A U-Cosmology

Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.

March 1994, 22 JUN 1996. Last revision 8 FEB 2016.


Before reading or downloading this article, be advised that this is a strict theological interpretation using GGU-model mechanisms and that the GGU-model has many secular interpretations not associated directly with theological concepts. The terminology being used is that contained in "the book:" Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed (Xulon Press April 2002) However, this discussion is only relative to one aspect of the material presented in this book, the MA-model. This book contains a vast amount of new material that does not appear on this web site. The most recent GGU-model developments have lead me to accept the Rapid Formation Model as applied to The Eden Model . (Herrmann, 2015, is the complete detailed Genesis model that I now accept.)

This article uses the original (sudden appearance in Biblically described fully functional form) MA-model and shows how it relates to various Biblical verses. In what follows, the term "natural" means the secular "physical."

It is mainly of historical value since the theological model I now accept, the Eden Model, no longer follows the approach presented here. However, some members of the creationary science movement still accept the in-transit information model and the first part of this article gives an in-depth discussion of this notion. In some respects, this article indicates how research developments lead to improved theories. Indeed, major portions of this article are relative to natural laws that would produce the step-by-step development of our universe. The now complete GGU-model does not produce a universe in this fashion. The only purpose for such "laws" is that they allow us to predict future natural-system behavior. This article does contain some useful information, however.

0. Within creationary science, there is a conflict between the concepts of "Divine intervention" and certain human constructs (imaginations), where such human constructs are claimed to be "the way that God did it." Today, theistic evolution and the "Prime Mover" concept of Aristotle are almost equivalent. From this notion, we could construct a scale relative to the degree that natural-system behavior follows patterns associated with human imaginations that state that "this is the way that God did it" versus natural-system behavior produced by powerful Divine intervention (miraculous processes). Such a scale would not have a great deal of meaning for natural-system behavior not discussed within the Scriptures (i.e. the Scriptures are silent on the matter) and where non-contradictory speculation is usually allowed.

There are many models for creation that claim to follow the Scriptural account. BUT, such descriptions minimize direct Divine intervention and minimize any meaningful description for the almost incomprehensible power of such Divine intervention. Divine intervention in these models does not follow the Scriptural statements that, to me, indicate that immensely powerful Divine processes have been applied. What these models do is to elicit an often weak Divine intervention only at the point where human imaginations fail to provide a meaningful explanation. Personally, I reject this theology/science approach in accordance with Scriptural directives. The U-cosmology does not substitute weak human imaginations for powerful and direct Divine intervention but rather retains the Scriptural intent where the Bible is not silent on the matter.

Recall that there are two competing operational approaches to this subject matter. As with all of my theoretical work in this area and since this is a substratum model, the results discussed can be obtained by means of two distinctly different operators; a Divine intervention choice operator or a substratum primitive sequence related initial condition operator. Every description that uses a stated Divine intervention choice operator can be replaced completely with a substratum primitive sequence related initial condition operator, and conversely. I will not discuss any method that will, in any manner, tend to determine which of these two distinct operational approaches is the actual approach that may have been utilized in objective reality.

1. What follows is a strict (common meaning) Scriptural cosmology based upon rational scientific deduction. The technical aspects of this cosmology are based upon a theological interpretation of the mathematical model called the metamorphic-anamorphosis model (MA-model), a submodel of the GGU-model. The MA-model is the first step that has led to the now (2015) complete GGU-model. The term "GGU-model" is employed where appropriate. Some of the technical terms used within the GGU-model appear in "the book" and some also appear in the monograph entitled the "Solutions..." monograph (Herrmann, 1994), where secular solutions are given to what are, according to John Wheeler, the "most significant questions on the books of physics." Their meanings are fully discussed mathematically in the monograph (Internet book) entitled "Ultralogics and more . . . " (Herrmann, 1993).

For those that might question whether or not the GGU-model approach is "science," it should be mentioned that the secular GGU-model uses the exact same philosophy of science used in theoretical cosmology, theoretical physics and quantum logic. [In general, a secular cosmological model is a model or interpretation for the behavior of the cosmos, a model created by human beings and that uses non-theological terminology.] Further, for the scientific necessity of developing some type of cosmogony, such as the GGU-model, please refer to cosmogony. For a few general aspects of this cosmology, a small portion of the material in the book "Einstein Corrected" [The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-clocks] is utilized. The logic employed to argue for conclusions is scientific logic (i.e. the first-order predicate calculus, or common everyday logic). Although there are a few predicates that are interpreted theologically, for these logical reasons, many consider this to be, at the least, a rational description. It is an important fact that the GGU-model can be used to generate all known secular cosmologies as well as a many weak theological ones such as those that use the concepts associated with theistic (macroscopic and large scale) evolution.

2. [Note: The metamorphic portion of the MA-model, the foundational heaven, the basic firmament as the portion of the substratum, and most other concepts except for the more detailed fourth day description were first discussed in the paper "The metamorphic universe" given before the Baltimore Creation Convention 6 June 1987.] The most basic Biblical concepts are the "And God said, Let . . . " creation statements in Genesis 1 and corresponding statements found in such places as Psalms 33:9 "For he spake, and it was done. . . .", 148:5 ". . . for he commanded and they were created," etc. Within the secular MA-model, creation of physical world entities is triggered by certain initial conditions coupled with ultranatural laws within the nonstandard physical world (NSP- world), where from the secular viewpoint this substratum can be considered as being always present over any required time period.

The MA-model states explicitly that it is rational to assume that such initial conditions exist, but the model also states that humankind cannot have any detailed knowledge of these conditions as they would be described in any human language. One of the theological substitutions allowed, after the creation of the substratum, is the replacement of this initial condition triggering mechanism with a Divine event sequence or branch selection process. This cosmology uses the theoretical science method called the method of "simplicity." This means that when two distinct descriptions or concepts lead to the same conclusion, then the conceptually more simplistic one is used. This does not mean that the actual modeling process is simplistic. Indeed, it may be much more difficult to model the simpler of two concepts. The fewer premises, the more difficult it may be to model a concept.

In a certain sense, the GGU-model - automatically - develops its own philosophy of science. The model specifically implies that speculation should be restrained. In the above mentioned "book," it's shown that there are scientific descriptions that imply that it's rational to assume that our universe is pre-designed. But, due to ultranatural theories, we can only know some general aspects as to why God pre-designed the universe in which we dwell. More specifically, the model predicts that there are complete and detailed answers to every question that might arise from these general creation procedures; but, for the present, the human mind is not able to comprehend the answers. The GGU-model specifically models Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 13:12 in that we are, indeed, seeing through a glass darkly. (This present lack of knowledge may correspond to our present fallen state.)

3. The Scriptures indicate the existence of a created "foundational heaven" (Ps 104:3;), in which the "foundations of the earth" is contained (Ps 104:5, Job 38:4, Heb 1:10), and in which the natural world is embedded. The GGU-model predicts such a "world" that is technically called the "ultranatural world." The GGU-model states that this "foundational heaven" is modeled by a portion of NSP-world and, in particular, the natural world is embedded within a background or substratum world that contains a dense, to an infinite degree, classical field of predicted propertons. In this model, the created substratum can yield the "vacuum" of particle and field physics from a sub-quantum level composed of the properton field. However, such a "vacuum" need only be an analogue model that guides properton behavior. This properton sub-quantum level is the portion of this ultranatural world that connects completely to the natural world and until it is activated is "invisible" to the machines used by science to detect natural world behavior. Further, to aid in comprehension, if it were possible to assign natural world measures to the properton portion, then this portion of the substratum would be described as infinitely dense or rigid or firm. As noted below, the GGU-model shows that very little can be known about this "foundational heaven." This region of the NSP-world contains an immense catalog of created entities (Herrmann, 1994) God uses to make and sustain His creation.

One of the most difficult tasks is to find comprehensible terms that will adequately describe the contents of this portion of the NSP-world. The facts are that there are no such adequate terms. But what the model predicts for this interpretation is that this created NSP-world contains all of the processes and entities that God uses to create all of His supernatural and natural worlds as indicated in Herrmann (1994). There is one Scriptural statement that is verified by the GGU-model and that gives a specific reason why, at present, we can have little detailed information about this ultranatural world. The GGU-model shows that there need be no natural world human language that describes the details for the events that take place within the ultranatural world. The existence of such a world is Scripturally suggested by Paul in 2 Cor 12:4 when he describes the "third heaven." There is a GGU-model non-measurable "time" concept within the ultranatural world. But only various types of sequences of events need to be considered. This implies that a finite and even infinite sequence of ultranatural events can occur within the ultranatural world and there need be no lapse of measurable standard observer time.

All natural entities are created from non-natural but created entities in this modeling process. The processes that yield the natural entities are all modeled by operators that can be classified from the theological viewpoint as Divine mental-like processes. All of the created natural world entities came about by hyperfinite combinations of one single type of properton -- the ultra-properton. These combinations form intermediate propertons. [The use of a single type of ultra-properton for all of God's natural creation may be a Divine signature that substantiates the hundreds of Scriptural statements that there is but "one God."] Then the intermediate propertons are finitely combined together to produce natural world entities. The basic process that yields these two "combining together processes" is obtained by constructing a nonstandard model for the human process of selecting symbols, words, and the like for the purpose of constructing a linguistic description. Other forms of selection are also used as illustrations of this "gathering" process. Hence, these processes can be described theologically as a Divine mental-like selection and combining process that yields basic natural world entities. What follows is technically called "a Genesis sequence."

4. The actual creation days and most creationary work follow the Genesis "And God said, Let . . ." sequence and includes the immediate operative phrase that follows. This operative phrase does not indicate a particular observer perspective. After this operative phrase there often appears additional information used for other purposes such as partial reasons for this aspect of creation or some of the specific results yielded by the specific operative phrase. One interesting approach, but not the only one, is that the MA-model predicts that there is one ultimate ultraword  w'  that when the *S ultralogic operator is applied to this ultimate ultraword a partial sequence of six intermediate ultrawords are obtained from which other ultrawords are produced that yield the ideal natural-systems that existed originally. When the ultralogic *S is applied to each of these intermediate ultrawords for a creation day, then all of the developing natural-system ultrawords are produced. [One ultraword is sufficient to produce a Biblical literal creation. The use of ultimate ultrawords is a type of "bottom-up" approach. The use of a single ultraword is a top-down approach and can include "emergent" properties. Although still viable, I no longer use the ultimate ultraword appraoch.] These ultrawords yield the required general rules for the development of specific natural-systems over that one creation day. [See note [5] where recent developments are discussed relative to the contents of ultrawords.]

The appearance of each natural-system during each creation-day uses the metamorphic portion of the model and can be comprehended by the human mind by saying that the appearance is sudden or abrupt in Biblically described fully functional form. From a naive point of view, the set of natural laws required to sustain (He. 1:3 (NIV)) and preserve (Ne. 9:6 (KJ)) God's creation are also created at the same moment by an ultraword and all natural-system behavior satisfies these natural laws. [Although such laws can be pre-designed in this fashion, I now use the notion of my unification for all natural laws as an additional operator that gives relations between adjacent frozen-frames. Technically, as discussed in "the book," the perceived natural laws are not the part of the event sequence. The natural laws would be humanly comprehensible descriptions for regularities that seem to exist when different moment-to-moment images are compared. Perceived natural laws are not what actually drives the universe in which we dwell. Something else is first produced. Such humanly comprehensible regularities are not, in general, needed for the actual development to take place and would be part of God's general plain for His created. For example, human beings can use such regularities to build, from created materials, other useful objects - a human built universe. As God requires they allow us to "subdue" our local environment. The existence of such regularities would imply immediately that ultranatural laws also exist.]

5. As the Biblical sequence progresses, the number and complexity of the necessary natural-systems increase. Each intermediate ultraword contains the appropriate ultrawords, the compressed specific information, that continue the required development of the previously created natural-systems, but probably under altered or additional natural laws. Alteration of natural laws would utilize the ultracontinuous anamorphosis portion of the MA-model.

6. Because of the probable changing character of the natural laws themselves, I will not speculate upon their detailed content during the first few creation days. Some individuals when they model the creation "week" assume that the natural laws and processes are the same during creation week as observed today. The Scriptures seem to state otherwise in certain instances and for these I give a general view as to how these natural laws and processes might differ from those we observe today.

7. The substratum invades all of the created natural objects in the sense that the created objects are densely embedded into the substratum - the substratum is omnipresent. The MA-model gives a most remarkable and very strict interpretation for Hebrews 11:3. Ultrawords, ultralogics, finite and hyperfinite choice, hyperfinite ordering, properton combinations and the "st" operators "perfectly join together" two Scriptural eternities, God's invisible and visible "worlds," the "ultranatural" and the "natural" worlds. For any entity to materialize and become a real entity within our universe, the model states that the "st" operator must be applied. But, this operator can also yield an object that would appear to be in the "suspended animation" form. For an entity to display any development within the natural world, the model states that an ultralogic must be applied to an ultraword. However, a particular universe-wide frozen-frame can be realized in the natural world with but the application of this operator. The basic sequence of events associated consistently with the "And God said, Let . . . " is the mentioned six step process. [This six-process has been re-expressed and informational instructions are now included. See processes.htm.] When this Bible phrase is not used but a creation week object appears, the model states that the ordering of this six-steps can be altered.

We are told first in Genesis 1:2, that the earth ('erets that is mostly considered as "land" throughout Scripture) is formless (tohuw) and empty. Since the "And God said, Let . . . ." does not appear here, the "earth" would not follow the patterns associated with any perceivable natural laws if it were a realized earth. Later there is such a "And God said, Let . . . ." statement pertaining to the "land." There are only two model possibilities. Either the earth (land) was not yet realized as a natural world object, or if it were so realized, then it appeared as if "frozen in primitive time" - in the suspended animation form. Thus there would be absolutely no change taking place within any of the "land" natural-systems. The second possibility is that the "st" operator has not as yet been applied. This means that the object, in all of its details, is unrealized; it is not yet part of the natural universe. It is a "covirtual" object. Further, this unrealized form need not be in suspended animation with respect to ultranatural events. Which of these possibilities might be the case?

The next characterization is that the "earth" is "empty." Indeed, the Hebrew word here translated as "void" is actually developed from "to be empty." The only simple MA-model interpretation is that the "earth" was in unrealized form. It is interesting that this is an exact meaning reinforced by the Hebrew tôhûw. One of the significant meanings for tôhûw is that it signifies the formless confusing character that matter was formally supposed to have before the development of natural law. The word "confusion" implies to me "incomprehensible." Thus this entire description for the "earth" or "land" follows the simple MA-model interpretation of being unrealized within the natural world. This is my accepted possibility; this is the "foundations of the earth" from Scripture, an unrealized covirtual earth. Note that realization and natural law development requires the complete six-step sequence of operators and these are activated in this model only after an "And God said, Let . . . ." statement.

There is an indication that the "st" operator was applied, but any further natural-system development was frozen in primitive time. As further indicated by Scripture, this would give an additional and strong "spirit" control over all aspects of the sustaining and creation of our natural universe. This occurs where we are told that "the spirit of God moves (hovers, vibrates, shakes) over the face of the waters." The Hebrew rachaph for moves, hovers, vibrates, shakes is used but three times in the Scriptures and is developed from "to brood." The only possible MA-model process with which this could be identified is the standard part operator. In this case, the notion of "over the face of" would need to be more closely associated with the idea of being "in the presence of."

[One interpretation for Job 38:9 is that it is describing the same Spirit-water association as in Genesis 1:2. Job would immediately recognize the figure of speak used here, "a cloud," as meaning the same as described in the Ex. 40 statements, such as Ex. 40:38. Such a cloud statement is but a "figure" for a special presence of the Spirit of God. A consistent interpretation would be "When I placed (or set) the (special presence of my) Spirit as its garment . . . . " Of course, the "water-spirit" combination is very significant in the New Testament. On the other hand, Matthew Henry and the A. R. Fausset commentaries interpret this as God describing day-three creation events. The "clouds" in these two commentaries refer to actual clouds and for Matthew Henry the "thick darkness" refers to "shores vastly remote and distant from one another and quite in the dark one to another." Henry also relates his interpretation to Psalm 104:6. The notion that the mountains were covered by the waters is the MA-models notion that the Earth was present but in unrealized form. The Biblical terminology, at the time Job was written, would not include this recent notion. However, Job 38.9 can also be interpreted as relating to the Genesis Flood.] The significance of Genesis 1:2 is that the "water" is the only realized material within our universe at this moment of creation, but it was in a form that was without any further natural-system development. The water was, at this point in this creation scenario, in suspended animation.

Throughout the Bible, except in Genesis 1:1-2, the term "earth," when it refers to the "entire world" in actual "realized" material form, seems never to be used for some entity that is significantly larger than our present day earth. Thus, in this cosmology, when the earth is completely realized it will be the approximate mass of our present day structure. As indicated in Genesis 1:2, whatever the composition and size of a realized earth may be, in this model, material creation begins with an entity composed of water in suspended animation form.

In, at least, three Scriptural passages the term "light" is used to name an entity that is distinct from other entities that we know produce such radiation. These are Genesis 1:3, Psalms 74:16 (KJ), Eccl. 12:2. The abrupt creation of light (the entire electromagnetic spectrum) seems to occur in Genesis 1:2 through application of the six-step process. As shown in "Einstein Corrected" electromagnetic or photon properties are an integral part of the natural-system physical processes yet to come. This implies that the created "light" is, indeed, the first and most necessary physical entity needed to alter the "chaos," this "not real" condition, for its at this moment that electromagnetic radiation becomes an integral part of each natural-system. The realization operation "and it was so" does not appear here. But, something actually needs to exist. I interpret this to mean that all of the necessary properties are mentally created. That the most basic and inviolate natural-system behavior is characterized by various types of photons and is incorrported into all of the physical creation this is to follow. God then appears to have specifically separated, for further use, the visible portion of the spectrum from other portions. The only natural world space employed, thus far, is that occupied by the water. (The end of day-one.)

8. In Genesis 1:6, the six-step process lead to a separation of an unknown amount of water. This separation is characterized by a "stretching, expansion or unfolding" of "something" associated with the substratum or by a simple re-location of the outer water boundary or a combination of these. This uncertainty relates to the Hebrew term raqiya' (firmament) as used here where it is somewhat equivocal in character. The exact meaning one applies to this concept might also depend upon the gravitational model chosen, but such a natural world expansion, unfolding, or re-location of the outer boundary would not alter the "dense to an infinite degree" substratum. If the expansion scenario is considered, then it might be modeled by application of a Robinson-Walker type line element with but a nonzero substratum term  d  as it appears in Section 5 of Article 3 of Herrmann (1995a). It is possible that the  d  or expansion function is substratum time or position dependent. Depending upon the selected day-four scenario, this expanse - the firmament - may or may not be a large separation as can be comprehended by third dimensional geometry and since the "waters above" are separated from the "waters below" there is a measurable distance between the two "water surfaces."

Depending upon what gravitational law one might apply, the "outer water" can represent various notions. No matter what notion it represents, it appears to be an actual "boundary" or a "boundary-type initial" condition for the created additional natural universe for type one and type three day-four scenarios. [I now accept that the "water above" is the boundary of the local original Earth environment that exists prior to universe formation.] For all expansion scenarios, the notion of stretching or unfolding corresponds to an actual expansion of the substratum properton field. Since, in this case, all ultrawords were created prior to their activation, it may be necessary that any observable energy effects associated with this stretching be spacetime associated. Such effects can be incorporated within other ultrawords that would yield objects exterior to our solar system. [Of course, this was my original aproach.]

9. Although the universe is "bounded" for certain creationary cosmologies, depending upon the gravitational theory used, the expansion or movement of this "outer boundary" could continue to take place. Such an "expanse or unfolding" satisfies literally Scriptural statements in, at least, 17 places. [I have altered this interpretation.] This expanse, at this point, contains no other natural entities and for this reason is not considered complete since this pre-designed creation is not followed, within many translations, by the usual completeness phrase "it was good." For the first and third day-four scenarios, this firmament is directly related to the physical and sub-quantum substratum. Please note that God names this firmament as a heaven. Indeed, it is this same type of firmament that will contain God's day-four creations. The day-four creations seem to indicate indirectly that the land-water combination of day-three may be slowly rotating with respect to this substratum. If this is the case, then the outer water boundary, if used for a specific cosmology, might be rotating in some manner and could produce an additional effect throughout the entire day-two universe. I do not speculate as to whether the combined earth and light properties includes some sort of light source since this is actually unnecessary for the entities created during day-three due to how perceived natural laws come into being.

The GGU-model was the first to predict the rational existence of propertons (i.e. infants). In 1983, it was speculated that the existence of "vacuum" type behavior as associated with a sub-quantum properton field, might actually be determined by the appearance of a type of leakage, or pressure emanating from the substratum. Since that time the refined approach to Einstein's Special Theory as it appears in the book "Einstein Corrected" predicts that there is, indeed, an intimate relation between the substratum and electromagnetic radiation. Although the necessary restraint relative to describing possible substratum behavior should always be kept in mind, through application of the energy associated with vacuum gravity or other processes, the region of the substratum that now comprises this "expanse" appears to display its presence in various ways some of which are, at present, being more fully analyzed. However, for expansion scenarios, it appears likely that the Biblical notion of "stretching" or "unfolding" would leave a signature that would correspond to the "heat" notion associated with the "stretching" (natan) of malleable metal when it is being hammered-out (raqa). This signature could be observed as an additional contribution to the total vacuum energy. Depending upon the gravitational theory used, this can by observed as an additional general cosmological expansion. For consistency for the first day-four scenario, this "heat" notion would also be dependent upon "spacetime" positions within the vacuum as associated with the spacetime positions for the created "stars" as they are compared to the spacetime position of the earth, where the "time" refers to historical information. This energy effect would be a significant signature of God and His creative powers. (The end of the second day.)

10. All entities brought forth during day-three are obtained by sudden appearance in an appropriate Biblically described fully functional form through application of six-step process. In particular, notice that the "dry" land appeared suddenly. The fact that it is "dry" indicates that it abruptly appeared and was not just exposed by some form of geological activity. This is now the realized land first mentioned in Genesis 1:2. As mentioned, an actual "light" source is not necessary to sustain the objects that appear in fully functional form due to how perceivable natural laws actually come into being. (The end of day-three.) [The material in "Additional Notes" at the end of this article shows how Scriptural directives lead to a "quiet" mode process that will allow for necessary perturbations from the ideal natural-system. Such perturbations are probably necessary during and after day three. This is what necessitates the "covirtual" solar system or universe concept. Please see note 4 for the new discoveries that show how there can be ideal probabilistic behavior and perturbed probabilistic behavior.]

11. [I no longer accept this approach for "star" creation. (Jun 2009)] The Bible's description for day-four activities bumps headlong into modern observational cosmology. Genesis 1:14 begins with the operative phrase "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven(s)" The remaining portions give some basic reasons for the existence of these "luminaries" within the firmament and the purpose for the created objects. The same occurs in the first part of Genesis 1:15. The last phrase "and it was so" (KJ) indicates that the creation occurs. The "And God said, . . . . " does not appear anywhere else in Genesis 1:16 - 18, and this indicates that these verses give but a more detailed description, give names for certain entities, such as the sun and moon, and in some manuscripts "stars." Since the Scriptures are silent on the matter, I speculate that the sun, moon and all components of the original solar system are created in the appropriate fully functional form by the application of the six-step process that yields all other created entities. Immediately after this aspect of day-four creation "he made the stars also." The basic difficulty is with the apparent method used for star production and how this method is related to observational cosmology.

Concerning star formation external to this solar system, there are, at the least, three competing scenarios that are somewhat speculative in character. The first two alternatives are closely related and can even be considered as complementary in character. The Bible gives some guidance for the first two scenarios but little guidance concerning the highly distinct third possibility. These three possible scenarios are discussed below where the order assigned to this discussion does not indicate that one should take preference over another. These three scenarios are MA-model possibilities. Each should be considered as suggestive in character and other scenarios are possible such as parameter dependent combinations of these three scenarios.

12. The GGU-model predicts many possibilities that cannot be differentiate from say the Big Bang theory (the standard model). The first major possibility is somewhat unusual. For this scenario, the strongest Biblical statement is in Genesis 1. The usual and consistent "And God said, Let . . . . " with its operative phrase concerning star formation exterior to our solar system. This scenario is independent from any scientific theory that claims that certain mechanisms produce the observable data.

The MA-model predicts that by the six-step process the universe external to our solar system could actually "pop" into existence from the substratum with stars and all contributing entities formed in fully functional form. One definite possibility, taken from numerously many, is that the actual processes and ideal formations of these entities are contained within a sequence of ultimate ultrawords each member of which represents a "covirtual universe." Indeed, the entire history of all entities that abruptly appear in fully functional form is within this sequence. Also within these ultrawords are the unknowable ultranatural events and processes. [See "the book" for a few additional details, especially the existence of the ultimate2 ultraword.] Activating one of these ultrawords by application of the appropriate members of the six-step sequence yields the actual external natural universe in which we dwell at any moment in its history. The past ideal behavior of all natural systems exists within each of these ultimate ultrawords. [Please note: The MA-model cannot determine the exact level of maturity or complexity for the abruptly appearing entities. For different scenarios, the formations might be as discussed in the third scenario below. Indeed, the same process also applies to the "beginning" of the standard model as well.]

Due to the perceivable natural laws impressed upon this ideal universe, logical consistency demands that each member of this sequence contain appropriate information concerning "other" ultrawords. These "other" ultrawords would yield an ideal natural universe at different "moments" during the entire exterior "universe" development. This necessarily yields certain observational evidence or information in the form of "in-transit" electromagnetic and particle radiation. Such information is a required part of the ultraword activation and would also "suddenly appear." This in-transit information depicts appropriate "past" events. For consistency, the cosmic microwave background radiation would need to have a displayed past history as well. This would include spacetime considerations associated with its interaction with other stellar objects that are in various historical stages of development. [This radiation need not be a product of the standard Big Bang cosmology, but could come from other sources such as the "iron particles."] Only observation of this information could determine the actual "depth" God intended to display for these "covirtual" historical events, when He decided upon the fully functional form mode for creation. [I now accept the rapid formation model and the in-transit information model is one rapid formation possibility.]

Scripturally, this scenario serves the exact purpose stated in Genesis 1:14 for a universe external to the solar system. This scenario is based upon properton formation. The predicted existence of propertons is based upon but one physical principle associated with the first created entity used to alter the "chaos" - light. It does not matter whether one considers light as a particle or wave, it has continuous energy states. It has a continuous energy spectrum. If a humanly constructed cosmology allows for "light" to exist, then the processes employed for this scenario are independent from such a cosmology. Thus, if such a cosmology is accepted for its verified predictions and observations, then this first creation scenario is verified to the exact same degree. Of course, the converse does not hold.

For a strict Scriptural interpretation, one needs to assume that the ordering of Scriptural Genesis 1 events is as stated. The Genesis sequence can, however, contain many more entities than the ones actually selected. Thus, our knowledge of the actual contents of the Genesis sequence is limited. However, it is rather important that, from the Scriptural viewpoint, a representation for the "firmament" should be placed somewhat near to the beginning of the Genesis sequence for it appears necessary that firmament information also be part of this in-transit information. Genesis 1:14 states specifically that the luminaries are placed "in" the firmament. This does not change the actual ordering of events. For the universe external to our solar system, a specific member of the complete Genesis sequence is still selected during the day-four time period and all other previously created or made entities are still present.

The Genesis sequence contains all in-transit information verified by observational cosmology. The selected entities from this sequence yield the appropriate ultrawords that depict the entities appearance and behavior when viewed from a earthly perspective 6 - 10 thousand years ago. Although it is not necessary, the selected portions of the Genesis sequence, with perturbations, can approximately correspond to portions of a theory generated sequence of ultimate ultrawords. This possibility would allow for the prediction of present day or future cosmological events, among other uses.

Since it is self-evident from the viewpoint of the atheistic scientific community that I match exactly Paul's 1 Corinthians 1:27 description, and since I intuitively know the construction of the ultimate ultrawords, I can with complete clarity make a rather "foolish" prediction. For any possible humanly constructed (a priori) cosmological theory, the first scenario can be constructed in such a manner that physical observations will always yield anomalous data. Such a construction is for the sole purpose of upholding such Scriptural passages as Romans 1:22, 1 Corinthians 1:19, and other similar statements. The procedure that accomplishes this is to select substratum spacetime patterns, patterns that must accompany abrupt appearance. Due to the procedures discussed throughout this abrupt appearance scenario, one begins to more easily comprehend, at least slightly, how God can have knowledge of the past, present and future. Indeed, as shown in "the book" the pre-design feature would yield such knowledge. Properties of the Genesis sequence may seem difficult to comprehend; however, recent technical developments can increase our understanding. The new device is the DVD. In "the book," DVDs and the processes we use with our "windows" software are used to give further comprehension.

For a simple example of the necessary previous "history" that must be contained within the selected ultraword, if numerous objects that have abruptly appeared are the remains of a supernova, then the radiation might need to contain information about how these remains were produced although no supernova actually occurred within the natural universe to produce these remains. However, the supernova does exist as a "covirtual object" within different ultrawords and would have actually been part of the external natural universe if some other ultraword had been activated. One aspect of such a mode of "sudden appearance" is that God might include some additional information during such an appearance from the substratum that would be a "signature" that this form of Divine creation did indeed occur.

"But, would not such sudden appearance be a deception on the part of God?" you might ask. Of course, not. All the entities and information actual exist in an ultranatural sense and the MA-model simply verifies scientifically the rationality of the strict Genesis account. This abrupt appearance is absolutely consistent with the "obvious" abrupt appearances of other entities discussed within Genesis 1 and one who accepts such a strict interpretation of Genesis cannot possibly be so "deceived." Moreover, God does not need to follow the rules atheistic science selects for modeling and that such scientists consider as reasonable.

If an observer believes in this form of sudden appearance in fully functional form with the in-transit past history information, then such an observer is not being deceived. The observer has full knowledge that the information received is not an actual natural universe fact, although it is fully known to God, but is what would have occurred if a different scenario had been selected. Much more significantly, however, this information allows the observer to consider various natural processes that might produce future occurrences of astronomical events as such events are Scripturally described. If an observer does not accept this scenario and this scenario is the method by which the external universe came into being, then the observer is but deceiving himself by not accepting the sudden appearance method of formation as suggested by Genesis 1. Such strong deception, as stated in 2 Thess 2:11, is an important Scriptural concept that could be operative in this case. As is shown in the Additional Notes section, this model shows that God has knowledge of the past, present and future. He may have constructed His universe to contain historical information as a strong deception for those atheistic scientists who believe in evolutionary cosmology, who worship science and reject His Genesis creation. [Note, that if you have just read this description for this abrupt appearance scenario, then you have knowledge about this possibility and, hence, you would be "without excuse" as to such a Divine possibility.]

Although some may claim otherwise, there is Scriptural evidence for this first scenario. As should be well-known, that the Greek as used in the New Testament is the common Greek of the first century AD as understood by the ordinary individual. The Bible is not a document such as the U. S. Constitution where the concept of "broadening of terms" or actual alteration of original meaning is applied by a supreme judicial body. Indeed, it describes attributes of the Godhead who said "For I am the LORD, I change not;" (Mal 3:6). The book of Hebrews contains language that is often difficult to translate into terms that would be fully appreciated today. Consider Hebrews 11:3 and simply compare the different nuances that appear within the Jerusalem Bible and King James versions. The oldest available Greek manuscripts do not eliminate these differences and, indeed, this may be an important case where no form of secular scholarly activity will actually reveal the "true" meaning and 1 John 2:27 becomes operative. I suggest that an appropriate first century common meaning for the last portion of this verse is "What is seen cannot be understood from what is perceived." (Additional evidence is given below for this interpretation.) In Rev. 20:11 (compare Rev. 16:20), there is a direct implication of the reverse of abrupt appearance in fully functional form. ". . . the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." This I interpret to mean that the entire material universe that exists at that time rather abruptly ceased to exist.

Now, as to the fantastic character of this first viable possibility presented by this secondary effect of the MA-model, has "strange" natural-system behavior been discussed by any well-known and respected scientist? Recall that there are many particle physicists that accept the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds interpretation; that there are numerously many worlds of which we can have no scientific knowledge and that they are altered at each moment a quantum transition takes place. Indeed, the "strangeness" that nature might display has absolutely nothing to do with nature itself, but it has a great deal to do with human pride, a pride that tends to insist that nature must behave in a nice humanly comprehensible way. Consider a recent statement made by Noble Prize winner Richard Feynman during his elementary lectures on quantum electrodynamics.

"Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just 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. I'm going to describe how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense." (Feynman, R., 1985. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton University Press, Princeton, p. 10)

Thus, the Feynman philosophy indicates that a cosmological scientific model may be nothing more than a "model" for behavior. If a model explains the data, then this is all that is necessary. Such models are independent of whether an individual likes, agrees with or comprehends the model at a sufficient depth. As discussed in "the book," this and the third scenario discussed below seem to require a "morphing" boundary. Such a boundary is rational from a computer modeling viewpoint.

13. The second distinct, yet, complementary scenario also has Scriptural support and is something human pride fights desperately to avoid. The GGU-model states that there are infinitely many other possibilities for how our universe came into being or how it has evolved into its present state and, for the life of the natural universe, it will be impossible for any life-form within the universe to comprehend totally any of these scenarios, although partial knowledge is possible. Now that is a truly fantastic scientific fact. But, Nobel Prize winner Max Planck wrote as much in his philosophy for the concepts needed to produce theoretical models.

Nature does not allow herself to be exhaustively expressed in human thought. (Planck, M, 1934. The Mechanics of deformable bodies, Vol. II, Introduction to Theoretical Physics, Macmillion, NY, P. 2.)

There is considerable Scriptural support for this second scenario. Hundreds of times within the Scriptures, we are told how different God is from His created. How "incomprehensible" are His ways, and the like. The problem is that we are also told that we can "reason together" with God. One certainly needs to have some idea as to what God's created life-forms can or cannot comprehend about God's creative and sustaining processes. The major verses that are claimed to uphold humankind's ability to have vast knowledge about the behavior and formation of the universe exterior to the solar system are Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:19-20. I suggest it should rather be coupled with Romans 1:19-23. The form of the Greek word here and often translated as "made" and which appears only twice in this form, seems to be much broader in its sense and might be better translated as "achievements" not just those exhibited by His material creation.

What these verses appear to be discussing are God's "attributes." In particular, His achievements "clearly" indicate His unseen, by human senses, "eternal" power and Divinity. I am not the only individual that claims this interpretation. Luther writes relative to Romans 1:20, " are clearly seen perceived not by the senses but by understanding His eternal power and Divinity." Indeed, the Greek elemental meaning of the word translated as "eternal" is "un-perceived," where "perceived" means, in general, to gain knowledge by the senses. Hence, there is additional evidence for the Hebrews 11:3 interpretation, and this yields additional confirmation for acceptance of a sudden appearance scenario since such a scenario certainly implies vast and only partially comprehensible creative power.

I doubt that in the first century one would conclude from the more complete Romans 1:19-23 that Paul intended one to believe that humankind could completely comprehend and describe in complete detail the actual processes God used to create. Much more likely, Paul means that humankind has an understanding of these Divine attributes from what is observed because such observations exhibit the power and Divinity of God; a power and Divinity that can be but partially comprehended and, most certainly, can only be partially replicated by His created. These verses are directed to individuals who do not acknowledge the highly incomprehensible aspects of God as represented by His wondrous creative power. They thus glorify Him not, but became vain through the use of human imaginations as a replacement for God's creative power, a creative power that is claimed by some corruptible individuals to be completely comprehensible.

In numerously many ways, the GGU-model upholds the impossibility of complete human comprehension. First, there are the ultranatural theories, laws and events. Then, as another example, if one accepts that the process within the substratum that produces all of the elementary particles of subatomic physics is the hyperfinite combination of ultimate propertons into intermediate propertons, then an exact description as to what "binds" these ultimate propertons together (a higher level ultranatural process) cannot be made in terms are any language using any scientific terms related to the behavior of the combined entities themselves. Although but a slight comparison, individuals often seem to appreciate artistic endeavors to a much greater degree than would ordinarily be expected if they don't understand exactly how the artist has achieved the end results.

14. [The following section is one of the most technical in this article. It is a third type of creationary scenario. If you are not familiar with notions such as the General Relativity line element (a metric), statistical thermal equilibrium and the like, you might wish to skip to section 15. Indeed, I no longer accept this model but rather employ the rapid-formation-model. It is retained here for historical reasons.] The next scenario is an example of what is called Biblical speculation that, if consistent, is allowed when the Scriptures are silent on a particular matter. Such speculation, as in this case, may have some weak Scriptural support and as such should never be considered as strongly Scripturally verified. I call this scenario "the hot firmament model."

To discuss a third possible scenario for the star formation, it is necessary to recall a few facts that appear in Herrmann, (1995a). Certain alterations in natural-system behavior may be controlled by various line elements. But when a specific line element is used for the linear velocity or gravitational field alterations the arguments show that only one portion of the line element is used. This portion is the one that involves alterations in the infinitesimal timing light-clocks. All derivations are made in a consistent manner using the concepts of a separating operator and universal functions.

There are two types of processes needed to derive these alterations. One process is an actual velocity that can be measured relative to the substratum. The other is not an actual velocity, but rather a potential velocity within the natural universe. For the case of the Robinson-Walker type line element from which the concept of the textural expansion of the substratum (the firmament) is obtained, an actual velocity statement in terms of a substratum constant d or velocity styled function f is used. [This appears in Section 5 of Article 3 of Herrmann (1995a) and in an added note (14).] But, no purely potential velocity for d or f has, as yet, been considered. For consistency, such a potential velocity should also exist for the d or f expression.

It is proposed that within the substratum there is one other simple possibility. This possibility is a specific type of potential energy that is measured by a potential velocity for a standard object. [Potential velocity is the velocity that will occur for a standard test object when potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.] Using this potential energy idea, the same derivations that lead to the gravitational field alterations for physical behavior will lead to alterations in physical processes through an electromagnetic interaction with the substratum, where the direction is a substratum to natural world interaction. The smaller the potential energy within a region, the less will be the alterations of various physical measures within that region. The larger the potential energy, the greater will be these alterations. Certainly, potential energy within a field is a very simple field property.

The first step for this third possibility follows immediately "after" solar system creation. I speculate that the remaining portion of the firmament is spread over by a dense combination of radiation and matter in one of its simplest combined forms. This form is the usual form associated with the concept of statistical thermal equilibrium or a radiation-matter soup at approximately 3,000 K (Weinberg) as measured by present day instruments. This radiation-matter soup can actually appear instantaneously from the firmament itself through the use of properton processes. This radiation-matter combination degenerates into a matter-dominated universe predicted by our present day perceived natural laws. As previously mentioned, the textural expansion of the firmament relative to the actual d or f velocity associated with the Robinson-Walker line element can, if necessary, depend upon substratum position or time coordinates. However, natural world position or primitive time is associated with substratum position or primitive time. This would allow for a very simple control over the clumping requirements for star formation. The actual differences in expansion rates need only be minuscule. For this scenario, as measured from the solar system region, the firmament would have a radius of about 1/1,000 of the radius of the universe as approximated today.

[Note: I point out that it's usually the textural expansion notion that leads to "cooling" and matter formation. This assumes that the actual physical laws being displayed within the exterior universe by the event sequences are the same as today. Such actual expansion can be an illusion and is not necessary since matter formation can take place through application of the event sequence notion.] Unfortunately, the presence of this radiation-matter soup would affect the objects previously produced. We are told in Ne. 9:6 (KJ) that God will preserve His creation. The first method allows for such a protection and is the most direct. The method depends only upon the previous procedures thus far used, the event sequence notions. It is explained in more detail in "the book."

A second method is much more technical in character, where one portion of this protection can come from a mechanism already created. This is the potential velocity concept modeled by the d or f, where v = 0, and applied to various line elements that appear in Herrmann (1995a, 1995b, 1996). [Note: In pp7.htm it is shown how to use the linear effect line element to "increase" radial motion. This same derivation with d or f replacing di can be used to obtain a decrease in instantaneous velocities considered at any point within the local environment, not just the center of mass.] By letting nonzero d or f be slightly less than  c  at every point within an immediate and necessary region  R  of the substratum that contains each previously produced solar system entity, these effects could be minimized as such destructive effects are propagated throughout the firmament.

In general terms, "rates of change" within the local natural world will be altered. This substratum potential velocity is distinct from the "gravitational" potential velocity. However, due to the discussion in section 5 and the predicted presence of ultranatural events and ultranatural laws, a considerable amount of caution must be exercised when considering questions and notions associated with pure substratum behavior. It may not be possible to have any complete knowledge as to which specific "rates of change" are altered. Mathematical predictions based upon our present day knowledge of natural law would not be sufficient. Since d or f is not related to mass, then the alterations in rates of change are not caused by gravitational fields. Also the d or f is independent from distance measurement. Hence, only a line element in terms of timing infinitesimal light-clocks would apply and the effects would be to alter energy changes and various "rates of change" associated with physical behavior as they are observed from any point exterior to  R. [Note: Mathematically and depending upon where this linear effect line element is applied, rotational motion would also be "slowed."]

As discussed above, when compared to the same processes within the firmament, the presence of such a d or f would tend to "slow down" various physical processes within every original solar system entity to the point of almost, but not quiet, being zero. I stress that the processes do not stop and this is only a comparative "slowing down." This reduction would appear to be the same from every position exterior to  R. Although the methods presented within this third scenario were developed prior to the work of Humphreys, I acknowledge the contributions of Humphreys by stating that the starlight and time effects discussed by Humphreys will also occur in this cosmology but the universe external to the region of high substratum potential velocity is "aging" at a rate that yields a perceived age of millions upon millions of standard earth-time years at every exterior location while the interior region, in comparison, ages only slightly. These effects might be called the Humphreys' effects. However, Humphreys' approach also suffers from the same, but not mentioned, time-dilation constraint as does this third scenario. As presently presented in Humphreys' book, his approach appears, at present, to be somewhat invalid. [See: Humphreys] [Of course, no black hole quasi-white hole mechanism is employed in the U-cosmology. Indeed, the second method's basic aging mechanisms were first discovered by me in 1993 and reported in C. R. S. Quarterly 30(1994): 186 and 35(1998):110. Humphreys was the first apparently to publish formally, in late fall 1994, such a rate reduction possibility but obtains his description from gravitational field effects.]

If there is any radiation that crosses into the region of high substratum potential energy, then the methods in Herrmann (1995a) show that the energy associated with such radiation would drop to near zero and, indeed, the entities could even be absorbed into the substratum. This aspect is interesting since this might cause the substratum potential energy to decrease at an appropriate rate and automatically reduce this substratum potential energy for the original solar system created objects to that which would exist throughout the entire firmament at this present epoch. If this gradual potential energy reduction is not part of the creation scenario, then using the "set them in the firmament" as an initial condition, we could conclude that after an appropriate collection of stars was produced the following could occur. In order for the next sequential requirement to take place, the requirement that these stars "rule over the day and over the night," which is a clear reference as to how they will be viewed from the earth, the potential energy within the substratum would be reduced rapidly so that the last quoted statement would hold true.

Not withstanding which of the three competing scenarios occurred in objective reality, it follows that all of the processes are then ended by use of the "it was good" statement. (The end of day-four.)

15. For the remaining creation days, all other created, made or formed entities follow the same production pattern as detailed in section 9 for day-three. As to the actual length of the "six" creation days as measured by today's standards, this must be determined by other means. This cosmology does not depend upon the "time" length assigned to the creation "day" notion. However, although all objects created by the processes discussed appear suddenly in a appropriate functional form, the actual length of a creation "day" could be 24 standard hours, a length accepted by many creationary scientists. On the other hand, such a "day" might be somewhat indefinite and it could be much longer. I, personally, don't believe that each creation "day" was particular long. [Once again, the material in the "Additional Notes" indicates a solution to the "perturbations from the ideal" behavior as it would obviously be necessary to include in this model since this is required from Scriptural directives.]

16. Reading the more refined and continued description for the development of the earth as stated in Genesis 2, it appears that the earth and probably the original solar system were created or made in appropriate functional form. They were not produced by means of an evolutionary process beginning from some exceedingly primitive composition.

In the next section, a certain speculation is discussed in detail. This speculation is that the use of the perceived behavior of various natural-systems that exist today will not lead to a conclusive determination of the actual dates when various entities were originally created, made, or formed. Indeed, anomalies will probably occur when only secular means are employed. Such confusions once again may be designed to simply ". . . confound the wise;" 1 Cor. 1:27; especially, the secular or theological "wise" who use only worldly procedures. A further complication in complexity (or age) determination arises from the definite MA-model prediction that aspects of the natural processes as they were originally conceived could have been easily altered during creation week or thereafter by MA-model processes, and this could yield the so-called natural processes that we perceive today. Determining the actual states of maturity or complexity for the original created, made, or formed natural-systems, and the removal of anomalies can only come through directed research coupled with spiritual and Scriptural guidance. Such guidance is presented in the next section.

17. The earthly world as it is described through the flood scenario is of a very special type. For example, the natural-systems are distinctly different from those we observe today. It appears that rain did not occur. God used a form of mist and rivers to "water the crops," so to speak. It appears that in this pristine world many of the natural processes we associate with the degeneration of a natural-system either did not occur or occurred much more slowly than today.

We are told in Genesis 6 that humankind not only corrupted itself but also corrupted the very earth (land) as well. God was to destroy all living things, with certain exceptions, by direct intervention. And this would include the earth (land). "I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." Gen. 6:13 (NIV) Obviously an actual entity termed the earth did not cease to exist. It is most likely that, during the flood, the earth (land) and its supporting natural-systems were greatly altered so as to remove the special character they were originally accorded.

Throughout the above description for the U-cosmology, various ultranatural processes as created by God are used by God to produce all created entities and processes. They can also be used to produce all sudden alterations in natural-system behavior. Human behavior acting as an initial condition or Divine intervention can lead to a branch selection from our universe's library that yields the Flood and apparent local aging. Or, using the potential energy concept within the substratum but letting it be measured not by a simple real d or f value but rather the pure complex di or fi, the line element and derivation approach in "Einstein Corrected" leads to a "speeding up" of many natural processes. Applying this to various natural-systems would yield the Flood and give the appearance of rapid "aging" as it might be measured by such natural-systems. Under both scenarios, this would be done so that the special character of the earth and certain other solar system entities is removed, with possibly some exceptions, and their natural-systems now display the same behavior as similar natural-systems within the external universe. [Note: As mentioned I no longer accept this scenario.]

Hopefully, not all natural-systems were altered in this fashion. As mentioned, anomalies may present themselves, anomalies that can only be explained by assuming that some specific original earth entities were not altered and this would represent a sort of "signature" of His divine power. The Bible appears to be silent as to the remaining portions of the original solar system. Maybe here is where the anomalies will be found. After the flood, many actual "young" natural-systems, so to speak, now give the appearance of old age; they now appear no different than other portions of the universe. Most natural-systems now degenerate at approximately the same rate as they do today. All of this degeneration will continue until God makes all things new and all of the "former things are passed away." However, the appearance of other natural-systems is better explained by considering them as remnants from the original Earth.

18. What has been discussed are mostly strict Scriptural cosmologies. These cosmologies are in direct conflict with progressive creationism and various theistic evolutionary models. These discussed scenarios are but a few of the infinitely many possible cosmologies consistent with GGU-model processes. Almost all such cosmologies, although they present different early histories, cannot be differentiated, one from another, by scientific means. As mentioned, unless certain anomalies present themselves, the U-cosmology also can not be differentiate from most secular cosmologies discussed within the present day scientific literature. The selection of a specific and correct cosmology by an individual cannot be based upon the scientific method as used by the physical scientist due to the existence of the GGU-model. The selection can only be based upon other considerations. Indeed, if there exists no "supernatural" means to determine which cosmology is the correct cosmology, then the correct cosmology cannot be determined.

19. All of the above is mainly concerned with the creation of corporeal entities within a universe. However, theorem 7.3.3 in Herrmann (1993, 1994) yields the following additional possibility. A developmental paradigm  d'  can be considered as composed entirely of ultranatural events. With this interpretation, such a paradigm can correspond to a created incorporeal "spirit" object. For such a  d', there is an ultraword  w  such that *S applied to  w  yields  d'. Consequently, by means of scientific logic, the GGU-model describes processes that can yield God's created "spirit" kingdom.


These additional notes are designed to present some research results that may alter or add to the conclusions within the above sections. The numbers indicate the approximate order in which these discoveries were made.

[1] One of the most interesting aspects of this research is that the GGU-model has a scientific imagination. The facts are that the model explicitly describes some imaginative but, as you have seen, scientific possibilities and these possibilities cannot be differentiated one from another, as yet, by any scientific means. An explicit scenario is described by the mathematics. It states the possibility that at certain moments during the development of our universe an initial "time condition" could easily have lead to a universe wide alteration in a natural law that existed prior to this "time fracture." Hence the natural laws we use today to speculate about the universe's evolution need not be those that existed sometime in the past. This mathematically generated fact is the exact same philosophical rule laid down by John Stuart Mill in his philosophy of science.

In general, the time fracture model shows how these laws could be altered and states that we can have no knowledge as to what natural laws existed prior to the time fracture. These time fractures can occur numerously many times in the past and can even be produced by specific time related initial conditions. Some scientists try to deduce logically from the natural laws that they observe today and data received what would have been the case in the far-past. Under this scientifically viable scenario, such a process is impossible. What we see need not be related to what came before, what may have actually produced the data. The properties of the far-past can be completely hidden from intellectual investigation. Once again, this yields a specific "lack of knowledge" type two scenario and, although this may seem to be fantastic, some might say, "Well, Nature is as Nature does."

[2] A recent discovery (Herrmann, 1994, Section 11.2) has been made that allows for a slightly more detailed explanation as to the behavior of the ultraword sequences used in sections 4 and 5. However, what follows is not restricted to an abrupt appearance model. I point out that the processes discussed in this section are not dependent upon which natural processes actually govern the internal development of our universe nor whether the universe has a natural beginning or is cyclic since from the NSP-world view point cyclic universes actually do have a "beginning." It has now been predicted by the GGU-model that the ultrawords so produced also involve mechanisms that yield any and all allowable perturbations from the ideal that might occur as any natural-system evolves. The existence of natural world entities that can alter, within certain limits, natural-system behavior is especially significant to the generation of participator perturbations.

As discussed in "the book," the ultralogic processes that solve the participator problem are additional processes that model the Scriptural idea that God continually sustains the universe in which we dwell. These processes still mirror Divine mental-like activity and for this reason this implies that God does continue His complete control over this "sustaining" aspect. These processes appear to be different from His original work for no "And God said, Let . . ." appears in Hebrews 1:3. But, we do have the concept of the spoken word mentioned. Thus, the ultralogic remains the activating mechanism. This is a Divine semi-automatic "quiet" mode. From a Divine mental-like aspect, this Divine "quiet" mode may be analogous to the behavior of the human medulla oblongata and its relation to "breathing" as indicated indirectly by Job 34:14. Relative to Genesis 2:2 and God's "work" (business), I interpret this to mean the creation of all aspects of His supernatural and natural worlds, especially, the creation of all of the processes He uses for the continual sustaining and alteration of His creation. Further, in "the book," illustrations are given to show how God has pre-designed our universe. Indeed, as verified by the GGU-model, it appears that a major aspect of God's business (work) during this period was the creation and activation of all of the processes that would produce (make) all allowed aspects of His supernatural and natural worlds. He is now "resting" from these specific activities.

If perturbations from the "ideal" began on day-three, then we would have the appropriate pre-designed set of "covirtual" earth systems. From day-five on, and as seemly required after day-four, we would only need a set of covirtual solar system and external universe combinations to accomplish the task of adjusting for any perturbations that occur. Please note that each of the covirtual solar systems and universes used in this participator perturbation model contains the past, the present, and the future. Also the entire collection can be constructed in such a manner that the sequences would each converge to the exact same ending scenario, except that the natural world time frame is somewhat indeterminate for it would depend upon the perturbations that actually occur. Clearly, of course, the actual course of events can be altered by direct and unscheduled Divine intervention. Since all possible "covirtual" objects exist in the "mind of God," then such Divine intervention can be instantly obtained by the Divine selection of a specific "covirtual" universe, a prior creation.

[3] There is on going research that attempts to eliminate the necessity for electromagnetic in-transit information by altering one natural world electromagnet property. This, however, would simply give an additional model from which to choose. It would give another indication that the proper choice for a cosmology cannot be made by any accepted means for scientific inquiry.

[4] In [2], the term "ideal" behavior is used and might be assumed not to correspond to the probabilistic behavior predicted by statistical mechanics or various "quantum theories." Recent results do not appear to substantiated such a conclusion (Herrmann, 1999). As shown in Herrmann 1993, 1994, within the NSP-world all of the objects that comprise the constituents of any natural world entity and the entities themselves can be assumed to carry unique identifiers. There is a remarkable ultralogic that when applied will reproduce the actual probabilistic sequences, predicted by these theories, and it determines whether an event will occur. This again demonstrates an additional and remarkable Divine control over such behavior that previously was characterized, by some, as contradicting such a control. The addition of the identifiers for all entities that appear within the natural world yield yet an additional control that can determine which specific objects will interact and yield the so-called probabilistically determined event. [This is illustrated in great detail in "the book."] This gives us a slightly more detailed picture of an "ideal" behavior that would also include theory predicted probabilistic behavior. However, an exact correspondence between, this "probability" generating ultralogic, the "image" generating ultimate ultrawords and associated ultrawords, may be unknowable in that it is hidden within the ultranatural events.

What can be known about participator perturbed probability models? There are infinitely many different sequences that converge to the same probability value p. The recent results show that one may assume rationally that there is a higher intelligence that selects a hyperfinite sequence that converges, in the hyperfinite, sense to p. Ideal probabilistic behavior is simply that for specific natural-system behavior one and only one such hyperfinite sequence is used. Perturbations from this ideal behavior are obtained by simply noting that for the same type of natural-system characterized by p different hyperfinite sequences are selected. It is a fact that sequences that converge to the same p can behave in exceptionally different ways.

Please keep in mind, that I do not contend that what has been described in this article is the actual way that God has accomplished these results. What has been described here is but a model using linguistic terminology. It gives exceptionally powerful rational processes that yield the same results as depicted within the Scriptures, results produced by God using methods, where detailed knowledge is impossible for His created to comprehend while they remain in their present physical mode.

[5] It has been difficult to properly describe the contents of such objects as "ultrawords." However, recent results in Herrmann (1999) specifically show that such objects can be operationally characterized as containing the still vague notion of "Gitt or specific information." [I now use the notion of informational rules.] It is the "general information" contained in each ultraword that yields upon application of an ultralogic either other informational ultrawords or specific information that details exactly how a natural-system must appear. Following the exact same notion that must be applied by most science-communities, there is a universal "law" for our universe that simply requires intermediate properton to duplicate the informational content of every image. This law is a unified set of informational rules. It can be shown that for our specific universe there is a consequence operator that models this duplication process (Herrmann, 2004, 0306147.pdf) and is a restriction of an ultralogic. The "st" operator is then applied for realization. Except for the informational rules concept, as with natural laws, we can have no direct knowledge as to a specific non-theological mechanism that "forces" propertons to "obey" such a requirement.

[6] Although the reduction in rates of change and the line elements methods discussed in, say, section 13 might appeal to some, I most emphasize that I now do not accept these methods as the proper approach to day-four star formation. Using the notion of Occam's Razor, as mentioned, I accept the rapid formation model discussed elsewhere on this website. (1/13/2005, 5/23/2010) (Additional Notes section added 15 FEB 1997; last revision 8 FEB 2016..)

A Clarification

In the original March 1994, 22 JUN 1996 version of this paper, the expression "substratum tension" was utilized in the place where substratum "potential energy" now appears. Although, the term "tension" was intended to imply potential energy and its associated potential velocity, there has been a certain amount of confusion produced due to my use of the term "tension." I again mention that much which appears in this article has been replaced with new notions.


Herrmann, R. A. 2015 A Strict GGU-model Genesis Interpretation . . . . (http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0320

Herrmann, R. A. 2004. The best possible unification for any collection of physical theories. Internat. J. Math. and Math. Sci., (IJMMS) 17(2004):861-872.

Herrmann, R. A. 1999. Information theory, consequence operators, and the origin of life, C. R. S. Quarterly, 36:123-132.

Herrmann, R. A. 1993. The Theory of Ultralogics (Ultralogics and More) [See Books.] http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903081

Herrmann, R. A. 1994. Solutions to the "General Grand Unification Problem," and the Questions "How Did Our Universe Come Into Being?" and "Of What is Empty Space Composed?" Presented before the MAA, at Western Maryland College, 12 Nov. http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9903110

Herrmann, R. A.1995a. The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-Clocks (Einstein Corrected.) [See Books.] http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0312189

Herrmann, R. A. 1995b. Operation equations, separation of variables and relativistic alterations. IJMMS 18:59-62. http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0312005

Herrmann, R. A. 1996. An operator equation and relativistic alterations in the time for radioactive decay. IJMMS 19:397-402. http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0312006

Herrmann, R. A. 1999. The Wondrous Design and Non-random Character of Chance Events, http://www.serve.com/herrmann/chance.htm Serve.com Link or http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/9903038

Math. Dept., US Naval Academy, 572C Holloway Rd., Annapolis, MD 21402-5002

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.