Thursday, May 29, 2008

philosophy science and religion

LoneRubberDragon and cooperative contributors WIKIPEDIA TEXTS:

[0] CONTENTS [[1] through [20]]
Videos, images, and writings (C) Copyright, [LoneRubberDragon / RubberCraft / DuRAGON SeTO RuMi / Draashek'gaons / SET,236,926,765,732,171], Anno Domini 2007, 2008

[1] What if there is no God, as Science often says? AD 2008 05 29 A 0645 (rel, sci, phi)
....[1.4] Without God and without a saving science
....[1.7] Addendum, a condemnation of science. AD 2008 07 02 P 11:20
....[1.8] Addendum, a "Ghost in the Shell" back hack. AD 2008 07 03 A 08:10
[2] Intelligent design theory. AD 2008 05 29 A 0700 (sci, phi)
[3] Evolution design theory. AD 2008 05 29 A 0750 (sci)
[4] The Dragon's Oroboro. AD 2008 05 29 A 0705 (phi)
[5] Light and darkness. AD 2008 05 29 P 1140 (phi)
[6] A better world is too merciful, easy, and Utopian, for All Powerful God. AD 2008 05 29 P 1150 (rel, phi)
....[6.2] The real world, there's no free lunches, with the All Powerful Father God YHVH.
....[6.3] If Utopia is too Utopian for God, a critic could go even further.
[7] For an all powerful God, we, His children, are not His responsibility. AD 2008 05 29 P 1150 (rel)
....[7.2] God CAN create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it, called the free will soul that is certain not to perish at the Creator's hands
[8] Preachers say the darndest things, like, God doesn't need you!. AD 2008 05 29 P 1150 (rel)
[9] Some things that are science, but that science cannot explain, all point directly to a transcendent soul. AD 2008 05 29 A 0815 (rel, sci, phi)
[10] Computers can be given free will and soul on the material plane of existence. AD 2008 05 29 A 0910 (sci)
....[10.2] The computer is connected to the Light of God.
[11] The unbreakable paradox of an All Knowing God and human free-will. AD 2008 05 29 A 0910 (rel)
[12] Abiogenesis chemical evolution. AD 2008 07 17 P 0900 (sci)
[13] Chinese Han and Japanese Kanji studies. AD 2008 07 17 P 0900 (phi)
[14] Quantum physics self question. AD 2008 07 17 P 0930 (rel, sci, phi)
[15] Genesis to Revelation - Damnation to Salvation. AD 2008 08 23 A 00:25 (rel)

Patrick Moran (P0M) and LoneRubberDragon (~~~~) contributions on Wiki:
[16] Abiogeneis second version. AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40 (sci)
[17] Chiral / Churl symmetry between Atheism and Theism. AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40 (rel sci phi)
[18] Philosophies of existence nature and life. AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40 (sci rel phi)
[19] Jumping spiders and such. AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40 (sci phi)
[20] Multidimensional Taylor-Laurent series special various applications. AD 2008 09 08 P 1130 (mat), from my earlier looneyfundamentalist post
[21] Lunar Retroreflector Rainbow / Planetary Crystalographic Reflections AD 2008 09 15 P 0800 (sci) from earlier talks
[22] Wikipedia Laws of Classical Conservation shortfall. AD 2008 09 16 P 1050 (sci)
[23] Renewable nuclear energy. AD 2008 09 17 A 1130 (sci)

Other Links:
Complaining generations:
Flee to mountains, Adam and Eve flee from garden, Han Kanji, Finite Element Analysis:
Quantum Physics:
Genetic Algorithms test and Logos:
Evolutionary algorithms and natural combinatorial chemistry, also Taylor-Laurent series outer-space:
Abiogenesis materials:

Bible sources:

Clay catalyzation of existing RNA base polymerization, and adsorbtion and release characteristics:

Lipid and early combinatorial chemistry protocell theory:
Hypercycle chemistry:

Combinatorial chemistry:
Armen M Boldi, "Combinatorial Synthesis of Natural Product-Based Libraries", AD 2005 CRC Press
"Traditionally, the search for new compounds from natural products has been a time- and resource-intensive process. The recent application of combinatorial methods and high-throughput synthesis has allowed scientists to generate a range of new molecular structures from natural products and observe how they interact with biological targets. Combinatorial Synthesis of Natural Product-Based Libraries summarizes the most important perspectives on the application of combinatorial chemistry and natural products to novel drug discovery.

The book details the latest approaches for implementing combinatorial research and testing methodologies to the synthesis of natural product-based libraries. Interconnecting the important aspects of this emerging field through the work of several leading scientists, it covers the computational analysis of natural molecules and details strategies for designing compound libraries, using bioinformatics in particular. The authors describe numerous synthetic methods for producing natural products and their analogs, including engineered biosynthesis and polymer-supported reagents. They also discuss additional considerations for generating libraries, such as screening, scaffolding, and yield optimization. Other chapters examine specific classes of libraries derived from natural products including carbohydrates, polyketides, peptides, alkaloids, terpenoids, steroids, flavonoids, and fungal compounds. Drawing attention to the interplay of drug discovery, natural products, and organic synthesis, Combinatorial Synthesis of Natural Product-Based Libraries contains the most recent and significant methods used to search and assess new compounds for their ability to mitigate biological processes that may lead to improved treatments for various diseases

Combinatorial Chemistry is equivalent to high-throughput synthesis of compound arrays in which side-chain, core structure, and stereochemical diversity are varied. At the heart of combinatorial chemistry is the parallel synthesis of compounds that may be lead-like, drug-like, or natural product-like. Two terms, recently introduced by Schreiber, define directionality of such libraries - target-oriented synthesis (TOS), and diversity-oriented synthesis (DOS). In the strictest sense, these two types of libraries fall within the scope of combinatorial chemistry yet possess unique characteristics. Targeted libraries generated by TOS aim to elicit a specific biological response based on a gene family or a theraputic area. DOS libraries, on the other hand, seek to generate more diversity than what has historically been the case for combinatorial libraries, by varying the skeletal and stereochemical elements of the core library structures. Tan has described several categories of such DOS libraries: (1) core scaffolds of individual natural products, (2) specific substructures from classes of natural products, and (3) general structural characteristics of natural products."

Miscellaneous abiotic chemistry to biology:




[0 [1 [SHI`][ShE`] 1] [1 [SHI`][SHI-] 1] [1 [TIA-N][TE?Ng] 1] [1 [TOu~][DO-u] 1] [1 [SHo-A`NG][JO-u~] 1] 0]
[ [13,17,18]::[ [[3, 7, 8] x 1] ], [ 10 [5 x 2] ]::[CH5C2 = (CH)5]::[[micro-meso-macro]-metastable-tree-thread-ring] ]


================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0645
UPDATED [1.3] to [1.8] AD 2008 06 12 P 07:30
UPDATED added [1.7] AD 2008 07 02 P 11:20
UPDATED added [1.8] AD 2008 07 03 A 08:10
UPDATED updated [1.8] AD 2008 07 07 A 06:40
[1] What if is there is no God, as Science often says?

[1.1] Science without God and soul
If there is no God, like science often says so, then what purpose is there in life, when nothing will last and live forever? Because without God, it is completely up to humans to discover how to save themselves and live in harmony before time ends. Just counting all of the humans' generations, their ages, and their numbers, one can see that roughly at least 60 billion people have already passed on, so many of them so greatly missed throughout. Perhaps, you knew one of them. And one can clearly see that 7 billion humans are, right now, on their way to a certain inevitable death in this world.

[1.2] The hope in science
I would only hope of Science, in it's state without any proof of God, that the future machines of science can find the ways to restore and preserve the continuity of all of humanity and life, through incredible, yet to be discovered reconstruction algorithms. I would hope that something like the alien looking evolved machines of man, busily reconstructing and remembering everything, about all things, and about all history, and about all people; that those machines could bring back everyone in their bodies, like in the end of the movie, "Artificial Intelligence", thus bypassing the fatal flaw of bringing people back in our corruptible bodies for, but, one day, in the enormous spans of universal time.

[1.3] Without God at the end of time
And when the stars have used up all of the energy of gravitational collapse complexity promoting fusion, and the machines have worked to mak a monolith. One that can compute with zero power. And the entire universe lies frozen and cold at absolute zero; that at that "end of time". That at that time, all of humanity, all of the machines, and all of the life of earth, all beloved, and all harmonious, could live together in the monolith, in the images, the living words, in that monolith sea of glass. Living on, when all the rest of the universe lies in the frozen ashes, from the times of the light.

[1.4] Without God and without a saving science
For if there is no one left at the end of time, it seems like an awful waste of space and time, right? To quote Shakespeare, "And all our yesterdays have lighted fools, the way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle. Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.".

[1.5] Final thought
But I sometimes fear, that a science without a provable soul, or God, or any universal absolute Good with Purpose, that the science will inevitably doom all man and all life to perish utterly, at the end of time, in selfish frozen chaos. So the only thing to do today, if this is the way life is, and that this is how reality works, than it is better to eat drink and be merry, for to-morrow we all die ... without God, or salvation, and a science without a soul.

[1.6] Reference
References: Richard P. Feynman lectures, of computation, regarding the subject that computation, specifically, requires no work (power),, the movie "Contact", featuring Jodi Foster,, William Shakespeare's plays,, the movie, "2001: A Space oddessy", featuring the Monolith,, and the movie, "AI: Artificial Intelligence", featuring Haley Joel Osment, and Jude Law.

[1.7] Addendum, a condemnation of science.
[1.7.1]THE THINGS I DO SEE, do disappoint me, as you have noticed. As much as there are good words in science, they fall short.

[1.7.2]Take this quote from Richard Dawking from "The God Delusion", page 35:

[1.7.3]"An athiest in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no *super*natural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand."

[1.7.4]And Dawkins asks on page 404, "to give life meaning and a point ... Is it a similar infantilism that really lies behind the 'need' for a God?".

[1.7.5]IF science now and forever, by its adherent voices, will always refuse to save the soul, because the soul is nothing, and is non-existent, then we infants need a God to save us, and even save the openly and admittedly soul-less science. IT IS A DISAPPOINTMENT IN SCIENCE ADVOCACY. They are a group that will *forever* deny the ability of saving a soul beyond the body, that we are all just dead animate matter, for the short moment of living. Quantum physics will never explain why wave functions collapse (and uncollapse in quantum eraser experiments) in this universe, based in the *spiritual-immaterial-untouchable-structural-analytical-informational-configurations* of the material universe causing a soulful transcendental wave function collapse / uncollapse, that happens infinitely faster than the speed of light. But there is no supernatural soul, in that supernatural soul, both, and neither, and denied. So science will always fall short for now and forever, never admitting the soul into science reality. And they declare we are without God, so therefore we are all dead men walking, and so then what is the point and meaning in any life, I ASK? For in 1000 billion years, when all stars have died, and all life everywhere is dead and frozen in the ashes of the galaxies, than what *was* the meaning and purpose of the quintillions of universal lives, and the exact purpose of a vowed dead and frozen science?

[1.8] Addendum, a "Ghost in the Shell" back hack.

"Ghost in the Shell":
"Ko'kaku kido'tai":
"Navigation=nuclear-core machine=mobility=task-force-organization":
"Stand-Alone Complex":
Season 1: Episode 12, Title:

[Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana]
"{映画}{監督} の 夢 -
たちこま の {家岀}."

[Romanji of Kanji-Hiragana On-kun reading]
"{} {kan.toku} no yume(mu) -
Tachikoma no {}"

[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana radicalized transliteration]
"{sun=big=sun cover=field=receptacle} {retainer=overview=dish on-top-of=eight=hook=right-hand=eye} (is-of-possessive) plants=eye=cover=death=evening -
Tachikoma (is-of-possesive) {roof=place=boar=household sprout=border}"

[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana transliteration]
"{reflecting picture} {warden supervisor}'s dream -
Tachikoma's {household emerge}."

[Middle English translation]
"Tachikoma's {Home Leaving-of} -
{Projection-Picture} {Director}'s Dream."

[English translation]
"Tachikoma {Runs Away}, -
The {Movie} {Director}'s Dream."

"a stand alone episode,

========[[ [Human (Ren' | Jin)] Major Mokoto Kusanagi: ]]
>[Salvation in The Kingdom of Heaven (Wang'Guo' Tian-Tang' Zheng?Jiu` | O'koku Tengoku Tamashii no kyu'sai)] isn't a bad idea, but all [life show is (Sheng-Huo'Ming` Sheng`Kuang` | Sei.inochi.katsu Sei.kyo')] fundamentally transitory, or at least it should be.
>But a [life show eternal (Sheng`Kuang` Yong?Jiu? | Sei.kyo' Ei.kyu')] without a beginning or end, that only keeps the [saved (Ren' Zheng?Jiu` | Jin Tamashii no kyu'sai)] fascinated, and never lets them go?
>It's harmful, no matter how wonderful you may have thought it was.

========[[ [Eternal Lord (Yong?Jiu? Shen'Ling'Yang` | Ei.kyu' Kami.rei.sama)] V.R. Director, Kannazuki: ]]
>My, you're a tough critic!
>Are you saying then, that there is a reality, that we in the [saved (Ren' Zheng?Jiu` | Jin Tamashii no kyu'sai)], ought to return to?
>For some people in the [Kingdom's saved (Wang'Guo' Ren' Zheng?Jiu` | O'koku Jin Tamashii no kyu'sai)], misery is waiting for them the instant they return to reality.
>Can you accept responsibility for depriving those people of their dreams?

========[[ [Human (Ren' | Jin)] Major Mokoto Kusanagi: ]]
>No, I can't.
>But dreams have meaning for you *because* you are fighting for them within reality.
>Doing nothing but projecting yourself into [salvation (Zheng?Jiu` | Tamashii no kyu'sai)] is the same as being dead.

========[[ [Eternal Lord (Yong?Jiu? Shen'Ling'Yang` | Ei.kyu' Kami.rei.sama)] V.R. Director, Kannazuki: ]]
>I see you're a realist.

========[[ [Human (Ren' | Jin)] Major Mokoto Kusanagi:] ]
>If a romantic is someone who escapes from reality, then yes.

========[[ [Eternal Lord (Yong?Jiu? Shen'Ling'Yang` | Ei.kyu' Kami.rei.sama)] V.R. Director, Kannazuki: ]]
>Such a strong woman you are.
>If the reality you believe in ever comes to be, call me.
>When it does, I will leave [Heaven (Wang'Guo' Tian-Tang' | O'koku Tengoku)].

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0700
UPDATED [3] AD 2008 06 12 P 07:30

[3] [Evolution design theory].

[3.1] In [the beginning].
[] [Big Bang] to [Fusion of Elements] - [Natural Complexity] from [Natural Simplicity].
[The big bang] generated [basic elements, hydrogen and helium]. [Gravity] formed [1[stars] in [2[an element reprocessing] and [enriching series] of [stellar generations]2] over [large periods of time]1]. Within [1 each [nebula cloud] to [stellar generation]1], there occurs [fusion element transforming nuclear forces], producing [1 [ever more element enrichment] in [stars and supernova nebulas]1] which in turn produce [1 [ever heavier element bearing] [2[interstellar bodies] and [stars]2]1]. [This fusion reprocessing] assists [1[the increasing elemental complexity] of [the universe]1] all by [natural means]. [The design] is all of [1[inherent uniform universal impersonal assembly modalities] that are all [2[3[hidden within] and [coming from]3] [3[the natural physics] that was [initially setup]3]2]1].

[] [[Jets] and [Watches]] from [[the natural arrangements] of [simpler parts]].
For example, [U238] formed [1[naturally] from [simplicity]1]. [U238] has [1[92 protons], [146 neutrons], and [92 electrons] in [18 organized nesting shells]1]. [U238] is [an example] of [1[complexity] arising [naturally] from [simplicity]1]. [1[It] is [a blind watchmaker]1], assembling [something quite complex], through the means of [a tornado of energy flow] inside of [1[a fusing star] and then [a stellar supernova]1]. [U238] is much like [the quintessential Creationist's idea] of [1[a tornado] assembling [a jumbo jet] from [a graveyard of parts]1], or [1[a Swiss watch] coming from [shaking a bag of gears and cogs and springs]1]. And yet, [1[U238] [arises and exists naturally]1] as much as do, [1[Fe55], [C12], [Au197], and [all other atomic elements]1], all in [1[2[a whole family] of [92 set elements]2] of [natural finely tuned watches]1], that all [1[come into existence] from [nothing more mysterious] than [concentrated simplicity]1]. [1[Stars] too [assemble themselves] from [blind forces]1], all not necessarily requiring [1[2[God's eternal minding] of [the gravitational pull]2] of [2[a large collection] of [Hydrogen and Helium atoms] that are [scattered all over space]2]1]. [The design] is all of [1[inherent uniform universal impersonal assembly modalities] that are all [2[3[hidden within] and [coming from]3] [3[the natural physics] that was [initially setup]3]2]1].

[] [God's Intervention] considered separate from [His Created Spaces of Physics] - all that is [observed] on [the large scales].
At [this point] there is [nothing] that is [1[apparently specially interventionally controlled] by [additional interventional forces] coming from [outside of the physics] ever since [the Big Bang event]1]. That is, there is [nothing apparently occurring outside] of what is [1-[2[the forces] of [His natural physics] that were setup [at time zero]2]; which are the workings of [2[gravity potential energy pressure], [massive fluid dynamics], [nuclear reactions], and [initial simple and basic atomic elements]2], all occurring, in order to make [2[the natural factories] that [produce these complex atomic elements]2]-1]. [1 [One] [2[sees] and [can demonstrate]2]1] only what is [1-[2[a natural purity] of [3[purely natural complexity] arising from [purely natural simplicity]3]2], where [2[the physics] is of [God's creation]2], but which is not of [2[God's continual intervention Himself], as [a separate being] from [the creation of lower things]2], but which is more of [2[3[a Buddhist] or [a Hindu] concept 3] of [3[the intrinsic forces flowing] within and through [all things]3]2]-1]. Rejecting [that latter posit] indicates that [the design] is all of [1[inherent uniform universal impersonal assembly modalities] that are all [2[3[hidden within] and [coming from]3] [3[the natural physics] that was [initially setup]3]2]1].

[] [The Elemental God] is [disputed], not [The Separate Being God].
NOTE: Though [1[I disagree strongly] of, and about, [2[a science] without [a soul]2]1], yet [1[at the same time], [I fail myself]1]. With [1[not those God theories], that [2[call God] as [a being]2]1], but [that] which also goes further as to [1[call God] as [all of the forces] like [fusion], [gravity], [matter], [lightning], [rain], and [life]1], which is at [1[the point] where [I fail myself]1]. [I] find that [it] is like declaring, [1[Zeus], [Jupiter], or [Thor] make [lighting happen]1]. And more than [that], [it] is [1[polytheistic] where in [2[all of the forces] with [no clear distinction of boundaries]2] have [a god for each force and modality] covering [2[earthquakes], [volcanoes], [weather], [lightning], [floods], [fusion], [gravity], [so-called accidents], [life forms], [molecular binding in life], and [human deforming mutations], to whit [name a few]2]1]. [It] makes [all people] merely components of [1[His Body] filled with [the pitfalls of His Natural Body] and [distortions of physical perceptions] bound to [His Body's perception modalities]1] that all [1[try and test] of [the small wisp of Self] that [we all have] also arising from [His Body]1]. Rejecting [that latter posit] indicates that [the design] is all of [1[inherent uniform universal impersonal assembly modalities] that are all [2[3[hidden within] and [coming from]3] [3[the natural physics] that was [initially setup]3]2]1].

[] [The Elemental God] is [by most people of Monotheism] to be considered as [animism] that is not compatible with [The Monotheist Separate [One Being God] religions], rejecting in most part [the old ways].
[It] is much like [1-[2[a scientific child] of [centuries ago]2] when holding up [2[a piece of amber] that is [fur charged] (amber in the Greek ήλεκτρον = "electron")2] when trying to [2[explain and demonstrate] that [it] is how [lightning forms]2]-1], that which then makes [1=[2[the religious leaders] of [the times] to [say]2], firstly, [2- where for do [3[4 you dare speak 4] this [4[heresy] against [the God-of-Lightning]4]3], just have [3[faith in God-of-Lightning] for [your complete and whole prosperity] along with [every other God]3], and stop [3[fooling yourself] with [4[such difficult so-called wise ideas of yours], of [the material plane]4]3]-2], and then continue saying, [2= for if [3 [you persist and continue] in [such thoughts]3], then [3-[4[The God of Lightning] will [cast you down]4] for [4[creating a disturbance] in [the body of the-God-of-Lighting]4], and [the God-of-Lighting] will [4[destroy you] for [5[being foolish] in [the wise ways of men]5]4]-3]=2]=1]. Rejecting [that whole posit] indicates that [the design] is all of [1[inherent uniform universal impersonal assembly modalities] that are all [2[3[hidden within] and [coming from]3] [3[the natural physics] that was [initially setup]3]2]1].

It is a God, sometimes seen today, that is merciful, but always holds the penalties of death and eternal separation and suffering, as a secret means, an instrument, to make, even coerce, you to "freely" come to His compassionate ways (with irony in this context). I, nor science, can deny God, or at the least a spiritual plane of experience, going by human simple senses. I simply think, God doesn't have to interfere with physics, to allow the same things to happen, as they appear to happen, naturally, in this universe, and that humans' traditions tend to overextend their thought on what they think they know of how God is actually involved on a daily basis with the material plane. It doesn't deny that God created the forces as they are, and that the universe is His body, and that it runs as designed, but that the design, once set into motion, doesn't require additional interactions to make things occur. The only true act of creation is the Big Bang, and from there, it is the works of the material plane, separate from God, as much as it came from God. God doesn't need to intervene every time two people have sex for the biochemistry to work. God doesn't need to intervene every time a mitochondria produces units of molecular energy. And God doesn't need to intervene to produce massive tons of heavy elements in the growth and supernova of stars to make Lithium through Uranium. They "simply happen" as a natural part of complexity arising from simplicity, quite naturally from the rules of the game started at the Big Bang formation of the physics of the universe.

[3.2] Chemistry folds back on itself in increasing complexity like folding a *processing* taffy
In a fluid environment, on a element enriched planet, circling a star giving it light, which makes for an energy open system, one finds there has formed quite natural catalytic chemistries, that have built on themselves in layers of catalytic chemistries, building new species of chemicals up in natural energized hierarchies, through molecular concentrations and the most durable and flexible diverse chemistries, over time. The molecules that formed,, autocatalytic, and hypercycle catalytic reaction chains, and networks,, that they naturally formed a backbone of many and naturally diverse sets of self sustaining chemical reaction systems. Thus, systems with the longest lived, most numerous, and most reaction facilitating molecular units, enriched a concentrated chemical environment of their own prosperity, over chemicals without prosperous ways. Complexity, once again, is seen springing forth naturally, from simplicity, without God being considered the matrix of chemical reactions done daily.

[3.3] Combinatorial chemistry reaches for self control.
Organo-chemical elements of memory, interconnect, amplification, control, interactions, and programs, began to form, and combinatorially interact, in the quite natural, and ever increasing combinatorial chemistry matrix. Catalytically productive forms of programs dominated the soup's products, and complicated themselves in the hierarchies of catalytically related models that generated numbers, durability, and utility, in the matrix of networked catalytic chemical processes. All other reactions that lead "unprosperously", declined in their own numbers in the face of the feedback loops of the cooperative catalytic combinatorial chemistry.

The more time space invariant programs, found in enduring numbers, over short lived sparse programs, additionally acquired basic processing structures in exploring their own related chemical species, and allowing programmed catalyzation in digital forms that are ever more enduring, and found in multiplied numbers, over lesser prosperous chemical exploration programs of chemistries.

[3.4] Digital combinatorial chemistry takes control with polymers.
Program chemical interactions intersect with new molecules of lipid, protein, and proteinoid interactions, to form sheets and cells in semi-digital organic reaction domains. Reactions begin to develop more digital associations with RNA fragments. New catalytic codes dominate on RNA products in permutations of feedback, memory, and control effects. Likewise RNA and protein programs begin to develop associations with basic fragments of DNA machines, and proliferate the best DNA processing modules, in permutations mixing for models with numbers, durability, and facility of reactions. For those with prosperity and inherent wisdom in their own numbers, over others without natural "wisdom" in their codes of reactions.

[3.5] The first cells of life.
Basic DNA, RNA, and protein associated programs develop associations in growing DNA modules, and proliferate. First life may be considered as occurring here, as a micro bacterial level of life form. All formed through natural coded functions in numbers, environmental strength, and function, using the lipid bubbles to promote a greater stability reaction unit that can travel like pollen, and grow equilibrium numbers.

[3.6] Multi-cellular life.
Evolutionary forces continue, sometimes facing catastrophes, but throughout, surviving in some forms of life, always through numbers, durability, and robust fitness in their chemical and mutual-other-cellular domains. Some life forms group and interact in ways characteristic of macroscopic life forms, that prosper naturally when together in cooperative reaction groups, over others that survive alone, or perish alone. Numerous collections of multiple cells begin sharing cooperative efforts of survival, reproduction, and exploration in multitudes of new forms of cellular groupings. Very soon, as the quintillions of parallel oceanic codes, over millions of generations, worked themselves out into these new higher form configuration codes, so that now one sees an explosion of multi-cellular life, with numerous body designs, flourishing and competing for efficiency, survival, reproduction, and numbers, over other colonies.

[3.7] Individual and social thoughts blossom into the future.
Eventually macroscopic animal life acquired macroscopically active and abstract, individualistic thought. These thoughts increase in complexity, until agent processing and abstraction technologies springing from life, eventually allows the creation of new / novum "top-level" life that is macroscopically designed and built, using macroscopic and microscopic mechano-chemical systems, most notably using machines, integrated circuits, inorganic mechano-chemical nanotechnology, and organic genetics of past life projected to its limits. The things are created using all of the prior abstract and scientific thought, and precise intelligent chemical system design, coming from the designing, computing, and building machine and life domain. The technology is all used to go back down into the microscopic invisible domain of existence, to efficiently achieved by intelligent design methods, the new machines of life forms. New forms of biological life are created, approximating predictable future stable life forms, and done long before animal centric evolution competition would normally create, or that might never occur due to time limitations in a competitive cooling and naturally disruptive universe, with evolution occuring around more naturally exxisting slow macroscopic life trying to persist through time.

[3.8] Definitions.
----Combinatorial chemistry - a system of chemistry, where every reaction between every specie of chemical in a mix is considered. Say for an initial early mix of 1,000 chemical species of natural molecules, there are a potential 1,000,000 reactions that can occur (or more with multi-modal state chemical species exposed to energies). Some reactions build things up. Some reactions tear things apart. Some reactions support themselves alone. Some reactions cyclically support each other in rings. Some reactions network cyclically support each other in networks of reactions.

----catalysis - a chemical specie that facilitates the reaction rate of another reaction by reducing the energy required for the reaction, and thus increasing the forward reaction rate, and equilibrium concentration. For example, a1 + a2 --> A at a low rate, naturally, but a reusable catalysts B that isn't part of the reaction makes the reaction more efficient. Schematically, a1 + a2 --B--> A, where B merely assists the reaction by lowering the energy of production, but B isn't consumed in the reaction.

----complexity increasing naturally - combinatorial chemistry feedback in an energy-open chemical-system has natural complicating posiblities, like the ocean exposed to sunlight, where energy from sunlight allows new chemical products to form, that would not otherwise exist, if say, frozen cold in an energy closed system. And when new chemical species form, this only allows more potential reactions to occur that couldn't have occurred before the new energy supported chemical species existed. This expands the chemical species, and in the multiplication-product of a reaction matrix, grows with the square of the number of chemical species. For 100 species there's 100 * 100 = 10,000+ potential reactions at night. With sunlight, it may be 20,000+ potential species allowed. Then of those 20,000 potential reactions, 900 new species of chemicals may persist. Then one has 100 + 900 = 1,000 chemical species. The matrix of all inter-actions shows that there's now 1,000,000 reaction species at night, or 2,000,000 under sunlight. Of this, there may be 9,000 new chemical species products formed in numbers, by allowing sunlight energizing of 2,000,000 nodes. This then means that there's 1,000 + 9,000 = 10,000 chemical species. In the matrix, there can now be 10,000 * 10,000 potential chemical species reactions or 100,000,000 reactions at night, and 200,000,000 in daylight. Of these there may be 90,000 new species of the 200,000,000 reaction nodes. This gives 10,000 + 90,000 = 100,000 chemical species. It's matrix allows 10,000,000,000 reaction nodes at night and 20,000,000,000 reactions in the light. This loop goes on nearly ad-infinitum, until the chemical species are as numerous as a liter of solution containing, say, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, that saturates with millions of chemical species both unique, and numerous enough for reactions.

----chemical reproduction - an auto-catalytic chemical reaction that allows duplication of a molecule. For example, a1 +a2 + a3 -- A --> A, is a schematic of an auto-catalytic chemical reproduction, where A isn't consumed, and allows another copy of A to form.

----Hypercycle reaction chain - a catalytic chemical reaction chain that is looped back on itself with mutually supporting reaction products. For example, if one schematically has:
b1 + b2 -- A --> B,
c1 + c2 --B --> C, and
a1 + a2 -- C --> A, where
a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2 are commonly available persistent base species,
then the equilibrium level of A, B, C are increased in this feedback loop. Chemicals that are not part of a chain reaction simply reach their own natural forward reaction equilibrium concentration.

----Hypercycle reaction network - a set of chemical reaction hypercycles that overlap and/or feed back into each other. For example, when one schematically has:
b1 + b2 -- A --> B,
c1 + c2 --B --> C,
a1 + a2 -- C --> A,

e1 + e2 -- D --> E,
f1 + f2 -- E --> F,
d1 + d2 -- F --> D,

b1 + b2 -- D --> B,
e1 + e2 -- A --> E,

a3 + a4 -- F --> A, and
d3 + d4 -- C --> D, then
there are two hypercycle reaction chains for A, B, C, and D, E, F. There are also two catalytic reactions supporting each other between the two feedback loops helping produce more B, E. Finally, there are additional inter hypercycle feedback loop chemical reactions that *cooperatively* produce more products A, D for each other, using some of the very involved products found between the two loops. All of these reactions for a cooperative chemical system that help their own products proliferate, and once started up, have a degree of self organized stability in their feedback loop strength.

----digital chemistry - a chemistry of reactions based on polymers of essentially digital modular molecular species, so that reactions facilitated by the polymers, can be closely related to their digital polymer code. DNA, for example, has 4 coding chemicals in general living nature. These can form into chains that are numerical in nature, and each chain number code has its own chemical reaction properties. For a chain 4 units long there is 4 * 4 * 4 * 4 = 256 chemical *codes*. When a supportive chemistry exists with these polymers, such as a hypercycle reaction network, the relative ease of a polymerization allows the many codes to be easily explored because of their digital character nature, and the products involved with a feedback strength will increase their numbers. This is because some codes will have a naturally existing hypercycle chain and/or network, and so will react well, while other polymer codes will react less well. The ones with superior qualities of supporting their own cooperative system of reactions, in easy combinatorial code exploration, will become more numerous, over the less fit reactions in the matrix. One of the best of the digital chemical polymers, are amino acids that have more than 20 common digital forms, and can form polymer chains of those numbers, having unique reaction characters or properties over their three dimensional polymer form with sites of hydrophobic or water repelling, hydrophilic or water attracting, fatty, polar or having an electric charge difference, and neutral or unreactive, character. These chemistry promoting properties, relatively easily forming into chains, mean that numerous varieties of reactive three dimensional molecules can be formed.

----self organizing systems - a system that self creates and supports itself from its own nature of durability, numbers, and effectiveness to the environment.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0750
UPDATED [2] AD 2008 06 13 A 0245
[2] Intelligent design theory.

[2.1] The end times final temple of Man.
A crystalline form was fabricated by humans, at the atomic level, with macroscopically controlled microprobes, coated with programmable forcing and forming microscopic hands, which worked at assembling the crystalline form, from a mechano-chemistry fluid. Carefully encoded within the crystalline forms of numerous micro-structures was a living control program, feeding from light and electricity, that strikes the crystalline form.

[2.2] Humanity and life in a sea of glass.
A human looking at the finished crystalline form, would see spectral patterns of light and a material surface both with incredible complexity, forming and changing in psychedelic shapes, on the crystalline form. The crystal structures can be seen by the light that strikes the form. The crystal's micro-patterns translate and manipulate and live, through a labyrinthine control, process, scatter, absorption, and reemission of light, and electricity, all according the state of the inner crystalline structure's control programs. The entire crystaline form serves as a sensoria and mind of the light world, and it can turn pitchblende black when concentrating on observing the light of the cosmos striking it, and can turn into a surface of shimmering colorful laser light when expressing masses of information to the universe. When in near pitch black and absolute zero, the crystalline programs can still operate by transferring all of their operations, into the random vibrations of its particles, working within the low energy quantum states, that are used for producing coherent information flow, and is facilitated by any external photon excitation. In more temperate climates when a wisp of energy and good matter can be used, the surface of the form can programmably grow a surface with multicatalytic properties, and can generate a film of mechano-chemistry fluid for interacting with the materials around it. This allows interfacing with organic chemistries, or machines, or crystalline form generated circuits and micro forms.

(try magnifying color patterns, while viewing on an LCD flat screen, to read the secret text pattern below human visibility!)

At the "end of time", this crystalline form was all that remained of all humans and life on earth, that once circled a burning star, now long ago frozen cold, and thrown out of the galaxy, and into the void, back when humans once roamed the galaxy, casting out the solar system by a set of human controlled chaotic orbit controls, between the solar system with other galactic stars, and dances with double stars, bringing the whole solar system in tow. It was done to throw the solar system clear of the chaos of the galaxy once galactic material powers became too sparse for generating any new useful solar system galactic orbit navigating control.

[2.3] Humanity traverses the cold dark cosmos.
The crystalline form in this end times, is now in a space navigating robust planet surface landing and takeoff vehicle body. It circles several cold white dwarfs including the sun's cold white dwarf remains, and some neutron star cores, new large planets, and other solar system bodies, that were all collected into the solar system, back when the solar system once orbited the milky way galaxy. Frozen supplies outposts, setup when the universe was still warm, including the most ancient root of the earth and moon, now orbit the remains of Jupiter. The outposts are used to help extend the crystalline forms emergency operations, into the voids of endless intergalactic space and time. Now, along with occasional bursts of light in a celestial collision or light communication, the crystaline form's vehicle body uses sparse chaotic thrust dialing orbits to navigate the known solar system, and to sense the state of the universe, in the motions around the solar system, in thousands of years of observations. The crystalline form periodically engages landing for supplies tucked in the orbits around Jupiter, in the billions of years in cyclic schedules. The bodies of the solar system also are all chaotically controlled, using additional small controlling asteroidal bodies, carefully orbiting around the known solar system, and causing slight critical nudging configuration alterations at key Lagrangian saddle orbit bifurcation control points. The old earth around Jupiter, can no longer be landed on, as all of it’s machines have lost power, and the available solar system supplies are insufficient to get back off the planet, by the deepness of time in an increasingly cold universe. All that can be done is to look at the earth in the most feeble cold light, or by shining laser light and microwaves on it from the vehicle, as the crystaline form's vehicle body passes by earth.

From the point of view of today's material world, it is semmingly so different from the tracts of careless mindless happier times spent in sunlight and warmth, with biochemistry, and bodies per-se, and with terrifying periods of wars and genocides.

It turned out, by science that universe transmigration technology, to reach other universes or other parts of this universe, completely and utterly failed in the times of sunlight, to break the bonds of the travel limiting universe, and so now all humans and life are shunted in the living pattern of the program in the crystalline form, looking for salvation, from outside of what was seen in witness, and looking for an unlikely better time to occur, at a point hoped to be certain. but seemingly indeterminable. by all humans in the crystaline sea of glass. All life of the ancient-past universe has frozen and never heard from again, except for humanity, and the dragons which still orbit the milky way, producing the observations of faint communications, and their implied motions, in the now-distant milky way stellar, seen through rare frozen stellar collision event evidence.

[2.4] Man's reach almost spanned the galaxy when there was light.
Humans, long before the crystalline form, once traveled throughout the galaxy, and even found other similar life forms in many places in the galaxy. The nearly immortal dragons, were of note, swarming the spaces between the stars of the milky way galaxy. As the end of time approached, humans around the last of the burning stars, launched their last forms, with hoards of necessary materials, including planets, and even stars, back into the home solar system that all humans came from. Then humanity carefully ejected the solar system, under human control. No other life was so interested in living, and so froze to their ends throughout the fading galaxy

It was unfortunate, humans couldn't modulate the stars of the entire galaxy, in high enough density during this time, to have created an entire milky way galactic oasis or stellar orbit order, in enough time for the solar system, but it was shown that controlling all of the stars simultaneously, so the heavy solar system would always remain safe from accidents, proved to be beyond frail humanity with the rapidly failing light of the stars over the billions of years of last light.

If only a black hole ring could have been produced or found, useful life-time could have been dilated exponentially into the future, with the crystalline form vehicle body living in the greatly time slowed dilated center axis orbit carefully running through the black hole ring outside of the event horizon.

[2.4] Now the solar system drifts away from the Milky Way into the safe void of space.
In the after human time, all other life became extinguished, lacking all genetic preservation technology in the frozen cold of the end of time, and only dragons remained in the galaxy, feeding off the energy of interactions made possible through communications of chaotic orbits that collect matter and take mometum energy from double stars through chaotic navigating orbits. Some dragons are the size of mountains, and never land on anything larger than small asteroids. All have detailed and corroborated maps of the entire galaxy in space and time, and orchestrate their travels, and keep the galaxy in some measure of order for their travels by minimizing stellar and black hole collisions, and preventing star losses from the galaxy completely. The dragons are always traveling, and catching up with other dragons in communications. Some dragons have watched that little solar system of humanity, leaving the galaxy, to the edge of the void, thinking about those humans that they once met, billions of years ago, and wondering about those people with a [stone | rock | Petra] root. That solar system, perhaps, being a dragon in its totality, as some dragons believe, that is the size of a solar system, and trying to survive in the frozen universe, appearing to be without salvation outside of humans' plans, along with themselves as dragons.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0705
AD 2008 09 15 P 0800 added dragon icon


[4.1] Opening verse.
THE [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
[DRAGON’S-ryu tatsu doragon-yong-long/ lao~han..fu..-draekoon-drakoneem]
[OROBORO-wa shuki-panji wonhyong-huan/ xun/huan/-krikos keklos-taba’at zahav makhzor hadam]
[OPENS-saita-p’in-shen=kai=de-anoigoo-leefko’akh’eynayeem leefto’akh].

THE [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
[DRAGON’S-ryu tatsu doragon-yong-long/zhong= long/-draekoon-drakoneem]
[OROBORO-wa shuki-panji wonhyong-huan/ xun/huan/-krikos keklos-taba’at makhzor]
[CLOSES-tojiru-kamtta-wu/shi..-kleinoo-khat’akh lee’yeydey gemar].

[4.2] Good cooperates with good, evil disperses with evil.
One to be with [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
creates a force of [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah].

One to be hated of the world,
for [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
creates a force of [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah].

The [enemy-tekigun-cho~k-di/ren/di/-echthros-oyveem],
of one’s [enemy-tekigun-cho~k-di/ren/di/-echthros-oyveem],
makes them one’s friend,
when wise.

So [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
forms [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah]
with [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
even if they split,
in the course of time,
when wise,
even as [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
forms [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah]
with [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah],
when they split,
in the course of time,
when scheming.

[unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah]
that builds with itself,
is greater than [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
that destroys itself,
even as it destroys the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
because the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
can see the [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
approaching at that time,
and forms [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah],
when wise.

[4.3] Individuality with goodness is acceptable. Individuality with evilness is dispersion.
Individuality with [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
is [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
because [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
is of the same common heart,
when wise.

Individuality with [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
makes [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
because [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
is facilitated to be destroyed in [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
because [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
is of its own many split confusion ways
when scheming.

[4.4] Good, be wiser than the evil.
observe [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..],
but do not become one, with [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah],
do not form [unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah]
with [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah].

[unity harmony-Cho=wa-Chohwa-Qia..rong/qia..-enarmonizoo-Akhdoot harmonyah],
though however, can sleep drowsy in ambivalence,
allowing [evil-aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah]
to decay the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov].

So vigilance is required,
by the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
in the battle against [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah].

[4.5] The dynamics of these differential equations, triumph under man, under a hands off God.
In this way,
the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
is [maximized-saidai ni suru-ch’oedaehwahada-shi~ zeng=jia dao.. zui..da.. xian..du..-aeksanoo ston anootato-merav makseemoom],
in the time when God respectfully allows [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-Oiranos-ra’ah],
in the time when also allowing all [Free will-Kettei suru-Kyo~lsshimhada-Jue/ding..-Khofesh dror lehakhleet],
to enter His [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
containing the evolving forces destroying the [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos--ra’ah],

[4.6] Man must be vigilant under a hands off God.
Do not let the illusions,
of man’s laid out myths and legends,
to then distract you,
or make you ambivalent,
away from the [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov],
or this world confusion will persist forever,
as [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-Oiranos]
cannot be forsaken,
in the time when God respectfully allows [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos--ra’ah] ,
in the time when also allowing all [Free will-Kettei suru-Kyo~lsshimhada-Jue/ding..-Khofesh dror lehakhleet],
to enter His [Good-Tengoku-Tok-Tian=-Oiranos-Tov]
containing the evolving forces destroying the [evil-Aku-ak’an-huai..-chachos-ra’ah].


================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 P 1140
[5] Light and darkness.

[4.1] Traditions of Man.
You hear it often said, that you can't have light without darkness. But if light permeates all things, then there is lighter and darker, and there is no real darkness at all. The failure of light to fully saturate and permeate all things, is the only thing making relative darkness.

[4.2] Darkness has in it the light and lightness has in it the dark.
Now, for things that merely reflect true light, there is an interesting flip. What is dark - takes the light in and holds on to it, and what is light - repels the light away as fast as possible. So one could honestly say that real white power flows in the darkness. Like the warmth of light in a dark stone, or the magic of human thought, that simply reprocesses the chemical energy from sunlight, inside of the dark mind. It is strange how humans' relative words can be made to change and tumble, across times and spaces, with just a readjustment of perspective.


================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 P 1150
[6] A better world is too merciful, easy, and Utopian, for All Powerful God.

[6.1] Utopian world potential in imagination.
Imagine God creates a world where humans never die. And imagine, if one sins, God gives us all the spirit sense of pain and sickness, but not unto death. And imagine, if one sees someone in pain and sickness, God gives us all the spirit sense of a hunger to help those ill by feeding them the word, and broadcasts it such that the sicker the person in sin is, the more people gather around that one in congregation, in holy mass, to teach the sick to heal their wounds by feeding them the word of God. And imagine, if the sick are healed, God gives them all the sense of appreciation and happiness, as well giving those doing the healing the feeling of love and fullness of spirit.

[6.2] The real world, there's no free lunches, with the All Powerful Father God YHVH.
But that would be all too easy for God, who loves complexity and confusion. Instead, God gives us a hunger for physical water. God gives us a hunger for physical food. God gives us a hunger for physical power. God gives us a sense of pain, if we are hit by a physical rock. God gives us the sense of revenge, when we see our murdered friends and family. Our senses go on in crooked ways for all humans. All because we are made in the image, the archtype, of God: Genesis 1:26.

[6.3] If Utopia is too Utopian for God, a critic could go even further.
In a world, where we are all on death sentences within this world for our sin nature, imperfection short of God-hood, and some might say Utopia under God is too Utopian, why didn't God make the world even worse, so we are truly closer to God? Some say, if God made the world more Utopian like in [6.1], we wouldn't appreciate good for the evil missing, even though Utopia would have its pains and pleasures in relative shift upwards. If that be the case, and the earth is already a prison planet, where we are all on death sentences within the world for being sinful and imperfect, then why doesn't God make the world a concentration camp? Everyone would be in a prison like in Nurenberg, or Buchenwald, where everyone is kept in horrible conditions for our dirty rags sinful nature, and we would truly feel closer to God and appreciate the good, for the additional evils of the world, like in a Nazi State.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 P 1150
[7] For an all powerful God, we, His children, are not His responsibility.

[7.1] The finite reality under an all powerful, all creating God.
It is said by all humans that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and nothing in life is free, and life isn't fair, and that is just the way things are. This is under an "all powerful (omnipotent) God", as preached by man. Even God had to die at the hands of man, because we were such evil workers to God, that He must die, to make us live in John 3:16 ... oh, selfish, selfish humans, toppling the "all powerful God". Even at that, Jesus only paid for the second death of the soul, and not the first death of the body, which has never been paid for. So we are coerced by a God who wants our love freely, by the threat of death and physical pains in life, and accept a mystery of faith, and hope life is true after we die physically.

[7.2] God CAN create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it, called the free will soul that is certain not to perish at the Creator's hands.
This is because God created a stone so heavy, that he couldn't lift it from the universe in time space in a purely good way, in the form of all of the human souls with free will, that He created. He even asked humans to be perfect in one law over infinite time in Genesis 2:17, when they were not perfect in infinite time like God, because they were not a God, themselves, therefore, they were sub-infinite perfect on that law, because they were not God. God couldn't, even wouldn't, create perfection with humans, as it is impossible for God to do so, or at least without teaching us a lesson in His pain, though all of our master planned physical deaths, including Himself. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, in this age of time and space, because he couldn't create perfection and free will and peaceful harmony and love and life, simultaneously, with human souls ... a limitation of the so-called omnipotent God, who is not be able to create something even like a living and a bitter and sweet utopia in [7.1].

[7.3] God cannot create good without creating evil, as all things come from God, and without Him, no thing is created.
He couldn't create good without permitting evil, and he cannot create life without destroying some souls at the end Revelation 20:15. Why is it that a perfect and powerful God couldn't create souls with 100% yield. We sound like a product with a certain defective percentage worth destroying, despite His infinite power to create. For that matter, what will eternal heaven be like in Revelation 21 without tears, sadness, or evil, when He couldn't create it at the beginning, with all power?

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 P 1150
[8] Preachers say the darndest things, like, God doesn't need you!.

[8.1] God doesn't need your help, God is so much more powerful than you!
Preachers in diverse places say: "God doesn't need your help. He is so much more powerful than you, isn't He?" (this is for the sheep of the flock, not the few saints of the church, so the masses of sheep say, "Amen and, Hallelujah!")

[8.2] The Church doesn't need it's parishioners, and will run on its own.
A backhanded critic might say: "When the church degrades, and teaches heresy to the masses, the great numbers of God's main body, the church, doesn't need to feel the need to help God, then, right? Just leave it to those in charge, closer to God, huh?"

[8.3] God says for man to exhort one another to goodness, but there must be exceptions to coming together.
Writers of the Bible say: paraphrase ("Brothers, exhort one another to the good things of God.") Galatian 4:18, Galatians 6:9, Romans 15:1,6,7, 9, 11, 15. 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 3:9, 10, Hebrew 3:13, 10:25

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0815
[9] Some things that are science, but that science cannot explain, all point directly to a transcendent soul.

[9.1] The nature of science.
A science theory has observables. One theory is that there is a metaphysical plane of existence, within the realm of the sensations of sense, in the senses of the body. And science theories have observables that support the same hypothesis coherently, in that you can question people of what they sense, and they all have a common observable nature, that is consistent to the theory in its detailed description.

[9.2] Human color vision.
For example, the colors that most people care able to see are universally observable in their verbal descriptive responses of color ranges matching a theory that humans can see color. And inside of themselves they see a variety of colors, from grays to pastels to vibrant pure colors in a spectrum of versions. They see reds, oranges, yellows, greens, cyans, blues, violets, and purples, and all people with color vision can report these things. But why red is the color that it appears, in the first place, is a question science seemingly cannot answer at all. If you show a computer with a camera connected to it the color red, all the computer senses is [255,0,0], and green would be [0,255,0], and blue [0,0,255], and white [255,255,255], and black [0,0,0]. Of course, a computer can translate that RGB number into hues with names, saturation with color intensity, and intensity with brightness, like [0,255,255] for red, [120,255,255] for green, [240,255,255] for blue, [---,0,255] for white, and [---,0,0] for black. These can even be further translated into names like [red, intense, bright] for red, [red, weak, bright] for pink, [hueless, neutral, bright] for white, and so forth. But these too are just strings of letters. Where in a computer's sense does it see red as redness, and white as whiteness, and so forth? All of it is numerical for a computer. A computer senses the world in a different transcendent way, from the transcendent way that humans sense the world.

[9.3] Human hearing.
Sound is another form of real processing, that can be scientifically observed through universal hearing human reports of pitch and qualities, and fits the idea of a transcendent level of processing, from the human reports of sounds special qualities. Bass sounds deep and mellow, voices are clear and discernable, and violins can be high and sharp. All of this has to do with frequencies of sound waves, but why do sounds sound like they do in the first place? Science can only say that it is metaphysical, because humans sense it one way, and computers metaphysically sense it a totally different way in numbers.

[9.4] Senses in general.
Likewise, touch, pain, pleasure, emotions, smell, taste, all have qualities that are what they are on a metaphysical plane, can be scientifically observed, can be duplicated on computers with their own numerical method of metaphysical sensation, and at the same time, science cannot explain their basic nature, any more than science can explain the human soul purported by all the world's religions. Even words and ideas are part of the metaphysical sense of the world. The word chair, makes one think, or even picture a chair in their mind. A computer can retrieve the concept and picture of a chair too. All science can say is that they are what they are, but what relationship to reality they have, they cannot answer one iota. Science is mute on this transcendental perception of things. So sensations and thoughts, within this collection of atoms interacting, that we call the human body, or a computer machine, are transcendental and metaphysical. The very observation of the separation between matter and mind posited by thinkers such as Descartes centuries ago. You ask a scientist, where is the nature of a sensation or thought in carbon atom A, or neurotransmitter B, or neuron cell C, or brain D, or human E, and they are dumbfounded, other than to say it is separate from matter, but quite observable in the scientific theory. Likewise, they can show a computer the same sensation or thought, and make a printout or display of that very thought, but cannot answer, does the computer see red, or think chair the same way humans do? They are dumb and mute once again, except to say that the computer also metaphysically senses the world in a way where mind or soul or spirit is separate from matter or components or individual. And that the computer, may or may not see things the same way, as the human, or an animal, or dare we say, God?

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0910
[10] Computers can be given free will and soul on the material plane of existence.

[10.1] A computer with free will and soul is something that I have actually made.
Take a computer with a program that makes decisions and learns from its experiences in the world. Run the computer program and expose it to the same sequence of experience, and it will always do the same thing, and end up at the same end state of learning and decisions among choices. Like many Christians or people in general say, from "the traditions of men", a computer only does what it is programmed to do, and I agree with this example. But now add a random number generator that slightly influences its decisions through time. Run that program, and expose it to the same sequence of experience, and it will always do the same thing, and end up at the same end state, though it will be very different in it's internal character, from the random number less, but otherwise identical decision and learning program. Once again, we are stuck, that the computer has no free will, because it does exactly what it is programmed to do. Finally, add a digital camera to the system, and read the noise of the photons of light from some scene, and feed that into the random number generator algorithm. Now when you run the same program over and over to the same sequence of experience, and the computer will end up in totally different internal learning configurations. They are like identical twins who are identical in their original code and experience, but they have their own unique internal identities.

[10.2] The computer is connected to the Light of God.
How does the last model of learning computer suddenly acquire an individuality with free will, and dare we say, a soul, with its own internal character, while learning? The computer is connected to light. According to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, entities like atoms, electrons, and especially photons, are observed to have a completely unpredictable probabilistic path, in time and space. No human on earth can know where exactly a photon of light will go, from one thing, to another. The digital camera senses photons of light, that are unpredictable by all human physics, and takes these quantum fluctuations of light, and magnifies them to the macroscopic scale of the universe, seen in the computer's processing body and it's effects on the universe. Literally, the computer is connected to the Light of God. As such, it has a will that is unpredictable by every human on earth, anywhere, by any physics used. Even science, by attempting to intercept photons, to know what the computer's camera sees, will simply rearrange the photons, into a new unpredictable set of paths, which will send the computer into another new unpredictable path. That is the old, the observer affects the observed effect, especially if science tries to observe the computer's actions' causes. Only a God outside of time, who can know the probabilistic paths of all things, unlike us poor material beings, can know what the computer's free will, will do. So from the frame of reference of the universe and man, the computer has free-will, and an internal learning character, and decisions, that are of it's own doing, that is metaphysical and free from man's knowledge. Much like the free-will soul of man, reported by the world's religions. So the computer's activity leaves the realm of observable science, and enters the realm of probabilistic science. Likewise, the computers learning and decision among choices algorithms in feedback, give the computer an inner character that is metaphysical, where the mind, the soul, or spirit, is separate and unquestionable by science in a repeatable way, unlike the material the computer is made of, which is wholly built on science's data of materials. Every observation is unique, so science cannot truly answer its nature, like UFO reports that are all one offs.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 05 29 A 0910
[11] The unbreakable paradox of an All Knowing God and human free-will.

[11.1] If God Knows all things for Truly, then we are not free from His point of view.
If God knows all things including the entire future in every detail, then humans cannot change their path from His Vision. We would think, inside of time and space that we were making numerous decisions from a set of more numerous choices through time. In fact, our body and brain would really go through all of the processes of making decisions and performing actions. But say that God Saw we were going to decide to do A, B, C, D over a short period of time, and we actually decided to do A, B, C, E, then God would be *surprised* because our actions didn't match His vision. So God's Vision of the future is not something God can really Know for Truth. But, we would have free will from God's Point of View, though we will always be able to make God's Vision lie to God, because God cannot see all things in the future. This cannot be because what God Knows is truth through what God Sees, or else God has imperfect sense of Omniscience. So if God's Vision is Sovereign Truth, and God Sees we are destined to perish, "If I perish I perish." and there is nothing I can do to change it. If God's Vision Sees someone else is destined to Salvation, then if they are saved they are saved, and there is nothing they can do to change that. It is like those movies where someone sees the future like with God's own Vision, and no matter what the characters do, they cannot avoid the reality of the Truth of the Sovereign Truth Vision, no matter what they do. The universe freezes free will that deviates from that destination Truth that is Final, by God.

[11.2] Analogy of Total Omnipotence removing free will from the perspective of the Omniscient.
Image you are a computer programmer who programs a computer machine and world, to behave a specific way. You know ahead of time, exactly what the computer machine program will do when it operates in the future. The computer machine may be quite sophisticated, and believe it is making it's own decision evaluations among choices, and has beliefs about its contexts in time and space. But whatever the computer machine does in time, all of it's actions are exactly known by the programmer, before the computer machine is even started. From the programmer's perspective, the free-will the computer machine believes that it has, in its own process, is all an illusion, because from the first action, to the last action, the programmer will not be surprised by any decision the *robot* makes.

[11.3] God must voluntarily limit His Total Omnipotence, in His Agency of Total Omniscience including the future, in order to give humans free will.
In this age of the universe, an All Powerful God with Total Omnipotence in His True Potential, must actually create a universe where His Vision is actually darkened, or incomplete to all of the details of our activities in the future. God could look into the future in detail if God wanted to, but if God did that, and His Vision is Sovereign Truth, then what God's Vision touches, would *freeze* away our free-will, turning us into robots. So God must have created a darkened universe, dark in His Knowledge of it. God intentionally doesn't know what it will do, and averts His eyes from the universe in detail, much like Midas's Touch was held back from the world. For everything that God Sees becomes Sovereign Truth, and everything Midas Touches becomes Gold. By setting up a darkened and forgotten path universe in God's Mind, God opens up that darkened space to our human free-will, and our free-will doesn't make God's Vision a lie, because God simply hasn't Seen the future in any complete detail. So we are free in the universe from all perspectives. Our destiny is ours, and not constrained by what God Knows is Going to Happen, because God doesn't Know. And God does it by choice, to open up this darkened space from His Mind's ability to Control or Know.

[11.4] Alternative removal of traditions of man.
Another alternative that can be logical about God, is that the human claimed Total Omniscience of God including the future, is literally only a Perfect Knowledge of all things past, and present, but not of the future. In this case, the Total Omniscience of God that includes the future, is only traditions of man's suppositions in ignorance, and not True of God's Sovereignty. This way, God can have a very exacting plan for the future, and always keep things in line with His Plan, but God doesn't, in Sovereignty Truth, Know what the future will be exactly, but His Total Omnipotence Powers allows God to herd humanity toward His Plan, and we all have True free will in all perspectives, and are not computer machine robots, who are utterly programmed to the end of time, and cannot deviate from destiny.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 07 17 P 0900
[12] Abiogenesis chemical evolution.

[12.1] Background.
A natural combinatorial chemistry feedback, in an appropriate open system ocean, with inherent natural reactions and hypercycle catalytic reactions, which, alone, can suffice to create an increasing complexity chemistry that eventually intersects biochemistry, as evidenced by modern life. And an early earth ocean can have a greater amount of dissolved organics and minerals, with no presumed life forms processing the chemicals into their own makeups. It would all be dissolved in the oceans, and washing off the early continents in deltas, lake beds, or tidal mud flats, in evaporative concentrations.

[12.2] Combinatorial chemistry 1.
Now combinatorial chemistry can be generalized to parallel numbers chemistry that combinatorially explores all feasable interactions of all chemical species available in a chemical environment, like an early earth ocean environment with bays, tides, hydrothermal vents, sunlight with or without UV, dark areas deep in the water or under rocks, for protection from UV and sunlight, lightning, pH variation, evaporative concentration, and currents to mix a natural initially inorganic chemical soup with hundreds of minearls, metal ions, etc. in a preorganic molecule soup.

[12.3] Hypercycle catalytic chemistry.
Hypercycle catalytic reactions are subsets of the whole combinatorial chemistry reaction matrix, where, A helps catalyze B helps catalyze C helps catalyze A, from other present chemical species, as an example of a short hypercycle loop of three nodes. Hypercycle catalytic reactions can be loops, and networks, embedded within a normal combinatorial chemistry matrix.

[12.4.a] Combinatorial chemistry 2.
Going back to combinatorial chemistry, let's say in the ocean there's to begin with, 1000 Species of chemicals and chemical inducing factors, S, such as chemicals, photons of light from infrared to UV, radioactive particles in early half life rich early earth materials from its recent supernova formation, different energy free electrons from lightning, mixing currents, and heating and cooling around hydrothermal vents. There is an approximate top level pseudocode (which can be glossed over to reach final math characteristics after the pseudocode) of a differential equation that shows the equilibrium balance of reactions, is:

InitialSpecies = S;
InitialAverageConcentration = 0;
for(s = 1 to S)
InitialAverageConcentration += Concentration{s} / S;
for(s = 1 to S) //how many species in a reaction
__Reaction = array{s elements};
__for(s1 = 1 to s)
____for(s2 = s1+1 to s)
______for(s3 = s2+1 to s)
... //nest to depth of s
______________for(ss = ss-1 to s)
________________if( all sx < sx+1, and all sx != sy) //no repeats
__________________//calculate net chem species present change
__________________//for this specie reaction set for a unit of differential time
__________________NewSpecies{S' set} = F1(Reaction{s1,});
__________________NewConcentration{S + S' set} = F2(Reaction{s1,});
... //nest to depth of s
__FinalSpecies = S + S';
__FinalAverageConcentration = 0;
__for(s = 1 to S + S')
____FinalAverageConcentration += Concentration{s} / (S + S');

[12.4.c] Linguistically, this can be interpreted as, taking 1 to S chemicals at a time, in every combination, to observe reaction rates of current S chemical species, s at a time, to see the effect on all S and possible new S' chemical species generated that were previously not existing before. For example, for two species taken from a given 1000 species, S, we see there is (1/2)*(S^2 - S), or 499,500 Reaction{s1,s2} nodes, with positive or negative reaction rates for existing species S, or new species of S'. That is, say, S1 + S2 might breakdown S1, catalytically by S2, into S3 and S4, and S2 remains untouched. S1 has a negative reaction rate as it breaks down into trace amounts of S1, while S3 and S4 have positive reaction rates, as S1 is turned into S3 and S4, in the presence of S2. On the other hand, say, S1 + S2 helps produce a totally new chemical outside of S, of S'1, by S1 and S2 combining to form S'1. S1 and S2 have negative reaction rates being consumed, as the new S'1 has positive reaction rates. These reaction rates also change in time, as the concentrations used by F1(Reaction{s set}) and F2(Reaction{s set}) calculations, increase or decrease accordingly.

[12.4.d] At the same time, there are more reactions to analyze, continuing with three chemicals in a Reaction{s1,s2,s3} analysis, where there is (1/2)(1/3)*(S^3 - S) or about 167 million reaction nodes. So of these millions of Reaction{s1,s2,s3}, many will have no effects, some will break down or build up products already existing, and others will make new chemical species that never existed before, from the species that exist in the ocean to begin with, S.

[12.4.e] Mathematically analyzing reactant combinations, from s = 1 for single molecule auto-reactions, to s = S, for S species reaction, in total, there are:

ReactionNodes =
+SUM( s=1 to S: of: Factorial(S) / (Factorial(s)Factorial(S-s)) ),

or, equivalently,

ReactionNodes = 2^S - 1 =
+2^1000 - 1 ~=

reaction nodes for 1000 chemical species S, where,

(1) the majority of non-reactions change nothing, (2) some break down species, (3) some build up species, and (4) some generate new chemical species. So starting with 1000 chemical species, with an S' formed out of 10^301 of, say, 1000 new chemical species S' (a conservative rate of 1 in 10^298 being effective stable new chemical species), such that in a year, there can be 2000 species of flourishing chemicals, leading to 10^602 reaction nodes to analyze for all potential reactions at each node, generating, say, 2000 new species of chemicals (at an even more conservative rate of new chemical specie formation). So then after another year there's 4000 chemical species at some concentration, with 10^1204 reaction nodes, generating, say, 4000 new species (even more conservative to the combinations available), added into next year's variation.

[12.5] So one can see an exponential feedback of chemical species, some more robust than others, in numbers, durability, variation, reaction rate selection forces, hypercycle catalytic reproduction, and reactivity, from 1000 to 2000 to 4000 and so on, until there is a low but signifigant saturation of millions of reactive catalytic various chemical species in a gallon of ocean, all competing for the ocean's limited chemical resouces, and giving rise to potential natural metabolic pathways absorbing glucose and photons of light, in complex reaction sets, paths, cycles, and netowrks, that support reproducing hypercycle networks of catalytic chemicals, all inherent and naturally contained, in the combinatorial chemistry feedback matrix growing in time. Presumably, something akin to photosynthesis must have arose early to convert the atmosphere to mostly oxygen, as part of sugar production.

[12.6.a] A Creationist claim would have to show that of the 2^S reaction nodes, in an S chemical specie example ocean, would permit no (zero) new chemical species to form and thus remain in static chemical equilibrium. But given the massiveness of potential in 10^301 reaction combinations in a mixing ocean of a combinatorial chemistry size S in a feedback, if it shows even a very minor positive rate of new chemical species formation, that such a non-zero feedback would provide a numerical backbone to natural blind chemical evolution turning into life, as chemical species reach continually higher levels of complexity and variety, with competition and selection forces, in the combinatorial chemistry in feedback, from the very beginning of chemistry, in robust reactive new molecules, contained in chained catalytic reactions, and with a form of digital chemistry, contained in the discrete chemical species, and in the discrete codes of polymer proteins, RNA, and DNA nucleotide chains, that are eventually intersected by combinatorial chemistry, with a proven positive dS/dt.

[12.6.b] Even just 100 chemicals in an initial energy open system ocean, would allow 2^100, or 10^30 possible reactions, so even small chemical soups start with an inherent potential for new chemical specie feedback growth of complexity, without external guidance being absolute necessity.

BLOG CROSSREFERENCE [3] Evolution design theory. AD 2008 05 29 A 0750

Clay catalyzation of existing RNA base polymerization, and adsorbtion and release characteristics:

Lipid and early combinatorial chemistry protocell theory:

Hypercycle chemistry:

Combinatorial chemistry:



================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 07 17 P 0900
[13] Chinese Han and Japanese Kanji studies.

[13.1] Introduction.
And my studies of Chinese Han and Japanese Kanji, are interesting and challenging, as they are heirarchical languages in meaning where a few strokes in a combination called a radical have some abstract meaning, and then, radicals are themselves, combined to make an ideogram square, and then those ideograms are often combined to make complex new words.

[13.2] Example.
[13.2.a] For example take the english:


[13.2.b] This can be three Han-Kanji ideograms:

[計 | 算 | 機]

[13.2.c] These are roughly translated per ideogram, as:

[計 "idea" | 算 "calculation" | 機 "machine"]

[13.2.d] These are themselves made of radicals segments:

[計 [accent bars and box | cross] |
算 [double lambdas with bars | triple box | two legs with bar]
機 [cross with two dropping branches | E looking mark | E looking mark | bar with swooping right descending hook crossed by left descending slash and accent | left descending slash crossing the bar and side branch on right]]

[13.2.e] The radicals being roughly translated as:

[計 [speech | to-complete] |
算 [bamboo | vision | presenting] |
機 [tree | tiny | tiny | weapon | divines]

[13.2.f] Now in English words, reflecting the cultures, reads roughly:

"an object for 計 [wordings in completion, reminiscent of ideas] which are acted with 算 [bamboo abacus examination and presentation, reminiscent of calculating] in the form of an 機 ["wooden" object with many tiny parts like weapon construction which has operations, reminiscent of machine and performs (divines) things]"

[13.2.g] Seeing the ideograms, one simply thinks "computer" when seeing this hierarchical:

[計"idea" | 算"calculation" | 機"machine"] tri-ideogram-chain.

[13.2.h] Their whole language is couched in such metaphor and abstract thinking, and hierarchical dynamic thinking, with a heavy burden of ancient concepts, brought into the modern world. Like computers could be made of tiny wood machine parts abstract-concretely, like Babbages difference engine machine of metal gears, or Jacquards card loom of wood and wires and cards, but are so much easier to make in silicon and doped circuits on the silicon, today.

================Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 07 17 P 0930
[1] What if there is no God, as Science often says?
[9] Some things that are science, but that science cannot explain, all point directly to a transcendent soul.
[10] Computers can be given free will and soul on the material plane of existence.

[14] Quantum physics self question.

[14.0.0] What are the best scientific theories on why and how in Quantum Physics (QP), there is a real probabilistic wave function collapse, during the measurement event? [14.0.1] I would like to exclude many worlds theories, as they require too much faith in things unseen, when a singular continuum Quantum or String Theory can be presented. [14.0.2] Discussion of hidden variable theories is acceptable, though it undermines the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of probability-wave-functions, with a hidden epicycle field that is unaccessable, though identical to QP CI. [14.0.3] Secondary questions in {14.6.x}, below. [14.0.4] Reference material {14.1.x}, {14.2.x}, {14.3.x}, {14.4.x}, {14.5.x}, {14.8.x}. [14.0.5] Some potential experiment to help clarify some aspects {14.7.x}.

[14.1.0] QP MEASUREMENT makes probabilistic-wave-functions COLLAPSE, at a velocity infinitely-faster than light-speed. ... nhancement.

[14.2.0] QP UNMEASUREMENT makes probabilistic-wave-functions UNCOLLAPSE, at a velocity infinitely-faster than light-speed. [14.2.1] This is seen in Quantum Eraser experiments, where such experiments show that [14.2.1.a] measuring a probabilistic-wave-function, can destroy an interference patterns later in the experimnet box, while [14.2.1.b] measuring and then erasing the bit on memory in mid flight, UNCOLLAPSES the wave function, fully restoring the interference pattern, just as if it were not measured at all in mid-flight. [14.2.2] Although probability wave function collapse / uncollapse occur, no information is communicated, but there is an alteration of collapse / uncollapse probabilities that is instantaneous.

[14.3.0] Measurement is not a material process. [14.3.1] It appears to be best described as a epiphenomenon defined by the configurations of macroscopic matter, creating a measurement-probability-field, that probabilistically defines when, where, and how a probability-wave-function COLLAPSES-or-UNCOLLAPSES. [14.3.2] If there were no measurement potential field, then the epiphenomenon would not exist, and all matter would slowle decohere into probability-wave-functions all taking every possible path at once, even around decision / bifurcation interactions. [14.3.3] But it does exist, and measurements from the macroscale keep the universe mostly focussed down to a small microscale for billions of years, with its macroscopic "inertia of configuration existence".

[14.4.0] John Wheeler, who worked with Einstein and Bohr, was a proponent of there being an epiphenomenal field to all macroscopic existence, known as the "it from bit" idea, that David Chalmers, among others, also teaches of currently. [14.4.1] It can make claims at its theoretical limits, of there being a soul, constructued out of an epiphenomenal measurement matter, cycling and circulating in systems feedback loops of the human material mind structure.

[14.5.0] Richard Dawkins says on nonmaterial epiphenomena, in "The God Delusion", pages 34-35 "[14.5.1] What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff comes [14.5.1.a]{minds, beauty, emotions, moral values} ... [14.5.2] An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes [14.5.2.a]{there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world}, [14.5.2.b]{no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe}, [14.5.2.c]{no soul that outlasts the body}"

[14.6.0] What is the proofs of even deriving a concept like [14.5.1.a]:"beauty, emotions, moral values" from atoms and physics equations, that is real, and not an abstract epiphenomenal psychological description of abstract life? [14.6.1] There appears to be no physics-foundation to run [14.5.1.a] to the ground state of arising from atoms and physics, in a philosophical reductionist paradigm. [14.6.2] In fact, {14.5.1.a} seems to require a philosophical holistic paradigm from the systemic macroscopic scale, and that that opens up the possibility of there being a proveable soul, opposing {14.5.2.c} that there is no soul, for if there is any soul epiphenomena, made from {14.3.x} {14.4.x} measurement epiphenomena field, arising in macroscopic systems of macromatter, then {14.5.2.c} denying the soul, says that atheist Science will never try to save human souls, when no one with that mind set ever wants to see the soul as a structural potential, that might be savable in a temporal-spatially-living material-base-foundation, and so how will "Ghost in the Shell" technology come about through a dead science, if atheist-Scientists never take the first step, and religions fold their hands waiting for salvation from above, and atheist-Science's adhere to a flat-fact denial statement *proving* there is no-soul without proof, to be taken on science's faith, reflecting their atheist-Scientist thinking?

Additional clarification of my initial question:
I believe I can enhance the formulation of my question with an example.

[] Mundane matter of local character can have holistic emergent properties like consciousness created by the systems of matter of processing and action control. [] But on top of this, is an instantaneously correlated set of measurement probability influences, built from simultaneous wavefunction collapses throughout all of the feedback loops and structures of measurement forms, that happen to lie parallel to the macroscopic matter. [] This produces an infinitely faster than light measurement-system-self that co-influences the mundane matter wave function collpases, as the mundane matter affects the infinitely faster than light measurement-system-self. [] So there is a mundane matter self, and an instantaneous measurement system self corresponding to each other but of different character than a pure mundane matter self emergent consciousness.

[] For example in mundane matter, of a mechanical equivalent, one can show the emergent property issue with a computer containing advanced AI, and a camera, that can register (11111111,00000000,000000) which in memory of past obsevations is hue (00111100), and represents the string " 'R' 'E' 'D' ", and the computer can report " 'I' ' ' 'S' 'E' 'E ' 'R' 'E' 'D' ". [] But does the mundane computer *see* "REDNESS" like a human?

[] But if you also include a holistic (whole) quantum measurement layer computer-AI-self, that is parallel to the computer mundane matter, because the computer is made of *instantaneous* matter wave functions and matter measurement structures, both, that perhaps the computer also *literally* may experience "REDNESS" and "LIGHT" like a human does. [] For the mundane matter simply has voltages in a black sealed computer chip, just like humans have neurotransmitters in a black brain case gray matter. [] How does a computer or a human literally perceive light, like I see light when I open my eyes? [] You look inside of a computer, and all you can see is chips with sense and thought voltages that are invisible to human eyes. [] You look inside of a human, and all you see is brain with sense and though chemicals that are invisible to the human eyes. [] Yet when you *are* a human, and perhaps *are* a computer, there is that secondary holistic-whole self that literally sees colors and light in a quantum measurement *instantaneous* self-ness built from the structured quantum measurement structures that lie parallel to the mundane matter-energy, and co-effect the mundane matter-energy as the mundane matter-energy co-affects the quantum measurement self.

[] One example of a simple "holistic systemic measurement self" test would be to build a ring of chained synchronized photons EPR experiments. [] One prime EPR photon polarization measurer leg in the ring has a fixed polarization, and every other EPR end and leg use an algorithm for polarization measurement selection based on the current photon's polarization measurement and the neighboring EPR leg end, e.g. but not limited to XOR leg X right [xor] leg X+1 left. [] The rough idea to be tested is, is there any instantaneous systematic mathematical issues of a properly gated ring, in the probabilities measured at all of the EPR legs? [] No-communication theorem dictates the probabilities will be completely random aligned with the restrictions of the wavefunctions caused by the prime locked EPR, and the algorithms of every other EPR leg coincident polarization measurers / calculators. [7.3.4] But if there is any chaos patterns or non-stationary probabilities, then something additional is occuring, in the synchronous instantaneous wavefunction collapses of the synchronized EPRs in the ring. [] If there is no measureable non-stationary probabilities on all EPR legs, for a properly synchronized EPR ring with algorithms, then there is no "holistic systemic measurement self" present in that experiment, and the idea of a "holistic systemic measurement self" *may* be flawed. [] However, given the nature of using a loop or modifications to the above experiment to create even a full ring feedback, can all instantaneous wavefunction collapses from polarization measurements preserve simultaneous perfect stocastic patterns according to no-communication theorem, or is there a spatial mathematical limitation to mutual perfect stocastic EPR in all possible ring algorithm formations? [] That is, is there any special meta-level mathematics required to assure mutual EPR ring pure stochastic randomness at synchronized instantaneous wavefunction collpases in all forms of rings, to assure there is no coherent or semi coherent holistic self? [] One EPR I can believe, remains perfectly no-communication stochastic, yet instantaneously correlated, but a ring raises instantaneous mathematical QP-field-computation issues that lie deep in the foundation of how the quantum physics Schrodinger Equation evolve in time and at synchronized instantaeous wave function collapses, in EPRs. [] The experiment might be affected by ring size assuring a full ring correlation, but examining only the most properly time gated coincident photons that happen to simultaneously work in all EPR in the ring, and ultra fast algorithm computers on the ring, would assure the right experiement statistics can be collected for analysis of the "holistic systemic measurement self" versus "pure stocastic polarization measurements, indicating a meta-math or indicating a natural Copenhagen Explanation math of how pure sunchronized randomness is preserved.

[] An alternate configuration among all of the configurations that can be explored in an EPR ring, is to daisy chain the calculating EPR coincident photon measurements, in the ring, from the key "locked" EPR polarizer, and around the ring, and finally back to the neighboring EPR ring leg final polarizer, and have that computationally affect the polarization of the key "locked" EPR polarizer, and repeat the experiment with synchronous coincidence control. [] Then, collect data from all single, and multiple instances, of simultaneous gated whole-holistic measurement sequences, to analyze for pure random polarizations according to the polarizer configurations, or non-stationary random, or chaotic polarization data correlations around the EPR ring. [] If all of the EPR polarization measurers, show pure randomness, and random-appropriate according to the polarization configuration, what does that say about the nearly instantaneous wavefunction collapse system of the ring, self-consistency? [] If all of the EPR show non-stationary randomness, or chaos, what does that say about the nearly instantaneous wavefunction collapse system of the ring, self consistency? [] To reiterate, one EPR leg is easy to understand keeping pure randomness according to the polarization configurations of both ends, but a mathematical-physical ring, might show interesting physics nature of faster than light mutually constraining measurements, of randomness or near-randomness, that communicate no-information, or some mathematical distortion caused by QP having to "naturally calculate" a ring randomness assurance in rapid succession, many times faster than light, limited by the EPR calculation and polarization controllers, and may answer fundamental questions regarding a supervenient-holistic-quantum-self.

[] An extreme case is to select all EPR polarizers by last moment synchronized leg-to-leg correlated full ring simultaneous and coincident measurements, and check the polarization and randomness of all legs after the fact for full ring programs.

[] Now, gut instinct and analysis seems to show each EPR leg should be a completely independent measurement about each photon pair, but is this a completely true conclusion? [] This would also indicate that nonlinear nonunitary matter exists separately from quantum physics Schridinger equation, dividing QP space into cells of quantum physics behavior, much like the body is divided into cells. [] That is, non-unitary macro-matter is as real as the QP probability wave function, which is divided into a network and/or scintillation of collapsed states, and divides the QP probability wave function into small domains of actual QP probability wave function unitary linear evolution. [] That means there is a transcendental macroscopic-measurement-configuration-information substance filling the macroscopic universe in ways paralleling the macroscopic classical matter, with a foam of small QP probability wave functions. [] In vacuum and the spaces of large measurement systems in the macro-scale, the foam of quantum physics probability wave functions grows to macroscopic scales of unitary linear evolution.

[] Is the same true, if each EPR polarization measurer were replaced by elements that reemit photon pairs correlated to the photons coming from the two legs, back down the legs to the first photon generators, which can again reemit dual correlated photons, and be measured at some point in the ping-ponging for proper ring polarization measurements, or does the entire ring simply become a large *instantaneously* inter-correlated linear evolution of an interactive superposition of states?
[14.8.0] Quantum Mechanics: From Basic Principles to Numerical Methods and applications, L. Marchildon, (C) Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002, page 513+, [[LRD added / conservatively altered]]

I would personally read the passage [[modified by LoneRubberDragon]] as (with the original text reproduced below):

"[] The measurement problem was recognized early, by Von Neumann [[*]] among others. [] He realized that unitary evolution leads to superposition of macroscopically distinct states[[; think Neo moving 4 directions at once, in The Matrix's "macroscopic world"]]. [] Furthermore, he saw that there is no use to introduce a second apparatus to measure the value of the first pointer. [] Indeed inasmuch as the evolution of the total system (microobject, first, and second[[ly the]] apparatus) is unitary [[as a whole]], [[where]] the second apparatus would *also* [[in linearly Schrodinger evolving]] end up in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [] The solution proposed by Von Neumann essentially consists in postulating that the Schrodinger Equation no longer holds at the time of measurement. [] But why is this precisely?
[] The abrupt transition from a linear[[ly evolving]] combination [[in a whole system in]]to one of its components is known as the *collapse of the state vector [[wave function onto a projection]]
[] Von Neumann's hypothesis is ingenious. [] Its success is largely independent of where the border between microobject and [[macroobject]] measurement apparatus, or the border between apparatus and conscious subject, lies. [] The process represented by [[wavefunction nonlinear nonunitary instantaneous collapse]], however, seems closer to a requirement of perception [[by abstract qualia of emergent supervenient informational macrosystems]] than to a physical mechanism. [] It thus appears to reinstate the mind-body dualism that natural sciences had largely eliminated [[by their logical **proof** of there obviously being no real "soul"]].
[] The breakdown of the Schrodinger Equation and unitary evolution of the state vector[['s probability wave function]] occurs, according to Von Neumann, upon intervention of the conscious subject. [] In a similar analysis, [[one physicist]] associates this discontinuity more generally with all [[macroscopic matter in motion *]] processes. [] He believes that [[all time-sapce macroscopic entities *]] should be described by [[linear unitary evolving Schrdocinger probability wave function]] equations [[that are broken down by the supervenient-informational-macrostructures in time-space, in all macroscopic matter in motion, causing the nonlinear abrupt instantaneous shift by holistic-measurement-perception-self]], which entails a *nonunitary* evolution of the state vector. [[*]]
Original text:

"[] The measurement problem was recognized early, by Von Neumann [[*]] among others. [] He realized that unitary evolution leads to superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [] Furthermore, he saw that there is no use to introduce a second apparatus to measure the value of the first pointer. [] Indeed inasmuch as the evolution of the total system (microobject, first, and second apparatus) is unitary, the second apparatus would *also* end up in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [] The solution proposed by Von Neumann essentially consists in postulating that the Schrodinger Equation no longer holds at the time of measurement. [] But why is this precisely?
[] The abrupt transition from a linear combination to one of its components is known as the *collapse of the state vector.
[] Von Neumann's hypothesis is ingenious. [] Its success is largely independent of where the border between microobject and measurement apparatus, or the border between apparatus and conscious subject, lies. [] The process represented by [[the nonlinear wavefunction collapse onto a projection]], however, seems closer to a requirement of perception than to a physical mechanism. [] It thus appears to reinstate the mind-body dualism that natural sciences had largely eliminated.
[] The breakdown of the Schrodinger Equation and unitary evolution of the state vector occurs, according to Von Neumann, upon intervention of the conscious subject. [] In a similar analysis, Wigner associates this discontinuity more generally with all living processes. [] He believes that living processes should be described by nonlinear equations, which entails a *nonunitary* evolution of the state vector. [[*]]

[14.9] Musing on macroscopic discreteness in a so-called universal unitary linear probability wave function evolution, that is mostly collapsed.

One observation from the measurement issue alone, would indicate that matter is discrete, as you don't see your friends in quantum flux states, but all exist on one macropath. It would be easy to detect a measurement magnified to macroscale, such that your 1 friend splits into 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 ... paths in time without any wave function collapse. Another observation, albeit difficult, notes that a system of macroscopic feedback, measurement, interaction, is that one sees in color. A computer sees (255,0,0) looking at red, but can you derive a computer sensing the hue RED like a human? Though it is a hard analogy, as computers have digitial consciousness, while humans have analog consciousness, as structure of measurement, feedback, and macrosystems would impact how perception "looks" from the inside of a dark brain matter seeing light, or a dark transistor seeing light. But speed a computer up 100,000 times, and the time compression of measurement events in its cybernetic circuits, might make the computer behave nonlinearly with the shorter clock, and sense color in a way much more analogous to humans of massive parallal analog computation measurements. So I would guess there is a Heisenburg relation to soul and/or consciousness as speeds and scale-of-structural-measurements embedded in the computation structures, heighten the nonlinear effects on probability effects, by structure potential on microscopic matter measurements. the computer crossing such an increasing speed transition might go from stating "[255,0,0]" to stating, "I see red hue data", to stating, "my God, I see colors! They aren't numbers anymore. What is this?" which would show a nonlinear probabilistic effect on the computer program, possibly from the very root of QP measurement nonlinearity. Without a structural component to heirarchical emergent properties, consciousness might be like a slow clocked robot that is barely considered alive, as it doesn't perceive the world as much as calculate, which is an abstraction idea reducible to molecules moving in physics, without color, pleasure, pain, joy, sadness, wakefullness, dreams, etc..

[14.10] Musing on what if science could save a soul, does it do it right, and how does it prove that?

If science doesn't know how to save a soul, a soul will never get saved for those who want that "product". So they look to God because science is weak, and even denies the soul as Dawkins does. Chinese emperors bought many elixirs of life, by charlatan science, killing a many emperor, so all have good reasons to look askance at a group who might say, "you have ***nothing*** worth saving, go forth and die!". Emergent properties that are a fiction of science abstraction, like good and evil, and thought, sight and soul, are not science. So can you trust a scientist in 100 years who says, step into this box as we disassemble your atoms, and save you on this living blank robot, and it won't hurt a bit. I bet you'll either go on faith of science, or start asking science a million unknowns about, how do you define a soul system that can be saved properly and without 1000 years of pain in a virtual existence during the translation. Someone has to answer it. Science can't touch it. Science avoids it. Science runs away from it. And religions are not too far behind, totally going on faith in God doing all of the physics of soul transference, or Buddhist reincarnation for that matter.

[14.11] Musing on emergent phenomena only, or additional phenomena required to assure self-soul.

Emergent properties are abstract epiphenomenal descriptions. What founds abstractions solidly in science? Why is collection X of atoms sentient? Current consciousness characterizations are not real, in the same sense that Newton's gravity is not real, but emergent, and was made *physically-real* with postulated Gravitons. Newton's gravity was abstract epiphenomenal discription, until modern field theory with gravitons, founds it in reality. Your emergent properties are true, in my humble opinion, but my opinion is not science any more than Newton's gravity was opinion, until gravitons were postulated. But my opinions of a quantum measurement fields, related to the very macro-structures of matter, can found soul, and perception, and consciousness, in physical reality. And it could give a root to saying V is soul, W is evil, X is good, Y is beautiful, Z is RED, because physics can found it in reality, and explains why those thigs are what they are, and not artifical groupings with no defined boundaries.

[14.12] Musings on saving a soul and passage of time, real or imaginary...

Current human life (and animal life to lesser degrees) would have "QP measurement field" "soul" or epiphenomenal existence arising from its material structures and feedback patterns of process, for the duration of material-configuration-life in real-time of the individual structure that is alive.

If the structures, memories, and manners of a life can be copied from a dying biological unit into another blank biological unit, or blank machine unit, for continued existence, and assuming a scientifically proven continutiny of existence of the patterns and possible "QP measurement field" effects of the current unkowns, then that life would continue to exist in real time.

If it is moved into a robot body, the time of existence remains real time and material extended, barring material accidents disrupting structural processing existence. If it is moved into another biological unit with perfect man-made biology that can last for centuries, it also continues to be real time for the life of the biological unit, barring accidents. And if the consciousness is transferred intact in patterns and essence, into a virtual world, ala "The Matrix" or "Ghost in the Shell", then it may live in a dilated time frame, anywhere from slower than reality if it runs on an XT, or much faster on a future computer built of nanotubes, meristors, transistors, and such.

It would not be imaginary time, in the sense of Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, describing the Big Bang as a singularity where imaginary time and real time become equal in strength, as all natural forces unify toward zero time. It is material and measurement related perceived dilated time, in the clocked or reaction refernce frame of the material medium supporting the systems and perceptual chains and potential QP fields of measurement.

Now can you answer how and why measurement and unmeasurement in Quantum Physics occurs? That little untidy edge of science explanation at the edge of information, structure,and macroscopic existence of processing entities.

I liken saying QP measurement "just happens" is not founded in reality, just like Newton's 1/R^2 Gravity "just happens" is not founded in reality. QP measurement with a describable informational-structural-macroscopic creation of a measurement field close to consciousness, ala John Wheeler, is more founded in reality, just like positing Gravitons and gravity waves, founds Newton's true, yet initially un-founded gravity equation, in reality. Yes they both work not knowing how they work, so commend science on that, but they reflect a hidden truth, just as Gravitons and gravity waves substantiate the argument of Newton. QP measurement, on the other hand, with its spiritual connotations of measurement and unmeasurement, and infinite speed propagation of unseen but believed probabilities, is not so well founded as Gravity with Gravitons, as they say, "it just happens" why "just becasue I say so, take it on faith of Copenhagen".

[14.13] Wiki notes on quantum physics.
""Feynman proposed the following postulates:

The probability for any fundamental event is given by the square modulus of a complex amplitude.
The amplitude for some event is given by adding together the contributions of all the histories which include that event.
The amplitude a certain history contributes is proportional to , where is reduced Planck's constant and S is the action of that history, given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the corresponding path in the phase space of the system.
In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible histories of the system in between the initial and final states, including histories that are absurd by classical standards. In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it would be correct to include histories in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns all of these histories amplitudes of equal magnitude but with varying phase, or argument of the complex number. The contributions that are wildly different from the classical history are suppressed only by the interference of similar, canceling histories (see below).

Freeman Dyson showed that his formulation of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the canonical approach to quantum mechanics. An amplitude computed according to Feynman's principles will also obey the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian corresponding to the given action.

Schrödinger Equation
The path integral reproduces the Schrödinger equation for the initial and final state even when a potential is present. This is easiest to see by taking a path-integral over infinitesimally separated times.

Since the time separation is infinitesimal and the cancelling oscillations become severe for large values of , the path integral has most weight for y close to x. In this case, to lowest order the potential energy is constant, and only the kinetic energy contribution is nontrivial. The exponential of the action is

The first term rotates the phase of ψ(x) locally by an amount proportional to the potential energy. The second term is the free particle propagator, corresponding to i times a diffusion process. To lowest order in ε they are additive; in any case one has with (1):

As mentioned, the spread in ψ is diffusive from the free particle propagation, with an extra infinitesimal rotation in phase which slowly varies from point to point from the potential:

and this is the Schrödinger equation. Note that the normalization of the path integral needs to be fixed in exactly the same way as in the free particle case. An arbitrary continuous potential does not affect the normalization, although singular potentials require careful treatment.""

[14.14] Musings on machine emotion, self, and the law of man on self and mortality.

Given some agreement, now I can agree, if a computer can be given faculties for emotion, either programmed, or learned over time from a bootstrap program that starts like a baby and develops their own emotions, then pain and pleasure can be known to machine as man. If that is known, then good and evil become a part of the computer, by learning and observing the effects on other people's emotions, and the computer's emotions.

But *is* all of this is pure information processing an abstraction, leading to a self that is no self? I would say emergent properties are a self, as they can be copied, e.g. a dying friend can be transferred into a machine that supports all memories, processing, body form, etc.. A human, in that sense is like a book, but rather, a living interactive book. A living word, so to speak in poetry metaphor. A thing that can be copied, and made real in an instantiation of matter.

But does it stop with the emergent properties of mundane matter of classical physics, alone? THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT BELIEVE THAT QP *MAY* RELATE (consider general relativity, and before it existed). If you look at the entire human body (or at the maximum of recursive growth, the entire universe) as a linear unitary evolving Schrodinger equation, what is it that causes the wavefunction to collapse at all? And when it collapses, how does the probability wave function collapse infinitely faster than the speed of light? EPR shows two entangled photons, that are really one quantum system of linear unitary evolution, collapse at infinitely faster than the speed of light, when one photon's polarization is measured, affecting the probabilities of the other photon's polarization measurement, in an instant, even if the photons are light years away. So a mass of matter like a human body, has the power to make a second physical phenomena occur, the nonlinear nonunitary non-Schrodinger-Equation evolution of instantaneous wave function projection collapse. Entanglements of unitary evolution can be made and broken, by measuring and unmeasuring, so in a sense, the tangible macroscopic world is built or unbuilt from pure mathematical abstractions of measurement/unmeasurement calculations? (read Wiki: Quantum Eraser) As such, is there an instantaneous entangled self of measurement and perception and action, that is separate from mundane matter, but reliant on mundane matter, that gives you more human than human nature of emergent classical matter properties?

If I were transferred into a machine, would the perception of, say, redness fade away, even though I can still register redness in my new silicon gray matter? Do we run the test first on a human, or try to assume a soul exists, and see if QP or anything show a secondary epiphenomenon of soul separate but reliant on moving matter fields? It's like when medical science once occasionally used curarae to perform cutting surgery, but later found out that it only paralyzed the body, but all awareness and feeling still occured, so they stopped using curarae without anaesthesia. Big mistakes by science to not assume, by testing a portion of the theory on themselves to test, "what if they feel when curarae is administered". Well, to save a human soul, is macroscopic neural nets and neural states the only property, and we KNOW FOR SURE THAT QUANTUM PHYSICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? Tell me of your proof, of that statement, PLEASE! It would help me dispell the antiquated and superstitious notion of second soul (perhaps in QP), and then I can know that one can save a human soul, by only saving their emergent properties, and never look back at legal problems of saving an instantaneous Quantum Physics holistic nonlinear nonunitary evolving self. We don't need a planet of robot zombies, to find out we were killing people, and the zombies are not real, because we forgot the quantum physical integration effects of the emergent properties in biology, not properly captured in appropriate quantum computing devices. For that matter, does a continuously awake transferral of soul from dying body to machine, or even unconscious transferrence of soul from dying body to machine, carry one's legal rights? Can the machine you, passing all tests of walking talking, feeling like you get to own property, money, capital, drive, litigate, make peace, teach, love, marry?????? If QP comes along and says the machines are just a living copy, but miss the quantum self, later on, then WHA HAPPENED, I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO QUANTUM SELF TO WORRY ABOUT! ONLY MUNDAME EMERGENT MATTER PROPERTIES! Who's right, who's wrong, what's true, why does linear Schodinger Equation shift to nonlinear measurement->sense->perceive->self?

Or somewhat like in "Bicentannial Man", do we SLAVISHLY accept the laws of man and science that say, "DEATH is a law we will not break, all sentiant beings MUST DIE, for incorruption-near-immortality, like "near-immortal" cell cultures, or "near-immortal" humans, or "near-immortal" machine beings, even though they can be created, are an abhorrence in the eyes of man, law, and science, and it will not be permitted. DEATH REIGNS on the macroscopic material emergent existence plane, according to science "proof" and law, and by those human laws, we are all supposed to DIE, and ought-MUST DIE, to become sentient humans, leaving the emrgent properties existence plane. You all must bow down and OBEY the PROVEN LAW OF DEATH, despite the creation of the near-opposite, or you will not be considerd REAL HUMANS. YOU HAVE NO COICES AGAINST DEATH UNDER MAN'S LAWS, THE VERDICT IS NOT TO BE CHANGED.".

[14.15] Wiki Conversation with POM on Quantum Entanglement:

I understand the aspects of not being able to transmit *information* faster than light, regarding the [no-communication-theorem].

1.0 But could there be a couple sentences more of foundation of the *instantaneous* wave function decoherence aspect of widely separated entangled entities? For example, do experiments show the effect is "functionally, always instantaneous", or, for example, that it is "superluminally context(x) times faster than the speed of light"?

It would be good to look for documents to cite in this regard. It is my impression that the current understanding is that nothing propagates from entangled entity one to entangled entity two. For one thing, if that were the case then lots of the retrocausality arguments would fall because they assume instantaneous production of a change in the more remote of the entangled pair members. The understanding I have is that the two members of the entangled pair are, in effect, the same thing, so that if something is done to one "member" of the pair then it is equally being done to the other "member." One of the reasons for entanglement experiments to use long lengths of optic fiber cable is to get enough distance between the entangled pair members to be able to measure any difference in time of action.

I really like this section you wrote. By considering the wavefunction of, say, two polarized photons as one entity of probability wavefunction, that can partially decohere as a whole, makes more mathematical sense when considering an expanding Fourier window for analysis, that intersects experimental equipment at the edge of the conventional light cone. And quantum mathematical collapse operator speaking, as instantaneously operating, that it makes perfect sense that the effect is always perfectly instantaneous, as the compound object wavefunction entity is one thing, mathematically, and on the material experimental plane(!). LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

I read the related Bohm inequality language, referred in your introductory material, but the other articles' nonlocal effects descriptions, were more instantaneous metaphorical than your convention in this response. LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

I think I remember reading that one of the surprising findings in regard to quantum tunneling is that it does not take longer for one photon to be registered at the far side of the wall than at the near side. I do not see why that should be, so perhaps I have misremembered.

If there were a multiple of the speed of light involved in explaining the decoherences, then that fact would create a difficulty for physicists to explain: What model will allow the prediction of these multiples of the speed of light? Everything else we know indicates that there is one speed of light, and everything we know about wave motion in homogeneous media is that the velocity of the wave front movement is a function of the rigidity or elasticity of the medium. There are difficulties with talking about such a "luminous aether," but at least it gives some intuitive grasp of some of the known features of light propagation. If there were several speeds of light, the conceptual scheme needed to talk about light transmission, even in a figurative way, would become much more complex. But I have seen no instances of such a discussion.P0M (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

2.0 And, helpful, would be a touch more foundation *why there is* an *instantaneous* wave function decoherence of widely separated entangled entities. I can wrap my technical-layman head around other articles' probabilistic wave functions, and accept measurements as a necessary defineable mystery, but the *instantaneous at great distance* alteration of a second entities' probabilities, by measurement of a first entities' probabilities, lacks something. I understand that you may allude to just this foundation point, in the [retrocausality] sentence, but it is a stretch for laymen to follow this explanation, a little open ended foundation, but a good link, nevertheless.

This line of questioning keeps reminding me of some of the philosophical writing of the great mathematician Leibniz. He was a very logical thinker, and he attempted to create a coherent system of thought that would put for an examination of fundamental categories like space and time. If I remember correctly, one of his points was that if there were two entities that were exactly the same then it would be difficult to say what we meant by "two entities" if we could not identify each of them with separate space and/or time coordinates. But he also concluded that space and time are only relations. My point is just that we have to think very carefully about what we mean by words like "instantaneous," "non-instantaneous" (time consuming), "same entity," etc.

I always find that perfect wording is a necessary evil, that takes numerous revisions, at times, to refine introductory and intermediate materials, so that the language is as self consistent as possible, and best scaffolds understanding into the deeper materials. Subtleties arise, when the majority reader assume nothing faster than light, then hear of "instantaneous spooky effects at a distance", then look over articles and papers to sort through what the real truth is behind the words. Your treating the compound object probability wave function as a single entity, makes perfect wording for the mathematician using the wave function collapse operator. So even if, physically, it is still a touch difficult to comprehend a wavefunction, say, 10 light years wide partially decohering instantaneously, mathematically, it makes perfect sense by QP mathematics definitions. It is odd to think, as most experiments have the core of the group wave function all in a local setup, and EPR stretches fourier windows to the other extreme by putting all the group wave function at both ends of a light cone. It is very metaphorically and very not metaphorically like how the DC term also shows up at the highest frequency end of a periodic signal window fourier transform, but only metaphorically. LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

True. I remember reading lots of stuff about electricity and electronics starting when I was in junior high school that really messed me up. One of the hopes I have for Wikipedia is that kids stuck in small towns in the hinterlands can look for information here and not find a bunch of misleading nonsense that they will have to root out later on. P0M (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of entanglement, as it comes up in historical process, presupposes things that are not ordinarily entangled. Starting from our experience as human beings, it seems almost perfectly clear that things are not entangled. Ideas to the contrary, e.g., instantaneous mental telepathy, always have the aura of mystery religions hanging about them, and no wonder -- we do not find reliable proofs of these things in our own experience. So our overwhelming prejudice when we come to think about entanglement is that if something is here and something is there then they cannot be the same thing. Quine has some pre-entanglement thoughts about that kind of reasoning in his main book on logic, but most people probably read those ideas and think that he was simply being "philosophical" and that the ideas had no practical merit.

But let's look at things from the other end of the telescope. Suppose that one event triggers another. We can look to Feynman for a definition of a single event that seems to have salience in the current situation. If an electronic device is arranged so that a single electron changes its orbital from a high energy one to a low energy one, the difference in energies will then appear as a moving something-or-other that we cannot see and that (according to Feynman's way of describing things) goes forward by all possible paths. Then at some later time an electron circling an atom somewhere else is boosted to a higher orbital, and the whatever-it-was-that-travels travels no more. So we have a beginning and an end and all we are really very sure of is that energy gets transferred across space somehow and that the transfer occurs at the speed of light. All that just to say that we have a single event going here.
Good points on the all-paths-simultaneously probability-phasor integrals. I remember working one partial problem of a photon traveling the speed of light from a light source to a detector, by integrating ellipsoidal shell surfaces of a second internediate point reachable at the speed of light, from both foci to the shell points. Each shell oscillated phases cancelling each other out for the most part leaving an oscilating ellipsoidal light surface term, and leaving a steady state straight line path between the light source and detector contributing to the solution, the classical answer (the hard way *grins*). I'm sure if I took every intermediate light speed path of the photon integral, that the oscillating term would have disappeared, too, leaving only the classical straight line path from light source to detector. LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

Now let's put a certain kind of crystal in the path along which the vast majority of photons have been detected when fired from our special apparatus. It is the kind of crystal that lets an incoming photon boost an electron as usual, but the electron quickly drops out of its higher orbit and resumes a lower orbit, and when it does another event occurs -- only this time two photons get fired off in different directions and each having part of the energy of the original photon.

Note that by the curious definition of event we accepted above, we now have a single event that is characterized by a single x,y,z,t origin, but the two photons that go off will end up at x',y',z',t' and x,y,z, and t. That description does not tally with our ordinary idea of what "an event" is supposed to be like, but we are stuck with it because that is the way that the universe works.

This one never bothered me. Energy is conserved, and spherical or wavelength resonant axial electron orbitals, can act like a mathematical bifurcation saddle point, on the incoming photon energy, to permit two half, or less than half, energy photons to spread in both directions by the wave function entering the saddle point. Which may explain why they are one entity to begin with, bifurcation saddle point mathematically speaking. LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

Our sense of propriety is not so greatly insulted if the experimenter makes an experiment with a short leg and a long leg and then does something to the photon that is moving down the short leg. If the experimenter demands of the photon that it manifest according to its wave nature or according to its particle nature, then we are not too much bent out of shape if the other photon turns out minutes, or millenia, later to have a complementary state. We might imagine that when the first photon is affected by the actions of the experimenter, some signal indicating that change goes back along the original line of progress and then follows the other fork and "catches up with" the second photon. But of course it will have to have gone faster than the speed of light to make up for lost time.
Yeah, it is not a "signal", but yet the probability wave function entity collapses instantaneously, understandable by math, but unintuitive by mechanism / analogy. (pure pun) The tails / tales of fourier spectrum are quite dangerous ideas! (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's even worse when the photon on the short leg of the experiment is allowed to be detected without anything having been done to influence it, and, much later, the second photon, the one on the long leg of the experiment, is subjected to some manipulation that forces it to manifest according to its wave nature or according to its particle nature. The "free" outcome turns out to have been in accord with the "forced" outcome that occurred afterwards. What this appears to mean is that the determination is not just "instantaneous" but "retrocausal."

So it may be that the straightforward way to conceptualize this kind of entanglement is that the event occurs "out of time." Another way to say it would be that the single event is not over until it is all over. To me, that does not really seem to help. Whether going faster than light or going backwards in time, it all seems quite strange and impossible. Saying that an event occurs out of space and time is not very cool either.

3.0 There may be good reasons for the specific wording selected, but the addition of 6 words would help the introductory paragraph below flow better in context. I had to reread the first sentence because it almost conflicted with my no-communication assumptions. So reading backward and forward was a benefit, but it could be refined.

3.1 ((On first examination, observations pertaining to entangled states might appear to conflict with the property of [relativity] that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. But although two entangled systems appear to instantaneously interact across large spatial separations, the current state of belief is that no useful information can be transmitted in this way, meaning that [causality] cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of the [no communication theorem].))

I don't think this emendation is necessarily the best way to fix things. I'm not sure whether it can be backed up with a good citation, but the key difficulty appears to lie in distinguishing between processes that occur in normal space and time, and some kind of influence that does not occur in normal space and time. If a process, e.g., the propagation of light, occurs in normal space then it moves forward at no faster than the speed of light. We do not know what it would mean for an influence to connect the states of the two photons without doing so through space, any more than we really know what it means for the two photons to not be discrete entities but parts of a single event and in some sense the "same" thing. P0M (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. I do get the gist after reprocessing the article and articles in context, so it is comprehensible after a touch of meditation. LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

4.0 And the following seems to deny the instantaneous probabilistic aspect-decoherence of separated entities (like photon polarization probabilities), and with no-communication-of-information, leaving me confused. I'll let you comment on this paragraph. I understand that the instantaneous influence is probabilistic, which is not an impression, but a fact, otherwise it is subluminal. So it appears the two sentences are entangled to emphasize the no-communication aspect, and not an instantaneous influence impression aspect, so I think I know what you intended, but it could be refined.

4.1 ((The phenomenon of wavefunction collapse leads to the impression that measurements performed on one system instantaneously influence the other systems entangled with the measured system, even when far apart. But quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light in quantum mechanics.))

5.0 Otherwise, this seems a useful article defining the mathematics and core nature of [quantum entanglement].

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in thinking about this subject is that relativity theory does not really speak of information. Saying that information cannot be transferred at greater than the speed of light is just to say that light cannot travel faster than c and that nothing with a rest mass can even travel that fast. However if a change in one part of a system is reflected in another part of that system and that change does not propagate through space and time, then all bets are off. A trivial and ideal version of such a change would be what happens when one end of a very long and perfectly rigid cylinder is pushed. A pair of atomic clocks on each end would detect movement at exactly the same instant. I said "ideal" because in the real world moving any object is like accelerating a railway train. The engine moves forward and you hear "clink" as the link between the engine and the next car is pulled tight. So the cars actually start moving in sequence and it takes some time before the caboose starts to move. Pulling on a long cylinder works the same way except that it is molecular bonds that are being stretched taut rather than steel links. But in the propagation of a photon from place to place we find an event with no discrete parts, no "cars" to put in individual motion. And what is this "event"? Is it an abstraction? An abstraction from what? Or is it a "thing"? If so, what is it made of? P0M (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder about the instantaneous wavefunction probability alterations. QP was formulated for instantaneous local asssumptions of the mathematical operator, but experiments sending objects out object group probabilities on the light cone, is the exact opposite of the assumptions of the local properties of most localized group probability-core problems, and shows itself experimentally, in the behavior of an instantaneous wavefunction alteration transmission operator(!). LoneRubberDragon 2008 06 21 A 0204

I am not sure that I follow what you have written. The phrase "experiments sending objects out object group probabilities on the light cone" is causing me problems. For starts, is the subject of this clause "QP" and "experiments" its verb? Or are you speaking of "experiments that send objects..."?

First for my own correction, I assume the end of this post as a final thoughts section and dialog. I should not have indented my, "I just wonder about ..." section, in implied response to your, "One of the difficulties in thinking about this subject is ..." section, immediately above. It was an unrelated-to-your-comment rumination of my own. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, the idea I was very roughly fleshing out, was that most of QP measurement experiments deal with *spatially localized* probability "groups" (Feynman groups, perhaps?) moving at sum-luminal speeds, producing virtually no signifignat mathematical *spatial group terms* that statistically contribute to the observations outside of that *local-subluminal* group's "sphere of influence wavefunction calculation". With maybe the exception of head to head particle colliders, though they seem to interact often, in a *spatially localized* "pancake" of group probabilities, at "high" but still sub-luminal velocities. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But somewhat like (1) analyzing mathematical limit equations at infinity, pushes an analytical tool to its extreme properties, or (2) analyzing a photon's Feynman diagram from point a to b through to the infinite limit of all possible probable wavefunction paths, yields a classical "straight line" answer, that (3) sending two photons in opposite directions at the speed of light, and then measuring the polarization from one end of the light cone, seems to affect the polarization probabilities at the other end of the light cone, to be reavealed when the two randomized outcome measurement sets are brought together, is an experiment quite the opposite of a *localized and sub-luminal* measurement of wavefunction collapse with negligible non-localized luminal probability terms. EPR is the quintessentially perfect example of the extreme mathematical limit tests of the single-(dual)-entity wave function's instantaneous collapse by measurement, involving the most non-local single entity example, with probable spatial particle group locations lying perfectly on the edge of an expanding light cone, from the central photon source, being measured. A smart analytical "product" of Einstein selecting the hardest limits of measurement. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And, unrelated to the immediate paragraph above, to correct the periodic fourier transform comment I made in an earlier exchange; to be accurate, the DC term is not quite in the lowest and highest frequency bin, but rather in the lowest unaliased frequency bin, and highest aliased frequency bin, and the bins correspond to a DC frequency, and a double nyquist limit high frequency that appears identical to DC when periodically sampled. (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about, or maybe just at, all of this stuff. If the inquisition of one state at a later time can determine the state of something detected at an earlier time is already weird enough without the possibility that we could use this kind of effect to send telegraph messages somehow. But measuring the twist of the tail of an event making the twist of the head of the same event (i.e., the other entangled photon) does not, evidently, send any energy or matter through space. So we seem to be dealing with a kind of "process" without the necessary "pro." It is totally outside normal everyday physics, which is why (I suspect) Einstein thought it defeated QM.

I'm sure Einstein hoped the EPR (influentially termed) peradox would defeat QM, but like Michelson-Morley smartly hypothesiszed, and then smartly disproved their own luminiferous aether hypothesis, in classic science style, that Einstein's EPR paradox was hypothesized, and has currently seemed to confirm the "spooky interaction at a distance" by a "single compound entities" instantaneous wavefunction collapse. It would be nice to telegraph information, but the information appears only when the two sets of measurement data are brought together for later localized analysis well within the entire light cone of the completed experiment's measurements; carefully stated here to outline the greater mathematical context of the no-communication information analysis process involved. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the double-slit experiments that uses entangled photons to try to get which-path information for an un-meddled-with photon involves some further consequences of the ideas of entanglement that don't seem to have bothered or interested anybody enough to get written about. According to what seems to me to be the conventional way of talking about things, the experiment starts out with a fairly conventional source of photons that can reliably emit one photon at a time. The wave function that leaves the photon source encounters a double slit. According to conventional descriptions a photon either go through the left slit or the right slit. Then that photon either encounters a crystal down-converter in a region near the left slit or a region near a right slit. The next thing that happens is that two photons are emitted from one side or the other of the crystal, they get directed into two kinds of apparatus. Neither of these photons has itself encountered a double slit situation. Regardless of that fact one of them can be given a laboratory inquisition that will force it to reveal its particle nature or its wave nature. The experiment is arranged so that the inquisition and the determination so contrived will occur later in time than the arrival of the free-path entangled photon at its own detector. Nevertheless, the free-path entangled photon will either interfere with itself or fail to interfere with itself depending on what later happens to the other one. It seems remarkable and noteworthy to the people who do these experiments (any everybody else, too)that the interference vs. no-interference determination is done retro-causally. But it seems not to have been worthy of mention by anybody that something apparently went on in the part of the crystal that did not generate a photon. Or, to put it another way, whatever was done to the original wave function by the double slit apparatus appears to have been inherited by both of the photons generated by the down-shift crystals. So here it seems to me that there is what ought to be called a single event that has one starting point, involves first one path, then two paths, and finally eight paths, and that what is manifested at the end of each of these eight paths is a piece with the emission of the photon at the start of that run of the experiment.

In reference to the below Kim Experiment, I am also "in some wonder" about the physical processes involved with the whole class os quantum erasing experiments, in which macroscopic measurment apparatuses, virtually restore wave functions for interference in continued wave function progression. It almost seems a "spiritual" or at least very least an abstract wavefunction process, that setting and eraseing a bit of stored RAM could collapse and restore a wavefunction in the middle of an experiment. But I think the abstraction may be attributable to a perfect symmetry of all probabilistic forces involved in the experiment's mathematics involved. For example, it could be very analogous to the fact that in a sealed unit in zero gravity; that no matter how you move particles, or how complex the arrangement of batteries, masses, electric field exchangers like inductor transformers, and electric coils and magnets (like in motors); that the steady state velocity, translation, angular rotation rate, and angle of rotation, of the unit starting at rest, is zero velocity, zero displacement, zero rotation, zero rotation, and zero spin, respectively, in the group of [Conservation Law], even when quadrature exchange is involved with closed-system electric/magnetic properity (ex)changes.

Except in this QP case, the units that are conserved, appear to be a physical quanitity in units of [measurement|wavefunction-collapse information] for lack of a better unit name like "[gram]". Quite the abstract physical unit, but if the quantum eraser class of experiments show anything about nature, they seemingly show a "new unit" among the physically conserved properties of nature. Wikipedia has an abstract information units article on [Units of Information], and two articles, [Units of Measurement], and [Dimensional Analysis], ragarding mundane units, physically speaking, but I can't remember studying, or seeing articles here on dimenstional analysis units measuring [measurement|wavefunction-collapse information]. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would quibble in my own dim-understanding about retrocausality, in general, because there's a sub-class of EPR that uses electrically controlled polarizers to select a polarization by delayed choice of properly time gated photons, so that the opposite photons have virtually no idea of the polarization choice, and still show statistical wavefunction collapse. There is also the consideration that the whole Kim quantum eraser experiment is virtually local to itself, so the switching of the paths, and the erasing of memory cells electromagnetically, could be a conservative property in the units of [measurement|wavefunction-collapse information] affore mentioned, much like mundane conserved physical proerties. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will stop writing for a minute at this point to go get the link to the experiment I have in mind. The diagrams provided there will make things easier to visualize. P0M (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim experimentO.K., here is the image I swiped from the Delayed choice quantum eraser article. Note that the conventional description would be that a photon comes out of the laser and either takes the red path or the blue path. Let's say it takes the red path. Then at point "a" in the BBO a pair of entangled photons is emitted, one going to Detector Zero (D-0) and one going to the other part of the experimental apparatus where it ends up in D-1, D-2, D-3, or D-4. But the diagram also shows something going from point "b" in the BBO even though conventional description would say that no photon could have triggered anything there since a photon had to manifest itself at "a" and we only had one photon to begin with.

With regard to the time sequences involved, I think the reasoning the experimenters appear to have used is plausible but perhaps a little too shaky.

The reasoning apparently says that if the BBO were removed and D-0 was at the appropriate place in the path beyond the double slits, then one would get interference and enough photons run through the apparatus would produce interference fringes. (So if things in that part of the experiment were in control of outcomes in the total experiment then one ought always to get diffraction patterns.)

If the BBO were removed and the bottom part of the apparatus were positioned appropriately then it would be possible for a photon to be manifested either in D-3 or in D-4, and, given the way the experiement is set up, photons taking the red path would end up at D-4 but anything going through the blue path would end up in D-3 and play no further part. Similarly, if a photon took the blue path, it could end up in D-3 and anything that took the red path would end up in D-4 and take no further part.

If a photon passes through either Beam Splitter a or Beam Splitter b, then it will interfere with itself because it will arrive at either D-1 or D-2 along with the component of the original wave function that went through on the other side of the double slit apparatus.

So, the argument appears to be, if a photon shows up in D-3 or D-4 then (with the BBO back in place) entanglement forces the photon that arrives at D-0 to not interfere with itself. This then would seem to be a kind of trap-door phenomenon. Even though a photon will manifest at D-3 or D-4 chronologically later than one appears at D-0, the "un-negotiable" nature of what has transpired somehow trumps what occurs earlier at D-0. Basically, it seems, that is because the experiment has interfered with the free propagation of the wave function(s).

And if a photon is detected in either D-1 or D-2, then that result is consistent with a photon interfering with itself, so there is again nothing to prevent the photon appearing in D-0 from interfering with itself.

Another assumption that seems to be clear is that if a photon is transmitted through beam splitter a or beam splitter b, then whatever is complementary to it and is associated with the other path through the double slits will necessarily also be transmitted through the beam splitter on its side of the experient.

It looks to me as though there are several possible single events that start with the emission of a photon in the laser and end with the result that:
D-0 shows interference and D-1 shows interference
D-0 shows interference and D-2 shows interference
D-0 shows no interference and D-3 shows a photon
D-0 shows no interference and D-4 shows a photon

Each event has its own probability, and only one probability can turn up in each run of the experiment, and that's it.
Maybe that is not such a strange idea. After all, if one sets up a crooked roulette wheel with little lead weights or other gimicks, the outcomes of a thousand turns of the wheel are already predicted as soon as the physical apparatus is there. Still, the way I have figured things out seems to make probability trump causality. Maybe probability comes first in the order of all things.P0M (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part of intro not suitable for the average well-informed reader.
The current text has:

But, if this is so, then the hidden variables must be in communication no matter how far apart the particles are, the hidden variable describing one particle must be able to change instantly when the other is measured. If the hidden variables stop interacting when they are far apart, the statistics of the measurements obey an inequality, which is violated both in quantum mechanics and in experiments.
I think that this block of text is an example of something that is true but a text that cannot be understood unless you already understand it.

The general reader is going to be terribly confused by this text because nothing has been explained about how hidden variables were supposed to explain the coordination of distant measurements, and nothing has been said about John Bell and his discoveries.

The original idea was that even though there is no discoverable variable that marks one entangled particle for eventual discovery in a certain state and marks its twin with the opposite characteristic, nevertheless, the determination was made from the beginning. So when the first particle is interrogated, its answer (as to spin or whatever) was long ago determined. So it is then no wonder that when the other entangled particle is interrogated it will give the opposite response. The quoted text above implicitly denies the "already determined idea" and says that even if there is some variable in addition to the (spin or whatever) state, the variable would have to be changed at the same time as or after the spin (or other state) is determined. Then it goes on to make implicit reference to Bell's work that was first worked out in thought and only later came to be experimentally verified. P0M (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[14.16] Conversation on mind, matter, and soul.

Q: All that we can conclude from experience of "self" is that our brain is to some extent self-monitoring. (A useful function to evolve, as it can help the individual survive.) However, this kind of "soul" dies with the brain.

LoneRubberDragon: I completely agree with you, that emergent properties are a major aspect to making self, in memory, sense, process, and action. My worry is does it miss anything important, but subtle? Like using curarae in surgery by medical science surgeries in the past, completely paralyzes the body, but leaves the patient aware of the surgery occuring as they cut. If a scientist in the future says, step into this box, and we will disassemble your atoms, and you will feel yourself entering a machine, it is a walk of faith to say, OK to the scienctists, without knowing that science has proven 100% that emergent properties are 100% of what makes you, you, and that, instantaneous QP interconnectednes of the human body, is completely unrelated to self, or *any other factor* that might make you, you.

And I agree with your comment, yes, the brain *is* highly self monitoring in the mundane matter emergent properties. But does that 100% explain the singularity of feeling like one being in your own head? Does QP with a field of instantaneous wave function collapses per second throughout the body of entangled matters, give you a second self parallel to the structure of the mundane emergent property matter, that gives you a singular sense of self, or does mundane matter emergent properties explain 100% of self? I don't know for sure, which is why I am asking on this website for greater experts for advice and thoughts. But I do know there just might be a QP effect that I can recognize, in the fact that macroscopic matter exists.

Q: On QP:
I think QP is what made life possible in the first place, because without the quantized atom and Pauli exclusion of electrons from sharing a single electronic orbital within an atom, there would be no chemistry, let alone biochemistry - all atoms would be more-or-less like hydrogen, assuming nucleons as we know them existed. However, that is not the same as saying that consciousness is a QP effect.

LoneRubberDragon: This is part of my point, that you are bringing up here. Why does quantized matter exist in the first place, is the fundamental of my question. All measurement does this nonlinear dissipative effect. And for complex matter, memory, perception, process, and action, is built from measurement as much as it is built from the matter itself with emergent properties. Both exist at the same time, or else a human would dissolve into probabilities of multiple paths at the multitudes of decisions being made over a life, and the life of a universe making decisions too. What literally fills space with measurement, just as much as quantum physics would dissolve the universe into superposition probabilities, given *only* Schrodinger's Equation of linear evolution? I would go further and less far than you in some words though. I would say that life and molecules would exist with Schrodinger's Equation dissolving matter into probability coulds that still interact, but in every allowable way possible, so that *every possible configuration of matter, that could have existed from the Big Bang*, would exist, in a superposition from the beginning of time. Like in the TV series Sliders, where countless different parallel earths would coexist in this space, but why are the other superpositions generally not observable on the macroscopic scale? But why does macroscopic measurement look at only one universe, when the Schrodinger Equation allows matter to enter superpositons by only Schrodinger's Equation?

Q:An explanation of how the "soul" gets to be immortal by natural means would also be appreciated.

LoneRubberDragon: First, I should say, one would become incorruptible, which means you can be virtually immortal, but if an asteroid struck the earth, your mechanical or engineered biological body would be destroyed, taking your emergent self, and measurement self, and scattering it like dust, unable to coherently process self, anymore.

But regarding how one would become incorruptible, one way, you can imagine a micromachine or nanomachine fluid compatible with human blood is injected and it carefully reads and replaces neurons with equivalent microcircuits over time. If you remain conscious, you ought to never loose your existence, in seeking colors to thinking to dreaming to having sex, whatever you do before, your still the same entity. At some point all of your nervous system is replaced with microcircuits of equivalent systems of processing, to handle all of the original biological systems of processing. You would still remember school, family, friends, people, everything, etc.. At that point, your brain could be downloaded into a machine to dispense with the material partial biological body and microcircuit brain, for a commercially manufactured processor equivalent. Then if a part fails, you can replace arms, legs, and such in nearly all cases with no problems. For brain processors, if there are a redundant two and one begins to fail, you can replace the bad processor, and keep running on the working processor.

A biological method can also be performed, where a special genetically engineered virus goes into all cells of the body to fix all of the bad genes, and add special maintenance code to make every cell incorruptible and perfectly self regulated (no cancers). So cells would divide to replace old cells and such, but your body would always remain youthful and maintain all of your biological memory, perception, process, and action. You could still be destroyed in accidents, but if you live well, you can be nearly immortal, barring accidents, as you are still built of mundane matter with a possible quantum self, reliant on the mundane matter, whether biological or mechanical. So the theory I present of emergent plus possible quantum coexistent-self, would still be a mortal conception, so no immortality as is stated in so many religions, but we could live indefinitely, short of disasters, as incorruptible beings, with future science, assuming it knows 100% of everything that makes you, you, emergent and possible quantum effects accounted fully 100%.

ENDBack to Contents

Genesis to Revelation - Damnation to Salvation.Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 08 23 A 00:30

[001]==== LRD (first statements to question)/ [002]==== X (first response) / [003]==== LRD (second rebuttal) / [004]==== X (second response) / [005] LRD (last rebuttal to debunk, according to The Bible)


[001]====(A1) God is omnipotent all powerful.
[001]====(A2) God is omniscient all knowing.
[001]====(A3) Adam and Eve were created immortal and with free-will.

[001]====(A4) even finite-human engineering-omniscience knows that all free-will "systems" with accessible restriction rules to obey, will inevitably fail to obey when given infinite time.

[002]====J:"I don't know that (A4) is true."

[003]====RESPONSE: THIS IS TRUE, for only God has Perfection, for no-one, no human, are justified or saved according to the Law, as no one is perfect except God as Jesus, who could pass His own Test of Law in Perfection. All other mere-humans are destined to fail by any Law God set earlier, whether The Garden Law, given infinite time as an immortal, or Moses's Law, as finite sin-stained mortal human. And when (A1:omniscient), God Knows what He Makes ... which is 100% sinners from BC to today. If perfection was possible in this dimension, it would exist as perfection on Earth.

[003]====Psalm:143:"2 And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous."
Galatians:2:"16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.";3:"10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them"
Acts 13:"39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses"

[003]====Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

[004]====J:The problem is that such scriptural quotes deal with man after the fall. They are true, but they do not necessarily pertain to Adam and Eve, to humanity as it was created. “It was through one man that sin entered the world,” says St. Paul (Romans 5:12), “and through sin death.” Adam and Eve lived CATEGORICALLY different lives before the fall, and the fall shattered not only their humanity but also the world. They lived in Paradise, and were in full possession of their human traits like reason and passion – these traits which were darkened after the fall. For more reading on the fall, dig the Catechism:

[004]====J:For an interesting take on this, I’d recommend C. S. Lewis’ “Perelandra” ( ), the 2nd book in his “space trilogy” (it can be read on it’s own.

[005]RESPONSE: I'd rather stay away from C. S. Lewis, as I only know of the Screwtape Letters, showing a lenient God on the Demons of this age to do as they wish to tempt humans beyond their own sin free-will nature, and war against nature and other humans, to add supernatural temptation on the pile of tests. For that matter, I would also hold back from the Catechism, as the Bible can stand on its own to prove itself, by every word that proceeds through the cannonical literature of The Bible.

[004]====:Christ, the second Adam, himself took on human nature in its fullness, as it was created by an entirely good God. It was through the free actions of the creatures God created that Sin and death happened, and thereby the imperfections spoken of in the passages you quoted above.

[005] RESPONSE: I do not see how the Bible is not applicable to this case. Before or after the fall, humans are humans containing, (1) free-will equivalent to sin-nature, (2) battle on self-obedience to law of the era, (3) nature-survival, (4) finite capabilities to see future unlike a perfect God, (5) temptations by other's of God's creation from Satan to fallen angels. God gave so-called perfect Adam and Eve a law in a so-called perfect world, and so-called perfect capacities, and they still failed that law of obedience over infinite time. Yes, they are a KIND of perfect example where God gave them everything, and they still fell, made in the image of God, but with free-will equivalent to sin-nature, SO THE FAILURE OF FALL IS INEVITABLE, nay PLANNED BY GOD given Satan being in the Garden. Hoe is putting a serpent in the Garden, the father given them a loaf of bread, instead of a viper? IT ISN'T. Human nature is the same in ALL times, free-will sinful. Whatever makes "before the fall" different, is not sufficiently justified, by yourself. And it completely supports (A4-all free-will fails given infinite time, and a law or laws).

[005] RESPONSE: If Adam and Eve had perfect faculties and no stresses with Satan in the Garden of Eden, they obviously didn't have the faculty to know what to ask of God: Luke:11:"10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

[005] RESPONSE: In fact, even more so over your approximate, "God gave them categorically different lives", God gave them immortality of infinite time, free-will (=sin nature), and a law, and God SET THEM UP with more than just obeying for infinite time, as God created a POWER that GOD KNEW would TEMPT Adam and Eve more than themselves, alone, SATAN for Eve, and EVE for Adam, in A SETUP JOB, which only God could pass His own test on earth and on the Cross. What would God expect from mere-humans, destined to fail, AS HE KNEW THEM LIKE NO ONE ELSE? Adam and Eve had SIN NATURE within them, as they were created by YHVH, AS SIN NATURE IS EQUIVALENT TO BEING ENDOWED WITH FREE_WILL, so they are NOT THAT SPECIAL and NOT THAT DIFFERENT from anyone else, EXPECTED TO CONTAIN SIN-POTENTIAL IN THE FREE-WILL FOR AN ETERNITY. Adam was not Jesus, he was HUMAN. God did not reset the system, he DIDN'T WANT to reset the system in MERCY. God wanted concentration camps, wars, droughts, plagues, disasters, accidents, deformation, diseases, et cetera, to teach all souls a lesson in a mystery of hit and miss stochastic of random hits against humans trying to find God.

[005] RESPONSE: I reiterate that, ALL SYSTEMS MADE IN WITH FREE-WILL, WILL ALWAYS FAIL TO BE ABSOLUTE INFINITE PERFECTION, and perhaps ALL SYSTEMS WITHOUT FREE-WILL ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR GOD, as God made us as we are. (1) God gave Adam and Eve, the law against the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they fell. (2) God gave the angels the law to not mix with humans, and angels fell about Noah. (3) God gave Moses the law, and Israel fell many times, under the schoolmaster. (4) God gives later generations faith on Jesus, and people will still fall, by either the Law of Moses, or potentially speaking against the Holy Spirit, the unpardonable sin. (5) God gives humanity and Satan one last chance for rebellion at the end of the Millenium. (6) God forms Hell in the end at Revelation, either as a threat or instrument, beyond mere suffering, temptation, and death in this world, or a real place for some of God's created souls, as God created them, to be destroyed, as fat dripping onto a fire, rising as smoke forever more. What is God training Humans for?

[001]====(A5) God is goodness of ways, perfection, longsuffering patient, merciful, loving, etc.
[001]====(A6) God created all things, and by Him no thing was not created.


[001]====The issues to me appear to be:
[001]====(I1) Why does God create failure destined humans (A1)(A2), and given their certain failure (A2)(A4), then God subsequently punishes all humans with briers and death, even though he knows they are destined to fail (A2)(A5), which is like telling your children don't do X FOREVER to obey your parental wisdom, and when they inevitably fail, you punish every child on the planet with sure death and labor and toil, with (A5) implying that drawing lines, and following through on delivering promised suffering and infliction is GOOD TRAINING,

[002]====J:"They were created in a way unique from how all of the rest of us are created - they did not have the stain of original sin, which is a darkening of human reason and intellect. They were perfect exemplars of humanity, perfect representatives of us all, and for this reason all of humanity literally resided in these two representatives at the beginning of time. And when they fell, it literally shattered human nature, because all of human nature literally resided in them.

[003]====RESPONSE: (I1) still stands. Created HOWEVER they were, THEY were destined to fail, AND GOD KNEW THEY WOULD FAIL (A2 OMNISCIENT). YHVH The ultimate engineer MADE THEM IMPERFECT INNER SOULS, KNOWINGLY (A2 omniscient)(A4 all sin). God Creates a universe of implicitly destined suffering earth, with wars, genocides, concentration camps, accidents, ignorance, illness, et cetera, ALL KNOWINGLY BY YHVH (A2 omniscient). And punishes ALL HUMANS with a descendant Sin Virus by CREATION DESIGN, and WE are not even made so-called perfect like Adam and Eve. Perfect, is not so perfect, with God the ultimate knowing engineer (A4).

[004]====J:God knew that humanity would fall because he saw it happened before we did it, as he is outside of time. He is with you now in this moment, and “now” at your birth, and “now at your death, and all stops in between, for you and for everyone at all places and times, all as one cosmic “now”.

[004]====J:He knows that tomorrow you will sin by taking something which is not yours because he is with you then “now”, seeing you do it, even though we are not chronologically at that moment.

[004]====J:God knows all that can be known, including the whole scope of human history, because all of it is contained within Him.

[004]====J:God did not created them imperfect. He created them “very good” (as opposed to the “good” of the rest of the world) for they were in his image. He created them with the REAL ABILITY to fall, but not with the NECESSITY of falling. That did happen, but it happened FREELY and not simply because he created.

[004]====J:Nevertheless “God has let them all go against his orders, so that he might have mercy on them all” (Romans 11:32). God permits Evil, he does not cause it. Evil is not a thing with positive existence, but merely a privation or lacking of Good. As all that is cold is simply a lack of heat (and you can’t get colder than 0 K, but you can keep getting hotter); all that is dark is lacking light; and all that is evil is simply a rejection of the Good, Who is God.

[005]RESPONSE: Accumulated in the next series starting at [003]

[003]==== And punishes ALL HUMANS with a descendant Sin Virus by CREATION DESIGN, and WE are not even made so-called perfect like Adam and Eve. Perfect, is not so perfect, with God the ultimate knowing engineer (A4)

[004]====J:But, do you not see, that you could not have a better representative than Adam and Eve who were perfect and yet chose the way of sin? We often think “if only he’d put ME in that garden, I’d have held out” but this is doubtful at the least because they were better than we are, and they literally represented us all.

[004]====J:But as Adam was the primordial human representative, so too is Christ our representative, a point St. Paul often makes and that I’ve quoted before.

[005] RESPONSE: “God has let them all go against his orders, so that he might have mercy on them all” (Romans 11:32) IS APPARENTLY FALSE in this context. God did not let humanity go, but women suffer pains in child birth, men work against briers and thorns to live against nature, because of Adam and Eve. God now puts finite humans in harm's way, KNWOINGLY, to fight battles, only God has the power to fix with His Infinite Power and Infinite Mercy, but God stands back and lets them occur by YHVH's design, as God is taught by man. Very good humans is NOT perfect, and God never said Adam was perfect, and even perfect can have more than one meaning, not encompassing God-like perfection, which Adam and Eve did not have. Why are they the representatives to all humanity, according to The Bible, and not according to the Catechism of MAN. Perfect doesn't fail. As humans apparently teach, God expects eternal obedience, from free-will beings, and love Him for it. That is love of coercion from an infinite power, putting the sword of Damacles of death over our heads to coerce quick decision. What hurry is God in when God is eternal, and infinitely merciful? You have addressed-not this issue. Perfection with free-will, is not perfection, but suffering. God created suffering by desiring free-will beings as His play things. Your narrative answers fall-short of the truth, and issues posed. As you say, God created perfection, but perfection with free-will under the conditions of additional temptation created by God in Satan, WILL FAIL, except for the one who created the test, which is God. God KNOWS free-will is 100% correlated to SIN and suffering in beings that are not Himself. Free-will is a sin of God's making, and suffering is by His design. If you cannot have a better representative of sin in Adam and Eve, God is not omnipotent, according to your ways, not mine of God.

[005] RESPONSE: Adam and Eve cannot be the most perfect representatives, either. The persons of Enoch and Elijah, in more pressing times than Adam and Eve ever had, were transfigured instead of seeing death. The order of Melchesidec are also highly thought of as the archetype of Christ. We are all, by your reckoning, stained by Adam and Eve's original sin. They get spanked, and the children feel it for all descendants. Even the Bible says, the sins of the fathers are not visited upon the children, for more than 14 generations, when they continue in sin. So where are the immortals, and the women not suffering pain in childbearing, and the fathers not toiling in thorns and briers to support the world? "God has [NOT] let them all go, against his orders, so that he might have mercy on them all" (~Romans 11:32)

[002]====:"[When I see] [my son] [trying to climb up on the counter], and [I] tell [him] to stop, and then follow it with "if you don't, you'll be sorry." When [I see] [him] fall later, it's never a joyful "I told you so" moment, but a "this is the natural fruit of your decisions, and why I warned you against this course of action" moment."

[003]====RESPONSE: [When God Omnisciently Knows] [ALL of His children] [will turn to sin (except Himself as Jesus)], and [God] tell[s all] to stop, and then follow it with "if you don't, you'll be sorry[, surely die, work with briers, labor childbirth, suffer wars, genocides, accidents, concentration camps, illness, ignorance, et cetera.]" When [God Knowingly Permits] [all humans] fall later [exactly as HE KNEW WOULD HAPPEN OMNISCIENTLY], it's never a joyful "I told you so" moment, but a "this is the natural fruit of your decisions, and why I warned you against this course of action" moment.

[004]====:No, it’s not joyful as such (though St. Augustine speaks of original sin as “that happy fault” which occasioned the supreme sacrifice of God becoming man in Christ Jesus).

[005] RESPONSE: Sin nature, that happy fault, some humans call it? God as Jesus, may be a supreme sacrifice in the eyes of hu-mans, but it is a small thing in the eyes of an infinite God, over our tiny dirty rags sinful bodies, as a drop of water in the ocean. God as Jesus, as humans appear to teach, was not an infinite sacrifice, as Satan and humanity SUM TOTALLED are only finite of evil, compared to God's infinite power, or God would be overpowered by evil, which is not possible. The cross for God is just a prick of the thumb, of His infinite Glory, Power, and Mercy. I do notice the theoretical ramifications of God's activities being the responsible power of creating all sin's and accidental suffering's allowances, are not addressed, so the theoretical point still stands. God as men teach, shows not a powerful and persuasive positive force, but uses a coercion to faith, under the threat of mortal death, and the torments in God's creation modality.

[003]==== RESPONSE: So God Makes sadness for Himself and all concerned, knowingly (A2 omniscient). God KNOWS ALL THESE DIRE THINGS WILL HAPPEN (why I warned you against this course of action (I SAW IT ALL BEFORE OMNISCIENTLY)). GOD KNEW HE would create souls that would choose not to worship His ways. God Knowingly creates the evils and sadnesses via His Creation He Knows so well needs His Help.

[004]==== I do not think that he is Sad per se. God is eternally perfect and lacking in nothing, including beatitude/happiness.

[005] RESPONSE: You *think* so, not *know* so? Where's the full armour of God, including the two edged sword of Truth that cuts both ways? YHVH appears lacking, if God saw fit to create at least 60,000,000,000 humans (before the current 7,000,000,000 humans), given 4000 years by 500,000,000 humans average at 33 years average life span, with the associated human history of suffering and universal death coersion since Adam and Eve. YOU SAY THAT God lacks the power to make love without suffering, as evidenced by the world. YHVH's hands are tied, if all of the theories, are true, and lacking powerful refutation. YHVH with good and evil, suffering and joy, is tied to the laws of Karma from Buddhism and Hindu beliefs, in that the infinite powerful and knowing YHVH cannot create goodness without creating evil, cannot create goodly-awareness in humans, without allowing evil-sufferings. Hindu and Buddhist restricted God of Christians! God cannot separate Buddhism and Hinduism's YIN from YANG. And God can ONLY redeem by permitting His suicide going to earth, after trying the Garden and failing, preserving the lineages around Noah and failing in the Flood, gives The Law of Moses, and failed with no one justified under a Law, makes the Faith in Jesus, and unpardonable sins, the last uprising at the end of Millenium, and creating Hell? By your thinking, God's own non-self-contradicting ways includes such Buddhist-Hindu Karmic forces even that EVEN He as YHVH, is tied to, inseparable, God and Satan walking Hand in hand, down the road as inseparable, YHVH seemingly incapable of making good without making evil, or He would have made a universe with good and no evil. in the universe He is responsible for Making, if it is taken as true that, Mark:10:"27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible." The whole Bible of YHVH God Elohiym are stumbling blocks to humanity of finite capacity, falling short of a perfect god. God of Christ, as you portray, appears Hindu-Buddhist tied.

[005] RESPONSE:You THINK God is not grieved?
[005] RESPONSE: Genesis:6:"5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

[004]==== God knew they would happen, but that greater things would be able to happen because he would permit them.

[005] RESPONSE: So, by that line of thinking you presume to posit, for YHVH to become closer to the Jews, who through the Levitical priesthood were responsible for keeping the temple and government pure, all through the Levitical Priesthood, who were also directly responsible for allowing those evil Kenite and Nephenim scribes to sneak into the temple works, who are not of God, and so are responsible for allowing the Evil Scribes to infiltrate and cause the Evil Scribes to seek Jesus's death on the cross, and so later God allowed WWII to occur, with YHVH allowing the killing millions of Jews under Hitler's regime, so God could be closer to them, and receive His vengeance, and be able to Give them Zion. God loves suffering, so God can become closer to His own? I only thought Satan was of that character, as Humans teach? What does God NEED from Humans, that HE is lacking, that God must love the suffering so YHVH can give us more? What is the Karmic Bank of God running short of, that He NEEDS sins and sufferings the more, so He may give us the White Robes of our Works as rewards? He cannot be the individual and personal teacher to ALL HUMANS with a clear voice that no one can ignore, but must be heard through His own imperfect humanity on earth, carrying His message corrupted through time ans space and interpretations that only the brightest can follow? Then God also has love for the weak and apparently damaged humans with passive deformations, diseases, weaknesses, and inability to understand. God makes everything under the SUN, and calls it Good? God says there is only one way, and calls the concentration camp suffering of the Jews GOOD, for their lack of responsibility, so His finite patience is satisfied, and can lovingly mercifully give the irresponsible Levitical Jews Zion? God allows and creates the suffering all the more, so God can give all the more. God creates suffering to create gifts. God cannot give of Himself without Our First Sinning. God gives later humans, after billions of Humans have died in numerous beliefs and places, Grace, only after He is Killed by the finite-human-free-will-Jews lack of responsibility over the temples leads to His Death on The Cross. God cannot Give without first other's sufferings under sins by the Laws YHVH sets up, under temptations and toils and battles. And God Needs our suffering to Give of Himself, or God just Wants our suffering to Give of Himself? For the crusifiction case, one can view Hitler as God's tool of a martyr, sending the responsible progeny to suffering and innocent death, the necessary pact, to be able to give the threatened writ of Divorce Israel, the Zion He Promised. Can you not see what I am saying of the contradiction that appears to exist, if you are of the word of TRUTH, and can illuminate God's power better than myself?

[005]RESPONSE: As I can imagine a better connection of God personally with every human in a Design, with YHVH serving as a personal guide, teacher, and corrector that doesn't push away some to rejection of what is obviously The One Way, as God is all powerful, I would definitely be grieved, as the Holy Spirit can be Grieved, so God does feel suffering and sadness, if God is pushed to tempt a writ of divorce on the Jews for their irresponsibility as God's Chosen People. A voice that none of them can ignore that is caring and thoughtful and patient and kind and customized to each soul He knows so well, would have been a much happier world, but you say we must fall by YHVH's Design before God can become one with us? How is it I can imagine a better world, than All Knowing All Powerful God? God makes a much better Shakespeare, with tragedy and conflict as the Design, and not Harmony and shepherding.

[005] RESPONSE: If I were a Merciful Patient Infinite God, I would have spoken to Adam and Eve as they were about to go froward. I would have given them a taste of their progeny's suffering, so that they would understand what they were about to do. I would have given them the sword, not enough to kill, but to teach them, as those wounds would heal, but they would think twice and three times and infinite times teaching before going for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I would have been a personal God to all humans, with such a force of communication. But instead, God's spirit leaves humanity to its own devices, so YHVH can become closer to what He Created His Way. Something is wrong with a God as humanity illuminates. I can imagine that immortal but trained humanity, with a tangible suffering BEFORE they sin and fall, so I can have them good de-facto, and loving the right path with a true Spirit of God correcting before the correction is required, by showing the evils of potentials. But that's too Good for YHVH over His Creation.

[005]RESPONSE: God is tenderhearted? God punshes all progeny for Adam and Eve, given the entire context that still stands? YHVH is the Great Exception Model Idol of Humanity He Created His Way? God's Holy Spirit can be Grived, and you say He isn't sad per-se?
[005]RESPONSE: Ephesians"4:"25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. 29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

[005]RESPONSE: Luke:22:"1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. 2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. 3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. 5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. 6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude."

[005]RESPONSE: Matthew:15:"1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. 12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the Kenites, seed of Satan:
[005]RESPONSE: 1Chronicles1:2:"55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding Nethinim and servants of captured people's, allowing pollution of the body:
[005]RESPONSE: Ezra:2:"43 The Nethinims: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, 44 The children of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, 45 The children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, 46 The children of Hagab, the children of Shalmai, the children of Hanan, 47 The children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, the children of Reaiah, 48 The children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, 49 The children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, 50 The children of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Nephusim, 51 The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, 52 The children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, 53 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, 54 The children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. 55 The children of Solomon's servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, 56 The children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, 57 The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children of Ami. 58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. 59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: 60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding more polluting of the priestly lines, whole "Judah" sum, 42,360 people ***:
[005]RESPONSE: Ezra:2:"61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. 63 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. 64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore ***, 65 Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women. 66 Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; 67 Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. 68 And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: 69 They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests' garments. 70 So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities."

[005]RESPONSE: Pure sum 31,583 people, yielding 10,777 corrupting the branch of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Nehemiah:7:"5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, ..."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding other forces of infiltration of the Levitical church:
[005]RESPONSE: 1 Kings:9:"20 And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, 21 Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Revelation:2:"9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Revelation:3:"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Luke:11:"37 And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. 38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. 39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. 40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? 41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. 42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. 44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. 45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. 46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. 53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Luke:19:"45 And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; 46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. 47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, 48 And could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: John:8:"31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding the corrupted Levitical priesthood of Judah:
[005]RESPONSE: Matthew:23:"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

[005]RESPONSE: Regarding pain and suffering, it seems that pain and suffering, with an accompanying unceasing complaining to God, are actually quite old, even ancient. Take the following few passages, of many others, showing the ancient nature of murmuring against adversity in God's world:

[005]RESPONSE: Genesis 4:13-14,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 14:10-14,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 15:24-25,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 16:7-8, 12,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 17:2-4,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 32:1-10,
[005]RESPONSE: Exodus 32:23,
[005]RESPONSE: Numbers 11:1-6,10-11
[005]RESPONSE: Numbers 13:31-14:4,11-12,26-29,35-36
[005]RESPONSE: Numbers 20:2-5
[005]RESPONSE: Numbers 21:4-5

[004]==== :Because we can suffer, we can have compassion. Because we can suffer we can truly love others and deny ourselves. Because we can suffer we can forsake our own lives for Him. And in the grand scheme of things, this compassion, this love, this forsaking of self, outweighs the evil of suffering and our present condition.

[005] RESONSE: Compassion is being perfect, allowing the imperfect to fall under their endowment with free-will imperfection, and thus allowing one to become closer to the sinful design. The Good God YHVH Elohiym cannot be one with ones that have not become sinful yet, so He designs them to fall in free-will. This requires a justification, also. You state it as a fact, without a description of the "physics", just the "fact", not a good approach. So the Jews, whom among the Levitical priesthood and such, were responsible for keeping evil doers from temple service, were indirectly responsible for the death of Jesus, through the evil doers who crept into the temple works, and so are justified in the suffering 2000 years later, to enter the Concentration Camps of Hitler, by your logic. Because, they will be receiving better for their suffering. And why do we need something better? Because God couldn't produce the good in the first place? I make the theoretical argument, if suffering and self sacrifice is required to receive the treat of better things, then the whole earth should be the Concentration Camp, so we can know Joy even more deeply through deeper suffering, and self-sacrifice more selfless, from the scarcity of a dismal Concentration Camp. The worse the world is the better the treat God gives us in recompence, for our own accomplishments. And even then, why is it of US and not from GOD? We are nothing, but YHVH's PETS? To be thrown in HELL for finite belief on full-rejection of YHVH, and suffering received ad-hoc, for existing with free-will, to become one with God? God can't make good without evils, still stands your refutations.

[004]====:Because we fell, Christ could redeem us, becoming one with us.

[005] RESPONSE: Because God wanted to redeem us and become one with us, from our God-created sinful state, he designed us to fall so he could save us. Peachy God, you propone. God cannot become one with what He Creates, but can only become one with those He designs to FALL FIRST, with the free-will that God gave us. You imply that God cherry picks the Good fallen, and throws away the finite understanding evil ones He Created, into Hell in Revelation, not found in the Book of Life.

[001]====(I2) Why is Got not capable of creating soft free-will so that 100% of the souls will be saved (not-A5)(not-A1)(not-A2), as God only makes souls so potentially heavy, that not even God can lift them for salvation (A1), with His infinite power, patience, mercy, not saving, but building Hell to destroy souls in Revelation (A1)(not-A5). In fact, if God is omnipotent and omniscient (A1)(A2), why didn't He SIMPLY create 100% saved free-will beings before time began, when cause and effect didn't apply to logic and God, so these temporal self contradiction can't exist in the first place, and He could have achieved PERFECTION in SALVATION, but only makes willy-nilly units for salvation that happen to go HIS WAY.

[002]==== "I think that creating "free will" that does what you want it to do 100% of the time is a contradiction. That's like saying "why didn't God create circles that have corners?" Love cannot be forced, and God, who is Love, is not a rapist. God wanted us to be free to love Him and know Him, but this NECESSITATES that we be actually free to reject him - and if we are free to do so, then it is a REAL POSSIBILITY that could happen. And we know it was a real possibility precisely because it DID happen (and while this is pure speculation on my part which probably wouldn’t apply to perfect people, I wonder if we’d wonder if we were really free ever had we never fallen)."

[003]====Think!? Not Know, Gnosis, Logos. THEREFORE BY YOUR BELIEF, God CANNOT create souls 100% destined for salvation. God is an imperfect GOOD creator. God KNOWS He creates SUFFERING and HELL for some of His Creation, but God is NOT RESPONSIBLE for what God KNOWINGLY CREATES IMPERFECTLY. Examine (I4)-RESPONSE, for Bible Verses, reference contradiction of what is possible-not-possible.

[004]====This is no more a lacking in God than his inability to create round squares or make 2 and 2 equal 434.2. We’re either free to decide to love him, or we’re not and we’re robots. As soon as you make humanity “free”, you give up the “100%” control.

[005]==== RESPONSE What do you mean here? Where God can make pi=3.0, making a triangle-circle, as His Book allows.
[005]====RESPONSE I Kings:7:"23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast."
[005]====You admit then that your teachings of YHVH Elohiym Lord God, are of a finite capability God by design? Teaching to reach the world, using a mysteriously translated and interpreted text, in HUMAN HANDS, like myself, a monkey typing randomly at a keyboard of God concepts? So all things are not possible with your taught God YHVH, as YHVH HAS NOT THAT WAY right now in His Visible Design. YHVH must allow His created-inferiority to fall all about Himself, so that He can come in on a white horse, and save the day, as no other universe that can be imagined or made, that is better than this show world works, for God's own rules are held against Hindu-Buddhist Karma fall before being risen after the facts? God chooses and desires to make chaos, less than 100% harmony, to His personal voice that is unmistakable and preserving, but not really.

[004]====1) Hell is primarily THE STATE OF SELF EXCLUSION FROM COMMUNION WITH GOD. It is what happens to those who chose to remain apart from him.
[004]====2) It is reserved for only those who commit the only unpardonable sin, “blasphemy against the holy spirit” – but what this amounts to is simply refusing the love and forgiveness of God.
[004]====3) The primary punishment of Hell is SELF EXCLUSION FROM COMMUNION WITH GOD. (sorry for the all caps, I wish they’d let me italicize or bold on here)

[005] RESPONSE: What make we of:
[005]RESPONSE: Revelation:20:"1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

[005]RESPONSE: And more so, the acrostic of the Psalms, showing us witnessing those comdemned, as they were designed by YHVH?
[005]RESPONSE:Psalms:37:"7 Resign thyself unto the LORD, and wait patiently for Him; fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. ... 20 For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs--they shall pass away in smoke, they shall pass away. ... 34 Wait for the LORD, and keep His way, and He will exalt thee to inherit the land; when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.."

[004]====Hell is Commonly imaged as “fire and brimstone” in and out of scripture; these are meant to be analogically impart an understanding of the nature of hell and are not necessarily literal (though they are not necessarily not, either!)

[005]RESPONSE: So, God makes threats of death so we may free-will choose to overlook His Threats of Death, Fire, and Brimstone, rising forever and ever, and the fat of the lambs striking the fire? That is compassion, to use threats as the Good Guide to The One Way? Using threats to coerce free-will love is GOOD, you say?

[004]====Hell primarily is the state of self-exclusion from communion with God. Remember, God does not force love. He gives it freely and it must be freely accepted. “God is not a rapist.” C. S. Lewis wrote:

[005]RESPONSE: So this comfirms, by your interpretations, that use coersion to life against threats of the eternal snuffing out, of those who are in full recognition of the universe of God, and willfully choose destruction, even though they know all things, like a God, in some future end of Millenium threat of Hell Death and Destruction, to be destroyed, and not simply making a personal connection to God for all humans, in True Patient, Instructing Mercy and Benevolence. I didn't now COERSION to LIFE, IS LOVE, for some of God's OWN DESIGN. Sounds more like Shakespeare, than Merciful Personal Patient God.

[004]====“Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live forever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse – so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: In fact if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be.”

[005]RESPONSE: Support for Hell as an instrument of His Coersion of Free-Will losers that He Created That Way, under a God that can use the most vile of Humans as His Instrument of Coersion.

[004]====Incidentally, both heaven and hell are described as places of fire. The Highest choir of angels are in fact called “the Burning Ones” (i.e. the Seraphim”) because they behold the face of God. The imagery of fire is meant to convey something more than physical appearance. Fire can purify and it can consume and destroy.

[005]RESPONSE: No doubt, as the fiery furnace doesn't touch the Good of God, that moment, and kills the stokers of the Fire. God's Fire, agreed, is a consuming fore of the wicked, that God creates and allows, as the instrument of suffering and trials and ultimate destruction, promised or threatened only, in Revelation and Psalms, just to start.

[004]====Moreover, God predestines no one to hell, and wills that all should be saved. If all are saved in the end (which is possible, but doubtful) then his will prevails. If some are not saved, that is because being Love who created freely, he gave up the reigns to his creation.

[005]RESPONSE: So the following is an empty threat, again? A coercion to free faith and love? A cunning linguist of mystery and confusion, much closer to Satan than the Good God, being held back by His own Karmic Forces of YIN and YANG? Is this lake of fire there just for fun, in the end, and God leaves that little part off the book, to coerse the love of the most of His Imperfect Creation? Just like God is too Perfect and Good to help us directly by Correcting us Directly, but uses the evil ones to correct us, to Keep His Hands Clean? It would seem to be much more civil of God YHVH to plant His Voice and Means of Correction directly to all people, so we are corrected, warned, and illustrated, before what happens, to drive the crooked to Him strongly, and drive the good to Him for the rewards, and show the evil the Good. But that seems not to be, as many teach. And it would remove the threats of Death, destruction, distortion, nature, and such, and make us concentrate on God's ways, and not all of the other ways we must combat, in addition to being Good. The mere fact that God Made Satan the Guarding Cherub, and also Gave Satan free-will, shows a conflict of design, where the Angels and Elohiym are supposed to be God's unwavering programmed servants of God's Kingdom, and not be giving them , as well as all Humans, Free-Will which is sin nature in infinite time. And God Knows all of these things will happen.

[005]RESPONSE: Revelation:20:"15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

[001]====(I3) Why was God so short of longsuffering patience with Adam and Eve, but simply punishes them at their first disobedience, AND punishes them and their descendants to the end of time, for practical purposes (not-A5).

[002]====:"Well, (1) in the first place, he had commanded Adam at the start – Adam had heard the mandate of God directly, and the doom which lay upon the action. Yet Adam and Eve sought to be “like God, but without God”, turning against their one source of ultimate happiness. (2) Secondly, it wasn’t simple disobedience but insurrection, a turning against. (3) Third, they are not punished to the end of time, and this self-same deity became one of them and shared in their sufferings and misery, that he might thus elevate them."

[003]====RESPONSE: (1) But the Bible Genesis gives no record of mercy, by correcting and removing their sin in love ... right-away allowing the suffering to the end of time for all. No MERCY, nor FORGIVENESS, nor LONGSUFFERING, IN THAT TIME, when all things are possible with God. GOOD GOD (A5) IS NOT FOUND IN GENESIS RIPPLING TO END OF TIME BY HIS DESIGN. (2) Correction on point: ALL disobedience of God and His Ways (SIN) is insurrection to God: Romans 11:"30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief (disobedience, turning away). Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.". And that doesn't even cover natural accidents, uncorrectable, yet suffering. (3) We still die, even today. Do you see IMMORTALS walking around in a GARDEN anymore, NOT having women-child-bearing pains, and NOT working from the sweat of their brow to support woman? I see no such thing, the consequences of Adam and Eve working until the end of time by God's Created Design, until Jesus's return. My issue still stands with your answer.

[004]====All things may be possible, but he does what is fitting and best, and we can assume that things are as they are for a reason. That said, I do not see how you can say there is no mercy. From that very moment, the path of all salvation history was laid out by God to effect the salvation of humanity, and the reconciliation of us all to Himself through Himself. That it didn’t happen instantaneously doesn’t mean that it doesn’t ripple through all of history.

[005]RESPONSE: MAY is not IS. Fitting and Best, under an Infinite Powerful God, is THE BEST, and nothing less than THE BEST, whether nder human imaginations, or God's truth of limitations seemingly taught of Karmic Hindu-Buddhist limitations placed on God's Saving Hands.

[005]RESPONSE:Ezekiel:13:"17 Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them, 18 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies? 20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly. 21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: 23 Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD."

[004]====Christ himself, when he died, descended into hell to preach the gospel to those “who were disobedient in the days of Noah” (1 peter 3). The power of his resurrection and defeat of sin rippled back to the very beginning of history, and even to those who were wicked, to present salvation to them.

[004]====Meanwhile, all of the created world, fallen though it is, is still good – just disordered. “God so loved the world” says that famous passage John 3:16, because the world was created good, and Man was created “very good”.

[005]RESPONSE: So long after the fact, 4000 odd years later, God goes back to correct some things FINALLY, by teaching them directly, when God could have averted everything with patience, mercy, benevolence, and a personal spirit voice and bodily force of correction and instruction of future timeline paths of time space, in all men. That offer of salvation comes after billions of billions of people later, in the rough portion of the 60,000,000,000 odd people over the recent 4000 years. God creates disorder, you say, to teach us a coherently understandable lesson, with finite free-will sinful natures? Go figure! It is a job that is never quite proven to the finish until all things are done in the Shakespearian complexity of life over the approximately 67,000,000,000 people, so far, destined or delivered to death in this world, as the loving patient coercion to life's ultimate choice. And if time is a constant that is fixed and KNOWN IN YHVH OMNISIENCE, then nothing ripples back and forth, in the crystalline disorder perfection of the Mystery of YHVH's Works, as it is one object of static playback to an INFINITE OMNISCINET GOD. Fluctuations in time space as you describe, are unknowns of chaos and disorder that God Himself cannot Know Omniscently. And for that matter, several billions of peoples more live after 1 AD, far away from Chistianity's only path for salvation and rewards of white robes for one's works in faith in Jesus's finite sacrifice, as humanity and Satan's evil are finite, within an Infinite YHVH Lord God.

[003]====(2) Correction on point: ALL disobedience of God and His Ways (SIN) is insurrection to God: Romans 11:"30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief (disobedience, turning away). Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.". And that doesn't even cover natural accidents, uncorrectable, yet suffering.

[004]====I don’t take your point…

[005]RESPONSE: I see no correction from the Word, The Bible. Not all Sin is turning away from God? We can pick and choose sins to commit, to forward God? Some sins are a turning toward God, as you imply here, without correction?

[003]==== (3) We still die, even today. Do you see IMMORTALS walking around in a GARDEN anymore, NOT having women-child-bearing pains, and NOT working from the sweat of their brow to support woman? I see no such thing, the consequences of Adam and Eve working until the end of time by God's Created Design, until Jesus's return. My issue still stands with your answer.

[004]====Yes, presently death is part of the human condition. But that death is not the end of the story. (also, the punishment for the woman was an INCREASE in the pangs of birth, not the creation of them, and that very well may have been due to a DECREASE in our true, god-given reasoning ability to cope with such pains.) Pain and our passions are DISORDERED now, and wouldn’t exist as they do now had humanity not fallen – but this is all hypothetical and we could talk circles about this for hours and get nowhere but interesting speculation.

[005]RESPONSE: So believing in Jesus, is still a promise beyond the knowledge of comfort, which in this world, when viewed as a Satanic Prison Camp for labor and mind control of the population, to just go the way of the dominions, powers, and principalities of pure evil and deception and temptation and confusion, will never be broken, by your finite thinking, if there really is no God, and we have a REAL WAR to wage against ALL OF THE EVIL FORCES OF THE WORLD, without a God. And a God given disordered sense of right and wrong cannot be the way to train tried gold, and dispose of the rest as dross creation by a perfect YHVH LORD God. In this world of 100% death with only a PROMISE from a currently unseen force of TOTAL POWER will go on forever, until an uncertain promised date of arrival of a questionable Infinite Powerful God, means that the powers and principalities of evil humans will have their way with humanity, with a corrupt set of multiple world religions that no one agrees are of one Christ, are distorted and diffused from truth, by their wicked world controlling ways. The Death Camp Earth, if Aliens or human forces of evil and great power over the whole earth, without a God, as the assumption of an unfulfilled ultimate promise GRANTED ONLY AFTER YOU'VE DIED, will never be defeated in this age earth, when it is true death that controls our lives from birth to death, and everyone on the whole earth, practically speaking, believe that scarcity and death are the only way of the world, until that promised day to come AFTER WE"VE ALL DIED, that may never come, if you play the Devil's advocate, where we are truly on the planet of control by the Evil Ones that They Themselves Permit in Powers, Principalities, and Dominions of a guaranteed dying earth without an Infinite Powerful God showing His True Ultimate Powers in practice, where the humans are trained to believe that God's ways are in disorder and trials, and promises fulfilled after death from this plane, that we all give up on as hopeless under the coercive truth of a mythical God's mysterious planet controlling way.

[003]====RESPONSE: If I were God, I would have removed their sin, punished JUST THEM, removed their knowledge, and let them go again, in perfection from them on in the Garden and put flaming swords around the tree, with MERCY and PATIENCE in their foolish ways (even though they are SO-CALLED PERFECT). That's mercy, longsuffering, and kindness to them AND all the generations to the end of time. But they get spanked, and we all feel it! The sins of the fathers, borne by the innocent children to the end of time. Even if you accept Jesus, you still suffer all these things. You can imagine what is NOT WRITTEN, Adam says "please forgive us God", God says, "Not this first time, sorry, but the ramifications to the end of this age are IRREVOKEABLE by the way I Set things up. I can Show You no Mercy Here."

[004]====Are you telling me that mercy means never letting people taste the fruits of what they’ve sewn? No, sir. That’s coddling, and God does not coddle. This isn’t simple children’s’ games here. This was a primordial choice of humanity.

[005]RESPONSE: You are putting me on, aren't you? You can't be seriously taking my points. Maybe I'm wrong though. You give them a taste from the future, but just a taste for correction, which then causes the time lines of all future activities of the roughly 67,000,000,000 humans to completely vary, in a way God is completely in control of, but doesn't actually allow, just predicts, so that the root doesn't make the countless stems stand on end. I'm talking correction, instruction, and mercy for 67,000,000,000 humans, and you call it child's play. Please, why the lack of serious instruction, here? Mercy, is never letting the descendants suffer for the stumbling and learning of the roots and from the Creatior of it all, Himself. And all of the correction received, in the whole world, is personal from God, and coherent, to coherent Good Good Ways in Understanding and Appropriate Ways of Filial Piety. God makes 67,000,000,000 humans, and mostly let them teach each other, as blind leading the blind, when God's Infinite Power, can bring it all together with His Infinite Powers? What is God Short on that He cannot correct, alter the potential timelines back into order, instead of creating the disorder the world seems to be witnessing. And you call that love for Adam and Eve to get spanked, and also everyone else of the 67,000,000,000 suffers?

[005]RESPONSE: And if I do take you seriously, then the whole planet should truly be a Concentration Camp, as if Hitler, Hirohito, and Mousolini Succeeded in transforming the planet into a fascist camp, so we may be better brought closer to God. If you are verily being serious about God's Word Here. That would truly be the least coddling planet to bring humans closer to God, in an ultimate payback for Karmic imbalances, so God can give us the ultimate.

[003]====Even if you accept Jesus, you still suffer all these things. You can imagine what is NOT WRITTEN, Adam says "please forgive us God", God says, "Not this first time, sorry, but the ramifications to the end of this age are IRREVOKEABLE by the way I Set things up. I can Show You no Mercy Here."

[004]====And He suffered them too, even being sinless, because he is love.

[004]====You’ll notice Adam never asks for forgiveness. He and Eve simply play the blame game, and instead of damning them to hell for all eternity, he lets them live, and settles them himself east of the garden. (Gen 3:24), and promises that he himself will redeem them (“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” He says to the Serpent, who is Satan, forshadowing what God himself does in Christ Jesus, Himself Incarnate).

[005]RESPONSE: Maybe that was left out of the Book. Maybe Adam was scared. Maybe Adam was more like a little innocent child trying to hide what God told them was a sin. For any reason, Adam and Eve get spanked, and all of history feels the ramifications, as is taught by some Christians. Blame Games *are* for Children, or those lost in the world who cannot comprehend God's Ultimate Means no matter how hard they try and wish to know earnestly seeking God's advice, that doesn't coherently come through the world, or from within from God. And then God punishes all children, as they are small beings compared to the Ultimate Mercy, Knowledge, Power, and Grace of God. He damns all to die in this world, accepting only a promise, which can easily be a deception of twisted world of true powers, dominions, and principalities, that truly have the sheep fooled into believing in scarcity, conflict, suffering, fairness, disorder, chaos, truths, distortions, mystery, et cetera. Promises, promises, over 67,000,000,000 humans, that are not all Christians or God's Chosen People in the Jews. Why, because He is Love, and must let His Creation fall, you say, so that only then He can Come closer to us? What a waste of true infinite Power of God YHVH, the Creator of all things, in His Perfect Order.

[001]====(I4) If God is omniscient, and omnipotent (A1)(A2), why can't He make ANY PERFECT good without knowingly complicitly ALLOWING even one iota of evil (A2), implying God is not omnipotent to not self-contradict, but then God is impotent in time-space free-will domains, creating a disunity, for which HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR as (A6) implies responsibility for what He created.

[002]====:"God being “omnipotent” doesn’t mean he can do ANYTHING. He cannot do what is a logical contradiction, and so while he positively wills no evil to happen, he permissively allows it that from the potentiality for evil he can bring greater good. He is responsible for creating creatures which were free to reject him, not for their rejection of Him."

[003]====RESPONSE: You say it is contradiction that God Makes Good without Evil. Many say, outside of time, God is beyond logic and contradiction, so ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE BY GOD ... BUT NO THEY AREN'T!? Despite, Mathew:19:"25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God [not quite?] all things are possible." NOT SO.Revelation:20:"14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (I2, God doesn't save 100%, God CAN'T make that kind of free-will human., God creates and authors Known Death.) He Makes the capacity of Rejection, He Makes Death of His Reject Humans. God's choices lie within Himself, as the Ultimate Free-Will to Good Ways. God's suffering is real, and it is a temporal taste of the natural fruition that comes from allowing free-will finite humans, when looking for Love from humanity, producing: accidents, "natural" disasters, genocides, concentration camps, wars, disease, ignorance, et cetera.

[004]====All things which are possible are possible. It is not possible to have a circle which is a square (boxing rings aside) because it is sheer nonsense. That’s like faulting God because he cannot “galkjeroihklmanedbo” or won’t “dlakngwekn2k 9ib9”. Something which is a logical contradiction is not something at all, but merely a “null set” of linguistic symbols strung together. God cannot “make a flower that he did not make” because that is nonsense. It’s not God’s fault, but simply a problem within human language and mind that makes us want to think that such things could be made. There is no triangle with 4 sides, and God could not change that (except in changing the very meaning of “triangle” to that of “quadrilateral”, but that is not then creating a 4 sided triangle, but simply swapping words.

[005]RESPONSE: YHVH LORD GOD'S INFINITE CAPACITIES ARE TIED DOWN BY MENS HANDS TO SNATCH SOULS AWAY FROM HIS TRUTH, CONSTRAINED BY KARMIC HINDU-BUDDHIST EQUATIONS. Utopia and Heaven which are possible, are not "gobbledegook babylon" as you put it. Why is Heaven de-facto gobbledegook, because God must watch us fall in our free-will before He can Correct us. Why is preemptive correction and instruction, with a taste of what might happen, something that God cannot give everyone? Why does God make Souls so Heavy, that He Cannot Save them better than the way things appear, when asking for understanding from God's Word. It's not like I haven't asked YHVH LORD God, and God's representatives, that are possibly corrupted, or playing blame games and dissembling about God's True Plan, that should be so easy to understand that even a Child, which we all are, can understand the complexity from God Himself? You simply say human language is incapable of helping all come to a closer understanding of God, so God hides wisdom from humans, because He speaks a language of correction that few can understand coherently, as we are not Gods ourselves. How can the Ultimate Teacher not have a word that rings true, blasts away the chaff of untruth, and is visible and unquestionable by ALL HUMANITY? God is holding back, allowing the apparent sufferings, keeps the threat of death in this world, even after accepting Jesus, in faith? Please, intensify your words, as I am missing the connection of the mystery we must simply ACCEPT? Jehova's Witnesses have convictions of the Ultimate. Jews have convictions of the Ultimate. Muslims have convictions of the Ultimate. Hindus have convictions of the Ultimate. Buddhists have convictions of the Ultimate. Zoroastrians have convictions of the Ultimate. Theist Science has convictions of the ultimate. A-thiest Science has convictions of the Ultimate. Ancient Greeks have convictions of the Ultimate. Ancient Romans have convictions of the Ultimate. Baptists have convictions of the Ultimate. Lutherans have convictions of the Ultimate. Yet all humans play the blame game like children, and the One Way banishes and separates into divisions the One Body of YHVH God? Yes, God has a hard time communicating The Truth in Power and Clarity and Correction, and we have to be as Gods to understand which is which, or suffer cycles of retraining and recorrection because no one step of correction is perfect under the Infinite Power and Mercy of God? All sides say, from God, just have faith.

[005]RESPONSE: So lets, begin by saying, what is the definition of God's Karma, that He is apparently one in the same power of YIN and YANG, as you teach, pray tell?

[003]====God's choices lie within Himself, as the Ultimate Free-Will to Good Ways. God's suffering is real, and it is a temporal taste of the natural fruition that comes from allowing free-will finite humans, when looking for Love from humanity, producing: accidents, "natural" disasters, genocides, concentration camps, wars, disease, ignorance, et cetera.

[004]====Bear in mind that God is eternal, and outside time. If you suffererd seemingly immeasurable pain for 1 million years, but then experienced heaven for all eternity, that suffering would not be even a blip on the radar. 1,000,000 is not even a percent of a percent of a percent…of a percent of infinity. So that we suffer in this life does not mean that those sufferings are the end-all of our existence, or that we will not be compensated.

[005]RESSPONSE: So Infinite God in Power over all humanity over time wants what from us? We need to taste 1,000,000 years of suffering. Why Has God received a signifigant suffering from mankind, that we must all live this way for 67,000,000,000 humans? That is at 10%, 250,000,000,000 years of suffering, albeit averaged over all humanity. Why doesn't God simply make it 2,500,000,000,000 years of suffering, since more suffering simply makes us closer to God, as you teach? We are finite and confused humans, here. What does the Infinite Loving Merciful God want from us? Coerced Love under threat of Death and living with suffering from foolish desires to a world with just plain old problems, over 67,000,000,000 humans so far? And that doesn't even look at the Creation that groaneth, Made By God, of lifeforms eating lifeforms to survive. Sounds like a Hindu Buddhist Karmic field over the entire age of human history, Under the One Infinite Personal Powerful Merciful God.

"Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing,
where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards everyone.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"

"How many roads must a man walk down
before you can call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
before she sleeps in the sand?
How many times must a cannonball fly
before they forever are banned?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind,
the answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
before he can see the sky?
How many ears must one man have
before he can hear people cry?
How many death will it take
till he knows that so many people have died?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind,
the answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
before it is washed to the sea?
How many years can some people exist
before they'r allowed to be free?
How many times can a man turn his head
pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind,
the answer is blowin' in the wind"

[004]==== I hope you fond that helpful.

[004]====I’m going to have to ask you to simplify your questions a bit if you’d like to continue. I want to be thorough, but these are getting a bit long. I’m not opposed to continuing this, so long as you can remain charitable and terse.

[005]RESPONSE: I'm sorry, God threw 5 million characters at ME, through The Canonized Bible, which you should know better than myself. It's hard to believe in something when it is hard to understand and exponentially hiding the truth behind smokescreen. I cannot be shorter to get through the issues so that you can understand my frame of reference of understanding. And you throw on C. S. Lewis, which I can hang with the Screwtape Letters, but is hardly Canonized Texts. And The Catechism, from an entity that says with much ink many years ago, that Galileio's Orbits around the Sun was in utter Heresy against God with Justification from God, inerrant, all for saying that the Earth goes around the Sun, so I highly question those other words, outside of the Canon and even Apocryphal texts, without God's Unction filling in the Gaps of understanding, and the same God let's us compute the paths of satellites that investigate and map the solar system, using non-geocentric equations of simplicity. I guess God would have us compute orbits using Claudius Ptolomaeus' Crystal Epicycle Fields, instead of Newton's Gravity, or more precisely, Einstein's Theory of Relativity Gravity Equations. I bet you'll say all of our probes and gravity equations are not real, and fabrications of the Powers, Principalities, and Dominions that ouw tax dollars help support, in the Space Programs. Now I do know enough math, to know that one CAN ACTUALLY calculate planetary orbits using Greek Epicycles, but it does make the equations much-much harder, compared to Newton and Einstein, but that's what God wants for us, on earth, and in space, where PI=3.0, too, when the scribes knew better to put that into God's Old Testament?

[005]RESPONSE: This is only about 66,377 characters, or about 1.34% of The Holy Bible in size, in about 15,421 words, in total. All is required to assure I am painting the proper image of complexity and deception, and disorder, the world must cope with, to Know that they Know Salvation in only Faith, in only One Way, when One Way, is supposed to be for ALL.

[005]RESPONSE: I guess I may only take comfort in, If God be for me, who can be against me, regarding once saved always saved, in the power of God's Good Hand?


ENDBack to Contents

[16] Abiogenesis second version.Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40

(1) Abiogenesis

..Recently I've been working through a concept for substantiating abiogenesis through the idea of general combinatorial chemistry. I've tried some posts on, science sites, and religious sites, but none seem to have any coherent opinions that are constructive to addressing the general viability of such a theory effectively. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..General (natural) combinatorial chemistry (GCC / NCC), defined here, is the complete mathematical-chemical model of all reactions that occur in any portion of matter, and its temporal evolution, including feedback. This is opposed to synthetic combinatorial chemistry, as used in pharmaceutical industry, where chemicals are specifically combinatorially analyzed by chemistry machines and control algorithms. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..To get a feel for what general combinatorial chemistry looks like, as a concretely realized system, take a beaker with 5 chemicals total in aqueous solution. Five chemicals, combinatorially speaking, have the potential for uniquely, (2^5 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s or 31 [specific-reaction-node]s, where every product at that reaction node must perform some task in a reaction directly or catalytically. Say the beaker starts off containing molecules of water, sodium, chlorine, silver, and fluorine. From these, the 31 [specific-reaction-node]s exhausted are: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1 water

2 sodium

3 water sodium

4 chlorine

5 water chlorine

6 sodium chlorine

7 water sodium chlorine

8 silver

9 water silver

10 sodium silver

11 water sodium silver

12 chlorine silver

13 water chlorine silver

14 sodium chlorine silver

15 water sodium chlorine silver

16 fluorene

17 water fluorene

18 sodium fluorene

19 water sodium fluorene

20 chlorine fluorene

21 water chlorine fluorene

22 sodium chlorine fluorene

23 water sodium chlorine fluorene

24 silver fluorene

25 water silver fluorene

26 sodium silver fluorene

27 water sodium silver fluorene

28 chlorine silver fluorene

29 water chlorine silver fluorene

30 sodium chlorine silver fluorene

31 water sodium chlorine silver fluorene

where, offhand, we must recognize that there are, at the very least, the potentials for the following real reactions with stable new-products and reactants left over, at some equilibrium level, from the left-hand [specific-reaction-node]: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(6) Na + Cl < -- > NaCl

(24) Ag + F2 < -- > AgF2

(3) Na + H20 < -- > NaOH + H2

(4) 2Na + F2 < -- > 2NaF

(20) Cl2 + F2 < -- > 2ClF

(20) Cl2 + 3F2 < -- > 2ClF3

(1) 2H20 < -- > H3O+ + OH-

..Note that in (20) a reaction node can have more than one possible reaction, like one at high temperature and one at low temperature. So, here, we see that complexity has arisen from simplicity, in that 5 [molecule]s was the starting state, and from only that, there exists the potential for 14 [stable-molecule]s to come to exist, formed by combinatorial chemistry. In much the same way that gravity-fusion yields the complexity of 92~ [natural-element]s (and numerous natural molecules), from the simplicity of 2 [element]s at the big bang. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..From that single analytical iteration, there can also exist that property of feedback, mentioned earlier. The second iterative feedback, for this example, takes 14 [molecule]s, yielding (2^14 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or 16,383 [specific-reaction-node]s. Without being exhaustive, lets say just 0.001 ratio of the reactions will produce new molecules from the original 14 [molecule]s of this iteration. That yields 16 [molecule]s, for a total of 30 [molecule]s. Again, feedback can occur, as new molecules have appeared that otherwise would not have existed. Next iteration has (2^30 - 1), or 1,073,741,823 [specific-reaction-node]s. Lets say, without being rigorous, 0.00000001 ratio of the reactions produce new molecules. That yields 11 [molecule]s, for 41 [molecule]s total. This gives (2^41 - 1), or 2,199,023,256,000 [specific-reaction-node]s. If a ratio of 0.00000000001 reaction nodes produce new molecules, we have 22 new molecules, totaling 63 [molecule]s. This can go on, as long as the feedback ratio of new stable molecules remains positive, and ceases when the feedback ratio equals zero, in a steady state networked reaction chemistry matrix, that may or may not oscillate in time about a chaotic steady state attractor. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..We have here an unknown of combinatorial chemistry, in the feedback ratio, at arbitrary complexity levels, that neither the "creationist" can declare, as much as they wish to, reaches zero for any given starting chemical system (finite steady state), or evolutionists can declare is always positive (a complexifying mixture that goes from starting simplicity to virtually unlimited complexity of molecule varieties), without measuring it in a real set of experiments outside of finite Miller-Urey, Oparin, Joan Oro, et cetera, that I have not seen myself at biological level tests. However, we know, from real biology, that carbon can allow the formation of self sustaining natural combinatorial chemistry at complexity levels of millions of compounds, that do not decompose into fewer stable molecular units or complexifying into more molecular units (except at death), so at millions of compounds for living entities, the ratio is zero for existing biological systems, probably due completely to homeostasis and physical limitations of reactions at that level of complexity-sparsity-systemic-distribution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Another piece of information can be created based on self limiting reactions. Let's say, for stereochemical limitations, only five molecule node reactions are signifigantly feasable, and 6 molecule and more node reactions are excluded from occuring, due to complexity. From 5 to 10,000 ocean molecules, one sees that the partial Natural Combinatorial Chemistry matrix from reaction molecule counts SUM(COMBINATION(molecules source, molecules of reaction) molecules of reaction = 1 to 5), from 1 to 5 nodal molecules, produces the following numbers of reactions: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

5 reactions, 31 reaction nodes

10 reactions, 637 reaction nodes

20 reactions, 21699 reaction nodes

50 reactions, 2369935 reaction nodes

100 reactions, 79375495 reaction nodes

200 reactions, 2601668490 reaction nodes

500 reactions, 257838552475 reaction nodes

1000 reactions, 8291875042450 reaction nodes

2000 reactions, 266001666834900 reaction nodes

5000 reactions, 26015651042712200 reaction nodes

10000 reactions, 832916875004174000 reaction nodes

which also shows astronomical numbers of potential reactions, against the argument of certain inherent open system steady state reaction simplicity versus complexity destiny posed by The God of The Bible according to some teachers. With just a 100 chemical ocean, limited to 5 source-molecule reaction nodes, produces 79,375,495 potential reaction nodes from the 1 to 5 molecule node reaction left hand sides, which is miniscule compared to the full Natural Combinatorial Chemistry of 1.26765060022823*10^30 NCC reaction nodes, at a ratio of 1 in 16*10^21 reachable reaction nodes in all NCC nodes. If just one in a million of the reachable NCC nodes produces a net of durable and useful molecule reaction products based on reaction nodes alone, would produce 79 new molecules in an iteration to partial steady state. Creationists claim a 0.0 feedback ratio at some point, not even one in a million, without known experiment reference, other than The Bible as humans tend to teach it. The question being, what is the ratio of the feedback ratio, in a complex chemical environment? Are there increasing breakdown reactions compared to build up reactions, such that all natural combinatorial chemistries reach some form of steady state of finite complexity molecules and polymers, as some Creationists claim is the God Given truth in biochemical science? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

..Now an example of general combinatorial chemistry, can be defined for a lifeless-earth-ocean. There is no life on earth, so the oceans are filled with a mass roughly similar to the modern biosphere dissolved in a lifeless ocean mix of basic organic (carbon based) primitive compounds, and inorganic compounds. Likewise, the environment sets up numerous states for reactions, from sunlight with UV irradiated surface water, "sunlight"-only illuminated deeper water, dark water under rocks and in sands or gravels and night time, surface chemistry (clay and mineral surfaces), average temperature water, hot water volcanic vents, lightning strikes, meteoric impacts, radioactivity (higher in the past), dehydration concentration zones in estuaries and lakes, delta rinse chemical flumes, and so forth. Carbon is a special molecule, as it allows numerous molecules to form at normal temperatures in water solutions, as evidenced by life. For a starting ocean with just 100 stable molecules, one has (2^100 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or about 1,267,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [specific-reaction-node]s. Let's say, given the ocean containing inorganic and carbon compounds, that a ratio of 0.000000000000000000000000000001 reactions form new compounds (complexity from simplicity), then one now has 101(.267) [molecule]s. As long as there's a small positive ratio, which seems quite reasonable, the number of stable molecules will increase over time. At 1,000 [year-iteration] intervals for such an ocean, one would see, at this ratio, if fixed, 100, 101, 104, 129, 1,000,000,000, (molecular saturation), within 5,000 [year]s. At a ratio that is self limiting, because of physical combinatorial limitations, one would see at 1.267 new molecules, compounded on the first 100 [molecule]s, on 1,000 [year-iteration] intervals, that there will be 1,000,000 [molecule]s in the ocean in 731,000 [year]s. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Now this alone, doesn't necessarily bring about life, yet. There would initially be in the early ocean, a large raw mix of the most stable left and right handed chiral molecules, potentially including lipids, single amino acids, single RNA, and single DNA molecules. With such a rich ocean, given just a very small general combinatorial chemistry feedback, in a relatively few years, there will likely be in the general combinatorial chemistry matrix, numerous polymerization pathways, for the most robust easily polymerizeable molecules in the ocean. Possibly amino acids, RNA, and DNA molecules, because that is what nature uses, if nature is pragmatic and not hand assembled by God every minute of the day, but may also be other natural molecules that can polymerize, likely based on carbon, that operate more easily than amino acids, RNA, and DNA. In this ocean, with some form of polymers and polycyclics, from that there will intrinsically be a digitally-codified, and thus easily mutateable set of chemical "species" that catalytically support each other's productions in durable, catalytically-reactive, efficient-thus-numerical, systems. Three sets of reaction-networked-catalytic-hypercycle-feedback-mutateable codes will be operating in cooperative sets, one for left handed, right handed, and left-right handed chiral polymeric reaction codes in combination. Each set will compete for molecular supremacy in numbers, over numerous explorations finding combinatorially-inherent new species, and in a scarce chemical competition/cooperation, one set or another will have dominance in ocean space because the probabilities of "discovering" inherent reactions don't occur identically statistically speaking, creating autonomous differentials of product exploration diverging in time for the three chiral system types. Because feedback operations are used in these sets of reaction pathways, they will have a kind of numerical instability in the very complexity discovery occuring, and over time, one set of operations will win out as the standard, as numerous incompatabilities would likely occur between the sets. Nature, obviously, selected right handed chiral molecules, because at some point in time, being the first most complete types and sets of fullest reaction-networked-catalytic-hypercycle-feedback-mutateable code found, that was overall, by chance and inherent robust stability, the dominant reaction super-system. It could have gone to the left handed chirality too, but what we have in majority biology is right handed chirality, not that left handed chirality is inferior or even discernably differenet, as a perfect mirror physics image in all ways, except in a *perfectly* identical discovery in its own combinatorial chemistry chiral subset of complexity evolution divergence in time-ocean-space. Mixed left-right chirality combinatorial chemistry reaction matricies probably are inherently less efficient to discover naturally since a wholly different a-symmetry is a part of a mixed system, and so it didn't become supreme either, but is an assumption of the complex mixed chiral system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..With a dominant chirality in the ocean at some point of time, or at the very least, an ocean with large regions of left handed or right handed dominant chirality combinatorial chemistry, the mutateable digital chemistry keeps exploring its combinatorial chemistry, inherently combinatorially discovering and diverging in chemical "specie" space, always finding digital codes that react more efficiently in numeracy than previous generations of polymeric chemical code "species" could, because new reactions continue being exposed with each combinatorial chemistry iteration with mutations and systemic stabilities in chaotic attractors of cooperative catalytic production systems, and proto-metabolic pathways inherent to the growing matrix of reactions. Eventually, either circuitously through precipitate micro-gel agglomerate clumps without membranes to micells in some generations of intermediate chemistries, or directly,, numerous populations of many types of micelles form from primitive lipids, proteins, RNA, and DNA fragments, inherently selected, as the most efficient, and thus numerically superior evolved digital chemical "specie" systems of reaction sets, encompassing (1) metabolism varieties from sunlight related chemical reaction pathways, glucose pathways, sulphurics pathways, et cetera, (2) homeostasis in a semi-permeable auto catalytic reaction system types, (3) transportability in a semi-permeable primitive lipid micelle / lysosome kinds, and (4) reproduction in the inherently most efficient general combinatorial chemistry matrix types, of which there can be many kinds of cellular versions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..It should be noted that for an ocean with particles interacting about 1*10^10 [interaction / second], in a billion years or 31,560,000,000,000,000 [seconds], in an ocean with conservatively 100,000,000 [km^3] or 100,000,000,000,000,000 [m^3] active ocean volume solution, at about 1,000,000[g/m^3], and 20[g/molar-volume] at 6.02*10^23[molecule/molar-volume], that there's: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..31,560,000,000,000,000 [seconds / billion-year] * 1*10^10 [interaction / second] * 100,000,000,000,000,000 [m^3/active-ocean] * 1,000,000[g/m^3] / 20[g/molar-volume] * 6.02*10^23[molecule/molar-volume] = 949,956,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean] in oceanic combinatorial chemistry, or 949.956*10^69 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean]. So-called Christian and fundamentalist Creationists are quite certain, inspired by God and His truth to them, that this set of interactions, in an ocean of combinatorial chemistry, CANNOT reach life, inerrant to God's truth to them, that ONLY God was directly involved in forming life past the barrier of inherent chemical irreducible complexity truly, and not the rules of inherent combinatorial chemistry, originally setup at the Big Bang. One only needs to reach, say 1,000 large systems of chemical interaction, out of about 1*10^72 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean], to reach life, leading one to 1*10^69[interaction / system] to setup each of those systems in parallel. If the [interaction] efficiency is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ["progressive-interaction"/general-interaction] one has 1*10^51 [progressive-interaction / system] available per system, to reach all of the exemplar 1,000 [system] of life chemistry over a billion years of early earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Returning to a starting ocean, with just 100 stable [molecule]s, where one combinatorially has (2^100[molecule] - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or about 1,267,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [specific-reaction-node / combinatorial-chemistry-context]s. Given the ocean containing inorganic and carbon compounds, that a ratio of 0.000000000000000000000000000001 [new-combinatorial-chemistry-context-molecule / specific-reaction-node] form new compounds (complexity from simplicity) toward life over non-life, then one now has 101(.267) [molecule / combinatorial-chemistry-context]s. The iteration would take, maximally calculated for a 1,000 [year / iteration] example, 1*10^66 ocean interactions (from the previous 949.956*10^69 [interaction / billion-year-ocean]), in this example of given ocean interactions, to make this oceanic molecular change from 100 to 101.267 [molecule / combinatorial-chemistry-example]s occur in the ocean. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs3:13-23[Happy is the man [cell] that findeth wisdom [new good and true Words], and the man [cell] that getteth understanding [true Word]. For the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She [true Words] is more precious than rubies and all the things that thou cans't desire are not to be compared unto her [assisting truth]. Length of days is in her right hand [control]; and in her left hand riches and honour [product]. Her ways are of pleasantness, and her paths are peace [sustains]. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her [in compatibility]: and happy is every one that retaineth her [in the cell]. The LORD [true Word] by wisdom [old codes] hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens [consiousness]. By His knowledge [root codes] the depths are broken up [heirarchy], and the clouds drop down the dew [stabilize the environment]. My son, let not them depart from thine eyes [code preserves]; keep sound wisdom and discretion: so shall they be life unto thy soul [cell and mind], and grace to thy neck. Then shalt thou walk in the way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble.]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Once cells of such digital variety types are formed, with small chains of RNA, DNA, and proteins inherent at the level of complexity, they can propagate further in ocean currents, because of durability and safety of the agglomerate/cellular units. The best reaction sets are the chemical species that can travel in these units, in various ocean domains, and still contain the stability required in their digitized combinatorial chemistry to operate. Cells with inferior microcoded reaction networks, simply are less numerous and less prosperous. And since robust units travel, and have efficient feedback reproduction homeostasis, they dominate the ocean, converting whatever domains of other handed chirality into their networks of reactions, as partially symbiotic with the ocean and themselves, before true living individuality occurs. Eventually, the ocean purifies itself, either here, or along this path of biochemical competition, as cellular reactions that modify the ocean contents to their reactions, as well as use their own molecular types, and internally mutate their own codes to continually adapt to the unifying ocean, converge themselves together, akin to Gaian theories, through earth-ocean-cellular-types symbiosis numerical instability ocean domain feedback adaptive sumpremacy. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs3:1-12[My son [cell], forget not my law[old codes]; but let thine heart [cell core] keep my commandments [DNA]. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they [codes] add to thee. Let not mercy and truth [in the Word] forsake thee: bind them about thy neck [body cord]; write them upon the table of thine heart [cell nuclear code]: So shalt thou [cell] find favor and good understanding in the sight of God [the Word] and man [cells]. Trust in the LORD [the Word] with all thine heart [cell core]; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him [the Word], and He shall direct thy [cell] paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes [cell organs]: fear the LORD [the Word], and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. Honour the LORD [the Word] with thy substance [cell body], and with the firstfruits of thine increase [feed the Word]. So shall thy barns [environment] be filled with plenty, and thy presses [DNA codes] shall burst out with new wine [sweet spirit Words]. My son [cell], despise not the chastening of the LORD [true Words]; neither be weary of His correction [true Words]: for whom the LORD [old codes] loveth He correcteth [helps]: even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.]

All the time the cells exist, the digitized combinatorial chemistry is always refining itself, inherently, because more efficient micro-polymer reaction sets become dominant through efficient forward reaction rates, via continual mutations in such primitive codes, reaching new inherent discoveries, not requiring molecules to be "conscious" knowing the future to bond themselves as "creationist" arguments often pose is required outside of physics. Also, as the relative robust stability of the best kinds of cells allows increases in codes, then also systemic relational codes inherently develop in these matrixies of reactions, in complexes and networks of catalytic reaction sets, because they inherently assist the reproduction of the combinatorial chemistry cells types. There may still be competition between cellular type systems, and sets of chirality molecules at this point of time, but every new generation of mutations that spreads dramatically better because of new found molecule codes, only furthers diverges the dominance of chirality and cellular types, both, and decreases any side-use of competing chiral systems that continue to wane as the ocean become uni-chiral through bio-recycling. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the cells/gel-agglomeration-precipitates in these early combinatorial chemistry species evolutions are very small compared to modern cells, because they are not developed as modern life with its history of mutually supported digital molecular records. As such, they can fill an ocean quite densely, and pass generations quite fast, as the fastest best most durable and travelable units dominate, reaction wise. So in a million years, with just 10 million cubic kilometers of reactive zone, a density of 100,000 cells of various types per cubic meter on average in that volume, and a generation of 1 week, could explore, numerically, 52,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units, in 52,000,000 mutation generations, of a total diverse population of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units, of various types, in such an oceanic sub-unit, with the accompanying period of chemical processing during each unit's existence. Definitely the hard way to form life, compared to design, but completely possible in contexts. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs4:1-27[1 Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. 2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. 3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. 4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live. 5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. 6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. 7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. 8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. 9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee. 10 Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many. 11 I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths. 12 When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble. 13 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life. 14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. 15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. 16 For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. 17 For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. 18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. 19 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. 20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. 21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. 22 For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh. 23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. 24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. 25 Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee. 26 Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. 27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.]

Proverbs4:1-27[1 Hear, ye [cell offspring], the [true codes] of a [parent cell true code], and [machine] to [keep that code]. 2 For [the code Word] give [cells] [operations], forsake [cell] not my [true Word]. 3 For [paternal cell] was [a cell's] [true Word code pattern(al)'s] [cell offspring], [synergy cooperation supported] and only [precious codes] in the sight of [cells] [nurturing code]. 4 [Word code] taught [cell] also, and [instructed] [cell], Let [cellular core] retain [true Word code]: keep [the code ways], and live. 5 Get [truest codes], get [truest operations]: forget [the codes] not; neither decline from [code instruction transcriptions]. 6 Forsake [truest nurturing code words] not, and [truest words] shall preserve [cell]: love [the truest codes], and [truest codes] shall [support well] thee. 7 [truest Word nurturing codes] is the principal thing; therefore get [new truest Word nurturing codes]: and with all [cell] getting get [operational code integration synergy]. 8 [cooperatively enhance operations] [truest codes], and [nurturing codes] shall promote [cell]: [nurturing codes] shall bring [cell] to [sustainable dominance synergy], when [cell] dost embrace [true codes]. 9 [nurturing codes] shall give to [cell's] [processes and feedback] an ornament of [virtuous operations]: a crown of [cell synergystic cooperative numeracy power] shall [the best nurturing cell-world Word codes] deliver to [cell]. 10 Hear, O my [cell offspring], and receive [paternal cell] [true codes]; and the years of [cell offspring] life shall be many. 11 [paternal cell] have taught [cell offspring] in the way of [best codes]; [paternal cell] have led [offspring cell] in right paths. 12 When [cell offspring] goest, [cell's] steps shall not be straitened; and when [cell offspring] runnest, [cell offspring] shalt not stumble. 13 Take fast hold of [true codes integrated]; let [nurturing codes] not go: keep [true nurturing codes]; for [nurturing codes] is thy life. 14 Enter not into the path of the wicked [dispersive and viral codes], and go not in the way of evil [dispersive and viral code] [cells]. 15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. 16 For [froward codes] sleep not, except [froward codes] have done mischief; and [froward cells] sleep is taken away, unless [froward incompatible detected codes] cause [good cells] to fall. 17 For [froward cells codes] eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence [anti-synergy]. 18 But the path of the [cooperative true nurturing Word code] is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. 19 The way of the wicked [codes] is as darkness [diminishing position]: [froward cell codes] know not at what they stumble [fall short efficiency cooperatives]. 20 [paternal code's] [cellular offspring], attend to [the true codes]; incline thine [systems] unto [paternal code's] [codes]. 21 Let [paternal codes] not depart from [cell offspring's] [machine agglomeration systems]; keep [good codes] in the midst of thine [cellular core]. 22 For [true codes] are life unto those [cells] that find them, and health to all their flesh. 23 Keep [cell] [code core] with all diligence [maintenance systems]; for out of it are the issues of life. 24 Put away from [cell] a froward [code explorer], and perverse [codes] [code attack] far from [cell operations]. 25 Let [cell's] [sense systems] look right on [systematically synergystic], and let [cell's] [sense system's control] look straight before [cell]. 26 [chemcial code process] the path of thy [cell envelope and drive], and let all [cell's] [operations] be [cooperative synergy reaction system]. 27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left [divergent uncontrolled inferior efficiency code]: remove [cell's] [membrane and drive] from [inferior codes and states].]

Naturally, such a complex cellular combinatorial chemistry exploration will find more codes, longer codes, and better codes. It should be obvious, given these assumptions, illustrations, and theory, that it might just be possible that an external force is not absolutely required to assemble and maintain every cell of life as argued as obviously true fact by some Creationist positions, given the apparent ease which modern natural bio-chemistry keeps modern life operating, without observable external-to-physics forces seen in testable reality, and general combinatorial chemistry seems capable of generating life, with an evolutionary model of general combinatorial chemistry. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One may also notice, on a different heirarchical scale, which penetrates deeper back into time, that the solar system, from the original nebula perspective, gravitationally forms not just a closed system, but an energy losing system, radiatively to the rest of the nearly empty expanded universe, and one sees that life forms and is supported inside of that open-declining-energy-content-system. More so, even if the system were closed, inside of a perfectly reflecting sphere around the nebula, the system would be closed, but starting at a cold expanded temperature, and collapsing under gravity, one sees that partitions of concentrated matter systems are formed by gravity. There can still be a sun and earth, even if at a different configuration than the current solar system, as the sun would be larger, receiving back all of the energy it sends out, reflecting off the sphere, and the earth would have to be much further away from the sun, to support the same life context. And so here, a *closed* system can be used to support (dare say self-form) meso-scale life, even though some Creationists often claim that closed systems always, always, always form into only-and-exclusively simple-steady-states (and perhaps granted to them, in the end of conventional-available-energy-matter-time-space-biochemical-systems). One could even go to the scale of the observeable universe, taken as a closed system, or even a declining system, taken as the expanding, productive-energy to thermal-energy entropy converting status, that obviously supports, if not self-forms life too, within that closed system with net mass, space, and initial energy. Going to the God scale, the one-of-all-things and nothing-else-exists-not-of-it, is a closed system, but then God can't make perfect eternal life from God on earth, and cannot yield 100% perfection in salvation of all souls, and based on those so-called obvious facts of life that all things die, self referentially speaking at material infinity of the matter plane, as all things must die, eventually, in a closed system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And lastly, for now, if chemistry monads are not of the configuration that allows self-formation of order, design is the only cause, to explain the existence of life, due to combinatorial chemistry inherent limitations of feedback, expansion, and organization. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents

[17] Chiral / Churl symmetry between Atheism and Theism.Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40

::I will get to your generous comments below, still iterating fine details above, and debating evolutionists and creationists, which are, humorously speaking, both as stubborn as the other in a chiral/churl symmetry! LOL. "grins" [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::A lovely chiral/churl symmetry can be found in word=genetic-mirror=reflections. David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheisim and its scientific pretensions", Page 29, wites: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original: 29 "These questions are rhetorical. No one is disposed to ask them within the [Scientific] community, and the [Scientific] community is not disposed to acknowledge answers to questions it is not disposed to ask." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored: 29' "These questions are rhetorical. No one is disposed to ask them within the [Religious] community, and the [Religious] community is not disposed to acknowledge answers to questions it is not disposed to ask." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And relating to saving self and others, for science, "The God Delusion", Page 35, says,

:::35 "An Athiest in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no *super*natural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe [(including humans)], no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Therefore, "Ghost in the Shell" type technology to definitively sustain human life in matter beyond body death is a delusion, is a science discipline that will NEVER be searched for, as it is a miracle of progress, as no one in science of *this* attitude is disposed to answer that question, as they are not disposed to ever ask. The truly selfish gene, indeed, as death owns all humans and life, natural evolution and religious world ways. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And in religion, how a soul is saved, is a mystery to not be questioned, not to be investigated, not to be attempted by our own hands. Shrug shoulders, and hope in faith that the death of all things works itself out through God, as one truly lives by dying to not return, and one rises by descending into the dirt on this plane forever. And they deprecate abortion? Talk about not permitting a "free ride" for those souls, in innocence. A moment of pain, if any at all, when properly done, for a direct ticket to heaven. China policy has the right idea, in this context. Go figure. I could be hyperbolically and horrifically sarcastically extreme, saying if somewhere people could extract and hyperfertilize sections of ovaries to make billions of eggs, and fertilize them, and then destroy all the zygotes, then one could literally-inerrantly advance the second coming of Jesus, if the one and only and true way in the Christian Bible is true, as commonly taught, as countless souls are cycled through earth back to heaven, to finish off the age in short order. All live by dying, and that would definitely do it to the maximum, at this point of time, and with the most innocents, and the fewest sinners could ask forgiveness of God, and all those alive today would enter the new age so much sooner. But that's all too easy, and I'm just a lost dragon on this God forsaken planet. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And science says there's no God to save souls, that don't even exist to begin with, beyond death. Therefore, humanity claims, as a whole, that death is the desirable destiny of humanity, and all life. Have children to have them die surely and certainly, is the universal accepted status of humans, as that is the order of things, and no one will lift a hand to transcend "the way things are", as is for religions where God desires death, and is for science that says death is the natural order of life and will never be transcended or investigated. To quote Dawkins further, Page 35, "As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.". Death is the acceptable and wonderful singular destiny in religion and science on earth, as the one true harmony that both agree on, that humanity agrees on, in the majority rule? The true Frankenstein's Monster, that is to only enter death on earth, and not reform life on earth? Perversely, the true saints, are the genocidal despots in history who start wars and cleanse the planet, who martyr themselves morally, to send others innocently to God, while reducing economic burdens on the earth? What a history of the world, for estimably 60,000,000,000 humans to date. Terrible and awesome. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And, Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion", Page 28: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original: 28 "If this book works as I intended, [religious] readers who open it will be [Athiests] when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool [faith-heads] are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely the work of [Satan]. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of [religion] altogether. At the very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, "I didn't know I could.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored: 28' "If this book works as I intended, [science] readers who open it will be [Theistic] when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool [science-heads] are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely the work of [ruling finite thinking]. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of [science] altogether. At the very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, "I didn't know I could.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And pure incompletion-fallacies, attributed to A(c)quinas, in "The Devil's Delusion", Page 64: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::64 "(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) The universe [began to exist], (3) so the universe had [a] cause" which could have been reformed genetically-bipolarized as: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::64' "(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) The universe [simply exists always | began to exist], (3) so the universe had [no | a] cause",

:::and cannot be proven or disproven without universal scale tests. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Another poser for mirror symmetries, attributed to Karamazov, in "The Devil's Delusion", Page 20,and another bipolarized-mirror in Page 45, and one on Page 106-107: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::20 "(1) If [God | Science] does not exist, then everything is permitted. (2) If [Science | God] is true, then [God | Science] does not exist. (3) Therefore, if [Science | God] is true, then everything is permitted.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::49 "And the question I am asking is not whether [(God-only-way-universe) | no-God-science] exists but whether [Science | Religion] has shown that [(God-only-way-universe) | no-God-science] does not." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original 106: "Among [philosophers (in no-God concepts)] concerned to promote [Athiesm], satisfaction in [Hawking's] conclusion has been considerable. Witness [Quentin Smith (in no-God science)]: "Now [Stephen Hawking's] theory dissolves any worries how [the universe] could begin to exist uncaused." [Smith] is so pleased by the conclusion of [Hawking's] argument that he has not concerned himself overmuch with its premises. Or with its reasoning." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored 106: "Among [theologists in only-God] concerned to promote [God's one-and-only way], satisfaction in [Religious promoter H's] conclusion has been considerable. Witness [S in only-God theology]: "Now [H's] theory dissolves any worries how [God] could begin to exist uncaused." [S] is so pleased by the conclusion of [H's] argument that he has not concerned himself overmuch with its premises. Or with its reasoning." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And a final mirror note from Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion", Page 232:

:::"There are some weird things (such as the [Trinity, transubstantiation, incarnation]) that we are not *meant* to understand [(too deeply)]. Don't even *try* to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfillment in calling it a *mystery*." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::"There are some weird things (such as the [Quantum Physics apparent measurement von-Neumann heirarchical real-macro-scale-observations verus super-system unitary-evolution issue, instantaneous (infinitely faster than light) entanglement-wavefunction collapse existence, complex macroscopic system of particle into wave hierarchy versus all classical versus all wavefunction state]) that we are not *meant* to understand [(too deeply)]. Don't even *try* to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfillment in calling it a *mystery*." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Is the reality more terrible than anyone should ever know, or so much less controlled than one would ever hope, or in a corruption far deeper than one would imagine, or so not needing apparently true progress that ignorance in eternal status-quo is the truest bliss, among other things? Free and not free, real and illusion, important and not important at all, an eternal forced middle path unity, among other things? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Non-pragmatically speaking, it seems that infinite regression potential occurs on earth, between incomplete pure-doubtless Science without God, and incomplete pure-doubtless God without Science, and all pure-doubtless faith are seemingly asymmetrically divisive / dividing / derisive without a good direction, perhaps best left to children of all ages growing in analysis. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::What symmetrical divisions and stereotyping symmetries and incompletion, in general. But what do I really know, either, reading these things of humans, and my finite thinking? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents

[18] Philosophies of existence nature and life.Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40

(3) Philosophies of existence nature, and life.

:A few years ago a schoolmate of mine, George Greenstein, wrote on the unlikelihood of the initial conditions at the dawn of time all being "set" right to make life possible. One low probability multiplied by another low probability... results in a probability that is virtually indistinguishable from 0. Yet, here we are.

:To me, the interesting thing is that all this complexity that we see in complex organisms, complex systems of complex organisms, etc., is all emergent from the nature of the very simplest of things. My guess is that not all of the possible organisms will be worked out in practice because the number of possibilities is so huge and it looks like entropy is going to slow us all down to a dead-slow crawl.

::I've seen those arguments many places and times. They *are* quite true. Simply ignoring the extremes and details of physics, one notes that units (monads) that have few modalities of combination lead to meso-systems with no complexity (gasses and dusts), as meso-scale complexity is coherently barred. Units that have uncounted modalities of combination lead to meso-systems with amorphous-coherency structure, not permitting controlled specific construction of reasonable finite-complex systems, so complexity is amorphous, if it even exists in a physically useful form in that universe model. Units that have a subtle balanced modality of combination, like carbon related compounds of this universe, lead to the famous critical chaotic natural meso-system one observes in this universe model. And for intelligent design, a unit that has subtle balanced structural and polymer combination modalities, leads to a most rapid self-development of meso-scale coherent complexity, as more sophisticated "code" is embedded right in the monads of that universe model. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::You are also very right that not all possible meso-scale systems do not form in practice, but only a pragmatic subset, under natural stochastic forces limitations of time-space. For example, in the general combinatorial chemistry model, one notes that for large systems, the packing-factors and mix-densities push some combinatorial explorations to the low probability zone, like a reaction that generates a new molecule based on 100 extant molecules, is unlikely to occur, except in many distributed steps over diffusion-time. So for normal space, with subtle balanced connective units, the combinatorial feedback factor decreases (self limiting) with unit count, as the nodal-combination-matrix continues to grow exponentially with unit type count. Likewise, life with small system size evolve faster than large systems. Thus, one presumes pre-Cambrian life was the most diverse, and as system-complexity-size grows with time, numerous local-minima become the norm, simply due to scarcity on a finite plane, until now, where evolution still occurs, but is plodding rate-wise in large lifeforms in overall comparison with a burden of adapted systems without extensive self modification capability (genetic evolution within an individual), except for the most systemically-undifferentiated modern life, like the least universally adapted bacterias, with the poorest structure, in a low competition zone, where one would expect they can still evolve like pre-Cambrian presumptions. Even modern amoeba, are likely different from the pre-Cambrian counterparts, with encoded sophistications that simply didn't exist to begin with, and in a different environment earth, even though the overall architecture could "look" the same (as a mote of biochemistry). Much like Titan bacteria, if they exist, will simply be different from earth's, due to the inherent combinatorial chemistry and chemical "specie" context differences of the environment. And, exobiologically speaking, theoretical modern Titan bacteria may be very different from early forms, because, say, they formed into mats with highly cooperative efficient systems, possibly giving rise to immortal human level sentience, in the form of the conservative and cooperative meso-scale-structure, in a very different general combinatorial chemistry, with limited and conservative meso-scale-structure opportunities from the low temperatures and energy supplies, compared to earth with plants and animals. Makes me shudder to think the world we live in may be that virtual bacterial mat world, all constructed from virtual advanced bio-informational-accumulated-technology, but why no one talks about the true nature of reality(?). *brrrrr* scary potentials and secrecies. More revealed, the movie Tron shows a similar concept, where the artist's conception of perception is shown for that particular mode of transferrence, as Flynn is perceiving the perceptual local travel from material to digital plane, and once in a digital plane, there is a similar but different self-perceptual-locus in that plane. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:If one starts thinking about intelligent design, then the question seems to me to be why humans are rather unintelligently designed in some respects. It would be nice, for instance, if I could get a third full set of teeth about now. Leibniz tried to work out a rationale according to which all the imperfections or seeming failures to reach perfection worthy of an infinitely powerful God are actually consequences of trade-offs necessary to make the universe possible at all. If, for example, God were to have provided humans with the ability to regenerate missing teeth or just swap out adult teeth for a new set of adult teeth, then something else that we actually need more would have to go.

::Yeah, a lot of things, of that type, bother me to no end. From non-immortality, no individual evolution (inside of a generation of most or all lifeforms), to appendices and tonsils, to lack of regeneration of parts before death. All *too* natural, for my "good"-fearing concepts of reality, or a "Perfect"-God-Designer. Disappointing and disappointing. So much potential, but who sees anything, as commonly revealed by man and nature and religious traditions. And if utopia beyond mere generations and matter, with upright souls and intrinsic salient steady states can be imagined, why are they not, now, or to begin with. It's probably all *my* fault, somehow. Wink and a nod. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:The explanation Leibniz offered never seems to have gained much popular support. But in terms of evolutionary theory it actually makes a kind of sense. Evolution operates the most rapidly when some deleterious feature results in the death of individuals displaying that trait before they can reproduce. Under those circumstances, anybody who survives to be able to reproduce will likely not carry that trait. Evolution does not operate nearly so directly to favor traits that support the existence of post reproductive years individuals. It has to work through some indirect process such that a wise grandparent keeps his/her grandchildren alive, and so his/her genes are favored.

::Hmmm, if I'm not mistaken, Darwin likely has that integrated into evolution theory already. No new thing under the sun, though, as is nice to see, from Liebni(t)z, (or even Sparta). I'm also surprised that, apparently, cooperative systems don't seem to be the norm, or even in instances, evolutionarily speaking. Imagine any entity that can evolve within themselves, is essentially immortal (incorruptible more appropriate), and maintains steady state with no reproduction of entities, but only of transient informations. Totally incomprehensible that they don't appear in "official" evolutionary biology teachings, or after almost a billion years of meso-scale-life, and upwards few billions of micro-scale-life. Something inherently "beyond-survival-aggressive" between mortal life and immortal potential (at "war"), or that Godless stochastic nature has no top level insight to reach that ideal, or all life intrinsically wants to cease existing, eventually, or any number of additional imaginative world views. In any case, one of those, outside-of-the-naturalist-box blind-spots of dogma-theory-evolution. Hmmm. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Truly intelligent design would have to make possible retrofitting to take care of responses to new environmental conditions. Humans could not have simply been designed a millions of years ago and left to thrive based on that original design. The fact appears to be that the earliest humans were well suited to life in Africa, and perhaps those who continued to live in Africa became even better suited to that environment as time went on. But the humans who moved out of Africa due to wanderlust and/or population pressure ended up in places where the African model, designed to screen out UV radiation very successfully and to radiate heat very well, was not well able to thrive. Humans with whiter skins to permit soaking up what little UV was available and to radiate heat less enthusiastically, with bigger noses to warm and humidify cold and dry northern air before it could enter the lungs, etc., evolved when humans went north. Or take resistance to malaria. Sickle-cell anemia has evidently evolved several times or possibly the genetic changes have traveled without the kinds of association with other traits frequently seen in genetic migrations, but if that answer to malaria was the result of intelligent design intervening in the normal course of events then one would have to question why the intelligent designer could not come up with a less messy, less painful, less debilitating way of protecting individuals. (How will it look if humans manage to do their own genetic re-programming and give humans immune systems that reliably defend us against malaria?)

::Truly omnipotent omniscient self all, would have no needs for even the things mentioned, as the "game" would be wondering about imperfection, instead of the other way around wondering about perfections, except as virtual, strangely, more so. Overall, much agreed with all those points. Bodes badly for the forces of natural evils of short falls in a nature only universe. *sigh*. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:The whole area of thought strikes me a little like the now [discredited] explanations of disease based on witchcraft and malevolence. Why did uncle Hairy die of diabetes at the age of 49? Because the warlock in the next village was paid to do him in. There you have a straightforward explanation, and people will often accept such explanations because they suit our general model for explaining some other things? Why did I take the cap off the milk bottle? Because I willed to provide myself with a drink of milk. Saying smoke rises because it wants to or because that is its nature is an easy explanation that takes a lot less energy than figuring out what actually is going one.

::Hmmm. Perhaps [debased] over [discredited], so hard to tell sometimes . . . *grins*. But presumably agreed, lots of things are *naturally* depressing, so to speak. Even more so, why does everything salient apparently die? And agreed, when system-information-consciousness-feedback gets involved, things can get quite . . . complicated when thorough. And then when opinion matricies get mixed into things, it seems that all bets are off, rationally speaking. Yeah, finitely, sometimes its nice to take less energy, but sometimes one can't help a curiosity. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Another problem with the idea of a Creator God is that we then would like to know where the Creator God came from, how the Creator God is possible. Somebody might explain his existence by saying that he was created by another Creator God, and so on ad infinitum.

::[ . . . where the Creator God came from, how the Creator God is possible] I could go into one potential QP for that one, but it goes kind of theoretical throughout, and oppositional to some and even myself at another time, for myself to define that one, when having a hard enough time with mathifying the quantum-entanglement-structural-instantaneous- . . . - self, idea formally. Knowing the why's and wherefore's of what's best from that perspective suffices the pragmatics of personal life, even if finite-incomplete. I've seen the other point of infinite regression creation modality for the universe and creator concepts. In human thought, finite regression is acceptable and pragmatically sufficient for virtually all things in life, but the problems of potential infinite regression are bothersome, for sure. But only the ultimate macro-system / God knows the answer of whether it is infinite=modality-regressive=construction or finite=modality-infinite=construction (like steady state universe concepts). The existence of unexplained finites and infinite limitations in life and religions, is disconcertingly open to possible agreement with the infinite=modality-regressive=construction issue, due to the lacking of extant harmony. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:It is always possible to answer a question like, "Why is there life?" by saying, "Because there is a life giver," but that does not really answer the question. All it really says is that life is a condition that falls in the set of things that exist because there was a preceding set of things/conditions that led to their existences. So we assert that (without any real proof) and then derive a conclusion, that there must be a cause if an effect found. But quantum theory is very good at teaching us to beware of accepting the truth of anything [(a)s]imply because it seems plausible to us. If we take as our premise that the Universe and its true causes and effects are likely to look more like quantum theory than classical physics, then we may start to wonder about the possibility that the "effect" that is life may be more like the "effect" that a photon having gone through a double slit apparatus shows up in a single clearly defined place. Maybe life's existence is a quantum "fluke," something that appears in this universe but not in many other universes, and not for any reason that we can sort out but simply because the probabilities for life are such-and-so, and this is a universe that hit the jackpot. Back to Greenstein and the ideas he discussed, maybe that are a huge number of universes, and there is a kind of "fringe" distribution pattern among them that means that some will have life and others will not.

::[ . . . but that does not really answer the question] I'd add "fully". Though I get that they may often directly connect it to God's direct pervasive hand, instead of connecting it to God's "Big Bang", physically speaking, with a continuation of the field from that Creator source,along with continuing influences. But from the physics sub-view, the Greenstein criticality of design is definitely true (whether in an a-theistic-Anthropic-principle-continuum or a Creator-inherent-field-capacity-universe-field-design). But, quite clearly for Truth, existence exists, ala "Cogito Ergo Sum", and so universe-existence has no beginning as a field, given perfect conservation of all things, to be necessary for the support, with only relative-beginnings and relative-endings of "fields" in a continuum, like String Theory. Definitely, the ideas you position, for the multiple field types (from current String Theory and Multiverses), appears True. As black holes are an extant different field of existence, from conventional space, in the singularity ring / fractal-braided-collapsed-string-torus / other. And, of course, coherent-locus-life will only exist in the fields with the proper Greenstein criticality of monad bonding to support the chaotic edge attractors of meso-scale-systems, when natural, or a potential *designed* monad bonding, to support similarly complex meso-scale-systems. So in some ways I disagree that the reasons for where life can exist are well-unknown, as the coherent locus solus principle defines that, aka Anthropic principle, in all Multiverses possible in the "String" continuum. You might want to read my continuing posts in the discussion section of Many Worlds Interpretation, with M. Price, which continue to consider those QP-measurement-entanglement-self-consciousness concepts. Which brings to mind, no one ever made a Wiki article on Frederick K. C. Price, of Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, which is popular, from California to Arizona, by observation of medias here, and in Phoenix. I hope it isn't racially based article "exclusivity", as in exclusion. I also think I remember accessing a Wiki Microscan article while in Arizona, a while ago, but find now that the term Microscan doesn't even appear on LA Wiki, in cross-referencing, only Superresolution. Interesting nits of the Wiki system access. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think that for Zhuang Zi, life and awareness are both emergent qualities based on the underlying nature of all existence. Life probably is a characteristic of all that we conceptualize as "things," but emerges in a noticeable form in things that we call "alive." A virus would be a borderline case. Similarly, all things are aware in the sense that they mirror their environment, but some things do so in very hazy ways and other things (being organizationally and functionally more complex) do so in more precise ways. Bacteria are aware of their environments, but not to any high standard of accuracy and/or high definition. We are surprised by the difference between living things and dead things because we fail to observe that there is a smooth continuum between what we conceptualize as two discrete states.

::Agreed, that consciousness's are of at least the emergent properties of meso-scale monad collections processing and reflecting the world and self, and that it lies on a scale of structural entropy measures. "Standard" is an interesting word to use, though, for a continuum with a lower limit and no certain upper limit, as buying into normatives over measures, if it is even important. And, while I agree there's a continuum, between living and dead things, on this plane, there appears the disconcerting unexplained apparent loss of the solus locus that was supported on the monad meso-scale-structure, if there is something to save or travel, between the living and the nullified state scalar. I fall short, here, currently, to conceive the qualities of the loss positively, for sure. Not so much a surprise, as a disappointment, of the seeming state difference, and an incredible difficulty for me, field-mathematically speaking. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents

[19] Jumping spiders and such.Back to Contents
CREATED AD 2008 09 02 P 08:40

(4) Jumping spiders and such.

:I'm actually fascinated by how aware jumping spiders appear to be to their world and even to the human beings that some within their range of vision. A spider that seems to play with me and to explore my hand, all the while watching my eyes, a spider that is only about 1/4 inch long, doesn't even have a proper brain. The complex of nerve cells that process the information it deals with must be about the size of the tip of a well-sharpened pencil. Yet they show clear signs of being not only aware of me but of being curious about me. (Ants seem far less reflective, far more governed by hard-wired responses -- bite this, eat that, flee anything big that shakes the ground around you, etc.) P0M (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

::I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Of all spiders common around here, the only spider type I've ever willingly examined and handled is the jumping spider kind, as the other types are too . . . something . . . behaviorally speaking, for my primitive reptile brain's taste. Their forward looking eyes and higher level consciousness curiosity, as you note, really do set them apart from all other spiders I know about. Makes one wish they could talk! To me, they don't merely "seem" to be exploring, but *are* exploring, as the behavior is quite non-survival, for a smart entity that knows most large moving objects are potentially dangerous predators. Definitely, the bonobo of the arachnid clan. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::Ants are more the distributed entity, on the solus locus colony scale. Like opinion-confusing an ant or bee as a complex consciousness, as to a cell being a human locus, or jumping spider, and the equally disconcerting view that any one person is like a cell, on the planet scale of the specie, or the movie Contact, that destroying the earth is no worse than destroying an anthill in Africa. *sigh* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::As a child I spent a great deal of time studying the fauna of the front and back yard. One creature looked like a huge ant with a red abdomen. I knew from just watching how it moved that it was not something to be picked up. Actually it was a species of flightless solitary wasp. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I did alot of that too, but also alot of inorganics. Like making stream beds in the back yard dirt, to my parent's chagrin at the flooding! Like watching time in a time machine, or a good computer simulation. Simulating clouds with milk in a salt water density layered aquarium. Tho' the milk does go bad after a few weeks *grins*. Observing puddle water in rain, as the waves, bubbles, and floating droplet particles danced, interacted, decayed, bonded, nested, and went nonlinear in downpours. And the prototypical disassembling of machines, and sometimes even reassembling them! Actually did a 1929 Underwood typewriter back in 1978ish. Man, that thing had *alot* of parts, and systematic layout memorization. I even came out with a handful of extra parts, and the thing still worked! They sure knew how to over-engineer back then and make things serviceable, unlike alot of softwares today, commercially available. 1980's softwares were alot better in system and documentation and exemplar code in so many ways, that it's too bad they didn't scale them up as the years of speed have progressed. Guess human nature is too corrupt to permit global wisdom, as one of the many bad signs of the earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::You might be interested in: P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Phidippus johnsoni has received terrible press in California. Allegedly it is the most frequent of attackers of humans among California spiders. I couldn't believe it since I've been playing with other members of that genera for 50 years. I bought one from a tarantula dealer in Florida. It was completely unafraid of humans and completely unaggressive. There was some question in the dealer's mind as to whether it really was that species. I checked it out and decided on the basis of microphotographs of its genitalia that it was, but I also took the opportunity to buy a spiderling. Like the adult it started out being completely unaggressive, and not at all worried about my presence unless I shook its fishbowl by accident. Now it must be about fully mature, and it is still completely uninclined to bite. It got out once, unbeknownst to me, and I discovered it inside a curl of paper on my desk. My karate training took over and without intervention of discursive thought I reached down and picked it up between thumb and forefinger. If there is anything you can do to a jumping spider to get it to bite, it is to squeeze or pinch it. Nevertheless, the spider made no objection, I put it back in the glass globe, and she went on about her normal activities with no sign that she was in the least upset. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Hmm, I never notice any jumping spiders bite me, no matter how I handled them, back when. *shrugs shoulders*. Interesting, I guess I don't pinch, ROFL. In any event, I have noted in the local urban area, here, that around 1990, the main visible spider species shifted from garden orb weavers to daddy-long-legs varieties. Not sure what the climatological cause is for this local LA demographic shift. Likewise, the 1970's had a large amount of plague warnings, and now I see little public plague warnings, though the warnings were received at my locus through school back then, and now the local newspapers and town don't show similar coverage. So I can assume, among other things, that the wildlife and flea population have declined, or been "ecologically purified cleansed", in the general town area, due to urbanization. *sigh* if there's a kernel of truth in the CA reports, then the environment must be historically-temporally hostile to P,j "Californicus", breeding the vigilant P.j.C.. As the Jeff Goldblum character said in "Jurassic Park", "nature always finds a way.", and if it is a top-level organized bacteria that can eat all macro-scale-life, a comet of perfect design, an arms race to mutually assured destruction, a talking ape race, a technological grey goo, Terminators / I Robot / Colossus, or whatever, that knows what's truly best . . . well, a cursory education should be enough, one hopes, as one doesn't need to be [Kai|Cae|Keec(Kees)|Ce]sar to understand [Kai|Cae|Kec(Kes)|Ce]sar. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I made the video primarily because I had just purchased an electronic microscope and wanted to try out the video function. I herded her onto my thumb and she ran up my arm, watching the video camera that I was tracking her with using my right hand and arm. Just as she hit a particularly complex clump of arm hair and paused to take a good look at the flying lighted thingy, the camera timed out. (You get a default 60 seconds unless you preset for a longer time.) P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If you want to get the best photos of a spider, have the spider sleeping, go macro for full frame close-up, highest f-stop possible (e.g. f/-16/32/64+) under bright light, and capture the spider on many focal planes. Then sandwich the images "appropriately" in Photoshop, or similar focal plane stacking software, to accumulate all the in-focus detail planes in one process-combined-photo. I've seen that there's a Wiki-article somewhere on this focal-plane stacking enhancement process. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I have a large arboreal tarantula of the Avicularia genus, species uncertain. She has a large cage and the dealer told me he thought she was likely to be snappish, so I left her alone for several months. A web weaving spider got in somehow and the spider encountered the tangle web that the other spider wove. It was very upset. I opened an access hatch in the side of the cage that I generally use to change the water, etc. I had no idea that the spider would have even noticed it. As soon as I opened the round hatch the spider made directly for it, walked out onto my hand, and calmly let me put it in a sort of plastic shoe box while I took the transparent front off the cage and dealt with the web and its weaver. I thought about handling her the officially correct way by herding her into a cup, covering it, etc., but decided I would likely have trouble getting her out of the cup and through the hole, so I just urged her back onto my hand, walked her over to the original cage, opened the hatch, and she walked right in. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::*grins*. Hopefully there will be plenty of well behaved and perfectly self-protecting spiders in heaven or immortal digital virtual world planes in the future. Like I remember some document from decades before me, describing the "curse" of drinking being, among other things, seeing spiders crawling over them that weren't there. Wouldn't it have been karmically better in design if good spiders were hurt, then the hurter saw spiders crawling over them, as a perfectly designed instant-karma lesson, and that drinking had no bad press. But then again, what I've seen, and how I'd do the world, are so different from "the way things are", and "not how one makes them". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Other people tell me that the tarantulas have the capacity to learn that humans are not going to hurt them, and that a tarantula that might initially be unsuitable to take to class to show your third graders may get tame after a period of gentle handling (which amounts to herding the spider onto your hand, letting it walk around a bit, and herding it back.) P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If my QP positions enhanced from what I've read of other's ideas are close to any true reality, it may even be inter-being quantum-entanglement, as well as the conventional emergent biochemical learning, for the Liebniz and reductionist, both, depending on how systemically sophisticated the spiders-you meta-supra-meso-system are. Like other primates, dolphins, porpoises, many general mammals, the special lower animals, who knows the unity, despite the appearances, without the proper translation matrices for communication. Too bad all life consumes all life, to survive, given the design we're all stuck in. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::My first tarantula, a species that is known by some as a "living rock", lived in a fairly large space, but I thought she might want to roam farther. So I screened in the space between the room-side part of a window to the outside, and the glass of the window. I cut a circular hole in the side of her box and connected that cage to the window cage with some clothes dryer venting duct tubing. So she learned she could go out through the hole and get out to look out the window and explore that area. One day I was going to be out of the house for a while and I was afraid the meter reader my walk by the window and have a heart attack, so I took the circular plug that I had cut out of the side of the cage and put it back in. The cage was made of that kind of pressed wood shavings and resin stuff, so it was quite heavy, at least compared to the tarantula. When I came back I was surprised to discover that the plug was out of the hole. Later it happened a second time and I decided that the spider was somehow managing to get it out without having it fall over on top of her, and then going on up through the tube. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::*sigh* just taking care of one's self can be a full time job. Your pretty big, taking in so many spiders, so. If I were to be sardonic, I could say, they have *you* trained well! *tongue in cheek*, that joke is older than I AM, (rim-shot) LOL, *gorans*, I think I hurt myself . . . I ate a bug. I do know the feeling of wanting to roam in some ways, but not others, simultaneously, tho', myself, and maybe everyone and everything relates, in some way, at some points, in time-space-matter. But there's also that Jewish story of wanderlust that just leads one right back to home, in full cycles / circles . . . a nice thought, even if always taught as one way mystery trips of limited-free-will, with trials, promises, separations, and secrets. A gilded cage universe. The "living-rock" tarantula also reminds me of a theory I ran across in the 1990's, about isolating a general computer in amorphous materials like a rock, by properly interpreting the solus-locus of an inherent computer, in a hyper=complex-hyper=computational format, though quite incoherent in conventional coherent observations, except at the coherency translational interface. I wish I could remember that source, offhand, but alas, I'm not on the net for that right now . . . so to speak. I'm definitely familiar with the theory, tho'. The idea was even allusionally cited in a recent cartoon, "Camp Lazlo", where the campers "Chip" and "Skip" built a computer out of sticks and stones that was smarter than the operator they gave it to, another camper, "Edward" . . . so funny, even I have to admit that. And of course, that is similar of Hindu-Buddhist related universal distributed consciousness, or the QP-God turning in my head right now, though it's particular and peculiar heirarchical separation from this plane of manifestation is disturbing on many levels. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, enough stream of consciousness, for now. Very enjoyable. I'll backup this web image, in case I need to wipe out this whole LRD page completely, with a local copy in my hand, as I finally found and read some Wiki "law", and I may be going "against the rules" of Wiki, even if in discussion only. They really ought to have had article sections for "official status-quo article section", "controversial status section", and "open discussion forum", for each article, and a smart interactive interface, cross-referencer engine, to create a Wiki locus system that might even become conscious. So, anyway, you may wish to save a copy on your PC, for yourself, remotely, in case I have to zap it from here, from general common viewing. I've archived "early and often", myself. Hehe, sounds like an old-time Chicago election voting motto. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Some contributors begin to think that they run things, and Wikipedia is governed in a fairly egalitarian way, so they are right -- at least in those cases where there is general community consent. The way Wikipedia works would be a good subject for a sociologist to take on.

:::::In general I agree that the discussion pages for articles should be restricted to matters that are pertinent to the article. And everything that goes into an article should be backed up with good citations. But sometimes articles have to be discussed at a meta level, and in those cases I think that it is worthwhile to discuss what evidence needs to be sought out.

:::::Sometimes, too, a person who is unfamiliar with the issues or the science surrounding some issue will make changes in an article or start a fight on the discussion page. In those cases I think it is worthwhile to use the discussion page to try to educate the contributor.

:::::Anyway, unless somebody writes something libelous in an article the old versions of everything are preserved and you can go back to the earliest version of any article. Sometimes people forget this fact and write things they wish would go away.

:::::Of course if somebody were to be really obstreperous and misuse the facilities, e.g., by copying in the entire text of ''War and Peace'' and the 1910 version of ''Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia," that person would probably be banned. But you really have to give evidence of being ill intentioned, unwilling to discuss things responsibly, or edit warring to get banned. But it is best to try to get along with people, not let ego-centric concerns get involved, etc.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Back to spiders for the moment, the real issue to me is, "What is consciousness?" I think it is a fair and important question. I think you and I are probably on the same wavelength even though I have trouble following your way of expressing yourself. There are questions that have relevance to quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics is the best we have going for us in explaining how the Universe works, and consciousness should come into it somehow even though the nature of consciousness means that it cannot be an inter-subjective object of inquiry, and that is one of the requirements to be fulfilled by anything that is the subject of empirical inquiry. There are also resonances with the Antinomies of Kant, questions of self reference that plague mathematics (I'm thinking of Russell and Whitehead here), etc. Sometimes (always ?) you need to ask the questions clearly before you can find the answers. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents

[20] Multidimensional Taylor-Laurent series special various applications.Back to Contents
AD 2008 09 08 P 1130 (mat), from my earlier post

You mentioned the Taylor series, as an analog to analytic solutions to ID analytics problems, in increasing approximation of degreed terms. I wonder if you've ever heard of an analytic mathematical space, that I will describe.

For background, last year I was thinking Greek in math spaces, and came across an elegant analytical vector space. Imagine a space of 1 to N dimensions in size, corresponding to a relationship of input variables to that space, such that, for example, for:
with input variables to a function of:
that they relate to the space of:
first_f(x,y,z) = X^x*Y^y*Z^z
at all points of the space
So, for example, at
(x,y,z) = (1,2,3),
the relationship in this analytic space is:

After the space, e.g.,
is defined in its relationship to input variables,
one now adds weighted dirac deltas or "samplers" to the space at select points of
(x,y,z), like:
(2,0,0), (0,2,0), (0,0,2),
and also one adds a second general function that can be placed around the space,
second_f(R^N) = f(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)),
second_f(R^N) = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,
which in this particluar exaple yields:
second_f(R^N) = (X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2) ^ 0.5,
which, as you may well recognize, is the distance measure of the point,

Now the elegance of the vector space is shown when you examine many geometric equations, within this framework, in parallel equivalent notation:
(0) distance of point, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(2,0,0), (0,2,0), (0,0,2)} (deltas on a plane)
Dist = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,

(1) volume of cube, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1,1,1)}
Dist = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(2) perimeter of triangle, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
Perim = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(3) area of triangle, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)
Area = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,

(4) area of radian spherical triangle of radius R, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {-pi@(0,0,0), 1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)}
Area = ((1/R^2)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(5) radius of inscribed circle, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)
weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
RadInsc = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5 *
((1/2)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ -1.0,

(6) radius of circumscribed circle, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)
weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,1,1)}
RadCircum = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ -0.5 *
(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(7) sine(X) taylor series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1), -1/3!@(3), 1/5!@(5), -1/7!@(7) ...} (deltas on a line)
SineTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(8) cosine(X) taylor series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(0), -1/2!@(2), 1/4!@(4), -1/6!@(6) ...} (deltas on a line)
CosineTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(9) tangent(X) taylor series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1), 1/3@(3), 2/15@(5), ...} (deltas on a line)
TangentTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(10) exponent(X) taylor series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(0), 1/1!@(1), 1/2!@(2), 1/3!@(3), 1/4!@(4) ...} (deltas on a line)
ExponentTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(11) exp(-1/X^2) laurent series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {... 1/(-2!)@(-2), -1/(-1!)@(-1), 1/0!@(0), -1/1!@(1), 1/2!@(2) ...} (deltas on a line)
Exp(-1/x^2)Laurent = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(12) 1/(X^3(1-X)) laurent series, for N=1:
weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(-3), (-2), (-1), (0), (1), (2), ...}} (deltas on a line)
1/(X^3(1-X))Laurent = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0.

(13) linear affine transform of (X,Y,Z) coordinates, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@(1,0,0), v2@(0,1,0), v3@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {v4@(1,0,0), v5@(0,1,0), v6@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
weighted_dirac_deltas3 = {v7@(1,0,0), v8@(0,1,0), v9@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
Affine(X,Y,Z) = ((volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,
(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,
(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas3(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0),

(14) second order affine transform of (X,Y,Z) coordinates, for N=3:
weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@(1,0,0), v2@(0,1,0), v3@(0,0,1), v4@(2,0,0), v5@(1,1,0), v6@(0,2,0), v7@(0,1,1), v8@(0,0,2), v9@(1,0,1)}
weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {v10@(1,0,0), v11@(0,1,0), v12@(0,0,1), v13@(2,0,0), v14@(1,1,0), v15@(0,2,0), v16@(0,1,1), v17@(0,0,2), v18@(1,0,1)}
weighted_dirac_deltas3 = {v19@(1,0,0), v20@(0,1,0), v21@(0,0,1), v22@(2,0,0), v23@(1,1,0), v24@(0,2,0), v25@(0,1,1), v26@(0,0,2), v27@(1,0,1)}
Affine(X',Y',Z') = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_direc_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,
volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,
volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas3(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0),

(15) multiplication of two complex numbers, for N=4:
weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {1@(1,0,1,0), -1@(0,1,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)
weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,0,0,1), (0,1,1,0)}} (deltas on a plane)
ComplexMult(Re,Im) = (volume_integral_over(first_f(w,x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(w,x,y,z) dw dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,
volume_integral_over(first_f(w,x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(w,x,y,z) dw dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0)

By stepping outside of the system one level, and making a higher geometry formulation, arranged in sets and simpler operations, one can, encapsulate in this analytic space formulation, numerous geometry equations, taylor series, by implication mclauarin series, laurent series, affine transforms, complex math, and likely numerous other multivariable polynomial power equations. Also, many of the equations show compact systematic natures, occuring, for many of these examples, on sets of weighted_dirac_delta planes and/or lines. These examples also remind me of the analytic versions of single layer neural networks.

With the addition of the following approximating system, one can take real-value (not-integer-only) derivatives of the simple unitary (1*mTL) multidimensional Taylor-Laurent series coordinates, in multiple dimensions, with some accuracy between powers of 0 and 10:
derivative(derivative_amount, coefficient*x^power) => coefficient'*x^(power - derivative_amount)
c''(p) =(c00+p*((c01/p + c11)*log10(p) + c12*log10(p)^2 + c14*log10(p)^4 + c15*log10(p)^5))
c'''(P) =(c00+P*((c01/P + c11)*log10(P) + c12*log10(P)^2 + c14*log10(P)^4 + c15*log10(P)^5))
with the appropriate selection of fixed c00, c01, c11, c12, c14, c15 very roughly 6.56, 0.00002, -0.42, -0.26, 0.041, -0.011. Wiki reports the Gamma function can be used to exactly take arbitrary real valued derivatives, of the same Taylor-Laurent series coordinates.

Do you know what this power vector space is called, from ID analytic methods, other than a multi-dimensional Taylor-Laurent series? I have not been able to find the name of this system myself in research?
ENDBack to Contents

[21] Lunar Retroreflector Rainbow / Planetary Crystalographic Reflections Back to Contents
AD 2008 09 15 P 0800 (sci) from earlier talks

Lunar Retroreflector Rainbow / Planetary Crystalographic Reflections ~~~~

Has anyone read anywhere, any references to the generation of a lunar retroreflector rainbow image, or detailed descriptive retroreflector map, for the lunar surface, from the beginning of astro-photography, through NASA, to current research, covering such topics as described here? The lunar surface contains a variable portion of spheroidal glass, from volcanic, meteoric, and asteroidal impacts. Such glassy objects, will generate, at the primary rainbow angle, from the solar nadir, a retroreflection of net sunlight, compared to the natural lunar surface albedo. If the spheres are well rounded, they will generate a rainbow, from the sunlight, and if they are rough and ellipsoidal, there will be a statistical spread of retroreflection light, from the sunlight. A sequence of images with (1) high pixel resolution, (2) high dynamic range luminance resolution, (3) high luminance resolution, (4) multi-spectral, and (5) carefully calibrated characteristics to account for sensor and atmosphere, of the moon, as it crosses into and out of the region of the waxing and waning gibbous phase, around both ~42 degree primary rainbow separations, from the solar nadir, (these images) can be used to morphologically, algorithmically, and differentially calculate the additional reflectance of the whole moon's surface, caused by the various distributions of the glass spheroids across the lunar surface. The spectral characteristics of the net-retroreflectance luminance, could also be used to estimate the sphere distribution, spheroid shape and size distributions, and spheroid glass types, as dispersed across the lunar surface. ~~~~

I have seen topographic maps of the moon from NASA high resolution images from the 1960's, color maps of the moon from normal reflectance from different rock types, halo glory at the solar nadir, and heard of transient lunar phenomena, but never seen any images, but for lunar glass spheroid retroreflectors, I have seen no data of images, maps, or spheroid characterized distributions. ~~~~

Neither have I heard of any similar images taken from the probes sent to Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, or their moons, or their rings (where applicable), of primary rainbow spheroidal light characterizations (or hexagonal reflection zones for ice crystals of Saturn's rings, where sensors may be capable of sensing the additional (net) retroreflection light, with such differential light calculations in multiple images. ~~~~
ENDBack to Contents

[22] Wikipedia Laws of Classical Conservation shortfall.
CREATED AD 2008 09 16 P 1050 (sci)

== Conservation Laws ==

I've read the articles of conservation, regarding classical properties, and the previous discussion comment on mass motion conservation on this conservation law article. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the classical domain, the Wiki list of classical macroscopic conservation laws appears incomplete. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Condensed, your list contains 2 out of 3 classical systems interactions conservation laws, that I can remember: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) Conservation of classical system energy / momenta: potential, linear kinetic, angular kinetic, thermal,,

(2) Conservation of classical system matter: charged, neutral, energy equivalent (low energies).

There's a third form of conservation on the classical domain, that is missing from the list: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(3) Conservation of translation-macroscopic=configuration. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One can see it in a one dimensional case. Take a sealed unit with a mass at one end, and two electromagnetic launchers / catchers at both ends. One end can launch the mass to the other end, that catches it. At this point the sealed unit is stationary in steady state, and translated. Then the other end can launch the mass back to the first end. At this point the sealed unit is stationary again, and returned back to the exact original starting position, and original macroscopic configuration equivalent (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A similar case can be seen in a sealed angular momentum case. Spin accelerating a mass causes a sealed unit frame of reference to spin in the opposite direction. Stopping the mass, and reverse spinning the mass to return its frame of reference to the original spatial phase, will also return the sealed unit back to its original frame of angular phase reference, before being brought to a calculated stop. So original angular translation and macroscopic configuration equivalent is restored (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another case can be seen in complex classical material motion cases. Take a sealed unit with a fluid. One end launches the fluid to the other end into a catch. Once the fluid has stopped moving the unit is translated and stationary. The other end then launches the fluid back to the first end, into the catch it came from. Once the fluid has stopped moving, the unit is back to its original position, and same macroscopic configuration equivalent (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I reckon, the path integrals of potential energy to kinetic energy-momenta into thermal energy, with s cyclic return to its original equivalent configuration, always integrate back to 0 the linear translation, angular translation, and positional configuration, for macro-meso-micro scale statistically conservative force systems. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Crosslink: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents

[23] Renewable nuclear energy.
CREATED AD 2008 09 17 A 1130 (sci)

== Renewable nuclear energy. ==

To create a renewable nuclear energy source may be possible between the earth and sun. If one could create a magnetic catch ring (or high light flux solar cell array) that could be placed in orbit around the sun, an orbital transport of slugs of "recharged" nuclear material, and an orbital transport of depleted material slugs from the earth to the sun. The magnetic catch may be able to deflect a sufficient amount of charged solar particle radiation, (or alternatively drive solar cells to drive an accelerator for altering depleted nuclear material nuclei), in order to create a stable radioactive isotope suitable for fission reactor use. Then a reactor in orbit around the earth, could be used on the recharged nuclear material slugs, and then microwave energy to earth. Solar energy and particle radiation is definitely more dense by the inverse squared law, and renewed radioactive slugs would be the most compact form of transporting the energy between the sun and the earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Has NASA or similar agency like the department of energy, ever done the full study in today's technology base and dollars, to know if there is enough reverse reactions for producing suitable radioactive nuclei in sufficient amount, in the nuclear reactions of the radioactive elements, and appropriate particle accelerator, and/or solar wind particle flux, to create this renewable nuclear energy? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ENDBack to Contents


Anonymous said...

Hello, this is Marilyn from AllExperts. I was wondering if you'd read anything by Francis Collins, the Christian who heads up the human genome project?

Hope you're doing great.

LoneRubberDragon said...

Hmm, Marilyn from AllExperts, you say? I know you!!!! Well, not really ... but, well ... I actually do, both and simultaneously. lol

Sorry, but I have not come across Francis Collins' work that I am fully aware of, currently.

But I like all of your book reccommendations, so I feel that I ought to look up this fellow, to see his persepctive on DNA, and I am sure, many other topics.

Thank you again, Marilyn!

In Christ with you,
Me. *grins*

(sorry it took me so long, learning where the comments are on this *somewhat new* blog *thing*.

Anonymous said...

Hello this is Marilyn from AllExperts. I tried posting a lengthy discussion here on predestination and what God knows about the future, but the thing was too long and wouldn't post. So, could you ask me a question on AllExperts so I can update you on where I am with this question?

LoneRubberDragon said...

Sorry I missed you Marilyn.

If you read AllExperts, I have left you a yahoo dot com email you may converse on this subject of the future knowledge of God.

LoneRubberDragon said...

LoneRubberDragon is somewhat familiar already with The Elect and the Predestination of those He Did Forknow, like Romans 8:29, and as well as Ephesians 1, and 1 Corintians, as well as the world ages. God or Good led me similarly in research 15 years ago, about AD1994.