You can easily comprehend the GID-model as presented in various articles on this website.
In this article, a basic human "thought" procedure is described. It is employed to demonstrate the simplest and, yet, most significant aspects of the General ID (GID) model. These aspects are related to descriptions for ordinary human experiences. It is shown how these descriptions are translated rationally into statements that describe the behavior of an higher-intelligence.
What does the term "infinite" mean in modern science? Well, without some intuitive idea as to what this means, then modern scientific theories would have little meaning. In Quantum Field Theory is the statement that the quantum field that corresponds to "light" can have "infinite range." One can intuitively think of this concept, relative to content, as stating that it has the property of being "greater in content" than the finite notion. It was claimed for a hundred years, by some, that we cannot completely imagine such a concept. But, else, this is not true. (See this article on this website if you actually want to "imagine" one type of this concept.) Further, there is an important additional technical note on the type of infinite being expressed in this article prior to the "References." It is a rather special "infinite" concept that is the major predicted characteristic that differentiates human behavior from that of an higher-intelligence.
In , aspects of human behavior are described, where such behavior is described using the term "finite" as this term is understood in its most common sense of counting. The physical foundations for all of science is the notion of language. The Complete General Grand Unification (GGU) Model is based upon this foundation. This is why its results cannot be rationally rejected. But, they can be ignored and prevented from becoming well known.
Human beings "speak" to themselves when they "think," do they not? In the beginning, when we learn to read combined strings of symbols, we are often told to "read to yourselves." If you don't have a special brain or are not a "speed" reader, then does this form of thinking not "sound like" a mental "voice"? Human beings also make mental "images" as well when they "think." One can mentally "see" symbols and diagrams and sometimes rather strange images. The written English language and many others use symbols that represent spoken language-elements. Mathematics uses symbols and often gives them names.
For the GGU-model, a general language is defined as follows:
A general language contains strings of symbols, diagrams and "drawings" that are employed for defined linguistic purposes to convey information and that have been used by human beings in the past and through the moment you read this definition. The language also includes images or other devices that when considered by an individual yield mental or sensory impressions as well as machine duplicating sensory impressions. Thus, in general, an individual's mental or sensory impressions lead to the formation of general language descriptions.
The symbol L represents a general language. It is mathematically modeled, in two different ways. From the above definition, one can consider L as composed of the written symbolic representations for a common written language, as well as collections of diagrams, displayed images and, by the methods of virtual reality, other human sensory inputs.
The set L represents these aspects of the human brain and various portions of L correspond to this notion of "thinking." One does not continually included the term "representation" when the symbol L is used. For the standard mathematical model, the members of L are coded and the set is denoted by L. The usual defined linguistic methods we employ to combine members of a general language "alphabet" to obtain finite collections called "words" are mimicked by a specific mathematical operator.
There is another aspect of "thinking." "I can't find the words, as yet, to express exactly what I mean. But, maybe this will help, although its not quite right." Such statements as these are very common. If there are "thoughts" one wishes to express, they often do not immediately correspond to concise words or images. But, in this case, what are the mental forms for the unexpressed "thoughts"? How do we even know that we have such "thoughts"? Whatever the brain is doing in these many, many cases, it does not correspond to the basic type of thoughts we need in order to easily comprehend the GID-model.
In order to indicate that a mathematical model exists for the linguistic aspects of L, in what follows, the symbol L is employed. Relative to the language L, facts can be informally stated about how a symbolic language represents such thinking. These facts can relate to such mental processes. The term "word" comes from word-theory and, for example, all that I have written up to this point is considered a single "word." Indeed, I could include finitely many images or diagrams, in the left-to-right construction, and this is yet another "word." It is, at the least, represented by a finite collection of symbols, images or diagrams considered as intuitively ordered from left-to-right.
Most "human beings construct meaningful statements from a finitely long word." This word represents or models sounds we utter or mentally hear. It does not just correspond to random collections of symbols. It is the finite "word" that corresponds to what we hear. It is finite since we "hear" the sound "start and stop." This is a fact whether the sound is auditory or purely mental in character. Hence, usually, "human beings construct meaningful written statements from finitely long thoughts." Then we can include mental images. Further, I can mentally see an image and then I mentally "talk about it." Most often images are of finite mental content. But, there are special ways to change this finite content notion. Thus, the extended language notion can be included in this "thoughts" idea.
Next is a list of statements that gives facts about human beings stated in terms of the "description" concept relative, at least, to mental "sounds" and "images." In this list, the term "word" means the mental type, the thought. Of course, these statements can all be rephrase in terms of employed symbolic representations. The bold face notation corresponds to the mathematical structure entity employed. Since behavior is being modeled, there is no need to change notation since the entities in L "behave" like words. In the following, the terms "description, describes" and the like refer initially to mental formations.
(1) A human being constructs meaningful descriptions from a finite set of finitely long words.
(2) These descriptions correspond to members of a language L. The language L includes diagrams and other humanly comprehensible forms for images.
(3) Consider a finite counting number. A single rule for deduction, modus ponens, applied to a single hypothesis yields a corresponding finite set of conclusions via a human form of rational deduction applied over a small time period. The finite counting number is a measure of human intelligence.
(4) A human being can generally design (describe) each member of a finite set of physical-systems and can rationally produced a finite step-by-step intertwining design for a finite collection of the designed physical-systems. Then a human being can rationally produce a design that combines, in a step-by-step manner, these collections of entwined designs.
(5) A human begin constructs a set of descriptions, represented by members of L, that give specific rules for combining elementary building materials so as to yield these designs.
(6) A human being changes descriptions into physical entities and physical-systems. (By definition, physical-systems are composed of physical entities or other physical-systems. For example, entities - bricks, nails, wallboard: physical-systems - fireplaces, walls, rooms.)
The language aspects of these statements are directly related to mathematical symbolism. Then the mathematics PREDICTS other mathematical entities. These predictions can then be interpreted using modifications of the above (1) - (6) statements. This interpretation yields the GID-model. (There are more such statements that are mathematically modeled.) Of course, one need not make such an interpretation and then one gets various GGU-model schemes from which one can choose. These predictions do not come from the standard mathematics used by almost everyone in the world who uses mathematics. So, since it corresponds to nothing to which most have been exposed, individuals may need to trust me and accept the interpreted predictions based upon my expertise in the mathematics. However, they may reject them simply based upon my changed philosophic stance. Of course, this does not prohibit individuals from accepting the secular GGU-model. But, then again, maybe it does since so many scientific theories that are not directly verifiable seem to be created in the hopes of eliminating a GID-model type interpretation. As long as science uses language, this cannot be done.
The types of human descriptions being considered above are assumed by physical science to be the results of physical electro-chemical actions. Physical actions that we perform change such descriptions into physical reality. Further, standard training within the physical sciences has yielded some highly successful but possibly imaginary models that predict physical behavior. It may be difficult to eliminate from ones acquired methods the idea that various questions have meaningful answers relative to our level of intelligence. For this article, individuals should not concern themselves with attempting to answer the following two questions. Of what entities are the higher-intelligence thoughts composed? How does an higher-intelligence change thoughts into various realities? Although within present-day physical science it may be difficult to do so, it appears more appropriate, at least in this case, to rely upon Deut. 29:29 and Prov. 3:5.
In the above six statements, one can simply substitute, for certain strings of symbols, other strings of symbols and informally describe the behavior of a predicted "higher-intelligence." However, this does not yield any great comprehension as to actual higher-intelligence behavior since, for example, one would also need to substitute for such a word as "finite" the word "hyperfinite." There is an additional fact that does produce better and rather immediate comprehension since the required "new" terms have other properties that can be employed.
It turns out that there are relationships between the "higher-intelligence" concepts and the human being. The (1) - (6) physical statements and the higher-intelligence statements listed below yield a comparative understanding as to the differences between human intelligence and that of an higher-intelligence. The mathematics shows that the higher-intelligence can do everything that is described in the first six statements. For example, in the first five statements, the phrase "human being," and the words "humanly" and "human" can be replaced with the phrase higher-intelligence and the statements are essentially also predicted by the model. This yields rationally predicted statements such as "An higher-intelligence can construct sets of humanly comprehensible thoughts (descriptions) from a finite set of finitely long words." (The reason for this being rationally predicted is given prior to the "References" list.) In this case, the finite word is represented as a symbolic member of L. In a second case, by a special approach, a few higher-intelligence words (ultrawords) can be humanly comprehended although they are symbolic members of *L and not members of L. In the third case, which is the usual case, higher-intelligence words are members of *L, which are not members of L and are entirely humanly incomprehensible.
The terms that are modeled by the following list of statements and to what they intuitively correspond are the following: "descriptions" correspond to specific members of the "language" L, "intelligence" corresponds to a measurable aspect of deduction, "words" correspond to characterizable members of L, "diagrams" corresponds to members of L - the set of all diagrams, "images" correspond to members of L - the set of all images, "deduction" corresponds to a characterizable form of the simplest form of deduction, "events" correspond to the natural behavior that corresponds to descriptions, a slice (of a universe) or universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF) is a very special form of description that depicts each physical-system and how they are intertwined for a complete 3-D section of a universe at a moment in its development, a "universe" is the complete collection of all developmental paradigms (all collections of collections of slices), the *rules are characterizable members of the GGU-model instruction paradigm, *physical entities are modeled by propertons and can include various types, nonstandard *physical-systems are predicted from the standard descriptions for physical-systems but, depending upon how they are described, they can correspond to physical-systems or contain immaterial entities (what is material is defined by a science-community).
For the following, the *intelligence can also do a lot that human beings cannot do. The following predicted statements characterize the *terms. When not restricted to our physical world, they imply that, relative to the characterizing properties, the modified word can have various "infinitely strong" properties relative to the unmodified finite properties one associates with the word following the prefix. This GID-model "infinite" has additional mathematical and interpreted characteristics not stated below. Indeed, from the mathematical viewpoint, it is an "infinite" that is "greater than" this concept as used anywhere throughout standard physical science. I point out that in mathematical modeling linguistically translated symbolic expressions include the usual additional language needed to express grammatically the symbolic forms. A few of the following * terms do, indeed, require extensive analysis before a meaningful comparison can be described.
Now I have a problem. Should I present descriptions all but one of the * terms used in the following or present them after the statements. In mathematics, you define the terms prior to their use and this is what I will do next. I note that it's the meanings of various * terms that help to characterize *intelligence.
Depending upon the term, the * is translated as "higher," and now and then as "hyper." This was made necessary due to the prior use of the term "higher" by others." The actual technical term used for the * is "hyper." Further, for other applications within the GID and GGU-models the * is replaced by the term "ultra" or "ultra . . .".
(a) *descriptions = higher-descriptions. These are members of the predicted set of entities *L.
(b) *words = ultrawords. These are, usually, special members of *L and is the term used within the technical articles.
(c) *language = higher-language. This is the predicted language *L, where the general properties of formation are mathematically characterized. Note that L ⊂ *L.
(d) *diagrams = higher-diagrams. These form a subset of *L and the (diagrams) ⊂ (*diagrams). They have aspects that can be mathematically characterized.
(e) *images = higher-images. These form a subset of *L and (images) ⊂ (8images). They have aspects can be mathematically characterized.
(f) *deduction = higher-deduction. This is the basic characterization for the higher-intelligence and the basic definition for GID-intelligence. For GID-intelligence, there are the two mathematically characterizable forms of "deduction" that predict the higher-deduction properties.
(g) *events = ultranatural-events. These are predicted entities that correspond, within the substratum were universes are produced, to higher-descriptions.
(h) *slice = ultranatural-slice = *UWFF = hyper-universe-wide frozen-frames. At a particular moment in the development of a universe, a 3-D universe-wide slice is modeled by a specially constructed description. An extension of this slice is predicted. This is the ultranatural-slice.
(i) *universe = ultranatural-universe. A special sequence of UWFFs describes the moment to moment development of a universe. This is a special predicted extension of this sequence and is considered as describing addition "hidden" slices that can contain some rather interesting immaterial entities.
(j) *rules. These are mathematically modeled "rules" that actually generate, from entities called "propertons," a universe.
(k) *physical entities = ultranatural-physical events = *events but these can also be ordinary physical events.
(l) *physical-systems = ultranatural-physical-systems. There can be various forms of these. They can range from ordinary physical-systems to many rather interesting "hidden" physical-like and other types as well. (Note: Some individuals might like to use a different prefix term than "ultranatural" ("super . . .") but I advice against it.)
Now that you have some knowledge as to the meanings of the terms, here are some of the mathematically predicted statements relative to the higher-intelligence as first presented in the actual predicted forms. I follow these with the prefix substitutions for the * notation.
(1) An *intelligence can construct meaningful *descriptions as represented by finite and infinite sets of finite and infinitely long *words.
(2) These *descriptions are representable by members of the *language *L, which includes the language L. The *language *L includes *diagrams and other *intelligence comprehensible forms for *images.
(3) Consider an infinite counting number. A single rule for deduction, modus ponens, applied to a single hypothesis yields a corresponding infinite set of conclusions, via an *intelligence representation for rational deduction (i.e. *deduction) applied over a miniscule time period. The infinite counting number is a measure of higher-intelligence.
(4) A *intelligence can generally design each member of a finite or infinite set of physical-systems, physical-like systems or systems that produce "*events" and can rationally produced a finite or infinite step-by-step intertwined design for a finite or infinite *slice of an *universe. (Various *slices, for a *universe, contain all of the produced physical entities and physical-systems.) Then an *intelligence can rationally produce, in a specific order, the entire finite or infinite collection of the designed *slices. (There are predicted *slices disjoint from our physical universe. These can yield hidden universes that are associated with ours .)
(5) A *intelligence constructs a set of *descriptions, represented by members of *L, that give specific *rules for combining elementary building materials so as to yield these designs. (By application of special techniques, these specific *rules are humanly comprehensible.)
(6) An *intelligence changes *descriptions into physical-entities, physical-systems, *physical entities or *physical-systems (often termed as physical-like systems). (By restriction, *physical entities can include physical entities and *physical-systems can include physical-systems. And, as in the physical case, *physical-systems may be composed of *physical entities or other *physical-systems. The compositions, by restriction, can contain physical entities or other *physical-systems or physical-systems. Examples, entities - x-tons, propertons: *physical-systems - human spirit, invisible universes, photons, electrons, physical-systems.)
In the following, in almost all cases, by comparison, the "higher" and "ultranatural" forms are "infinitely greater than," or "infinitely stronger than," the object identified by the "suffix" of the term. Further, the other cases identify objects that contain hidden immaterial entities. The model also states that such an higher-intelligence cannot be a member of any of the produced physical universes. Indeed, it cannot be part of any of the GGU-model predicted or employed objects nor can it be in the substratum, where the GGU-model processes are employed.
I now translated without the * notation.
(1) An higher-intelligence can construct meaningful higher-descriptions as represented by finite and infinite sets of finite and infinitely long ultrawords.
(2) These higher-descriptions are representable by members of the higher-language *L, which includes the language L. The higher-language *L includes higher-diagrams and other higher-intelligence comprehensible forms for higher-images.
(3) Consider an infinite counting number. A single rule for deduction, modus ponens, applied to a single hypothesis yields a corresponding infinite set of conclusions, via an higher-intelligence representation for rational deduction (i.e. higher-deduction) applied over a miniscule time period. The infinite counting number is a measure of higher-intelligence. (Mathematically, this "infinite" is "greater than" any known physical-science use of the term "infinite.")
(4) A higher-intelligence can generally design each member of a finite or infinite set of physical-systems, physical-like systems or systems that produce "ultranatural-events" and can rationally produced a finite or infinite step-by-step intertwined design for a finite or infinite ultranatural-slice of a ultranatural-universe. (Various ultranatural-slices, for an ultranatural-universe, contain all of the produced physical entities and physical-systems.) Then an higher-intelligence can rationally produce, in a specific order, the entire finite or infinite collection of the designed ultranatural-slices. (There are predicted ultranatural-slices disjoint from our physical universe. These can yield hidden universes that are associated with ours .)
(5) A higher-intelligence constructs a set of higher-descriptions, represented by members of *L, that give specific *rules for combining elementary building materials so as to yield these designs. (By application of special techniques, these specific *rules are humanly comprehensible.)
(6) An higher-intelligence changes higher-descriptions into physical-entities, physical-systems, ultranatural - physical entities or ultranatural-physical-systems (often termed as physical-like systems). (By restriction, ultranatural-physical entities can include physical entities and ultranatural-physical-systems can include physical-systems. And, as in the physical case, ultranatural-physical-systems may be composed of ultranatural-physical entities or other ultranatural-physical-systems. The compositions, by restriction, can contain physical entities or other ultranatural-physical-systems or physical-systems. Examples, entities - x-tons, propertons: ultranatural-physical-systems - human spirit, invisible universes, photons, electrons, physical-systems.)
Now comes the real problem for the atheists and why they apparently are so intent upon putting extreme barriers between my work, in this area, and the rest of humanity. They cannot scientifically counter these results unless they discard accept science-community methods such as those employed by the physical cosmology-community. Worst still for them is the obvious theological interpretation, "God," for the term "higher-intelligence." For its Biblical interpretation, the GID-model employs the allowed Biblical concept of "thinking within oneself" as the Hebrew for "said." Further, this directly corresponds to the GGU-model's pre-design feature. The facts are that these and many Complete GGU-model theologically translated statements also satisfy a strict interpretation for numerously many Biblical statements. One significant statement is Paul's relative to an apparent "third heaven" higher-language. To the atheists, the public, in general, "cannot be allowed to know" that a properly constructed scientific theory could ever have these properties. Thus far, only an extreme minority has this knowledge.
(This is a technical note on the "infinite" notion as expressed in the above. The GID notion depends upon the set-theoretic axioms employed. For one well-known set of axioms, it has been shown that the actual GID-model concept of "infinite" is only partially molded via the mathematics used for this model. An in-depth discussion of this appears in the paper  in the References. This concept is a generalization of what can be mathematically measured and is termed as the "generic" notion of the infinite. Intuitively, it is a type of ultimate infinite. The term "infinite" in this case characterizes the concept of "content." If one states that a "class" of sets is infinite in content, then this ultimate infinite signifies that the entity being so characterized cannot be characterized as represented by a "set" and it has "more" content than the content associated with each member of the class.
Relative to an higher-language, the actual mathematical model states that members of the higher-language *L are composed of hyperfinitely long strings of symbols that are also taken from *L. The symbols are also members of *L. But, the original alphabet symbols and each word from L are members of *L. The "hyperfinitely long" includes the "finitely long" language-elements. The "ultrawords" and other objects are hyperfinite in "size." Thus, although various statements are about an higher-intelligence, various predicted ones also hold for a restriction to our specific finite world.)
 What the Term Infinite Means. And God's Ultimate Attributes are Immeasurable via Set Theory.
 GGU-model Processes.
 Herrmann, R. A, Analysis of the Refined Details of the GGU-model and an Application to Human Corporeal and Incorporeal Experiences. http://vixra.org/abs/1403.0036