Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[greylorn]

There is a bit of a problem with this statement. Are you admitting that your “religion” (the quotation marks are not to be offensive; they are just because I am not sure if you consider your beliefs a religion) will be antiquated in a decade, century, or millennium? And if you are, are you admitting that you belief is, in effect, destined to become wrong in the future?And if that is the case, then why should we (or anyone) believe in it now?

You are attributing quite a lot to me which I did not write. I imagine that you will be voting for B.O. next election, if you are old enough.

I do not have beliefs in the sense that you do. Mine are simple, and limited to that which I can kind of, sort of, relate to personal experience. They consist of notions such as,

*I exist and seem to be conscious of that, *

*There appears to be an extremely complex support system which led to and supports this existence: a body, and environment which facilitated its survival, etc. *

*This environment is not a small, local thing. If the Milky Way galaxy did not exist, I would not exist. If the Universe did not exist, my home galaxy would not exist. *

*There is a lot more that I do not understand about my existence than that which I do understand. This leaves me curious. *

Scientists have many more beliefs than I do, but fewer than religionists. I do not see beliefs as useful except to set up paradigms for further understanding.

Paradigms are akin to scaffolds, which are temporary structures for the doing of something which is slightly more permanent. People are attached to short-term outcomes, because they are all very stupid. This causes them to cement their scaffolds into place and gild them with importance, mistaking them for the structure.

As for my ideas, which you mistake for beliefs…

I regard them as a scaffold upon which better minds than mine will build structures that I cannot imagine. My ideas cannot be right, because I am not intelligent enough to have devised such ideas. However, they are superior to all other ideas set forth on the subject of the beginnings of things and the nature of mind.

What else can a man offer?

The pioneers of serious physics were Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. Today smarmy, pretentious nitwits proselytizing on TV documentary channels and elsewhere declare that Newton was wrong, and ignore his predecessors— fitting behavior for fools who may have never had an imaginative thought in their sorry and silly academic lives.

Newton was not wrong. Einstein was more correct. Later someone else of remarkable intelligence, yet capable of insight, will produce understandings more correct than Al’s. Later, perhaps, another will refine his theories.

The concepts involved are complex. What would one expect from a universe engineered by mathematical geniuses?

My ideas are either wrong or right. If right now, time will not make them wrong. If they are an approximation now, another ladder on the scaffold leading to truth, that will become obvious in time.

I’ve worked on construction crews and pioneered some science-technology, by way of day jobs. I am happy that there’s some of my blood in the roadways others have driven. If some mind’s blood from me greases the thoughts of better minds to come, have I not done my job?

Belief spent upon the words of any man is generally wasted. Only the actions of a man, or god, can be trusted. You would be dreadfully stupid to believe anything that I or any man says. I’ve been right on lots of things that surprised people, but I’ve also been wrong.

But if something I write (or someone else writes) piques your curiosity, failure to check it out would mean that you do not trust Christ’s parables about mental and physical enterprise, or have never had those parables read to you in Sunday sermon while you were paying attention,

But if one has cemented and gilded the scaffold, and given it awards and approvals, declaring it to be the structure, then one will never extend the scaffold and never complete the structure.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

Well, I appreciate your confidence in me, but, there are other people here that I’d much rather discuss things with or debate. I’m too old for Kismet - although more than likely a little younger than you. By the way: your book? I’m still waiting.

jd

Good that you appreciate my confidence. I do not bestow it on just anyone.

I had the book about ready for printing when I encountered , right here on CAF, a serious mathematician who is extensively self-taught in physics. He started reading the material and has made wonderful contributions, which I am compelled to include.

Some of these contributions are corrections of the few, tiny, almost insignificant errors I’ve made. Others are excellent insights, things I’d never have thought of in a dozen lifetimes. To ignore these would mean ripping off readers.

I’d stopped accepting new reviewers, but to have not allowed his insights into the material would have been stupid. No more though. The first printing will be limited, so that new ideas which might come of it can go into a revision. I anticipate many new ideas. The book is intended to begin a new conversation about the nature and purpose of things.

 

[karebear92]

You are attributing quite a lot to me which I did not write. I imagine that you will be voting for B.O. next election, if you are old enough.

I do not have beliefs in the sense that you do. Mine are simple, and limited to that which I can kind of, sort of, relate to personal experience. They consist of notions such as,

I posed them as questions intentionally. I wasn’t attributing them to you. I apologize, however, if I offended you in any way.

You are attributing much about my character by imagining me voting for Obama next fall. As much as the current GOP candidates drive me crazy (aside from Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich), I will not be voting for President Obama.

P.S. I am old enough to vote.

 

[greylorn]

I posed them as questions intentionally. I wasn’t attributing them to you. I apologize, however, if I offended you in any way.

I’m too ornery to offend, but the relationship between my name and my statements is a style of identification which I try to keep straight.

You are attributing much about my character by imagining me voting for Obama next fall. As much as the current GOP candidates drive me crazy (aside from Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich), I will not be voting for President Obama.

P.S. I am old enough to vote.

Good that you do not like aspects of your character inappropriately represented either. Having shared similar complaints we can quit that kind of nonsense and restrict our exchanges to ideas about the beginnings of things.

I’m delighted that you will not be voting for B.O. IMO Newt’s only value would be as VP to help Paul get electec— can’t trust him as #1 guy. Quick wit, but I see no philosophical depth. Then there is Mr. Cain, whose background is all about diversity and competency and wonderfully empty of politics.

Now that you and I have done our squabbling, lets kick some ideas around and figure how to integrate theology and physics.

 

[Abba]

Hello Greylorn,

Duncan MacDougall, M.D. of Haverhill, Mass., believes he has discovered the weight of the soul. He has been weighing patients at the moment of death and has some statistics.

“We are therefore driven back upon the assumption that the soul substance so necessary to the conception of continuing personal identity, after the death of this material body, must still be a form of gravitative matter, or perhaps a middle form of substance neither gravitative matter or ether, not capable of being weighed, and yet not identical with ether. Since however the substance considered in our hypothesis is linked organically with the body until death takes place, it appears to me more reasonable to think that it must be some form of gravitative matter, and therefore capable of being detected at death by weighing a human being in the act of death.” ghostweb.com/soul.html

What do you think? Btw, how do you account for the uniqueness of souls in your theory? Do you take under consideration twins and clones? Have you determined the material of the soul or the location like Descartes who believed it was the pituitary gland (or at least it resided there or was connected to the body at that location - I forget)?

 

[greylorn]

Hello Greylorn,

Duncan MacDougall, M.D. of Haverhill, Mass., believes he has discovered the weight of the soul. He has been weighing patients at the moment of death and has some statistics.

“We are therefore driven back upon the assumption that the soul substance so necessary to the conception of continuing personal identity, after the death of this material body, must still be a form of gravitative matter, or perhaps a middle form of substance neither gravitative matter or ether, not capable of being weighed, and yet not identical with ether. Since however the substance considered in our hypothesis is linked organically with the body until death takes place, it appears to me more reasonable to think that it must be some form of gravitative matter, and therefore capable of being detected at death by weighing a human being in the act of death.” ghostweb.com/soul.html

What do you think? Btw, how do you account for the uniqueness of souls in your theory? Do you take under consideration twins and clones? Have you determined the material of the soul or the location like Descartes who believed it was the pituitary gland (or at least it resided there or was connected to the body at that location - I forget)?

Abba,

Upon reading the 1907 date on the link you provided I was tempted to blow off the entire article— except that this was around the time that Max Planck developed the mathematics for quantum mechanics and Einstein wrote a little paper about relativity theory.

I’d heard of MacDougal’s work years ago in books and recently on documentary channels, and I’d pretty much dismissed it as unverified crackpot science, but read the article nonetheless, mainly to document my complaints.

Problem is, the article is not written in the style of a crackpot, but in the style of a serious and honest scientist who knew full well of the necessity for honest methodology.

I could quibble about the quality of his scales, and make note of the mentionings of documentary channels that others could not reproduce his experiments. However, the material strikes me as something worth taking very seriously.

That is really annoying, because my theories predict that the “soul’s” departure from physiological integration would not register a loss of mass— which would seem to translate into a loss of weight.

Up front, this could render all my theories worthless.

Catholics should not be rejoicing or pouring champagne prematurely, however, because the same data invalidates the entire core of Catholic theology.

I shall think about this rather than react to it, and pass it by a kindred spirit who is smarter than me. Thank you very much for your questions, and the link. IMO this question is worth a thread of its own.

Your tailing questions are easy, but I’m at the far end of a long day. Later, also.

Good work.

 

[tonyrey]

I do not have much truck with philosophers, regarding them as a useless bunch of pedantic pinheads who think that they can understand things about the universe without knowing any physics. When already-confused philosophers are confused about a concept, I want no part of it.

As best I can tell from what seems to pass among those fools for a definition, some of them would think that I am a physicalist and others would not. The rest of them are reading comic books and don’t don’t know what physicalist means either, much less care what category my opinions fit into.

From all this, the only certainty is that I am not a physicalist, would not know what that meant even if I was, and do not care much for what run-of-the-litter philosophers or their hind-teat camp followers “think.”

In that case you are wasting your time, energy, talent, genius, expertise and experience on this forum…

 

[greylorn]

In that case you are wasting your time, energy, talent, genius, expertise and experience on this forum…

That’s all okay, so long as I don’t waste any money.

 

[catholictiger]

That’s all okay, so long as I don’t waste any money.

i don’t know if you noticed but you posted this at 11/11/11 11:11 on the east Coast

SO MANY 1s

 

[greylorn]

i don’t know if you noticed but you posted this at 11/11/11 11:11 on the east Coast

SO MANY 1s

I tend to attribute significance to extreme coincidences, but this one falls slightly short. I’m on M.S.T. and see the item posted at 7:11pm, which would be 9:11pm on eastern time.

The 11:11 time might apply to Greenland or Iceland, and a large swath of the Atlantic Ocean, but not to the East Coast.

Curious observation, nonetheless.

 

[catholictiger]

I tend to attribute significance to extreme coincidences, but this one falls slightly short. I’m on M.S.T. and see the item posted at 7:11pm, which would be 9:11pm on eastern time.

The 11:11 time might apply to Greenland or Iceland, and a large swath of the Atlantic Ocean, but not to the East Coast.

Curious observation, nonetheless.

yeah for some reason I had mine set on EST even though I’m CST and it said 10:11 for some reason, that’s where I made the mistake Oh well

 

[MindOverMatter2]

yeah for some reason I had mine set on EST even though I’m CST and it said 10:11 for some reason, that’s where I made the mistake Oh well

I was born on the 06, 06, 60

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Just kiddin!!!

God-bless

 

[MindOverMatter2]

…and the moral of the story is, don’t read to much in to numbers.

 

[greylorn]

Hello Greylorn,

Duncan MacDougall, M.D. of Haverhill, Mass., believes he has discovered the weight of the soul. He has been weighing patients at the moment of death and has some statistics.

“We are therefore driven back upon the assumption that the soul substance so necessary to the conception of continuing personal identity, after the death of this material body, must still be a form of gravitative matter, or perhaps a middle form of substance neither gravitative matter or ether, not capable of being weighed, and yet not identical with ether. Since however the substance considered in our hypothesis is linked organically with the body until death takes place, it appears to me more reasonable to think that it must be some form of gravitative matter, and therefore capable of being detected at death by weighing a human being in the act of death.” ghostweb.com/soul.html

Abba,
I submitted the link to a smarter friend who came up with a fairly extensive reply. You may find it helpful. The entire thing is too long for inclusion here, where it is likely to be of little interest to others, If you want to PM with an email address, I can easily forward it for your consideration.

In summary, his conclusion was that a loss of weight would not be a problem for my theories, which he has read, or to his own, which differ from mine as well as from conventional religious doctrine. But he explains it well.

What do you think?

Despite his arguments, I’m not convinced. As they stand now, my ideas will be totally invalidated by a successful verification of McD’s work. Perhaps my theory could be tweaked to fit the data, but that seems the wrong thing to do. History shows that if a theory has logical problems or is in disagreement with the evidence, it is a poor theory. (That is why I gave up on Catholicism.) If my theory fails to explain all the available evidence, physical and spiritual combined, I must abandon it and get off the planet.

Btw, how do you account for the uniqueness of souls in your theory? Do you take under consideration twins and clones? Have you determined the material of the soul or the location like Descartes who believed it was the pituitary gland (or at least it resided there or was connected to the body at that location - I forget)?

Although I do not specifically address uniqueness of what I call beons in my theory, the process by which they were generated seems to make that unnecessary. Nonetheless, I can understand why someone might ask the question, so will address it as part of a tidy-up epilogue.

My theory predicts that identical twins will share common characteristics at the brain level, but that each will have a behaviorally unique beon. A weak and ordinary beon will take on the properties of the brain with which it is integrated. Thus, a pair of weak beons in the brains of identical twins will demonstrate an excellent case for “heredity” as the source of intelligence and personality.

However, one non-ordinary beon in one of a paired brain-set will manifest distinct personality and intelligence. Most of the evidence I’ve seen from twin-studies is spun in the direction of heredity and virtual identity; however, legitimate studies (hard to find within any field related to Darwinism) show evidence which matches my theoretical predictions quite well.

I have theoretically defined the “material” from which beon (and therefore, God and soul) are made… This is at the core of my theory.

Descartes’ had the right idea. Proposing that the brain provided an interface to the soul was advanced thinking. His choice of the pineal gland was poor, it seems, but until the actual mechanisms are identified, I’d not exclude the possibility of its involvement.

My book discusses mechanisms and possibilities. Perhaps it will provide enough of a working paradigm to encourage some guys in neurological research to go looking. Because beon is real, and physical, I expect its brain-level connections to be identified rather easily.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s all okay, so long as I don’t waste any money.

Didn’t a certain American say “Time is money”?%between%

 

[Abba]

Hello greylorn,

Please excuse my delay in responding.

:coffeeread:

Yeah, I missed that 1907.

Abba,
I submitted the link to a smarter friend who came up with a fairly extensive reply. You may find it helpful. The entire thing is too long for inclusion here, where it is likely to be of little interest to others, If you want to PM with an email address, I can easily forward it for your consideration.

:tiphat:

In summary, his conclusion was that a loss of weight would not be a problem for my theories, which he has read, or to his own, which differ from mine as well as from conventional religious doctrine. But he explains it well.

Despite his arguments, I’m not convinced. As they stand now, my ideas will be totally invalidated by a successful verification of McD’s work. Perhaps my theory could be tweaked to fit the data, but that seems the wrong thing to do. History shows that if a theory has logical problems or is in disagreement with the evidence, it is a poor theory. (That is why I gave up on Catholicism.)

If there is merit to the experiment. Look at what happened with the neutrinos and E still = MC square.

Humor me. Just between you and me and the lamp post here; what are the logical problems and disagreements with evidence of Catholicism? It must have been difficult to give up.

If my theory fails to explain all the available evidence, physical and spiritual combined, I must abandon it and get off the planet.

Easy there. Nothing is worth getting off this planet before our time. Why is the success of the theory so important? Why is it so personal? I understand these things can be like a baby, speaking in marketplace terms, and it could be really difficult. Believe me, I know. I once discussed a patent of mine with a company in Europe and the man took every thing that I said and created a product - he even used the name I told him I had for it originally but had changed since. Six months later it was in the market produces by that company. Fortunately, I did not give him the new name nor the patentable information. But, just to see my special non-patentable combination in the market. Oh, it was difficult. I did consult with a firm in Paris and was informed that I would win a lawsuit but would have to disclose some of the patent information (which was still pending (btw, it is still pending and gathering dust but there is nothing like and the Patent and Trademark officers think that it will fly - no money for attorneys though)) and so it was not worth it. But, I was steaming. I remember I called my father and told him. He said to me, trying to cool me down "Do you really think that this is the only original idea you will come up with or the best? You have been coming up with them all your life and will continue to do so. It’s how your brain works. The best you can do now is to learn from the experience. Next time don’t trust any one. Secure what you have to first. " We can get a hold of our emotions but it is a really bad feeling when someone takes an idea. You see, I know a little about your precious. It is a product of your mind. I understand. But, you need to put things in perspective and balance things out. Be clear with yourself about what your objectives are and why. This can be a challenge. It may take a bit of courage. By the way, is part of what motivates have anything to do with love and concern for people?

Although I do not specifically address uniqueness of what I call beons in my theory, the process by which they were generated seems to make that unnecessary. Nonetheless, I can understand why someone might ask the question, so will address it as part of a tidy-up epilogue.

Okay.

I have theoretically defined the “material” from which beon (and therefore, God and soul) are made… This is at the core of my theory.

Sounds revolutionary.

Descartes’ had the right idea. Proposing that the brain provided an interface to the soul was advanced thinking. His choice of the pineal gland was poor, it seems, but until the actual mechanisms are identified, I’d not exclude the possibility of its involvement.

Okay.

My book discusses mechanisms and possibilities. Perhaps it will provide enough of a working paradigm to encourage some guys in neurological research to go looking. Because beon is real, and physical, I expect its brain-level connections to be identified rather easily.

Now, one of your objectives is to provide a justification for the existence of God to those who must have scientific proof? And, you consider that by proving scientifically the existence of the spiritual realm, God and souls more people will come to know that God exist. Is this correct?

Can it be that your theory may propose the existence of a material substance, hitherto unknown, but may not necessarily be the substance of the spirit? If your idea is given merit, do you address in your book the flood of objections it will receive from theologians?

 

[Abba]

I was reading about ether. Interesting, It was done away with by the theory of relativity. I still do not understand what exactly it was suppose to be composed of.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#End_of_aether.3F

I was also reading: An Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul: Wherein the Immateriality of the Soul is Evinced from the Principles of Reason and Philosophy. It’s an old out of print book but it is interesting. It’s kind of a pain to read with that ‘S’ but you can get used to it. I haven’t finished reading it. books.google.com/books?id=v3RIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=ENQUIRY+INTO+THE+NATURE+OF+THE+HUMAN+SOUL;+WHEREIN+THE+IMMATERIALITY+OF+THE+SOUL+IS+EVINCED+FROM+THE+PRINCIPLES+OF+REASON+AND+PHILOSOPHY&source=bl&ots=xA99HeHyhy&sig=L4JD4cLFj1snOFXm4yfCL56fpGo&hl=en&ei=k87KTsOfOcba0QG6sMX2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is what Edgar Allan Poe had to say:

In The Mesmeric Revelation, Poe writes the following text:

“The matters of which man is cognizant, escape the senses in gradation. We have, for example, a metal, a piece of wood, a drop of water, the atmosphere, a gas, caloric, electricity, the luminiferous ether. Now we call all these things matter, and embrace all matter in one general definition ; but in spite of this, there can be no two ideas more essentially distinct than that which we attach to a metal, and that which we attach to the luminiferous ether. When we reach the latter, we feel an almost irresistible inclination to class it with spirit, or with nihility. The only consideration which restrains us is our conception of its atomic constitution ; and here, even, we have to seek aid from our notion of an atom, as something possessing in infinite minuteness, solidity, palpability, weight. Destroy the idea of the atomic constitution and we should no longer be able to regard the ether as an entity, or at least as matter. For want of a better word we might term it spirit. Take, now, a step beyond the luminiferous ether — conceive a matter as much more rare than the ether, as this ether is more rare than the metal, and we arrive at once (in spite of all the school dogmas) at a unique mass — an unparticled matter. For although we may admit infinite littleness in the atoms themselves, the infinitude of littleness in the spaces between them is an absurdity. There will be a point — there will be a degree of rarity, at which, if the atoms are sufficiently numerous, the interspaces must vanish, and the mass absolutely coalesce. But the consideration of the atomic constitution being now taken away, the nature of the mass inevitably glides into what we conceive of spirit. It is clear, however, that it is as fully matter as before. The truth is, it is impossible to conceive spirit, since it is impossible to imagine what is not. When we flatter ourselves that we have formed its conception, we have merely deceived our understanding by the consideration of infinitely rarified matter.”

The luminiferous ether was done away with by Einstein.
Peace,

Abba

 

[greylorn]

…Look at what happened with the neutrinos and E still = MC square.

I do not understand what you mean by this. I don’t know what happened to neutrinos and do not care. It is hard enough to know what’s happening in obvious parts of reality.

Neutrinos are simply the effects of indirect human observations. They were discovered empirically. “Neutrino” is a name given to a poorly observed aspect of physical reality about which we know little. I think that these days, in whatever passes for minds in atomic scientists, neutrinos have “flavors.” Gimme a break.

On the other hand, E=mc[sup]2[/sup] is a different animal. The equation came out of philosophical considerations of how we measure things and is entirely theoretical. It predicted possibilities, which experiments subsequently realized.

IMO comparing neutrino observations to an elegant theoretical statement, if that is what you meant to do, is an irrelevant notion. Don’t worry about that. I learned about irrelevant notions by generating many of them personally. Part of the thought process.

Humor me. Just between you and me and the lamp post here; what are the logical problems and disagreements with evidence of Catholicism? It must have been difficult to give up.

Yes, very difficult. And despite having given it up, here I am.

Problems:

1. 
   *]Conflict between the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the notion that God created everything.
   
   *]Realization that creation from nothing was an absurd, made-up notion. (By way of evidence as to how absurd it is, cosmologists have adopted it to “explain” the source of the cosmic singularity that became the Big Bang.)
   
   *]The inability of any creation scenario to offer an explanation for the creation of the dreadfully ordinary people who comprise 97% of humanity.
   
   *]A suitable explanation for God’s creation of me.
   
   *]The absence of a wider, more general purpose for creation.
   
   *]The Inquisition.
   
   *]The centuries it took for the Church to admit that it did Galileo Galilei one of the most intelligent and devout members the Church has ever known, a serious wrong.
   
   *]The Church’s persistent refusal to acknowledge, as Galileo tried to teach it, that the physical universe is the only true and certain “bible,” and that human-invented words are simply “human-invented” words, which must be discarded if they contradict God’s own works.
   

   Easy there. Nothing is worth getting off this planet before our time. Why is the success of the theory so important? Why is it so personal?

   My ideas will determine my getting-off time. Their success is unimportant, because should it happen, I’ll have been long gone.
   
   What is important is not their success, but their value. That is the only thing I can control.
   
   Try spending 50 years of your life focused upon a single difficult subject that no one else thinks is important, without getting paid for doing so, without becoming ever-so-slightly personally involved.
   
   Nonetheless I’ve remained fairly well detached. Only a very few close friends know that I’m a crackpot.
   

   I understand these things can be like a baby, speaking in marketplace terms, and it could be really difficult. Believe me, I know. I once discussed a patent of mine with a company in Europe and the man took every thing that I said and created a product - he even used the name I told him I had for it originally but had changed since. Six months later it was in the market produces by that company. Fortunately, I did not give him the new name nor the patentable information. But, just to see my special non-patentable combination in the market. Oh, it was difficult. I did consult with a firm in Paris and was informed that I would win a lawsuit but would have to disclose some of the patent information (which was still pending (btw, it is still pending and gathering dust but there is nothing like and the Patent and Trademark officers think that it will fly - no money for attorneys though)) and so it was not worth it. But, I was steaming. I remember I called my father and told him. He said to me, trying to cool me down "Do you really think that this is the only original idea you will come up with or the best? You have been coming up with them all your life and will continue to do so. It’s how your brain works. The best you can do now is to learn from the experience. Next time don’t trust any one. Secure what you have to first. " We can get a hold of our emotions but it is a really bad feeling when someone takes an idea. You see, I know a little about your precious. It is a product of your mind. I understand. But, you need to put things in perspective and balance things out. Be clear with yourself about what your objectives are and why. This can be a challenge. It may take a bit of courage. By the way, is part of what motivates have anything to do with love and concern for people?

   Not like a baby. I’ve fathered a few, and yes that is not remotely equivalent to hosting one, There is a lot of agreement in the world that having and raising a child is a good thing to do. Children are welcomed into the world. Parents are given tax breaks. But the birth of new ideas is never welcomed.
   
   Love? People have taught me not to care about them, and women have taught that love is an expensive emotion.
   
   As for patents, I can empathize. I probably invented virtual memory, and definitely invented a simple computer-controlled fluid volume measuring device. Lots of other stuff. Getting rich from patents requires so much more than innovative thinking— it requires a kind of social persistence and willingness to deal with ahsolses in bureaucracies, and with financially-savvy thieves.

 

[greylorn]

Sounds revolutionary.

If accepted, these ideas will change the way physicists think about energy, matter, space and time. They will allow physicists and scientists to speak freely of the creation-effect upon their theories, and to incorporate intelligent engineering into their style of thinking. (No more Big Bang nonsense.) They will embarrass Darwinists and their mindless camp followers. Ultimately they will integrate theology and physics into a single system for understanding the universe, and for understanding our own natures and purpose of being.

IMO, they represent a common-sense derivation of obvious ideas from well-known physics, psychological, and biological information. Why would a logical explanation of facts which are available to anyone who graduated from high school be considered as “revolutionary?”

Now, one of your objectives is to provide a justification for the existence of God to those who must have scientific proof? And, you consider that by proving scientifically the existence of the spiritual realm, God and souls more people will come to know that God exist. Is this correct?

No. I have no interest in providing “a justification for the existence of God,” or proof of God. That has been tried, incompetently, by people much smarter than me.

My work is to define the nature of God in the context of physics, and to offer a credible explanation for His purposes in creation.

Scientific proof of a “spiritual realm” is, by definition of “spiritual,” impossible. My job is to move realities which have been mistakenly labeled “spiritual” by people who know nothing of physics, into the realm of the physical.

There is just one universe. It is not divided into physical and spiritual realms.

Can it be that your theory may propose the existence of a material substance, hitherto unknown, but may not necessarily be the substance of the spirit?

“Material” means made from matter. Ordinary matter comprises only about 5% of the universe. There seems to be no such thing as a “material substance.”

My theories treat matter as a consequence of other substances which are more fundamental.

They do not hypothesize the existence of unknown substances, or as I usually put it, “stuff.”

Unlike religions which believe in a spirit-creator which cannot be physically detected and must dwell beyond the physical universe of his creation, and unlike cosmologists who believe in a Big Bang coming from a cosmic micropea which cannot be detected anymore because it blew up already, I assume that the core components of physical reality are still here, right under our noses,

It seems to me absurd to invent things which cannot be known or identified to explain other things which are known and identified, and then claim to have explained anything whatsoever.

I do not invent anything which has not already been detected. I do give different terms and apply previously unconsidered properties to two key elements of physical reality which have been detected. To explain the origin of the universe and human consciousness, no more is necessary.

If your idea is given merit, do you address in your book the flood of objections it will receive from theologians?

No. Personally, I do not think that any modern theologians are intelligent enough to understand my ideas. They have specialized in manipulating doctrines and spinning dogma. I am more concerned about the objections of physicists, who are qualified.

Do not mistake this as meaning that I think religious people are not qualified. Not so. My first mentor was a Norbertine priest, who lost his job as college abbot for inviting his fellow thoughtful priests to read my first book. He and they were qualified.

My ideas are for intelligent, thoughtful people with open minds and a curiosity about the beginnings and purposes of things. Theologians and perfessers are excluded from that smallish category,