For Our Particular Universe
Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes,
Intelligent Design and Biblical Theology

Robert A. Herrmann,
Diana L. Watts,
Ashleigh P. Herrmann
11 JUL 2008. Last revision 15 FEB 2016.

[Note: Although, this article uses a small amount of material presented in the article on Fundamental Universe-Generating Processes and Intelligent Design, the basic General Grand Unification Model (GGU-model) processes article, it should not be difficult to decipher. The symbols used are abbreviations for other meaningful objects or processes. There meanings are fully described. All aspects of the GGU-model are based upon properties of the finite world, properties that we can easily comprehend. These properties are mathematically modeled and embedded into a special "mathematical structure." These complex technical aspects are not presented in this article. This article presents more of the theological verifications than appear in the "Processes Paper," and the SSHD is presented. Recent changes in terminology appear between [[ and] ]. ]

Please consider the following fact. Modern secular science is based upon "reductionism." Under this stance, the development of the universe depends upon accepted fundamental entities that simply "exist." How these entities behave simply exists. That is, physical laws simply exist. No further investigations are allowed "below" this level of existence. If you do make such investigations, then you are ignored and often called "crazy" for rejecting "what everyone knows is true." Of course, such a notion is actually an unverifiable philosophic stance and is not related to "truth."

I would like to emphasize the following facts. The GGU-model and General Intelligent Design model (GID-model) are NOT based upon accepting hypotheses such as assuming the existence of higher-intelligence, the existence of higher-processes that generate a universe or the existence of specific Biblical entities. The theological or higher-intelligence conclusions are ALL predicted. For the theological interpretation, these predictions are Biblically interpreted and shown to verify the rationality of Biblical statements. The concrete behavioral or other illustrations that appear in this article were not used to obtain the basic aspects of the models. They were all discovered after the basic mathematical model was constructed from 1979 - 83.

The complete GGU-model answers questions that were not answered using scientific logic until the date of its first appearance. It is, at present, the only known mathematical model for a cosmogony, a theory that produces universes of many different types. It should be very obvious that the methods used are not those as previously applied, methods that are not able to fully answer the questions. The answers are interpretations of entities and their behavior within a mathematical structure that did not generally exist within the mathematical literature until after 1966. For these reasons, one should not assume that a previously obtained technical background is sufficient for full comprehension.

Recently, 2013, important refinements were made, where, among other refinements, the models are now associated with "instruction-sets"[[instruction-entities]] and "alteration-information" for the pure Physically Generated Unification. When appropriate, I'll mention references. You'll also notice that I'm making changes to my mode of presentation from the usual stilted style used in scientific discourse to that of the informal. Using "contractions" shouldn't distract from the results I present. If English is not your native language, then the meanings of the contractions I, from time-to-time, use are easily learned.

The Least Complex Single-Complexity Approaches for
Our Universe's Construction

(The following term is used in what follows. A universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF) is a 3-D slice of a universe at a specific moment during its development.) The single-complexity approach is based upon the scheme (Is) as next displayed. The notation has been simplified. If compared with the detailed "Complete Processes" paper [0], each simplified symbol is equivalent to the notation used for the actual "refined approach" that yields not only each universe-wide frozen-frame but the contents of each of these in a rationally presented order. (The notation used here doesn't include additional symbols used to represent the necessary "participator" aspect, where this concept is more fully discussed in [0] and [1].) The "standard" scheme is

(Is) (((Λ(x,n), I(a,b)))A) → (GSt),

where Λ denotes a capital lambda.

Each symbol used in (Is) has a very specific (meaningful) interpretation. Λ(n) is called a "logic-system." From the viewpoint of human languages, it models (i.e. behaves) like what humans beings do hundreds and hundreds of times a day. Let the symbols P and Q represent how we describe, either in a symbolic language or images, specific physical actions or events. Within the physical world, we have learned that if we apply P, then event Q occurs. What we have learned is modeled by the famous "If P, then Q" statement that is accepted as fact. Then, given the "P", the "deduced result" is Q. The modern name for this two step process is "the Rule of Detachment." (It has another more formal name.) This rule is a rule for "deduction."

Let "n" be any counting number member of {1,2,3,4, . . .} that's greater than 1. The symbol Λ(n) denotes a special list of such statements, beginning with but one P type statement and then followed by (n-1) "If P, then Q." statements. The actual construction of Λ(n) can be fully described. It is of a special nature so that, when we begin with P and "deduce," all of the "Q" statements occur in a specific order. The starting "P" statement is denoted by I(a,b). The actual "mental processes" used to "detach" the Q from each of the "If P, then Q." statements is denoted by A. This is called the "algorithm."

The P, Q statements in Λ(n) are "instruction-sets." They give actual instructions as to how to gather, how to bring together, into collections the "fundamental" universe building blocks called "propertons." These building blocks are what lead to such stuff as electrons, protons, neutrons, then to atoms, molecules, then to . . . . The I(a,b) represents the first, P, instruction-set. The G, the "gathering operator," represents the result of the instruction-set gathering. This result is called an "info-field," INF. The first info-field is denoted by INF((a,b). Thus G is an info-field generator. The info-fields are the next to last step in constructing a physical universe. So far, no actual physical universe is obtained. Of significant is that the Λ(n) construction produces a physical universe in the same step-by-step mode of development as the steps produced by the deduction algorithm.

(In quantum physics, a quantum field is something that is simply assumed to exist everywhere and it carries properties one associates with elementary particles. An info-field is much, much broader in character. It carries every property that yields not only every elementary particle but every combination of these entities as these combinations identify a physical-system.)

What is not understood by most is that the basic GGU and GID-models are based upon easily described and illustrated finite procedures. It's when these are properly characterized and viewed mathematically that the non-finite features are predicted. These non-finite features are displayed by various "hyper" (*) denoted entities.

Relative to intelligent design, the ability to follow specific instructions and, using specific building material, produce results that exactly satisfy the instructions is a measure of intelligence. Such intelligence is enhanced in that the results satisfy intelligently designed and expressed physical laws that satisfy the final realized results. Further, in certain cases, we can describe specific purposes for the designed gatherings. However, our inability to describe such purposes does not affect the other intelligent design signatures. The gatherings, when realized, continue to satisfy behavioral aspects of such laws via the sequence of info-fields. The gathering operator G represents such intelligent agency. In comparison, the intelligence being displayed is that of a higher-intelligence.

The final symbol, St, represents a very special process. For the GGU-model, it's the application of St that takes an info-field, INF(i,j), and turns it into a real physical universe, an actual step in development of the universe. The pair (i,j) is a numerical representation for a step in the development. The (i,j) is a type of "name" for the step. Thus, St is applied to INF(a,b) and the first step in the generation of a physical universe is physically realized (i.e. achieved, attained). The St is called the "realization operator." For (Is), St is restricted to the "real numbers." (Although a little difficult to describe in this simplified article, "any" universe has a first step in its development.)

The "deductive" process symbolized above has a simply real illustration. The general method (algorithm) is illustrated by the construction of a book B as it corresponds to the Λ(n) in this scheme. The first front page of book B is blank. The back of first page has a single "starting" instruction-set I(a,b). The front of the next page has this instruction-set I(a,b) repeated. The back of that page has the next ordered instruction-set stated on it. You build the remaining pages of the books this way. The algorithm A coupled with instruction-set I(a,b) states that to deduce mentally each sequential step of the instruction paradigm (an ordered collection of instruction-sets), page 2 is the first considered. This is to become the "first" universe-wide frozen-frame. The same instruction-set appears on page 3. This indicates that the page is to be turned over to the instruction-set for the next section, which then appears on the back. (If you don't see such a repeated image, assuming no error has been made, then you know that you are at the end and should stop.) As the "mental" process continues, all the ordered physical results occur. They are "trivially" obtained via deduction in the same order as the even page numbers.

[In all that follows, the standard schemes and modifications are also schemes for pure secular models as well. However, pure secular interpretations are not described in this article. They are described in reference [0].]

Let's repeat what has thus far been done. In all cases for applications, such a "standard" scheme is not written in the customary mathematics "composition" form. Intuitively and in general (i.e. not using the book illustration), the mathematics is applied to a specific (Λ(i), I(a,b)). A process modeled by the algorithm A is applied and, in order, instruction-sets, with the names (i,j), are obtained. The "properton gathering" operator G is applied to each of these instruction-sets and an info-field INF(i,j) is obtained. Finally, to get a slice of an actual universe, a universe-wide frozen-frame, the realization operator St is applied to each info-field. But, this is only the intuitively standard approach and it will not generate an actual universe. What is needed is predicted from the standard scheme (Is). Each of the processes in (Is) are further mathematically modeled and the following hyper-scheme is predicted. The fact that it is predicted is very important. Notice how there are slight changes in the following symbolism.

(Is') (((*Λ(x,λ), *I(a,b)))*A) → (GSt),

Mathematically, the starred (i.e. *) symbol and the ones below behave in the same manner as those that don't carry the star. This also holds for most italicized symbols. But, when more generally described and compared with the original, other highly interesting features emerge. The "star" is usually translated by the prefix "hyper." The G behaves like the original gathering operator. However, St behaves in a considerable different way than the St in the first display. This is the "hyper" language when the concepts, usually, have the same general properties but are much "stronger" or "greater than" the concepts described by the non-hyper terms. The same holds for any term with the prefix "ultra." So, what is the difference?

The difference is that there is a λ in place of the n. The standard "n" is an ordinary counting number as is the x. But, in the form (Is'), λ is not a standard counting number and the x need not be an ordinary counting number either. These "numbers" are of a very special type that solve a basic problem put forth by Newton and Leibniz 300 years ago. Such numbers are called "infinite numbers." The word following "infinite," the word number, is necessary in order to differentiate the word "infinite" from its other uses. Intuitively, one can think of λ as representing a number that acts like a counting number but is "greater than" any counting number we can select. Now the exact same "book" illustration used for the standard scheme can be applied to the symbols. Just go through the standard one, change the indicated symbol fonts from bold to italics and *A. The words that name the symbols also carry the * or the prefix "hyper." The capital italics are "hyperfinite" entities model by finite behavior. The following is a description of the scheme (Is) in terms of the hyper-language.

(1) All events take place in the substratum, a collection of ultra-propertons, (see [0, 1]), and all of the other needed entities exist as members of this substratum. The ultra-logic-system, *Lambda;(λ), represents a specifically definable and illustratable process that yields a universe that develops in a specific order.

(2) For our cosmology, which can include multi-universes, *I(a,b) is the first (hyperfinite) instruction-set. This acts like a set of instructions that state how "many" objects are to be placed in coherent collections.

(3) The mental-like algorithm process *A selects *I(a,b). The (hyperfinite) instruction-set guides the properton gathering process G. This yields an "info-field" INF, a coherent collection, to which the realization operator St is applied. Notice that this info-field is in italics and is a special one that not only produces physical systems but physical-like systems and even other types. A physical system is a defined collection of named physical objects, the constituents, which are so related as to form an identifiable whole. Specific relations between the constituents are the bases for establishing the behavior of the entire structure. It can range from a single photon to an entire universe.

(4) The hyper-algorithm *A has the same properties as the illustrated book's "page-turning" procedure. The "next" and, hence, the next ordered info-field is obtained and the next primitive-time [[primitive sequence]] universe-wide frozen-frame (a fixed universe-wide slice) is produced. Primitive-time is a name that somewhat hides its intuitive meaning. It refers to the notion of the sequence of entities of various types. Its properties are those of the ordering of the "numbers" being used.

The representations *Λ, the *A, and St separately display higher-intelligent design signatures. Further, the behavior of each info-field displays an higher-intelligent design signature. The "coherence" follows a pattern that corresponds to higher-intelligence deduction. Obviously, for a secular interpretation, the indirectly verified intelligent design patterns are ignored.

In [1], I use H to denote an ultimate cause. This comes from an extension of H, who is the creator of the complete GGU-model, the restricted GID-model and the full GID-model interpretations. The basic goal of the GID-model is to guarantee that statements that describe the higher-intelligence are rationally obtained. Although certain behavior of H can now be predicted from observed human behavior, does such an H actually exist and if it does to what does it correspond?

The Important Specific-Information Concept and the PGU-model.

A developmental paradigm is a sequence of broadly defined descriptions or images for the moment-to-moment behavior of a natural-system. It corresponds in a one-to-one manner to a collection of instruction-sets and eventually to the members of an event sequence. Of great importance for the complete GGU-model are the three subcategories of specific-information, hyper-developmental paradigm information, hyper instruction-information and hyper-alteration-information. The Physical Grand Unification Model (PGU-model), yields a universe that complies with each of these notions, but only presents a view of universe generation relative to how we perceive physical laws. These features of the complete GGU-model are discussed in references [0] and [5].

An Hyper-Intelligence Interpretation for (Is').

The following statements are obtained rationally via an interpretation of a mathematical model. No mathematics abbreviations appear.

1. Our universe as a whole is designed and produced by actions taken by an higher-intelligence. Each object used for universe generation is the product of the actions of an higher-intelligence. Each universe-wide frozen-frame is designed by an higher-intelligence. Hence, each physical entity and each configuration of physical entities is designed by an higher-intelligence. Each such physical entity and configuration displays an higher-intelligence signature.

2. An higher-intelligence specific mode of thought yields the development of our physical universe. When restricted to our physical universe, this mode is the most basic required by humankind to perform everyday tasks and is used to predict physical-system behavior from physical laws or theories.

3. As physical-science examples, every defined elementary object, if such exists (a neutrino and the like), is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence. The probabilistic behavior of any such entity is designed by an higher-intelligence and yields an higher-intelligence signature.

4. Every combination of elementary objects, if any exist, used to form any other physical object is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence. Examples: an hydrogen atom, water, an ocean, the world, the solar system, our galaxy, etc.

5. Event sequences (i.e. step-by-step physical events sequences) are constructed in a very special way. They satisfy comprehensible physical laws and theories and are purposely designed, in this manner, by an higher-intelligence. The design allows intelligent beings to construct additional physical-systems.

6. Every physical change in the behavior of every physical-system is sustained by the same higher-intelligence and displays an ID-signature. Each step in the development of a physical-system satisfies higher-intelligence deductive processes and, if necessary, the selection of appropriate altered universes and application of the gathering and realization processes reveal the existence of an higher-intelligence.

(Over a small primitive-time interval the higher-intelligence can perform infinitely many deductions that yield as the final deductive conclusion a specific and complete physical-system. Physical agents can only perform finitely many deductions and, in various cases, cannot deduce the exact and complete composition of a specific and complete physical system. If certain conditions are maintained, then physical agents can approximate the composition. This is a model for behavior and only yields indirect evidence for the existence of the predicted higher-intelligence.)

Examples are: objects move from one position to another, water temperature changes, indeed, anything that changes its known physical characteristics, appearance, etc.

7. The production of an event, whether physical or a physical-like, and alterations in the behavior of each such event, displays yet another higher-intelligence signature in that the production of or alteration in a physical-system or physical-like system is equivalent to generating an event sequence by repeated application of the unification operator, *U, of all physical and physical-like laws and theories. This application represents processes that are equivalent to application of hyper-logic-systems. This shows, in a more specific manner, how each member of an event sequence is rationally designed so as to correspond, at least, to the physical laws and theories deduced by some biological entities. The expressible physical laws give yet more indirect evidence for the existence of an higher-intelligence. (In contrast to the secular scenario, there is a specific Biblical "reason" that such laws and theories exist.)

In the full GGU-model processes paper, various GID descriptions are given in the hopes that one or more yields sufficient comprehension. This is the reason for the obvious repetitions in that and this article. The following is taken from that article and illustrates how strictly defined terms are used to gain further insight into the intelligent design aspects of th GGU-model.

For each universe-wide frozen frame, higher-intelligence mentally perceived (hyper) instruction-sets are presented via a (higher) mode of rational deduction. This yields an ordered collection of ever increasing complex physical and physical-like systems via a (hyper) designed info-field. Application of the (higher) form of deduction and application of the (hyper) instructions-sets are signatures for intelligent design by a higher-intelligence. Then the (higher) deductive processes that yield the ordering displayed by the step-by-step time-dependent development of a universe is also a signature for intelligent design by a higher-intelligence. As mentioned above, this form of intelligent design satisfies the perceived physical laws. Every physical-system and its behavior is indirect evidence for the existence of this higher-intelligence.

A Theological Interpretation and its Biblical Correspondences.

I would like again to emphasize the following facts. The GGU and GID models are NOT based upon accepting any hypothesis that an higher-intelligence exists, that the higher-processes that generate a universe exist and that, with one minor exception, the models relate in any manner to the Bible. The theological or higher-intelligence conclusions are ALL predicted. For the theological interpretation, these predictions are Biblically interpreted and shown to verify the rationality of Biblical statements. The many concrete behavioral or other illustrations that appear in this article were not used to obtain the basic aspects of the models. They were all discovered after the basic mathematical model was constructed.

It's obvious that substituting the word God for the appropriate phrase "an higher-intelligence" or "higher-intelligence" that appears in the above universe creating statements, yields mathematically verified rational statements. That is, each of the GID-model statements becomes theological in character. The model predicts the existence of numerous (hyperfinite) universe-wide frozen-frames. The set of all (hyperfinite) universe-wide frozen-frames contains the standard ones that represent a physical universe at any moment in primitive-time. These can be compose only of physical events, only physical-like events or, in the more usual case, both physical-like events and physical events. Assuming that only "material" physical events are observable via human sensors, then physical-like events are immaterial.

As discussed in [5], instruction-sets represent instruction-information which corresponds to meaningful thoughts. The pure intermediate schemes such as

(Is') (((*Λ(λ), *I(a,b)))*A) → (GSt),

can be theologically translated into a very brief form by using hyper-mental activity terminology. This, of course, corresponds to the higher-intelligence aspects. Theological variations can be made relative to the presently known Genesis Flood models. For example, one approach is that each hyper-instruction-set that yields an hyper-universe-wide frozen-frame, contains a portion that corresponds to the pre-Flood Earth and local environment (LE) and a portion that is for a corresponding development of an ancient earth and its local environment. Then St operator does not apply to the ancient earth and its local environment via an info-field prior to the Flood. After the Flood, the St applies to the complete info-fields for the *universe-wide frozen-frames that have been designed for the further development of our universe. There are other approaches that preserve a changing ancient earth. On the other hand, one can allow the original pre-Flood Earth (LE) to be highly altered by the Flood with there being no actual ancient earth evidence.

As an example of a theological interpretation, for (Is'), one has the following:

(1) God mentally supplies the hyper-instructions for each hyper-universe-wide frozen-frame (the members of *Λ(λ).) This corresponds to the hyper-meaningful hyper-thoughts portion of hyper-instruction-information.

(2) He (mentally) selects the first member of the sequence (the *I(a,b)).

(3) He hyper-rationally sustains the primitive-time ordering of the sequence of hyper-instruction-sets as modeled by *Λ(λ) and, at each step, He changes His thoughts via a medium and mentally constructed info-fields, INF(i,j), into physical reality as modeled by St and into physical-like reality using the extended form of the both the gathering G and St processes.

Then we have a translation for the minimal case

(Ims) (((Γ(λ), INF(a,b)))A) → (St).

In this case, the hyper-instruction-sets in *Λ(λ) are replaced by an info-field INF(i,j) for each of the hyper-universe-wide frozen-frames as denoted by (i,j). Then the exact same form of deduction A is applied. As each is "deduced" in the proper order, then realization operator St is applied. I point out that the physical universe-wide frozen-frames are members of the entire set of all hyper-universe-wide frozen-frames.

(1) God has in his mind all of the details for each hyper-universe-wide frozen-frame and the info-fields in Γ(λ) He intends to use. (Technically, this collection forms an ultra-logic-system from which the hyper-universe-wide frozen-frames are obtained via ordered hyper-deduction.)

(2) He mentally selects the first info-field INF(a,b) to employ.

(3) He hyper-rationally sustains the primitive-time ordering of the sequence of mentally conceived info-fields as modeled by the operator A applied to Γ(λ). At each step, He changes His thoughts into physical reality, as modeled by St, and into physical-like reality using portions of various info-fields.

In both of these cases, since what constitutes propertons is describable, then even ultra-propertons, intermediate propertons and all of the collections of such entities can be considered as mental constructs for a theological interpretation.

Of great significance is that there is a vast amount of direct and indirect physical evidence that verifies these translated theological statements. I accept this as a preponderance of evidence under my definition of what constitutes fact. But to what "God" do they apply? The translated higher-intelligence statements model numerous Biblical statements relative to human behavior.

How do I interpret the words used in Biblical statements? In general, I attempt to find their meanings as understood by the majority of individuals when first transcribed. Under no condition do I accept that certain words have hidden meanings that were only known when first presented or anytime there after by just a chosen few. If this were the case, the Bible would be worthless as a guide for all of humanity from the time the Scriptural statements were first presented to this very moment. The Bible "plainly" states that God's concepts do not change. Once stated there are fixed in meaning.

One of the modes for GGU-model universe creation, models a strict interpretation for the Genesis 1 scenario. The GGU-model also rationally models other theological concepts.

Among other concepts, relative to the "time" notion, the GGU-model relates the "temporal," "non-temporal" and the "atemporal." "Temporal" is but another term for "observer-time." (Intuitively, Observer-time corresponds to our notion of the physical "passage of time" as we might sense it by counting our heartbeats. Generally one can considered it as how we "measure" this intuitive notion.) The "non-temporal" means that portion of primitive-time (merely a sequence notion) that is not observer-time. "Atemporal" means neither temporal nor non-temporal. God is not completely outside, so to speak, of the temporal and the non-temporal. He has created all aspects of these time notions. But, He is also atemporal. Such statements like "God exists" are atemporal. Statements such as God is "eternal," "for ever and ever," and the like are merely used in a comparative sense. No matter how we comprehend time, God is, in general, outside of the temporal and non-temporal in that He creates them in all of their manifestations.

Unless medically prohibited from doing so, human beings can comprehend the temporal and the sequential non-temporal. An higher-intelligence can use an higher-language to describe the atemporal as being "rational," but we most likely cannot. Many, many arguments used by atheists assign the temporal or non-temporal to God in a general way. This leads to logical contradictions or a logical regress. The regress has been known for thousands of years. It is obvious that God's view includes, at the least, these three "time" motions.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."( Colossians 2:8. KJV.)

One of the basic methods of the world of philosophy is a form of logical argument called the "dialectic." I have not used any dialectic arguments during my investigations. I have used the common logic of everyday thought, the logical methods employed by physical science. It has been shown, in the paper Modeling the Dialectic, that relative to a human time-frame many dialectic arguments contradict scientific logic.

Relative to God, what does the term "knowledge" mean? In all cases, knowledge refers to God's meaningful thoughts, thoughts that have meaning to God.
The GGU-model aids in our comprehension of the will of God. It removes confusion that some individuals apparently intend to foster. The false idea is that one needs to accept "specially selected" individuals as having superior knowledge and accept their pronouncements as emanating from "secret" understandings to which they are only accorded. But, the usual and common meaning of this term is that it indicates that something is a "decision" or a "choice." However, the GGU-model states that all of the material and immaterial has been pre-designed, in a mental sense. The material is not realized until God specifically "commands" (thinks) it into physical existence. For our comprehension, He is, at present, "continually choosing" to do so. This is a way to comprehend His sustaining power.

For the necessary participator universe, God has pre-designed a vast number of "other" universes. Not only does human behavior lead to His realizing a specific universe, but He can choose any one for His own desires. All of these are the "choices" of God - the will of God. The phrase "will of God" therefore refers to His created choices actuated by the participator, or choices He makes for other specific purposes.

The Biblical concept of God's purposes is also a trivial GGU-model implication. A purpose, in this sense, is a "goal kept before the mind." Since all of creation can be comprehend, in general, as God changing His thoughts into various realities, it is a trivial implication that these thoughts are not random but God has goals in mind. Further, His purposes for creating all of reality are partially described in the Bible. Note that this is but a partial human understanding. Trivially, what He "chooses" serves His goals - His purposes - whether His choice is simply the continual sustaining of human choice or to yield His church or for other reasons we can not comprehend.

The original GGU-model processes had only one aspect guided by a Biblical statement. This is Hebrews 1:3, quoted below. In the Fall of 1979, I wondered whether some type of "word" could be used to construct a cosmogony and solve the General Grand Unification Problem. Nonstandard "words" were predicted and analyzed in the original six sections of my Theory of Ultralogics. Thus, I began constructing the remaining portions of this book with but a strong "feeling" that the necessary results will present themselves.

The model verifies, via predictions, other Biblical statements. As mentioned, I attempt to find their meanings as understood by the majority of individuals when first transcribed. Under no circumstances do I accept that certain words have hidden meanings that were known when first presented or anytime there after by just a chosen few. If this were the case, the Bible would be worthless as a guide for all of humanity from the time the Scriptural statements were first presented to the very moment. The Bible "plainly" states that God's concepts do not change. Once stated there are fixed in meaning.

First, when did God create all of the entities and processes that lead to a developing universe? In this paper it is shown that, at least, all of the GGU-model processes are created over a "zero" time interval. This is indicated by the Genesis 1:2 preparation statement.

[Mathematics that yields a strict Genesis 1 creationary development paradigm appears in Arxiv:math/0605120 or this duplicate paper [[The mathematic for the complete model is in as well as this article. And, this article formally . All of these papers, and a lot more, are contained in this one file on this website.]

Prior, in primitive-time, to the primitive-time start of the rapid formation of a physical cosmology, there is a collection of universe-wide frozen-frames containing the development of the entities described in Genesis 1 and for each creation-day through the formation of the Sun and Moon. Then rapid-formation completes the day-four activities. The next creation-days, as literally described, follow from applications of the (GSt) to pre-designed covirtual universes via specific instructions. As mentioned, the creation of all processes, these covirtual universes and all other aspects of God's creation occur over a zero observer-time period. The model predicts that there are creation events not associated with observer-time.

The day-four entities, as there described, must be eternal during the Eden period in order to, at the least, serve the purposes stated. Further, the Bible indicates that prior to the Fall and even before the Flood that local physical regularities are not the same as those we observe today.

What is the connection between physical behavior, the human mind and written rules and diagrams? Indeed, there is even a Templeton Prize winner who is trying to answer the question "Why are there physical laws that we understand?" It is hard to believe that he doesn't know what Genesis 1:28 states

". . . fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NIV, 1978)

In order to follow the "subdue" and "rule over" directives, God has set up the correspondence between comprehensible physical law, the human mind, and general descriptions. He has not done this for any other known biological entity.

The Bible describes God's creationary processes linguistically. There is a predicted object that behaves just like a higher-form of a "word" that is employed to generate a universe. It is a complex collection of members of *L. It yields our universe's sustaining *deductively ordered (hyperfinite) instructions-sets *Λ(λ). It is the *Λ(λ) viewed, as shown below, as a single "ultraword." It models exactly the Greek rhê'ma as used in Hebrews 1:3. This Biblical rhê'ma, a linguistic word, is consider as a thought.

". . . sustaining all things by His powerful word (rhê'ma), (Hebrews 1:3. NIV).

As illustrated, the *Λ(λ) can be considered as a type of higher-intelligence "book." Indeed, there is an ultraword in *L that is equivalent to such a book. Is this Biblical? Plato used the Greek rhê'ma as signifying a single "spoken" or "written" word-form. However, he also used it for a sentence. The Greek employed for a particular "book" in the Bible is actually written as one long collection of symbols. There are no punctuations or paragraphs indicated. The entire Bible can be consider as written as one very long string of symbols, even in terms of modern forms by use of the spacing and paragraph symbols. We are told that rhê'ma, as a collection of symbols referring to God's prophecy, includes the characteristic aspect of fulfillment [10]. Thus, *Λ(λ) is just such a rhê'ma (word) since all of His creation is pre-designed.

The "page-turning" for the (hyperfinite) deduction can be replaced with the ordered repetition notion. Such a "single" word containing the (hyperfinite) instruction-sets would symbolically look like

*I(a,b)|||*I(a,b)|||*I(a,(b+1))|||*I(a,(b+1))||| . . . |||*I(α,λ).

[The actual "word" has the form *I(a,b)|||*I(a,b) →*I(a,(b+1))|||*I(a,(b+1))→*I(a,(b+2))||| . . . .]

At the time when specific Biblical creationary statements were originally presented, how could this linguistic model for creation be understood? Depending upon the circumstances, the Biblical word used for "to speak" can be interpreted as "to think." Thus, under this interpretation, God's thoughts are transformed into a physical and other realities. The St operator models the notion that God "thinks" specific entities into existence. That is, it is at this stage that He completes the transformation of His thoughts into physical or other realities.

"And God said, Let there be . . . ." (Genesis 1.) The Bible also translates the word here written as "said" by the term "thought" and this is how it should be understood in these verses. (See reference [7] for complete details as to a viable and complete GGU-model verified Genesis 1 creationary scenario.) It's unfortunate that the Bible translators did not use the correct notion of "thinking." This might have prevented the thousands and thousands of "magicians," claimed "witches," and the like from attempting to find the specific spoken words that might lead to physical creation or alterations in physical-behavior.

Relative to the universe in general and the "command" term, there is

". . . for he commanded (via thoughts), and they were created." (Psalm 148:5 NIV.)

Rather than use a words Biblical meaning when first presented, many individuals attempt to justify their faulty models via inappropriate interpretations. One such attempt is when the Hebrew word tôb, which has the very contextual and broad meaning of "good," is interpreted as having a moral meaning in the Genesis 1 scenario. When an individual has completed a drawing, design or many other physical acts you often hear the phrase mentally or otherwise, "That's really good." The individual is pleased with the results obtained. They have met the exact purpose for which the actions were preformed. This is what the phrase "It was good" means in Genesis 1. Or, as the Living Bible states it in each case, "God was pleased." It has no direct moral connotation to what has been created. It does in Genesis 2, where the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" is mentioned - knowledge that there are behavioral pathways God morally classifies as either good or evil, but not both.

The Hebrew that is interpreted as "good" has many different connotations. In all cases, the correct one must be related to the context.

Except for the one verse Heb. 1:3, the pre-design aspects of the GGU-model were not originally constructed so as to verify any Biblical statement. Indeed, this author only had a very superficial knowledge of Scripture. The pre-design concept is theologically associated the Foreknowledge concept. It also strongly verifies Acts 15:18 and Isaiah 44:7

"Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." (KJV) ("known from eternity." (DBY) "All His works are know from eternity." (HNV) "Known from the eon to the Lord is His work." (Concordant Literal). Then there is

". . . let him lay out [set them in order] before me what has happened since I established my ancient people and what is yet to come, yes, let him foretell what will come." (Isaiah 44:7 (NIV)). "And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. "(KJV) Trivially, this and Acts 15:18 imply that God knows all of His works from the beginning of the world and has set these events in order throughout all of physical time, at least.

There is

"He set them in place for ever and ever; he gave a decree that they never pass away." (Psalm 148:6 NIV.)

Such verses do not contradict Revelations 21 since from the Hebrew viewpoint "ever and ever" means the greatest physical time. Most accept that "never" also is relative to physical time, although there is a record kept of the entities mentioned in this Psalm.

Below, I take from the article [9] a physical illustration of a foreknowledge model. Notice the mathematical models for physical behavior often go back-and-forth from the mathematics and a purely rationally described language model for physical-behavior. Each universe-wide frozen-frame, including those that produce the creation-days, requires that mental-like higher-intelligence deduction be performed. This model for higher-intelligence modes of step-by-step deductive thought not only satisfies Hebrews 1:3 but also

". . . in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17. NIV.)

Further, the Old Testament notion that God maintains both physical and human behavior, which is modeled by this theological interpretation, is described in various verses of Psalm 147. Indeed, the fact that the properton approach allows each elementary particle and each combination there of, as well as each physical-system, to have a unique identifier specifically models

"He determines the number of stars and calls them each by name." (Psalm 147:4 NIV.)

Then Paul writes,

". . . For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly see, understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NIV.)

Is not a description for how God's "thoughts" produce a universe part of His invisible qualities? This appears to be a reason that the ultra-logic-systems are employed. An increase in knowledge is predicted (Dan 12:4). The higher-intelligence model for God's activities is such an "increase" and God's creationary activities are now more "obvious." The reason for this is that, of all of the modes of thought that are possible, God has created a special mode that is displayed through His creation activities. He has created humanity so that, in general, this mode of thought corresponds to the most basic one that we employ.

The complete GID model as theologically interpreted and the processes and entities necessary for this interpretation would be a significant way to display indirectly His invisible creationary attributes. This does not simply follow from the fact that they correspond, in a higher-form, to a specific sequence of human actives employed by many to construct man-made entities. The significance lies in the phrase "so that men are without excuse." His infinite power and divine nature is partially exhibited by (Is').

In what follows, previous results are brought together to give a step-by-step Biblically related description of how mental processes, "thinking," and observable physical behavior lead to a model for the creation of our universe. All the statements are rationally obtained.

The Bible specifically states that humankind is made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). In what follows, I replace the higher-intelligence notion with the term "God." The following displayed statements can now be related to specific human mental and physical activities that are represented by defined members of a mathematical model. These statements are predictions made by a mathematical model. These standard representations are all listed in my technical writings such as in [1a] and other technical writings found in this large compressed file on this website. All of the processes that God employs to create are considered as mental in character. The following is a summary of God's GID-model creationary activities, which, as previously discussed, are predicted and satisfy a strict Biblical interpretation.

A Semi-Technical Description.

God pre-designs hyperfinitely many covirtual universes. This means finitely and, if necessary, infinitely many. For the necessary participator universe, each participator alteration corresponds to an altered universe about which God has complete knowledge. (Mathematically the altered universes are denoted by simply adding three symbols to symbol-string such as *Λ(λ). The addition yields *Λ(λ)[k].) This, in general, "models" the idea that He has knowledge of the past, present and future. Each pre-designed universe corresponds to hyper-developmental paradigm that is in a one-to-one relation with a hyper-instructional paradigm. Each hyper-developmental paradigm contains a standard description for each cosmology - the standard developmental paradigm.

The (hyperfinite) developmental paradigm scheme is similar to the (hyperfinite) instruction paradigm scheme. It is

(((*Λ(λ)[k], *d(a,b)))*A) = d[k].

Each universe develops relative to primitive-time. Portions of this sequence are (temporal) observer-time. God keeps these ordered hyper-instruction paradigms and corresponding hyper-development paradigms in mental-like files that have special properties. These properties are especially designed so as to display His higher-intelligence. This is evidence that God designs each entity within our universe as well as its behavior over both primitive and observer-time.

God associates each of His created hyper-developmental paradigms with hyper-instruction-sets that correspond to properton formations that yield specific members of a hyper-event sequence, where each hyper-event corresponds to a member of the corresponding hyper-developmental paradigm. Specific hyper-events correspond to physical events while other hyper-events correspond to physical-like events. The created ultra-propertons are especially designed to represent the entire collection of all necessary physical and physical-like parameters.

In order to employ His designs, God creates, in an exceptionally consistent manner, a special hyperfinite mode of thought as modeled by an ultra-logic-system. The designed hyper-developmental paradigm is presented in this form. He repeats this creationary activity for the (hyperfinite) instruction-sets. This is the *Λ(λ) single-complexity ultraword.

God applies the step-by-step algorithm *A. This is higher-form of deduction that can be described using a "meta-world" language. This is a general language that's used to describe other languages, other forms of deduction and all technical aspects of the GGU-model. When restricted to the physical world, this higher-form of deduction corresponds to a basic form of human deduction that God includes in the structure of the human brain. This is repeated evidence that God, as Biblically described, is the creator of all aspects of our physical universe.

In order to have any comprehension of substratum behavior, an (hyperfinite) instruction-set represents substratum processes that are activated. Since this is an analogue model, I assume that there is "something," the PLL (physical-like laws, the substratum processes), that "force," as directed by the (hyperfinite) instruction-set, the propertons to form into the appropriate combinations. This, of course, is a concept taken from the world of the physical scientist.

To form each step in the development of a universe, God gathers specific numbers of the created ultra-propertons into collections and these collections into collections and continues this gathering process until the final gathering corresponds to an entire physical universe at a moment in its development. These are the info-fields, INF(i,j). Propertons and these gatherings can either be thought of as actual physical-like entities or as "thought-like." These gatherings follow from a designed (hyperfinite) instruction-set. This concept of constructing and using (hyperfinite) instruction-sets He incorporates within the human brain so that humankind can recognize certain physical regularities termed physical laws.

The application of the coupled process (GSt), at the least, yields the physical universe at a specific moment. The (GSt) models the requirement that God is directly responsible for every physical aspect of a universe's development since the physical world only exists if St is applied. God associates each of His created hyper-developmental paradigms with hyper-instruction-sets that correspond to properton formations that yield specific members of a hyper-event sequence, where each hyper-event corresponds to a member of the corresponding hyper-developmental paradigm. Specific hyper-events correspond to physical events while other hyper-events correspond to physical-like events. The GGU-model only models behavior and, hence, exact details of how God obtains the results produced by St can be considerably different from those presented here.

The Bible only states that God does not create from what is "visible." By implication, this clearly means the He doesn't create physical entities from anything that appears or that is assumed as physical. The GGU-model does not contradict actual Biblical implications. God also creates, at least, the second and third heavens. Nothing that actually exists in the second heaven is physical. This is the realm of the GGU-model processes, which is termed as a preternatural world in the theological interpretation. Unless one states that God's thoughts are composed of "nothing," then He has not actually created from nothing as this term is generalized. When all of God's activities are considered as mental-like processes, then, as mentioned, a general description for all of God's endeavors is that He changes His thoughts into physical reality. This general characterization holds for both the (hyperfinite) developmental paradigm and (hyperfinite) instruction-sets cases.

I repeat that these higher-intelligence characteristics are predicted and when restricted to the physical world yield observable human activity, numerous gifts from God, and they match the Biblical statement "let us make man in our image." Hence, the existence of an higher-intelligence is not mere unfounded speculation but can be more deeply analyzed and can be considered as predicted from human mental processes and human behavior, which is related to mental processes and activity that is comprehensible. Moreover, as shown in this article on evidence there is a vast amount of evidence that satisfies the higher-intelligence predictions.

What does the term "completed infinite" mean? As you'll see shortly, the notion of the "potential infinite" is rather easy to imagine. A completed infinite would be "something" that "contains" a potentially infinite "something." So, how do I mentally image a completed infinite? Many claim this cannot be done. Sorry, all that claim this are wrong. But, I cannot successfully draw this mental image.

Close your eyes or go into a "completely" dark room. That is, in some way, remove the visible light from your view. Now imagine (mentally image) a white road. From your mental view, the road appears to extend towards the "upper right." The road is slowly dwindling in width until it appears to be just one single dot. This is a "vanishing point." The entire road is surrounded by the totally black background. This background has no "visible" boundary. (This fact is what yields a meaningful vanishing point.) But, notice that even for the unbounded black background, the road still extends in a direction relative to your mode of viewing.

What if you are on the road at any position and you only imagine the road with a edge on each side of it? As you start and move mentally along the road in one direction there appears to be more road ahead. The dwindling width continues and the vanishing point stays a "point." This is the view bounded by the road itself. This type of road satisfies the properties of the potential infinite.

Returning to the original image, unfortunately, there is one aspect I cannot draw. In my mental image, there is no edge to this black background. There is such an edge controlled by an individual's field of vision when physically "seeing" any collection of objects such as an actual road moving off to the upper right in ones visual-field. Further, any finite drawing must have an edge. So, what part of this description is the completed infinite? It is your view that there is an unbounded black "something" that contains the entire road. It is your unbounded view that is a mental model for the complete road. One might claim that there is "nothing" in the this black background. But there is. Your viewing stance is in it. It's from this background that you are viewing the entire road. From this view, the road is conceptually complete. In such cases, you can't rationally view yourself as part of the image. For if you could, then there is an argument that leads to a logical regress and your brain would close down.

[The logical regress occurs this way. If I can image myself viewing this scene, then I can image myself imaging myself viewing this scene. Then I can image myself imaging myself imaging myself viewing this scene. Etc.]

The GID-modeled higher-intelligence can design and produce our universe in a manner that follows a strict interpretation of the creation statements made in Genesis 1. Example: things appear in mature and functional form, water, light, dry land, or objects formed during but one 24-hour day even without sunlight. (For further comprehension see The Eden Model [7a].) This higher-intelligence can also design our universe so as to correspond to any of the proposed cosmologies. Biblical events that occur sequentially prior to a rapidly forming cosmology do so via the primitive-time sequence. This even holds if an "eternal" (no beginning and/or no ending in primitive-time) cosmology is selected. The GID-model specifically predicts that there are many ultranatural events and ultranatural laws about which we can have no knowledge. This is a strong verification of 1 Corinthians 13:12 and Daniel 29:24.

The word "upholding" in Hebrews 1:3 as used in the KJV is better understood as "sustaining." As noted, the term rhê'ma (word) is usually interpreted as a "spoken or mental word." It is the same term used in John 3:34 for speaking a word given by God, which for comprehension should follow a logical pattern. Can we get any additional comprehension as to how He might sustain our physical universe?

Consider that prior to application of (GSt) that there are covirtual universes described previously and illustrated in Herrmann (2002). Each DVD represents an (hyperfinite) instruction paradigm that is composed of "ordered" (hyperfinite) instruction-sets. Rather than as illustrated in Herrmann (2002), one DVD is all that is necessary, where the "chapter" notion is utilized. Notice that without participator alterations only one covirtual universe is necessary. All of the primitive-time "slices" exist. For the DVD model, this means that the variations in the surface of the DVD that lead to the images, for a chapter as viewed on a monitor, exist in the proper order. The combined operator (GSt) is the last step and it preservers the step-by-step (hyperfinite) logic-system internal algorithm, which, in restricted form, is the simplest form of propositional deduction. That is, one slice follows another in a logical way as displayed by an ID-signature.

The combined operator (GSt) behaves this way. An (hyperfinite) instruction-set yields a info-field and this info-field to which the St process is "immediately" applied. Or the DVDs can represent a complete collection of info-fields. In this case, it is the St that is applied a DVD and this yields various realities.

The coupled (GSt) process (or just the St) models the "sustain" notion in that this is a general activity that God applies to each "slice" so that it becomes a physical reality. If He does not continue this activity, the physical universe would cease to develop physically. Indeed, if this occurred, removal of the "last" application of the coupled GSt) returns the universe to covirtual form and it ceases to exist physically. It has not been erased from the DVD. Another process directly applied by God also yields every miracle event. This higher-intelligence choice process can be applied at any moment in primitive-time to replace completely any portion of an entire universe with another portion God deems as necessary.

The fact that there is more than one process used strengthens the intelligent design conclusions. Further, they indicate how God has constructed humans so that if they have the requisite knowledge or experiences, they can mentally deduce the most likely physical events to occur during the development of the physical world about them. On the other hand, one can simply state that "God created all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be" and nothing more needs to be stated about His creationary activities. However, I accept that any effort to enhance Romans 1:20 and establish the rationality of the Biblical creationary statements in Genesis is a worthwhile endeavor.

Scientific Criteria

There are various criteria that need to be satisfied before a collection of statements can be considered as scientific in character. Depending upon who states them, they can differ. I have previously shown how the GGU-model, being a cosmogony, satisfies the basic requirements. The following statements are taken from a website "Encyclopedia of American Loons," where the contributers criticize individuals, organizations, ideas and the like. They mostly reveal their true intent for doing so. Relative to creationary science the remarks are based upon the contributors lack of knowledge. Relative to GID, they might think that they have eliminated their foes, when this is far from the truth.

Thus, to be a contender the ID movement has to have a falsifiable theory that yields testable hypotheses - and the theory has to explain the data (all the data, not just some of it) better than its alternatives. "It's designed" is not an explanation unless followed by an explanation of the exact mechanism of design (which would require identifying the intentions of the designer, as well as the purpose and methods of the designer, as well as why certain features were chosen rather than other ones). Provide a well-developed alternative, then you can play.

As detailed elsewhere, the GID-model satisfies all the necessary scientific criteria for a properly constructed scientific theory. The GID-model is falsifiable and testable. The notion of "better than" can be defined technically. But, it is most often science-community dependent. However, the GGU-model and interpretations satisfy all of these requirements since there is no other scientific cosmogony. And, the "certain features where chosen rather than other ones" is satisfied. The "certain features" comprise the entire physical universe (this, of course, includes the notion of multiple-universes that are but subsections of a cosmology) and there are no physical "other ones."

These requirements might be altered by this contributor to "Loons" in a rather obvious but arbitrary way in an attempt to eliminate the GID-interpretation. He could simply require the designer to be a physical entity, which requires it to be "self-generating." Such an after-the-fact alteration would surely indicate the author's intent in writing the requirements in the first place. However, the self-generation of an entity that creates all there was, all there is and all there ever will be leads to an incomplete infinite logical regress. (See the end of this article.)

A Comparison of Approaches

In the original approach to the GGU-model as it appears in [1,1a] and elsewhere, the theory of finite consequence operators is employed. In particular, one operator, which I denote here by S'', is employed. A developmental paradigm, d, (or now an instruction paradigm) is used. Mathematically, an ultimate ultraword W is predicted as is the one that represents ordered reading and speaking. Such ultraword mathematical objects behave, in general, like a written or spoken word (a finite list of symbols, drawings or images). When S'' is applied to {W}, ultrawords for each physical-system are hyperfinitely deduced.

Consider the finite set of rational numbers {1.23, 6.78, 5.345, 1.22}. We have learned how to apply some unknown mental process and place these numbers in the order, 1.22 < 1.23 < 5.345 < 6.78. The original approach does not have this refined ordering, which was not developed until 2006. Further, there is no prevision made in the original 2002 approach for the intelligent design of each physical-system within a universe-wide frozen-frame. Of course, this is but a model for behavior, a model for some process that selects the appropriate members of the developmental paradigm. This new approach supplies these missing ingredients. The ultraword approach requires a different ultraword for each type of universe. In the new approach, only one choice is made and this yields a specific type of universe via application of *A.

Both approaches require the same rationally describable collection of propertons and the rational application of (GSt) to yield physical reality. In the new approach, this coupled operator is only applied in the *instruction paradigm case. Although not mentioned in [1, 1a], the exact same original processes can be applied to an *instruction paradigm and it is these results to which (GSt) can be applied.

One advantage for the original approach is that, for participator alterations in physical behavior, distinct universes are designed. These can all be incorporate within one ultimate ultraword and the operator S'' rationally yields each ultraword from which specific altered universes are obtained by another application of S''. This ultimate ultraword method is being applied to this new method in order to hyper-rationally design and obtain each required participator universe.

In the next section, I present new aspects that are closely associated with the participator altered universe in which we dwell. This appears in [9], where a great deal more is discussed. The following SSHD, at the least, models the following Biblical statements.

"Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." (KJV) ("known from eternity." (DBY) "All His works are known from eternity." (HNV) "Known from the eon to the Lord is His work." (Concordant Literal) . (Acts 15:18.)

Then there is

". . . let him lay out [set them in order] before me what has happened since I established my ancient people and what is yet to come, yes, let him foretell what will come." (Isaiah 44:7. NIV.)

Trivially, this and Acts 15:18 imply that God knows all of His works from the beginning of the world and has set these events in order throughout all of physical time, at least.

Then so that there is no contradiction with Revelations 21, there is for physical time

"He hath established them for ever and ever; he hath made a decree which shall never pass." (Psalm 148:6. KJV.)

The "decree" is His method of creation according to Matthew Henry.

Isaiah continues, "See the former things have taken place, and new things I declare, before they spring into being I announce them to you." (Isaiah 42:9. NIV.)

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are yet done . . . . (Isaiah 46:10. KJV.)

"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew (yâda' "reflective thought") thee . . . ." (Jeremiah 1:5. KJV.)

". . . and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen." (Daniel 2:29. NIV)

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14. KJV.)

" . . . 'The secrete of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables . . . .' " (Mark 4:11. NIV).

"In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons . . . ." (Ephesians 1:4. NIV.)

"For those that God foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, . . . And those he predestined he also called; . . . ." (Romans 8:30. NIV.)

"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. (Acts 4:28. NIV.)

"All the days ordained for me were writhen in your books before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:16. NIV.)

"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:10. NIV.)

The SSHD Structure.

[Note: As with the DVD approach to the participator universe, what I detail here applies to the (hyperfinite) developmental paradigm that correspond to an (hyperfinite) instruction paradigm.] Recall that, for the theological interpretation, the complete GGU-model has now been correlated to distinct views. Rules for combining symbol-strings correspond to how the thoughts, which correspond to these symbol-strings, behave and this behavior predicts how the thoughts of a higher-intelligence behave.

pening night.

Since a lack of knowledge alterative exists, GGU-model processes are considered as an analogue model, in that the substratum entities and processes are only indirectly verifiable. This is not to say that they could not exist as described. This means that we have no "scientific" way to differentiate between the alternative and the predicted substratum entities. What predictive analogue models do is to present descriptions that predict observable behavior. If scientific (i.e. classical) logic is used for such predictions, then, at the very least, this implies that such behavior is scientifically rational in character. In this section, using a modern electronic device, a very materialistic analogue model is described for foreknowledge.

A "Solid State Hard Drive" (SSHD) is to be employed. To do so, each pre-designed universes is a type of "segment" within this device. Each universe-wide frozen-frame (UWFF) in a segment is digitized and, via computer hardware, will energize the pixels of a 3-D High-Definition monitor. Each UWFF takes up a miniscule portion of a sement of the SSHD. Each UWFF, of course, has a SSHD location identifier. If it were not for modern research, then to describe how the UWFFs are combined via human choices would be difficult.

There is one aspect of the human condition I have not detailed since it cannot be completely described using a comprehensible language. It corresponds to a selection process that originates exterior to the SSHD. It is a major aspect of the created human spirit. It is described for physical actions, in a general way, by Eccles and Robinson. It is the notion of "mental intentions." This is a process that precedes the actual actions that correspond to the physical realization of a specific choice. It is the actual "choosing to act" step. For Eccles and Robinson, there is an immaterial medium that relates to the "mental intention to act in a physical manner," where this medium connects the mind to the physical brain. This connection is via a back-and-forth process involving different types of thoughts, the immaterial ones and a specific physical brain activity that forms our concrete thoughts.

"How does the proposed interaction of mind and brain relate to the "free will" problem? The answer is that, despite the so-called insuperable difficulty of having a non-material mind act on a material brain, it has been demonstrated to occur by a mental intention in just the manner predicted by dualist-interactalism - no doubt to the great discomfiture of all materialists and physicalists" [12, p. 163].

The dualist-interactalism hypothesis is described by Eccles and Robinson and it predicts certain behavior [12, p. 35 and on]. The Eccles and Robinson research entails physical actions. I have generalized this "mental intention act" to include the "mental intention to gain knowledge." That is to have "concrete thoughts - thoughts of which we are completely aware." Concrete thoughts are those produced by electro-chemical actions within the brain. For the SSHD, this interaction flows from a source external to the SSHD. It is a product of the external "spirit" aspect of the human being, an aspect that cannot be described in detail by any of our languages, but has a description using a higher-language.

Concrete human thoughts are, necessarily, pre-designed since they correspond to physically realized brain activity. Via intentions and our spirit, we "choose" a concrete thought. Mechanisms for this are apparently not describable via meaningful statements taken from the standard general language L. Here are three types of "choices" that are of significance. (1) One chooses to act physically. This does not mean such actions can be accomplished. (2) One chooses to accept a thought as fact or not. (3) One chooses to ignore a thought to which (1) or (2) apply.

When such a mental intention is formed, it is this intention via the medium, that informs the SSHD which segment corresponds to the fulfillment of this intention and the exact location of the "next" fulfilling universe-wide frozen-frame contained in a segment. This includes our concrete thoughts. This, of course, is but another illustration of how one can conceive of the participator universe model.

Each segment of the SSHD corresponds to the DVDs pervious used to illustrate this approach, the covirtual universes [1]. In [1] and elsewhere, DVDs and hyper-fast propertons are used as an analogue model for the participator universe and the necessary selections of universe-wide frozen-frames. These predicted entities are still of significance. That is, from a secular viewpoint, mental intentions trigger the selection process. This is similar to billions of mental intension being "typed in" at computer terminals. The computer, with its infinite power, combines these, along with other unknown parameters, and yields a detailed screen image that represents a specific UWFF. Due to the necessity for a vast number of intentions to be rather simultaneously presented, it is the predicted non-physical hyper-fast propertons that convey the appropriate information that allows for a type of "instantaneous" selection of the proper UWFF.

In all details, the SSHD descriptions behave like a model for these aspects of God's behavior. Hence, it IS a model. It is one of the ways that gives us a rational description for notions we cannot other otherwise comprehend. Formally, the different "life-paths' [9] that tranverse the numerously many pre-designed universes can be viewed via "ultra-logic-systems." This leads to life-paths, which are intelligently designed and rationally produced by a higher-intelligence. Further, additional aspects of the interlacing aspects can be modeled mathematically via "graph theory" as embedded into the nonstandard structure. I leave any such modeling to others.

When realization occurs, as illustrated by the screen image, then the statements that correspond to observable "fact" are now classified as "true." In the Greek language, there is another term that is often simply translated in our Bibles as "true." This type of "truth" has the same properties as the type that corresponds to "fact" but often refers to ideas, concepts and beliefs that may not be observable fact. They can be observable in part. Thus, the existence of this SSHD Structure satisfies the "model theoretic view" of what constitutes truth. Relative to foreknowledge statements, it is a fact that the symbol strings that begin with the "The" in the title of this section and end with the last period mark exist and satisfy the model theoretic requirements for each foreknowledge statement to be "true." This idea of "truth" is that each such statement corresponds to members of a set of entities and the rationally described processes correspond to relations between these entities.

It is clear to me that the exact understanding of statements such as Isaiah 44:7 and Daniel 2:29 is that God does know the realized future events not just those He has pre-designed. He has absolute foreknowledge. An absolute foreknowledge mechanism has not, as yet, been modeled materialistically.

For absolute foreknowledge and relative to the actual life-path each of us is following, except for how mental descriptions correspond to the Bible, one might ask, "Is there physical proof that such models correspond to a "pre-reality" of some sort?" Absolute foreknowledge is exquisitely associated with the vast difference between the atemporal and the temporal. It is difficult for us to comprehend this difference since our very heartbeats are so closely related to a measurable time.

There are certain experiences, however, that may correspond to our being presented with evidence as to the prior existence of pre-designed aspects of a life-path. People have tried to explain it materialistically, of course. But, as far as I have been able to determine, none of these justifications seems to correspond exactly to what is reported nor is there observable physical evidence for the hypotheses employed. There are various paranormal explanations as well. From the very few times it has happened to me, I did not have a feeling that I had "seen something" before. I had a feeling that I had mental "knowledge" that the event is "somehow-or-other pre-designed" in some form prior to when it occurred to me. That is how I have experienced "déjà vu." This could be a purposeful slight delay that gave me and others knowledge that physical events that correspond to a present life-path have been pre-designed. However, as presented below, there is another rather fantastic model that satisfies this phenomenon as well as an absolute foreknowledge description.

I have recently (2/22/2013) discovered the notion of "open theism" or, as some call it, "open futurism." As I understand this concept, this SSHD Structure differs from it. For the SSHD Structure, the "probabilities" that human behavior leads to certain outcomes is replaced with the fact that God has knowledge of all of these outcomes. They are mentally pre-designed by Him. In this sense, the knowledge that God's has of the future is "immutable." Recall that the basic GGU-model entities are equivalent to linguistic styled "words" or "commands." His word "is settled in heaven" (Psalms 119:89). Separating God's pre-designed thoughts from the realities they produce does not seem to be a component of open theism. I point out again that with the exception that God is Omnipresent, which satisfies a strict GGU-model description, Omniscience and Omnipotent have no possible truth value unless the quantifier "all" is restricted to a specific list of entities.

Relative to foreknowledge, the SSHD Structure is somewhat similar, in one property, to the notion of "Non-Bivalent Omniscience" in that certain future contingents are neither true nor false. But, all do converge to a conclusion that will upon realization be fact.

Prior to realization, all basic aspects of the *instruction-information model are relative to *meaningful *thoughts and a medium. For the SSHD Structure this has not changed with the exception that the "general" medium is more prominent. This general medium upholds, so to speak, *meaningful *thoughts. You might think of this as simply *mind "stuff." Notice that the SSHD Structure leads directly to the *instruction-information model relative to human behavior.

For the GGU-model, all of the steps in the generation through and including the realization point are sequentially contained in one of the collections of pre-designed info-fields. The designer has complete knowledge as to the contents of each member of the infinite collection of the collections of info-fields. Any foreknowledge statements or predictions of future events will hold, when realized, for one or more of the collections of info-fields that depict physical events that yield specific life-paths. Also notice that an individual can be identified by the characteristic behavior that is being represented by a life-path.

Of great significance to understanding such models and their relation to a highly significant feature of the New Testament is the actual meaning of a major Greek term. Recall the original meaning for the Greek word "logos." It began as denoting a "logical expression of a thought." The notion that it comprises "thoughts" and that the consequences of these thoughts yield material entities goes back to Heraclitus at about 500 B. C. Thus, as originally conceived, the basic concept of thoughts precedes the linguistic expression. Apparently, originally, such thoughts were what produced material entities. Of course, for us today this is beyond obvious.

During the time prior to John, the term is enlarged to signify a complete logical expression of thoughts, a complete account. It is not to be considered as simply a grammatical collection of symbols. For its Biblical usage, in order to correspond to this well-know meaning during the first century A.D., the term needs to signify the complete creationary scenario that God intends to present - including a complete and fully detailed personal expression of Himself. This complete mental-like concept - the logos - exists and does not cease to exist, relative to our comprehension, before, during and after the thoughts are manifested. As was common prior to and during John's time, it can even carry the name of its main character - Jesus.

Thus, such a logos leads to a step-by-step production of the "material universe" and has exceptional significance for human kind. In general, God's thoughts exist, in a sequence sense, prior to being manifested as physical entities. Entities are comprehended by listing their attributes whether they are displayed or not. This holds for Jesus' various manifestations.

Now consider John's "In the beginning was the logos . . . ." Following this, John begins discussing certain major aspects of this logically presented complete mental expression. Then John tells us, in 1:14, that the major aspect becomes physically real. Thus, the "thoughts" concept is exceptionally significant when describing God's behavior.

But how is this possible for the logos to be a designed and fixed final expression that is transformed into our physical reality? Of course, the above screen images can be recorded on a DVD and this DVD is the "final design"- a design that has been accorded any additional logos requirements via the mentioned parameters. But, does this yield a final pre-design that is then transformed via GGU-model processes into a physical reality?

When I was about seven years old I had a thought. "What if all that physically exists is but in a giant's dream and if he awakes, we will all disappear?" Even at that tender age, I was not sure something like that might not be true. During my dreams I also make choices although they are usually poor ones. How it is mentally possible that I am allowed to make such choices while dreaming seems to me to be rather remarkable. Then there have been times when a dream is so vivid that upon waking I am not sure that I am not still dreaming. The Bible states many times that direct knowledge is gained from God via our dreams. Based upon "So God made man in His own image . . . . " (Genesis 2:27), one can conclude that the "dream concept" may be much more important than most of us realize. Especially, if one considers dreams as imaginations.

There is a materialistic model for a final and fixed logos pre-design and absolute foreknowledge. But, I do not consider it as anything but an analogue model that merely shows that such a concept is scientifically rational. Such behavior might have very minor Biblical support. Nevertheless, at present, the alternative lack of knowledge model is still the most likely. What I describe next is only intended to show that absolute foreknowledge is a rational notion.

There exists, within the GGU-model mathematics, "ultra-logic-systems" that rationally yield each of the possible participator universes. There is one that yields the exact one that occurs in physical reality. There is a electronic model for this although it requires a "pre-physical reality" to exist. For the above SSHD Structure, the mental intentions choice from a pre-designed segment of the SSHD does not yield physical reality but rather yields a "pre-physical reality." An infinitely powerful mind is trivially able to have His entire creation perform the necessary guided activities within His imagination, so to speak. This would yield a fixed expression, a fixed account. For the above illustration, this produces a fixed DVD composed of the exact *information needed for the first step in physical creation. That is, there is a pre-physical reality, a type of "dress rehearsal" so to speak. Actual reality occurs when the "curtain rises" on the first performance.

This DVD represents the exact ultra-logic-system that yields this one pre-physical reality. This DVD is fully known sequentially prior to activation. Then pre-physical reality is activated, via the usual GGU-model mechanisms, and our present physical universe is the step-by-step result. As usual all of the GGU-model mechanisms that yield physical reality are created during that "zero-length" time period that corresponds to the preparatory Genesis 1:2 statement. The Genesis account refers to this final logos account. Obviously, this final account is totally known to God and models absolute foreknowledge.

Now and then, I wonder why specific passages are in the Bible. Of course, many have found reasons for them and have written extensive commentaries. But, there are also "shadows" of future events that are not explicitly described but only hinted at. It is curious that a few passages may, and I repeat may, hint at the pre-existence of a type of pre-physical reality. Is it possible that the following could be such a hint.

"Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been of old time, which was before us." (Ecc. 1:10. KJV.) Does this simply mean that, from the writer's viewpoint, history repeats itself? I suppose that no other idea is intended. But, then again, is it possible that these famous statements in Ecclesiastes yield a hint that there is a pre-physical reality? Are there other Biblical verses that also hint at the possible existence of such a pre-physical reality so as to aid us in our acceptance of absolute foreknowledge?

One can ask, what type of reality are we now exhibiting, the pre-physical reality or the physical-reality? If this very unlikely materialistic "speculation" corresponds, even in part to fact, then déjà vu would take on considerably more significance.

[Self-generation. Let A be the class of all symbolized objects created by an intelligence. Let P(|,||) be a predicate interpreted as "| creates ||," where "||" is a member A. The relation symbolized by P is created by H and P is in A. Suppose that H is self-created. Hence, H is in A and P(H,H). One also has the relations P(|,P(||,|||)), P(|,P(||,P(|||,||||))), etc., using Kleeny tick notation as variables, are in A. Again P(H,P(H,P(H,H))) . . . . etc. What this means is that using a trivial step in formalizable scientific (i.e. classical) logic, then a conclusion of this "human deduction" cannot be formally expressed if we assume the usual induction notion. Since the class A exists, and inductive thought is a basis of mathematics and physics, one has no resolution. This is a type of infinite (logical) regress. But, this does not make the concept "irrational." This is resolved by stating that God is not self-created. If this is not satisfactory to some, then, for them, this indicates that human comprehension via language is limited.


[0] The Complete GGU-model Processes.

[1] Herrmann, R. A. 2002. Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed, Xulon Press, Fairfax Va and other addresses.

[1.5] (Added reference) Herrmann, R. A. 1999. Information theory, consequence operators and the origin of life, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 36(3):123-132.

[1a] Herrmann, R. A, 1993. The Theory of Ultralogics,

[1b] Herrmann, R. A. 1989. Fractal and ultrasmooth microeffects, J. Math. Physics 30(4):805-808. (See 4c in this publication list for important typographical corrections for Theorem 4.1.)

[1c] Herrmann, R. A. Modeling Divine Attributes

[2] Shoenfield, J. R., 1977. The Axioms of Set Theory, In: Handbook of Mathematical Logic, (ed. Barwise), North Holland, New York, pp. 321-344.

[3] Bohm, D. 1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, Harper Torchbooks/The Science Library, Harper and Brothers, New York.

[4] March, A. and I. M. Freeman. 1963. The new world of physics, Vintage Books, New York

[5] Specific Information .

[6] Ultra-logic-systems

[7] Genesis 1:1 - 2:1

[7a] The Eden Model and

[8] The "Omni" Concepts.

[9] Human Behavior

[10] Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, Ed. Colin Brown, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1971, p. 1121.

[11] Eccles, J. and D. N. Robinson, 1984. The Wonders of Bring Human; Our Brain and Our Mind, The Free Press, NY.

End Note

(1) For the actual mathematical statements that lead to the above two displayed sequences, (1) and (2) see this PDF file.

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.