P. 1
The Universe and God

The Universe and God

|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by gib65
This paper explores the implications MM-Theory has for the nature of the universe and God. Read more at http://www.mm-theory.com.
This paper explores the implications MM-Theory has for the nature of the universe and God. Read more at http://www.mm-theory.com.

More info:

Published by: gib65 on Apr 03, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






The Universal



Concerning our relation to theUniversal Mind, we are connected to it most saliently through our senses.
Information passes from outside to inside by the process ofentailment. It is a continuous and unbreaking
process, and therefore no point exists where one could say that the Universal Mind has ceased and the human
mind has begun. We are all one with it. The constant flow of information from outside to inside is therefore a
form of communication - from the Universal Mind to sentient beings - from God to us. We considered this
perspective before inReality and Perception where we offered the "descriptive" model of experiences and
how they are communicated to us. Experiences are thus a language. When the Universal Mind communicates
with us through our senses, it is speaking in the language of experience - and it is a perfect language, for
everything spoken with it becomes true.

MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"


57 of 78

4/2/2010 5:54 PM

The scientist is the one who is most interested in what the Universal Mind has to say. He invests all his trust
in his senses, and hungers for ever more precision and detail in the things yieldedfrom them. He is drawn to
God's message and yearns to decipher it. Over the past four hundred years or thereabouts, man has perfected
this craft, the craft we call experimental science. Today it is an extensively refined practice whereby the
scientist is equipped with greater power than ever before, power to glean a wealth of information from the
dialogue he and the Universal Mind are engaged in.

If the Universal Mind is a teacher, then the scientist is the pupil, but as such henot only listens but asks
questions. How does one ask questions of God? How does one invoke God's language, the language of
experience, in order to pose these questions in a way fruitful to the pursuit of answers? It is done by physical
experimentation. The modern form of the experimental method is suitable for this task. The experimenter
resolves to find out what the consequences are of specific physical acts performed on a system deliberately
setup to react to such acts. That is to say, the experimenter prods and pokes (metaphorically) at some
physical phenomenon, the one he's interested in learning more about, in the hopes that, under controlled
settings (presumably the laboratory), the phenomenon will react to such prodding and poking (again
metaphorically) in such a way that the experimenter can observe and record it definitively and clearly. If his
observations count as a message given to him, via the senses, by the Universal Mind, then the experiment, at
least that part of it consisting of his actions on the phenomenon under investigation, count as a question. The
message that is returned to him is therefore the answer. In effect, experimental science as refined and
perfected in the modern day is really the art of asking God questions and receivingHis answers.

Of course, scientists seldom think of their pursuit in this way. They don't think of themselves as pupils and
nature as a god-like teacher. Rather, they see nature in mechanical terms - that is, in terms of objective
non-conscious entities and processes. They therefore are not pupils but observers and investigators. The
results they get from their experiments are simply the consequences, governed by unconscious immutable
laws, of their physical interactions with the systems under study. But this makes no difference to us - we who
subscribe to MM-Theory - for in our view, there is an exchange going on whether thescientist shares this
view or not, an exchange of "words" - that is, information - between the experimenter and nature, between
man and God. Mastering the art of experimental science represents, from this vantage point, an incredible
step forward for man, for only in this age of refined scientific technique have we learnt to speak the language
of God. The practitioners of this art may not understand it in this way, but according to our perspective, this
is indeed the sort of endeavor they have embarked on.



Perhaps one day man will take this perspective to
be common sense, but today - and for our present
purposes in particular - this is not our concern.
What we are presently concerned with is what
this idea - that experimental science represents a
sort of question and answer exchange between
man and the Universal Mind - entails about the
invention of more fundamental levels on the
experiential side of the universe. To understand
what it entails, it will help to forget everything
we have been saying so far onequivalence - at
least to start - and assume there is only one level
of scale everywhere in the Universal Mind - that
is, one set of experiences interconnected by
entailment, each uniform and homogenous
without being composed of more basic
experiences or composing experiences higher up.
In this way, we can imagine the information
streaming through the scientist's senses as coming
in from this one level and only this level.
Therefore, the only message contained in this
information - the only thing the Universal Mind wants to tell us - is what we get as vividly and immediately
as the ordinary macroscopic objects we encounter everyday.

There is certainly a rich abundance of such objects, but let's focus on one in particular - let's say a rock. If
we come across an ordinary rock, say one you can hold in the palm of your hand, then the image of this rock
is the only experience the Universal Mind intends to give you. What you interpret of it is trivially simple, and
the formulation of this interpretation quite automatic. What you see, in the end, is just a plain rock - dull and
banal as that. If this experience, across all stages of its entailment in your mind- from the raw visual
experience, through the perception of a three-dimensional object in space, to the conceptual apprehension
that what you are seeing is indeed a rock - is given from the one level of scale that constitutes the whole of

MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"


58 of 78

4/2/2010 5:54 PM

the Universal Mind, then this is all the Universal Mind wants to convey (of course,a "want" is an all too
human word and most likely isn't the particular motive behind this communication, but there is nonetheless
some drive underlying the process of entailment that ultimately leads to the human form of this experience).
The message man gleans from this communication - that there is a plain old boring rock there - has been the
standard one man has intuitively gathered for ages. It was only recently, within the last couple of centuries,
that man has added to this interpretation. He began by borrowing the theory of atoms from the Greeks (which
is actually more than two millennia old, but only recently become established as scientific fact) and has been
refining and adding more detail to it - namely, atoms and subatomic particles - ever since. In other words,
man has been going above and beyond - by far - the original message delivered by the Universal Mind, and
he has been doing so by way of his fertile imagination - by his faculties of creativity.

Now, before we give off the wrong impression - that all scientific theories are "made up" - we ought to point
out that what we are about to argue is that even though this indulgence in invention may go far beyond what
the Universal Mind originally intends for us to understand, it is not necessarily wrong. It is not even wrong
despite the fact that we would be going down in scale - to the nanoscopic level - wherein no corresponding
level on the side of experiences, supposing as we are that only one level exists onthis side (the level
corresponding to ordinary macroscopic objects), exists. It is the latter notion that seems problematic, for if
there is no level on the experiential side of the universe for atoms and other suchnanoscopic things to
correspond to, how could we ever be right in supposing that the physical macroscopic objects that we see in
everyday life are composed of these things? To answer this question, we must keep in mind that no one, not
even the keenest of scientists, can see things as small as atoms and other nanoscopic entities. We can't even
see things as small as cells. What tells us that macroscopic objects are composed of things so small are the
results of our experiments. These results are always and necessarily on the level of scale suitable for the
human eye (and other senses) to pick up. Even those instruments that are said to help man extend the reach of
his senses, such as electron microscopes (which indeed do allow us to see things as small as atoms and other
nanoscopic entities), must eventually magnify the things they measure to a level sensitive enough to stimulate
our senses and make us aware of them. In effect, we only see macroscopic representations of those things
which would otherwise be totally beyond sight. We only ever infer things, in other words, that are beyond
the scope of our senses - usually justifiably - and this is an important point thatwe should remember.





How does this help us answer our question? It tells us that even though we may onlybe making inferences -
again, justifiably - the macroscopic effects that serve as the basis for these inferences are still consequences
of a macroscopic setup. That is to say, the phenomenon the scientist takes an interest in, when studied in a
laboratory setting, must be macroscopic in order for him to conduct such studies. It is true that the real
phenomenon he is interested in may be micro- or nanoscopic, or at any level too small to see with the naked
eye, but there must be some surrounding setup, some environment, that is used to control and contain the
phenomenon in question. Smashing particles, for example, can only be done in something as enormous as a
particle accelerator, a colony of bacteria can only be studied in a petri dish, thewave-like behavior of
individual particles can only be demonstrated by producing aninterference pattern in something like the
double-slit experiment, and so on. The surrounding setup must be large enough for the scientist to
manipulate the independent variable, for without this ability, he has no way of correlating the readings of the
dependent variable (i.e. the results) with it. What this means, in effect, is that,although it may be indirect,
there is a cause-effect connection between the macroscopic independent variable (the setup) and the
macroscopic dependent variable (the results). In simpler words, it is a macroscopicphenomenon leading to
a macroscopic consequence. Thus, we can answer our question as follows: a theory ofatoms can be right in
the sense that its predictions, if they are to be deemed scientifically verifiable,can be invoked and observed,
and because such invocation and observation can only be done on a macroscopic level, the theory, if its
predictions are to be tested, is in a certain sense about macroscopic things but expressed in terms of
nanoscopic concepts.

Of course, this only answers our question on the physical side of things - that is,in terms of the physical
representations of other experiences in the Universal Mind. But how do we make sense of this answer in
terms of those experiences? That, after all, is more to the point. We do so by starting with the perspective
given above - namely, that all scientific theories are correct if they make accurate predictions that can be put
exclusively in terms of physical macroscopic objects. These predictions are then carried over to the
corresponding experiences - the ones that exist solely on the single level of scale- but in terms appropriate
to those experiences. What we would say, in effect, is that the particular quality of those experiences
corresponding to the manipulation of the independent variable are just the right sort that they entail those
experiences corresponding the consequences of such manipulation, which we call the dependent variable.
This may not seem that enlightening at first glance unless we consider it exclusively in light of the
perspective given above - again, that of macroscopic causes bringing about macroscopic effects. In other
words, if we ignore the theory as it is stated in terms of nanoscopic things like atoms, we are led to a new
perspective on the nature of the macroscopic phenomena in the experiment.
This perspective parallels the more trivial insight about how the

MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"


59 of 78

4/2/2010 5:54 PM

corresponding experiences are entailed, and if we understand that insight as
stemming directly from the particular quality of those experiences, then it
follows from this parallel that we must think of the physical phenomena as
equally particular. More specifically, we must think of them as particular in
the sense that they react to the particular manipulation imposed by the scientist
in a very particular way - namely, that the particular results follow. This
particularity must therefore belong to the intrinsic nature of the phenomena
themselves. To put this another way, there is more to the phenomena under
investigation - even at the macroscopic level of scale - than meets the eye. If
we were not to ignore the nanoscopic conception of the phenomena - that is,
the theory that it is composed of atoms - then this particularity - that is, the
"more" there is to the phenomena - would simply be explained away as the fact that it's not just a
macroscopic object but a collection of nanoscopic objects we call "atoms". But if we refrain from taking this
perspective, we must posit this particularity to the macroscopic phenomena as we observe them at the
macroscopic level


More on


To get a better grasp on this, let's go back to our example of the rock - the blandand dull rock. Now, it so
happens that limestone, a certain type of rock, contains a mineral calledcalcite, which reacts with
hydrochloric acid to produce carbon dioxide and water. Let's take this fact and suppose that the rock we're
presented with is limestone and we submerged it in a vat of hydrochloric acid to find that, over time, it
dissolves with carbon dioxide and water coming off as byproducts. Now, if we are torefrain from going
down in scale, this chemical reaction is not to be put in terms of the interaction of atomic structures. Instead,
it must be put in terms of the rock and the acid themselves - that is, as we see them at the macroscopic level.
Fixing ourselves here, we have no choice but to suppose that it is just in the nature of the rock and the acid to
react in the way they do when they are brought together in this way. This poses no problem for the manner in
which we would describe the corresponding experience. That is to say, in taking theexperience to be
uniform and homogenous, we would attribute the particular way in which it entails the ensuing experience,
unique and particular itself, to the particular quality of that experience (see sidenote for elaboration). But
there is a problem when it comes to the physical phenomena originally brought into question - namely, that
we are forced to end our account of their reactions to each other by appeal solely to their "nature" - that is, to
end with "rocks and acid just do that sort of thing". Note that this is not a problem in the completeness of
such an account. We end the account by appeal to the nature of the rock and the acid - that is, to some
fundamental and intrinsic essence that belongs to the rock and the acid but of which we are blocked from
seeing or being conscious of in any way. Because MM-Theory posits this essence as an experience on the
same level of scale, this completes our account despite the fact that we don't knowwhat this experience is
like. The problem of completeness arises only for those who wish to pursue a more in-depth and refined
account along physicalist lines - that is, to craft a new, more complex conception of the rock and the acid -
such that their manner of reacting together is explained on a much more fundamental, but still physical, level.
This pursuit inevitably requires positing smaller sub-structures in the body or substance of the rock and acid,
such as molecules and atoms, which can only be done by traversing scale in a downward direction. There
comes a point, however, where even this pursuit comes up against a dead-end - namely, when we reach a
level so fundamental, such as fundamental particles, that nothing is known about any levels below it - and at
this point, we are in the same precarious position we were in above (where we chosenot to go down in
scale) with respect to providing a satisfactory account of the nature of the phenomenon at that level. We are
forced to account for the nature of such phenomena - in this case fundamental particles - by appeal to their
inherent characteristics as though they were fundamental themselves.

Yet those who pursue this line of inquiry are not leading themselves astray, not solong as they employ the
scientific method regularly. But as we will now see, what they are led to is not somuch the discovery of
smaller physical things but the inventions of such in a way agreeable to the original intention of the Universal
Mind in conveying the original message (such as the bland old rock, for example). Let's return to the
perspective of science as communication between man and the Universal Mind. The scientific experiment is
a question and the results are the answer. What kind of question is asked in the case of those who wish to
posit atomic structures to material things? The question is this: "Universal Mind, you have shown us the
existence of material things. Take this rock, for example. You have shown us that, as plain, boring, and dull
as it is, it simply exists as such. But would it not be fair to say that this rock is also a collection of atoms? Is
it possible that instead of a plain, boring, and dull object, this rock is actuallya conglomeration of billions of
particles firmly bonded together yet too small for my eye to see? I know you have not said as much, but
would this be an acceptable way of re-interpreting what you have said?" To put this metaphorically, indeed
as we have been whenever we invoke our mathematical analogy, we can restate the question more succinctly
as "Universal Mind, I know you have told us '1', but is this not the same as '.5+.5'?" In this case, the question
- is a rock not a collection of atoms? - is asked by conducting the appropriate experiment - namely, that
experiment which tests the predictions made by the scientist's hypothesis such as subjecting the rock to the

MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"


60 of 78

4/2/2010 5:54 PM

right sorts of chemical reactions. The answer comes back either supporting the hypothesis or falsifying it. In
the former case, the Universal Mind's answer is "yes" and in the latter, "no". Thatis to say, the Universal
Mind either grants the scientist's re-interpretation of the original message or denies it. In the former case, the
scientist is bestowed with a sense of confidence that he/she is on the right track in deciphering the message
given by the Universal Mind, whereas in the latter case, he/she is led back to the drawing board to reassess
his/her understanding of the given message.

Now notice, in this case, that for the Universal Mind to sanction such a hypothesiswith a "yes", it is agreeing
to a re-interpretation on the part of the scientist that it never explicitly conveyed. Whereas the scientist might
take the results of the experiment to mean that he/she has discovered new structures on a lower level of
scale, the Universal Mind only means for those results to indicate that the scientist has invented an alternate,
and perhaps better, way of describing or conceptualizing the meaning of the original message. The Universal
Mind may have had no intention of communicating this alternate description to beginwith, but once it is
brought up for questioning, it may be granted nevertheless - as though it might as well have been
communicated as such originally. It would seem that whether the scientist deems this as a discovery or an
invention that passes the Universal Mind's muster is of no consequence to the Universal Mind itself. The
Universal Mind is only interested in whether the scientist's hypothesis matches thecriteria for an answer of
"yes" or it fails to match such criteria, in which case the answer is "no". What isthis criteria? Well, it's
rather complicated, but it is as follows. If the hypothesis the scientist offers upfor evaluation were to be
communicated by the Universal Mind originally - that is, as though the scientist would know it by empirical
experience and therefore would have no need to conjure it up as a hypothesis - thenthe corresponding
experience - that is, the one that entailed the empirical experience had by the scientist - would have to be
equivalent to the one from which such communication stemmed in actuality. In other words, supposing that
the rock really is made of atoms (and we aren't saying that it isn't), then the experiences that would
correspond to each atom must be, when considered together, equivalent to the experience corresponding to
the rock as a whole. That is, as long as these equivalent experiences can be interchanged, which is
necessarily the case with equivalence, such that the results of experiments conducted on the physical
phenomena corresponding to those experiences are indistinguishable, then the scientist is free to assume
whatever model he/she wants in accounting for what he/she observes of the physical phenomena on the
macroscopic level.


Notice, however, the way in which we invoked the concept of equivalence without re-introducing the
multitude of levels of scale - we are still dealing only with the one macroscopic level. Can we do this? Are
we justified in speaking of equivalence with only one level? Well, if we reflect onthe original meaning of
equivalence, we see that we are not only justified, but it really drives the whole point of this entire section
home. To say that a set of would-be experiences corresponding to would-be atomic structures is equivalent
to an "actual" experience is simply to say that the former experiences are a different way of describing or
expressing the latter. That is to say, they mean the same thing but put in slightlydifferent qualitative terms. It
is as though I told you "1" and you replied "Do you mean '.5+.5'?" To say that these two expressions must
correspond to two distinct things, say two concepts in my mind, is to fully miss the point of equivalence.
When I say "yes" to your question, I mean to say that you've got my meaning exactly but articulated it in your
own words. In fact, you've got my meaning more clearly than I've allowed for in my expression, for now you
have two ways of understanding it. There is no more need to posit a finite number of experiences, each
equivalent to the others, as there is to posit a finite number of fractions constituting the number 1. The set of
all such fractions, like the set of all component experiences constituting a whole experience, is not
enumerable. What we ought to do, rather, is understand the variety of qualitative expressions in which every
experience can be described to correspond, like the variety of mathematical expressions in which every
number can be described, to the same meaning. In this way, we better understand that these various styles of
expression and description are fully subject to our creative powers - that is to say, to how imaginative we
can be in inventing new ones. Understood in that light, rather than posit the existence of a multitude of levels
of scale, we need only posit a multitude of interpretations of a single level. This is what the scientist does in
positing new structures at lower levels in scale. He/she invents them in his/her mind, and when he/she puts
them to the test in a laboratory setting, the Universal Mind determines whether such inventions still adhere to
the meaning (by way of equivalence) of the original experiences that led the scientist to partake in such
creative endeavors to begin with. We might as well say, supposing the scientist's invention passes
experimental testing, that those original experiences were the experiences corresponding to the finer structure
and detail of his/her invention. We would say the same thing in regards to there being '.5+.5' in place of '1' -
why not in regards to experiences as well? If they really are equivalent, then we have the right to say this,
for equivalent experiences are defined as interchangeable, neither one being the "real" experience. The only
constant joining them together is their common meaning, and with respect to that, they are merely different
expressions or articulations, different descriptions, of that one same meaning.

MM-Theory - The Universe and "God"


61 of 78

4/2/2010 5:54 PM

So it is clear how atomic theory is more an invention than a discovery, but it is more clear how this is so in
the minds of scientists and other thinkers than it is in the Universal Mind. That is to say, whereas we are
obviously inventing the scientific theories we come up with, it is still questionable whether we are
simultaneously creating new levels of experiences in the Universal Mind, levels that would be equivalent to
the one that originally gave us the macroscopic phenomena around which we built ourtheories. If this is a
creative act, then it certainly isn't creative in the standard sense - that is, in the sense that the fruits of such
acts emerge through a process that unfolds through time. There shouldn't be any ambiguity that this is
precisely the sense in which our scientific theories are created. They only emerge in the mind after we
exercise our thought processes, not before, and only in virtue of these thought processes. But there is some
ambiguity with respect to the invention of new, more fundamental, levels underlyingthe experiences that
originally provided us with the macroscopic phenomena relevant to our theories. Have the new levels
always been there, did we invent them upon asking the Universal Mind our questions and receiving its
answers, or does this matter require an entirely new understanding?

For one thing, the new level that would correspond to our new theory is a re-interpretation of the original
message conveyed to us by the Universal Mind, just as '.5+.5' is a re-interpretation of my original message
'1'. Therefore, just as '.5+.5' is not what I initially had in mind, neither are the theories we invent what the
Universal Mind initially has in mind. So in this sense, those experiences that correspond to the objects of our
theories - atoms for example - were never there to begin with. On the other hand, just as '.5+.5' is equivalent
(though not identical) to what I initially had in mind, so too are the experiences that correspond to the objects
of our theories. In this sense, those experiences always did exist. The difficulty,of course, lies in the way we
defined equivalence. We are prohibited from positing that only one of the equivalent experiences is the
"real" one and the others not. We can't say that those experiences corresponding toour newly invented
constructs (like atoms) are not there (i.e. not the "real" experiences), but neither can we say that they coexist
with those experiences that correspond to the original message (the sight of the rock) - just as we can't say
that 1 "coexists" with .5+.5 - they are not two "things" that exist, just two different expressions of the same
thing. Equivalent experiences don't coexist - they are interchangeable. Clearly, then, we need a whole new
understanding in order to settle this matter.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->