In my book "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed" (Herrmann, (2002)), I discuss the significance of one of the more remarkable GGU-model predictions. Clearly, the mathematical operators that model a "higher-intelligence" correlate to many Biblical statements that declare that God's ways are not our ways, and that His intelligence is greater than anything that we can possibly reproduce or comprehend. Indeed, such differences satisfy a mathematical model and, as such, it is rational to assume that an entity that possesses such attributes exists.
The behavior classified by some as the "sin of Satan" is pride or arrogance. Of course, one need not attribute this to a Scriptural entity. For this article, pride includes the notion that humankind is intelligent enough to comprehend all of God's wondrous methods and purposes. This includes methods that produce or guide the development of a physical universe. Obviously, dependent upon the language employed, individuals need not attribute espoused methods to a Divine source. Theologically, pride signifies that we are capable of adding to the Bible distinctly different concepts through philosophic means. This is often done for the sole purpose of enhancing ones personal status rather than seeking true enlightenment. In all cases, such rational comprehension is displayed via various "languages" and deductive arguments.
The term "language" refers to a "general" language. Such a language is employed so that rational deduction can be applied. As explicity represented in Herrmann (2002, pp. 66, 79-80), this includes visual images, drawings, mental images and the like. Indeed, it can even refer to all areas of human sensory information and such elusive concepts as our "moods."
As an example, one of the more perplexing notions not specifically mentioned within the Bible, but that is deduced from human forms of logic and language, is the idea of "material creation out of nothing." On page 210 of the above book, I write,"The notion that God created everything out of nothing still holds in this model. If you consider the meaning of "nothing" as "a state of nonexistence," then this holds for the ultranatural world. This "world" did not exist, in any manner, until it was "thought of" by God. It's the "world" consisting of the methods that God uses to create both the supernatural and the natural. . . . The Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:19-23 statements hold. . . ." The term "nothing" does not apply to God's thoughts. God, Himself, is not a "nothing."Notice the phrase "thought of by God." Why is this stated in such a na´ve manner? As I'll explain, this phrase is a direct acknowledgment that the GGU-model is an analogue model for behavior, behavior that cannot be described in great detail and communicated to us while we remain in our present physical and fallen mode. For the GGU-model, physical creation, what the Bible considers as "perceived," is not created from the perceived nor from what is totally comprehensible.
The Bible specifically states that one is allowed to apply common logical procedures to collections of ideas as they are linguistically presented. In order to ascertain the mindset of an Apostle, one gathers various written statements as premises and then applies common Biblical modes of deduction. Paul tells us his mindset relative to what we can actually comprehend. While in Athens, Paul "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and God-fearing Greeks . . . . A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him . . . . Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus . . ." (Acts 17:17-19, NIV). (". . . they led him to the Areopagus" is closer to the Greek.) This is "Mars" hill. And, he was to continue to address the philosophers.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands" (Acts 17:24). The term "temple," as used by Paul, has other meanings not just a physical building. "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than Christ" (Col. 2:8). What are the human traditions used to produce deceptive philosophy (fond-wisdom)? What are the basic principles used by philosophers to present misleading ideas? The major principle is the claim that the essence of a concept can be fully described and that language is sufficient for this purpose. Thus, the assertion is that a gathering of linguistic or symbolic representations is a type of "temple" that contains the "essence," the "core," of a concept. This gathering comprises a way to present knowledge, to present what the philosophers believe is "that which is known."
How are we supposed to combat such misleading ideas? "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4-5). But, even as we do so, Paul warns us of our limitations.
Relative to God's world, as far as Paul is concerned, is it possible for humans in their present fallen mode to possess complete knowledge? ". . . where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . . . Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face (Hebrew idiom for "up close and personal") . Now I know in part, then I shall know fully . . . ." (1 Cor. 13: 8- 11). These Paul statements should be ample evidence as to the Apostle's mindset and, as Peter states, Paul's comprehension of such matters is the same as the other Apostles.
The GGU-model rationally upholds these statements and predicts that we have a vast "lack of knowledge." The model "predicts" this from how we actually use languages to construct our temples of information. It predicts, from real physical evidence, the existence of an "higher-language," *L, and an "higher-form" of thought, *A, where both are necessary to comprehend more fully God's world. In our present physical state, we cannot apply these to gain additional knowledge. We are told that once we are not part of this physical world, then we know more fully. It is also a fact that this important "lack of knowledge notion" cannot be eliminated from the model nor from human endeavors. You can, as many scientists do, ignore its significance by considering it as but an extraneous result.
[There is an interesting new result, obtained via MRI-style brain imaging techniques, that implies that individuals like physicists are, as C. S. Lewis states, "slaves to picture thinking," while those who contemplate "spiritual" things use different brain pathways. The existence of these designed pathways verifies various Biblical implications that each human being is, in an unbiased manner, capable of contemplating spiritual matters. The researchers did not check out people like myself who use combined "pathways" for physical-like thinking. I have warned individuals of the dangers of being dominated by images. That is, considering such visually understood images, images that correspond to human physical senses, senses that cannot be duplicated in the physical region being investigated, and accepting them as true representations for physical reality.
I attribute such pathway differences as design differences. However, in mathematics the imagination and images are employed. For example, there is now a method to imagine the completed infinite. On the other hand, intuition and conceptual thinking is also highly significant. So, mathematicians are, hopefully, not slaves to picture thinking.
Such brain pathways need not be activated to any great degree or they can be activated and coupled with numerous many thoughts in the hopes of negating any positive spiritual effects that may arise. These thoughts can lead to overt actions directed against the activities directed by the Biblical God.
Assuming that an electron is a small particle and it interacts with a small bundle of something called a photon and various, but not all, properties are transferred is useful until one considers the question, "How is this transfer possible?" This can be passed off as not answerable and placed into the category of a primitive process, or one can further invent other images such as clouds of photons surrounding a bare electron. But, then the all-knowing quantum field theorists enter the picture and insist that this is not so. Actually what seems to be an electron is not as we perceive it to be in our imagination but it is rather a ripple in a quantum field. A vibration of "something" that cannot even be visualized, things we are told that somehow or other "carry" particle properties.
But, even at that, problems ensue with the necessity of "fine tuning" for the design of our universe. If this is truly the way it operates, then this all seems to strongly imply that our universe is constructed in a very special way, maybe, by a higher-intelligence. Of course, this won't do so we invent something else, sparticles, to compensate for this fine-turning among other aspects of the Standard Model some do not appreciate. Actually sparticles don't actually eliminate types of fine-tuning since there are 105 more free constants that need to be determined rather than the usual 20. As yet there is no gross matter behavior that indicates that the sparticle notion has merit. But, a problem unifying all of this with gravity occurs.
So, lets invent a different primitive. Don't imagine particles as "small" entities that appear when fields ripple enough but visualize the particle as "strings" that stretch when they gain energy and give up energy when they contract like a rubber band. The energy comes from the vibrations exactly like energy is produced via a quantum field. Of course, one should not tell the world that this is how the physical world "actually" behaves but rather, when modeled, cloud these images with a vast amount of highly complex mathematics.
Aspects of the imagined particles and strings do correspond to observed macroscopic physical entities. But, should these macroscopic observations, in any way, be assumed to correspond directly to objects that cannot be so observed? The basic construction of the ultra-properton is predicted from observed electromagnetic classical field behavior. It is not first imagined. It is not hypothesized. I note that a classical field is not a quantum field. Then there is only one type of ultra-properton. Remarkably, all of physical reality is but composed of bounded collections of ultra-propertons. These collections are modified from one instant to another by merely rearranging the collections to obtain other appropriate collections.
Aspects of the imagined particles and strings do correspond to observed macroscopic physical entities. But, should these macroscopic observations, in any way, be assumed to correspond directly to objects that cannot be so observed? The prebasic construction of the ultra-properton does corresponds to observed electromagnetic classical field behavior. A classical field is not a quantum field. Then there is only one type of ultra-properton. Remarkably, all of physical reality is but composed of bounded collections of ultra-propertons. These collections are modified from one instant to another by merely rearranging the collections to obtain other appropriate collections.
Now, if I were to continue this description and state the "number" of such propertons that are so gathered, then imagination ceases to be helpful. There needs to be a pure non-physical hyperfinite combination in order to obtain an intermediate properton, a named gathering, that will exhibit just a single physical characteristic. Now such a combination behaves as if it is a finite combination from the substratum world viewpoint. But if compared to our concept of the finite, it has an additional property. It is actually a highly infinite combination. This is not a contradiction since two distinct languages are employed. This infinite notion is not the one that we can now imagine. The actual hyperfinite number employed is unknown since the numerical values we use are either arbitrary or unit dependent.
How can we predict what the rearrangements will be so as to control, as best as we can, our environment? This is done by simply employing the mathematical aspects of quantum theory relative to properties as an instrument for calculation and nothing more than that.
Although it should not be considered as a true realization since propertons properties should meanly be operationally described, in my book, "Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed," I do mention that it might be useful when propertons are considered as grouped into collections that one image them as "straws," where properties correspond to different colors (p. 127). But, this such images are only used to more easily describe the basic behavioral aspects and are not to be considered as related to any possible physical appearance. In this book, propertons are called "subparticles" and I wish I had never used the term. Original, I called them "infants," another poor term. The name "properton" comes from the word "property."]
Interpretation of GGU-model mathematics, allows us to increase our previous knowledge about God's Biblically stated attributes. However, recently it has been shown that the mathematics employed is only able to partially add to our knowledge, and this further substantiates Paul's contention.
The GGU-model does predict partially, from observed behavior, the behavior of a background universe, the ultranatural world. Propertons can replace all of the "particle" notions used in the Standard Model for Particle Physics rendering this standard model as but an instrument for calculation. From the viewpoint of what constitutes a "better" model, the properton model is one since the notion of "better" general includes "the fewest primitives."
One can ask all types of questions about theological concepts. The atheistic community uses this as their major tool in their attempts to discredit supernatural beliefs. For example, "What type of stuff comprises God's Spirit?" "Is it irrational to believe that God created everything that exists out of nothing perceivable or not? "How can God just 'speak' objects into existence?" "How can God know the past, present and future and does this not contradict the concept of free-will?" "How can a 'good' God allow . . . ." "Did God create evil?" Indeed, many such questions are answerable in various ways, even directly by GGU-model mechanisms. But, the answers are not acceptable to the "arrogant" minded atheist who requires detailed and "completely" comprehensible answers that satisfy their assumptions. Some might even require "laboratory demonstrations."
Atheists tend to consider themselves very clever in asking such questions. Their assumption that they can comprehend the answers via our inadequate languages is false. Of course, this method is not new and, yet, many individuals, as I did for years, still spend considerable effort in concocting new questions. It is argued that only if acceptable answers are forthcoming would any but the most ignorant believe in a Biblical God. The atheists simply cannot accept that they cannot have all the knowledge they demand, that our physical brains will not "evolve," (their concept) and eventually become all-knowing.
One does not need an in-depth analysis of the various predicted entities, the "ultrawords" or "ultra-logic-systems," used in the GGU-model for universe creation, to be convinced that the displayed "higher-intelligence" signatures present a mode of intelligence that cannot be duplicated by humankind. However, aside from this ID interpreted signature, the behavior of these entities can be, at least, partially described in a humanly comprehensible language. In the pure physical-like interpretation, the notion of higher-intelligence signatures can be regarded as but an artifact of the modeling processes. So, how does the GGU-model come to ones aid when confronted with questions that may seem to be impossible to answer satisfactory?
The GGU-model is based upon the coding of actual languages and then this coding is embedded into a mathematical structure. These languages represent modes of standard human perception. When an in-depth analysis is applied to the physical laws, the scientific theories and the physical events describable by these languages, startling conclusions emerge from the hidden confines of the structure, conclusions that cannot be eliminated. The model predicts the rational existence of "ultranatural laws" that behave, generally, in the same "linguistic" manner as physical laws. But, there is a vast difference between languages we use to communicate and the descriptive "ultranatural language" that rationally exists. Analysis shows that we can have almost no knowledge as to the specific contents of this predicted language.
The model predicts the "ultranatural events" and these events satisfy the ultranatural laws. It is predicted that our physical universe would not exist without there being these ultranatural events. They apparently are necessary to sustain the development of our universe and supply yet another higher-intelligence signature.
This ultranatural language behaves, in general, like the original standard language; it includes the original language and a vast amount of additional "language," a pure nonstandard language, which cannot be "comprehended" by means of any form of standard human perception. In general, expressions from this high-language can totally or partially contain incomprehensible strings of symbols. There is nothing one can do about these predictions. They are there in the structure. As long as mathematics is employed by our scientific-communities these findings cannot be eliminated. They will not cease to exist. It is certainly possible that such questions, if they were indeed meaningful, would require such a "higher" language and enhanced comprehension to answer accurately. Once again arrogant atheists who consider humankind capable of all knowledge would certainly reject this possibility. But, these results are rationally obtained not through some philosophic dialectic but rather by means of pure mathematical deduction.
Is it possible that such a language has scriptural support? The first Creation Reseacrh Society Quanterly editor with whom I dealt, Armstrong, agreed with me as do some commentaries that the predicted higher-language corresponds to Paul's statement in 2 Cor 12.2. ". . . our unacquaintedness with the language of the upper world" (Matthew Henry). "Paul had not the power adequately to utter; nor if he had would he have been permitted; nor would earthly man comprehend" (R. A. Faussett). The scriptures state that "glorified Christians" should be accorded more information once they are no longer in their fallen state. So, at present, I accept that I do not possess the communication skills required by some to answer a few of stated questions. But, is there a slightly more refined notion of creation out of nothing?
There is one entity that Christians agree exists and can not cease to exist. This is God's Spirit. This Spirit behaves like a "mind." Hence, a term such as "thoughts" can be applied. There is the "higher form of deduction, *A, that is completely described by using a nonstandard language and that would convincing and rationally establish that God transforms His thoughts into the unperceived and immaterial ultranatural world from which the observable physical world is created. However, since it's not possible for me, as yet, to comprehend such an argument, then I am content with simply stating that all there was, all there is and all there every will be has come from God through application of "pure thought." Except to state that God's thoughts are equivalent to a scientific primitive, in that we only know their behavior, what we presently lack is any further in-depth comprehension.
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.