control committee on religious grounds. So, what could I do about it since I was not supposed to know about their "secrete" deliberations. Oh! by- the-way, all those who led this discrimination are now dead. So, they now know the truth.

These conditions continued all through the development of GID and its original application to solve the GGU-problem. But, then in the Fall 1980, something rather remarkable happened. After a little lunch, I'll describe it. Dr. Bob

#98 13 APR 2018
During the Fall of 1980, I received a letter from the Superintendent that I had been promoted to Associated Professor with full Academic Tenure. I was shocked. What happened? I did not know until the Academy Comptroller, a Navy Commander, stopped me outside of my office and explained the entire matter. Prior to him taking that post, he was the Dept Chairman of the Computer Science Dept. on the same floor as my office and he know of my contributions to instruction, research etc.

He also noticed that I was not being considered by the Math. Dept. for promotion. So, without my knowledge, he began an investigation into the matter and discovered that I had, indeed, been discrimination against on religious grounds. He immediately took this to the Superintendent and he corrected the Math. Dept. Administration's discriminatory behavior towards me. I was promoted in Jan 1981 to Associate Professor with full Academic Tenure some 6 years after I should have been so promoted. I believe that members of the Administration of the Math. Dept were informed that he was "disappointed" with their actions towards me.

After that, as far as I could determine, the Math. Dept Administration ceased their discriminatory policy towards me. (Not done by the Administration but by other members of the dept., I lost the "Excellence in Scholarship" reward and its \$5000 prize due to religious discrimination. I did not protest this fact.) Anyway, I met the requirements and was promotion to Full Professor, five 1/2 years later, with "all the right and honors that pertain."

I retired in 2004, but lost the title of Professor Emeritus for, you guessed it, the same reason. But, since I left the area of Annapolis MD, it doesn't matter to me that much.

So my efforts in creating and popularizing GID and GGU-model were not without "hidden" attempts by "something" to prevent the notions from being fully developed.

But why did I need the U.S. Naval Academy in order to produce these models? Because of its library. The Academy was founded by a mathematician Chauvenet. Indeed, my office was in Chauvenet Hall. It had an extensive section of math. journals. I know that just before I retired, to save money, they stopped their subscriptions to a few. But there is the internet. Also I had free access to journals from all over the world via inner library loan and other sources.

Prior to writing research papers, one needs to check as best as one can whether the idea you wish to develop has been previously developed. The ideas had not been developed as I had intended to do it, although Robinson did publish a paper in 1963 using Nonstandard Analysis to study the semantics of a formal language. My stuff is the first application of the subject to syntax. Q,E.D Dr. Bob

#99 14 APR 2018

My statistics show that through 6:30 AM, my time, 14 Apr, the globe article has been looked at 92 times worldwide since Apr 1. I'm rather sure this is mostly from members of the two ID groups to which I belong. Then since the hyperfinite article was almost never considered in the past, I'm also rather sure that the 29 hits I had came from the ID groups. I thank those who took the time to look at these articles. Of course, I would have like at least 1 million hits worldwide, but that did not happen. I have an email address on my website for questions that may not be answerable in a comments section on a facebook posting. I often miss those anyway. Dr. Bob

#100 14 APR 2018

The most significance GID evidence that counters atheistic physical science. I have posted to this sight over 100 times, but this posting is one of the most significant.

As some of you may know, my brother (1926 -2008) contributed greatly to the welfare of humanity. He discovered the first commercially viable antiviral agent. He developed many of these and then founded the Virology Lab. at the Mayo Clinic were they produce procedures to diagnose viral disorders. Previous to this, in the early 1950s, he discovered how drug resistant bacteria actually behave. I gave him the math. model to rationally establish his result. Such bacteria tend to use to proscribe drugs as an enriched growth medium. Ways were developed to combat this. I suppose this was prior to the broad-spectrum drugs. Thus, his contributions are rather monumental. He was an atheist.

I had hoped that some of my scientific endeavors might also contribute, in a general way, to the welfare of humanity. The only such contribution is GID. However, very few individuals throughout the world are aware of how this model counters the pronouncements made by atheistic scientists as they teach there philosophy to our children. I note that members of my family will NOT propagate GID after my death.

It's the use of the widely employed probabilistic models, where their predictive results are claimed to counter design by any "truly" intelligent agent. However, it's been shown that the usual probabilistic models used throughout physical science actually present one of the strongest forms of evidence for design by a higher- intelligence.

All GID physical behavior is exhibited by the a sequence of ordered minuscule step-by-step displays of rationally produced 3-D slices of our universe. Previously, it was noted in one of my posts, that such physical alterations in behavior can appear to us as if they are "continuous."

To truly demonstrate the intelligence of the designing agent, these slices have been designed to satisfy these probabilistic models, as well as their required macroscopic and large scale behavior. BUT their probabilistic behavior follows a special form of rational deduction. This form satisfies the requirements of a higher form of "deduction" as PREDICTED by the mathematical model. This form allows for the standard complete convergence of the behavior to the probabilistic values. (It is a special hyperfinite form. That term again.)

BUT, when restricted to the standard physical world we view, the convergence many not be statistically detectable to a significant degree. Although this may be the case, we know that atheistic science claims that IF one continues, say an experiment long enough, then the behavior will more closely approach the predicted probabilistic value. This view can and should be used as very strong evidence for this special form of higher-intelligence design that has been known since it's publication in the Internat. J. of Math. and Math. Sci. 27(5)(2001), 321-325 with a few corrections published later. For the corrected paper, see

[quant-ph/0112037] Probability Models and Ultralogics arxiv.org

#101 15 APR 2018

It's rather remarkable that mathematicians in the area of Mathematical Logic and other applied areas have not stressed how their "proofs" and even definitions are based upon human intuition with linguistic forms. They intuitively argue relative to such intuition and do not mention that such intuition is part of the "rational" aspects of their subject.

Godel became world famous for his results that required such assumed rationality. One small example. He coded, with the informal natural numbers, the elements of a formal language that is completely dependent upon a left-to-right linguistic ordering. I won't give the actual coding but to the symbols (, ), ->, V, a variable y and constant a c, . . . , gave numerical names g(() = 1, g()) = 2, g(->) = 3, g(V) = 4, g(y) = 5, g(c) = 6. Then he considered the unique (ordered) prime factorization of a natural numbers n > 0, n = 2^(a)x3^(b)x5^(c)x7^(d)x . . .. Although not mentioned in most logic books, you must consider these numerical primes as so ordered from (human) left-to-right.

Then one considers a formal "expression" denoted like u(0)u(1)u(2)u(3). It is required that you intuitively know that this is a left-to-right ordering and even logical argue in proofs using this fact.

Then you consider a formal expression such as Vy(y -> c) and define g(Vy(y -> c)) = 2^(g(V))x3^(g(y))x5^(g(())x7^(g(y))x9^(g(->))x11^(g(c))x13^(g())) = 2^4x3^5x5^1x7^5x9^3x11^6x13^2. No actual rule is give for this "ordered" process. You are supposed to understand it from such a displayed example. (I hope I substituted this stuff correctly.) This supposedly displays a human rational process of comparing entities and substituting. Anyway, this is the "trivial" beginning of his major result that you cannot use formal number theory and the Hilbert program to obtain all of the statements that "hold" for informal number theory.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that many "rational" deductions and rationally obtained proofs are produced through application of somewhat intuitive thought. The Math. Logic community decides if a proof is correct. Indeed, I have often "over" proved, so to speak, my results as an aid. This also holds for other applied areas.

I also use a coding and the linguistic ordering of "words" but the coding is rather different than Godel's. Logicians mostly use the full power of modern set-theory as well, but as informally expressed. What I and others have done is to set-theoretically describe significant aspects of the informal and intuitive notions associated with logical discourse. That is, we use the "informal" way to define sets. Assuming you know how to obtain a formal expression like the example above, one defines a set A as the set of all such formal expressions. I do likewise for the GID and GGU-models. Dr. Bob

#102 15 APR 2018

By the way to see if anyone reads this, there is an error in one of my expressions. I wonder who will find it.

#103 16 APR 2018

People often postulate "new" physical ideas not actually to contribute to useful scientific discourse but rather in an attempt to acquire appropriate publication credits in the still operating quality journals. Facebook and YouTube are NOT meaningful publication sources. Indeed, they can hinder the acceptance of a new idea IF this is ones only source of mass presentation.

If one wants to know what is, and well stay, the most accepted approach to particle physical, follow the money and the contributors. I suggest that this can be done by taking a Wikipedia trip to CERN. For the large machine, Johns Hopkins is in charge of the material collection of the macroscopic evidence for each experiment.

The standard model of particle physics is the only one used and the only one accepted as factual. The particle physical solution to the origins question is so obvious its considered as trivial. This is so even though it has the fine-tuning aspect with which to contend. BUT a little adjustment of the theory answers this also.

Simply accept that the appropriate quantum fields are probably "infinite," so to speak, in extent and have never ceased to exist. I repeat "never ceased to exist." Local-like "ripples," the famous "quantum fluctuations," in a field(s) can lead to the formation of a universe just like ours with all of its fine-tuning. This is all atemporal, and one does not consider our time notion until after formation.

I use the "probably" in order to satisfy those many who accept the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds interpretation for quantum field theory. That there can be, at this moment in our time, infinitely many other universes totally separated from ours. Accepting EWG and its requirements as the case is a perfect solution since part of the EWG many-world interpretation states that these other worlds cannot be detected by us.

Further, even without accepting EWG, accepting infinitely such "randomly" produced fluctuations probabilistically solves the fine-tuning problem. Hence, the fine-tuning aspects of our universe is the best evidence for accepting this multiple ripples quantum field notion. Further, such behavior is allowed since quantum fields are physical primitives.

I wonder, have these quantum physical ideas been published in journal form? I have the EWG publications and EWG requires such multiverses, of varying types, to exist at this very moment. Then I wonder if John Wheeler would have allowed his name to be used in the title of this theory if he did not think it was a significant contribution to particle physics.

I am keeping copies of all of my posting since Dec 2017. I have not checked how much of the above I have posted previously. Of course, Facebook also has saved them. Dr. Bob

#104 18 APR 2018

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa 55:8-9.

All the mathematics used today, by atheists, to model physical behavior remains standard mathematics. The Complete GGU-model describes a "higher form" that, in restriction, yields behavior we can perceive and that we use to model and predict future, restricted form, behavior.

John Stuart Mill, A Philosopher of Science, and as indicated by his writings an individual who is claimed to be one of the most "intelligent" individuals who even lived and for which there is a written record, rejected the notion of "The Uniformity of Nature" as it is called today. He stated that the actual testable natural laws within the universe we claim govern the far past need not actually be the rules that do so. We are applying rules to what we "see" with our instruments but these rules need not be to the ones that actually produced what we "see."

To me, part of the above quote clearly can mean that what atheistic science claims and even what we perceive of the physical world, need not yield information as to how an entity came into being in the far past. We are the ones that extrapolate. The rapid formation model aspect of the Complete GGU-model allows an entirely "new" universe to be formed about us over a minuscule time period below our ability to observe any changes. Thus, although it seems to just "pop" into existence, it actually is a "time" developed. AND when this occurs such a change would not actually have been perceived. The Eden model uses three such alterations. But, prior to this, one of my original models (1984-90) yields sudden appearance with in-transit information.

But, many years ago, there was no Eden model and, of course, atheist science rejects it. Well, in this case, there is the "time fracture" and other stuff like the anamorphoscope model that model the Mill's statement. The time fracture is mathematically predicted possibility that there are sudden alterations in the values of physical entities mathematically described characteristics that clearly demonstrate of a higher-intelligent agency. (The change is actually hyper-continuous etc.) This would be for the purpose of demonstrating "my ways are higher than your ways." Further, this same type of time fracture does correlate the different participator choice alterations.

I published stuff on such behavior in the CRS Quarterly in 1986, and 1990. The math. that yields such is in my book The Theory of Ultralogics. It shows what I also discussed that in a 1982 article in Nature and System, sudden alterations that are actually produced by a remarkable higher-form of change. Clearly, publishing the material and having individuals actually care about or publicize the results is another matter. If you should actually be interested in the math. I use, it is in section 7.5 of the following

vixta.org/abs/1606.0159

The Theory of Ultralogics - Part II of III, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1606.0159 This part contains Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, which include Consequence Operators (Operations), Perception,… vixra.org

#105 19 APR 2018

You cannot escape GID intelligent agency.

Did you know I've posted over 100 actual ID reverent posts. And, the GID-model conclusions have not become widely known, as I had hoped. But, here is a fact that applies to every individual who today and in the past by experience, training etc. has ever had applied a physical "cause and effect" statement, for any purpose.

Consider the simple statement "actions yield an effect." Let -> denote "yields" A = actions and E = effect. So we can symbolically write this as A -> E. Now, you have from experience or from a textbook knowledge performed actions A that produce a specific effect. "Nature" does the same thing via physical law. The physical law states that an action A will yield an effect E.

Thus, either by experience or our knowledge of how natural law governs behavior, a symbolized A -> E is employed to predict E, whenever A actually occurs.

The actions one takes just to walk across a room and open a door can be phrased as a sequence of such physical A -> E. But E leads to another action, B or E -> B. This A -> E and E -> B. About 2400 years ago this was recognized as a logical form, and it was determined by a simply rule of logic that A -> B , whenever A -> E and E -> B. The rule states, if you start with A, then E is obtained by "dropping the A in the form A -> E. This gives you E. Then apply the rule again to E -> B. This combination then yields B.

This two step process is called a hypothetical syllogism. (P ->Q, Q-> R |- P -> R.) This rule is "rationally proved" in modern math. logic. It is thus considered as a rational deduction to state that given the two conditionals as correct, then P -> R is correct. This is considered as a deduced additional rule for deduction. Thus, under the assumption that certain natural law effects yield actions, or the effects are actions, and such an expressed sequence of natural laws is fact, and what we observe as natural laws have such a linguistic rational basis, one can logically state that "cause (action) A yields effect E. One might improve upon the wording by saying the original action A yields action or effect B.

Hence, assuming the symbolic forms represent ordered actions one can take, then each action is defined as a "deduction." Although the actions may be strange, at this point, the order in which they are presented is considered as a rational order. At least at this level, we are thinking "rationally." Of course, this can continue until specific actions yield the final effect or action as denoted by say A -> B, B -> C, C -> . . . E.

Thus, for "future" planned actions, we take action A(1) at 1 PM, A(2) at 2 PM, A(3) at 3 PM. A(1), A(1) -> A(2), A(2) -> A(3). Now applying this rule of deduction in the same order as the names for the actions, we have the ordered actions first A(1), then A(2), then A(3) and this sequence of actions is rationally deduced in that order.

What about restricted GID-intelligence? Let A(1), A(2), A(3) be descriptions for 3-D slices of a physical universe that will be produced in a step-by-step "time" order. Then ordered deduction yields these descriptions. I note that "time-ordered" deduction is how we daily navigate our environment.

For the GGU-model, the standard instructions (actions) that yield the info-fields that exactly correspond to each description also follow the exact same form of ordered logical deduction.

But, this is similar to restricted Discovery Institute ID since its on our mental level. This does not even slightly satisfy Isaiah 55:8-9. Dr. Bob.

#106 20 APR 2018

I don't know why people keep quoting from Einstein and not from me. <:) By the way, I have an expose' of his so-called major work on my website. I always like to give credit for new ideas to those that actually formulated them. Of course, these facts may not be to the liking of many secular scientists. Did you know, for example, that David Hilbert first presented the General Theory equations prior to Einstein and he derived them while Einstein, with a lot of help, guessed at them. It should be called the Hilbert-Einstein Theory of Gravity.

This quote is relative to his dislike for probability models, which I have shown are actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence for ID by God.

#107 20 APR 2018

(Relative to my last posting, I found a dictionary that stated that an "effect" is the result of actions.)

There are questions on a standard IQ test that attempt to determine whether an individual can think rationally. And, of course, the ability to read and hold information in our brain is required to execute such questions. Thus, we have a measure for an aspect of "intelligence" since IQ means "intelligence quotient."

I have shown in the last posting and in the globe article, with its page-turning logic, as well as other examples that when linguistically displayed we use a mode of logical deduction (rule of detachment) applied to a "word w" such as "If A, then B. If B, then C, If C, then D, . . . .," where A, B, C, D, . . can be described in various ways. One way is that "A is a pre-design," "A is a description," "A is an instruction," etc.

The application of such deduction to w yields the A, B, C, B, D, . . ., in order, like the ordering of the pages of the books Bob uses.

Thus, we have a human process that displays intelligence agency (actions).

This all can be modeled using standard mathematics. Notice I use the word "modeled." Thus the mathematical symbols carry the names of the entities being modeled. In the model, we have a function that yields the "length" of words such as w. Then one that counts the number deductions one can make over specific time periods. AND only the "finite" is used for all forms, to measure all of the lengths considered, the number of deductions and time interval. I note that these are numerical "measures" for the entities and behavior being considered. Each such word and its components are members of a language L.

Significantly, there is an operator A' that when applied to w, A'(w), yields in order each the A, B, C, D, . . . Further, it has all of the properties that identify the production of this sequence as an application of the mentioned deduction. (This is important.) When embedded into the nonstandard (NSA) model, remarkable things happen, if interpreted so as to compare such "things" with the standard model that occurs when the embedding is restricted to the standard mathematics.

(Notice that I interpret the math. symbols in a corresponding comparable language.) The word w is a portion of an hyperfinite (that term again) word w' of the same form. It is not a member of L but of an "higher" language *L that contains L. It has a length greater than any finite length word. Indeed, the length is said to be represented by an infinite number taken from the hypernatural *N, where the natural numbers N form a subset of *N. (When I developed this I was not aware of the fact that, in1963, the founder of NSA Abraham Robinson, for application to formal languages and logical semantics, also discussed, in a published paper, such "infinitely long" words of hypernatural length.)

THEN the operator A' transforms into an operator *A'. that acts on w'. What are some of its characteristics? It can produce, in order, the infinitely many A, B, C, D, . . . contained in w' over a minuscule period of standard time. The term "intelligent agency" I began using in 2002. Thus, these predicted results describe *intelligent agency. After seeing what terms had not been used previously, I chose for these specific applications the "*" the term "higher" rather than the usual one "hyper."

Remember that when restricted to our standard world, you get A', one of our standard forms of deductive thought. Hence, notice how the higher-intelligence *deduction behavior compares to our behavior.

There is a lot more predicted, however, by the predicted additional members of *L, not members of L, AND what about the physical-systems that comprise a 3-D slice of a universe. How do they came about and is other remarkable stuff predicted about them? The first big result is that the behavior of "EVERY" entity within our universe is designed by a higher-intelligence. Notice how this one statement alone compares to the DI notion of restricted ID (RID), a form that points to no specific intelligence.

Relative to such comparable results, one Biblical statement they satisfy is "So, God made man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." Dr. Bob.

#108 21 APR 2018

A GID-intelligent agent is an entity that possesses infinitely powerful modes of rational behavior as modeled by deductive reasoning.

The above is an applied mathematically predicted statement. By example, I have, in my previous postings, attempted to demonstrate one of the most significant such modes as modeled by a specific linguistic expression. This is the mode that is applied by such an agent to produce a physical universe as a collection of physical-systems.

While producing such a universe, the agent can also produce numerously many other associated universe-like objects composed of other forms of systems. It's these other predicted systems that can be but partially described using a language comprehensible by us.

These results also model the following:

"According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, . . ., and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, . . ., partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself - I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds." C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity, where I have quoted the pertinent portions.

Now I have in the past attempted to describe what the model is trying to state and that we might comprehend about these "other" systems by consistently interpreting the symbols used for the prediction. The interpretation is done so that, when restricted to our environment, it will describe the original human behavior upon which the predictions are based.

I might again attempt to describe some of these predicted immaterial systems, where the term "immaterial" means that they are not members of a list of secular physical-science material entities or behaviors. Dr. Bob

#109 20 APR 2018

How can children do logical deduction without having a language? Indeed, is the human brain constructed to accomplish this? In my 2002 book, I introduced "image" or "ion" logic. \$ -> car (image), car (image) -> <:-) Therefore \$ -> <:-) Mathematically, this is expressed as <\$,car>, |- <\$,<:-)> for a "logic system deduction." Hence in words, one might conclude it is a fact that money implies happiness. But, this depends upon whether having a car always implies happiness, which, of course, it generally does not. Of course a young child would have different images, I suppose. But then again?

Other human senses can also be expressed in such a manner where basic modes of deduction are displayed. It's for this reason that I define the general language used as including diagrams, images, sensory impressions and the like. Dr. Bob

#110 22 APR 2018

"Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins', though it has been discredited as pseudoscience."

This is what the worlds greatest authority about, all there was, all there is and all there every will be states. (I give you one guess as to the source.) The finding, in 2005, that "ID" is "pseudoscience" came from the famous Federal Court Case. This entire decision was relative to the Discovery Institutes form as seeming taught in the Dover Pubic School system. But, "He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it." (John G West) Apparently, the judge based his decision mostly on the Discovery Institute's RID form since two of the witnesses three witness for Dover were associated with the Discovery Institute. But, the judge presented a broad brush decision relative to the physical cosmology concept, which seems to banning anything that could be even "slightly" considered as such. By-the-way, Wiki states that Behe is a proponent of the pseudoscience of ID.

For GID (once called General Design Theory), all of such criticism is a false. But, I don't want this "authority" to even consider GID, for I would not be able to stop their lies about it since this authority makes many false claims about ID, in general, and you can't correct them.

The RID notion is mostly a discussion about a "purpose" for a design and that various purposes for a design indicate intelligence. They apply this mostly to biological stuff. BUT, this is not a measurable concept as is the intelligence as defined for GID. Further, GID applies to all of defined material reality and a lot, lot, more, especially its prediction of possible associated "hidden" immaterial entities. A GID intelligent agent designs EVERY entity within the universe and all of the physical-systems, their intertwining, and comparative behavior. AND due to our participation, trillions, and trillions of slightly different versions. All of this is rather "easy" for an infinitely powerful mind to accomplish.

Prior to 2005, I presented a talk to advanced high-school students on how the GGU-model, as then analogue modeled by GID, produced a universe. I used a computer as the bases. I have on my website a highly augmented version of this talk, but I also have the actual overhead transparencies on my site as well. On student even mentioned that he could see how all that I presented applied to God. Anyway, after this decision became known, I was no longer invited back to give my talk.

Here is the "talk" as I presented it to the students via transparencies and an overhead projector. But, I did not use in the original talk terms such as "mind."

raherrmann.com/pp1a.htm

How was our . . . ? Transparencies

#111 23 APR 2018

". . . there is no place for true randomness in deterministic classical dynamics (although of course a complex classical system can exhibit behavior that is in practice indistinguishable from random)" This is a statement made by J. Preskill for the course Physics 202, presented at California Institute of Technology. What is he talking about?

I note that he rejects "classical" determinism relevant to the course content. Of course, one needs also to have a definition of the word "random" relative to the material he is presenting.

For about two years, down the hall from my office at the U. S. Naval Academy, one would find the Chaos Lab. If you looked at the computer monitors, you would perceive what is usually described as chaotic behavior. This behavior is generated by a deterministic mathematical expression of a rather simple form and is RATIONALLY produced by a deterministic computer program. This is what he means.

Thus, a computer can rationally produce images that, relative to the images only, the secular physics-community considers as examples of truly random behavior.

Of course, since this comes from application of a computer mimicking human rational deduction, it is actually an explicit example of "mindom" behavior.

I've written before that the secular notion of physical-system random behavior, in all of its physical forms, is actually one of the strongest examples of an higher-intelligence rational design and rational production of physical-system behavior. This FACT should be known by every individual. Unfortunately, it is not. Indeed, why not copy and post what I present here to your website, if you have one, or communicate it, to others, by some another process. Also see vixra.org/pdf/1510.0505v4.pdf

#112 24 APR 2018

(Particle Physics Group) Relative to quantum fields and particles, section 1 of this article I put on the archives in 2014 should be of interest to this group. It still contains a few typos but not enough to make a new reversion. Few atheists will consider it, however, since it was put in the "Religion" category due to the sections on theology. By-the-way, did you know that photons do not have a "size" characterization and as such may contradict many individuals notions as to what the term "particle" indicates.

vixra.org/pdf/1405.0295.pdf

#113 25 APR 2018

Millions of times today, the term "random" will be used by mathematicians (random variables) and various physical-science communities. Except for independent events, it is not usually defined explicitly but left for individuals to form their own idea as to its meaning. Of course, I have explicitly defined it in various articles. It is the number one notion against an intelligent sequential design such as that expressed in Genesis 1. One can associate it with a non-interfering "windup the universe and let it go" type of deity.

It is important to understand that, for the GID-model, universes are pre-designed in the sense that they sequentially exist in some specific form prior to physical realization. These are the "ultrawords." The participator aspects of the model require this. My 2002 book gives explicit illustrations.

Then we have "Mindom." "A noun or adjective that means physical-system behavior that is intelligently designed, and produced, sustained or guided by intelligent actions via the Complete GGU-model, and the patterns displayed are claimed to be either (1) modeled by a probability model, or (2) composed of individual or group events that are considered as unregulated or unpredictable via other forms of scientific analysis, or (3) be randomly produced as this term is generally understood." (Glossary)

The step-by-step *rational design and production of the Complete GGU-model counters statements (2) and (3). Statement one, the one I now discuss slightly, is countered by the results in that highly complex published article "Probability Models and Ultralogics."

It analyzes relative frequency and that, after many trails of random (independent) behavior, a specific event occurs relative to a predicted probability. Do atheists care that this is rather strange behavior, where there is no apparent relational way to predict such behavior after few hundred or maybe thousands of trails, but for a very large number of trails a relative frequency "fixed" result does seem to emerge.

My analysis shows that there is an additional design feature to each long sequence of the step-by-step production of the 3-D slices of our universe. Such sequential behavior corresponds to a special form of *rational design, via an ultralogic, that can only be done by a higher-intelligence. The restriction of this design to our physical world is only partially perceivable by us after a long sequence of events occur, Thus, the predictive aspect of a probability model (1) actually yields a strong case for an higher-form of design rather than a counter to it. Now tell the world this fact.

I could once again give you the archived version of this paper but it would be a wast of your time to consider it. So as requested, here is my website, in case you have not read my stuff previously.

raherrmann.com

#114 26 APR 2018

Apparently, the only way individuals can find out the exact information about the first and most powerful form of scientific universe and general physical-system ID is from me, This is, from my writings. Then individuals, hopefully, will popularize GID since one significant effect is that it counters the lies put forth by various atheistic communities.

It is not sufficient if only members to this group have this information. I hope that group members will take the results and further popularize them throughout the world. You don't need to know the details, since you can direct individuals to my publications. But you need to know the general descriptive properties, such as those I have been presenting. I have copies of what I have presented here and will present "appropriate ones" in an article on my website since, like the one I'll soon present. (I first write these in a file, then copy the file entry for posting.) I have given in these postings new illustrations and descriptions. I mention this since the time is quickly coming when I will no longer be able to continue my efforts.

Remember that the standard mathematics many of you have used, predicts behavior within our universe. The math. I use for GID predicts, in a sense, the standard mathematics used to make such standard predictions. I have been trying to give "simple" illustrations of, at the least, the basic properties of GID. Of course, these are not the actual detailed versions that appear in my published papers. But, who among you can, as yet, read those anyway? I still have hopes that this will change.

In the next posting, I'll present in a few(?) minutes, I'll give a simple illustration that might help one understand something about that special rather hidden higher-intelligence *rational process that is "satisfied" by so called "random variable"behavior and, hence, helps to identify the actual source. Dr. Bob.

#115 26 APR 2018

I like the book idea, with its mimicking "page-turning" logic, which I've previously presented. So, let's consider a machine duplicating fair coin "flipping" experiment. You have a book, B, where each page represents the result of an ordered sequence of "trials." Each page contains a photograph of how, after a flip, the coin lands. If it lands as a head, then this is a failure and 0 appears under the photo. If it lands as a tail, then this is a success and a 1 appears under the photo. These are what I call the event numbers. We would like to predict the probability that a tail will occur after "n" flips.

Of course, there is the question as to why we can actually predict such rather future behavior at all. Feynman states that "no one can ever know why Nature behaves this way." She just behaves this way and we model such behavior and collect our Nobels.

These physical-system trials all appear in the deductive sequence of 3-D slices of our universe. Hence, the page-turning deductive logic is the same as that used to produce our universe's sequential designs and actual behavior. Thus, you have an ordered collection of events. These then yield the usual sequence of relative frequencies, the list of (number of successes)/(number of trials).

But, it is actually the 0's and 1's that model the individual results. And one might get a series such as 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1,. . . . and the relative frequence sequence is 1/3,2/5,3/6,4/7,5/10,. . . We are told that if millions of flips are made this sequence will "converge" to 1/2. Notice that it already contains 1/2 twice, but "jumps" away from it. Convergence means, in general, that variations in sequence values become "minuscule."

Notice that the 0s and 1s identify a specific form of physical behavior and secular science claims that there are vast number of entities, other than a coin flip experiment, that produce the same type of success or failure sequences. So take the book and cover the part of each page that has the photo and leave the 0s and 1s. Now what does my result show about this book?

There is a higher-form of *deduction that "instantly," so to speak, produces another book, B', that contains the ordinary books pages, with its 0s and 1s, and numerous many more. To this B', the higher-intelligence form of *deduction will also yield the original books 0s and 1s and a lot more. Thus, in general, all such physical behavior is pre-design by a higher-intelligence to satisfy such event sequences, when restricted to a physical universe, so that we can predict future behavior and build a our man made universe.

So, Feynman is totally incorrect. We can know why something rather more significant than Feynman's Nature has created the universe this way. Dr. Bob

#116 27 APR 2018

I repeat this for new group members. When described as a GID-intelligent agent not merely agency, the predicted higher-intelligence satisfies over 55 Biblical statements that identifies it as the Biblical God. As with all of the observable evidence I present in my evidence article, this is indirect evidence for the rational existence of such an entity. The fact that its indirect satisfies Paul's highly significant and often quoted statement Rom 1:20.

Now atheists might try various means in their attempt to prevent us from publicizing such facts. Indeed, the most knowledgeable Bible scholar I have ever known is an atheist. Dr. Bob

#118 27 APR 2018

In the late 1800s, it was shown that a particular deterministic expression would produce a sequence of "head or tail events" that could not be differentiated from a so-called randomly produced sequence. I once had this expression, but I can no longer find it in my files. But here is another one I do have that demonstrates a rational deductive procedure that also yields results related to such experiments.

This comes from Casti's book. You consider the piecewise linear iteration expression x(t+1) = 2x(t) for 0 <= x(t) <= 1/2 = [0,1/2], and 2 - 2x(t) for 1/2 <= x(t) <= 1 = [1/2,1]. Then he says to simply start with "any" x(0) in the interval [0,1]. Then if a result is in [0,1/2] call it heads, or if it's in [1/2,1] call it tails. Note that is this a deductive process. BUT, try x(0) = 0. Then X(1) = 0, x(2) = 0, x(3) = 0 or you get each value as a head. Well, it is "true" there is no rule that prevents such a sequence from happening, but the probability of this occurring "rather" small. And, actually, this is the point of this expression. The fact is that this is related to a coin flip distribute function 1/(pi(x(1-x))^1/2) that describes the "fraction of the time that there are more heads than tails." Of course, I suppose, x is not 0 nor 1.

Maybe it can be used to get the type of sequences we are accustomed to, for a coin flip experiment, but probable irrational numbers are needed. Too bad I can't ask Casti to further explain himself here since he died a few years ago. Anyway, I present this only as an example of the methods employed, where there are much more complex expressions that, by computer iteration, rationally yield visual "chaotic" behavior.

BUT, the converse is not true. Except to certain displayed aspects of chaotic behavior, there is no known method to go from a display of chaotic behavior to an explicit expression that will also display the same behavior from such a iteration process.

What is important here is that what I describe previously is NOT based upon any such human forms of iteration or any internal physical processes that might yield such behavior. Yes, from such human forms, the step-by-step generation of any such sequence of events is predicted. But this special overall rational structure also exists and it is related to an higher-intelligence. Further, other descriptive aspects for this special *deductive process probably require the use of members of the higher-language *L and this forms part of the Lack of Knowledge model. (*L also model's Paul's "Third Heaven" language.)

Thus, we have a double reason for describing such behavior as "mindom" behavior, behavior that strongly points to intelligent pre-design by a higher-intelligence. I must now get ready for an electrocardiogram. Dr. Bob

#119 28 APR 2018

When I carefully read a technical article, I hear my mental voice stating the words. Then the remarkably designed human brain transfers these mental sounds into a deeper form of knowledge relative to the meanings of the "sounds" I hear. Then there are the mental images that one can form relative to these meanings. Of course, one can form mental images more directly. This, of course, is not the first time I have mentioned this mental behavior.

My website is designed to be read, where it is assumed that the reader has learned the meanings of the terms I employ. Then the reader can turn the terminology into images. This includes the methods I describe in the article on "imagining the infinite."

Since GID and the GGU model ANY conceivable universe not just our own, I feel that not forcing an individual to accept specific visual representations for the "universes" and for the processes employed is appropriate. Indeed, I specifically state that this should absolutely not be done for "propertons."

This is a short posting. I'll build upon this in the next rather significant posting after lunch. Dr. Bob.

#120 28 APR 2018

In 2013, the General Grand Unification (GGU)-model, was completely altered relative to the modeling of standard human processes used in the construction. But, the actual processes are generalizations of some of these notions as illustrated by the construction of the 100 building. However, this illustration came about AFTER the model was constructed. This is an example as to how thoughts precede the images and such applies to numerously many different scenarios.

For a theological interpretation, I stress the following scheme.

GID-intelligent design = a higher form of rationally produced thoughts (pre-designs) => transformed into various realities via a GGU-model scheme.

Or for short, "higher-thoughts are transformed into various realities." Or for a still shorter form, "thoughts are transformed in various realities."

(Notice the terms I use in the following.) For the secular GGU model, the "higher" still holds, but it is a higher-form of the natural (i.e. ultranatural) processes that take place within a universe producing substratum world. This higher-form is exhibited by the hyper-rationally applied instruction-entities. Of course, hyper-rational has the same form as rational, BUT, applies to "words" that are infinitely long.

Although not mentioned for a pure secular application, these instruction-entities are in one-to-one correspondence with the GID-designs. Dr. Bob

#121 29 APR 2018

A member of this group mentioned the "propertons," which originally I called "subparticles." But they should not ever be considered as "particle-like" under the usual intuitive particle idea. So, I changed the name some years ago. Further, one should actually not consider them as having any imagined form. Although in my book I believe that, as subparticles, I used a type of analogue model for them. That's also why I changed the name.

Physical entities are identified and differentiated one-from- another by their numerical or descriptive properties. These numerical properties use the real numbers in one form or another. For a descriptive property, one can consider an encoding that also yields a numerical representation.

The starting point to construct a universe based upon combinations of propertons is a rather remarkable theorem I fully established many years ago. This stuff appears in latter part of my book "The Theory of Ultralogics." If you surely understand, say from a high school algebra course, how the real numbers R behave, then I can describe some of the unusual differing properties for the predicted "hyperreals," *R, that contain the set of real numbers.

One of the most significant real number properties is how they are "ordered" and the properties of the order. For example, 3 < pi < 4 and pi is not a rational number. So pi is not equal to (+integer/+integer). Of course, being a positive number this can be thought of as not equal to (natural number/natural number).

Members of *R have the same arithmetic (algebraic) properties as the reals and we use the same algebraic notation. Now for the strange stuff.

One way the members of *R differ from those in R is relative to how they are ordered. The *R order (ordering if you wish) <, when restrict to the reals R, is the same as the ordinary R order, but < relative to *R is rather different in how it behaves compared to its restriction to R.

Take any member z of *R that is not a member of R. Notationally, write the set of all members of *R that are not members of R as *R - R (or *R \ R) . Now take ANY member r of R. Then r < z. It's for this reason that Robinson calls the members of *R - R, "infinite numbers." These should be confused with the infinity symbol oo. If Z is the set of integers (. . -2,-1,0,1,2, . . .), they are contained in the hyperintegers *Z and *Z is contained in *R. If N is the set of the natural numbers (considered as a subset of R, say the positive integers), then N is a subset of R and the hypernatural numbers *N is a subset of *R.

Consider any member n of N, then, I hope, we know what 10^n means and that 10^n is a member of R. Then it is shown that if w is a member of *N - N, then 10^w is a member of *R - R. This number is a rather special member of *R - R. Since for any natural number n > 0, we have that n < w, then 10^n < 10^w implies that 1/10^w < 1/10^n.

Lastly, for any positive real number r, there is also a natural number n' such that 0 < 1/10^n' < r. Hence for ANY positive real number r, we have, relative to the *R ordering, 0 < 1/10^w < r. Notice that intuitively 1/10^w greater than 0 and "smaller than" any positive real number.

The *R number 1/10^w is an example of a Newton and Leibniz "infinitely small" numbers, which are now called infinitesimals. This is enough for now. I might continue this today, but I don't know since there is to be a little birthday dinner for me. Dr. Bob

#122 30 APR 2018

As I have previously mentioned, the process we use for counting actually follows the same logical pattern as Bob's page-turning deduction and restricted GID-intelligence. Consider counting "out" a number of the 1/10^w infinitesimals. Say, you consider 100 of them. Now add them together. You get 100/10^w. But, this still remains an infinitesimal. Indeed, if you had any natural (counting) number n of them, then n/10^w is still an infinitesimal. Of course, such a counting process for us is a finite process. BUT . . . .

Consider any real number measure r in R for any physical property. Well, what have I established?

Recall that the natural numbers N are considered a subset of R and, hence, the notion of the infinite numbers applies to them. These are all members of *N - N. Well, there exists one of these infinite z in *N - N such that physically the number z/10^w cannot be differentiated from r. In terms of counting, this is not a finite count of 1/10^w, but an hyperfinite count. This "finite" counting for a GID-intelligent agent is as "easy" as what we do. BUT, from our viewpoint, such counting corresponds to a very "high" level of infinite counting.

Notice that "Nature," as Feynman would say, combines specific numbers of so called "elementary" entities to produce more complex physical-systems. If I were to use such a "z" number as a form of counting or combining of some sort of elementary entities in the substratum, then this would be termed an "ultranatural" process. Well, this is actually what I have proposed via the notion of the "ultra-properton." That I'll discuss next. Dr. Bob.

#123 1 MAY 2018

Do your remember 2-D graphing with "ordered pairs"? The numbers, a and b, used to graph a "point" are in a left-to-right ordered symbol (a,b). The a and b are often called "coordinate" values. Well, this same type of ordered pair can contain other stuff. These are often called (vector) components or still coordinates because graphing is still possible using them. Sometimes they are written as but the ordered pair idea is the same except that a very simple arithmetic is included.

BUT, I use a little different mathematics so I call them coordinates. Here is my first step arithmetic. (a,b) + (a,b) = (2a,b). I call this "independent coordinate addition." Of course, one needs to know the coordinate being used. (There are "operators" that can do this.) This idea can be extended to "n-tuples," which, for us, are but an extended form of ordered pairs. An n-tuple can be mathematically presented in various ways, but for us just consider it expressed as "n" numbers a(1), . . .,a(n) in the same left-to-right ordered form (a(1),a(2), . . .,a(n)). The above addition idea is still used. For example, consider it applied to coordinate 3.

(a(1),a(2),a(3), . . ., a(n)) + (a(1),a(2),a(3), . . .,a(n)) = (a(1),a(2),2a(3),. . .,a(n)).

Now for the representation of the ultra-properton. From the last posting, I use the two infinitesimals 1/10^w and -1/10^w

Just consider the example form (1/10^w,-1/10^w,1/10^w,-1/10^w). This is a mathematical representation of an ultra-properton. Now add 25 of the coordinate 1s together. This gives (25/10^w,-1/10^w,1/10^w,-1/10^w). BUT, what do these numbers and the coordinates represent?

From my website glossary.

"Ultra-propertons are entities within the GGU-model that are essentially of a single type. These entities can be used to construct all of the physical constituents of a physical universe, including "empty" space, by means of a simple finite-like configuration process. They can also by-pass hidden particles and directly produce a physically real entity. Each ultra-properton, at the least, carries each defined physical property considered as infinitesimally effective. These properties are mathematically represented as individually infinitesimals. (The + or - 1/10^w coordinates.)

An ultra-properton is not to be physically visualized in any manner. It only has a mathematical representation in terms of components of n-tuples that are combined via a modified form of linear algebra.. The "coordinates" carry a descriptive name for a numerical measure or code for a descriptive physical property. (Thus, their name propertons.) At the least, the physical properties are those that directly yield corresponding human or machine sensory impressions."

Maybe you can guess from the above arithmetic and the last posting how representative measures for the physical properties are obtained. I'll show this simple step next time. Dr. Bob.

#124 2 MAY 2018

When the standard language L we use for all aspects of communication including diagrams, images, physical-science and the mathematics symbolism etc. we use for such sciences is modeled, the mathematics predicts a "higher" language *L. The previous symbols I have used for the "infinite and infinitesimal" numbers can be shown to be examples of members of this higher-language that are not members of our standard language L. But, when I use them, the other words in the sentences allow us to have comprehension of their properties.

On the other hand, from a model viewpoint, we cannot have comprehension of infinitely many members of *L that are not members of L. This is the "lack of knowledge" model. Thus, great care must be taken in describing aspects of the GGU-model substratum processes. Indeed, you will notice that when I describe substratum behavior I purposely leave out certain details and write more in general terms.

So, consider the ultra-propertons. Finite and even infinitely many of them can be combine together, relative to one physical measure, and this will not have any effect upon our physical world. But, if hyperfinitely many are combined together relative to a single property, this need not be to case. Indeed, you get a new substratum entity, an "intermediate" properton. For example, you might get the rest mass and only the rest mass of an electron. The same holds for all other properties the identify the entities that comprise the defined material aspects of our universe.

There is a substratum process modeled by the "gathering operator" that combines all of this stuff into physical-systems that comprise a single 3-D slice (a universe-wide frozen -frame (UWFF)) of the universe in which we dwell, as well as other, developing universes. These correspond to the GID-model intelligent designs for each such slice. I call this entire collection of configurations an "info-field." However, no actual "real" physical stuff has yet to be produced.

Did you know that, in quantum physics, they have an operator called a "creation operator." Maybe they have now changed the name. The operator I use to produce the actual physical universe does not have such a name. It is called the "standard part operator," st, and what it does is illustrated by the previous z/10^w that can't be physically differentiated from the physical measure or code r. It is applied to a number like z/10^w and immediately yields the r. St also has a bunch of algebraic properties as well. So, this is applied to the info-field and an entire 3-D physical slice of our universe is the result.

BUT, the GID-model predicts that there can be other "immaterial" entities produced as well, stuff associated with our material universe. To what can they correspond? Next time. Dr. Bob.

#125 3 MAY 2018

(I have just revised my website.) All that I have described in the past few postings is relative only to "physical-systems." You can find all terms defined in my glossary (below) on my website. But, we are NOT physical-systems, we are physical-like systems.

The GID-model predicts that within each of the 3-D hyper-slices of our universe, there can be such physical-like systems. These contain immaterial entities, where what is material is, at the least, defined by the secular physical-science community. I give you one guess as to what is the immaterial entity or subsystem we, say, "contain."

Then, for the GGU-model schemes, these immaterial things can be formed by x-tons. But, we can know nothing about what x-ton are since any descriptive language for them employs only terms from the higher-language that are not members of the standard language. (You might check the glossary definition for the standard L language used for "descriptions.")

But then there is also the prediction of the pure "ultranatural" events, that are associated with the 3-D slices of the "complete" universe in which we dwell. I wonder what they could be? Dr. Bob.

raherrmann.com/glossary.htm

#126 4 MAY 2018

It would be nice if a few more members of this group, prior to their postings, would read, at the least, the simpler material from the originator of scientific intelligent design. The group topic is intelligent design. The original approach predicts design by a higher-intelligence. This has been known since 1979. I have read some remarks that indicate that members have not considered this approach, an approach that satisfies over 55 Biblical statements. This approach also yields a strict Genesis 1 mode of creation etc. And can be interpreter in a secular manner. So, you have a choice. I like to give choices.

I asked a significant question in my last posting relative to the fact that we are not physical-systems but we are physical-like systems. What makes us so designed? Dr. Bob.

#127 4 MAY 2018

"You are all irrational and insane" A George Soros remark about anyone who believes in God and the like.

Of course, the answer is the immaterial human spirit. Did you know that such things as near-death experiences and other spirit entity experiences are not irrational. And have I mentioned this before? "They" also can stop trying to show they are somehow physical.

In March of 2014, an article appeared that discusses such matters and establishes that they are rational experiences. This is most discussed in section 5. So, you might just look at vixra.org/pdf/1403.0036v4.pdf

#127 7 MAY 2018

I have noticed that some members of this group may lack the appropriate knowledge as to the actual scientific methods I employ and why they are rather superior to those employed within physical cosmology. I have two important articles on my website that attest to this. Without the facts I detail in these, some members of this group may continue to attribute my results to the weaker methods employed by other science-communities. Here is the first article.

raherrmann.com/method.htm

#128 10 MAY 2018

I remind members of this group that the terms I often use are defined in my glossaries. I note that now and then I refined a few of the definitions as research results are obtained. For example, see the short one. raherrmann.com/glossary1.htm

There is also the long one at

raherrmann.com/glossary.htm

#129 11 MAY 2018

(A rather long posting.) Go to the New York Public library and take out every book in a natural sciences. Copy down a list of all of the laws of nature, all of the deductive conclusions, everything one uses to predict physical behavior. These are what the chemist, biologist, physicist, the physician, etc. employ. They use the observed or assumed entities and the laws of nature, and predict physical behavior. Further, members of this collection are used to build our human-made universe. This, of course, includes the predictions needed to properly design engineered projects. I note that it's actually of no importance whether the law of gravity can be restated in the language of quantum field theory since they separately predict appropriate and useful behavior.

The combination of these individual listed statements has apparently never produce a contradiction. Is this list a consistent unification of all of the natural sciences? In general, the answer is no. Indeed, it's rather remarkable that, thus far, contradictions have not occurred.

In 2004, I published the paper "The Best Possible Unification for any Collection of Physical Theories." in the Internat. J. of Math. and Math. Sci. It is "best" relative to lattice theory and, to cover all the known modes of deductive thought, a generalization of such modes is employed. This unification does not give an actual deductive approach for the unification we "might" apply.

However, in 2006, I presented a paper that uses the equivalent logic-system approach. (Theorem 2.2 in the paper below.) Various logic-systems do display the actual modes of deductive thought we linguistically employ. I show how to use, in a step-by-step manner, the required logic-systems to achieve the unification. However, the modern information one would need to do this is enormous.

We are told that Kim Peek memorized 12,000 books. But memorizing enough material is only the beginning. You must then rationally apply it, as linguistic combinations using the each of the logic-systems, to not only deduce all of the conclusions of each those books and what ever else might be useful. In Mathematical Logic, even the "simplest" deduction may require considerable linguistic effort. AND, when using logic-systems one needs to search through a logical-system and choose a specific member. These include those employed within mathematical logic, where one must choose from an infinite logic-system. AND the one chosen requires intuition not just a haphazard guess. The proper choice just seems to "suddenly" occur to you. "I think this might do it." So, for one to do this one does indeed need to be a standard, super, super, super mind. I personally know of no one with such ability.

But such abilities are restricted trivial examples of higher-intelligent agency. And Biblically, we are made in the image of the an agent that can do this. The GID-model implies that our form of deductive thought is a restricted aspect of a corresponding attribute of an higher-intelligence agent.

By-the-way, let's not go the computer route since I have shown that there is, at the least, one natural law that cannot be replicated by universal Turing Machines, the foundations for modern computing programming. This is why I won't get a Templeton Prize since I have shown that one of their prize winner's major works is in error. Dr. Bob.

[math/0603573] General Logic-Systems that Determine Significant Collections of Consequence Operators arxiv.org/abs/math/060373

#130 15 MAY 2018

For this intelligent design group, I present the following for it shows a very special design that is the first "God said" creation day 1 entity. The following I'm presenting to a particle physics group.

The "model theoretic error of generalization" is applied by the secular physical community when they attempt to derive the Special Theory Lorentz transformations. This error says, in general, that if you employ one specific entity to derive a physical result, then you cannot just immediately apply your results to similar entities without rationally establishing that the results also apply to the other entities. Did you know that secular physics-communities when they attempt to describe "photon" behavior now state that the photon but a "model." No matter what they do, their descriptions can be shown to be inconsistent.

When it comes to this subject you will not see my results nor name appearing in articles such as those in Wikipedia dealing with the twin paradox and anything relative to light or the Special or General Theories or Relativity.

The original AE derivation uses distance and relative velocity as measured by "radar ranging." This is a type of light-clock. The light-clock is, thus, the only basic measuring device I use in this text and distance and velocity are appropriately measured. These are called Einstein measures. The AE error comes from rejecting any form of "absolute" velocity measurement and relying only on relative velocities within a purely physical-system.

My derivation uses a (General Grand Unification GGU-model) physical-like system the Nonstandard Photon-Particle Medium (NSPPM). I originally used "photon" terminology. But I specifically consider them as properton and probably x-ton formations and not a physical-system but a GGU-model physical-like system. Thus, a slice of our universe is not denoted by a symbol such as f(a,b), but rather must be denoted by *f(a,b), a hyper-slice. This corresponds to the immaterial "higher-intelligence actions" interpenetration. A very special design feature.

But, you ask, doesn't SR variations also occur for physical measures, in general, such as mass, and atomic clocks, etc. Yes. But, I derive such changes via a little quantum physics. I do not assume that all "clocks" are altered as are the light-clocks.

You have two distinct separated behaviors, the interaction with other physical entities, where it behaves like a point particle, (which I now notice corresponds to a wiki description I've read) and the wave properties associated with the entities different physical locations. (Of course, wave properties correspond, as well, to physical stuff such as energy and momentum.)

There is one equation in the book, no. 3.10, that allows us to "cross over to there monadic clusters." This is the key to the standard notion of the "physical propagation." From the physical viewpoint, such propagation I consider as interactions with the medium. BUT, it's all nonstandard analysis and, hence, few will be able to follow the derivations. Although, it is often at the low level of the calculus as viewed from the infinitesimal world. This medium is important in that it is used to present an absolute comparative velocity measure. It is mainly from this that the Prokhovnik argument will eliminate the twin paradox contradiction.

This is the location of the most recent version of the book.

raherrmann.com/books.htm

#131 16 MAY 2018

For years, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Naval Academy Speakers Bureau, I gave a talk to advanced Annapolis area higher-school students on the GID-and GGU-models. I don't have an exact copy of that talk but I do have the overhead transparencies I used. These give the entire method I used for their level of comprehension - an infinitely powerful computer. I did not mention nor even slightly suggest a theological interpretation. Yet after one of the talks a student stopped me and stated that he thought that I was actually describing God. After that I don't recall ever being invited back, the next years, to give the talk to the new group of students. These are the transparencies raherrmann.com/pp1a.htm

#132 18 MAY 2018 When I first got the idea of how a universe can develop, I realized that we and our machines only observe the step-by-step sequential development of a physical-system. My very first model used the frames of a motion picture film as a model for such developing behavior. That's why the GID and the GGU-model "slices" of a universe are called "universe-wide frozen-frames (UWFF)." I switched to DVD players. This is now "freeze frame" notion that one can use for such devices.

The steps in the development are extremely small. Relative to designed physical "laws," the steps are well below what is termed the Planck length. This is what many accept as a type of minimal length concept relative to quantum physics.

Let E(1) denote a UWFF and let the "very next one" be denoted by E(2). Let O be an object as it appears in E(1) and O' the some object as it appears in E(2). Relative to other objects, it appears to have been displaced by a minuscule amount. Now there is a physical theory that predicts the relative displacement of such objects via real number solutions to differential equations such as those used in classical General Relativity. But such a law of motion requires "continuous" behavior.

So, it might appear that we have a designed feature that does not satisfy the step-by-step development. But this is not so since the actual step-by-step development is hyperfinite. That is, the steps develop via higher-intelligent actions. This will satisfy a step-by-step process that has the potentially infinite notion for sequential convergence for this specific object's path of motion.

Now a basic result about classical continuous functions is that they satisfy converging sequences. The calculus was developed by considering "infinitely small simply" physical or geometric behavior and assuming that an infinite "sum" of such behavior leads to the actual physical behavior we perceive. For example, a path of motion was defined as composed of infinitely many infinitely small line segments. The basic idea, at the least, that complex macroscopic behavior is an infinite sum of "simple" behavior was still employed as late as 1932 in Planck's books on mechanics and is intuitively displayed in calculus texts even today. And the definite integral notion, in all of its forms, as viewed from nonstandard analysis also exhibits such behavior. That is, the higher-intelligence uses a highly refined form of design for such behavior that, in restriction, we can apply. Recall that the calculus is, throughout physical science, the basic way numerical quantities are predicted.

Hence, it appears that the laws that help us predict the "location" of O in E(2), and other aspects of physical-system behavior, were designed so that we could apply "simple" notions in order to predict rather complex behavior. Dr. Bob.

#133 20 MAY 2018

There is a major aspect of the GID model I have not presented to this group. But before doing so, I mention below my very important paper on "mental influences," which has a direct relation to the "major aspect." It may be the most important article on my website. That's why few have read it. See raherrmann.com/influences.htm

#134 21 MAY 2018

Newton did not write a statement such as "a force = . . . " He always wrote "The measure of a force = . . ." He always included the notion of a device that "measures" a quantity. But, for the GID and Complete GGU-model, there are no forces that are actual physical "things." I wonder what grade you would get on a physics test if you rejected the notion that "forces" actually exist, in some sort of independent way. For example, you reject the proposed graviton that supposedly "carries" the force of gravity, whatever the term "carries" might mean. By-the-way, I could wast your time and show the numerous contradictions within particle physics.

So, I'll now tell you what is actually happening. In one UWFF, (3-D slice) E(i) you have an actual massive object O displayed. If you superimpose UWFF E(i + 5,000) over E(i) you would notice that the relative position of O has changed. On a physics test ,you are asked how this change in location came about. Some might claim that "gravitational forces" have produce this location difference.

But how does GID yield this "simple" result? It is but a "design effect." The designer has designed it that way. I don't think this answer would be accepted if you included it on physics test.

However, after some effort, models have been constructed that predict the change of position. But, there need not be any actual stuff that models this behavior. It need only be an analogue model. It's most likely that the individual who wrote the physics test wants you to answer the question using such a model. For GID, that's an acceptable answer IF one also includes that the design "carries" this addition feature. It satisfies the model employed for the calculation. But, it is still a "design effect." For GID, it is how the designer has designed the UWFFs.

While out walking, Joe comes to a fork in the road. He stops and appears to be contemplating which direction to take. After a moment or two of "thought," he chooses the right-hand road. The road he chose actually yields in an altered universe from what it would have been if he chose the left-hand road. Remember that the designer has also designed the human brain. Next time, I hope, I'll describe how GID handles this situation. Dr. Bob.

#135 22 MAY 2018

An immutable mind-set can eliminate an individual's comprehension of the GID -model. One such problem may be that an individual might not be able to eliminate the idea that "Nature," via physical law, alters physical behavior and that "Nature" refers to the Divine method for physical alterations that appear during the development of a universe. If that is so, then this does not display a higher-intelligence that satisfies Biblical statements. I note that Feynman states that Nature is a She.

Before I really get to the rather difficult part of GID, I mention that, in 1982, I published, in one section of a long article, an explanation or, say, a solution to the discreteness "paradox" for quantum physics. I used neutron decay as an example. The actual formal mathematics that yields this solution is in Chapter 8 of my book The Theory of Ultralogics.

I assume that members of this group know that quantum physical behavior is "discrete" behavior in that events occur "suddenly." On the other hand, some of the events are predictable via continuous alterations. Further, it's often required that such discrete behavior leads to the "approximating" continuous behavior that we employ to predict macroscopic behavior.

It is shown that such discrete behavior can be considered as a restriction of hyper-continuous behavior. And, that the continuous model for the same behavior is also hyper-continuous. Thus there no contradiction. For the GID-model, the design would be hyper-continuous, but when it is restricted to our universe it appears to be discrete.

Now the production of ANY universe via the Complete GGU-model employs a much, much more highly refined step-by-step "discrete" approach. As I stated many times, such a development is also designed, for our universe, with this special feature, so that we can predict behavior. But this feature is not how the GID and GGU-models present the actual development.

One of the requirements of the GGU-problem is that physical laws "emerge" from the actual processes employed. The GGU-model satisfies this requirement. Dr. Bob

#136 23 MAY 2018

It's almost time for the "participator" model part of the Complete GGU-model, but first simply recall that the Princeton group of mathematicians and physicists under the direction of John A Wheeler spent four months, in 1974, in their attempts to solve what I term the General Grand Unification Problem of Wheeler. They failed to do so and claimed that they knew of NO method, mathematics, etc. that could solve such a problem. They were correct. A solution was not possible until I proved Theorem 11.1.1 in my book "The Theory of Ultralogics." But, it uses methods that were almost unknown in 1974. Thus, if your mathematics and physics only covers the "standard" areas as they still appear in the usual college texts in math and physics, then unless you learn new stuff as it is found on my website, say, you will not able to "completely comprehend" that theorem. BUT, you can also trust me that I have given consistent descriptions for the interpretations I employ.

But, I'll show you a little of the math. Then I'll give a general statement without the math. I use as components (or general coordinates) (a(1),a(2), . . . a(n)) that represent "ultra-propertons" two and only two fixed "infinitesimals" +1/10^w and -1/10^w. Now let's say that component 10 has +1/10^w and is a "mass" component . Then to get the standard rest mass of an electron you simple gather together, a lot of the of these ultra-propertons. Indeed, this is done by the gathering operator under the direction of an substratum law called an instruction-entity. The number so gathered is denote by a symbol like b. Using the single component addition rule, this gives an "intermediate" properton with mass component b/10^w.

Now the w and b are members of the set of extended natural numbers, *N. Indeed, they are Robinson infinite natural numbers. Then this is where that Theorem comes in. There is a very special general operator, the standard part operator, that is applied to this b/10^w and the result is the "standard" rest mass of an electron.

Or one can simply state that a large collection of ultra-propertons are gather together and this yields an intermediate properton with but one property, the rest mass of an electron. And yes you might try to do what I state one should not do, try to visualize an ultra-properton since we seem to want that kind simple representation. Here is where you can find that theorem vixra.org/abs/1606.0158

#136 24 MAY 2018

I keep reading about an individual named Einstein. When I was a child, the Einstein myth was believed as if is fact. People would compare me to him, especially when I was 12 years old and began to study the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Maybe one reason for some individual's rejecting my GID stuff is that I have exposed the E=mc^2 Einstein myth on my website. You'll be shocked to find out who was the individual who actually first proposed the idea in an article previous to that of Einstein. His paper appears in the journal Ann. Physik. This is the same journal Einstein published his approximation two issues later. But Einstein often takes full credit for the idea. And, by-the-way, his gravitational field equations are also not original.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, many attempts were made to establish who were the "greatest" scientists of that time, the French or German's. E = mc^2 is relevant due to Poincare' close associated with this concept. I will write no more on this matter. I will not even read comments, if any. But here is the article I wrote. raherrmann.com/einpdf.pdf

#137 25 MAY 2018

Participator Model part 1.

I present the following from my paper on this subject. It explains aspects of the method employed. I mention that one of the basic problems is our language and such endings as "ed." I find it difficult to escape from the "time" notion for a sequence of events, when the events are actually atemporal. Mathematically, such sequences are merely relations, but my life's experiences with the sequences of physical events occur about me "always" seem to include a "time" notion. There are a few insignificant typos in the paper that I have not yet corrected.

"The GGU-model is exactly that a ``general'' model. The model predicts that there can be ``ultranatural laws'' that are satisfied by such pure ultralogic behavior. However, in this case, it is also predicted that, in general, there are no standard members of a general language L used by any entity within a universe that can predict the exact behavior detailed by the ultralogic.

As demonstrated in the next section, mathematicians use various physical processes that yield finite symbolic representations and accept these as legitimate methods to ``prove'' their theorems. The ultralogic satisfies this notion, but in place of the term ``finite'' the term ``hyperfinite'' is necessary. In this case, this is a type of finite that cannot be fully expressed using L. GGU-model mathematics is based upon modeling members of a general language L, which when embedded into the mathematical structure is denoted by (bold) L. When further embedded into the nonstandard model used, another language *(bold)L where (bold)L, a subset of*(bold)L, is predicted to exist. Most members of *(bold)L cannot be specifically ``read.'' The model states that they have a form of meaning that is unknown to us. This is the major predicted ``lack of knowledge'' aspects.

The fact that this is predicted makes it a stronger statement than the accepted quantum theory linguistics barrier to further knowledge. The individual predictions made by the these ultralogics are mostly described only by members of *(bold)L that are not members of (bold)L.

All of the previous GGU-model schemes and results, such as in Herrmann, (2013, 2013a, 2013b), should be consider as general schemes and results open to numerously many modifications and refinements that cannot be described using members of L. Some of the members of *(bold)L have been expressed by adding symbols to L. This is how the ``properton'' is predicted. But, this is an unusual occurrence. In this article, due to this necessary lack of knowledge, the same lack of precision occurs since only general statements are made. As with quantum theory, this should not detract from the overall rationality presented." Dr. Bob

#138 26 MAY 2018

Participator Model Part 2.

In my participator model article, I employ geometry and lattice theory as I describe the participator model. However, there are sections of the article where I attempt to describe aspects of the model in more common terms. I point out that the term "paradigm" means, in all of my writings, "a clear and typicality pattern." (The usual dictionary definition.) And I only use it for the clear and typical "rational" pattern being displayed. I will add this to my glossaries since there is a very unfortunate completely different definition one can find in some philosophic writings. The problem, as I have indicated, is that we do not have the linguistic tools nor intelligence to describe in detail much about the substratum region.

Theologically the *(bold)L - (bold)L, acts like Paul's Third Heaven "language" where the man "heard inexpressible things, that man is not permitted to tell." And the "looking through a glass darkly" also applies. I quote from section 2 of the article. What the model details is relevant the "choice" notion.

"The idea is that as we make specific physical choices not only does our local environment change from what it would have been if we had not made the specific choice, but even the exterior portions of our universe can be influenced in various ways. This is a major requirement for an acceptable solution to the General Grand Unification problem, the problem of describing a cosmogony so that as a universe develops such choices produce an altered universe that then continues developing in concert with the alteration.

In Herrmann (2002), a DVD illustration for such a cosmogony is given. In Herrmann (2013b), a single level process is described via the generating ultra-logic-system and one of the GGU-model schemes. However, as yet, the most general approach is not described relative to the basic developmental and instruction paradigms. Applying a general approach as demonstrated in Section 3, other paradigms such as that employing only info-fields can be easily defined.

In order to more fully describe the participator model, the originally defined characteristics for members of a paradigm are altered to accommodate participator choices. The above meet semi-lattice formed from constructed chains represents how the finitely many paradigms are constructed for the participator model. However, this is a general statement. Each such designed universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF) is relative not just to one individual's choice but the allowed choices, at least, for all of humanity; for the entire collection that exists at a particular moment in observer time. In Herrmann (2013b), a general method for constructing each UWFF is given. How this method is to be modified to present the physical-systems that comprise each individual member of this collection so that all the appropriate choices are rationally consistent with one another and yet satisfy the known physical laws is unknown. Most likely any such description forms a subset of the *(bold)L - (bold)L (the members of *(bold)L that are not members of (bold)L."

Relative to the higher-intelligence, there are many questions, especially an atheist would ask, about the higher-intelligence and its "methods" that cannot be answered while we are in our present form. As C. S. Lewis states it "God is more like a mind than anything else we know."

I have one more small piece to add to all of this about certain aspects of "pre-design," which is also a necessary requirement. This is the complete paper vixra.org/abs/1410.0187

#139 27 MAY 2018

For GID-design and GID-intelligence, how many times have a written a statement similar to this? "Thus, this is a behavioral model that predicts a partially describable higher-intelligence rationality, a rationality we cannot otherwise comprehend." This comes from my website glossary.

Today, the complete model is based upon how we actually behave when we design and build our human made universe. Our, hopefully, rational behavior is only to be consider as a "representation" for a very partially describable higher-form of such behavior, behavior that I do not detail due to the predicted lack of knowledge aspects. Note that, as is done within physical-science, when this is understood, then, as I have also stated, a positive language is used to discuss the GID-intelligent design. You don't use qualifying terms such as "like, similar to, etc." As you might noticed, if you looked at "The Participator Model" paper, these are not what one might term as "easily" obtained results. Need I again mention the Princeton group.

Now we come to the real "mind 'boggler' " for many of us anyway. There exist trillions and trillions, even maybe infinitely many, pre-designed developmental and instruction paradigms (i.e. clear and typical patterns). ("Say, where are they 'stored'?" Remember are knowledge is very partial.) AND we are allowed to "mentally" choose various ones. ALSO all of our material mental activity is also pre-designed and part of the pre-designed paradigms. I have in my 2002 book a DVD model for what happens upon selection, but surely this is a very, very partial "model" for what is actually occurring. Then there are those "mental" influences and the immaterial Eccles aspect of material thought, etc. To simply say are knowledge is partial is a great understatement.

Then how much should I state about the "invisible" universe(s) produced right long with ours and its (there) immaterial entities. There is Biblical support for such and this is discussed in one of my articles. After many, many postings to this group, what more can I write that I have not written before?

Then there is this. I have this morning slightly added to my website. Dr. Bob

#140 29 MAY 2018

I sincerely hope that members of this group are taking the facts I have presented about GID beyond this group. I consider popularizing higher-intelligence design an exceptionally necessary step. As I have written many times, we can only have partial knowledge as to "how" this is done. But, the following are rather simply stated FACTS.

"Employing physical-science methods applied to observable data, it is mathematically predicted that our universe is designed and produced by a higher-intelligence. There is a vast amount of indirect evidence that verifies these predictions. (See vixra.org/pdf/1703.0096v2.pdf )

Although additional interpretations are not necessary, the 'higher-intelligence' does satisfy various Biblical characteristics."

The evidence paper contains, as references, all of the mathematics papers. The "mathematically" is significant since it should indicate to the general public the highly "rational" nature of the predictions.

These statements should be known throughout the world. The theological interpretation is a counted to the statements that such a Biblically described entity is irrational.

Although some, not very intelligent, atheists might try to count these results, others would certainly know that any countering attempts would also popularize these results. But, if they became a troubling factor for their methods of instruction or publishing, then it might be necessary to attempt a counter, at least, relative to the character of the individual who has produced them. Since I have seen no such counters being mounted by intelligent atheists, then this is an indication that the results are not widely known.

A lot of time is spent relative to aspects of biological design and counters to Darwinian evolution. Numerically speaking this is rather minor, when considered to be a descriptive design for entities within an ENTIRE universe.

Consider the physical system composed of a signal electron E(i) located relative to every other physical entity in the universe at the moment i you read this statement. Consider the GID moment i + 1, where E(i + 1) has an altered position relative to some other entities within our universe. Of course, since our universe is "expanding" such must be the case. That alteration is intelligently designed. Now consider the UWFF f(i) that contains E(i). Then we have the designed UWFF f(i+1), which actually is a subset of the designed *f(i+1), and UWFF f(i+1) contains the relative position altered E(i +1). (By-the-way, there are NO actual, GID identical electrons from the higher intelligence viewpoint. Each has its own special "name.")

Now do the same thing for all the electrons that exist at moment i. But that's just for electrons. Do the same thing for, you know, all other physical-systems. The designed physical-systems are all related, all intertwined, so to speck, by a higher-form of rational deduction.

I have presented to this group about everything, not mathematical, that I know how to present relative to GID and the GGU-model. I have repeated myself a lot. Due to medical reasons, I may not be able to do much more. Dr. Bob.

#141 31 MAY 2018

Except in one case, I just discovered more lies on Wikipedia. One article about ID and politics states that no mainstream scientist accepts ID. Unless you define a mainstream scientist as one who rejects ID, this is a totally unfounded statement. First, they need to define "mainstream." Then show that they have contacted all of them and they have specifically stated that they do not support ID. Of course, being an editor, I could change this, but it will almost immediately revert back to what was written.

Then we have the claim that no "creationist" publishes in secular journals. Well, I published 35 articles in secular journals after 1978, when I began the development of GID. And such unfounded and lying statements continue to be popularized by Wikipedia. I wonder if any members of this group even attempt to counter such Wikipedia and other internet lying statements presented by such so-called "authorities"? Dr. Bob

#142 2 JUN 2018

(Long posting) GID is all about a remarkable ability that apparently only humankind is known to possess. From my 2002 book.

"The common feature of science-communities is communication by means of strings of symbols of one sort or another. This includes all of the digitized visual imagery and all virtual reality sensory reproductions.

Individuals experience the results of mental or sensory impressions, whether such impressions are generated internally or externally. A description is a combination of symbol strings, external to an individual, that when considered by an individual evokes such mental or sensory impressions. First, an individual's impressions lead to the formation of a description. Secondly, a description is intended to evoke within the same individual, and others, approximately the same mental or sensory impressions that originally produced the description."

The last paragraph has been considerably expanded upon.

From my glossary. Please notice my repeated use of the term "represents."

"GID-design is a form of atemporal "pre-design." GID-design is represented by rational general language descriptions. The term "rational" indicates that the descriptions are produced by rules for rational thought as descriptively defined. That is, GID-design refers to a description's rational structure. The logic applied is most often classical logic. However, other logical formations via the logic-system and the logic-system algorithm are also allowed. The "thought" notion is a primitive. As such the concept of "thoughts" as represented, as modeled, by a general language is analogue in character. The concept of rationality, in particular deduction, is defined relative to a general language. Hence, this is a behavioral model that predicts a partially describable type of higher-intelligence rationality, a rationality we cannot otherwise comprehend. When an entity is "named" within such a description, then that name represents the collection of all of the known constituents, such as the known physical-systems, that are contained within the entity.

Via the developmental paradigm, each sequential slice of a universe, a universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF) is composed of physical-systems. Standard GID-design refers to the rational design of each physical-system, the designed rational intertwining of these physical-systems within each UWFF and the designed step-by-step rational production of the sequence of universe producing UWFF as represented by general language descriptions. The GGU-model predicts *UWFF which can contain physical, physical-like or other types of systems. GID-design also refers to such additional predicted forms of pre-design as represented by the predicted higher-language and higher forms of rational thought. Further, GID-design includes any described alterations in the configurations that may occur from one *UWFF to another sequentially occurring *UWFF. That is, by comparison, the alterations are considered as GID-designed. Various alterations, relative to the UWFFs, may be predictable via described physical laws.

When predicting statements by applying hypotheses and standard logical discourse, the hypotheses are considered as predicted rationally produced results. The GID-model yields universes, not just our own. If there are verified describable correlations between developing systems for a universe, then, for this reason, these descriptions must be included as hypotheses for the models predictions. Under this obvious requirement, the verified physical laws and theories, for our universe, need to be part of the hypotheses. However, it is their rational structure that is being modeled. These laws are an added intelligent design feature. . . .

For GID, a second form of design means that which the first form depicts: the arrangements of the physical entities that yield the various patterns being depicted, the natural design, the natural patterns, the natural distinguishing aspects of the patterns and the natural distinguishing aspects of the physical entities that satisfy physical laws or processes. It is this "design" concept that general language descriptions represent.

There are other "designed" entities that are external to the design notion as applied to a UWFF. Such designs are based upon methods of describing physical processes and physical-laws. For example, various "substratum" processes." Dr. Bob

#143 3 JUN 2018

A rather short posting.

"Sustaining all things by His powerful declaration (rhema)." (rhema = a spoken or written statement.)

The GID-model linguistically presents a complete logical account for the step-by-step production of all of the physical-systems that comprise a developing universe. It is an analogue model that depicts the rational combining of the actual physical events.

ANALOGUE MODEL. For physical or other types of defined entities and behavior, analogue models use various techniques to represent such entities, via distinctly different objects, and to rationally model behavior that mimics the behavior of the entities. Most often, an analogue model predicts behavior of the entities being mimicked, behavior that we cannot otherwise comprehend.

EVENT. This is a real or ultranatural occurrence of an entity or behavior that is being described by a string of standard or nonstandard symbols or images. Events, in general, are considered to exist external to any description that depicts them.

Note: I will repeat the above from time -to-time for new members or those who have not previously considered most of my postings. Dr. Bob.

#144 3 JUN 2018

For eternal physical models, usually, it is not the physical development of say the most accepted Big Bang notion that is eternal. It's the "never not existing" quantum field(s) that has yielded the initial singularity via an appropriate field "fluctuation." For us, physical time "began" at that moment some 13.5 billion years ago, it is claimed. The quantum field notion is also applied to multiverses, which are "visually" described as types of departed bumps in the field.

The GID-model can produce all such stuff. That is, the existence of such eternal stuff. But, even if one rejects the strict Biblical account, there is a higher-intelligence designed "starting point." This is not a temporal notion but an atemporal sequence notion. Thus, this approach does not eliminate an higher-intelligence design.

Let me mention the "eternal inflation" model. We are told "it is eternal into the future but not the past." It probably produces multiverse bubbles that includes ours, of course. But there is one major problem. What "clock" do you use to differentiate the "past" from the future? The really intelligent physicist would not make any such statement. But, might simply state that something "exists" and not present this rather incomplete characterization.

Finally, there is such a theory proposed in 2015 as it appears in Physics Letters B and can be found at arxiv: 1404.3093 and 1411.0753 via an eternal particle field called a quantum fluid. Of course, particles are manifestations of a quantum field.

#145 4 JUN 2018

After the GID-model was developed I discovered the following translation "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?" (Hermann Wyle (193?) one of the original members of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, N. J.)

"having the nature of . . .": having the inherent character of . . . .

"evolution of the world. . .."; step-by-step production of the world (or universe) . . . .

As I have pointed out the GID-model is an analogue behavioral model for what we cannot otherwise comprehend. The standard entities upon which it is based are trivially material entities. The immaterial higher-intelligence design factors that lead to the actual production of a universe have the "nature" of "images, ideas, 'building plans' ." That is, they behave in a "similar" manner. This is what analogue behavior means: we comprehend the descriptive behavior of stuff and this mimics the behavior of something else that we cannot fully comprehend.

Associated with the higher-intelligence is an "infinite" higher-language. Can we fully comprehend the behavior of such an infinite entity?

In 1978, I used nonstandard analysis to show that comparative Divine attributes are not irrational in nature. The GD-model predicts that if there are individuals who are measured as being more intelligent than others, then this is employed to predict that "there exists an 'infinitely' stronger higher-intelligence." This is not a proof that such an entity actually exists. It is a translated mathematics statement that implies that the concept is a rational concept. Can we actually fully comprehend the term "infinitely" as used not just here but throughout the GID and GGU-models? No!!!

The only way of which I am aware to discuss rationally the notion of "size" and the infinite is via modern mathematics. Well, it turns out that there is more than one approach to nonstandard analysis. The usual approach I employ and one developed in 2000. What I have shown is that the term "infinite" as used to characterize say the higher-language *L is axiom-system dependent when the set-theory "size" notion is applied. And for ordinary ZFC set-theory, there are "infinitely" many different "sized" infinities that one can use to characterize not just one but infinitely many different *L. AND there is no "largest, so to speak. (This problem is avoided by using the original form of the set-theory, one with atoms. This is the one I employ. It is a constructed model.)

So I have used the term "generic" infinite for the term where it is not to be considered as fully comprehended even in the mathematical sense. But, as I have shown, it is partially comprehended as a comparative notion. From a behavioral viewpoint, it is "larger" than any such term used throughout any known physical-science that measures qualities via say the real or complex numbers. I will not send you to the article where I have established these results since it is rather complex and requires a strong background in the superstructure approach to nonstandard analysis. Dr. Bob

#146 7 JUN 2018

Prior to continuing my discussion that should aid in a better understanding of the "higher-intelligence" infinite attribute compared to what we can actually perceive, here once again is my five year old article that gives the world a method to mentally visualizing the "first" level of the infinite. This solves an 100 year old problem. If you can do what my instructions state, then note that you are "viewing" this "infinite" from a "higher-point." Dr. Bob

raherrmann.com/infinite.htm

#147 8 JUN 2018

Again prior to my attempting to give members of this group some intuitive "feeling" about the "size" of the power of the GID higher-intelligence, I need to stress the EVIL of the use of the POSITIVE language by modern atheistic science. When I use such an approach of often state that I'm using it. So-called "scientific" statements are NOT so qualified when they are made to our students and the general public. This leads to the totally false impression that a statement is fact, when this cannot be assured. Indeed, the GGU-model contradicts this impression. Indeed, a Wheeler requirement for such a model even does this for many pronouncements made in the name of "physical cosmology."

I just read an article that claims that "absolutely" they now know how black holes come into being. It is filled with such positive statements. This yields a total false impression. NO DIRECT evidence exists that the explanation is, indeed, fact. I know of one theoretical explanation that what we actually perceive "out there" and claim to be produced by black holes is not the "fact" since there is a theoretical construct, which predicts that the complete formation of such an entity does not occur. The so called evidence is "INDIRECT" and not direct.

The GGU-model is based upon observable evidence, and as I have stated many times, there is a vast amount of "restricted" and, hence, indirect evidence that it is a factual presentation. BUT the absolute fact is that the GID-model RATIONALLY predicts the behavior of a higher-intelligence. It's the rational part that counters the false atheistic statement that such a notion, especially if is satisfies Biblical statements, is irrational. How many people throughout the world know this FACT? AND why after all these years don't billions know it? Dr. Bob .

#148 8 JUN 2018

By-the-way, in 1997, I published a journal article on black-holes. It has an interesting interpretation, that there need not be a complete collapse but has a turbulent zone at the event-like horizon. But, who in this group can "fully" comprehend what I have written? This is the archived version. arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0312007

#149 9 JUN 2018

C. S. Lewis wrote, "beware of picture thinking."

CERN puts out all those illustrations for "how" subatomic "particles" "appear" to behave. They are all fakes. We are told that a Planck energy element, a photon, is a particle. We draw their "paths" throughout space and in QED wiggly ones in the extremely small subatomic regions. BUT, if you checked the complete set of properties for such entities something is missing. They have no property that implies a comparative "size" concept. So, any depiction that seems to us to present a "size" notion is rather false. Indeed, this leads to a contradiction if a "size" is notion is necessary. Today, they have changed terminology, to save themselves, by calling it the "photon model." Of course, there are particles that "carry" force, the gluon being one accepted example.

How do you visualize a "rippling" quantum field when nothing in the standard model defines their composition. Until the late 1960s, at the least, they were called "immaterial" entities. What we have here, by definition, are analogue models for what we cannot otherwise comprehend.

GID and the GGU-model do not suffer from such problems since they are NOT natural "law" dependent. This is a requirement for a solution to the General Grand Unification Problem. This is a reason members of this group may find the very simple presentation less than satisfactory since, for example, I specifically state that one should not "visualize" a properton.

I point out that the GID-model states that the higher-intelligence has "designed" these analogue models as "thoughts" from which we merely choose. He has designed us with different mental abilities, abilities that lead to the appropriately presented designed thoughts from which we choose. I cannot describe this in any better manner. Further, all of our perception is discrete in character.

I will not alter my stance on the notion that such descriptions are but analogue models for what we cannot otherwise comprehend. Dr. Bob

#150 9 JUN 2018

Simplifying the GID-model infinite notion.

I have first and second year higher school algebra and precalculus books. The notion of the infinite is not defined but assumed. They write that the natural numbers {0,1,2,3,4,5, . . .} is an example of an infinite set and define the ". . ." as meaning "and so on."

The mathematical difficulty with the "infinite" is that the "counting" notion is not continued "above" the natural number, N, counting that we do. You apply an actual step-by-step deductive process to do such counting. But this is not what occurs with the mathematical definition.

I have previously given examples of this starting with the "rational" numbers. So, how do I convey the notion of an "increasing" or "growing in size" infinite? Fortunately, the GID-model allows this.

The collection of all of the actual higher-intelligence designed universe-wide frozen-frames (UFWW) (i.e. 3-D slices) is in all cases "hyperfinite" in character. Thus, if one characterizes the behavior of "finite" sets in a formal manner, then the hyperfinite "behaves" in a similar manner.

Consider the set of 20 symbols {1,2,3,4,. . .,20} representing twenty natural numbers. Now how many different subsets can you get from this. This includes a set with no members and the entire set itself? Well, let's see. {1}, {2}, and {1,2} are distinct subsets. Indeed, it might take me a while to list the entire 1,048,576 distinct subsets, for you see, there are 2^20 of them.

Let's use the notation P(A) for the set of all subsets of a nonempty finite set A and |A| as the number of them. Thus, for A = {1,2,3,4,. . .,20}, |A| = 20. It is rather clear that |A| < |P(A)|. Indeed, |A| is a great deal less than |P(A)| as far as counting is concerned. But what if we now take P(A) and look at all of its subsets; that is, |P(P(A))|. There are 2^1,048,576 of them. That is a rather large number and |P(A)| is really a great deal less than |P(P(A))| as is |A| itself. There seems to be a greater and greater jump in the "size" of these still finite sets.

The standard model used to obtain the nonstandard one uses the notion of the set of all subsets in its generation. It uses say the non-finite natural numbers N, then uses these to construct the set of all subsets, of subsets, of subsets . . . That is, P(N) and P(P(N)), then P(P(P(N))) . . . (that "and so on" . . . again) .

There is a relation for a | | type "size" notation, where we can write |N| < |P(N)| < |P(P(N))| < . . . The "<" obeys the same properties as the < for finite sets. By-the-way, the term "size" is used by some authors in describing the | | concept. Thus, if one corresponds the finite notion of increasing size of these "P" produced sets to the notion that there can be such "increases" for infinite sets as well, then this may help in comprehending this notion for the higher-intelligence.

The "size" of a higher-intelligence hyperfinite designed set used for the Complete GGU-model is, for the axiom system I employ, "greater than" the size of any of the |P( . . . P(N). . .)|. Dr. Bob

#151 10 JUN 2018

Some of the rules for paper journal publication might be of interest to this group since they do affect how ID is publicized. As a journal referee, I would apply the journal rules. Of significance, the rules stated that the material needs to be of "interest" to the journal reads.

So, if one wishes to publish an article yielding a few new results in measure theory, then a journal that publishes such material would be selected. Producing the mathematics and presenting it to the journal for review, without application to any controversial area, is the approach most likely to gain journal approval.

Hence, the mathematics is judged as "correct" and you would apply the results, to say ID, in a different journal, a journal whose reviewers are most likely not experts in the mathematics employed. They would rely upon the referenced journals, where the mathematics itself appeared, as establishing the "correctness" of the theorems employed.

Things have changed today in that there have been some very significant articles only published at say the arxiv.org archives. Indeed, some time back a paper appeared there and only there that solved an old difficult math. problem for which the author won the Fields Medal (Prize), a prize restricted, however, to mathematicians who are 40 or younger.

If one does not have the expertise in a specific subject that is applied by another individual, then one needs to have confidence in the other individual's abilities to "correctly" produce and present the material. With that in mind, some members of this group might be interested in raherrmann.com/bio.htm

#152 11 JUN 2018

(Rather long) No design necessary. Design, as many define it, is not a requirement for the universe producing "actions" taken by a higher-intelligence. Modern science is based upon intelligent agency. This predicts the GGU-model's higher-form of intelligent agency. Theologically, a Biblical interpretation reveals the higher-intelligence agent.

Over 2350 years ago, Aristotle observed that linguistic expressions led to the mode of deduction termed the hypothetical syllogism. His observation as to rational thought was that from two expressions we deduce a third. For this syllogism, the two where two conditionals, "If P, then Q." and "If Q, then R." From these the "deduced third is "If P, then R." Then, if you start with a P statement, either simply given or assumed that it represent "fact," the combined statement "P. And If P, then Q" rationally, by definition, yields Q. (The basic propositional deduction rule is applied.) It is noticed over and over and over again that if P and Q are statements that describe factual alterations in physical-system behavior and, when P occurs, Q occurs, then one might postulate that the "If P, then Q" is a physical (natural) law.

Of course, one also needs to postulate, without possibility of "proof," that such correlated behavior will not change over time. Terming such a statement as a physical (natural) law, this correlation means that two such laws "If P, then Q" and "If Q, then R." produce another such law, "If P, then R." The GGU-model is NOT based upon this form of syllogism.

It is based upon deduction via a simple "logic-system" algorithm applied to the same forms. The forms are a sequence that can be written as a "word" "P. If P, then Q. If Q, then R. If R, then T. . . . (and so on)." Deduction requires a repeated human mental process via application of described rules. This is the case within the subject of Mathematical Logic, where a formal theorem is "deduced" after one explicitly applies the stated rules for constructing its "proof." The last step in such proofs is said to be "deduced" via the rules. These rules include a choice that the individual must make from what is essentially an infinite set of symbolic forms.

The GGU-model forms are written in a special symbolic way. They are represent first by a 1-ary relation, which is simply the single member set {P}. Then the remaining are "ordered pairs" , , , . . ., which are, of course, but symbolic forms. You then select the ordered pairs that contain as a "first coordinate" P. The Q is then "deduced." In this case there is only one such pair. This simple rule is repeated for all the remaining ordered pairs using the previously deduced results. This yields the P, Q, R, T, . . ., as deduced in this expressed order from left-to-right. Remember this is a mathematical model using accepted notions from universal logic.

I changed this to make it simpler by changing the rule and the form to which the new rule is applied. The same "deduced" order is obtained. Why is this deduction? It is deduction within the subject of Math Logic since a repeatable specific set of rules are applied to obtain the results and when others apply the same rules they produce the same results. These mentally applied rules are "actions" that yield the results. Being able to apply such rules can be used as a measure for intelligence. This is done in IQ tests.

All of the GGU-model schemes apply this form of deduction, which is not dependent upon any specific linguistic description for the content of any 3-D slice of a universe so produced. Dr. Bob

#153 14 JUN 2018

A case study relative to the participator model. In the 1940 and 50s, tuberculosis bacteria were known to "mutate" so as to become resistant to the antibiotics employed at that time. (An anti-ID person might say, "You see this is not a very intelligent way to design something.") My oldest brother, for his Ph.D. research, investigated an idea he had relative to such resistance. In about 1952, say, I gave him an exact solution to a differential equation that contains two parameters that he would need to determine in order establish his idea.

He did most of his experiments at the University of Maryland Laboratory on Green Street in Baltimore Maryland. (By-the-way, the lab. is next to the grave of Elan Allan Poe and is across from the University Hospital.) He, of course, did many experiments with and without the antibiotic he was using. And, I even helped him, now and then, "count" the stained bacterium in order to "estimate" the parameters values. Of course, after he had finished the determined parameter values varied. Hence, the usual statistical study was employed in order to determine whether the changes in the parameters were statistically significant. It was determined that the changes were very significant. Thus, two modes of mathematical analysis were employed. He published his results and was awarded his Ph.D.

What are his results? He established that such bacteria where not merely drug resistant but used the drug as an enriched growth medium. At that time, this changed how antibiotics were administered. So, his brain was "designed" so that we could combat this problem. BUT, this is far from all that came from this. While working for the Schering Drug, he admits that he was "simply" in the right place at the right time and had the right knowledge that allowed him to make an observation. He discovered the first commercially viable antiviral drug. Thus, he was the individual who began the entire area of producing such antiviral drugs. (Of course, one can conclude that this was all designed in this manner if one makes the correct choice.) Thus, if one does not have the correct knowledge, such as the participator model aspects of the Complete GGU-model, then one might assume that certain physical-system behavior is not very intelligently designed.

Later he went to the Mayo Clinic and set-up and directed their Clinical Virology Lab. that worked on procedures to diagnose viral diseases. After 15 years there, he established two laboratories in Peoria Ill for this purpose and finished his career as Dean for Research at the University Illinois Medical College. So, what will you find on the Internet about these particular accomplishes? Except for a few remarks in his obit., nothing. Although he is mentioned relative to other later articles and books. He is Ernest C. Herrmann, Jr.

#154 14 JUN 2018

One of the most read papers on my website is my 1999 paper on modern mathematics. Of considerable significance is the concept of the "mathematical model" and "interpretations" for various disciplines. Some here might be interested in this paper. It is at raherrmann.com/math.htm

#155 16 JUN 2018

188 only 188. (Sorry for the, at least, three typos in posting about my brother. (Sheering = Schering, via = viable, marks = remarks.) )

What do I mean by the 188 and why is it related to ID? In 2005, I place on my website and in 2013 at the archive vixra.org the paper with the following abstract.

" In this article, the intuitive aspects used to model mathematically God's Biblically implied attributes are presented. These include the Omni-concepts, miracles and Holy Spirit inspired mental influences. Although defined mathematical symbolism is employed, the findings are fully described essentially in non-technical terms. These results counter all secular statements that claim that aspects of the Biblically described God concept are ``irrational.'' The results specifically show that they are rational from the viewpoint of (classical) everyday logical discourse."

Thus, these are GID intelligently designed. The article also includes the rationality of four forms of the Trinity used by various denominations. As of today only 188 unique downloads of this article have been made. However, millions of individuals and especially students are told that our beliefs are irrational. As George Soras states it, "Anyone who believes in God is insane."

Due to its significance for millions, I consider this the most important article I have ever written. Although I have tried, we have but the 188 unique downloads from vixra.org, where it should read in the millions. You can find it at vixra.org/pdf/1312.0203v4.pdf

#156 18 JUN 2018

This group has 3790 members. I announced the availability of a significant counter to the atheistic pronouncements relative to the existence of the Biblically described God at 10:18 AM EDT June 16, 2018. As of 8:10 AM EDT June 18m 2018, the number of unique downloads of the article has increased by 6.

Further, since I first posted this article, I have read of no challenges to the conclusions. Of course, they would mostly be upon my character since the math. is "prefect."

Then, you also have the fact that attempting to challenge such conclusions would also tend to popularize them. I wonder whether any pastor or Christian school instructor has ever mentioned these results to others?

You might say, "I can't understand the mathematics." But, when secular physical-science is presented to most of the world, it is done so without showing how the predictions are obtained by means of a Hilbert Space or Tensor Analysis formalism. A less than actuate interpretation is often employed. Indeed, exceptionally inaccurate, such as those "particle" interaction artist conceptions one see from CERN.

One can start with, "It is (mathematically) established that it is scientifically rational to believe in the existence of an entity that has attributes infinitely greater than any comparable human attribute and that the entity creates our universe in the exact manner as stated in Genesis 1. Further, its predicted attributes satisfy more than 55 Biblical statements." Does this or a similar statement appear in any textbook used by Christian educators?

So, don't counter the atheists lies about our theology and see how many more students and many, many others reject it. On the other hand, I suppose, that such rejection is part of the end-times. But, I think it is still necessary that I (we) continue to present the truth. Dr. Bob

#157 19 JUN 2018

(Part 1) In mathematics research, the statement of a theorem comes first . An idea comes from someplace, and your training allows you to express it in a required mathematical form. Then sometimes it is actually a theorem that employs "interpreted" terminology.

Relative to the most damaging secular science statements for the ID movement, one could state that it is the most important counter to modern secular physics. AND, of course, to make such a counter you need to employ the same type of scientific modeling. This yields what is termed as a "counter model." As previously stated, the statements are all of those that claim that one event is independent from another, that randomness is a basic law of nature.

Once a theorem is stated, then comes the very great problem of "proving it." This would not be possible if the idea is rationally incorrect. So, how did I know the result, which had never before appeared, was correct and that I could prove it? There is a GID-model answer to this. But, anyway, here is the theorem, with modified notation so that I could present it here.

"For the language L and any p in R such that 0 <= p <= 1, where p represents a Bernoulli trials probability that an event will occur, there exists an ultralogic P_{p} with the following properties.

1. When P_{p} is applied to *G = G a hyperfinite sequence of labeled event statements E or E' is obtained that explicitly generates the sequence {a_1, . . . ,a_n, . . . *a_nu}. For any "n'' trials, the hyperfinite sequence {a_1, . . . ,a_n, . . . a_nu} yields a finite "event'' sequence {a_1, . . . ,a_n}. Further, for each nonzero natural number j each a_j is the cumulative number of successes E for "j'' trials. These sequences mimic the behavior of the cumulative successes E for Bernoulli trials without introducing specific Bernoulli trial requirements.

2. The events E in 1 determine a sequence g_{ap} of relative frequencies that converges to p, where g_{ap}(n) = (n,a(n))= a(n)/n.

3. The sequence of relative frequencies g_{ap} is what one would obtain from Bernoulli trial required random behavior."

This theorem is also applied to all forms of probability distribution functions. It was published in 2001 (Internat. J. Math. and Math. Sci., 27(5)(2001), 321-325.) I had a few alterations published and the complete paper is archived below. Now how does one use this for General ID?

I doubt that any member of this group can properly interpret this even it they think they understand the terminology employed. Why not, you ask.

Well, it goes back to a paper I published in the Kobe J. Math in 1987. The math. dept there was the first and probably the only one that used my book on simplified nonstandard analysis. You have seen me use the term "ultralogic" previously as a term for a math. symbol that represents a higher form of "deduction," previously, a form based upon our everyday experiences. The key to an interpretation is the P_{p}. An interpreted higher form of deduction that is NOT of the basic GID form. I have never written that GID only includes such a basic form. I'll return shortly with part 2. I need to see my the dog is barking a lot. Dr. Bob

This is the revised version arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0112037v8.pdf

#158 20 JUN 2018

(Part 2.) When I say "not of the GID form" I'm referring to the two forms that correspond to the step-by-step generation of the 3-D slices of a universe. But, relative to the designed alterations, they appear to follow describable cause and effect physical laws that allow us to predict behavior. For the probability models used, the occurrence of an event in a series of events produced by a cause is claimed not to influence "when" the next event actually occurs. The cause may or may not yield the next event. But without any physical explanation after many, many experiments a pattern developments that states that the ratio of the number of events that occur to the number of trials seems to be nicely approximated by a fixed number. Thus, for a large number of such events we can, at the least, predict a number that is "close to" the actual number of events that have occurred.

Unfortunately, you cannot discovery that a higher-intelligence "rationally" designed such behavior by referring to any "logic" applied by any human being. The only why one discovers this is to read the "proof" of the theorem I stated. OR you can simply accept what I state about this result.

There is a higher-intelligence higher-logical process, symbolized by P_{p}, that yields the step-by-step trial results. This is part of the additional pre-designed aspects of GID that are relative to physical laws. That is, the individual designs satisfy this "hidden" higher-logical process. But we are only aware of the physical effects.p> I then apply this to the highly significant probability distributions. This yields a much more complex higher-form of logic that again reveals a higher-intelligence pre-design. This is why I have used the word "mindom" as a substitute for "random." (Not to be confused with mindom.)

So, this counters via the same general methods employed by the secular scientific community their notion of "randomness," where events are predicted only by probability models and the claim that they are associated with notion of randomness. Such a concept does NOT negate the statement that our universe is intelligently design. But, viewed as mindom behavior, it greatly strengthens such a design inference.

So, we must reject the following Preskill statement made in his Cal. Tech. course in computer logic.

"Fundamentally the universe is quantum mechanical . . . . For example, clicks in a detector that monitors a radioactive source are described by a truly random Poisson process." [Preskill, 1997]

He further states that there are deterministic mathematically produced results that "appear random." But they don't represent the actual process that govern our universe. ("So, if you insist that events are not TRULY random, then I guess I'll need to fail you.")

I have articles that discuss these notions at a much great depth. Dr. Bob

#159 21 JUN 2018

A Webster's Dictionary definition: "to think" = to form or have in the mind. "The mind" = that which thinks. That doesn't help much with our understanding of a term. Well, I think in "words." I talk to myself. But it is not an audio "voice" since I superimpose audio over such thinking as I'm doing at the moment by listening to classical music. If I wish, I can mentally "see images." But, these are not the same as visual images since I can also superimpose these over visual ones. BUT, there is a great deal more about the "design" of the human brain. Its additional properties also explain why it has taken a while to find terminology and illustrations that can aid you in comprehending the new terms and, indeed, the new ideas employed for the Complete GGU-model.

"One feature of linguistic expression is rarely considered in depth. We can all recognize that when we are attempting to express subtle thoughts, particularly those that are novel and as yet unclear, we may tentatively try now this, now that verbal expression. In fact this is precisely what is done in writing this section. In attempting to convey some experience it is difficult to give satisfactory verbal expression to one's thoughts. One searches for the right words and syntactic arrangement so that one can have hope that one's thoughts may achieve a clear expression to listeners or readers." (Noble Laurent John Eccles and Robinson, from their 1984 book.)

The late Sir John Eccles was a world authority on the electro-chemical aspects of our brain and won a Nobel for his discoveries. So, Eccles and Robinson claim that there is more to "thoughts" than what I have described. Indeed, Eccles and Robinson give the results of actual experiments that require a direct application of thoughts in order to perform physical actions. However, MRI imaginary and EEGs did not detect activity in the appropriate regions as subjects performed the activities. They proposed that such human intentions have but one presently known explanation. There is an additional immaterial aspect for human thought. Some individuals, such as Roger Penrose, have tried to explain this via quantum "channeling," and the like, but have failed to do so. This immaterial aspect displays properties of the human spirit. This is why atheists are not too thrilled with the idea. But, the idea is, at least, a rational one. I published an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly 43(2)(2006):127-129 that describes a mathematical model for this immaterial aspect of thought. Hence, we are not physical-systems but rather physical-like. ONLY GID MODELS THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM. Yes, the human brain is wondrously made.

By-the-way, there is also a mathematical model that rationally verifies an additional human quality and explains why we might choose one thought over another. It presents a rational description for how our thoughts can be "influenced" via such an immaterial medium.

Now relative to such mental influences, I have a shorten and the longer original article on my website. I may even archive it at vixra.org due to its significance. But, anyway, here is the more complete longer version. This is not the first time I've mentioned this stuff, but not in this detail. And this is the second time I've posted this article.

raherrmann.com/influences.htm

#160 22 JUN 2018

You may not be aware of the fact that long before Facebook groups came into being GID concepts were presented to numerously many individuals. From 1982 - 2009, there have been 13 journal publications directly related to GID. From 1983 - 1987, I gave 7 personal presentations to "science-conferences" on this subject. In Oct 1981, my first presentation of the mathematics I employ for GID was presented to members of the American Mathematical Society. Today, many journals no longer exist and they have been replaced by the arxiv.org archives. Relative to GID and the GGU-model, I have 20 articles posted there. On the vixra.org archives, I have 19 articles on this subject. I note that vixra.org allows articles that are specifically applied to theology, but arxiv.org rejects any such application or even a hint of it.

Now if one wishes to contact me relative to these published ideas, it is not difficult to do so. But I don't recall that it has ever happened. Of course, my memory is not what it once was. By-the-way, in 1985, the math. I use was considered as one of the most significant advances in mathematics during the 20th century. So, today, why is it not taught anywhere that I know of within the USA or Canada.

Then have you been discriminated against due to your ID views? Have you been denied promotion, lost money and even lost the respect of your family, etc.?

In my view, one of the greatest achievements of the Adversary (Greek = diabolos, which is often used as an equivalent to the Hebrew Satan) is to "convince" people, by allowed mental influences, that he does not exist. My article on "mental influences" rationally verifies the activities of the allowed mental influences that we endure due to the Adversary and his fallen angles. Dr. Bob

#161 25 JUN 2018

Paul tells us about his times in Romans 1:12-22 in that "they became vain in their imagination . . . professing themselves wise . . ." Except for substituting "invisible" entities for the Greek and Roman gods and spirit entities, modern science has done the same thing. Then we have the "science" of Aristotle. How is it possible that those who professed to be wise and knew of his writings continued to reject their visual sense when they saw similar "lite" and "heavy" objects start together and fall to the ground and that the heavy one did NOT reach the ground first as Aristotle claimed it would? How is it possible that this continued for 1950 years?????

Then there is gravity and modern science fiction. The fact is that General Relativity is an inconsistent analogue model that when translated describes behavior that secular science cannot otherwise comprehend. But, then again they try but have not and, must likely, will not combine it with Quantum Theory by inventing the graviton that "carries" force. I wonder how it "carries" a force? (There is an answer to this, which I'll mention shortly.)

You use a high speed camera and photograph a ball falling off a table and hitting the ground. You first place a measuring rod so that it will be in the background and you can note the distance the ball has moved during the lapsed time represented by each photographic image. You know how may frames per second your camera records, so you can calculate the time from the "moment" it starts its fall to the moment it is photographed during its fall. You need not use GR since the gravitation acceleration is rather constant. What you are checking is that the distance s = (1/2)gt^2. The (1/2)g is the Newtonian version of the original Galileo form that he deuced 1950 years after Aristotle stated his Law of Fall. Galileo using a "geometric" deductive argument and the Merton Rules stated that 2s is directly proportional to t^2. I guess a "force" has pulled it down to the ground. (The invisible force nymphs who animate nature most be doing it.) Also how is it possible that Galileo, after 1950 years, was the first to suggest an experiment to verify a physical cause and effect statement such as the one he deduced?

OR, an infinitely strong single higher-intelligence has "simply" pre-designed this step-by-step behavior so that it will satisfy the deduced Galileo formula and, if needed for various purposes, we can calculate the amount of time that such a fall will require. What is doing it, so to speak, are the designed GGU-model processes that produce the pre-designed GID-model descriptions.

I have written the above from my mental thoughts "voice" that first presents them and I copy down, so to speak, what this mental voice states. But, for the cause and effect people, what part of my brain caused these coherent, to me anyway, mental sounds to just suddenly occur as I type this very sentence? For some of the stuff I write, I must stop and "search" for the correct word. Where in my brain am I searching for something that comes "prior" to the mental voice, which is then transformed into the voice? Experiments have shown that, at the least, for certain mental voice requirements no such place within the brain displays its physical presence. I really don't think it's the "thought" nymphs helping me "pull out," from ?, the words I write. Dr. Bob

#162 26 JUN 2018
The paper I removed answers rationally this question and shows that other linguistic constructions that claim to show specifically that the Biblical God is an "irrational" concept are themselves irrational. See

raherrmann.com/omni.htm

#163 27 JUN 2018

Can you described physical behavior you observe or as you imagine it? "Sure. You know, I'm rather good at that sort of stuff." Ok. Imagine one grain of sand on the beach at Atlantic City, NJ. "Ok." This is a "mentally depicted" physical-system. Usually a physical-system is a defined collection of named objects, which are so related as to form an identifiable whole. Specific relations between the constituents are the bases for establishing the behavior of the entire structure. It uses a general language. Have you ever seen Nature describe itself? "I don't think I have." So let's assume that Nature does not itself display the linguistic forms we use. Now a physical event is the actual thing or behavior being depicted. Often, however, what I write is contextually controlled, and I do not differentiate between these two, where the term physical-system is also used for the actual stuff being depicted.

We use such descriptions, when we build stuff. We just don't usually do it mentally but on paper and, today, on a computer monitor. Does Nature think? "Of course, not." But the term "rational" is relative to how language elements are combined. So, to state that Nature is rational refers to the linguistic depictions of Nature that we construct. This fact also holds if we use images and diagrams.

Let's see how good you are. Can you imagine, all at one time, all the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world? All the drops water, everywhere there is water, all the . . . "Stop stop, stop. You've got to be kidding. No human can do such stuff." I could also ask you to imagine the assumed down, up, strong, charm, bottom and top nymphs, no I mean quarks. "The what?" I'm sorry. There it is no possible way for us to directly detect these claimed entities. But, some do attempt to "imagine them." These assumed "things," simply help us, under certainly circumstances, to predict the behavior of gross matter. You see, this is how we humans do things. We invent stuff and give them names and use mathematical symbols for how they are postulated to behave and then, using such depictions, some of us are able to predict actual observed behavior. We even give prizes for a "great discovery" like this. Of course, if quarks don't actually exist, then the prize, I guess, would simply be for the "great idea."

But, then we are told that there is an entity that claims to produce the same observable results and we are specifically told that we cannot produce the results in the same way. Indeed, His methods produce every alteration in every entity throughout the entire universe. Can you accept that? "No, Never. Hawking stated that WE will soon know ALL the physical laws that produce every alteration in physical behavior. Alterations are produced by physical laws. That's how they come about AND QUARKS ARE REAL ENTITIES." Please don't shout. Well, I do think that unless you, for some reason, change your views, then the Complete GGU-model formation of our universe will not be acceptable to you. It does not contradict the "physical laws" but gives a different meaning for their existence. Dr. Bob.

#164 28 JUN 2018

I feel as through I don't exist. My website has been on line since 11 April 1997. For the fun of it, I googled intelligent design. I stopped counting at 240 sites. My site was not among the list. If one looks at a few sites that consider themselves the best such sites, then you will not find, among the website mentioned, my site nor my name among the scientists who produce ID material. Of course, if mine were so presented, it might counter the articles that do appear. Many articles, some that are "way inside" a site, present so-called information counter to "ID." These are false relative to GID. And yes my META thing lists as the first in the series of topics covered intelligent design.

I guess I'm just "lucky" that I still get 150-60 "hits" a day on my site. Of course, as I previously mentioned, the site is not as "pretty" as most. I have purposely done this. It is for serious "reading." It presents the material immediately. Dr. Bob

#165 29 JUN 2018

(Somewhat long.) Well, maybe I physically still exist but I guess all my publications and work in intelligent design do not exist. It's all illusion. How can it be otherwise when the Encyclopaedia Britannia implies as much. Relative to ID, they write, "Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s . . ." As the definition is continued, it is only relative to the Discovery Institute's restricted form.

I note that it takes but a minor amount of intelligence to understand that the phrase "intelligent design" includes many diverse areas such as kitchen design. The term is used in manufacturing and construction and seems to always refer to a pre-design that is used to guide the production of a product. Moreover, "Intelligent Design" is a brand name. My use of the term "General," as an adjective, does not alter the notion. It only means that a "general" language is used when describing such design and that it is physical law independent. I state this in my glossary.

But, we are dealing with "Britannia." So, how could they possibly be wrong? I might discuss the details relative to the following facts. The discrimination against the scientific disclosures of Bible believing scientists is getting much, much worse. They are now being denied secular journal publications and even arxiv.org presentations based more upon their philosophic stance than for any other reason. They are being denied promotion and removed from their positions as not qualified.

So, as not to be, in their view, "embarrassed" by your very presence, these publication sources will first "check you out" on the internet or elsewhere. If you have publicly expressed Biblical views, your chances of publication will be greatly reduced. This is especially so today in areas of math. and physics since few articles presented in many of these subjects are actually significant to our everyday activities.

By-the-way, I was denied promotion though the usual math. department means until, unknown to me, the Naval Academy Superintendent's Office decided to investigate why I was not recommended for promotion. They discovered that it was due to religious discrimination and, since I met all the requirements, I was given an immediate promotion to Associate Professor with Academic Tenure. This was the second time I was discriminated against. The first time was a general form, where the math. department specifically broke Federal Law by removing faculty members who are military veterans without any accepted cause for such a removal. Via legal action, I brought that practice to an end. I hope it's still that way. Dr. Bob

#166 28 JUN 2018

I'll write this again for the ? time. GID is the descriptive part of the GGU-model. It came into being in 1979 under a different name. As noted by examples on my website, I have discovered that it can come about via a model for actual human behavior. The GGU-model is a cosmogony - a model for processes that produced universes. The processes can produce infinitely many different universes. They can produce a universe made out of bubble gum. Or whatever you or an higher-intelligence might imagine since "images" can also be employed as part of the language descriptions. Thus IF you use "If car image, then <:-).", then icon logic states that car image, If car image,then <:-). |- <:-). But, if it is true (a fact) that you have a car image and the statement "If car image, then <:-)." is actually false, then you have properly deduced a false statement. Indeed, if car image is true then the only way that the conditional statement can be true is for the deduction to be true (fact). For the GID-model, the term "rational" means that it follows a valid mode of deduction and this includes the above "icon" logic. Dr Bob.

#167 1 JUL 2018

"So, from your last posting, since what you base the rationally produced predictions upon are factual statements, it is not true that the predictions must be fact?" No. "Why not?" Well, while certain symbols and relations are used to represent these entities and the relations between them, via axioms and definitions, significant symbols are used that do not represent any physical nor even "interpreted" immaterial entities, although everything employed does form a consistent collection of expressions. I'll very shortly show you that "exact correspondence" in mathematics may not actually be what you believe it to is. The notion of "definitions" and the behavior of the "abstract" entities employed plays a significant part. This is especially so if the a model is analogue in character. Dr. Bob

#168 1 JUL 2018

The most significant applied mathematics ever developed is The Calculus. When a physical scientists, engineers etc. actually calculate a numerical quantity, in almost all cases, aspects of The Calculus are applied. So why is it not, today, presented in the form that has lead to many of its greatest applications? The greatest mistake ever made in this subject was to base it upon the "limit" concept. The properties of the infinitely small that "was" used did lead to a contradiction, that was corrected prior to 1885.

The Calculus as applied to physical behavior is an analogue model. Nobel Prize winner Planck, in his books, states that time dependent changes in behavior correspond to an infinite sum of infinitesimal changes. Hence, Planck states that one needs the notion of "infinitesimal time" intervals, which he denotes by dt. I assume that his books have "meaning" to those that read and used them. But, this contradicts what he stated in 1899, although he didn't exactly state it the way it's presented today. What comes up immediately upon an Internet search for the meaning of term Planck Time? It states that this time unit, about 10^43 seconds, is the smallest time interval that has "ANY" meaning. Why is this statement not qualified in any manner. "No smaller division of time has any meaning." (But this comes from a physics graduate student. Why it comes up first on a google search, I don't know. Wikipedia is not that certain about it having this absolute meaning.)

Then we have the notion of "instantaneous velocity," which Newton argued is an actual physical quantity and he denoted by p. He wrote, in 1666, prior to Leibniz, that, relative to measures, a body with such a velocity moves over an "infinitely little line p x o." (I have a discussion of some of his stuff in my book on "Infinitesimal Modeling.") The "o" is measure for an "infinitely small" time interval. This o is, today, often denoted by dt. BUT, this contradicts a present day calculus book from which I taught. There dt is defined as an "increment" delta t. Thus for that "textbook?" dt can have any positive numerical value. But, this definition actually contradicts the definition as it appears in a dictionary of mathematical terms I have.

So what should calculus instructors do. Use the now consistent analogue approach that was tested for over 220 years.

Go to the H. Jerome Keisler Home Page that comes up in a search. Then check out what is now the free online version of his calculus book. A rather remarkable book, in my opinion. There is a paper version, which eliminates the need to print such a tome. There may be others coming out that also use these consistent and "correct" methods. Then you have my online book on Infinitesimal Modeling, where the Planck statement is specifically verified. But the series is hyperfinite. Dr. Bob

#169 5 JUL 2018

(Once again, necessarily, rather long/) It's clear to me that some posts presented here are from individuals who do not have any acknowledge about the "participator model," although I have presented 11 posts discussing it, the last being on 11 Jun 2018. This is a necessary and rather complex structure required for a solution to the General Grand Unification problem.

Whether one likes the fact or not we have from Genesis 3:22 that after the Fall that "Man has now become as one of us, knowing good and evil." I'll now explain something you may really not like, but it is necessary or the model would not be what is basically a secular model, which is not pseudoscience, not RID, and that can be strongly "interpreted" theologically.

From the Complete GGU-model, (i.e. GID and GGU combined), every elector-chemical action we preform, where we are not mentally aware of the "thoughts" that produce the actions, and every "thought" of which we are mentally aware are pre-designed in the GID sense. Remember that GID is a "model" for such human behavior and one can simply state that, via the model, we "choose," in these two cases, a particular pre-designed behavior. In my article on mental influences, I show how these choices can be rationally influenced.

Biblically, it was after the Fall, that our choice was expanded to include the "evil" ones. "BUT, doesn't that mean that God endorses evil thoughts and behavior?" NO! And that is where the full participator model comes into play. He has knowledge of such and this is MODELED, via GID, by general descriptions. Various individuals from whom I have quoted have described God as behaving "more like a mind than anything else we know" (C.S.Lewis)

I have previously mentioned that no biological entity nor machine we construct preforms any action in the sense of an ordinary real valued continuous function. ALL actions we preform,whether purely mental or outwardly physical, are technically discrete in character.

At the moment I call NOW, there are trillions upon trillions of pre-designed universes that differ from what has preceded the NOW. Because of the predicted higher-language, I have chosen to be somewhat vague at this point. Let's just say that a choice is made that leads to a physical action, which yields an altered 3-D slice of our universe from what it would have been if no action was taken. The fact that there are more than 7 billion people on earth actually leads to a single 3-D slice that incorporates all such actions. I use a model employing DVDs in the book and give a slight indication of how this might come about. The participator model is the mathematically rigorous model that shows that this interpretation is rational.

Relative to the words Jesus spoke among other Biblical statements, I have concluded that a thought becomes evil either when we "think" about performing it or physically do so. After all, do we not "read" Biblical descriptions of what are classified as "evil" actions? Thus, having such actions mentally presented and our comprehending the meanings of the words cannot be considered as evil. "Preachers" would have very little to talk about."Thou shalt not -."

#170 6 JUL 2018

(Part 1) I show a few unusual examples of the absolute presence of the "Adversary" in our lives.

The Wikipedia bio article for the mathematician Robert A. Hermann (one "r") had as the last paragraph a vary unflattering claimed aspect of his life. It indicated that in his "old age" he had become somewhat strange and became a Biblical creationist. Since I still hold an editor's position, I pointed out that this was in error and was relative to Herrmann, not Hermann, and that in a major subject heading they had misspelled his name. They did remove the paragraph and I very thankful they do not have a bio for me.

The arxiv. org archives started at a Federal facility at about 1991. It was still there when I began archiving published articles. I kinda remember that the only requirement was that the author was associated with a college or university or recognized research lab. I archived 8 articles prior to its moved to the Cornell library. After its move, I had 19 articles stored there. Although I have 58 non-coauthored secular journal publications, I was suddenly, in 2008, banned from archive presentation since I mentioned in the paper I was trying to present how the results could be applied to ID. That's how dangerous GID and I have become to the atheist community. I may not be the only "creationist" banded. I know the YEC Robert Gentry has had various papers removed. This has not, as yet, happened to me. (I note that over a lifetime, the average number of papers published by a mathematician is less than 5.)

Today, with a annual budget of about \$825,000, there are more than 1,400,000 articles available from the archive and many consider the archive a replacement for journal publication and various journals no longer exist because of this. Indeed, prior to the archive being form, I suggested that one such be created and that the "readers" judge the significance of a paper. This is do the fact that the actual journal reviewers for many papers are not the individuals who received the paper for review. They are often graduate assistants and the like. I'll mention shortly, in part 2, what individuals in a group in the United Kingdom have done about the "dishonest" ways arxiv now employs. Dr. Bob

#171 7 JUL 2018

(Part 1.75) I have mentioned, a long time ago, and will not do it again (maybe) that I do not use what you might consider THE BIBLE. There are many "different" so-called translations. Yes, they are different. I have 13 of them. They add words or remove them and do other very clever stuff. What is done tends to uphold a doctrine that came about many years after the "original" writings. I use the oldest known manuscripts in the languages in which they were written such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the oldest Masoretic, etc. and work hard to determine the first-century meanings of the Koine Greek terms that appear in the most ancient of the known New Testament manuscripts, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. These also contain the LXX translations. I have even used" the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not easy stuff.

These differences in the translations, if they are indeed translations, affects the Bibles descriptions of God's creationary activities. In the KJV, the first appearance of the Hebrew of significance, for the "creation" of the Complete GGU-model substratum, is the Hebrew translated there as "heaven." The problem is that the word is the plural form that, unless further qualified means two such entities. The other 12 Bibles I have translate it as "heavens." Again this is but two, in my view.

For the KJV, Strong states that the "heaven" is composed of two pieces. But later we find at 2:1, "Thus the heavens and earth were finished. . . ." Then John tells us that "the first heaven and earth were passed away . . ." Paul mentions the "Third heaven." For logical consistency, I have accepted that there is a second heaven that is not directly mentioned. It could hardly be described, in 1400BC, since I theologically consider this the substratum used for the Complete GGU-model.

Now I will NOT discuss this and other theological notions I have presented on my website any further, anywhere. This can be too divisive. I don't have the time. I am blind in one eye and going blind in the other. AND I'm 84 years old. I have a very limited time to continue presenting my counters to the atheistic nonsense one encounters. Dr. Bob

#171 8 JUL 2018

(Part 2.) A few IMPORTANT facts. In 1979, I was the first individual to mathematically model "supernatural" theological concepts. I called the subject "Mathematical Philosophy," where I defined it as "the mathematically modeling concept were previously considered as pure "philosophic" character." I founded this concept, I believe, and journal published its definition in 1983. I mention that in 1919 Russell used the term for what we call Mathematical Logic. There is a "large" group in Germany, MCMP, founded in 2010, that defines themselves as a Mathematical Philosophy group. They mention that they are interested in Mathematical Philosophy and using mathematics for what was once purely philosophic notions. This includes "religion." They have a large membership, etc. I can find no mention of me nor my work at their website. The discrimination, relative to my work in this area, is exceptionally great. I wonder why that can be.

I just completed a test with arxiv. I submitted a new "clean" article. Clean in the sense that it did not even elude to an application to any theological area. They have placed it in a category where it will not even be considered for presentation.

At this time, I won't go into the lies one hears about the so-called journal "peer-review" concept. To counter what is now the blatant discrimination by arxiv, a group in "England" formed the vixra.org archive that does not practice such discrimination. Thus far, they have only 24,400 papers there (compared to 1.4 million at arxiv) and because it is run by volunteers, and web companies donate server space, the costs, thus far, only come to about \$1500 a year (compared to \$850,000 at arxiv).

As one would expect, there is a certain amount of junk there. Also they have a category not used at arxiv, the Religious and Spiritualism category. (At present it contains about 138 articles.) Since I don't want to deceive anyone prior to them considering one of my papers, if I should even mention in one sentence in a paper how the stuff presented applies to theology, I place it in this category. Slightly over half of my, at present, 31 papers at vixra are in this category.

On the internet some call this the kook, crank or worst archive. Those that do this are trying to prevent you from going there. Actual intelligent researchers etc. do NOT determine the quality of a journal article, those at arxiv or from any source based where they appear. They base it upon the abstract presented and, when possible, the known reliability of the author. Although vixra has removed the two articles in question, do you think I would read an article, where the author is stated as "Jesus Christ"? It sure would be nice if actual "kooks" or "cranks" did not try to place articles there. Of course, what arxiv or others considered as a "kook" or "crank" need not be the case. Indeed, various individuals place me and maybe some of you in this category. Over heard at the "Stop the Kooks" conference. "We must stop all of those insane individuals who accept a Divine form of ID from communicating their insane notions. All forms of communication most be closed to them."

vixra.org is an Internet depository of articles, where you direct individuals to go and retrieve certain papers. You can do this two ways. You can take people to a page where your versions can be retrieved and the history of prior versions is presented. You can remove the actual prior versions if you wish. Or you can take them directly to the pdf copy. So, where relative "to physical scientific," is freedom of speak actually allowed? Dr. Bob

#172 8 JUL 2018

I would not be surprised that I will be banned from facebook for "hate" speech. My use of the word "liars" when it refers to atheist statements. It may come through a "complaint" since my banning from axiv was actually caused by some "powerful" individual complaining about my articles relative to GID. Dr. Bob

#173 9 JUL 2018

Before I continue, I most say that the teaching, so-called, of "mathematics" is rather inferior, as are the books out of which people are taught. They do not properly differentiate between "mathematics" as a subject and "applied mathematics and modeling" as separate subjects. I have an Algebra 2 text, where in the problems 75 percent are all applied math. and there is no strong indication that there is a difference between the math. manipulation rules and the applications.

Newton was a coward. In his "wast basket," as it was called, he actually did mathematics, but he said that he would not use his method for his Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica. He instead redid his mathematics in terms of geometry, a model. I believe he wrote that he did this so that his work could be "read" and accepted by others. Using this approach, actual mathematics was delayed for hundreds of years. Here is an example of his actual mathematics.

I quote "Or diving it by o it is

3px^2 +3p^2ox + p^3o^2 -2dqy - dq^2 -apb = 0.

Also those terms are infinitely small in which o is. Therefore omitting them there results

3px^2 - apb - dq^2 = 0."

The last phrase is his "little" o algebraic rule. A small amount of such Newton material appears in my book on infinitesimal modeling. Unfortunately, many years later it was discovered that his rules lead to contradictions.

Mathematical Logic reverses the math. to interpretation progression. It starts with linguistics and the rules for rational deduction. It then mathematical models them. That is, it corresponds certain linguistic expressions to mathematical symbolism. Then it applies the manipulation rules to these symbolic forms. It then follows that various results can be interpreted in terms of the original linguistic terms. BUT, I applied nonstandard analysis to the syntax and other stuff, other symbolic forms are predicted. (Robinson applied it to the semantics.) These forms are additional to the original linguistic forms being modeled. Then one returns to the original linguistic ideas that produce the model and describes these new results via a comparison with the original. It is a back-and-forth process.

When you construct a mathematical model, you need to know a lot about the stuff your modeling. Then as you proceed, you continue to kept in mind the stuff your modeling and to which you correspond the symbols. Do you want to see a paper that does not contain nonstandard analysis and does this? Please note that at no time do I state what the content may be for any "propositional variable" like "P" etc. Oh! may goodness, I do have a page about GID. It's in the general math and math logic categories at arxiv.

arxiv.org/abs/math/0603573

#174 11 JUL 2018

Prior to continuing with my previous notions, I modified the glossary(s) again in the hopes individuals can further understand the GID and GGU-models. A very long time ago, languages were developed so that we could communicate to others the behavior of the physical-systems we must navigate to survive. This is the absolute procedure used by physical-science; the corresponding of "descriptions" to physical-systems that do not themselves display such descriptions. When it comes to a our universe, it is rather obvious the we cannot express, in a complete linguistics form, detailed descriptions for all of the physical-systems of which ours is comprised. But, I have added to the glossaries the following fact. "Of great significance is that it is predicted that an higher-intelligence using a higher-language *L can, in a mental sense, "easily" describe all physical-systems and all necessary UWFF in complete detail." "Easily" as used in this statement comes from comparing the higher-intelligence notion of the hyper-finite with our notion of the finite. Dr. Bob

#175 11 JUL 2018

I indicated what a formal logic "well-formed formula" (wff) looked like last time. Well, I'll simply mention that to do the most basic modern nonstandard analysis one needs to do just as I did and write standard scientific and mathematical statements in such a form but a from of a very special type. You will see this in my papers and I won't do it here.

Anyway, in formal math. logic taught in a beginning course you also learn six processes employing such wwf that are needed in order to "deduce" other wff. Application of these processes yield what is termed as rationally deduced wwfs. BUT this is NOT how it is done for GID, which is deduction applied to ordinary general languages first purposed, in extremely general form as a "consequence operation (operator)" by Alford Tarski in about 1930-31 and my 1979 deductive process formation.

In the 1990s , I substituted for the deductive process, with its required special properties, the "logic-system" (also called "rules of inference). The first major journal publication applying them was in 2001. I showed that the more specific logic-system approach and Tarski's consequence operators are equivalent. This is still "deduction" but using ordinary general languages. Of course, this includes the formal wff language as well as image (icon) logic.

The logic-system approach only requires one to perform one process to obtain a "deduction. It's call the algorithm and applies to numerously many distinct forms of "deduction." It is a "search and compare and then choose process." Among the six formal logic procedures one may need to search among three different infinite sets for the wff that might allow a "proof" to yield a specific deduction.

For the GID and GGU-model's there is but one type of logic-system and one unique member of the system yields the general language deduction. However, this form of deduction produces an ordered deduction. AND, believe it or not, it uses the most basic form of linguistic deduction, the rule of detachment or modus ponens. That is from A, and if A, then B you, "deduce" B. The BIG difference is that it yields an ordered step-by-step deduction A, B, C, D, . . . of say the intertwining of the physical-systems that comprise a 3-D slice of our universe and then its step-by-step development. But this is "standard" physical-system deduction. When math. modeled and nonstandard analysis is applied rather remarkable things happen. Dr. Bob

#176 12 JUL 2018

My next posting after this one may help members of this group "understand" the mathematics I employ. But remember that that group of mathematicians and physicists at Princeton could not solve the General Grand Unification Problem using the "standard" math. taught to you today, then one might just possibly come to the conclusion that some other form of mathematics can do so.

It would be nice if this paper be could "fully" comprehend by a vast number members of this group. Via interpretation, some rationally obtained results are rather significance. It establishes absolutely that people who accept such material as there presented are not a bunch of irrational, ignorant, fools as claimed. But, since I first posted it in March of 2014, only 198 "individuals" have actually looked at it. Maybe, just maybe, its because it appears in the "crackpot" archive.

Here is the title and abstract. It location is below if your interested.

"Analysis of the Refined Details of the GGU-Model and an Application to Human Corporeal and Incorporeal Experiences.

Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.*

6 Mar. 2014. Revised 4 OCT 2015

Abstract: The GGU-model predicts physical and physical-like behavior. The premises can be considered as descriptions for directly observable physical events. Descriptions for physical events or objects are composed of elements taken from a general language and, as customary, are representations for the actual physical events or objects, respectively. The predictions yield all observable and describable physical events. Further, higher-forms of descriptions are predicted. These yield physical-like events, where the differences in linguistic behavior and descriptions for the terms employed signify differences in the behavior between the physical-like ultranatural events or objects being described and the original physical events or objects, respectively. After introducing the necessary terminology and concepts, in Section 5 of this paper, the corporeal physical-systems and events that correspond to the, generally described, human being are identified. Then a closely associated and predicted incorporeal physical-like system and events are interpreted. Of significance is the choice predicted existence of non-physical but physical-like “invisible” universes that have various applications including the modeling of statements that appear in Revelations." vixra.org/abs/1403.0036

#177 14 JUL 2018

(Some what long.) What is a "nonstandard" model? Take the basic (first-order) axioms for the real numbers. What are the "real numbers"? They can be "any" mathematically define entity that satisfies these axioms. Suppose you have a "set" of defined entities that do satisfy these axioms, a model, and you specify this set and call it the "standard model" for the axioms. But, there are other sets that also satisfy the axioms and are not in a one-to-one correspondence with the standard model. These are called "nonstandard models." (The one-to-one concept is defied on page 4 of an Algebra One book I have.) BUT, what might be in one of these "new" models?

Using the "compactness" theorem from first-order Math. Logic, in his 1966 Princeton University Press book, Non-standard Analysis, Abraham Robinson showed that a very specially defined Nonstandard Model exists. Well, not actually. What is proved is that the statement that "There exists such a model" is a rational conclusion. This is sufficient for the subject to be accepted as a valid subject for application to other disciplines. However, he switches to the "ultraproduct" construction that also requires the assumption that something exists and further highly generalizes all of this by switching to a formal language few on earth know about today. He uses a modified language of "types." Please don't ask me about this since it has not been used for many, many years.

BUT, even prior to his book, in 1962, W. A. J. Luxemburg of Cat. Tech. wrote a book, (formally published in 1973), generating a nonstandard model for analysis (i.e. the stuff that uses the real numbers), using "ring theory" and the above mentioned ultraproduct notion. This is a rather simple approach and is the one I use for my online 2003 book "Nonstandard Analysis - Simplified" that was used at Kobe University. But, it cannot be used for any other areas of math and physics as the method now employed.

When Robinson suggested to me that I write my Ph.D. dissertation in Nonstandard Analysis, I was going to apply it to General Topology. At that exact time, a non-type theory approach was presented that had a very strong relation to such areas as General Topology, among others. It is was at that time called "pseudo-set-theory." So, I used it. Got my Ph.D and even published about 8 papers using it. But, the method has long been dead.

In 1976, a new method, suggested by Robinson and Zakon in 1969, was formally presented in a book by Stroyan and Luxemburg, the superstructure approach, and that is the method that appears thereafter and I have re-written my book "Ultralogics and More" etc, in terms of the "final" (I hope) approach. Except for my Ph.D dissertation and those 8 publications, everything I present is in this form. BUT, it uses a modification of ZFC (what is that) set-theory. It's ZFC with atoms. Just a slight difference.

I have my book on Infinitesimal Modeling, which contains some of the elementary math. requirements and a simplification, at arxiv and probably a more recent version on my website. It contains no mention of the GID nor GGU-model, which also uses Nonstandard Analysis. Indeed, I would not have done so since USA tax money funded this book and it is "free" to all. It appears under the free books category on my website with apparently a few typo corrections that I made in 2014. Here is the arxiv version where these most have been slight corrections since I did not do so in this version. (I've only re-read this posting once. I hope its ok.)

arxiv.org/abs/math/0312432

#178 16 JUL 2018

In the very, very and I mean VERY significant paper I mentioned yesterday I write,

"I would like to emphasize the following facts. The GGU and General Intelligent Design (GID) models are neither based upon accepting hypotheses such as assuming the existence of higher-intelligence, the existence of higher-processes that generate a universe nor that, with one minor exception, the models relate in any manner to the Bible. The theological or higher-intelligence conclusions are interpretations based upon predictions and not upon unifiable [typo I will not correct. Of course, it's unverifiable.] assumptions. For the theological interpretation, these predictions are Biblically interpreted, in full elsewhere, and are shown to verify the rationality of Biblical statements. The concrete behavioral or other illustrations that appear in this article were not used to obtain the basic aspects of the models. They were all discovered after the basic mathematical model was constructed from 1979 - 83. Previously, the multi-complexity approach was utilized. This is no longer the case. The single-complexity is sufficient and somewhat more easily understood." I think I might alter this for another reason. the relate in "any manner" is not exactly what I should have written.

Starting on page 46, I begin my GID interpretation of the math. and a Biblical interpretation starts on page 55. This is my best simplified work in this area. It does not contain a bunch of technical stuff. And it has a rather general theological interpretation with Biblical references. The basic problem in applications of math to anything else is the word I have used say 100000 times, "interpretation." I have not done so yet but maybe I need to define this in my glossary. Without knowing what this terms means in math. modeling you know nothing about the subject. In this article, I use the term "interpretation(s)" 47 times.

There are two types of "interpretations" used within mathematics. One is the abstract interpretation, which, in a one-to-one manner (that term again), corresponds the appropriate members of a collection of "formal" first-order "sentences" to members of an abstract set. These abstract sets "model" the sentences and form the discipline called (Abstract) Model Theory. (There are such models for the "higher" formal languages as well if you know what "higher" means.)

BUT, the one that almost all members of this group have only seen is the mostly unqualified term "interpretation." This is, hopefully, a consistent one-to-one correspondence between the "abstract" math. symbols and terms taken from a distinctly different disciple. Unfortunately, most but not all math. used prior to say 1875 was, from its formation, interpreted in a distinct disciple language and a few of the terms used, in these old days, are still used for the "abstract" entity names. Thus, the confusion as to the notion of the interpretation.

But, then we have the "really big" problem as to what one accepts an "real" or "analogue." Did you know that the Big Bang can be considered as but an analogue model. I'll tell u about this next time. Dr. Bob

#179 17 JUL 2018

A while back, I read a paper that, via various processes, replaced the "Big Bang" with a different structure and by an alteration in the speed of light "in the beginning" the same evidence for the Big Bang is predicted. BUT, the authors stated that they were not intending a replacement for the Big Bang stuff, but they were simply intending to showing that there is yet another possible cosmology. They are not the only ones who have proposed physical alternatives. This shows, as usual, that a choice of models in "modern" science is more likely relative to ones philosophic, political, or economic requirements. Most certainly, it is related to ones standing within a science-community. Indeed, the awards given to the late Robert Herman and Alpher, of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab., would need to be returned if the Big Bang is rejected.

Then we have what I have been writing about for 1000 years. Well, maybe not that long.

ANALOGUE MODEL. For physical or other types of defined entities and behavior, analogue models use various techniques to represent such entities, via distinctly different objects, and to rationally model behavior that mimics the behavior of the entities. Most often, an analogue model uses unobservable entities or unobservable behavior to predict behavior of observable entities, behavior we cannot otherwise comprehend.

There are absolute positivists who are actually members of well-known science-communities, who personally do not accept unobservables as real physical stuff. They don't tell those that pay them this fact. They don't accept classical quantum fields nor anything thing that one might claim is "below" them. Then there are partial positivists. Due to the GGU-model, I'm kinda one of them.

Our use of computers and "modern" math. have actually greatly reduced the previous wide spread use of an historically significant analogue model. Around the middle of the 1600s, Newton introduced the notion of "vector" addition, via little line segments and then sometime after someone made them into little arrows. They give a geometric picture that one uses to combine various directed imputes and, as an example, measures the speed and relative position of moving objects. The same approach applies to combinations of directed "forces." Truly a remarkable "analogue" model used for how long for navigation, construction etc. I used them in the engineering courses I took in the early 1950s.

I'm not sure what I'll post next. Since the middle of Dec. 2017, I've made 178 postings and almost all are about GID or the GGU-models. Maybe, there is more that I can "say." We do have new members and there are those who have actually started to look at my posts. Dr. Bob

#180 18 JUL 2018

By-the-way, originally Abraham Robinson was not a logician. Indeed, during WWII in London, he helped develop the first faster than sound aircraft wing. His book on wing theory was well-known. Of course, that all changed later. Unfortunately, Robinson died in 1974, well before my 1978 application of NSA to general languages.

After I constructed the GID-model, I discovered a paper published by Robinson in the "very well-know" journal The Nagoya Math. J. (1963), 83-117. In it, he considers "formal languages," such as (y)(P(x) -> Q(x)), and that one needs to assume that there is a set U (of a "size greater than the size of the real numbers). He states "Suppose that distinct symbols have been assigned to all individuals of U . . . ." U is defined as the set of individuals. A physicist might claim "that's impossible since there is no such 'physical' set of symbols." But, what he is writing about is the notion of a "model" since it is specific to a "language." Thus, we can use our alphabet symbols, such as b, to "represent" a member of U. I tend to overuse the term "represent" so that no confusion occurs. Indeed, Robinson then uses the abstract compactness theorem to state that a particular statement K is consistent and, hence, "possesses a model [nonstandard] , say U'. U' is a proper extension of U' for it contains 'a' (or an element denoted by 'a') . . . ." and 'a' is different from the elements of" (the stuff in U.) My 'a' denotes an italicized a in the paper.

Thus, for formal languages, he uses what one may consider as members of U to denote members not in U. But, what else can he or I do? What I do is to specifically "show" in my book on The Theory of Ultralogics that there are sentences in *L that contain one missing "symbol" that cannot be literally filled by a symbol from L. But, I do so by stating that I will use a Greek alphabet symbol to "represent " this missing symbol. Indeed, in this model, the symbols we use today for the Robinson infinitesimals and infinite numbers are considered to be symbols in *L that are not in L. Of course, in books etc. that might use these Robinson ideas and do not model a general language or the like this distinction is not made.

So, even if I don't state it, from the notion of a "model" for something, this "symbol stuff" is supposed to be understood. Clearly comprehending this idea may help one to better grasp the concepts I am modeling. Thus, when, in my writings, one sees the statement "b in *L - L," then I have applied the symbolic "representation" notion. Dr. Bob

#181 19 JUL 2018

"Do I need to know any significant math. to comprehend the GID-model and its applications?" NO, NO, NO. Like you do for other individuals, in various disciplines, who have the training and have demonstrated their expertise via publications accepted by their "peers," you can often follow other more common language statements used to model the mathematics.

As far as I can at present tell from reading many of the contributions to this group, rather few individuals have actually paid much attention to what I present. I suppose they start by assuming, incorrectly, that it will be "over their heads" so to speak.

On Feb 1, Dianne Patti posted a paper of mine to the files. Unfortunately, the structure of the paper was altered so it was not as easily followed as the original. This paper shows how to make various term substitutions to my predicted GID-model results and all of the statements are scientifically rational statements. Other "scientific" theories can also be altered in this manner. But, atheists do all they can do to persecute those that do so.

I will soon place this copy in the files. Now let's see if you can actually get to it directly. I have a short glossary which is probably out of date, so start with section 2. Dr. Bob

vixra.org/pdf/1406.0048v3.pdf

#182 21 JUL 2018

"Genesis 1 is irrational. Nothing can just suddenly appear nor physically change suddenly." Do you know a lot about the calculus? "Of course, I use it all the time to calculate behavior in the physics courses I teach." Can you show me actual evidence that any physical behavior actually exists that "changes" continuously in the calculus sense? "Well, let's see hummmmm. I have to think about that for a while." Why would it take much thinking? Is it not so that neither we nor our machines can actually perceive any physical behavior accept in small steps. Many, many years ago, I fired hundreds and hundreds of bullets, but I never "saw" their flight paths. Of course, that does not stop a physicist's imagination does it?

The Complete GGU-model states otherwise. The notion that Genesis 1 is nothing but an allegorical description came, I suspect at least by inference, many, many years after it was transcribed, say about 1400 BC. I have many direct quotations, starting in the middle 1700s, that assert it is irrational. But, it took 3380 years before it could be absolutely established that such behavior is scientifically rational. The Sun. Moon, the stars, the various animals are so formed. But how was man formed?

The most ancient manuscripts state "And forming is Ieue Alueim the human from soil from the ground and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is human a living soul." The term "soul" is also used for the other living creatures, the only difference is the "blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living." Hence, I accept that man was almost, shall we say, completely formed in the same manner as the other animals. So, for consistency, I assume prior to the final step, that man was formed suddenly in mature but, not yet, in complete functional form. However, all of these actions are designed via GID and GGU-model producible since they are describable. Hence, these actions are not irrational, and, indeed, satisfy the scientific methods employed for physical cosmology. As I pointed out previously, the method I use is even stronger than the usual one employed within physical cosmology.

Thus, it seems to me that there is actually little reason for the Christian community not to accept the Genesis 1 commonly understood creation statements as being factual. Dr. Bob

#183 24 JUL 2018

Before I attempt to describe a major aspect of the GID-model, here is an article some in this group might find interesting. It does have significance for the creationary Compete GGU-model and the most basic description for its theological interpretation.

raherrmann.com/nothing.htm

#184 27 JUL 2018

The once most powerful argument against any form of intelligent design was quantum physics. Of course, the vast majority of these who have even a slight knowledge of this subject still believe the assumptions that "random" or "independent" behavior is a necessary requirement although such notions are philosophic and not scientifically verifiable. This comes from the false claim that probabilistic behavior is not deterministic or designed.

One of the most significant papers I have ever written discusses, in part, a major mathematical result I obtained and journal published in 2001. I then, later in 2001, journal published two corrections and then placed it on arxiv.org. These results, at the least, need to be known by any individual who has ever heard about this subject.

This highly significant paper that employs the 2001 results appears on the vixra.org archive. Since Oct 2015, it has been download from there 135 times.

So, here it is, maybe

raherrmann.com/mindom.pdf

#185 27 JUL 2018
In 1999, I published a paper in the CRS Quarterly, "Information Theory, Consequence Operators, and the Origin of Life." CRSQ 36(3)(1999):123-132. Here is the abstract.

"In this article, the Gitt (1997) concept of information as it is represented by a mental-like sequence of activities is compared with the mental activity represented by consequence operators. It is shown how consequence operators model mathematically these Gitt notions and how a specific ultralogic and four ultrawords yield an identical foundation for Gitt's information theory scenario for the origin of life. Consequence operator theory, as a model for Gitt information theory, is used to establish that, relative to this model and without external modification to the processes, it is not possible, using fixed pragmatic information, to increase or decrease the complexity of a biological entity by selecting from two distinct independently produced biological entities as these entities are characterized at the apobetic level. This signifies that if random mutations are random alterations in the characteristics of a biological entity that are, necessarily, not dependent upon the original biological characteristics, then this model would tend to disallow random mutations as a viable source for biological alterations. On the other hand, for fixed pragmatic information, an increase or decrease in complexity by selecting from two distinct apobetic level biological entities is possible if a very special dependency exists between their characteristics. Further, complexity can also be increased by applying the semantic level consequence operator to an increased portion of the information contained within the genetic code in the DNA, information that exists originally."

Of course, you need to see his basic book for the definitions of his terms I use in this article. Dr. Bob

#185 28 JUL 2018

Nonstandard Analysis (NSA) establishes one of the most significant results for the benefit of humankind. It establishes the rationality of "supernatural" Biblical concepts. Is this "really" important? Yes. It destroys the atheists apposing statements, statements that I personally know drive many, many individuals aware from considering Biblical concepts as either factual or, at the least, significant. The atheists do this via our godless education system, a claimed godless physical science, and the godless media. Only one media article has appeared relative to GID. It was many, many years ago in the Birmingham Alabama, Birmingham News.

What do I continue to read or hear, "Professor, what about intelligent design?" His answer is "Don't consider it. It's pure anti-science garbage put forth by a very ignorant group of individuals." And this is one of the nicer things stated about this subject. We can discuss ID, as long as we stay in a group like this and don't propagate the facts elsewhere. Of course, it is also useful if NSA is not taught in any of our colleges. It doesn't matter that it eliminates the irrational aspects of the Special Theory of Relativity and, hence, the General Theory.

Do people actually trust the Discovery Channel or its many sister channels, when they present their "physical-science" programs? Of course, they do. Do these programs present the mathematics that is strongly associated with the material they present? NO. They use numerously many common terms and illustrations. The same approach can be done for GID and the GGU-model. AND, it is done in many of my papers.

As for NSA, I'll discuss next time the fact that it is not a substitute for the "standard" math as taught, today, throughout the world. Dr. Bob

#186 29 JUL 2018

Nonstandard Analysis i(NSA) is not a replacement for the standard math that has existed prior to its introduction, in say 1966. It is an an extension of most standard math that can be expressed (translated) into a formal first-order language with constants. For example, here is such a translation where the constant N corresponds to the natural numbers, and R to the real numbers. I need use the word "in" to signify a "member of" as will as an old symbol for the idea of "for each."

(x)((x in N) -> (x in R)) "For each x, if x is a member of N, then x is a member of R."

There have been various nonstandard structures used. My book on "Nonstandard Analysis Simplified" does not use the most general one I use for the GD, GID and GGU-models. This book does not need an additional background in abstract model theory. Oh! By-the-way, some members of this group might know that if you express natural number properties by only using a first-order language like above, you can't express the complete set of all informal natural number properties. (First-order means that you only quantify "the ( )" over variables.) In particular, a more complete "induction" axiom. If you use a "higher-order" language to correct this, it turns out that there are no NS-models for such an object.

The important thing about the models used is that they ultimately generate new mathematical objects such as the infinitesimal and infinite numbers for analysis, and for me ultrawords, ultralogics etc. It often takes some effort to find the "new the stuff properties."

But what is necessary is that to apply NSA one needs a considerable amount of knowledge about the standard mathematics to which one wishes to apply NSA. This is so since the approach now used employs the notion of the "standard" concurrent relation (which I need not defined here) AND, significantly, the standard model is a "submodel" of structure used to house the NSA model. The above formal and, hence, informal statement transforms into

(x)((x in *N) -> (x in *R)) "For each x, if x is a member of *N, then x is a member of *R." But, what are the properties of the hyper-natural numbers *N and hyper-reals *R? This is where the real work comes in. I'll, at the least, next give one more of these instructional postings and discuss some of these properties. Dr. Bob.

#187 31 JUL 2018

(Rather long.) The most successful model for the measurement of physical behavior is the calculus. It was a model based upon a simplified geometry and the behavior of the "infinitesimals." Planck wrote in his books on mechanics that complex behavior is measured by an infinite sum of infinitesimals. But, these ideas were destroyed by the introduction of the "limit" notation and such things like the Riemann sum. So let's now solve the three hundred year old problem of the "infinitely" small and "infinitely" large numbers of Newton and Leibniz (N-L). BUT, the full math. that does this is just a little to advanced to discuss here.

Last time on the subject, I indicated how the modern NSA approach predicts the set of hyper-real numbers *R. But what are their properties. I have an algebra 2 book that lists the axioms for a "complete" field. The real numbers is such an entity. The real numbers R is a subset of *R. *R has the basic simply order < you are use and the ordinary arithmetic. BUT, this order for *R does not satisfy the "completeness property," while the subset R does satisfy it. (You don't need to know what "completeness" means.)

Now it was shown that if you remove the set R from *R, you get an "enormous" set of "numbers" often denoted by *R - R. There are members # of *R - R such that 0 < #. Now consider ANY real number r in R. Then r < #. For this reason, these # are called the "infinite" numbers, the N-L "infinitely large" numbers. Now for any r such that 0 < r, consider 1/r. Then 0 < 1/r < #. Hence, 0 < 1/# < r. But r is ANY positive real number. Now let # vary over all such infinite numbers. The set of all such 1/# is the set of "infinitely small" positive N-L numbers, which we now call the positive infinitesimals. AND, each one is < any positive r. You also have the negative ones, greater than any negative r) and there is also the zero. This forms the entire set of infinitesimals m(0). Now take a real number r and add each infinitesimal to it.This gives the set m(r), a monad, which contains r. The m(0) is one of these. Finally, the combined set of all monads (the union) is the set of finite numbers. But what is their algebra?

By considering what happens with the < order objects under addition and multiplication, one gets that the finite sum and finite product of infinitesimals is an infinitesimal. Using this you show that the finite sum and finite product of the finite numbers is a finite number. The set contains 1 and 0. Such an object in algebra is called a "ring." Notice that r^(1/3) is a real number for positive r. And r^(2/3) = r^(1/3) x r^(1/3).

AND very, very significant is the fact that the product of an infinitesimal with a finite number is an infinitesimal. It, so-to-speak, absorbs them. These are the properties N-L needed for their use of the m(0), where they used but the r. Now do you want to know the exact name for such an algebra? No. Well I'll give it to you anyway. The set m(0) forms a "maximal ideal in the ring of finite numbers" and solves the 300 year old problem of N-L. So now by simply instruct individuals in the simple algebra, we can go back and express the Calculus as it should be and actually read the writings of Euler, one of the foremost mathematicians of all time. But then today we have even more significant GID-model. Dr. Bob.

#188 1 AUG 2018

Godel stated that if one can mathematically characterize a concept and remove quantifiers it would be a major achievement.

(In all that follows, for simplicity, all that is considered are positive entities. But, there are corresponding negative ones and all the results here stated have corresponding results for the members of *R < 0.)

I now call a certain set of numbers in the hyperreals *R, the finite numbers as done by Robinson. They are also called the limited numbers. An f in *R is finite if there is a natural number n such that f < n. And a member # in *R is infinite if for EVERY n in N (the natural numbers), n < #. An e in *R is an infinitesimal if for EVERY n in N, e < 1/n. Due to a special property of *R that states that there are members of *R > any natural number, it can be shown that finite, infinite and infinitesimals numbers exist in *R.

It follows immediately that a member e in *R is an infinitesimal if and only if 1/e is infinite. Let m(0) denote the infinitesimals. Assume r in R (the reals R form a subset of *R) and let e be an infinitesimal. Then er is an infinitesimal. For assume not. Then there is an n in N such that er >= 1/n or e >= 1/(nr). But 1/(nr) is a real number and, hence, the Archimedian property of R states that there exists an m in N such that m > rn => 1/(nr) > 1/m. Hence, e > 1/m; a contradiction. Thus, er is in m(0). Also this implies that the finite sum of members of m(0) are in m(0). This is the major concept of the "ideal" in ring theory.

Now consider r in R, then r + e < r', for any r' in R such that r < r'. Assume not. Then r + e >= r' implies that e >= r'-r >0. But, r'-r is in R. Hence, again there is an m in N such that r - r' > 1/m. Thus, e > 1/m; a contradiction. Hence, adding an infinitesimal to a real number does not get us the "next" real number, so to speak. Assume we have shown all of this for the negative entities.

As before, for each r in R define a monad m(r) as the set obtained by adding each infinitesimal to r. Monads are subsets of the finite numbers, but to show that each finite number is in a monad is much more difficult. (It's in my book on Infinitesimal Modeling.) Anyway, when this is done, we get that the monds are disjoint and their combination (union) equals the finite numbers. So, what does this do for us?

In real analysis, you have the two quantifier definition for a continuous function f. For a real number open interval say from 1 to 10 = (1,10) = {r|(r in R)&(1 < r < 10)}, one shows in NSA that any real valued function f defined on (1,10) is continuous at any p in (1,10) if and only if *f(m(p)) subset m(f(p)). Since there are not quantifiers, I guess this is a very major achievement.

I will again correct various incorrect statements being made in this groups posting. They refer to faulty logic or only to standard math, if that, and not to NSA. (I wonder did this 84 year old make any errors above?) Dr. Bob.

#189 2 AUG 2018
(Rather significant.) I mention that each of my postings go to two ID groups. But, my comments only go to a specific group. Thus, one group may have a little more information than another. So, at times, I do repeat stuff I may have discussed in a comment for a group different from this one. But some of my recent comments are needed to discuss what I will now present.

A creed for the totally committed, closed minded, members of an atheistic science community, as some have stated it, is "We now or will soon know all the rationally stated physical laws that govern every aspect of behavior for any entity that exists." By "know" they mean "rationally stated descriptions" of some sort that can be communicated to others. I suppose this includes the analogue models, if necessary. Today, many of the most important entities they claim exist cannot be directly detected. This does not matter since they still accept them as existing. Thus, if there exists a description for a "claimed" entity that states either directly or by implication that we cannot describe all of its behavior, then, in order to avoid a direct contradiction of this creed, these individuals most conclude that such an entity does not exist.

The Biblical God states that we cannot "comprehend" all of His thoughts, nor all of His "ways." Paul also states that we do not "know" fully. Thus, to such atheists, such a God does not exist. And often they also claim that those who accept its existence are "irrational" in their pronouncements, or even insane. However, using the methods accepted by such atheists there is a mathematical model that shows that such Biblical statements are scientifically rational and all of the entities and behaviors these atheists accept are a direct result of this entities behavior. Obviously, they must find ways to eliminate these findings. They and the Adversary appear to have done just that and I'll discuss this later.

One reason members of this group don't comprehend stuff I present is that the mathematics has been removed form our educational systems. I wonder why? So, I need to present a little of it to this group. For the GID and GGU-models the step-by-step design and production of a universe is modeled by various types of sequences that are based up the natural numbers N, with or without the 0, and the integers Z = {. . ., -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, . . .}, as defined in one of my books and in another book the + symbols don't appear and the symbols identify these as the natural numbers. But the natural numbers do have an arithmetic and the + corresponds to the one operator "addition." Or one can think of +1 as 0 + 1, etc. Then what is HIGHLY important is the simple order < for N and Z. It has three basic properties and it uses all members of N and Z.

In the nonstandard model, the sets of entities, the hypernaturals *N, hyperintegers *Z and an hyperorder *< are predicted. Now, usually, N is considered a subset of *N and Z a subset of *Z. Then the next thing done is that the * is dropped from the *<, which has the three basic simple order properties, and what was once the < for N and Z is but the restriction of the once *< to these sets. (This is actually a necessary requirement under this symbolic convention. And doing it this way is acceptable mathematically.) But before the real fun begins, you might ask "Is this necessary?" Yes, since I have indexed the standard representations for the step-by-step GID-designs and GGU-model instruction-entities in terms of the integers and natural numbers. It is to these sequences to which the intelligent actions are applied. AND, this actually leads to properties that we cannot fully describe.

Now the real fun begins. Depending upon how much you know about N, you might be rather surprised as to the properties of *N and even portions of *Z. I'll present these in the next posting, which I would like to present today, my time. Dr. Bob.

#190 3 AUG 2018

(Part 1.) What I'm attempting to do is to "explain" how GID predicts a specific counter to the atheists creed and rationally satisfies Biblical statements.

I mention that various standard math courses employ an "extension" of the real numbers and the complex number coordinate "plane" by adding the lazy-eight symbol + -oo as a type of "number" with various properties. When I use the term "infinite" number, this is NOT such an +-oo idea.

The Archimedian property for the reals states that for any real number r in R there exists a natural number n in N such that r < n. The predicted nonstandard reals *R are shown to be non-Archimedian and this is used to establish that there exists the entities called the infinitesimals, infinite (unlimited) numbers and something we won't need the finite (limited) numbers all of which are in *R.

A number # is an infinite number if and only if 1/# is an infinitesimal. The predicted extensions (supersets) of the natural numbers *N and the integers *Z contain infinite numbers, but not all of them. In these cases, an infinite number # in *N has the property that n < # for any n in N, an infinite number #' in *Z has the property that for any q in Z, either q < #' or #' < q. The simple order < is that of *N and *Z, which when restricted to N and Z it is the usual one you have employed.

For the GID and GGU-models, a sequence of 3-D slices of a universe, the UWFF, are employed. I use what is called a "double" sequence, not denoted in the usual sense by f(i), but by f(i,j), where i varies over the integers and j over the natural numbers. Such a sequence takes two such numbers, such as i = -2 and j =10, and yields a "description" f(-2,10) or a set of instructions both taken from a general language L. I only use increasing long "finite sequences," that is the i varies over a finite set of ordered integers and the j over a finite set of order natural numbers. These are called partial sequences. Thus, only the rather comprehensible finite is employed. But what is predicted is rather more complex.

Now in all four types of universes, in measurable time, no beginning and an ending, no beginning and no ending, a beginning and no ending, a beginning and an ending, predicted higher-intelligence actions, for the no beginning case, yield an actual atemporal beginning denoted by an index number for a negative infinite integer, say -#. For the no ending, it is a positive infinite number # integer and, in ALL cases of the varying indexes i, whether a finite or infinite temporal or atemportal beginning, there are predicted hyperslices, the *UWFF, where, for fixed i, the last one in the < order is an hyper-slice denoted by an infinite natural number, such as ##, for the j index.

In the next posing, I'll discuss why the j = ## rationally establishes, at the least, that there are higher-intelligence actions that are not humanly describable. Moreover these *UWFF can be exceptionally significant. Dr. Bob

#191 5 AUG 2018

(Part 2.) I point out that GID is a MODEL. It is a model for the complete human general language L as it continues to develop. Every symbol and statement I write is in L. On the other hand, there are infinitely many entities in *L that are not in L. "Wait a moment. You just wrote *L. Is this symbol in L?" Yes. "There is something wrong here. Is this not a nonstandard entity. Should it not be a symbol in *L - L?" No. "Why not?" Because this is a MODEL. The symbol *L, REPRESENTS an entity with properties similar to L. All the symbols we use to discuss stuff in *L - L, are in L. And, as a model, they simply represent stuff in *L - L. "Can you show that it is rational to state that there are members of *L not in L?" Yes. But whether I am referring to the abstract math entity or the symbol for it, I do not continually write a symbol is a "representation" for a member of *L - L. In math logic, I and others do employ two symbolic forms, say the constant a in our formal language and then a' for its name in an abstract model.

I'll show the result for *N -N, where the set (*N - N) subset (*L - L). First, the symbols we use for the natural numbers in N are in L. In my book "The Theory of Ultralogics," I have expressed informally a set of statements about a physical object that, according to the physical law employed, has a continuous energy spectrum. In those statements, I include the symbol n' for a natural number n. Mathematically this set is a infinite set. I embed this set into the standard part of the structure I use. Then upon transferring the set to the nonstandard portion, we are able to go backwards to the standard structure and see what happens. When this is done, there are new statements obtained that contain one and only one missing symbol. The missing symbol would go into the form 1/?, where the unknown symbol(?) is a member of *N - N. By analyzing *N, it is found that each member of *N - N, which we know is nonempty, satisfies the definition for an infinite number. So, for these postings I have selected a symbol from L, the #, as a representation for the missing symbol. But, this gives us the comprehensible statement in *L -L, that there is an infinitesimal number that satisfies the actual notion for "energy." And in many, many other cases we can write humanly comprehensible properties about the *N, the *R and the *L itself by this "representation" technique.

I also show in my book that even the so-called "sudden" changes in quantum theory are not designed that way. They can be attributed to designed hyper-continuous "physical laws," which when restricted to our world appear to be sudden changes via the GID and GGU-model for universe development. I point out that the "infinitesimal calculus" is used, as a model, for Nobel Prize winning results in quantum physics.

In the next posting, part 3, I show, for the GID and GGU-models, that for *N there are no known members of L that can fully express a basic property, which we know exists, for the GID nor for the GGU-model. Dr. Bob.

#191 6 AUG 2018

(Part 3.) It seems that I need to add, to say my glossary definition for GID-design, the fact about how we need to use members of L as representatives for the unknown members of *L. I point out that although we cannot actually fully express various members of *L, they are infinitely long, we can express via representations various properties. I don't think I need to continually state that the symbol *L and something like # in *L are taken from L. When the language is being discuss, this should always be assumed. The major entities in *L - L are the "infinitely long" word forms A, If A, then B, If B, then C, . . . Now these most all be in *L - L due to the type of "infinite" involved. In his 1963 paper on nonstandard syntax for a formal language, Robinson mentions the "infinitely long" formal expressions in his extended language L' - L. He uses a different nonstandard model than the one used today. For the one I use, the "infinite" evolved has been shown to be, shall we say, larger than any such notion used anywhere in modern standard mathematical analysis and, hence, physical science.

For a fixed integer i, using but finitely long such word forms, applying the "deduction rule" to such a word yields, as modeled by the index names used for each UWFF descriptions, the UWFFs f(i,0), f(i,1), . . . ,f(i,n) in the indicated order. When embedded into the NS-model, it is predicted that there are infinitely long extensions of this "word" in *L - L, where the last index name is an infinite number in *N - N, which is a subset of *L - L. Symbolically, one can write this as f(i,0), f(i,1),. . .,*f(i,#). The notion of a step-by-step formation has a model in L and this extends to its higher-form in *L.

Now comes the fun. What happens when we attempt to analyze this "hyperfinite" sequence of UWFFs? It satisfies, for *N, all of the possible first-order statements about finite stuff. BUT, this is only if we restrict the language. If we analysis this sequence more deeply, then what is discover is that, since we are not a higher intelligence, the actual step-by-step generation of the entire sequence cannot be fully expressed in L, the language we must use. I mention that various UWFF can be empty. Anyway, the j indexed UWFF (the f(i,j)) vary during a very small observer-time period. The next one after the *f(i,#) is f(i+1,0). Also ALL of the members of N are "first" used. That is, as n varies over all elements of N, you get UWFF f(i,n) in "n" index order < and each such n < #. Then what happens "next" from the L language viewpoint?

The L language states that it can't describe what happens next. Let's see what happens if we use L and assume that the set of all infinite #' < # has a "first" < element ##. We know that any non-empty subset of N has such a first element in N. But if ## is a first infinite number in the sequence that leads up to #, then since the immediate prodecessor ##^- < ## is some natural number m for there are not other possibilities. That is, m = ##^-. Or that m + 1 = ##. This is a contradiction since ## is an infinite number. There appears no why that we can describe "how" the higher-intelligence actually performs this step-by-step task using L. BUT, the math theory T itself has a higher-language extension, where *T subset of *L. And there is an higher-language description in *T - T for its extended step-by-step procedure. One might call *T truly a "higher-math." So as promised, all of the above behavior for a higher-intelligence is rationally predicted, behavior that we can not emulate nor fully describe. I guess its like looking through a "dirty window." Dr. Bob.

#192 9 AUG 2018

Please read at least paragraph 1. I know my last three posting may seem, to some, as rather technical. This one is not of that exact same type. But, first, I repeat for the ? time, what some members of this group appear not to know. Today, the GID and GGU-models are based upon OBSERVABLE data. The non-math axioms are observed aspects of human behavior. How we construct material objects. And this satisfies a Genesis 1 statement. I have on my website examples of the exact modes of behavior being modeled. These are mathematically modeled and the "higher" forms are predicted and interpreted by modifying the standard terms that describe our behavior.

I've been doing mathematics and related stuff for 67 years. Maybe, just maybe, I might know what I'm writing about. In various books in math, you are not told the actual facts. When Cantor invented set theory, he used an informal way of defining sets of entities. In some cases, such an approach will lead to logical contradictions as pointed out by B. Russell. This has led to all the stuff you might see dealing with "formal" ways to describe the informal.

HOWEVER, the Cantor way is the actual way sets are defined when applied to anything outside of formal set theory. Although the formal stuff is significant for purely symbolic mathematics, the informal is still and will remain "king of the hill." Sorry Russell. You loose. I have written the symbol N for the "natural" numbers, the numbers we count with. What are they?

In 1879, Dedekind wrote 5 informal axioms for N. He calls these the Peano Postulates. They are written informally, not a form containing such symbols as (x)(P(x)). Now, these axioms are what are used to define entities within math. logic. But, authors don't mention this; they just use them. Godel with Rosser used them informally to established and prove that there is a "trivial formal" statement that one cannot "formally" prove using any consistent and useful "formal" axiom system for them. But, no first-order formal axiom system can reproduce all of Peano Axiom 5, the induction axiom. This means that the actual "working" mathematician needs to be careful when informally defining sets.

In NSA, we most use stuff that is formailzable in a "first-order" language. The reason for this is that if we try to do formally better than this we get a formal N but there are no nonstandard models for this, no *N different from N. Other things that are usually not discussed in great detail accept maybe by me, how is it that I write the natural numbers N a subset of integers Z, a subset of the real numbers R? Is this actually correct? This is not necessary easy to establish. But from the myopic view this would depend upon how you "formally" define them. But NSA books, maybe not mine, simply state this N, Z, R relation. But, they call members of the set N individuals or urelements or atoms. Individual atoms are NOT sets. And if r in N, then it has no formal meaning to write that there is an b such that b in r. So we simply don't do it. These terms apply today to almost all of the known ways that produce nonstandard entities. You will simply see writers let the natural numbers N be such a "special" set. They don't define the other modeled properties of such an N. These are all the ordinary properties, but not axiom 5 the N in the model, that you are suppose to known.

This is the confusion. There is a set, also denote by N, used to "define" and present the material in math logic and model theory. This satisfies the full peano axiom 5. It has the others properties, however. For example, you will see the collection of predict symbols define as P_1(x), P_2(x), . . . and often the full induction axiom 5 is used as well.

And, to actually do the simplest part of NSA, you first write stuff informally. Then if you want some information about the predicted nonstandard entities, you first need to formally express the informal or, at the least, "know" that this can be done. So, one might state that the natural numbers N form a subset of the reals. You use the predicates P(x) = x in N and Q(x) = x in R. Then write (x)((x in N) -> (x in R)). This translates "For each x, if x in N, then x in R.) Since only "sets" are so related, then it is to be "understood" that x is restricted to "sets." But then the real work begins.

There is a "customary" notation, that does not actually tell the facts. It is not true that as I have presented it that the actual N is a subset of *N. What is a natural number? For us, it is any set that satisfies all but axiom 5. The actual set in the nonstandard model that is used for the natural numbers should be denoted by ^(sigma)N. But for the basic objects we drop the superscript. This set does not have atoms. Its members are things called equivalence classes. Thus when one sees N subset *N one means this other thing. And in this case it does have meaning to write N subset of *N. Dr. Bob

#193 11 AUG 2018

I have been out of action for the past few days. Axiomatically set-theory, informally stated, was introduced as a basis for mathematical logic in 1930 by Alfred Tarski. (You might check him out.) In all the modern textbooks of which I am aware, you have the sets of variables, constants, predicts, propositions and well-formed formula (wff). Then you have relations between these. You have measures of the lengths of the such wff. The notion of the "model" for a formal language is defined by set-theory. The "rules of inference," which are informal rules we need to follow to "deduce stuff," are modeled by set-theoretic n-tuples, where the coordinates are actual wff or members of an informal language. All of these sets are informally defined. GID and the GGU-model employs informal-set theory and defines sets using informal descriptions. However, I did not originally do the theory of ultralogics that why. I used a natural number coding of the natural language, so mathematically it is part of the nonstandard theory of numbers. I have since altered this so as to correspond to Robinson's 1963 paper and shown how to drop the coding for each of the results I have previously obtained. The terms I use such as "language" L, "higher language" *L are rational "interpretations" for the original approach, since the number-theoretic entities "behavior" like members of a language etc. If one chooses, by dropping the coding, this all corresponds to a Robinson styled approach. And the terminology applies a little more directly. I have a paper at vixra that shows how to do this. Dr. Bob

\$193 12 AUG 2018

There is no question that many or even almost members of this group need to trust my interpretations of the mathematics. I have been spending time revising my BIG book on the subject of the nonstandard approach to general languages. It has all of the "modeling" methods I use for all of my articles in this subject. I have replaced the version in the files with the revised version. BUT, you might be supersized to learn that, originally through a coding process, it is actually part of the nonstandard theory of real numbers. As the title states, the GID-MODEL It is a model for behavior. The mathematical entities behavior like the "interpreted" general language descriptions etc.

I have recently added to it the Robinson 1963 approach, where the actual language elements are considered from an set-theoretic viewpoint to also be members of the structure employed. I have shown, in a vixra article, that, by dropping one symbol, all that I have done, and still so do, satisfies the Robinson approach. This has taken a while due to an eye problem I have. Dr. Bob

#194 14 AUG 2018
I may be able to explain to many members of this group, by example, why the subject is called Nonstandard Analysis.

I will use the customary simplified notation. Consider the natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,. . .}. I'm sure you have used the "order" <; that is, that "0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < . . ." its properties N's arithmetic "1 + 2 = 3" etc., a lot. When these numbers, with their "natural" order are viewed from the nonstandard model employed another set *N and another order *< is predicted. The *< has the same "general" order properties as <. One can consider N and the order on N, <, as sets in this "model" Thus *<, when restricted to N, is the same as < and N is a subset of *N. So, it is customary to write *< as <. Now there is a collection of subsets of *N that behavior just like subsets of N. BUT, are there other subsets of *N that do not behavior like those of N?

Robinson discovered a method by which we can actually find a few of them. The order < has a special property. It has the "concurrency" property that I won't here define. Using this property, it is established that *N contains, at least, one member, #, not in N AND # has the property that if n is in N, then n < #. Thus # is one of those things, that, at last, for N, is an infinite number. But, it is also one for the real numbers R by a special real number property that, for any real number r, there is a member n in N such that r < n. Of course, for two members n and m of N, we have that n + m < #.

Now the set of all such infinite natural numbers does not behave like a subset of N. Any nonempty subset of N, say A, has a first element. This means that there is in A a number n, such that n < any other member, if any, in A. But, the set of infinite natural numbers does not have this property and this set is a subset of *N. This is actually rather easily to prove. Assume that ## is the first element in *N - N, the members of *N not members of N. Note that since 1 < ##, then 0 < ## - 1, and, hence, ## - 1 is in *N and there needs to be an m in N such that ## - 1 <= n, for if not, then ## - 1 is in *N - N and ## is not the first member. But then ## <= n + 1 in N; contradiction. Thus *N does not completely behavior like *N. Hence, *N is a nonstandard object.

Using today's form of this subject, it has been shown that there are a lot of these infinite numbers. This is because of the set-theoretic "size" of the nonstandard real numbers *R with respect to the "size" of R. Hence, for any infinite standard set M, if *M exists, then, at the least, from the set-theoretic "size" viewpoint, it has nonstandard behavior. Dr. Bob.

#195 18 AUG 2018

"Professor, that's not true. God is a scientifically rational concept." Why has this fact not been propagated throughout the world? Indeed, why haven't many of you done so? Why have students not demanded that they be instructed in the methods used to establish this? Do they teach this material at any Christian centered college or university?

"Well, Dr. Herrmann, we philosophers and theologians use a different form of rational discourse - dialectic styled arguments." But, what type of logical thinking do you use to apply a dialectic? The very last paper I was allowed to present on the arxiv.org archives shows that you "philosophers and theologians" actually use the standard form of logic employed by the major of the communities that identify themselves as "scientific" in character when you give your "dialectic" arguments.

Atheist controlled modes of mass distribution are being closed to me. Although they have not yet removed my arxiv.org articles, I can no longer present revisions. The atheistic scientific world doesn't seem concerned with the facts we present, as long as this information is limited to a closed group such as this. Based upon a series of court cases that have NO relation to GID, they reject ID claiming that it is not scientific in character. But, they cannot rationally counter GID. So, they simply use the broad brush approach to characterize ALL ID this way. YOU need to counter, outside of this group, the ID lies presented by such atheists.

YOU need to strongly differentiate between the court defined "false" science of the Discovery Institute's restricted ID (RID), where the notion of "intelligence" has no "scientific" model, and GID, which does. Simply note that GID yields the RID results but RID applies to a minuscule number of such GID-designs.

Have you seen or heard about GID, via you local newspaper, TV, radio? Why hasn't FOX news presented it? The Adversary controls a lot more of this world than one might believe "he" does. Dr. Bob.

#196 19 AUG 2018

Please consider this. At the very moment you read this, consider a single molecule of water in the Pacific Ocean. It is GID predicted that this molecule and its position relative to every entity within our universe is intelligently designed by a higher-intelligence. It is GID predicted that any alteration in its position, as our universe develops, is intelligently designed by an higher-intelligence. Now apply this same description to EVERY entity and physical-system within our universe. This is but one of the trillions and trillions of such intelligent pre-designs for this very moment since the position for this one molecule is being altered by human swimming near by. The intelligence splayed by this higher-intelligence can be compared with ours. It is infinitely stronger. Mathematically, this infinitely is "stronger than" any such notion used within physical-science.

This description should indicate why I do NOT want GID to be confused with the RID intelligent design notion put forth by members, past and present, of the Discovery Institute (DI).. Please do not associate me nor my name with DI in any manner accept to, maybe, indicate how different the display of GID intelligence from that supported by DI.

I have on my website the scientific method I use to obtain such predictions and how it compares with those used for the science of physical cosmology. Dr. Bob

#197 21 AUG 2018

Behe, one of the founders of Restricted ID (RID), wrote in his major book "Darwin's Black Box," that he has "no reason to doubt common descent." Dembski, the other founder, wrote that RID points to NO specific intelligence and, indeed, applies to "creation" by an "intelligent alien life-form." The original ID, General Intelligent Design (GID), indirectly establishes that all that physically exists, and a lot more, is created and produced by a higher-intelligence.

I am updating my website to include the following paper that compares GID and RID. I hope that this helps to eliminate the confusion.

See raherrmann.com/compare.htm

#197 25 AUG 2018

First, I repeat something I have written before. In 1974, under the direction of John A. Wheeler, a group of mathematicians and physicists at Princeton University attempted to solve what I have termed as the General Grand Unification Problem. This is NOT a Grand Unification Theory, which actually is supposed to unify all of physics under the banner of quantum physics. It is a "scientific" cosmology, one hopes. For four months, they attempted but failed to solve it. My investigation shows that they could not restrain themselves and would include some notion relative to their previous physical science knowledge, such as statistics and probability.

I have just rewritten my website article on the general methodology I employ, but I am not particularly specific. That all appears in my other articles.

One line I added is "In general, GGU-model systems need not correspond, in any manner, to what physical science defines as 'physical.' The actual GGU-model entities and processes do NOT correspond to any previously known physical entities and physical processes."

There are aspects of the GGU-model, such as propertons, that one should NOT attempt to visualize or even attempt to describe in even a quasi-physical sense. This is due to the prediction of a GID-model higher language, *L, and that the mathematical description for them includes members of this GID-model higher-language. As previously mentioned, in this particular case, we can use L members as "representations."

Thus, one needs to learn something totally new and distinct from their previous physical science knowledge. AND, for almost all members of this group, this includes the very standard mathematics to which you have been exposed, mathematics that, by definition, does not model the GID nor GGU entities nor processes. It's the standard mathematics that today corresponds to what is considered as standard physical behavior.

This is the methods article I have just modified.

raherrmann.com/method.htm

#198 28 AUG 2018

Some of the most important aspects of our daily lives were not considered as being designed prior to GID. Remember that we can ask questions as to why something is part of God's design, but an answer may require a higher language, like a Third Heaven language to fully explain linguistically. Such a language , *L, is predicted. Various fully committed atheist contend that they are the most intelligent entities that can ever exist. That there is nothing that they now or in the near future cannot fully comprehend about the actually workings of all aspects of our physical world. This includes our brains. But here is what has been predicted via the same mathematics that generates the GID and GGU-models. The processes discussed are distinct from those that produce the secular GGU-model. The following, from my viewpoint, is exceptionally significant. I will prepare a copy for this groups files.

See

raherrmann.com/influences.htm

#199 31 AUG 2018

(Rather long. Over two months ago, I mentioned just a miniscule amount of what follows.) In order to verify how dangerous intelligent design is to the atheist-community, consider the following: In 1995, an analysis was made of the published journal papers in the mathematical sciences. At that time, it was stated that I was in the top 2% of the 300,000 individuals through out the world who published 1.5 million journal articles. That was then, this is now.

Since my 1979 development of the General Intelligent Design (GID) Model, I published, in non-secular journals, 13 articles relative to the original form of GID and one book. Seven secular journal articles have GID applications, but I do not mention this in the articles. I used the original GID model as an analogue model for my original solution to Wheeler's General Grand Unification problem. Apparently, for this reason, few accepted my solution. When I retired in 2004, I decided to concentrate upon GID and my solution to the General Grand Unification Problem.

In 2013, due to a rather remarkable result that appears in my book "The Theory of Ultralogics," Theorem 7.1.1, the new secular version of the GGU-model was developed and has replaced the original. I note that each of the secular GGU-model schemes does have an higher-intelligence ID interpretation. In the world of secular science, this would simply not be mentioned. However, I often do mention it. Then this secular GGU-model does directly correlate to the GID-model. But again this fact can be ignored. Then, as I have mentioned many times, the absolutely scientific Complete GGU-model (GID and GGU) is "purposely" confused with the Discovery Institute's (Restricted ID), which the Federal courts, among others, have stated is pseudoscience used for theological purposes.

Then you have the arxiv.org archives that has replaced various journals. They now carry 1.4 million papers. I have 27 articles there. But, since Dec 2008, and after their moved to Cornell University, I was banned from archiving articles and was told they, whomever they are, would attempt to stop me from publishing elsewhere. Now, as of today it is official, I have also been banned from posting any revisions to my articles at this archive. But, I still have the vixra archives open to me and you know what the atheists say about that archive since they also archive "Religious" articles like mine.

Since, in 2004, I stopped reviewing journal articles for Math. Reviews and the German version, I'm not sure that any journals still even publish papers in Nonstandard Analysis. I do know, that for many, many years no North American University has given a Ph.D. in anything even near to it. Then we have the remarkable fact that the mathematics I need to employ, apparently, is not officially taught anywhere in North America. One does see the basic algebra of the "infinitesimals" employed, but consider the following: Nonstandard Analysis produces "new" entities and "new" relations relative to ANY infinite standard set of mathematical objects and, as with the GID and the GGU-models, these additional results can be related to physical applications.

So how far beyond "these walls," so to speak, can we actually take the GID-model's predictions that our universe is designed, in all of its complexities, by an infinitely powerful higher-intelligence? Dr. Bob

#200 1 SEP 2018

My reason for my last posting was to demonstrate how, at last, one previously well-known "scientist" has now become less than significant since he has embraced creationist concepts. I mentioned previously that the very well-known Robert A. HeRmann (one r) Mathematician in his Wiki bio had a final paragraph that stated that in his old age he had become unstable and now advocates "Creationism." I removed this from his bio noting, for the other Wiki editors, that it was not true and such creationist activity is relative to Robert A. HeRRmann. I also noted that in one major place they had misspelled his name. I am very grateful that my bio does not appear in Wikipedia.

I will next show just one example as to how a remarkable aspect of the nonstandard properties for the most used set of numbers for physical measurements has lead to the major entity that solves the General Grand Unification Problem. This is the result that has led to the properton notion, which has major consequences for Quantum Physics.

#201 1 SEP 2018

"Beware of picture thinking," (C. S. Lewis) One should not attempt to "picture" the "immaterial" GGU-model notion of the properton (old name subparticle). Although I do present a type of "picture" in my book "Science Declares . . ." this should not actually be done. The entities in the substratum for the Complete GGU-model cannot be what we define as material entities. They need to produce numerously many distinct universes, not just our own. AND, of course, this means that much of your prior knowledge will not aid in your comprehension. Propertons are discussed in Chapter 11 in my "Theory of Ultralogics." They are mathematically represented as n-tuple such as {a(1),a(2),a(3), . . .,a(n)) and a slightly modified "linear" algebra. But, these entities would not be of any significance if Theorem 11.1.1 did not exist. (I wrote 7.1.1 in error last time I mentioned this.)

There is an operator used throughout nonstandard analysis termed the "standard part operator, "St" or "st." It and its properties are based only upon the abstract algebraic structure of the infinitesimals and what are all the "finite" members of the predicted extended reals *R. I will not now discuss this algebraic structure, but simply note that the operator behaves, in many respects, like the "limit" notion. BUT, is NOT so defined.

The remarkable Theorem to which I have referred and as I have employed it is this. Take any non-zero real number r. Let w be an infinite number in *N; that is, w is any member of *N - N. Then there an infinite # in *N-N, such that st(#/10^w) = r. The hyper-rational number #/10^w is the result of higher-intelligence finite addition. This is termed as hyperfinite addition. Now consider an "ultra-properton." For the order pair form, it is represented by (-1/10^w,1/10^w). The two coordinates are infinitesimals. Now we do what I term as "independent" coordinate (or component) addition. Take the second coordinate and add # of them. This yields an "intermediate" properton (-1/10^w,#/10^w). Now the standard part of an infinitesimal, like 1/10^w, is zero. Then st((-1/10^w,#/10^w)) = (0,r). Suppose that r = mass of an electron. Indeed, by extending this to all the defining numerical and even description properties for an electron, you will get, by combining this process with basic linear algebra addition, a properton representation for an electron. I call this an intermediate properton. Indeed, at any moment during the development of our universe, any finite quantum physical-system is representable by a collection of properton mathematical objects.

Now you know why they are called "propertons." They use all the known defining properties to represent mathematically the object. Notice that the so-called irrational real numbers are actually representable by higher-intelligence rational numbers. There are, by-the-way, some special propertons, like the hyperfast ones. I have a published article where these are actually employed to explain some perplexing quantum physical behavior. But, then we also have the x-tons. Dr. Bob

#201 4 SEP 2018

Robert L. Herrmann (no immediate relation to me and I am also confused with him) asked, "Are you sure you don't wish to continue with the American Scientific Affiliation?" Not since you stated that you will concentrate upon theistic evolution. "Well, remember your first paper on the rationality of metaphysical evidence was published by us." Although I mentioned GID nations, that paper was mainly relative to the GD-model that shows that, except for creationary activities, God's Biblically described attributes, and other theological concepts, are scientifically rational. I also show that GD-model conclusions satisfy C.S. Lewis's statements such as "according to it what is behind the universe is more like a mind than any thing else we know. . . He lends us a little of His reasoning powers." Oh, I know you were and probably still are associated with the Templeton people and you are his biographer. I expose' Templeton's attempt to propagate the "universal god" notion. So, I guess I will not receive the Templeton Prize for General Intelligent Design (GID). And, I suppose, you might even attempt to block the GID-model conclusions since they rationally counter this "god" notion.

By-the-way, Robert L., not only does the GID-model satisfy more than 50 Biblical statements, but relative to our universe it also satisfies the thoughts of many physical-scientists. After constructing the major part of the GGU-model and the GID interpretation, among others, I discovered the following two remarks.

One of the first members of The Institute for Advanced Studies, Hermann Weyl wrote

"Is it conceivable that immaterial factors having the nature of images, ideas, (or) 'building plans' also intervene in the evolution of the world as a whole?" Yes, it is. The Complete GGU-model has these properties.

Then Noble Laurent Louis deBroglie wrote

"[T]he structure of the universe has something in common with the workings of the human mind." Yes. How we rationally think is a restriction of the rational methods the Biblical higher-intelligence employs to construct and produce our universe from moment-to-moment.

A four-article detailed discussion of the original form of GID and its solution to the General Grand Unification Problem (GGU-model) appeared in journal form more than 32 years ago. Of course, being that these first appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), it had limited appeal. Further, eight papers relative to the Complete GGU-model have appeared in secular Mathematic Science journals. So, I guess it accepted as a scientific model. Additionally, one comparing GID with Restricted ID (RID) was published in the Journal of Creation, one on the intelligent design of probabilistic behavior appeared in TJ, and since the original 1986 series, nine more articles have appeared in CRSQ. Thus, 23 GID or GGU-model articles appear in journal form. I note that even the secular GGU-model has an higher-intelligence interpretation.

Thus, of my 137 published articles, 23 GID related ones have appeared in journal form. Since the audience is limited for the creationary journals, and I was forced not to mention theological applications in secular publications, I switched to the arxiv archive. Until I was banned in 2008, 10 of my 27 articles that appear there are relative to the GID and GGU-models. So, when I was banned from arxiv, I switched to the vixra archives that has a "Religious" category, as well as all of the usual ones, 23 of my 33 articles published there are related to the GID or the Complete GGU-model. Thus, I have presented in these journal and Internet archive form 69 articles relative to this subject. Then my GID and a "lot more" website started in April 1997.

It seems few in this group previously knew of the GID-model. I have had to accept that this is a demonstration of the power of the mental influences, I have modeled, to direct individuals away from GID. Dr. Bob

#202 5 SEP 2018

I cannot give a detailed GID-model description. "Why not?" Because I'm not a higher-intelligence and the model predicts that I cannot do so. I suppose this is one reason you might reject the model since you and your colleagues seem to believe that you can comprehend all that is physically significant. "Well, for once, you said something that is absolutely correct."

At this moment in my little office, there are, I guess, trillions, and a lot more, physical-systems present. Then I have just altered many of them by typing this sentence. Of course, while I typed the last sentence, more that 7 billion other individuals have taken various actions and altered their environment. AND, the GID-model "predicts" that all of these allowed alterations are pre-designed by a higher-intelligence and each of us is allowed to choose a pre-designed action. By-the-way, this is even so if we actually live in a universe that has no physical "beginning" nor physical "ending." Now, in general, a GID-design need not be related to what you consider as "good", "bad" or a "purpose." It is related to "human rational thought."

I have on my website examples of how we first pre-design the entities we build. Indeed, although not first presented this way, the refined Complete GGU-model is based upon such observed human behavior as its physical hypotheses. It is not based upon an unobservable world like quantum field theory. Further, all of this is pre-designed in such a manner that certain physical behavior is often predictable by us via what we term as "physical laws." For example, we are taught that as we watch the "fire" from a rockets tail that the opposite action is the force F, which "pushes" the rocket so that it accelerates. And if one measures these actions, then the measures satisfy the expression F = ma. The calculus is often used here, where one writes F = mdv/dt.

Why you might find my actual standard GID description as difficult to follow is that we are taught that F = ma is how "nature" does things, where the force yields a type of "continuous v" action. But, GID states that this is not so. There is no force, there is no actual continuous rocket motion through our universe. What GID and the GGU-model state is that are trillions and trillions of minuscule discrete changes in the relative position of the rocket. Of course, to us, to our machines and approximating physical laws, it does not appear that way. I wonder. Is there an accepted physical theory that also employs the notion of "discrete" physical change?

Of course, the very basic general language notions that constitute GID-design first occurred in my "mind" and I have tried to translate these thoughts into written form. So, as an analogue model, we have that GID-design is the product of an entity that displays itself "like" a mind. Further, to design the four different types of universes, this intelligence would need to be of a much higher type than any entity within such a universe. This is what the mathematical model predicts.

So, the notion of higher-intelligence as the designer of our universe is a rational notion. And, as previous mentioned, it satisfies more that 50 Biblical statements. So, if you have been fortunate enough to actually have had this higher-intelligence display itself to you in a more concrete manner, then be scientifically assured that your experience is a rational one. Dr. Bob.

#203 6 SEP 2018

I have made my annual survey. I can find no Ph.D. dissertation, written for a Ph.D and presented from June 2016 - Jun 2017, that is related in any way to Nonstandard Analysis, supposedly one of the greatest math. discoveries of the 20th century. This has occurred for about the past 8 years. This is a good thing for these new Ph.D.s since if they did research in this subject, then they would find it very difficult to have their research published in journal form and they would, as they say, academically "perish."

When, in 1969, Robinson urged me to do my Ph.D. research in this area, the opposite was true. I wrote my 150 page dissertation in Nonstandard Topology. I then decided to help popularize the subject and did what some might consider impossible. I published articles in 31 different journals that are or were published in 14 different countries. This includes papers in journals that, at that time, were published in countries "behind the iron curtain."

Now I have also done a bunch of standard math. as well. Indeed, did you know that I showed how to properly unify any collection of scientific theories. This uses standard stuff. But, what happened in 1978 (published in 1982)? One would think that what happened would be of exceptional significance to the Christian community. How many pastors and the like have ever mention that it has been shown that God's stated Biblical attributes are rational and that this counters the atheists contention that they are not? Would that one result alone be a good reason for Christian colleges and universities to instruct students in this area. But, else, the opposite has happened.

So, I have a large number of published and presented articles that few individuals today can read with any degree of comprehension. Of course, they could go to one or another book on the subject I have in the archives, like "The Theory of Ultralogics." But better still my book on Infinitesimal Modeling gives some instruction in the general method I employ. I have all the proofs in that book and one can, kinda, learn how to do Nonstandard Analysis be studying these "proofs."

But then you can immediately "see" what is going on by considering my article on the "Weird World of Nonstandard Analysis etc." at

vixra.org/abs/1411.0523

#204 7 SEP 2018

I am sure some members of this group understand what it means to be in mental competition with the foremost mental giants on planet earth. This is exactly the competition you have if you wish to be successful in my profession. Hopefully they have left you some topics or ideas that you successfully pursue. Because of the application of GID and the GGU-model to theology, if I have made a significant uncorrectable error or have made false claims, then these would be used to characterize all of my efforts as "unreliable." So, it is significant that what I state to a group such as this be absolute fact.

Throughout history there have been many statements that attempt to directly characterize a universe producing or altering Deity. You have the "unmoved mover" or prime mover of Aristotle. The ancient Hebrews apparently accepted that all physical events, no matter what they may be, are a direct result of God's actions. But we today have many that accept the "wind-it-up and let it go" Deity in that physical processes were created that follow physical laws and somehow-or-other they govern the alterations in physical behavior. And, of course, all sorts of variations.

I have altered my website. Why? Well, I had an article there that, except for the last paragraph, was not vary significant since it was related to my original GID and GGU-model and the 2002 book in which it was discussed. As you know this model has been replaced with the refined Complete GGU-model. At the end of the article, I have, due to the Eden Model and the Bibles stated mode of creation, what are actually 100s of Biblical statements that directly state the Biblical God's involvement with the creation of our physical world. These which include our mental behavior. I noticed that one needs to be removed since I included the previous verse as well and it does not seem to apply. The Complete GGU-model higher-intelligence interpretation satisfies all of these statements. This shows that they are all rational in content.

This is the list I presented on this website just over 18 years ago.

raherrmann.com/gidbible.htm

#205 8 SEP 2018

By "popular demand," I have altered my web sight index #8. The file to which I direct readers lists a large number of Bible statements that the Complete GGU-model satisfies. The first portion now appears as

(G) GID and the Bible.

Although the GGU-model has a secular interpretation, this article lists many of the Biblical statements satisfied by the "Complete" GGU-model, such as

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nether are your ways my ways . . . . As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8 - 9.) "By the decree of the LORD were the heavens made, . . . ." (Psalm 33:6.) "For He spoke and it came to be: He commanded and it stood firm." (Psalm 33:9.) Dr. Bob

#206 8 SEP 2018

And you might recall, that among other entities, such behavior described by various Biblical statements is modeled by PREDICTED hyper-deduction and ultrawords. Further, for some, such as the atheist, it may be difficult to comprehend that these are predictions from observable data and not hypothesized as is much of what they accept as real.

Remember that the so-called Banconian method of using observable data and verifying experimentation does not establish that the unobservable hypothesized entities actually exist due to the existence of other unobservable entities (propertons) that produce the same results. Dr. Bob.

#207 9 SEP 2018

There is a teaching method called the "discovery method." I have waited for years for someone, not me, to "discover" a rather simple "general explanation" as to how the Complete GGU-model produces a universe. I have not read such a description so I'll now give one.

Let E(1) denote a physical-system at a moment during the development of a universe, including, of course, ours. Let E(2) represent the "next moment" where the physical-system is altered. Such a physical-system can be our entire universe. A major change in ones mind-set may be necessary, since NO, physical laws of any type whatsoever, NO physical forces of any type, etc. have produced this alteration.

An higher-intelligence has pre-designed the E(1) and E(2) and any alteration in E(1) as displayed by E(2). Higher-intelligence designed substratum processes yield, in order, the physical-systems E(1) and E(2). Thus, any so-called physical laws we describe have absolutely nothing to do with the actual production of a universe. Now the designs E(1) and E(2) may have a special feature. There may be general language descriptions, we called physical laws, that we can employ and these will allow us to predict the alterations in E(1), which are represented by the E(2) design. We may use observed entities or unobservable entities as a bases for these "laws." Hence, any such laws are "satisfied" by the step-by-step production of a universe. It is of no real significance to the Complete GGU-model whether the unobservable entities actually exist physically. If they do exist, then the Complete GGU-model includes them. Q.E.D.

#208 11 SEP 2018

This is a GID and GGU-model elaboration relative to a question I have recently answered. For some, I have mentioned some of what follows before. For new members or those who have finally decided to read something I write, this is all new material. (GID = General Intelligent Design; GGU = General Grand Unification. Complete GGU-model is GID coupled with GGU.)

Apparently, your understanding of the Complete GGU-model requires a great deal of additional effort since it is rather different than what most have experienced in their physical science classes and this is probably why the Princeton group could not solve the problem. In fact, the model specifically implies that I should not give a deeply detailed description since such details require a much greater use of the predicted higher-language.

One Wheeler requirement for a solution to the "GGU-problem" is that the design and production of a universe is not a result of any "cause and effect" behavior for the systems that comprise the internal structure of the universe. It is a "cosmogony." It should be able to produce universes, where such a cause and effect notion does NOT apply. Hence, the Complete GGU-model, at the least, applies to ANY universe we might describe and others, where our limited language descriptions are not sufficient.

The intelligence used for GID is NOT related to whether or not "we" can predict anything. One needs to drop their notion of cause and effect via physical law to have any hope of understanding GID. Also, it is NOT related to "our" notion of what constituents a design. What we state is a design is rather a matter of opinion and may have few measurable properties.

The GID-intelligence being displayed is demonstrated by a higher-form of logical deduction not by the physical design produced. It is mathematically definable and has a property that corresponds to a measure of its strength. The mathematics duplicates what occurs when an higher-intelligence applies an extended form of ordinary propositional deduction to an extended form of a simple linguistic expression. AND this is most likely an analogue model for what we cannot other comprehend. It satisfies those many quotations, I discovered after the construction, such as C. S. Lewis' "God behaves more 'like' a mind than anything else we know."

BUT, these results might be considered as minor compared to what else is predicted by the mathematics, predictions that will give an atheist a good reason not to accept this solution. It is due to the mathematics I employ that a "higher" intelligence is rationally predicted as well as some rather remarkable additional predictions. But what are these remarkable predictions? (Next time) Dr. Bob

#209 12 SEP 2018

So, how do I explain this to others? It's 1979 and I told Wheeler that I had gotten an idea that might solve the GGU-problem. The idea took form is called the "development paradigm." Development paradigms are considered as pre-designed from the GID viewpoint. After all, it's language that science uses as a substitute for the actual entities it depicts. This sequence of descriptions, and the UFWW they depict, are discretely produced in that there is a mathematically, and depending upon what they produce measurable, minuscule interval between their production. For the purely secular GGU-model, the developmental paradigm is replaced by the "instruction paradigm."

In the beginning, I considered motion picture film and individual images, but then I picked up the controller for my VCR and there is was a button marked "freeze frame." You can freeze an individual "frame" of the screen display and even go to the "next" one. BUT, it needs to be a 3-D image. A fixed "universe-wide" image. So, the name I gave to each individual member of developmental paradigm sequence of descriptions is a "universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF)." Then later after its invention, I used a DVD. By that time, the term had changed to simply "freeze." This is what appears on the device I have in my hand. I don't have a more modern DVD and don't know what control one has over the images presented. BUT I cannot change the name of the "fixed 3-D slice" of a universe to something else more "modern" since I use UWFF so often in my published and presented articles.

There is a list of "secular" entities termed as "physical entities." If there is an entity not in the list it is termed as "immaterial." Each "standard" UFWW is composed of collections of these "physical-systems." When nonstandard analysis is used to model such a "primitive" sequence of descriptions something new is rationally predicted. A nonstandard analysis of the developmental paradigm yields an "hyper-development paradigm." Each of the original UWFF changes into a hyper-UWFF, *UWFF, the contains all of the original physical-system some of which can be modified with immaterial entities. These still behave like physical-systems and these are called "physical-like" systems.

BUT, what else appears that has been hidden from our view, so to speak? Additional *UWFF are predicted. These are the "ultranatural events." They can contain physical-like systems or those, of which little can be known, the ultranatural systems. Such entities do satisfy Biblical statements. These ultranatural events are associated with the standard but "extended" *UWFF in various ways. (The different types of *UWFF depend upon their mathematical "name.")

I do have an article that discusses these associations and the like, BUT, in places, it may appear to be rather technical. It contains predictions relative to what some consider the human spirit.

vixra.org/abs/1403.0036

#210 14 SEP 2018

Most likely you have not, as yet, learned all significant concepts. I have been asked a question and have decided to present the answer to this entire group. But, the answer will not use concepts you may have previously studied. Dictionary definitions are often circular. If Eccles work in this area remains valid, our comprehension of certain ideas is relative to some type of "immaterial" mental process. This is the first of two postings relative to my answer.

The GID and GGU-models are strongly related to linguistic descriptions. You will not find in your commercial "textbooks" on Nonstandard Analysis (NSA) the linguistic notions separated as is necessary for GID. A "standard general language" L is used to describe a "standard model." It does not contain the terms used to discuss distinctly different entities predicted by a nonstandard model. The nonstandard extension for L is denoted by a symbol that is not in L. It's a symbol for the predicted extension of L, its denoted by *L. Such symbols are part of what is called the "metalanguage." In my book, The Theory of Ultralogics" you will find a theorem shows that L and *L are not equal. But one considers L a subset of *L. A math. statement states that there are members of *L that "denote" the infinitesimal and infinite "numbers." BUT, due to the definition for L, a few specific "representations" for these predicted entities need to come from L. They are identified as REPRESENTATIONS for these. Further, the "size" of *L indicates that we presently can have only a minuscule amount of knowledge as to its contents. If you are reading my postings for the first time, then what I have just written in this paragraph is most likely new to you.

I was asked if the GGU-model "instruction paradigm" is like the "developmental paradigm." It is only in one respect. It displays a higher-form of deductive "counting." For us deductive finite counting, as symbolically represented, is 1, 1 -> 2, 2 -> 3, 3 -> 4. Yields, in order, 1, 2, 3, 4 entities have been "counted out." This portion of an instruction paradigm "counts out" so to speak hyperfinitely many "ultra-propertons" and this is modeled algebraically via a modified mode of linear algebra. The combination of these is what yields the next step in the production of a material universe.

Well, here we go. What does "hyperfinite" mean? In a moment, I'll direct you to my website discussion of this notion. However, as I have pointed out many times, the model states that we will not be able to presently comprehend much more about these instructions. This is the models "lack of knowledge" prediction. This is why I only present the GGU-model schemes in general terms and don't even attempt to give further details. An instruction paradigm is a step-by-step collection of instruction-entities, where the instruction-entities yield the properton formed physical-systems that comprise an "info-field." When an info-field is activated by the realism operator (the NSA standard part operator) the physical 3-D slice (UWFF) of a universe is produced. But other "immaterial" entities can also be produced as members of the hyper-UWFF (*UWFF) that contains the UWFF.

In the following article, the *d notation is the math. representation for an *UWFF. For the individual members of an *instruction paradigm, substitute *I for the *ds.

raherrmann.com/hyperfinite.htm

#211 15 SEP 2018

I suspect that few members of this group will read this. First, a personal note. I am living in an environment, where, at present to keep some harmony, I do not mention any theological notions what-so-ever. And, the facts are that I find it difficult to believe that there exists an entity that actually has the properties that GID requires. Indeed, accepting the Biblical God while surrounded by this environment is not easy for me.

I look around me and to just state that all that exists in this room is pre-designed and my vary movements are also via the participator aspects of the GGU-model is almost to fantastic to accept. Then to state that this entity has personal traits as well, such as "love, wisdom, patients, kindness etc," is also difficult to accept. This is especially so considering it mostly does not directly present itself. It is "for me" rather hard to comprehend such behavior.

BUT, I do comprehend its mathematically predicted level of intelligent actions, which state that such an entity must be highly "infinite" in character. Indeed, for me and maybe for others, it is a matter of linguistics, the lack of an appropriate language and its comprehension that's the problem. Although in the far past, "something" did present itself to me, that was then. Via my training, I suppose, I usually don't simply accept the existence of something for which I have little comprehension. Maybe that's not just me. (By-the-way, a long time ago I presented these ideas in rather abstruse terms. I hope this practice has long ago pasted away.)

Significantly, as often mentioned, the GIG-model predicts that there is another language *L. And it predicts that there are "linguistic" expressions that have a "higher" meaning as compared to those in the standard language L. As I have mentioned, the GGU-model is based upon language-elements (word-forms) that exist completely in *L, but, only symbols for certain types of numbers are missing and these are representable in L.

On the other hand, the entities to which the logical operators are applied have the same infinite character as the modeled attributes of the higher-intelligence. And yes there is a vast amount of "indirect" evidence for the existence of this higher-intelligence. But, there is also much evidence for the acceptance of such things as every lasting quantum fields.

I note that Paul mentions a "Third Heaven" language, that apparently is not merely the language L. Then we have Paul's observation that "Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Oh! by-the-way, relative to "science" and an "expert" opinion, if you have not done so you might just read my bio. It just might show that in this area "I know what I'm talking about." You can trust what I write.

raherrmann.com/bio.htm

#212 16 SEP 2018

99.99% of the information you will find on the Internet and elsewhere that is related to ID (intelligent design) is NOT, NOT, NOT GID. It's all relative to the "pseudoscience," as they state it, Discovery Institute's (DI's) form. This form has been around since about 1998. The scientific GID has been around since 1979.

In order to have some understanding of exactly what has and is occurring relative to this subject, you need to consider the following, where I compare GID and RID (the Restricted ID put forth by the DI). I use the words of the founders of RID. I could go into how they "fake" the significance of the so-called publications in this subject via the co-author scam but that's another story I might discuss later. Here is the article, which I have just very slightly revised, this is must reading for any individual who is interest in the facts about ID. Dr. Bob

raherrmann.com/compare.htm

PS. Under no circumstances do I want my ID material presented by such a group as the Discovery Institute. It MUST remain totally distinct from what they present. Dr. Bob.

#213 17 SEP 2018

(Long post.) It's a fact that I have difficulty "seeing" what I write due to my pending blindness. Being 84 years old, my hands don't do so will on this keyboard. Some day I might correctly write "very" rather than "vary." It's a fact that I have no co-authors for any of my published papers. A few useful improvements were made via suggestions by various referees.

One of my goals, since 1978, is, among others, to formally counter atheists false statements relative to the irrationality of Biblical concepts. Although the following is not very significant, I have wanted, for sometime, to discuss the co-author deception as practiced by some individuals and as it might be so claimed is also practiced relative to ID publications. In my last posting, I meant to write "how they might appear to 'fake' the significance . . . " Considering the extreme criticism of DI's ID as stated all over the Internet, possible deception of this kind needs to be addressed. RID criticism often claims that RID lacks any "proper" peer-reviewed publications as well as a "truthful" presentation. Thus, such criticism may claim that co-author deception is also practiced in order to enhance an article's significance. If you actually care to do so, you can counter this co-author criticism. Obviously, since this criticism is leveled at "intelligent design," in general, although not true for GID, it is hit with claim also.

Do any members of this group accept the Wikipedia article on DI's Restricted ID (RID)? Are the statements presented there true about the RID publications? Accept for what I have presented in my comparison article, I have not read any DI endorsed articles on RID. Since such Wikipedia articles are a major source for the general public, I hope that, if not true about the RID publications, than the Wikipedia remarks are specifically countered somewhere. But, will this actually counter Wikipedia. Can journal publication criticism be avoided? Do we care about such criticism?

I was a member of the Promotion and Tenure Committee at the USNA for many years. I would need to exam the publications of those who were being considered. The lack of co-authors on an individual's publications was an important virtue. In general, one has great difficulty in determining what was the exact contribution of a co-author. In the famous 1948 "Big Bang" article by Apher, Bethe, Gamow, Bethe had no idea his name would be included. It was later stated that it was merely added so that, in Greek, the initials of the authors would be alpha, beta, gamma.

John A Wheeler's name appears on a lot of stuff, where his contribution was merely to encourage the authors. But, having his name associated with the author's conclusions would certainly enhance the work. He encouraged me to solve the "pre-geometry" problem, but I did not include his name on my solution. In certain countries, like India, papers published by an individual include the name of author's Ph.D. mentor. Unfortunately, the mentor also is stuck with the errors made by the actual author. I had a published physics paper relative to a major experiment that has 100 co-authors. I have reviewed papers that only had one or two principle authors and then at the end they "Thanked" a list of other individuals who have also contributed to it. This is one solution that has some merit.

I have published for the two major reviewing journals more than 250 reviews for published articles. Accept for the order in which the names are listed, which might indicate a co-authors degree of contribution, this order still gives only a small clue as to the actual contributions made. So, in a review, all the authors must share the responsibility for any errors I might find.

Is falsifiable GID merely for all those individuals who believe that the Biblical God is the absolute creator? Using observable data and an accepted scientific method that actually predicts that such an entity is the creator should be a benefit to the millions of individuals who do not as yet accept Biblical creation as fact. And, as I continue to state, GID must be separated from any criticisms one might read on the Internet about ID. Dr. Bob.

#214 19 SEP 2018

Just a "short" posting that may answer a question I have been asked. I have stated this previously. On 7 July 2018, I posted information relative to various Bibles and how they claim to translate the most ancient manuscripts. I wrote at that time that "I use the oldest known manuscripts in the languages in which they were written such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the oldest Masoretic, etc. and work hard to determine the first-century meanings for the Koine Greek terms that appear in the most ancient of the known New Testament manuscripts, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. These also contain the LXX translations. I have even used the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not easy stuff."

The often quoted Romans 1:20, as it appears in the Bible you probably have, is NOT as it appears in these oldest Greek versions. The difference can effect application of ID to the Bible. Here is the relevant portion from the three oldest Koine Greek manuscripts and they do not differ. "For His invisible [unseen] aspects are decried from the creation of the world, being comprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible power and divinity. . . ." For the word "imperceptible," one finds in the these Bibles the term "eternal" or some such. Of course, if its "eternal" its "imperceptible." For me, what Paul is stating is that we can "comprehend" various Divine attributes including what we do not visibly perceive. This includes His power and divinity.

The GID-model satisfies the notion of "comprehending" the "invisible" creationary power of the Biblical God. Although what we can visibly detect may allow one to classify it as being an intelligently designed physical-system, in my view, this minimizes His unperceived creationary power. This is the last, I hope, that I will present or even comment upon relative to this feature of the GID-model since there is one more rather significant posting I need to make. I need to do this since the time is rapidly approaching when I will be unable to post to any group.

I will attempt in my next posting to present an aspect of the GID-model I have NOT previously presented to this group. It is a major feature of the refined 2013 Complete GGU-model. Dr. Bob

#214 21 SEP 2018

Physical science, among others, is totally dependent upon general language descriptions that, via mental comprehension, correspond to the behavior the descriptions attempt to depict. In 1979, after I returned from the math. conference, where Wheeler suggested that I should try to solve his "pre-geometry" (The General Grand Unification) problem, I immediately turned to the Bible for some insight. When I opened it, it actually fall open to the first page of Hebrews and I noticed Hebrews 1:3 and the Divine attribute stated there. ". . . sustaining all things by His powerful declaration (rhema)." I considered the actual Greek meaning for "sustaining," which is "to carry on." The idea that developed is a step-by-step model for the "sustaining" notion via a linguistic formation that, by deductive means, yields the step-by-step descriptions for the depicted behavior.

I originally used the math. logic notion of the consequence operator logic-system, which operates upon a linguistic object - a specially formed simple "word." This yields an ordered step-by-step representation, the descriptions, for 3-D slices (UWFFs) of a developing universe. I used this as an "analogue" model to solve the General Grand Unification (pre-geometry) Problem. I formally published this in 1986 and the last time I presented this form, plus other stuff, was on 12 NOV 1994 at a math. conference held at Western Maryland College. This entire presentation is the first article of mine that appears at the archive arxiv.org., which has banned me from doing anything. I would like to remove it, but can't. Fortunately, prior to my being banned, I was able to revise it and direct readers to the vixra.org refinements. These refinements are the only model that should now be classified as THE solution to the General Grand Unification Problem and intelligent design via the GID-model.

Relative to ID, this major refinement first presents the necessary "standard" pre-design of each physical-system that comprises each standard UWFF. Then it presents the rational step-by-step standard intertwining of the physical-systems that form an entire UWFF. When this is properly modeled and embedded into a nonstandard structure some rather remarkable predictions are made. These are the higher-intelligence predictions, among other interesting ones.

I will "shortly" give a further description for this major aspect of this 2013 refinement. Dr. Bob

#215 22 SEP 2018

(Part 1.) There are three distinct GID and GGU-model approaches, the General Intelligent Design Model (GID) alone, the General Grand Unification Model alone, and the combined Complete GGU-model, which couples GID with the GGU-model mechanisms. I accept the Complete GGU-model. But these are "models" for behavior that we most likely cannot otherwise comprehend. Relative to the Scriptures, much of what is described about creationary activities is apparently rather analogue in character so that we can have some comprehension. Indeed, God tells us directly that, in general, our ways of doing things are not His ways.

Due to our actions, the universe changes. This is the participator aspect of the GGU-model. This is why I have chosen, for comprehension, the pre-design notation. BUT, this "pre" is not a time notion but an atemporal sequence notion. There is no doubt in my mined that using terms such as "prior, before etc." relative to entities defined as physical tend to strongly evoke a "time" notion rather than a "mere" atemporal sequence notion.

The GGU-model produces universes in many different ways, so-to-speak. In general, the processes were not designed to fit a strict Genesis 1 scenario. On the other hand, a specific application that corresponds to the Complete GGU-model does so correspond.

There may be a difference between how a sequence of entities is designed and how the designs are physically displayed. As I have shown in at least two publications, discrete physical behavior such as that employed with quantum physics can actually be designed as highly continuous behavior although it is displayed as sudden discrete changes in behavior. I'm not sure how many individuals in this group have ever seen on television a commercial or, in the "movies," a display where all of the background activity is "frozen" while a major character's behavior continues to vary. This display is actually how the refined (2013) standard pre-designed behavior can be understood. BUT, the GGU-model processes that yield such behavior cannot be fully detailed. The necessary information that does so is contained in the "instruction" paradigm, where only a portion of this information is describable using a standard language.

Compared to other mathematical expressions many of you have seen, the mathematics that formally describes this modeled behavior is rather notionally complex. It appears in section 6 of the highly revised paper below. Consider, expression display on page 23. This expression is what you get when the "standard" expression is embedded into the nonstandard structure. If you drop the * from each symbol, where it appears, and replace the Greek symbols with standard ones from the natural numbers or integers, you get the standard expression. Of course, this expression now needs to be interpreted using the previously established Complete GGU-model terminology. This expression has a double application. It represents both a higher-form of the developmental paradigm and the correspond higher-form of the GGU-model instruction paradigm. These both have the exact same "rational" structure.

In the next part, I'll attempt to explain how this logical structure yields each *UWFF and then, as previously discussed, the step-by-step production of our entire universe. Dr. Bob

vixra.org/abs/1308.0125

#216 23 SEP 2018

(THE part 2.) Consider the physical fact termed the (1) "persistence of vision." Then consider the notion of (2) "complete universes wide suspended animation."

Now consider that there is an anesthesia, which I have had, that (3) leaves one with the impression that "no time" as passed from one event to an entirely distinct event. That is, we do not remember any of the intervening events between the two distinct events.

It has been noticed by me that these notations, among others, are modeled by the GGU-model as it is designed by an higher-intelligence. Hence, one can state that "observable" behavior is data from which the higher-intelligence concept is predicted.

One of these concepts is that certain processes sequentially proceed and yield substratum results "while" a universe is in complete suspended animation. That is, it persists in a fixed form "while" other substratum events sequentially occur. I mentioned how movies and TV mimic this notion. (Notice that although actual measurable time is suspended, I have used a "time" term "while" in this description.)

If you were one of the 100 who looked at the paper I previously mentioned and the mathematical expression that contains the ; notation, then the two symbols that immediately follow the ; are the "names" for the physical or physical-like systems that comprise a fixed (hyper) universe-wide frozen-frame (*UWFF) (a 3-D slice). The sequence of slices "stops" developing, so-to-speak, "while" the entire intertwining collection of all of these systems is prepared, via an higher-intelligence ordered means, for the "next" sequential "moment" in the development of a universe. The result of the prepared but not yet physically realized *UWFF is termed an info-field.

Then, for the model, a special well-known operator employed throughout basic nonstandard analysis, and here called the "realization operator," is activated. This is the "standard part" operator. This yields the sequentially "next" physical *UWFF in the development. These processes are repeated and a universe sequentially develops that, among other predicted entities, contains all the original pre-designed physical-systems as well as physical-like systems.

As described in the very first few lines of this posting, we are not aware, in any manner, that such an info-field construction has occurred. Indeed, "nothing" in the entire universe that "persists" is aware of it. Further, these notions correspond to the rationally presented pre-design for each slice and the step-by-step sequential development of the entire universe.

I will stop here with this posting so that it can be considered, at least, by those who "looked at" the paper I previously mentioned. I will in the next posting describe how the formation of each info-field and the step-by-step realization of a developing universe corresponds to a higher-intelligence rational pre-design via a single (ultra) "word." Dr. Bob

#217 24 SEP 2018

(Rather long posting.) The GGU-model processes I described in the last posting employ the major GGU-model scheme. There are other schemes that are not so easily "participator" model described. For the previous description with its "substratum production" notion, the "instruction paradigm" is a collection that includes all of the participator model alterations in the construction of the info-fields.

Now to have an understanding of the major and even measurable GID-model "intelligence" being displayed, here is a "simple" example. It may take a little time to mentally comprehend it, however.

Suppose there are only two physical-system descriptions, A and B. Further, these and any modifications are considered as the entire composition of three successive UWFF, F, F' and F''. From a "word" such as "A. If A, then B," application of propositional deduction yields B. For the refined GGU-model, I use a modification of this via the notion of the logic-system that I showed is equivalent to the Tarski 1930 generalization for logical deduction - the consequence operation (operator). Application of a slightly modified informally defined logic-system rule for deduction yields, in general, an "ordered" form of such deduction.

Suppose that the two physical-systems described by A and B are to be realized in a specific intertwined sequential order as indicated by the left-to-right order A, B. The rule applied to the ordered pair logic-system representation (A, (A,B)) states that sequentially starting with A, which is the "first" member of (A,B), then B is "deduced" from or, in this interpreted case, next in the deduced sequential order. Thus, A is so related to B. If you have another physical-system description D, then the deduced B rationally leads to the D etc. I point out that such informally stated rules and our ability to apply them are the actual basis for formal logical deduction as studied in Mathematical Logic.

For this illustration, suppose F is the 100th sequential UWFF (3-D slice of a universe) produced. The "instruction" paradigm (the I, I' and I'') follows the same form of rational deduction as the developmental paradigm, which is the sequentially ordered set of corresponding UWFF descriptions. The F description is d, the F' description is d' and the F'' description is d''. The corresponding instruction paradigm rules are I, I' and I''. The rule of inference for these without noting any additional structure would be that from the I, F is produced with description d. Then from I', F' is produced with description d' and from I'', F'' is produced with description d''. The rational expressed instructions that yield from F, F' and F'', in that order, are (I,I'), (I',I'') and the corresponding pre-design is (d,d') and (d',d''), which produces d' and d'' in that order.

But the d, d' and d'' descriptions are the collection of rationally produced physical-systems, A, B, for d, A', B' for d', and A'' and B'' for d''. This means that to obtain d', the physical-systems with descriptions A' and B' need to be rationally produced via the corresponding instructions. From the viewpoint of pre-designed descriptions, this yields the symbolic order ((A,(A,B)),(A',(A',B')). Using the algorithm for the first member (A,(A,B)) you first deductively get A, then in order B. For the second pair, you deductively obtain A' and then in order B'. (Can you describe the rule from this description?)

Now employing one more application of the algorithm, you rationally obtain from the now rationally ordered representation, for the physical-systems, A and B in F, the rationally ordered representations A' and B' for the physical-systems in F'. This process is repeated in such way, so that using ((A'(A',B'), (A'',(A'',B'')), the description for F'' is obtained in like manner so that now the descriptions deduced occur in the ordered form d, d', d''.

As mentioned, the instructions also satisfy this deductive structure and, hence, the production of the physical-systems and UWFF follow that same rational pattern. Hence, F' rationally follows, in sequential order, after F, and F'' rationally follows from F'. FINALLY, you interpret these ordered modes of deduction as a display of General Intelligent Design. Further, the standard representation for the entire deductive production has other added mathematically expressed properties. But what occurs when all of this is embedded into a nonstandard structure? Dr. Bob.

#218 25 SEP 2018

W. If W, then W'. If W', then W''. . . .

W = A. If A, then A'. If A', then A''. . . .

W' = B. If B, then B'. If B', then B''. . . .

W'' = C. If C, then C'. If C', then C''. . . .

ETC.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Each of the above capital letters is a finitely long member of the general language L. And each "word," W, is a member of L also. This is "observable" data. These linguistic entities are very specially modeled in my 2013 refinement article. I should have used this as an example rather than just using the "ordered pair" form in what I last posted to this group.

In the refinement 2013 paper, I was not very specific relative to necessary "ordered" deductive process used to obtain the "descriptive" or corresponding "actual" (via info-fields) produced UWFF (3-D slice) entities. The reason for this is that there are different approaches. But, the approach I now stress is the previously discussed "suspended animation" approach.

Remember, the As, Bs Cs etc are descriptions that depict the properton configured corresponding info-field physical-systems that for us, when realized, yield an actual universe-wide collection.

"First," the sequentially applied basic deductive process is applied to W. This yields the ordered descriptive intertwining of the A, A', A'', etc. (More observable data.) The corresponding instruction paradigm follows the exact same deductive pattern and yields an info-field of intertwined properton physical-system configurations that correspond to the A, A', A'', etc. descriptions. Then the realism operator is applied. (As shown on my website, these processes are related to observable procedures.)

Next, the deductive process is applied to the descriptive "W. If W, the W'." This yields W'. The next "step" is the deductive process applied to "B. If B, then B'. If B', then B''. . . ." This yields the descriptive ordered intertwined B, B', B'', etc. The corresponding instruction paradigm yields an info-field of intertwined properton physical-system configurations that correspond to the B, B', B'', etc. descriptions. Then the realism operator is removed from the previous UWFF and applied to this sequentially next info-field. This is repeated to produce the remaining UWFFs.

Please note that there is a secular approach to this, where just the deductively applied instruction paradigm is employed. Since, GID-intelligence is application of the rules for deduction, then even in this "secular" case there is a GID-intelligence signature. Of course, as in quantum logic, this can be ignored.

There are other approaches. All of info-fields can be produced "first," so-to-speak, or they can simply exist in the substratum world like the notion that quantum fields "simply" exist. Then the same deductive scheme, but with the info-fields, yields the sequentially produced UWFFs.

I simply mention that the participator requirement is added to the above approach by noting that, when required, the actual next sequential step is selected from a different sequence of the W type.

These ideas are now mathematically modeled in a very special way. And, nonstandard analysis is applied. The remarkable predicted additional properties obtained are then interpreted using modifications of the original linguistic and standard GGU-model terminology. This, at the least, establishes the rationally of the GID and GGU-model concepts. Dr. Bob.

#219 26 SEP 2018

W = A, A', A'', . . . is similar to an individual drawing a floor plan for a building. Each entity of a UWFF (3-D slice) of universe is GID-intelligently designed to be in a specific rational relation to every other entity. In like manner, the W', for the next floor (UWFF). . . .

Then each floor (UWFF) is GID-intelligently designed to be in a specific rational relation to every other floor (UWFF).

For GID, in all cases, the rational relation is MODELED by a simple applied mode of "deduction." This yields the general language individual drawings. The same mode of rational thought produces the entire floor-by-floor set of drawings. For the GID-model, the drawings are called pre-designs, which become "designs" when they are produced. What I have just described is "now" considered observable data for the GID-model.

For the GGU-model, the instruction paradigm, using the same rational scheme, produces each individual floor (UWFF) and then, in a step-by-step manner and in a specific order, each floor (UWFF) of the building is produced. Now what does a nonstandard model for all of this predict? Dr. Bob

#220 27 SEP 2018

I have one of the very first (1973) Ph.D.s given in Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), a subject that, in 1985, was declared, by J. Keisler, as one of the major mathematical achievements of the twentieth century. At that time I was considered as a pioneer in the subject, a subject that, apparently, has not been formally presented in a classroom setting for a very, very long time. Due to this and the fact that paper journals appear to no long publish in this subject, since few if any of their readers could comprehend the material, if a student were allowed to write a dissertation in this subject that individual would find it hard to obtain or keep an academic position based upon their knowledge of NSA.

I use NSA for the first scientific ID approach, an approach that predicts behavior of an higher-intelligence, to solve Wheeler's "pre-geometry" problem (GGU-model), to correct errors made by Einstein and a lot more stuff. Sadly, I might have helped participate its downfall with my (1978 - today) use of NSA to counter the atheists claim that various theological and, in particular Biblical, concepts are irrational. I can think of no other reason for its collapse.

The foundations for NSA were, in the late 1960s, in flux. You had the basic 1966 Robinson method using the formal theory of logical types, a form you won't find in any of your basic books in Math. Logic. But there was a second approach, published in 1969, by Springer, #94 in their series "Lecture Notes in Mathematics," which now has more than 2000 titles. It is still available via an ebook version. But, it's only of historical interest. It uses a method called "pseudo-set-theory." This method only appears there, in my dissertation and in some of my published papers based upon my dissertation in Nonstandard Topology. ALL of my writings for any publications, books etc after that, with a few exceptions, are based upon the "superstructure approach" (whatever that is). All the results and proofs using pseudo-set-theory are notationally transferable to this last approach.

Years ago, I wrote a book on NSA using a third "simple" approach that only applies to many but not all aspects of the real numbers. Many years ago the book was used in seminar setting at Kobe University in Japan. It was written using USA government funds and is available free of charge. You might just take a look at it and see what "simple" means. The website version is below. Some of the proofs can be shorten if a "stronger" NS model is employed.

Since the only way you can, at present, learn the "modern" approach is through self-eduction by means of books published many years ago, then for the models I have discussed in over 200 postings, you will simply need to trust my consistent "interpretation" of the mathematics. This I will again do with respect to what I presented in my last two postings.

This is the book as presented in zip file formate.

raherrmann.com/cont5.htm

#221 28 SEP 2018

It can be mathematically established that finite choice from a set of entities is a rational process.

The language L includes drawings as well as the usual language elements. As an analogue model, consider a collection of detailed drawings for the physical-systems, my 26 SEP posting W = A, A', A'', A''', . . ., for a 3-D slice of a universe as being placed on each member of a large stack of index cards C. The notion of ID, General ID = GID, I introduced distributes this stack throughout a fixed slice of a universe, the UWFF, in a special rational manner. This is independent from what drawings are depicting.

For a universe, they are not just "thrown together," so to speak. They are not merely "randomly" distributed. This is accomplished by considering them in a linguistic order, which I have shown can be repressed as a collection of diagrams or images in the form of a "word" W = A, If A, then A'. If A', then A'', . . ., (A, A -> A', A' -> A'', . . .), where a "deductive rule" is applied to W so that each member of C is laid out in a specific rational "order." This is the definition of GID-intelligence.

When modeled using nonstandard analysis, an "hyper C," (or ultra C) *C, is predicted. *C contains many more cards, that is systems, than the original C. The entire *C is also laid out in a specific rational manner but due to the additional systems and other considerations this deductive mode of rational presentation is termed as an higher-intelligence action. But, what predicted systems are added to each slice?

Some can be but empty or repeated physical-systems, but significantly they can be physical-like. This means what they can contain can be what are classified as "immaterial" constituents. The atheist would most likely choose the empty or repeated physical-system, which might not contradict someone's notion of the evolutionary develop of macroscopic systems such as ourselves. In this case, I like the choice notion since it requires one to consider "other" reasons for such a choice.

My choice is that there are physical-like systems added by this now higher-intelligence design and WE are one of them. This satisfies the Eccles and Robinson notion of an immaterial medium for aspects of human thought and, of course, the idea that we have an immaterial "spirit." These additional physical-like systems are, hence, rationally predicted.

But now what does the model predict happens when each of the 3-D slices is rationally put together to produce a developing universe? Dr. Bob

#222 29 SEP 2018

I started working in the mathematical sciences in 1948, when I was twelve years old. I did not work in this area from 1955 - 1960. I have been rather successful in this area. BUT, it was until April 1977 all atheistic science. This is the science presented throughout much of society today, and of course, "must" be presented in the USA public school systems.

One aspect of such training is that when a "scientific" question is asked and no linguistic answer is yet known, then we begin our search for a "meaningful" general language answer to the question. Today, hopefully, under a research grant. We are told that we "probably can" find such an answer, if we are paid enough that is. After all, "we" are exceptionally intelligent.

Often we start with an "imaginary" entity as an aid to answering the question. In my experience, if, after appropriate effort, our search for a secular answer to the question has not produced a successful answer, we simply reject the question as not relevant to our physical universe.

But, if you take from the general language L the set M of ALL claimed meaningful statements, and model it using Nonstandard Analysis (NSA) you get an object *M that "behaves" like "meaningful" statements, but the members of *M - M (those in *M and not in M) are not meaningful to us. However, from the GID interpretation, they are meaningful to the "higher-intelligence."

This is a major problem for ones comprehension of the GID-model. We must accept that we cannot fully comprehend how the higher-intelligence behaves. Indeed, this satisfies the Biblical statement that we cannot do so. This, of course, contradicts atheistic science.

So one might need to restrain oneself and simply accept that we are not a higher-intelligence and, hence, the GID notions presented are but partially comprehensible to us. The notions cannot be "fully" known to us, so-to-speak, and again this satisfies a Biblical statement.

I have given certain, actually very partial, analogue models for the GID predicted behavior of the higher-intelligence. I used the term "physical-system." Here is my glossary definition.

PHYSICAL-SYSTEM. This is a defined collection of one or more named physical objects, the constituents, which, if more than one, are so related as to form an identifiable whole. Specific relations between the constituents, if more than one, are the bases for establishing the behavior of the entire structure. Contextually, it can refer either to a description for the collection or the matter so collected (i.e. the physical event).

So, do my last postings with the two analogue models raise questions one might like to answer that, if meaningfully (M entity) answered, will enhance ones comprehension, or must we be satisfied with but very partial knowledge? Dr. Bob.

#223 1 OCT 2018

(A two day long posing.) 700,000? I have in my library what is a book form representation for a "continuous" linear collection of 700,000 Koine Greek symbols. The proper linear form stretches out 5833 ft. But, there are no punctuation marks nor what we would consider as the blank spaces between words - the word breaks. Today, this collection might be difficult to "read." But the collection has considerable significance for must of us. The name of this string of symbols is "The New Testament." This is but one "word" in the general language denoted here by L. The GID-model notion of a "word" means a finite "ordered" collection of general language "symbols."

I have made yet a few alterations in my two glossaries in the continual hope that the terms I use are better "understood." I have replaced the ones that appear in this groups files. The changes deal with the notion of the general language, denoted in these posting by L, and my use of such.

"But, how does one use defined L to describe the behavior of L? That seems like the irrational notation of L being a member of L."

The modeled L is NOT the language L. It is a purely mathematical representation for L via a natural number coding. The coded L notation appears in "bold" font within the "mathematically" expressed statements. Then the results are "interpreted" in terms of entities that, in comparison, behave like an L language but, as I have mentioned before, the *(bold)L has various additional properties that L does not possess. These properties lead to the comparative statement that *(bold)L is a (representation for) an "higher-language. Since it's an interpretation, the term "representation" is dropped.

(You can most certainly skip this. But maybe there is a mathematician or two who might read what I just wrote and be able to follow what I next write. The language L is represented by equivalence classes of partial sequences of natural numbers via a coding injection i that "maps" L into the informal set of natural numbers. Thus, the entire standard model can be viewed as but a model for behavior of natural numbers. The corresponding structure is then isomorphically embedded into the nonstandard structure.)

The model predicts that there is a "higher-language," denoted there by *(bold)L.

(1) Now a single electron is a physical-system as are the other assumed primitive "particles." And there are trillions upon trillions of other physical-systems as well. So, for a fixed 3-D slice of a our universe, what physical-system is the "first one," so-to-speak, the A in the A, A', A'' . . . form?

Well, the higher-intelligence does not simply use physical-systems in the word W = A, A -> A', A' -> A'' . . . and deductively produce that intertwined (closely related) sequence A, A', A'', A''', . . . of physical-systems. Many pre-designed systems can be physical-like systems, ones that contain immaterial entities, entities that need not be describable by any member of L. Not being a higher-intelligence, I cannot give a comprehensible general language answer to this question since I cannot be sure of A's content. This aspect of the GID-model is called the "lack of knowledge model.

" HOWEVER, one might look for a possible answer presented by others, say some statements transcribed many, many years ago that indicate that various physical-systems (many composed of other physical or even physical-like systems) came "first." I note that the actual pre-designed system A that "comes first" can be, when it is first produced in the "beginning," higher-complex. Indeed, it can be a "mature" physical-system.

We are rather too well trained and tend to take the modern reductionist view that it is "always" a fact that physical-systems are outcomes of randomly or, for us, otherwise produced combinations of "elementary particles." I warned you that your prior training might, at first, delay comprehension. For example, as I have mentioned previously, you may be trained to considered only such defined assumed primitive physical components as the basis for the human being. But, GID states that it is rational to accept that we are not physical-systems but rather physical-like. And the GGU-model states that we can first appear in mature form. Further, it is a rational GID prediction this is how we were originally designed.

Now what surprises are predicted for the "next sequential steps" that yield our universe? Dr. Bob.

#224 2 OCT 2018

"If we cannot produce a linguistic description that predicts the behavior, then the behavior is absolutely lawless and random in character." So, states a most prideful atheistic scientist. Indeed, this is an underlying philosophic atheistic physical-science stance.

Below is where you can find the archived version of, most likely, my most important published article that counters this atheistic contention. I have mentioned this before. BUT, today, the statement of the main theorem with the notation and terms employed have no substantial meaning for but very, very few individuals on this planet.

In that article, all but the last two paragraphs employ "standard" mathematical notions. However, after not being able to comprehend the theorem statement itself, would one even attempt to follow the proof?

Today, it appears that Nonstandard Analysis (NSA) employs a "dead" language known by but very few and, sadly, is not taught to any significant degree anywhere in, at least, North America. Thus, 66 of my 137 published articles are written in a dead language. If references are included, then 93 of my articles are also written in this dead language. Thus, mathematically, at least, the articles are "worthless" contributions. This also includes my Ph.D. dissertation.

When university math. departments seek a new member, they most often seek one with a background in a specific math. subject. This is not simply because the new member may need to instruct a course in the subject, but it is also relative to aiding graduate students with their choice of concentration and their dissertations. Today, my background will not meet such hiring criteria. Why hasn't this situation been corrected, especially at those institutions that consider themselves "Christian"?

I know of no other mathematical way to establish that Biblical concepts are rational concepts than by the use of NSA. As I have previously mention, due to my application of NSA to Biblical concepts, that my immediate family members reject my work and also claim that it is worthless and tell me so. By-the-way, my home is fully decorated for their now favorite "Holiday," Halloween.

Well, maybe next, I'll again attempt to present a description of the surprises predicted for the "next sequential steps" that yield our universe. I'll even give an article where the material that yields the predictions can be found. But, else, who in this group can comprehend what I have written there in the now dead language of NSA? This is the article on "probability models."

arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112037

#225 5 OCT 2018

(I have been waiting for a slightly revised article to come online. And my writing of this posting is "slow going" due to my vision problem.) The GGU-model, (what's that) is a "model" for a cosmogony. It produces universes, and hence, is NOT dependent upon ANY so-called "cause and effect" physical behavior. This is a good thing since many such linguistic descriptions are inconsistent, although they partially may correspond to a mathematical formalism. (One reason why material on may website and in my vixra.org archived articles may not be widely known is that I expose some of these inconsistencies.)

Hence, for the GGU-model, Ok, General Grand Unification Model, and our universe an alteration in a physical-system from one moment to another moment is NOT caused by ANY defined physical process. This is, of course, counter to the training we and billions of others have gone though. I repeat that the GGU-model processes apply to various universes, where NO humanly comprehensible processes yield the sequential moment-to-moment alterations in "system" behavior.

A rather significant article appears below. It rationally predicts such stuff as the human spirit and generates "invisible" universes. Since it first appeared online, in March 2014, only 210 original URLs have looked at it. I have mentioned it 4 times to this group. Accept for the last section, the notation is minimal. It predicts the human spirit and "hidden" universes.

As to notation, you will see (i,j)-UWFF, (i,j)-ultra-UWFF and (i,Greek letter)-ultra-UWFF. Of course, you all know, by now, that UWFF is a 3-D slice of a universe (a Universe-wide Frozen-frame). The (i,j) is a name given to the 3-D slice. When embedded into the nonstandard structure an extension of each UWFF is obtained, the hyper-UWFF (*UWFF). (Of course, these terms are interpretations for the mathematical entities.) Each (i,j)-UWFF is contained in the predicted (i,j)-hyper-UWFF. Further, each (i,Greek letter)-hyper-UWFF is "disjoint" from all the standard (i,j) named one. So, what additional stuff can be in these predicted entities?

In the article, I discuss what differences can exist between these "slices." For example, there may be no difference between an (i,j)-UWFF and an (i,j)-hyper-UWFF. Then an higher-intelligence generated process is not actually needed for our universe. On the other hand, one can state that humans with immaterial spirits only exist in the (i,j)-hyper-UWFF and only come about via an higher-intelligence design and application of designed instruction-entities (rules). Then there are the predicted (i,Greek letter)-hyper-UWFF. These tend to be rather more interesting in what they can contain. If not all empty, an higher-intelligence is needed for their design.

The below archived article is called a "link" and can be viewed directly, and saved via "save page as." etc. Dr. Bob

vixra.org/abs/1403.0036

#226 7 OCT 2018

Universal god. I expose on my website Templeton's universal god notion. This is the founder of the Templeton Foundation. This is entitled by Templeton as "The Theology of Humility." This notion rejects the complete set of God's Biblically stated attributes. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son" is not true according to Templeton. He writes ". . . it is mankind's own ego which leads us to think that we are at the center, rather than merely one tiny temporal outward manifestation of the vast universe of being which subsists in an eternal and infinite reality which some call God." And that human beings are "late in appearance in this evolutionary process."

There is a form of ID which does satisfy this universal god notion since those that propagate its concepts state that it does NOT specifically point to any of the Judeo-Christian nor other religions described God notions. This is the Discovery Institute's (DI's) form of ID, which I term as Restricted ID (RID). By-the-way, this is probably the last of my long postings.

I have just surveyed numerously many Internet sites that claim to discuss ID, where the "ID" is now being replaced with the term (IDC) "intelligent design creationism" in further attempts to discredit it as a valid "scientific subject." 95% of the distinct Internet sits that post on ID have articles that are anti-ID and are written either by ignorant individuals or those who are actually lying. These sits mostly try to attack ID in general, BUT the notions presented are for RID and not GID.

I am actually grateful that GID is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the such articles although their "broad-brush" approach does affect GID for individuals who have little acknowledge as to the vast differences between the two. Obviously, I would not be able to counter the lying statements that would be made about GID such as it not being "scientific" in nature. As I have mentioned a 1000 times, I use the "predictive explanatory model" method as it is employed within "Physical Cosmology," with the addition of an observable data foundation. This must be considered as "scientific" by all the institutions that have given physical cosmologist many awards and honors for their work in this "scientific" area. This includes the Nobel Prize.

One basic claim, which I disproved in 1978, is that the idea of an infinitely powerful intelligence is an irrational theological concept. Then to show that the term "intelligent design" is actually "creationism," the 1987 "Panda" book is employed and the claim that the term first appeared there and that it is used to disguise its "true" creationist meaning.

We often have that more than one term is applied to the exact same "concept," while, on the other hand, one word is applied to different contextually controlled ideas. My general language descriptions for physical-systems I call "designs." The term is applied to the "secular" GGU-model as well as the higher-intelligence GID-model. Prior to their realization, physical-systems correspond to linguistic "pre-designs." In 1979, when I first introduced the notion of "intelligent" design, I used different terms. You will find I use the term "supermind" "superlogic" and other "super" prefixed terms. However, I discovered that Weinberg had priority relative to "superlogics" so I changed the terms to "ultralogics" etc. and, indeed, replaced all "super" prefixes with "ultra." The same concept but a different term. (The technical term is usually written as "hyper.") It is not the term employed but it is the concept the term is naming that is significant.

For the GGU-model, each physical-system exists in an info-field. Physical science employs a detailed linguistic description for such. This is by my definition a "pre-design," when the model's constituents are sequential presented. One can also call each merely a "design." Have I written anything in this posting that might be useful to the few that read it? By-the-way, Templeton is not the only individual's work I expose on my site. Maybe this is yet another reason the site is avoided. Dr. Bob

#267 10 OCT 2018

"I won't even attempt to read the stuff. I can't follow even what is claimed is the simple material." Not even the last posted article that even shows that major aspects of Revelations are rational. "No, not even that." Who told you that you should not even attempt to read the material. "My brain told me."

"(Abstract) Our mental choices to act are overtly influenced by our environment, alterations in our environment, and especially by other members of the society in which we dwell. Via application of nonstandard analysis, this article first presents a detailed nontechnical discussion of the rationally predicted processes that can covertly influence human perception and our choices. It is shown how these results satisfy the immaterial aspects of human thought as presented by Eccles and Robinson and also satisfy various Biblical statements. The second part presents a more technical explanation."

raherrmann.com/influences.htm

#268 12 OCT 2018

I just looked at a series of photographs of snowflakes. They have rather remarkable designs. Are they "intelligently" designed via the Discovery Institute's (DI) (Steven Meyer's etc.) restricted form of ID (RID). NO. Are they GID intelligently designed? Yes. Are the "physical laws" that have produced these snowflakes DI intelligently designed? No, since such laws are explicitly rejected by Dembski and as being relative to DI's designed notion. But, GID implies that such laws are intelligently designed for a specific Biblically stated reason.

Does DI's RID actually require or predict that an intelligence exterior to our physical universe is the cause for the designs it states are RID? No. But GID PREDICTS from observable data that such an entity can be rationally assumed to be the cause. AND GID satisfied what some individuals claim is "direct" evidence for the existence of such an exterior entity.

Does RID point to a specific intelligence that has produced the Restricted designs? No. But GID satisfies many, many Biblical statements that describe the attributes of a specific designer. Does RID employ a recognized "scientific" method to make its claims. No. But, GID does employ such a method. Dr. Bob.

#269 13 OCT 2018

When one develops a totally new area of "scientific" rational investigation, terms need to be chosen for the new ideas presented. I could have called it GID-XYZ. But I called it GID-design, since the standard meanings for the term "design" do refer to different aspects of what is termed as a descriptive outline, a descriptive pattern etc. that corresponds to a depicted physical-system that displays no linguistic markings. Thus, when terms are used for the new notions a scientists needs to define the terms employed. Hence, we have such things as "glossaries." From my glossary,

GID-design is a form of atemporal "pre-design." When contextually understood, the prefix "GID" is often omitted. The symbols used for GID-design represent rationally produced general language descriptions. The term "rational" indicates that the descriptions are produced by rules for rational thought as descriptively defined. That is, GID-design refers to a description's rational structure. The logic applied is most often classical logic. However, other logical formations via the logic-system and the logic-system algorithm are also allowed.

There is an article on the Web that gives five so-called reasons that "intelligent design" fails. It states that

"Intelligent design is the belief that life is too complicated to have arisen solely by Darwinian natural selection, and was purposefully created--not necessarily by God (though this is what most intelligent design advocates believe), but by an unspecified, super-advanced intelligence. People who believe in intelligent design often advance some variant of five basic arguments; in the following slides, we describe these arguments, and show why they make no sense from a scientific perspective (or why the phenomena they purport to explain are actually better explained by Darwinian evolution)."

I suppose that this purports to be about Intelligent Design, in general. But it is only relative to the Discovery's Institute exceptionally restricted notion. It is not related to the GID-model general construction since GID also yields descriptions for universes that are judged by us to be completely chaotic in behavior.

I have mentioned this previously, but some group members may still be unaware of it. In 2001, I journal published an article that mathematically establishes that what atheistic science terms as probabilistic "random" behavior is actually one of the strongest indications of intelligent design by a "higher" intelligence. The patterns presented have a predicted "logic-system" rational structure, but NO physical entity can replicate the this higher-intelligence pattern of "thought." (Note: This article with typo corrections has appeared on the Internet since 2001 as well.) Dr. Bob

#270 14 OCT 2018

"How can there exist such an entity, an entity with such 'power'?

"I know you've based your predictions only on observable data. But, I look around me and to state that all that physically exists in my room, including my vary movements and even the thoughts of which I am aware, are all pre-designed and rationally produced, from moment-to-moment, by an higher-intelligence is much to fantastic to accept. Indeed, I can't even find words that express how far beyond belief this notion is for me. Then you state that this extends to all physical aspects of our universe. How can anyone accept such a concept, especially since you claim that this is all accomplished by an actual single entity?"

Is not your comprehension relative to statements expressed in a general language? The Complete GGU-model states that this is all "generally" accomplished via an "higher" form of rational thought applied to an "ultraword." One might say that

He sustains ALL things by His powerfully declaration (rhema).

I know that you accept that we humans can or will very shortly describe all the processes that govern every aspect of our physically changing universe. However, the model states that we can only partially know, that is linguistically describe, the attributes of such higher-intelligence behavior. That is, it is like

. . . we are seeing through a glass, darkly.

We simply only "know in part" using any of our linguistic methods. But, the model does predict that there is a vast amount of additional information that exists, but, at present, we cannot "comprehend" the meanings of the terms used in this language. Maybe, in the future, under certain circumstances, we will be able to comprehend aspects of this "higher" language. Maybe in the

Third Heaven.

Dr. Bob.

#271 16 OCT 2018

Just a short and maybe interesting note. Certain definitions, unfortunately, have changed over time in order to forced upon humanity the atheistic world-view. There has been a push to classify "science" as only relative to the atheistic concept of the "physical." It has been done to force one to accept only "physical science" as highly meaningful, where "physical" refers to a list of terms classified as such. So, what did Gauss mean when he wrote that "mathematics is the queen of all sciences." Then, what is "library science"?

In my glossary, I go back to what I consider the correct definition. "SCIENCE. A systematically organized and studied body of knowledge about a particular subject. The subject determines the rules employed for this purpose." Thus, from this definition, to identify the "science," the term needs to have a qualifier attached. The idea is relative to the notion "systematically and organized." This definition still appears in some dictionaries. Some writes of various dictionaries seem to want one to believe that what we once called "science" is no more and that the "true scientific" procedures are what are employed for physical science. Then, I guess, all else is rather philosophic. Mathematics fits what category?

If classical deduction is not applied by the philosopher, then what type of deduction does the philosopher use. (By-the- way, in this case, theology is a branch of philosophy.)

Well, how do philosophers argue if they don't use the standard modes of "scientific deduction." Well, they use what is termed as a "dialectic." So, the atheists are having they way, they think, in that only their form of "science" is strongly rational, while other arguments are produced by a much less significant form of "rational thought." The modern physical scientist could hardly reject mathematical modeling as a bases for their discipline.

So, you can certainly see why my mathematically modeling of theological notions is very dangerous to their exclusionary notions relative to logical discourse. But, it's actually worst than that. What form of logical discoursed is necessary to apply a dialectic? I and Gagnon have mathematically modeled the most basic aspects of the dialectic. The modeling shows that, when a philosopher applies a dialectic, "scientific" classical logic is applied. So, the subject of the philosopher's dialectic can be classified as one of the "mathematical sciences.' Yes, Gauss is correct again.

Next, I shall take another "look at" the "infinity notion" relative to the General ID "infinitely power" God notion and how one "might" intuitively understand this. And, for new members, please, and all other group members we have

raherrmann.com

#272 17 OCT 2018

(Long part 1.) For more than 100 years, there was a controversy relative to the Cantor idea of the "transfinite." It was claimed that you cannot perceive the "complete" set of natural numbers. Today, we call such a set a "denumerable" set. This claim is relative to how we "count." (Below is my article that counters this via human imagination.)

In modern set-theory, "infinite" sets that are NOT denumerable are defined relative to the existence of various "functional" relations between members. I could through at you a lot of terminology at this point but won't. Such relations are but an extension of the counting idea. BUT, it is not a "counting" that we can actually perform. So, I'll write no more about this aspect.

Consider the set of natural numbers A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}. (This is how a mathematician might state this when actually this is but a finite collection of symbolic names ("representations") for such a set. After all, there are many other representations using other languages.) If you care to write them down, you will find that there are 2^10 distinct subsets, P(A) (notation), that can be founded from these 10 numbers.

From our notion of counting, one can, at the least, (intuitively) state that the (informal) "number" of members of P(A) is a "lot" greater than the original set A. (Yes, usually without mentioning it, the "natural" numbers are used in different contexts and this is supposed to be "understood" by the reader.) I note that in high school algebra books, the authors often write the set of natural numbers N as {1,2,3,4,. . .} and you are supposed to know what the ". . ." is trying to convey.

Well, IF one assumes N, then one can also discuss the set of all subsets of N, or P(N). Now comes the stuff you may not like too much. You will find certain terms used by certain authors of math. books that try to continue the intuitive notion of the "number of" members of a set. They us terms such as the "size" of a set even in the non-finite case. (There are technical terms for the word "size," which I won't use here since the definition comes well within a course in axiomatic set-theory.) How do we know "intuitively" that two infinite sets are of the same (infinite) size? We very partially extend the counting notion.

We consider a definable binary relation, (a,b), between the two sets. A special type of function. This relation has no repeated first coordinates "a" and no repeated second coordinate "b". The counting notion we use does this with the first coordinate being natural numbers and the second coordinate something like "apples." But when we count there is a "next" number that we use for the "next" counted apple. This "next idea" is NOT part of the requirements for the function. Well, for N and P(N), one shows that there is such a function, indeed, (1,{1}), (2,{2}), (3,{3}) , . . . (those ". . ." again) that uses each member of N and gives you a collection of members of P(N). This set of ordered pairs does NOT relate the entire P(N) in this manner. Indeed, there is an argument that shows that NO such function exists that corresponds each member of N with each member of P(N).

BUT, this is NOT THE CASE for "finite" P(A), since 2^10 is a natural number. Because of such stuff like this, one can state that "intuitively" the set P(N) contains an "infinite" subset {{1},{2}.{3},{4},. . .} of the same "size" as N and P(N) does not have the same "size" as N and, intuitively, P(N) seem to have a lot "more" stuff in it. This sort of difference yields a type of intuitive "size" ordering.

This ordering behaves just like the ordering you have learned for the natural numbers. This is all formally presented within axiomatic set-theory. Axiomatic set-theory does NOT fully capture all of the intuitive notions. So, as a shorthand, let |N| indicate the size notion and < the ordering. Hence, one might write that |N| < |P(N)|. (N is "smaller" in size than P(N).) However, from a counting viewpoint it also holds that |A| < |P(A)|. The difference is that there is a set of natural numbers B such that |B| = |P(A)| and this is NOT the case for N and P(N). Further, if F is any finite set of natural numbers, then |F| < |N|.

These are some of the major set-theoretic differences between the infinite and finite, |N| < |P(N)|, |F| < |N| < |P(N)| and, from this, we have that |F| < |P(N)|. But, the strange properties of the transfinite numbers yields that if E is the set of all even natural numbers, then |E| = |N|. They are of the same size. But, for us, < is the most important property. We are ready, in part 2, to apply this to the "infinitely powerful" higher-intelligence concept.

I may not be able to present part 2 tomorrow since I'm going for Nuclear Med. Scan and I will be radioactive for a while. Dr. Bob.

raherrmann.com/infinite.htm

#273 19 OCT 2018

It has never occurred before. Prior to Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), there was no way to get an "intuitive" idea as to the real differences, if any, in the infinite "quantities" for distinct infinite sets. First recall from last time the fact that a set of one hundred symbols A = {1,2,3,4,. . ., 100} can be employed to produce 2^100 different and distinct finite sets. These will all be subsets of A. Recall that the notation P(A) is used to represent the finite, in this case, collection of these subsets. Of course, one could, at least mentally, consider a set B, with 100,000,000,000 members. Its size is 100,000,000,000. Notationally, this is the same as last time. |B| = 100,000,000,000. Then the "size" of P(B), |P(B)| = 2^100,000,000,000, a rather large number. That is, P(B) is much larger in "size."

The "standard" structure we used today, in NSA, is formed by taking a set, such as the natural numbers N, and adjoining to this set the set P(N), then doing this again by adjoin P(P(N)), and again, and again, P(. . .P(N). . .), and again as "many times" as there are natural numbers. The Nonstandard Structure does the same, but starts with an extension *N of N. (i.e P(*N), etc.).

Well, anyway, in 1974, Hanson showed that any of the "basic" infinite nonstandard sets like *N all have the same "formal" set-theoretic "size." But, in their 1986 book, "Infinitesimal Stochastic Analysis," Vol 119 in North Holland's Studies in Logic, on page 38, we find that all such sets, as stated by Stroyan and Bayod, are "gigantic by non-set-theoretic standards." What do they mean by such a statement?

Well, consider all the basic statements we can mathematically express about finite sets. For example, consider two finite sets A and B. Then consider the set that contains either the members of A or the members B (i.e. A U B). Then the set A U B is finite. Indeed, if you do this for any finite collection of finite sets, you get a finite set. In NSA, this holds IF you replace the set A and B with finite OR infinite "hyper" finite sets. Indeed, in this case, just add the prefix "hyper" to the "basic" properties of the finite sets and the result holds for the NSA structure, the hyperfinite.

If W is a hyperfinite set, then "formally" for any of the P(. . . P(N). . . ) infinite sets |P(. . . P(N). . . )| < |W|. For any of the "P" iterations. Let F(N) denote that set of all finite subsets of N. The F(. . . (F(N). . . ) is a subset of P(. . . P(N). . . ) and, hence, |F(. . . (F(N). . . )| < |P(. . . P(N). . . )| < |W|. BUT, intuitively, within NSA, this is compared with the finite notion since the term "hyperfinite" is employed. Thus, it is stated that |W| is gigantic "by comparison" for both of cases F(. . . (F(N). . . ) and P(. . . P(N). . . ), no matter how many iterations of F or P one takes. Based upon the finite, one gets the intuitive idea that these infinite sets do have vastly different "quantities." By-the-way, I'm not the only mathematician that uses the term "size." Wilder in his book on the foundations of mathematics also uses this term.

So, why is this result significant for General ID? The ultrawords W to which the higher-intelligence applies its mode of intelligent deduction are all hyperfinite members of the higher-language *L. Dr. Bob.

To properly understand "modern" intelligent design, one needs to know its history. I have just made a few alterations in my short website "history" article, where the documented facts are presented. Please see

raherrmann.com/history.htm

#274 21 OCT 2018

It was claimed that I used certain terminology for the sole purpose of demonstrating my knowledge of the English language. I have long since altered this approach, but others who present material relative to our interests have not done so. This is one of the reasons I have glossaries on my website.

Consider the following definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, where I have added words to the definition for a term that also appear in that dictionary.

NATURE. The collection of all phenomena (i.e. physical entities that exist).

NATURAL LAW. An observed law relating to natural phenomena. [This, of course, is not the definition used within atheistic science. The "law" does not need to be observed (quantum field behavior) and it is "unvarying." So, lets add these additional features to the term. Indeed, I suppose we also need to add that it is "described" via a general language.]

Although Richard Feynman in his popular writings seems to express it otherwise, notice that "nature" is not an entity or "thing" that produces such physical entities. Why do actual "smart" atheists stay away from the "origins" question? From the viewpoint of the "physical-systems," nature as so defined, is not a fixed collection. Significant natural "laws" are linguistic expressions that yield descriptions that yield altered, and distinctly new physical-systems. Rationally, to alter a physical-system one needs a physical-system.

The "smart" atheist stays away from the idea that to alter a physical-system one needs such a system to alter and the question as to the "existence" of such alteration procedures that, some-how-or-other, are sequentially "present" prior to the alteration. Of course, this is one of the Wheeler requirements for his "pre-geometry," which I call the General Grand Unification Problem. Physical regulations are suppose to "emerge" from the model. "Something" produces the entities that are claimed to exist, and when we compare the alterations in behavior we can express these alterations linguistically and predict the future alterations. No wonder, in 1974, members of the mathematics and physical departments of Princeton University could not solve this problem. (Wheeler and his wife Hegner were founding members of the Unitarian Church of Princeton.)

For the atheist, my secular GGU-model requires them to accept a lot of stuff as existing in the substratum world of the model. And, from the reductionist viewpoint of quantum physics, they should have no great problem in doing so. BUT, one aspect of the model does employ a procedure to can but need be associated with GID-intelligence.

Sadly, beginning in 1994 individuals have actually attempted to apply "laws of nature" to produce, with a little help from God, our "created" world. But, is this actually related to the Bibles original creation notion? "And God said (thought within Himself). . . " Does this satisfy the Romans 1:20 "power" notion or Hebrews 1:3 or a lot of other Biblical statements I have mentioned many times? Does this satisfy Henry Morris' (ICR) "Eternal life" Biblical period, where eternal life and its eternal environment is supposed to have been "created"? The laws these modelers apply do not yield such eternal life and this is one reason I reject such a "physical law" approach. The Eden model is not related to Genesis 1 "Biblical creation" via descriptive physical law. Dr. Bob

#275 23 OCT 2018

Do you accept that we have came into being via random evolutionary processes?

What is the Oxford Dictionary's definition for "purpose"? "The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists." The term "created" does not indicate, for an atheist, a mode of Divine creation, but rather "human" creation. Remember that until April 7, 1977, I was a "fire breathing" atheist.

Of course, we also need a clear definition for the term "reason." "A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." Note that, in both definitions, we have different choices for the meanings. But, trivially, such definitions are relative to (general language) linguistic descriptions, which one needs to "comprehend." So, we have that a "purpose" is "The (A) cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event for which something is done or created or for which something exists."

So, from the "THE" viewpoint, if one reads a description for a purpose, then the descriptions writer may be attempting to "force" one to absolutely accept what the writer as stated. I'm sure few in this group would fall for such a linguistic "trap." Of course, a student might. "He said that it is 'the' cause for such an event. So how can it be otherwise? So I better answer the question using what he stated is the purpose."

Some years later, the same student discovers that there could be another distinct purpose for the event. And, this has been the course of human thought over thousands of years. Descriptions for the "reasons" have extensively changed. I predicted, many years ago, that "scientists" would overturn the notion of Behe's irreducible complexity by showing that it comes about by "natural" means.

Now once a "purpose" for "design" has been established, is the design produced by an "intelligence." Members of the Discovery Institute (DI) consider "purpose" as a unmeasurable definition for intelligence. From the Discovery Institute's evolutionnews website, we find them embracing a recent bit of evidence they claim implies their form of "intelligence."

"It’s beautiful bioengineering — using random variation in biomolecules to design better molecules. It’s beautiful work in intelligent design science. Nature, no less than ingenious biological researchers in their lab, relies on variation, chance, and intelligence in evolution. This Nobel work is a beautiful vindication of irreducible complexity."

The "intelligence" is absolutely stated. It is the intelligence of the human researchers that yields via so-called natural laws, and "random" "chance evolution," an entity that satisfies the DI notion of purpose ("intelligence in evolution"). And that they received a Nobel Prize these results. So, DI gets a little closer to design via an alien creature. A possible choice previously advocated. Yes, aliens can apply such laws to produce such structures.

Of course, the Bible is rather wrong. There is no period of everlasting life and, indeed, relative to Divine creation human beings came about via chance evolutionary processes. Although, I suppose that the physical law that does this can be assumed to be Divinely DI designed (it has purpose). Then we are also not unique since the same law, being universal, can produce many entities similar to us as the atheists claim.

But the Bible states that "God made man. . . . God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living sole." He then place him in the garden on the original earth. Not in gardens. Of course, all that have lived since 1450BC and have accepted the command meanings for these Biblical statements most be wrong. So, apparently, for the DI, maybe God did make man but by random evolutionary means. And only the purpose for the designs so made indicate His intelligence. A rather weak intelligent agent.

And, yes, the secular GGU-model can be used to produce all of this. But the secular GGU-model also"satisfies" an higher-intelligence design feature, which can be ignored. Dr. Bob

#276 24 OCT 2018

This is my 276 posting since Dec 2017. I will, however, need to reduce my participation. I'll state it again. The Complete GGU-model IS a mathematically based COSMOGONY that is based upon observable evidence. It satisfies the requirements of John Wheeler's "pre-geometry" (General Grand Unification) Problem. Being a "General" solution, it establishes the rational design and production of numerously many distinct universes.

Much to the dislike of those individuals or organizational that actually advocate theistic evolution or, worst still, Templeton's "universal" god notion, AND reject even a slightly common-language interpretation of Scriptures, the Complete GGU-model establishes the complete rationality of a strict Genesis 1 creation scenario.

Historically, the rather strong "intellectual" rejection of the supernatural God concept and Judeo-Christian concepts was advocated, starting in 1841, by Feuerback.

"[T]here is no way of explaining the thousands and thousands of contradictions, perplexities, difficulties, and inconsistencies in which religious belief involves us . . . . [A]theism is a complete and thoroughgoing rationalism (Feuerbach, 1841).

We also have "Christianity, . . . , cannot agree with reason because "worldly" and "religious" reason contradict each other (Marx)

Then today we have the Humanists. "All humanists agree that religion is not based on reason" (Eysenck, 1973).

Since Feuerbach, it has taken 138 years of atheistic indoctrination before a method is developed that shows that all such statements are false. BUT, how many in this world know this absolute FACT? Then we have another attack on Biblical creation. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,(24 November 1859). A concept excepted by the Discovery institute (DI), Stephen Meyers and their "scholars." One needs a form of ID that does NOT point to a particular creationary scenario that would contradict assumed evolutionary processes. Then, in 1998, William Dembski developed such an idea for his Ph.D. dissertation. It is claimed that a particular type of described "purpose" for design can indicate "intelligence." This Dembski notion of "intelligence" does not correspond to a measurable intelligence.

Prior to Dembski's notion, an actual measurable intelligence was shown to intelligently design all that did, does or ever will physically exist. Lacking the DI funds to broadly disseminate this fact, it is still only known by few. The weak restricted form of ID (RID) remains the claim of DI. BUT, using RID only a minuscule number of entities are so "designed.

I note that the DI notion of "purpose" would certainly be an highly restricted form, since the Scriptures specifically state, in Genesis 1:25, the original "purpose" for His creation of man. Indeed, the rather sudden appearance of man in mature and fully functional form satisfies both the GID and GGU-models. Dr. Bob

#277 25 OCT 2018

In Paul's day, and for a long time after that, the term "philosophy" also meant the ideas we, today, term as "physical science." Indeed, even through a much later date, physical scientists, such as Newton, were termed as "philosophers of nature" and they studied "Natural Philosophy." "Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) (I Newton)." (Scientific publications in Newton's time were presented in Latin.)

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Co. 2:8 (NIV))

"Nature, no less than ingenious biological researchers in their lab, relies on variation, chance, and intelligence in evolution." (Discovery Institute's Evolutionnews). I assume this is the DI notion of "intelligence."

". . . sustaining all things by His powerful word (declaration)" (Heb 1:3 (NIV))

A higher-intelligence designs and sustains ALL things by application of processes that include the (GID) intelligent application of rules that produce all physical-systems and their intertwining within our universe as well as its step-by-step development. Due to their properties, these higher-intelligence processes are "modeled" by a predicted ultralogic applied to a predicted ultraword. Dr. Bob.

#278 27 OCT 2018

"The first step is that nothing existed. Then the next step is something exists, in particular, quantum fields." NO, no, no, you should not start the lecture that way. "Why not?" Because some student might ask, how did our universe go from "nothing" to "something." "Well, like a 'philosopher' I might try some obscure terms that mean the same thing but few students would actually understand the terms. It would also make me look rather intelligent." No, no, no. Philosophers have been writing about this since the 5th century BC. Even our beloved Einstein got into this when, for "physical entities" he wrote, "For those of us that believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." One could stop and try to comprehend this, I suppose, but that will not get us to the lesson.

Here's why. If you simply check the Oxford dictionary you will find the definition for "nothing" means "not anything; no single thing." So, we need to go to the definition of "thing." We have from the same dictionary that a thing is "An object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to." (Note the incorrect English composition.) Now we go to the term "object." "Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched." Well, that won't do, since quantum fields cannot be seen nor touched and we know that they exist. I would say that "objects" are any member of a list of physical entities we claim exist. So, you can see how this all leads you astray. So, place don't go there or you might not get to the lesson.

Just start by stating that "Quantum fields physically exist in our universe and here is how they behave." If a student asks "where did they come from?" simply tell the student to check with the philosophy department. We in Atheists U. need to stay away from the "origins" notion. Dr. Bob

raherrmann.com

#279 28 OCT 2018

Yes, I know. My website is "ugly." Yes, it is not "pretty" with great colors and categories and other standard stuff. It is purposely done this way since the terminology used is known by so few. And it takes effort to read the material. People who go there as they might a gaming site will be disappointed. However, I'm still averaging 207 hits a day thus far this Oct. (Not 10,000 as I have always hoped.) Of the Oct monthly totals thus far, the top article has been "history," 153 hits, followed by the paper on "mental influences," 124. I will now additionally place the mental influences article on the vixra.org archives. Dr. Bob.

As I so often have mentioned but maybe you have missed it see raherrmann.com

#280 28 OCT 2018

I point out that my article on mental influences was place on the vixra.org archives on 8/29/2018. It has been viewed by a total of 8 original urls. But, I will now replace it with a revision. One problem I always have is the font size. Due to my rather poor vision these days I have now and then placed articles there where the fonts are too large, as in this case. This replacement will reduce them to the size I usual employ. It reduces the number of pages as well. Dr. Bob.

#281 29 OCT 2018

You have a choice.

I note that I have 46 journal publications, five books, 22 vixra.org and 13 arxiv.org archived articles in Mathematical Logic and applications of the concepts studied in this subject. This includes universal logic, where models for a general language and its linguistical structure are analyzed. You can also check my bio. and see if I might be classified as a "scholar.

As previously quoted from the Discovery Institute's (DI) website, "Nature, no less than ingenious biological researchers in their lab, relies on variation, chance, and intelligence in evolution."

Thus, it is "Nature" that "relies on variation, chance, and intelligence [purpose] in evolution."

DI's "intelligence" is a very, very restricted form of "purpose." (RID = their restricted ID). Thus, one can substitute the word "purpose" (purposely), as I indicated above, for their term "intelligence" for the entities they classify as "intelligently" designed. These are, of course, humanly described "purposes." And, various authors have found other purposes for designs in our universe that are not so restricted.

But, knowing human nature, which I'm sure they do, I've seen writers "assume" that only the unmeasurable DI restricted form of purpose indicates an "intelligent" design. The continuous use of the term "intelligence," for purpose, certainly leads to confusion relative to my (1979) notion of "intelligence" as being measurable rational deduction, which I note is employed on IQ tests. And the "thing" that seems, thus far, to do this form of RID is "Nature."

More from their website.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

That is, "certain," designs, but not all, are "purposely" designed by a thing called nature. To what is DI's ID restricted?

"7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations." (Intelligent cause = "purposeful" cause, or what?)

First, notice there might be a rational problem with this statement and the first one I have quoted. I guess this problem is removed if we also assume, for all such DI statements on ID, that it makes sense to state that nature "purposefully" directs certain evolutionary processes. Anyway, I suppose DI's ID is restricted to biology. Then of what significance is this form if it does not refer to "something" other than biology?

Indeed, if their restricted form of purposeful design is the only purposes for design in nature, then any of the Biblical statements that list any other purposes for the existence of other physical entities must be wrong. Indeed, I have quoted some Biblical statements that are, for RID, total nonsense.

But, many times, I have stated what the Complete GGU-model predicts, not assumes. Here is a more direct description.

A higher-intelligence, via infinitely strong rational means, designs and produces ALL physical-systems and their intertwining within our universe as well as our universe's step-by-step development.

The ALL, obviously, includes the DI purposely designed biological entities.

Then, the predicted properties of this higher-intelligence also satisfy many, many Biblical statements. If you accept the Biblical statements as meaningful, then this will help you to identify the predicted higher-intelligence.

Thus, you have a choice between the original General ID model (GID), or the highly restricted ID (RID) championed by DI. Dr. Bob.

raherrmann.com

#281 30 OCT 2018

You have a choice.

The Discovery Institute's restricted ID (RID) points to no specific entity as the designer of a few purposeful biological entities.

General ID (GID) points to the Scriptural God as the designer of all that has existed, does exist or well "ever" exist physically AS WELL AS various incorporeal Biblically stated entities.

For some of the incorporeal entities, see section 5 below. This section deals with rational predictions and not actual "evidence." I ask at the beginning of this section "Does such evidence exist?" For some members of this group, the answer is "Yes." Dr. Bob.

vixra.org/abs/1403.0036

It has now been 39 years since various forms of the GID-model were first presented to the "world." It would be nice that the mathematically predicted properties of the GID-model, as mentioned in this posting, would be propagated beyond this group.

#282 31 OCT 2018

You have a choice from among many.

George Soros stated that anyone believing in God is insane. So, there are billions of Soros defined "insane" people in this world.

Prior to the Complete GGU-model cosmogony, the atheists claimed that any RATIONAL "scientific" choice you have for a cosmology does not include an "irrational" "God did it" notion. After mathematical predictions were shown to verify the scientific rationality of all, but one, Biblically described Divine attribute, the General ID model was constructed and used to analogue solve Wheeler's "pre-geometry" (The General Grand Unification (GGU)) problem. The refined final version was published in 2013. The secular GGU-model solves this problem, but it also displays at one step a higher-intelligence signature, which, as in other models, can be ignored.

The Complete GGU-model is the coupled General ID and GGU-models, and presents the usual scientific approach that descriptions correspond to the depicted physical entities and their behavior.

As a cosmogony, the Complete GGU-model can be applied to many distinct "universes," including a highly rational very strict Genesis described universe. The methods used are the same as those employed in Physical Cosmology with the added feature that the model is based upon observable evidence and the results are mathematically PREDICTED from these.

So, I mention once again, that you have a scientifically rational choice as to how our present universe came into being. In all cases, any such universe can be generally describable as the product of an higher-intelligence, where for the secular GGU-model this signature can be ignored. Independent from your choice, the predicted higher-intelligence behavior models many Biblical statements, although this fact can also be ignored. My vixra articles and website statistics indicate that various mental influences seem to have been, thus far, successful in blocking the wide dissemination of these facts. Dr. Bob.

Message to Patti 1 NOV 2018.

A personal aside. Please do not try to find out which of my close family members is the individual I am discussing nor further disseminate this in any manner that can be traced to me. The reason I present this is that, for me, it represents how a specific mental influencing agent continues its efforts to hinder me. This Halloween it was particularly intense at my home. This is because one of my close family members, although claiming to be a Christian changed her view, for reasons I will not discuss. She is now a practicing (modern?) witch. Indeed, next week she and two (maybe) apprentice witches will be spending a few days in the "witch" capital of the USA, Salem, MASS. This has not, as yet, affected my continued efforts at presenting the facts about General ID. There are medical conditions that may do so, however.

#283 1 NOV 2018

Let's not forget that one of the greatest achievements of the Adversary (Satan) is to convince people that he does not exist. Dr. Bob

#284 2 NOV 2018

Three days ago I mentioned the very significant section 5 of an vixra.org article. This section contains a very strong Biblical interpretation for the mathematical predictions made by the Complete GGU-model. This section also contains a minor amount of mathematical notation, but, as noted, this notion should be considered as but abbreviations for the interpreted entities. Anyway, over the past three days, for the entire world, there has been only 2 new viewings. Four times since March 2018, I have given the location of this article. Since first placed in the vixra archives in March 2014, there has been only 213 original URL viewings. Thus, I will reduce my group participation. Dr. Bob.

#285 4 NOV 2018

I continue to see incorrect information being presented to this group. Did you know there at least three distinct definitions for the notion of "induction" and the one generally applied to the physical world today is not associated with the concept of "rational reasoning."

But, on to another matter. For 1/2 of my life, I was an atheist and, indeed, I was a very, very good one in dealing with arguments employed by the "religious" fokes. Today, if, from the atheist viewpoint the most intelligent entities that will "ever" exist, "intelligent" biological entities, cannot (linguistically) comprehend something associated with the physical world, then that "something" does not exist.

Since my first journal publication on ID, I have wanted over 36 years for someone to ask how is it possible for any entity to describe ALL of the physical aspects of every single physical event that has, is or will occur within a universe. No one as so asked. I have decided to answer this question anyway. I have put the answer in my glossaries but at the moment my website may still be done. So here is what I have added.

"The standard language L contains infinitely many combinations of "words," where only a finite number of these have been employed by humankind throughout this moment. Hence, the "hyper" language, *(bold)L, also contains these unused standard word-elements, which an higher-intelligence can employ to further detail standard word-form descriptions as they describe physical-systems that are contained in each of the 3-D "hyper" slices of a universe, the *UWFF."

By-the-way, as of just a few minutes ago the number of individual URLs that have looked at the significant paper, since I last mentioned section 5, is now up to 3, world-wide. Dr. Bob

#286 6 NOV 2018

As I post this, my website is down. Indeed, I have just been told the usual garbage "they are working on the problem." They refuse to give me an estimate as to when it will be back online. It's interesting that I have used this host for 20 years and this is the first time this has happened. It's been down for over 24 hours. AND I'm just too old to change hosts.

The natural numbers form what is termed as an "inductive" set. They have a special property without which there would be NO modern math. It states that if you define a property P in terms of the natural numbers N and you show that the property P holds for 0 (or another starting point), and you assume that it holds for an "arbitrary" member n of N and establish that it will then hold for n+1, you can state that P holds for ALL members of N. This is an informal Peano axiom for N.

When mathematically analyzed, we need only two linguistic rules for "logical deduction" as used within the "logic" employed for our modern scientific endeavors. If you should have a set A, with various properties, and you select an "arbitrary" "a" in A and establish that it also has the properties of a set B. That is "a" is also a member of B, then you can rationally apply the deductive rule of "generalization," that states that EACH, or ALL or EVERY member of A is a member of B.

In formal logic, this is usually written as (x)((x in A) -> (x in B)). There are other symbols for the "for all" symbol (.).

Physical induction is NOT an actual form of rational thought and, indeed, can lead to false results. It's based upon the unprovable notion that if one has an exact parameter controlled experiment, then, after a number (how many?) of replications an experiment leads to the same results, the concept of (physical) induction (generalization) is applied. It is "assumed" that the same results will "continue" to occur. This leads to or further verifies a "physical law" statement. Many times, in say a school setting, we repeat, when possible, the experiment and check on the "law." This general approach is NOT Bacon's complete definition.

BUT, John A. Wheeler states, relative to what is actually occurring within our universe, that such laws need not actually be universal as claimed. He writes that "every law of physics is "mutable" under sufficiently extreme conditions . . . " The word "extreme," of course, needs further clarification. This is one of his requirements for his cosmogony, one satisfied by the GGU-model.

Robert A Herrmann showed, many years ago, that through what he calls a "time fracture" various physical parameters can suddenly and universally change and what we "see" today and upon which we base our physical laws need not be universal relative to the actual "time" development of our universe. The Eden model predicts that the physical laws we apply today are not those either during the Eden period nor from that time through the Flood.

Oh! by-the-way, I'm through asking the datarealm people to give me even an estimate as to when my website will once again be available. But, I know this that new individuals who get the message "Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site. We can’t connect to the server at www.raherrmann.com" may not return at a later time. Dr. Bob.

:

#287 8 NOV 2018

(How many members of this group will "read" this rather long presentation?) It's all linguistics. This is especially so for "philosophy." Then we have the various "sciences." When one studies a physical science one works hard to "comprehend," by means unknown, the deeper meanings for the terms employed. Relative to linguistics, by definition, the "sciences" employ combinations of linguistic forms, including diagrams etc., that, when analyzed, form the bases of "human rational thought." Such sciences, for the entities studied, express their behavior patterns almost entirely in what is termed a "first-order predicate language with constants." A basic reason for this is that this is the language of the mathematical part of the mathematical models employed. The linguistic descriptions are suppose to correspond to the physical events they depict. "Nature" has not stamped any physical properties on any of the entities via a language.

Philosophers also present "deduction" in terms of what are called "dialectical" arguments. However, I and Gagnon have shown that the logic they employ to apply a dialectic is the "first-order predicate logic with constants." Philosophers "love" words and terminology. I am still a member of their major American association and there are literally hundreds of "philosophy" journals published. Did you know that Marx and Engels wanted the "scientists" of their time to switch from their form of "logic" and use a dialectical form? Obvious the scientists did not comply. IN MY VIEW, philosophers publish papers for their closed society and almost all of the papers have no significance for humankind. Since I have modeled what they consider philosophic notions, I tested them by sending an article of mine for publication. Of course, they stated that they "could not find a reviewer." It was published in an actual meaningful journal.

For over 2000 years, the notion of the (infinite) regress in "logic" has been known. If such could occur within the physical world, then it presents a "big" linguistics problem for, say, quantum physics, which is rather inconsistent anyway. An unstopped physical "cause and effect" notion leads to such a regress. The problem is that such a regress is a insurmountable irrational problem produced by not stopping in reducing subatomic entities to more "fundamental" entities. This all applies, however, to the correspondence between human linguistics and what is claimed is physical reality. Thus, unless something other than human linguistics and deductive logic exists, then IF one accepts that our universe "began" at an actual moment in the past, then from the viewpoint of the linguistics and deductive logic employed within physical cosmology, there needs to exist some "starting" "primitive" atomic entity that is NOT composed of any linguistically describable physical stuff.

But we are told by Wikipedia that "One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." The use of the term "energy" makes no sense, since "energy" is not a thing but rather a property for "something." "Energy, in physics, is the capacity for doing work." It is a property that "something" possess. Then what is "space?" The description starts with an undefined "space" term. Is it a Newtonian type space and time separation? Does something one might term as empty space first exist? Or does it, somehow, produce space? As I have written before this is not the space notion for "spacetime" concept as used in General Relativity. It's "time" and "space." So what Wiki wrote "sounds" good to a causal reader who most likely will have a very inaccurate idea for the meanings of the terms used.

I have seen some state that "radiation" first exists. What type of radiation, electromagnetic or what? Thus, I suppose, at least one quantum field (eternally?) exists. ETC. You can see why they "stay away" from an actual description for what is the "original stuff" since linguistically it would need to just "pop" into existence or be rather eternal in character. They are working hard to have the eternal notion accepted. After all, this would eliminate most and maybe all of these logical difficulties and, certainly, eliminate even a slightly strict interpretation of Genesis 1. Dr. Bob.

#288 9 NOV 2018

This is a fact about the Complete GGU-model that I have not but should have stressed.

"The Complete GGU-model models behavior. The predicted operators and the processes they represent need not be the actual method nor processes employed. That is, theologically, the operators and processes are either created or they form an analogue model for what we cannot otherwise comprehend. In either case, they yield a rational description for such behavior." Dr. Bob

#289 10 nOV 2018

As stated in a science class at Annapolis Middle School many years ago. "First, there was a large collection of gases and they slowly gathered together and nature slowly forms the earth we now live on. Diana do you have question." I was taught that God created the earth. "Diana, leave the room and report to the office." She was removed from class until she agreed that it was something called "nature" that did this. This is a true story.

I cannot find in any of the definitions for the term "nature" that it is an actual "thing" that does stuff. BUT, this is exactly what 100's of years of atheistic indoctrination has accomplished relative to our comprehension of this term. This indoctrination comes thousands, maybe millions, of times a day via our school-systems.

"The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why She works that way." Nobelist Feynman stated this during his lectures on QED. This is published in his book on this subject, a book read by millions. Please notice that it is Nature and that She does stuff.

Clearly, one could rephrase this as "The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how God works, you won't understand why He works that way."

This insidious approach to the use of the term "nature" appears throughout the world in books, lectures, TV, the Internet and, indeed, all forms of communication. That group of mathematicians and physicists at Princeton could not solve Wheeler's "pre-geometry" problem. Why not? One of the requirements deals with nature and its "laws." The solution yields a COSMOGONY not a cosmology. That is, substratum processes that produce universes. This includes universes for which there are no describable "laws" that yield alterations in any of the physical-events that occur.

Wheeler wrote, "But is it really imaginable that this deeper structure of physics should govern how the universe came into being? Is it not more reasonable to believe the converse, that the requirement that the universe should come into being governs the structure of physics?" Relative to this, in the article in which this appears, this requirement is that, if they exist, then describable "physical laws" should "emerge" from the model.

The GGU-model solves this requirement. Let E(i) denote a specific physical-system within our universe at a particular moment "i" in its sequential development. Let E(j) be the "next" sequential appearance of this system. Suppose that E(j) is altered from its previous E(i) appearance. This alteration is NOT produced by any physical process or law. It is NOT produced by Nature.

The GGU-model must be independent from what WE consider to be atheistic "natural processes" since it is a cosmogony. BUT, for our universe "we have been allowed" to describe cause and effect statements, where we unfortunately call them "natural laws," so that WE can predict, from the "designed" E(i), the alterations that lead to the "designed" E(j). The Complete GGU-model rationally states that "NO physical 'anything' actually produces these alterations." Such predictable alterations are an additional GID-model design feature.

There is a stated theological reason for this. Genesis 1:26 states ". . . let them rule over all the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground" (NIV). ". . . let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth." (LXX) Dr. Bob.

#290 11 NOV 2018

Since my publications have been saved to a doc. file, I thought it might be useful to some members of this group who may have interest in a particular area in mathematics or physics that I list the areas the publications cover. If anyone is interested in a participator paper in one of these areas, I can email them a copy. Of course there are also my achieved articles as well. The areas are

Mathematics.

(1) Mathematical Logic.

(2) Real Analysis.

(3) Abstract Algebra.

(4) General Topology.

(5) Differential Geometry.

(6) Fractals.

(9) Mathematical Modeling.

(10) Probability and Statistics.

(11) Nonstandard Analysis.

Physics + some other stuff.

(1) Special Relativity.

(2) General Relativity.

(3) Blackholes.

(4) General Physics.

(5) Physical Cosmology (in general).

(6) (One little thing in) Fluid Dynamics.

(7) Quantum Physics

(8) Information Theory (Gitt style)

(10) AND Intelligent Design

AND the most significant of all, rationally justifying theological concepts.

#291 14 NOV 2018

This is how far they continue to go in trying to remove ANY special qualities our actual present universe processes. BUT, they have failed to do so. Let's strip away all of the special technical terminology from the notion of the "many-worlds-interpretation (MWI)" of a major aspect of quantum mechanics (QM). In QM, you have a series of terms. This maybe, could, or probably is an infinite series. These terms have an, often disguised, intuitive meaning. Although stated by using the term "measurements," or "observations," and in terms of the actual mathematics used, the "eigen" stuff, it is actually "QM interactions" that yield alterations in the described physical-systems as represented by members of the series. Each term mathematically represents the "probability" that, via an interaction, a specific physical event will occur. The "physical" events that are being mathematically described are reproducible via the GGU-model.

In the old days, such a probabilistic occurrence corresponded to a selection of just ONE term from this series. The notion called the "collapse of the wavefunction." But that does seem like some other "hand" was guiding or had planned the alteration. Everett, for his Ph.D dissertation under John A. Wheeler, purposed what is now called the "many-worlds" model. Via a QM interaction within our universe, ALL of the probabilistically stated alterations actually occur but they must take place elsewhere. Since there are trillions, and trillions etc. of such occurring events, then, even with a small probability for an altered event, it will, via the MWI, occur. Hence, possibly infinitely many other totally disjoint "physical" things "worlds" (i.e. universes) exist, where the alterations occur.

But why do you need all those other universes? It's because a specific alteration mostly does NOT occur in all of the many-worlds. It can occur in some but not others. This process will most definitely yield some rather distinct universes. This is a "physical law" that alters, somehow-or-other, members of a multiverse as our, I suppose, "master" universe is altered via interaction.

Then we have the following totally new approach to physical science relative to this often accepted model. It is stated that if one retains a forward arrow in time, so to speak, then most likely there can be NO observable evidence for the existence of the other "worlds." That is, if there is such evidence, then the model is incorrect. Some have suggested ways to actually show that this multiverse exists but such "proofs" have not, as yet. On the other hand, the model does eliminate various so-called QM paradoxes and, in particular, it is claimed that the notion of randomness is removed. This is a lie. Relative to each world, randomness still applies.

I accept the designed "collapse" notion as correct. Why? From my 2001 probability paper, "In particular, when restricted to the standard finite or infinite set of packets, application of the ultralogic Pp yields the collapse." WE cannot reproduce the "logic" being so displayed. So, a GID-model design that satisfies the collapse "physical law" corresponds to an higher-intelligence rational design.

Even without GID, the Everett, Wheeler many-worlds model cannot eliminate the production of such a multiverse by the actions of an higher-intelligence, since the GGU-model is physical law independent. Dr. Bob

#292 16 NOV 2018

Atheistic Science.

(1) Detailed physical-system general language descriptions correspond to physical entities. The descriptive physical alterations in these physical-systems results from application of descriptive physical laws. How are these "laws" obtained if no such descriptions appear within "Nature" itself?

This is explained as an example of our evolutionary mental development as we correspond our sensory experiences to general language descriptions. Then certain individuals, through their creative abilities, have additionally described cause and effect physical laws that predict the "observed" alterations in the described physical-systems. In say quantum physics, the basic physical law entities that yield descriptions for observable behavior are NOT directly observable.

(2) GID-model science.

The GID descriptions (paradigm) correspond to members of the GGU-model instruction paradigm. The combined GID and GGU-models predict that

(1) an higher-intelligence designs and produces each material physical-event (i.e. physical-system). (2) An higher-intelligence designs and produces the intertwining of the collection of material physical-events that comprises each moment during the development of a universe. (3) An higher-intelligence designs and produces the moment-to-moment development of a universe.

The predictions are based upon OBSERVABLE evidence. Even without GID, the GGU-model still displays an higher-intelligence signature. Since the GGU-model is a cosmogony, satisfies all of the Wheeler requirements and its processes occur in a "non-material" substratum world, it cannot be eliminated as a viable alternative. It can be ignored or block from being widely know.

Nevertheless, all of humanity needs to know these facts. Dr. Bob.

#293 18 NOV 2018

The imaginary model.

As far as I am aware, for hundreds of years, one of the most employed physical science "imaginary" models is the "free geometric" vector. Newton presented this model as a way to determine the combined speed and direction of a moving body, what we physically term as its velocity. Even if we use the "component algebra" a "coordinate system" is used to apply this notion to, at the very least, navigation. This model has been verified an exceptional number of times via its physical applications. BUT, it is still, by definition, imaginary.

Imaginary or real?

In quantum field theory, today, you have 24, and maybe a lot more, "fundamental quantum fields" that by very definition cannot be directly detected. Although its is assumed, by many, that they actually exist, they can be also be classified as imaginary. A group of physicists called "positivists" consider them imaginary. However, for obvious reasons, they usually do not express their actual opinion. By-the-way, any "lower" level type entity than such fields some may like accepted are also not directly detectable. There are other reasons, economic, group acceptance, etc. as to why one appears to accept these totally hidden entities.

I repeat, that, in 1974, we have that a group of mathematicians and physicists at Princeton, no less, tried to solve the "pre-geometry" problem (General Grand Unification Problem) of Wheeler, where no member of the substratum, or background-world, would be detectable AND any direct experimental verification would is not possible. It would be a rational "explanatory" model. This is the type used in physical cosmology. If some of the foremost scientists on planet earth consider this of significance, then why is it not considered as such today?

Of course, since I solved it and one major operator has an higher-intelligence signature, I'm rather certain that, even though the signature can be ignored, my solution will be considered by most of these atheists scientist as "totally worthless." This is even so although, today's version uses observed human behavior as a bases for the construction and its predictions. And, yes, they do consider an individual's fundamental "beliefs" even when giving a Nobel. Dr. Bob

#294 19 NOV 2018

"Observable Evidence for General Intelligent Design (GID).

"(Abstract) Relative to the principles of modern physical science, the observed and predictable behavior of each physical-system within our universe is shown to correspond to GID intelligent agency. This correspondence yields vastly more evidence for GID intelligent agency than that which exists for human macroevolution and many accepted aspects of both physical cosmology and quantum theory."

For the ID movement, how significant can an article be? Maybe this is a rather significant one. But, how many individuals throughout the world will ever consider it although it also appears on vixra.org. See raherrmann.com/evidence.htm

#293 22 NOV 2018

Dictionary definitions.

"Physical cosmology is the branch of physics and astrophysics that deals with the study of the physical origins and evolution of the Universe." Or "the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time,

causality, and freedom. Also "the branch of astronomy that deals with the general structure and evolution of the universe." But then the "Big Bang" is not a cosmology, "One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." (Wikipedia) But, however it "started," such as by a quantum "fluctuation" of an "everlasting quantum field," it has "produced" all of the physical entities and their behavior. And, "of course," such behavior follows physical laws as humanly described.

"Cosmogony, the study of the evolutionary behavior of the universe and the origin of its characteristic features." All definitions I have found for this concept are NOT the Wheeler definition. They all say "THE universe."

"They also suggest that the basic structure is something deeper than geometry, that underlies both geometry and particles ('pregeometry')." So, it is something "deeper" than either the geometric structure of our universe or its physical particles. What I call a substratum. The way the Wheeler group approached the problem was to consider a "general" cosmogony, which for his cosmogony is NOT just for the development of THE universe, meaning ours, but for other possible universes as well.

I most make sure that this GGU-model distinct definition is known. This more "general" definition I will add to my glossary. Dr. Bob.

#294 23 NOV 2018

The usual scientific training we receive starts with the actual descriptions for physical-systems. Then their behavior is mathematically modeled. In the old days, the terms used, even for what we now consider as abstractions, are the original physical terms. This has even carried over to today. This is NOT the approach used General ID nor for the GGU-model. The actual specific content of a physical-system description is NOT employed for GID-intelligence. It is the RATIONAL construction of the descriptions for ANY acceptable description and the RATIONAL production of such descriptions via GGU-model processes that are the foundations of the Complete GGU-model. But, the rational construction of a description and the physical-system it depicts can contain sub-systems that are not classified as physical. These are also GENERALLY analyzed as to their rationality. The term "description" is conceptual in character. The specific content of these system descriptions is external to these models and is termed as an INTERPRETATION. I will check my glossaries to make sure this is fully understood.

The following his from my "evidence" article.

"However, at least for our universe, GID-intelligent design, in observable restricted form, satisfies rationally perceived and predicted physical behavior."

"GID-intelligence is directly displayed, in restriction form, by logical-deduction as written in a step-by-step display using a specific language as its elements. Except as indicted below, the elements describe physical-systems. (The GID-model is not dependent upon physical laws. Such laws yield but an addition feature.)"

"If observed predicted or merely observed behavior corresponds to the actual physical-events as they are rationally described by general linguistic forms, then, in restricted form, this is direct evidence for the rationally of the depiction. This is GID-intelligent design via the descriptions and the application of specific rules for deduction. Such evidence is indirect evidence for the GGU-model. I mention again, that all such "direct evidence" is indirect evidence for the "higher" form of GID-intelligent design."

I may add to this article the above "interpretation" statement although it is supposed to be rather common knowledge. Dr. Bob.

In case you missed this, I'm repeated it from a June posting. And have made a very slightly modification. I have added a few addition lines at the end. In the 1940 and 50s, tuberculosis bacteria were known to "mutate" so as to become resistant to the antibiotics employed at that time. (An anti-ID person might say, "You see this is not a very intelligent way to design something.") My oldest brother, for his Ph.D. research, investigated an idea he had relative to such resistance. In about 1952, say, I gave him an exact solution to a differential equation that contains two parameters that he would need to determine in order establish his idea.

He did most of his experiments at the University of Maryland Laboratory on Green Street in Baltimore Maryland. (By-the-way, the lab. is next to the grave of Elan Allan Poe and is across from the University Hospital.) He, of course, did many experiments with and without the antibiotic he was using. And, I even helped him, now and then, "count" the stained bacterium in order to "estimate" the parameters values. Of course, after he had finished the determined parameter values varied. Hence, the usual statistical study was employed in order to determine whether the changes in the parameters were statistically significant. It was determined that the changes were very significant. Thus, two modes of mathematical analysis were employed. He published his results and was awarded his Ph.D.

What are his results? He established that such bacteria where not merely drug resistant but used the drug as an enriched growth medium. At that time, this changed how antibiotics were administered. So, his brain was "designed" so that we could combat this problem. BUT, this is far from all that came from this. While working for Schering Drug, he admits that he was "simply" in the right place at the right time and had the right knowledge that allowed him to make an observation. He discovered the first commercially viable antiviral drug. Thus, he was the individual who began the entire area of producing such antiviral drugs. (Of course, one can conclude that this was all designed in this manner if one makes an appropriate choice.) Thus, if one does not have the correct knowledge, such as the participator model aspects of the Complete GGU-model, then one might assume that certain physical-system behavior is not very intelligently designed.

Later he went to the Mayo Clinic and set-up and directed their Clinical Virology Lab. that worked on procedures to diagnose viral diseases. After 15 years there, he established two laboratories in Peoria Ill for this purpose and finished his career as Dean for Research at the University Illinois Medical College. He did not win a Nobel Prize but should have. Who is he? He is Ernest C. Herrmann, Jr. QED Except for slightly helping my brother, what have I done to benefit humankind? Dr. Bob.

#295 29 NOV 2018

If it should ever become well known, then maybe something I mention in but one small paragraph on my website can benefit some. It is not ID as such, but it is rather much more significant. That is why I mention it first. ID is not as significant as my counter to atheistic science. But, the work I did in this area led to GID.

I present on my website the well publicized statements of many individuals that state that various Judeo-Christian concepts are irrational. But this group does not know the entire background to my countering of these statements.

From 1978-1979, I developed a math. model that countered a great deal more then just the pronouncements of the atheistic scientist.

From my 1982 Journal of the America Scientific Affiliation (ASA) article"

"Hence, part of the foundations of these secular philosophies [Marxism, humanism, atheistic science, etc.] is an unshakable belief that one cannot logically argue for various supernatural concepts since these concepts are logically contradictory." (Page 18 of "The Reasonableness of Metaphysical Evidence," J. ASA, 34(1)(1982):17-23).

Indeed, it countered each statement in the following paragraph I call the "Secular Hypothesis" SH.

"It is impossible to express in a non-contradictory manner the concepts of humanity, the human laws of behavior, natural law, the Supernatural, the Deity, the Christian concept of the God-man, the New Nature, the Trinity, the perfect human being, unholy Supernatural concepts, Supernatural good, Supernatural evil and other Christian Supernatural concepts."

Notice the "and." Hence, the model must rationally uphold ALL of these. What definitions did I use for these terms? I used the writings of C.S. Lewis and mostly his definitions. I learned of these doing a "lunch-hour" discussed of his writings with other members of the USNA Math. Dept. I was attending a Lutheran Church at the time and would discuss my ideas with two other church members.

During that period the modeling was put into book form, "The G-model Applied to C.S. Lewis." (Now called he GD-model "GD = Grundlegend-Deductive.) So where is the book? I had the legal right to do so since it is "scientific research etc." but I was denied the right to present the necessary Lewis quotations. I obviously could not "fight this out" in a court case. Thus, the project was dropped.

HOWEVER, I had produced the first 6 chapters of my FREE online book, The Theory of Ultralogics, and these are the ones I use to present a rational model for ALL of the non-creationary comparable attributes for the Biblical God. For this I discovery a special form of "thought" we all use and does satisfy the requirements of the "logic-system." It is a "very, very" simple notion and it yields, for first time, the notion of an "hyper," (higher) intelligence, which is the foundation for GID. But, what is this "simple" thought process? Dr. Bob.

#296 30 NOV 2018

My counter to the atheist contention, which they continue to spread throughout the world, that Biblical concepts are irrational, I consider my only highly significant contribution to the welfare of humanity. BUT, although this counter was first presented from 1978-1979, it is apparently known by but a few individuals. It cannot be eliminated as somehow not a scientific counter unless atheists drop one of their most significant scientific methods. Have you ever heard a preacher or any Christian authority mentioned this counter? Has any member of a Christian school, college or university mentioned this to their students?

I did an Internet search under my name and, although my stuff appears often in the first 150 entries, no entry is immediately related to this counter. My basic paper on my website is not mentioned nor is the vixra.org archived copy. I would have expected an attempt to counter my counter, but that does not appear. Such a counter would be just a bunch of confusing linguistic statements that might appear to be such a counter but this cannot actually be the case. I don't care how great an "authority" might make such an attempt, it would not change what I have presented. Indeed, a really smart atheist would not attempt to counter my presentations since it "might" influence some to consider them. It's better that as few as possible even know of the existence of this counter.

I admit that the "creationary" aspects of the counter will take some effort if an individual wants an actual formal "proof" of the interpretations I give, but the counter to the contention that a "comparable" Divine attribute is irrational is more easily presented.

Suppose that you write that Joe is "very, very, intelligent." A subsystem of propositional deduction yields a deduced collection of statements that follow from this one statement. They are that Joe is not only very, very, intelligent, but very intelligent and intelligent. Thus, if you state that Bob is merely very, intelligent, then Joe seems to be "more intelligent," than Bob. The qualifier I have used for the one term "intelligent" gives a type of "strength" measurement for the one notion we term as "intelligent." Other qualifiers can also be used.

When these standard finitely presented attributes are coded and embedded into the GD-model, then the predicted corresponding Divine attributes are "infinitely" greater than, or stronger than, any such attributes that one might attribute to any physical entity. Hence, for the stated attributes it is NOT irrational to assume that there exists an entity that possess such attributes. This is the approach I use as the beginning of my counter to the widely and continually applied lie that the Biblical concept of God is an irrational notion. Of course, non-scientists propagate the same lie. George Soros stated that anyone who believes in God is insane.

BUT, there is a great deal more to this counter and I have written a very extensive article on this subject that should appear throughout the world, but does not. It appears on my website and at vixra. See raherrmann.com/attributes.htm

#297 1 DEC 2018

Here is a very short statement that needs to be propagated throughout the world.

There is a mathematical model for the Biblically stated attributes of God. Thus, these are rational attributes. This counters any statement that claims that any of the stated attributes is irrational. See URL "vixra.org/pdf/1312.0203v4.pdf"

#298 2 DEC 2018

GID and the GGU-models are based upon a specific form of the same deductive logic used throughout todays physical science. But this is not the "logic" one often see presented by "philosophers."

From the oldest Greek manuscripts. "Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of this world, and not in accord with Christ." (Co. 2:8) I note that "philosophy," at this time in human history, also means what we term as physical science (i.e. "the philosophy of nature"). Paul uses the "general" 60 AD notion of philosophy. Further, as I have demonstrated, Paul's Mars Hill deductive argument employs classical logic and not the logical arguments, especially as expressed today, that one associates with "philosophy."

As time went on, what we term as "philosophers" developed the logical forms we call the "dialect." These are "constructed" linguistic forms that can lead one almost anywhere one chooses, sometimes to great discomfort, such as the dialectic of Marx and Engels. But, the basic properties of a dialectic have been mathematically modeled by Gagnon and me. This shows that the actual "logic" used for a dialectic argument is classical logic. Indeed, unless one specifically restricts the "time" axiom, then, as I show, there are only "infinite" models for the axiom. The article that establishes this was the last one I was allowed to archive at arxiv.org before they banned me since someone complained that I was a "creationist." At least, they have not removed my articles as they have done for other creationist. This article is rather complex if you do not know how to present statements in the required first-order predict form with constants. Although I present it below, I have no idea how many members of this group can actually follow the material presented. Dr. Bob

See "arxiv.org/pdf/0810.0768v2.pdf"

#299 3 DEC 2018

About 44 hours ago, I posted to this group the location of my archived article that establishes the rationality of God's Biblical, as well as, other described attributes. This counters what is being taught to most of the students throughout the world. Prior to my announcement, the statistics relative to this article state "Unique-IP document downloads: 229 times." Now 45 hours after my announcement, the statistics states "Unique-IP document downloads: 229 times."

On Nov. 30, I announced the location of this same article on my website. For the entire month of Nov, there where 98 world wide downloads of the html version. As of Dec 2, there are still but 98. However, my expose' of Alice Bailey Occultism has had 124. Although there is some symbolism used as a mere shorthand in this paper, there is NO mathematics presented.

The material put forth by members of the Discovery Institute is, as far as I am concerned, of no value since it does NOT point, in anyway, to the Biblical God. Independent from how intelligent a human may be, we, by our actions, change the development of our universe. Can Behe show that such changes are the results of an actual pre-design by an "intelligence"? Can Behe show how the physical laws have come into being? ETC.? Dr. Bob.

#300 6 DEC 2018

If you have a contradiction in a so-called scientific theory, what result can this yield? If you use classical logic throughout physical science, it can destroy the world.

Suppose that you have a statement A, and it is shown that your theory leads to the deduced statement "not A," then for ANY preselected statement B, there is a correct logical deduction that employs A and not A and yields your selected B. Further, there are many statements that may seem harmless that are equivalent to the statement A and not A. It has been known for many, many years that there is an A and a not A statement educable from the Einstein postulates that are used to formally derive that Lorentz transformations, which are the bases for Special Relativity. By-the-way, the Hilbert-Einstein General Relativity field equations are related to the Special Theory. (Note: Hilbert presented them first via a brilliant derivation. Einstein, with a lot of help, guess at them. ETC.)

In 1967, S. J. Prokhovnik, presented a derivation of the these transformations that rejects the Einstein absolute idea that it was only physical meaningful to consider relative measures of speed. Unfortunately, relative to modern observations relative to the "expansion" of our universe, his derivation fails to remove the contradiction. Further, with our ability to now travel into "outer space," that contradiction may be actually occur. BUT, is there really a contradiction? The transformations were developed without any derivation as such. Thus, it is most likely that they are correct and it is the derivation assumption about "relative" speed that is in error.

In 1995, a mathematician presented a derivation that leads to the all the Special Theory expressions and does not rely upon the Prokhovnik requirement for our universe. That mathematician has just realized that his derivation has a much greater impact upon his approach to ID then he realized. He will shortly present this.

By-the-way, that Einstein letter is rather interesting since he invoked the God concept in his criticism of the probabilistic behavior employed within Quantum Theory. His previous use of the term "God" contradicts the first quoted line of this "letter." Dr. Bob.

#301 8 DEC 2018

(Part 1 of how the Special Theory has led to the "actual" existence of non-material physical-like system.)

As mentioned, the foundation of quantum field theory is the assumed entry called a "quantum field." There are rather many of these things that are assumed to exist "everywhere" within our physical universe. By the very definition, they cannot be directly detected. So, why are they accepted as real entities by the majority? It's due to their assumed properties and their ability to predict experimentally obtained observed physical behavior.

The "speed" transformation equations for the Special Theory rationally predict various verified consequences. They also predict a physical contradiction. Today, the Einstein derivation is not employed. The derivation one sees today is the Minkowski derivation. But an employed Einstein concept has been retained. Einstein rejected that there was ANY frame of reference in which one can even consider an "absolute" measurement of the speed of an object. Only "relative" speed has any physical meaning he claims. As is now known, via two distinct derivations, rejecting this idea eliminates the contradiction. But the Einstein notion is still a basic assumption of modern physical science. And as I noted last time, this can lead to our future destruction. This is also the case, even if only the transformation equations are applied AND this Einstein notion is simply assumed. But, a correct rational derivation may yield a great deal more than simply correcting Einstein's error.

Since our universe is "expanding" etc. the various measurements WE take of the speed of an object are relative to other motions and not based upon an absolute "fixed" entity from which WE can measure such speed. This is an important fact relative, however, to how one measures speed within our universe. There is an entity within our universe where an "absolute" measure of speed does have meaning. It's the speed of light. Measurements of this quantity do not seem to depend upon the relative speed of the apparatus used. As employed, this fact does not alter the Einstein contention.

IF there is an "absolute" fixed speed "frame of reference" to which all motion in our universe can be compared, then the contradiction vanishes. In 1967, S. J. Prokhovnik proposed that the "constant" expansion of our universe can be used as a fixed reference "speed" to which all speed measurements can be referred. Further, he used but one mode of measurement for the speed of an entity as measured from another entity, the Einstein "radar" method and its reliance upon the constancy of the speed of light. This mode is the "Einstein" mode of measurement, which I also employ.

Unfortunately, the Prokhovnik derivation fails for a universe with varying expansion and for, maybe, a few other reasons. How have I removed this contradictory aspect of the Special Theory and have strengthen the prediction that our universe is designed by a higher-intelligence? Dr. Bob.

#302 9 DEC 2018

(Part 2 of how the Special Theory has led to the "actual" existence of a non-material physical-like system.)

My derivation of the Special Theory employs the usual descriptive procedures we associate with "physical law" descriptions and does NOT employ any Complete GGU-model stuff. That comes later. It uses the notion of a substratum or subquantum concept, photon language and the "Einstein" measures for relative velocities. There is a specifically defined entity originally called the Nonstandard Photon-Medium (NSPM), or later called the Nonstandard Photon-Particle Medium (NPPM or NSPPM), the properties of which I describe in the same manner as one would describe the properties of a quantum field. However, a major property exactly contradicts the accepted physical world behavior of a "photon."

This solution actually gives a property for the interaction of a photon with other entities and solves the particle wave duality problem. The solution requires Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), which further indicates that it is a substratum ultranatural law. Since it predicts ALL of the experimentally verified aspects of the Special Theory, than it satisfies the same scientific method accepted for quantum field theory. Will the NPPM and this solution be accepted?

Remember that NSA is a extension and not a substitute for the standard Hilbert space formalism used for quantum field theory. Today, the NPPM is an example of a pure "physical-like" system. Hence, this derivation predicts accepted physical behavior and such a system should be accepted as are the postulated but not observable quantum fields.

Before I show how this is presented for the Complete GGU-model, a few members of this group might be interested in the actual derivation. It begins on page 25 of the follow book. arxiv.org/pdf/math/0312189v10.pdf Dr. Bob.

#303 10 DEC 2018

(This might be called part 3.) Since the middle 1600s, and for hundreds of years, infinitesimal modeling was used as the basic approach to applying the Calculus to the physical world. This is even the method used by Planck in his 1930s books on mechanics. The idea is that "simple" physical behavior in the "infinitesimal world" leads to the complex behavior we observe. But, until 1961, the algebra used to do this was actually contradictory.

If you did look at the book I mentioned last time, you might have gone beyond the Special Theory to the portion on the General Theory. You may have read that the simple "ballistics" property is applied to the "photon-particle" interaction in the infinitesimal world of the "monadic cluster" within this "non-physical" medium. If you had read further, you would have seen that the "simple" composition of velocities within this same medium yields gravitational metrics, without the use of the tensors nor even the Hilbert-Einstein equations. This is all developed via the "infinitesimal light-clock" notion and, hence, these "physical" conclusions are obtained relative to "photon" (electromagnetic field) behavior as displayed by such "clocks" and the medium. These rather "interesting" derivations predict a vast amount of observable physical evidence.

So, why is this "medium" not accepted as "existing"? It satisfies the same scientific method as that used in quantum field theory? Maybe its as simple as who the individual is that developed it and the mediums identification as a "physical-like" system. Such a system is NOT part of the defined physical world. It is part of the GGU-model world, however. AND, for the atheists it is rather unacceptable since it is also established that WE cannot have complete descriptive knowledge as to ALL the "necessary" medium behavior.

But, what is a "physical-like" system and how does one "name" and, if possible, analyze such a system throughout GGU-model presentations. Dr. Bob.

#304 11 DEC 2018

(Long) Relative to what I now present, results that can only be obtained via nonstandard analysis, I can't understand why nonstandard analysis isn't taught, at least, at some "Christian" colleges or universities?<> The refined version of the GGU-model not only produces the step-by-step production of each 3-D slice of a universe (the Universe-Wide Frozen-Frames (UWFF)) but the atemporal step-by-step production of each physical-system that comprises each UWFF. This all corresponds to the refined version of the GID-model descriptions. Due to this one-to-one correspondence, I often use same basic symbol for the GID descriptions and the actual physical-systems, which are produced upon application of the realization operator. (The is the standard part operator used in nonstandard analysis.) The context, where the math. expressions appear, determines to which of these the symbolism applies, the descriptions or the entity being described.

A physical-like system, in most cases, has at least one "physical" entity and must contain a predicted entity that is not classified as a physical member of an atheist's style physical universe.

This is how the math. symbols used for the Complete GGU-model are "interpreted." In my recent articles, you will see that symbols g^(q,r)(i,j;k,s) and *g^(q,r)(i,j;k,s) employed. How are these interpreted? There are four types of universes considered. The (q,r) denotes a specific type. In the g or *g form, the math. italics i, j, denote a 3-D slice of a physical universe. The math. italic k denotes a physical-system within the i,j named 3-D slice and the math. italic s an internal physical-subsystem contained in the k denoted one. From the properties of the g the properties of the *g are predicted. These properties are then consistency interpreted relative to the original g interpretations.

IF the *g notation uses only the math. italics symbols for a specific UWFF and specific physical-system and subsystem, then these are all "physical" in character. Nothing new is produced. The g and *g are the same. However, the math. predicts that the following also occurs. For a fixed i,j 3-D "name," if you see a special notation used just for the s, say Greek, or in some case a very special one, then this denotes an entity that is not considered as "physical." If the k remains italic, then this indicates that there are also physical components to this system and the system is "physical-like." If the k is also of a special form and especially Greek, then this indicates that the system is of a third type that has no physical components. BUT, it can still behave in a physical-like manner. If this k notation appears, then the s can be any italics or otherwise symbol.

For the previously presented Special and General Theory NSPM system (the medium), there is a physical entity considered, while the monadic clusters are not physical, for the Complete GGU-model. Hence, this is a specific example of a physical-like system associated with predicted Special Theory and General Theory behavior. Of course, one need not employ the GID portion of the complete model. The refined secular GGU-model still applies in this case.

For us, we are physical-like systems due to the immaterial human spirit we possess. Each physical-like human being is denoted by k(hb), the "spirit," s, internal spirit system is denoted by lambda(k(hb)). Hence, today, in a 3-D hyper-slice *UWFF one has billions and billions of *g^(q,r)(i,j;k(hb),lambda(k(hb))) physical-like systems due to the immaterial human spirit we possess. There are very interesting "other" *UWFF predicted that have NO physical entities predicted, where the j naming index is predicted to have a Greek value. Then for certain types physical universes, it is also predicted that the i can take on Greek values. In both cases I call these the "hidden" or "invisible" universes. What can they contain? Dr. Bob.

#305 12 DEC 2018

Larry Kisner, Sr. is correct.

A rationally predicted invisible universe is composed of a sequential collection of (i,gamma)-hyper-UWFF, (each technically denoted by *f(i,gamma)), where the Greek represents a member of the "hyper-natural" numbers. Each collection is produced over an "infinitesimal" sequential interval. No member of such an invisible universe is a member of a universe that employs the definition of what constitutes the atheists "physical" universe. However, there is a close relation between such disjoint "universes."

Now that I have introduced you to the notation and how it is interpreted, maybe you can better comprehend section 5 of the article, where I present all of the significant aspects of these invisible universes and their Biblical correspondence. This all implies that it is RATIONAl to accept the existence of such entities, how the included entities behave and how they relate to our physical universe. Further, GID and higher-intelligence design applies. Once again here is the article, and one should start with section 5. Dr. Bob.

vixra.org/pdf/1403.0036v5.pdf

#306 14 DEC 2018

This is one of the most retrieved articles on my website. It should be part of your "library." Dr. Bob

raherrmann.com/math.htm