Monday, November 5, 2018

How the "Uncertainty" Quantum Enigma inspired my Faith in God

Disbelief in an All Mighty was only part of my problem. I lacked faith too. The motorcycle accident left several disfiguring marks on my body. One scar was not visible. After the head injury, belief in an intangible, unverifiable entity, God, became an impossible concept – not that it mattered. I rationalized my way around the conflict. Faith, from my perspective, was an idiot’s duty; a concept concocted for imbeciles. That word, Faith, when defined, completed a philosophical assumption. Allegedly, faith is a conscious confirmation of an irrational cognitive assertion of an unseen and undetectable truth or Entity. Per Christian scriptures - the Entity will only occasionally reveal Himself to specific “chosen people” (Biblical prophets, et al). The Bible states the Entity disclosed his plans to persist unseen and undetected at the onset of his conversations with Adam in the Garden of Eden. The Entity repeated this objective many times thereafter. The Entity’s reasoning for withhold all evidence of its existence from mankind, save the prophets, was so each man’s “belief” in the Entity’s undetectable existence must be affirmed by adopting faith. “Faith” is the Entity’s conformance standard for acceptable obedience. Faith alone accounts for a man’s belief in this unseen and undetectable presence. Ergo - each individual’s ability to suspend sensory reality, upon which every other requirement of the Entity (and life generically) is based, adopt and express faith, (a comprehensive rejection of sensible rationality) to affirmatively speculate upon the Entity’s unseen, undetectable, “promised” benevolence, forms the critical rationale that exclusively determines the individual’s eligibility for eternal life. Moreover, evidence of the individual’s adherence to the precepts of faith, concomitant behaviors, forms the criteria for eternal fitness - as judged by the Entity. Seriously? The premise is ludicrous. Its rational purpose is beyond preposterous.

      I attended to my family duties after my wife's death while secretly wallowing in misery and despair. Distractions provided my three children and I the means to avoid thinking about Mom. I spent money hand over fist in flurry of distractions, gifts, and trips - to spoil my children rotten, and, purchase myself a measure of sanity. Unfortunately, those decisions eventually revealed a marked absence of endurance. Other behavioral malformations materialized in the children to replace the sorrow. The long-term defects this practice generated in my children was a disastrous decision I regret to this day.

      Within the hyper-emotional matrix defining our daily lives, the study of uncertainty came to the fore unexpectedly. Unpredictably, with no preliminary discussion, as we discussed the finer points of professional football on a Sunday afternoon, my youngest son blurted out a question. “Is Mom in heaven?” That question momentarily stunned me. Silence.  More silence. Troubling silence… I surely looked like a blithering idiot desperately searching for an answer that concealed my emotionally charged sentiments about the Almighty. That search criterion delivered zero results, so… I flippantly answered: “Yes”. Fortunately, there wasn’t an immediate follow-up question; because the question disturbed a comfort zone I spent the previous ten months constructing. The boy initially appeared sated by the answer. But, a short time later, when the Forty-Niner’s flubbed another first down attempt, he asked: “How I knew (Mom was in heaven) for sure? “Faith” popped out of my mouth before I could choke off the word. He again looked satisfied.

      We continued watching the game. Thankfully, no more inquiries on eternity surfaced. Menacingly, the question lingered in my thoughts – part disturbance and part intrigue. The question genuinely jeopardized my credibility as a parent. I could not bring myself to glibly lie to my son about his mother. He deserved a considerate answer - hopefully one that squarely placed responsibility for his mother’s death where it belonged – with God. If no legitimate information was available to form a credible answer - I’d blame God anyway. His requiring faith; instead of sharing the information on the eventual fate for us all was despicable. Faith’s dubious mandate was altogether removed from the charity and compassion pronounced synonymous with his name. Exposing God’s design as a needless and hurt filled catechism of pain, pleased my sensibilities and inspired my working to discover evidence to justify my casting aspersions - if only to myself. I could never inform a twelve-year-old boy his mother’s death was a result of God’s callous indifference. Besides, deconstructing salvation and eternal life is NOT an inappropriate discussion for a boy. I’d devise a more “sensitive” means to castigate God for my son.

      The idea of accumulating scientific evidence that discredited God appealed to me in ways salacious and obscene. Considering my emotional quandary, I knew detachment was an essential aspect to legitimize any findings. The central question regarding eternal life… was it possible? Is a consciousness, or another aspect of the life force, even able to obtain an eternal state. That required defining life and a consciousness. How is the consciousness structured? What are the constituent, operative, and relevant, parts? Electrical activity in the brain was a necessity from a medical perspective. Electricity is a flow of electrons. A quick Google query indicated quantum physics may hold an answer on electrons - and any other related physical components and their properties. Moreover, certain aspects of quantum physics “theory” stabilized and confirmed concepts related to the universe’s creation, and, the beginning of life on planet earth. If that information denigrated God, I was in.

      I ordered a small child’s book on the topic. John Gribbin’s: “Quantum Physics” included a rudimentary overview of the discipline. Perfect! The book took me several days to digest even though it’s only 72 pages long and contained numerous pictures. The content and assertions grabbed my attention with an unusual force. This child’s book was troubling… it made me feel very stupid. New terminology and vernacular entered my life. Once I mastered the fundamentals, the topic became enjoyable. One book turned into ten; then twenty… then more. The research eventually required investigating complementary volumes on classic physics, cosmology, philosophy, biology, history, etc. Not finding a quick answer did not dissuade my new fascination with the sub-atomic realm. The secular answer to the eternity question, in my case, was not easily solved, but it held a devious divisiveness. Discrediting God, for all eternity, appealed to the sickness possessing me.

      Quantum physics increasingly imposed a significant investment of time and money. Hardcover books are my preference. Many are not cheap. Purchasing numerous volumes covering a variety of disciplines led me to compile a wonderful library. I gained a cohesive understanding of the sub-atomic universe and complementary studies, but, no closer to a credible, verifiable eternity answer. Other responsibilities suffered while I read, and read, and read, about quantum, cosmology, and other relevant topics. Studying the philosophy of quantum, and the individual conjecture from professors and other experts alluded to a nebulous, overtly uncertain, interpretation of evidence, and, weird, non-sequitur opinions and conclusions. The conjecture was often pointless and useless for my "eternity" purposes.

      Proving an eternal afterlife potential was an important goal. Unfortunately, I was particularly ill-prepared and unsuited, to seek it. Notable minds with abundant intellectual prowess and command of several diverse and relevant disciplines hadn't made a declaration they discovered proof. Surely, if information that validated an afterlife were available, those minds would report it. Compared to the credential packages, and breadth of study expertise, of the professionals - I'm a feckless piker. Disillusion mounted. The demands of my motherless children and professional responsibilities aggravated and constricted my research time. Looking to escalate the process and find the eternal demon, I started flooding my senses with information. I'd simultaneously watch television and listened to the Richard Feynman lectures on audio. Philosophy and religious tomes were simultaneously consumed - Nag Hammadi, Septuagint, Kant, Nietzsche, Bohm, etc. My knowledge of physics and various philosophies improved, but the eternity answer remained outside my grasp. The research protocols resolved one by one, but one remained persistently problematic – the answer!

      Soon the study shifted to computer video and TV programs. I learned uniform, and unassailable "truths", were embraced by each scientist interviewed or providing comments. Evolution is responsible for life and its variants. The universe was created in a Big Bang event. These two concepts were iterated and reiterated; ad nauseum. The video programming was topical and consistent, a little too consistent. I started questioning the comments and content covered. Not one person provided a contrary view or interpretation to the Big Bang, spontaneous creation of life, or evolution. From my less than certifiably adroit observations, I saw considerable inconsistencies in the consistencies presented. If I could see inconsistencies, why didn't the commentators? They were highly degreed professionals. What disturbed me was science's conclusions on; the Big Bang, Evolution, and the origin of life. These postulates were supported using hypotheticals and evidence that appeared twisted (at least from my perspective) to make it fit the proposed hypothesis. Some linkage was incredibly weak and non-sequitur. Importantly, I noted scientists argued on other topics not directly related to evolution or the Big Bang disagreed with profound vigor on those subjects. Life and creation, however, was treated differently, as though it was a revered, Strang Verboten, quasi-religious topic. The premise for creation's causality included numerous evolutionary "inconsistencies" – these contained gaping chasms of missing critical evidence. Variants in how, where, and why were apparently off-limits. The commentator's opinions and comments never once challenged science's sacrosanct version of Genesis. Strictly adhering to science’s “Method”  - the secular dogma was as bad as the Christian version. No variants, no alternative influences, and/or, causalities, were discussed by credentialed "scientists".

      My study went off the rails. Unseen, undetectable, and unsubstantiated forms of energy and matter next entered the matrix of science's arsenal of evidence and fact regarding creation and the universe. Dark Matter and Dark Energy complimented a new premise - String Theory. Missing data and information were papered over with Dark "Stuff". These new components and conjecture (in my perspective) sought to redefine (and redirect) the topic and study conditions - moving them much further from rational evaluation and philosophical responsibility. To my un-credentialed mind, it increasingly appeared science purposely complicated and convoluted their theories and conjecture to increase the uncertain and unverifiable information needed to substantiate the conclusions science offered for life and creation. Expanded examination of the peripheral aspects of the information eventually revealed glaring inconsistencies. Moreover, my research hadn't resolved the eternity question.

      Predictably, the study ground to a halt. The interminable torture of frustration appeared - again. Guilt invited Bi-Polar and OCD to enter the dialogue for a "Teaching Moment". Bizarre thoughts and unorthodox resolutions arose. Desperation secured a footing. When this condition arrives, logical consistency is wont to erode. One evening, while acutely aggravated, God again entered my thoughts while contemplating the corruption of the scientific method. An honest examination of "all the options" available, did predicate considering the God Option. If there was a God, eternity was His domain. Ergo, God surely held insight to some of my questions. Seeking input from God also posed a potential admission, one I dismissed seconds after contemplating it. Searching for answers on grace, and eternity, after the course I'd chosen for my life, and the disrespectful behaviors I'd displayed with emotional vigor, was a conflicted - and embarrassing admission I was loathed to make. My previous experiences with God attenuated anxiety and adorned my deliberations with dread and anger. Re-establishing contact with an entity I didn't believe existed was a preponderant predicament. How that entity might perceive inquiry from someone who defied and mocked his existence; someone who verbally abused and profaned his name (daily) carried a promised consequence I didn't want to tempt. Potentially, God may provide the assistance to answer the question, but I didn't trust him. Nor could I bring myself to admit God existed. That meant invalidating all my previous efforts discovering evidence to conclude God was a myth. Admitting someone, or something, I rejected from deliberative and philosophical analysis; and whom I despised emotionally, might exclusively hold the answers I sought, was a contradictory and insipid concession. Besides, so doing might inadvertently reveal proof of God's existence. If proof of God did surface, a new menace was certain to infest my life, and, potentially, my eternity. "Accidentally" learning a God exists, admitting the discovery, and then changing behaviors to achieve compliance is a glaringly deceitful behavioral option. That option is one sure to significantly disincentivize any positive evaluation of my prodigal behaviors and motivations. Moreover, if God existed, my previous experiences indicated He disliked me and couldn't care less about my personal difficulties. "God" in my life was synonymous with death, disfigurement, fear, and despair. God introduced misery into my life. His doing nothing, when I needed Him most, was proof of his patented paternal disregard. If God was my Heavenly Father, he behaved like an irresponsible parent who refused to pay child support or exercise his visitation privileges. I decided there would be no divine input in my calculus on eternity. I couldn't handle any more of the "affections" God conveyed – at least to me.

      Much to my discontent, the heaven question did not relent. Each night as the family communed at the dinner table, my son's innocent face rekindled my duty (and doubts) in finding an eternity answer. Juxtaposing reality to cover my reticence, I began dissembled God and the question. Investigating the potential for eternal life was my fatherly (and scientific) duty. As I pondered my failures, a forgotten option surfaced. That option tormented rationality - Prayer. The prayer option was unattractive and more than a little hypocritical. I actively sought proof, and convinced myself, the prayer option was no option at all. I’d done my best to remove God and his commandments from my life and consciousness entirely. I’d acquitted sufficient information to convincingly argue, with statistics, scientific evidence, and abundant facts – the God option, or a higher being, was an impossible and irresponsible option. There were additional personal issues that lay in the prayer option. Reconnecting with God was problematic. I’d developed a keen dislike for the man over the years. To say we were estranged is a magnificent understatement.

      Against my better wishes - contrition inevitably arrived. Irritability intact, I swore my duty to my family and considered prayer in earnest. If I prayed and discovered proof, I'd share the proof. If not, I'd previously answered the question. I didn't need an answer. My praying fulfilled a paternal obligation - solely. Objectively, removing my personal conflicts from the investigation and seeking out God's input provided a side benefit. It was purely a mental exercise to practice "recusal".

      Anxious and frustrated, I postponed the prayer and began re-reading Isaac Newton's: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). In re-reading the work, one of Newton’s comment unexpectedly slapped my arrogance flat.

"…all entities, including the human mind and even the divine being, are extended in the sense that they possess spatial location, even when extended in ways that distinguish them from ordinary material bodies."


      Newton demanded God's inclusion and claimed He was an essential ingredient in all matter(s). That admission prompted another finding - Einstein also made references to God and how God inspired him. God was creeping into the study despite my not wanting him.

GUILT:
The requirements of intellectual honesty are indispensable ingredients, and a concept to which I developed a troubled allegiance. Intense study, with a selfless objective… one that held no personal meaning or advantage for me personally, was not, is not, your author's historic prerogative. That an uncertain afterlife, and God were topics directing the study made it arduous and contrary to my personal philosophy. I didn't expect to find evidence that supported the possibility of eternal life. Nor was facing up to unresolved conflicts and contradictions of conscience (intentionally boxed away long ago in the Do Not Recall section of my consciousness) a planned event. Guilt, however, made certain that happened. Entering the Do Not Recall area of my consciousness, where the worst memories, atrocious behaviors, and vile outcomes in my life were intentionally secured to prevent accidental re-examination, was anxiety squared. I avoided considering portions of my past with a purposeful reserve. Long ago, out of necessity, in the furthest reaches of my mind, I created an isolated partition to compartmentalize the bad decisions and outcomes in my life, to prevent my accidentally recalling them in a moment of weakness, or emotional overload. That area is Guilt's Domain.

      As I considered what else I might examine to find an answer to the question, Guilt invited a conversation. I took it, thinking Guilt may assist in my efforts. Guilt forcefully pressed me past the threshold where I usually stopped. Once I enter his domain, it is difficult to leave. Guilt knows this. Unresolved conflicts, bad decisions, and their outcomes combine to command my fascination and undivided attention. The contents of the domain elicits divergent emotional responses - part shame and part awe. I was amazed how Guilt assured every illicit entry in my life was meticulously recorded in exquisite detail. He reveled in revealing them to me. Guilt is an obstinate companion and quick to remind me he serves at my pleasure. My choices created him. I cannot bid him farewell. Moreover, at least in theory, comparative analysis, augmented with guilt, is how I learn from my mistakes. I want to be good. In truth, Guilt provides the only shackle that prevents my reverting to my atrocious previous behaviors and wallowing in them, expanding them. Guilt is more than my companion and conscience. He preserves me. Guilt not only chronicles my behaviors; he reads them aloud whenever I enter his domain to intensify the impact of my past. Guilt manages the dark recesses of consciousness where frustration, anguish, failures, and fear, lay resident.

      Guilt notwithstanding, this separation of content is useful. It enables my affecting an outward display of confidence and savoir-faire. Lying to one's self is an idiot's gambit I long ago mastered. The practice is rife with pathological I.O.U.s that religiously follow Murphy's Law. I can cope with that construct… if not well. Nervous tics, panic attacks, and a plethora of trauma-induced, undiagnosed, obsessive-compulsive, bi-polar neurotic "Conversion Reactions" are manifest whenever I confront my past's potential influences upon the afterlife. A "Tourette's-Lite" syndrome forms my coping mechanism for Guilt. Besides, I've always stuttered. I'm confident it's purely coincidental the stuttering develops a life of its own after hearing Guilt recite a precisian prelude to my judgment at the Second Coming. It didn't matter the stuttering occasionally crippled my ability to communicate. I avoided speaking. That left me exclusively with the same debilitating company that produced the stuttering. Irreconcilable regret and deferential despair delineate my destiny within Guilt's domain. Guilt concluded his didactic. I departed his company dislocated and despondent.

      Confused and contrite, fearful of failing my son, or finding more proof my research methods and intellectual abilities were fallible (and wont to be incompetent) I secretly considered the prayer option in earnest. Responding poorly to failure is a habit with which I've grown comfortable. I know the process well. When frustrations become married to desperation, the pair breed equivocation, and rationalization. They invariably sire justification. Combined, this generational lineage of qualified excuse making is courted, and wed, to placate Guilt, and, intentionally erode an acknowledged higher standard - in lieu of obtaining the benefits correctly resolving a problem allows. Uncertainty can make a person crazy.

      There was no way of avoiding the conclusion my adopting prayer for an answer signaled I failed! Failure was not an option I preferred, but the unorthodox, unsubstantiated, emotionally conflicted, outcomes of my efforts left no real alternative. Prayer was a legitimate option - if a global conceptualization was employed. I convinced myself I had no choice. Leaving no stone unturned required a "comprehensive" investigation of all the information potentially available – irrespective of its origin - reasoned and ludicrous. Only then, could I honestly end the matter; and excuse my failure to find a secular answer on my own. Besides, I knew assistance from a God was not forthcoming. So, I prayed; often, and insincerely - convinced my efforts were pointless. Prayer, however, provided an ancillary benefit. The lack of divine intervention, no answer to my prayers, permitted my cementing a belief no God existed. As the days passed with no divine input, a marked tedium arose. Re-reading material that appealed to me for reasons not linked to the eternity question passed the time. Simultaneously, a renewed interest surfaced. Previously missed concepts, phenomena, and conjecture ranging from unusual to bizarre was resident in the revisited material - most notable in the properties and behaviors of the electron/photon.

      Lightspeed is an indispensable requirement as it alone infers eternity's potential. Lightspeed overcomes the time-space continuum according to Einstein in E=MC 2. The Electron's properties potentially satisfy Einstein's conditioned conclusion. I considered the electron's potential role an essential component in the human consciousness. If specific associations are incorporated, the electron/photon stands to significantly bear upon the physical composition of the consciousness. The conclusion the human consciousness contains those components; electron/photon, is rational and cogent.


     After all, human life is verified measuring electrical activity in the body. The consciousness was either a segment of human life or a separate entity. The inconsistencies within the consciousness were numerous; just like the electron/photon. Unusual phenomenon and missed relationships that altered my perspective materialized. A terror unexpectedly startled me; like failing to see a threat, so perfectly camouflaged in the trappings of habits, it goes undetected. When it leaps to attack, it is so close and quick a defensive response is impossible - or too late.

UNCERTAINTY'S CONTRITION:
The moment the connections between the electron and consciousness became apparent severed my conceptual continuity. The event incapacitated the minute reserves of my competence - credibility crumbs I preciously guarded like my integrity depended upon it dissipated. My beliefs shattered simultaneously. A wave of remorse crushed me. I lost all confidence in my rational abilities with a sigh. An immense vacancy in my intellect appeared. A word that particularly appealed to me, but I seldom used for lack of opportunity, entered my thoughts. It perfectly described my competence – feckless. Selfish priorities and a recently distilled intellectual cohesion dissolved - like a hologram when the viewer's perspective radically changes. The hierarchy of secular, indispensable conclusions about God I previously adopted with smug, self-assuredness, and rebellious indignation, dissembled under the revelation. These needed significant re-ordering. A remarkable moment of exhilaration was replaced with astonished embarrassment. The answer to the question entirely resided within the inexplicable and indeterminate quantum concept of "Uncertainty".

      A sensory overload ensued - considering all the pertinent potentials of uncertainty. Uncertainty, the phenomenon that inferred states and properties (including potential sentience) and other extraordinary behaviors that defied classic, Newtonian physics, and subordinate scientific concepts and truths, stared back at me - blankly. A confounding and contradictory phenomena, the recognized properties of uncertainty, mandated considering an extraneous, foreign, maybe alien, and, potentially, divine interdiction was ultimately responsible for the electron's composition and behavior. The electron's creation was subject to the same intervention. If, the requisite, and unsubstantiated, premise offered to legitimize the speculation explaining the origin of the universe does not account for the Uncaused First Cause, and, the matter, energy, and CHANCE, required to initiate that uncaused causality are concordantly unsubstantiated, unverifiable; pocked and marred with inconsistencies and overly hopeful indeterminate interpretations and conclusions; the source of that matter, energy, and chance, remains anonymous and unresolved. Uncertainty, Chance, Happenstance, and Fate, collectively assume omniscience as they rise to pre-eminence - the exclusive causality for science's version of universal conception, and its progeny - an ignominious reality spawned and embraced. This concept no longer made sense. I expected better from science.

      Simplified – eternity is an absence of time. A photon IS light. The electron/photon is matter moving at light speed. Matter moving at that velocity overcomes the restrictions time imposes! Potentially, a new dimensional time paradigm is available, and obtained simultaneously. Analogous relationships and obligatory conclusion next materialized. The human consciousness, the soul, is comprised of physical matter and energy. Something similar to the electron/photon is the only plausible suspect. The soul's content has the potential to move at light speed. Eternal life is therefore probable - much more than possible. If the soul is probably eternal, a God could exist, probably existed. One had to. What is the point of eternal determination if no governing system orders the conditions needed to define an afterlife construct? A source of system design and intervention is requisite – God or Gods.

      As the facts and evidence materialized and aligned, I awoke from a self-induced, decades-long, cognitive coma. I could no longer pretend God was Mr. Irrelevant. Somehow, God fit perfectly into the evidence and complimented ancillary conditions. In desperation, I manically sought out conflicting proof – to reaffirm my previous suspicions and conclusions no God was possible. That search delivered more profound support, refuting my prior deductions. The divine connections and relationships were unavoidable, and, undeniable. Then, philosophical factors materialized to insult and embarrass me in areas foreign to me until that moment. Philosophy and metaphysical evaluation united the ingredients with an eloquent equilibrium and undeniable surety. The strict isolation protocols I planned, separating the two perspectives (to preserve my disbelief in God) ran together like colors in an Impressionist painting. I saw the contingent continuity, how each component relied upon the other in a comprehensive collage of coordinated precision - Perfection. The majesty of a design that deftly, and delicately, subdued order for both extremes of magnitude and provided the environment where every particle of matter enjoys its relative, and objective, purpose across dimensions and timescales my feeble human mind could not comprehend, stunned me. My secular concentration subsided contritely. The answer was unconditionally conditional – and certain.

      God's affections for mankind were bound within the collage. That realization crippled my emotions. It wasn't overt. God's love was a mundane object my degenerate emotional misgivings depreciated and overlooked. The affections blended into the background of familiarity, and contempt blinded my considering them. God's collective handiwork unveiled. No matter where I cast my gaze or directed my thoughts, I saw irrefutable proof of God's design and compassion -standing with Guilt?! Guilt's "I told you so." expression was unmistakable. He mocked me and ridiculed my intellectual prowess. I had no rebuttal or rationale for argument. God blessed me in ways I ignored. His favor continued despite my insufferable and petulant behaviors. He tolerated and transcended my immature angst. My Father patiently waited for me to respond and accept the gift – unconditionally. A prodigal past didn't matter. The welcome was unconditional. The glut of evidence before me convicted my self-serving secular conclusions. Guilt gloated. Years of anxiety and fears poured onto my face. I couldn't contain the emotions or my shame.

      Experiencing the weight of disappointment my behaviors and choices expressed upon the sire of my soul was devastating. Evidence of affection from the Father I believed abandoned me was indisputable and ubiquitous. It condemned the arrogance I labeled rationality. The necessary restrictions, limitations, and obligations of the Lord's divine design precluded communication using the physical components of earthly life. This reality enhanced the frustrations of being unable to commune with the creator of consciousness, or impart touch, to reaffirm our shared physical senses past a superficial, conceptual contact was profound - and pitiful.

      Conversely, an alternative eternity was manifest. The outcome held for me on the alternative axis of reality prompted dread and an anxious exhilaration simultaneously. The magnitude and consequence of my disobedience at long last finally made sense in the corrupted continuity of my consciousness. Comprehending the quantum of emotions, which bound a celestial consciousness, one I shared with my Father, materialized. The gravity of the choices defining my life engraved temporal and eternal options upon my soul. Learning choice and behaviors were formative and essential prerequisites for reasons past eternal eligibility clarified my ignorance and disgrace. Comprehending specific components of consciousness, and the ordered arrangement of those components, exclusively render the consciousness physically capable of enduring the eternal afterlife realm, was stupefying and - the "Eternity" answer. I had no response of worth and lacked the justification to express one to God.

      Those choices… my choices: excuses, distractions, and deflections of responsibility, summed to a contemptible certainty, and truth. I dishonored the precious gift entrusted to me. This realization perilously weighted my repentance potential. What remained in my life was an abbreviated opportunity I must not squander. Salvaging the remnants of my soul required an unfamiliar and sustained effort to an uncertain end. Shame shuttered my surroundings as I contemplated condemnation, time remaining in my life, and the reserves of repentance available to me.

      Changing an agnostic opinion and lifestyle, equipped with choices and behaviors that accommodate the blasphemy, is not simple, nor is it linear. It's inordinately complicated. In lieu of perpetuating comfort and complacency, habits, appetites, and dependencies all collude to derail improvement. Reflecting upon a secular life choice, and the damage inflicted from my heart and hand, exposes a loathsome legacy. We earn whatever judgment comes our way. Repentance and changing behaviors provide the "soul" and sole remedy. Accomplishing a new "good" each day and striving for obedience hopefully eases God's disappointments in me. What I hope to avoid is missing out on Dad's company. With the secular blinders removed, I've grown to admire him. I want to learn more from him. If I miss out on his company, instruction, and affections, I can only blame myself. For now, I'm content he is willing to assist me, provide direction, and love me. Considering my past, I deserve other treatment. Grace and compassion form a concept I'm slow to comprehend. It's that knucklehead part - deeply ingrained within me.

      Once my rational mind returned, I realized my study of the soul and eternity were only beginning. I chose to broaden my references to include some tomes previously discredited by religious "experts" as scripture. That investigation provided considerable insight, and led me to question the motivations of the people discrediting the works. Each of us must decide for ourselves what material is useful in directing our efforts and behaviors towards compliance with commandments. Any source of information or history that pertains to Christ and God are valid references in this study – unless, in reading them I found irrelevant, or caustic material that contextually critiques Christianity, vilifies Christ, or gratuitously discredits God seeking to support a secular humanist's worldview. This journey of spiritual discovery was an elucidating and powerful experience. It offered tangible, secular evidence to dispute agnostic presumptions. The evidence forced me to confront my beliefs, and in so doing changed them radically, permanently. The information and evidence available is a faith supplement for those of us who society has brainwashed or intimidated into a secular coma. This revelation came with a duty - to share the information discovered.

Friday, September 28, 2018

Sentience These

THE SENTIENCE THESIS: AN APOLOGETIC INTERPRETATION OF MATTER:
The Sentience Thesis asserts the physical consciousness accrues information, and mass, (electron/photons) through the physical senses: touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, etc. This sensory accumulated information is additionally augmented with cognitive activity. Ideas, deliberations, and choices made while on earth create more consciousness content. The process of accruing matter to the soul, gathering new information, goes on twenty-four hours a day; unabated. Each action and thought in life adds to the souls' content. It's a remarkable process. Primarily, electrons/photons are also responsible for anatomical life. Electrical energy – electrons - is recognized by medicine and science as evidence of life. The presence of life is determined using an electroencephalogram, EEG. The EEG detects and measures electricity in the brain. Electricity is the flow of electrons. An absence of this energy indicates no life - death 

      To better understand the dynamics of the soul and uncertainty's role - how scientific evidence led to this thesis, examining fundamentals of quantum physics is required. The examination is critical for other reasons. The majority of people presume integrity exclusively drives science and academe. The modern culture believes science is the only repository for truth and fact - "legitimate" information. Nothing is considered valid unless science approves it. The philosopher Bertrand Russell claimed, "what science could not explain, man could not know!" Some people and interests accept that absurd claim. Science continues to enjoy a reputation earned at a time when religion embraced many antiquated ideas. Many former religious tenets are now proven patently false. When science provided the accurate answers, they were rightfully esteemed. However, science was unsatisfied with their new station. They had other objectives that religion and God precluded. Eliminating God was required for science to ascend to replace God as the holder and giver of truth and information. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the means used. Since then, science has expanded their domain and authority. However, they are not imperious, nor without fault. It is unfortunate that science has succumbed to the appetites and dependencies of its membership – as had every other organization since the creation of mankind. Science has cleverly aligned itself with very influential powers. Their relationship mandates a reciprocity of deceit, to assure they care for each other's needs. Unfortunately, deceit is accurate and ubiquitous. Deception, lying, prevarication, is a reference standard for particular branches of science. Some are based on deception – Climate Change, and lead paint exposure makes you stupid, are two. Truth, integrity, and credibility are the casualties of this incestuous relationship. Those relationships are worthy of examination and the details of their collusion, avarice, and sloth exposed. 

 THE THESIS:
There is much to digest on a host of inter-related topics to learn and validate the Sentience Thesis. Some portions require a thinking cap. Be prepared. I had to dumb some details and concepts down to the lowest common denominator. Frankly, I was initially able to understand some postulates and hypothesis. Reading… and re-reading… and re-re-reading… (Occasionally more times) was a process to which I grew accustomed. Once the concepts and basics of quantum are understood, the principles and many details unravel. Quantum physics is a marvelous study. It tasks the brain and delves into the essence of matter and life on the smallest (known) scale. Nothing exists without atoms and quarks - no matter, no energy, nothing. Like most every discipline or human endeavor, there are differences of opinion and divergent interpretations in quantum physics. Some of the unresolved conflicts on quantum are strident and remarkable. The disputed areas are vital and unavoidable for physics and the thesis. They define "accepted" evidence and values associated with variables used in equations that form the central premises of quantum physics – the assumptions used. They are indispensable to the discipline. Unbelievably, these differences remain unresolved nearly over one hundred years later. 

      "God does not roll dice." was Einstein's remark when one of the first "equation only" quantum assumptions arose - The Copenhagen Effect - The Uncertainty Principle (RE: dilemma). Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg postulated the uncertainty interpretation in 1927. The Copenhagen Effect, or Uncertainty Principle, is an implicit quantum assumption. It is crucial to comprehending quantum from a conditional, "ideological" view and it's a doozey. This assumption allows science to interpret reality both ways. Incorporating uncertainty as a reference standard, assured absolutes were optional. Absolutes required for other branches of science are conditional in quantum physics (more recently in several disciplines) - by design. 

One component of the atom, the electron, is the focus of the Uncertainty Principle and the Sentience Thesis. The electron is a curious and confounding sub-atomic component. Words become very important here. Component is apt because science lacks the ability to determine if the electron is a wave or a particle. 


      If we examine the image of smallest atom, hydrogen, (above), we learn it contains one electron and one proton. The standard model used to convey the orientation of an atom is helpful. The static image used above resembles a solar system. The proton sits in the center – the "sun" object. It is fixed. The electron is the "planet" object orbiting the sun/proton. The electron moves at the speed of light (maybe faster). The image is almost correct. But as you read above, the precise location of the electron has Never been determined – not once. Electrons remain an uncertain area of study, and that is troublesome for several reasons. When science began examining the generic atom, the electron's location could not be determined – absolutely, precisely. The size and relative position of each sub-atomic component are essential to comprehending the operations within the atom, and all matter that contains atoms. 

      Let's enlarge our atom to the size of Yankee stadium. From this new perspective, the proton is speculated to be the size of a baseball on the pitcher's mound/middle of the stadium. The electron is estimated to be the size of an ant. It is located at the bleacher farthest from the pitcher's mound in centerfield. This enlarged example reveals the "approximated" dimensions of the components and the distance between them. 

      When you touch a solid object, your finger actually makes contact with the very small electron orbiting around the proton - at light speed. What the human senses detect as solid matter is mostly space. Our fingers do not sense movement because of the small size and speed of the electron. The diameter of the hydrogen atom is calculated as approximately one million times smaller than the human hair. The diameter ranges from about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers (1 × 10-10 m to 5 × 10-10 m). The electron's small orbit, moving at light speed, makes locating the electron, using the technology currently available - impossible. Science may eventually develop technology to stop, preserve and properly examine the electron. But science and physics refused to wait.

      When science realized they lacked the technology to determine the precise location and behavior of the electron definitively – they faced a choice. Admit they couldn't do it, or, develop math expressions to approximate a guess on the electron's properties and location. Science formed the equation - hence the Uncertainty Principle. This principle uses calculated guesswork and offers several "potential" electron locations. This choice infuriated some scientists and physicists. They objected. They demanded quantum adhere to the same restrictions imposed on every other discipline. Apparently, their objections were noted, but not applied. The Uncertainty Principle was incorporated, codified, and in conjunction with other math expressions, pressed the study of quantum physics forward. Each subsequent guess on the electron further clouds reality and the actual information sought, and needed, to explore accurately; responsibly, within the boundaries of the Scientific Method, and, fundamental philosophical truths. 

      What approximations miss (the errors present and created) stand to be extremely significant. Necessary information is lost. Concordant errors compound each time the calculation is used, and when another equation is layered upon the last one utilized. Tangible, precise information, like the exact properties of an electron, cannot be determined by approximation. Truth is masked. A generic, utilitarian, approximated value (guesswork) makes due. 

      The known and accepted properties and behaviors of the electron – as might be expected – are bizarre, maddening, and occasionally impossible – compared to classic physics and other tangible and accepted laws of science. The uncertain electron tortures "conventional" logic and rationality. The electron, per the Uncertainty Principle – is BOTH particle and wave. More problematic, it is both electron and photon. Its state is contingent upon several factors. Most disturbingly, the act of examining, measuring the components particle or wave (and potentially the needs and wants of the scientist person conducting the investigation) determines the electron's state! What this phenomenon reveals is the electron can exist in either wave or particle state. The actions of a person examining the electron – trying to measure or detect it – appears to predicate the state the electron/photon adopts, and when it adopts it. The evidence can also suggest the electron/photon chooses its state - contingent upon what the observer does. The latter interpretation is an accurate interpretation – as accurate as the one science accepted. I suspect science refused to convey potential sentience to a sub-atomic particle as that might indicate a divine presence. The Dual-Slit Experiment is where science confronted sentient matter.

      Science wanted to discover legitimate evidence regarding the electron/photon and devised an experiment to collect the evidence – the Dual Slit. This experiment exposed the disturbing and confounding properties of the electron and the "Uncertain" reality that partially defines it. The Dual Slit experiment was one of the earliest quantum investigations designed to locate and quantify a sub-atomic particle. The outcome of the Dual Slit experiment presented evidence and circumstances that surely frustrated science, and instilled doubt about their observations, calculations, methods, and conclusions. The experiment's outcome has not changed since the first attempt. When analyzed – the results continue to challenge objective evaluations and expectations. It also redefines our perceived physical and metaphysical realities – depending upon your perspective. The results display God's remarkable ability to confound man and science in plain sight. The answers are present. At least one is glaring. It is science's prejudiced standards of evaluation that compromise and confound their efforts. 

      The Dual Slit experiment involves shooting a stream of electrons/photons through two barriers placed a few inches away from the device emitting the electrons. The barriers and capture plate are staggered – each a few inches apart moving away from the electron "gun". The first barrier has one vertical slit. A second barrier sits behind the first and contains two vertical slits. The electron/photons passing thru the slits in both barriers impacts a capture plate placed behind both barriers.  The capture plate is where the electron locations are verified, recorded, and analyzed. 


        Any stream of electrons/photons used in the Dual Slit experiment is (assumed) waves of matter as they leave the gun. This description of electrons is what science initially thought. The results of the Dual Slit experiment recalibrated and re-defined what science thought. The pattern the electrons/photons produced on the capture plate (in a rational world) should resemble the light waves shot through the double slits. That did not happen.

      Unexpectedly, DOTS, particles of matter (not waves) accumulated into groups on the capture plate. The far right image above shows how the particles arranged. The electrons were presumed in waveform when released from the gun. Based on previous behaviors observed, electrons and photons were waves. Defying expectations and rationality, when the capture plate was examined, the anticipated collection of waves changed. The waves became a collection of particles.

      The image above shows the accumulation of electrons as the experiment progressed - top to bottom. Recall, there are only two slits on the second barrier plate. How these particles arranged themselves into numerous groups of particles remains unknown to this day. It appears the waves/particles organize themselves into ordered groups. The electrons also form a "graduated" image like shading. The electrons assemble themselves into vertical columns; in a repeating gradation of intensity. Columns of compacted particles gradually fade to very few particles, then back to densely populated columns of particles - repeatedly.

      The capture screen is flat – essentially two-dimensional. Nothing in the composition of the capture plate contributes to the pattern produced – that science can determine. The limited size of the capture sheet prevents the entire height and breadth of the electrons collected, and the images created, from being seen. Any variation or change in the shape and number of columns are unseen and unknown. 



      The causality explaining how and why the photons changed states (based upon being examined, captured, or measured) is unknown. They can only be termed un-real - bizarre. On some level, the electron/photon appears able to recognize or interpret variations in its environment, or experiment conditions, and respond - change their property or state - accordingly. Another interpretation of the evidence and causality suggests the potential for sentience - in a piece of matter defined as inert.  Asserting the electron/photon is capable of interpreting, and then responding to their environment or conditions is valid. The validity of this interpretation increases as the number of other inexplicable properties and behaviors of the electron/photon mount. (The Christian religion needs to embrace the results of this experiment and demand the potential sentience interpretation be considered.)  

THE INEXPLICABLE PROPERTIES & BEHAVIORS OF THE ELECTRON/PHOTON:
The electron/photon is both a wave and a particle. 
Electrons can occupy the different states and locations – simultaneously! 
The electron/photon move at light speed – or faster.
Electron/photon can share "information" faster than light speed across vast distances. 

      The photon/electron's known, and potential behaviors, are why the Thesis is termed Sentient. There is more confounding and contradictory behavior. The photon/electron can be present in different places, at the same time. The electron/photon behaviors/experiment results indicate it senses being analyzed or its environment and respond to those conditions perceived. If so, the phenomena infer a rudimentary intellect - sentience. When science conducted the double slit experiment and encountered this inexplicable reality that defies classic physics (and common sense) they faced a quandary. All the baffling behaviors needed explaining. At that time of the first experiment, science only had classic physics and analog tools to enhance their investigations. Science couldn't adequately interpret the phenomena with the tools and information possessed. New interpretations and conclusions and postulates were created trying to explain what the double slit experiment revealed – poorly. Science never documented opinion that considered the potential of electron/photon sentience, or, the possibility of a dimensional transition inside the atom, or BOTH!

      The explanation chosen by science served one concern well. Denying the potential for sentience resident within inert matter was explicitly crafted to negate a divine influence, or design was potentially causal. Science needed to retain their ability to explore the quantum realm using a new Uncertainty, and preserve their authority as the holder and giver of truth and information. Science needed to avoid admitting not enough information was known to form a legitimate conclusion that explained the behaviors, and, that intellect was potentially present in inert matter. Quantum Physics was a brand new field of research. Professional opportunities awaited those who could provide explanations for sub-atomic pieces of matter. With no comparative benchmarks available, and few experts able to comprehend the mathematical expressions used to validate or disprove the assertions made; conjecture and complex equations sufficed. Science is disconcertingly deluded and dissident. Science has morphed into a supercilious sycophant for its research enablers – government and corporations needing Facts to argue against the public’s wishes, and best interests

      Not every physicist or scientist was content with the conclusions drawn. Einstein was one of several who rebuked the findings. Uncertainty, the Copenhagen Effect, moved physicist Erwin Schrodinger to posit the Cat Paradox:  A cat is placed inside a box containing a deadly compound.  If the compound is released, the cat dies. When a person opens the box to examine the cat, the act MAY trigger the deadly compound. The cat will be alive, or dead – depending upon WHEN, or HOW, or (as learned from the Dual Slit) "WHY" a person opens the box to investigate the cat. The Copenhagen Effect postulate permits mischief and introduces chance for causality. Mathematical calculations require special operators to incorporate chance. Schrodinger, a young physicist seeking fame and fortune, delivered the operator - Ψ. Other physicists created their own operators when conventional math failed to produce the results desired.

      Schrodinger eventually grew unhappy with the direction of quantum physics; the absence of verifiable, tangible evidence, and controls were among some of his concerns. Erwin Schrodinger was an immense intellect who provided the discipline a formula and math operator to quantify chance, or change, over time. Schrodinger's peerless work is evidence of his considerable mind. He made a profound statement that infers his dissatisfaction with the indeterminate structure of quantum physics that "evolved" within the discipline.
"I don't like it (quantum mechanics), and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
"The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e., the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model."

      Science continued trying to clarify the indeterminate, uncertain, state of the electron. Niels Bohr calculated matrices of potential locations for electrons orbiting a nucleus in his work with Heisenberg – noted above. Another physicist, Max Born, clarified Bohr's analysis and suggested the electron/photon reside in a perpetual state of uncertainty. Born's Probability Density postulate suggests electrons/photons follow a predictable path, even if their location cannot be accurately determined. These behaviors form a "cloud" of probability density. 



      The cloud metaphor is accurate and helps one visualize how the electron path creates the appearance and sensation of solid matter - when touched by a human hand. Remember, though, the atom is mostly empty space. All matter on earth is comprised of atoms. Concordantly, it is mostly empty space. The human body is no different. Electrons whirling about at light speed in your fingertip make contact with moving electrons in any object and your brain comprehends a solid surface. Some matter is rigid and durable - rock. Other matter assumes a fluid or gaseous state. All matter contains electrons spinning in an uncertain orbit around various protons at light speed. The number of protons, neutrons, and electrons determine the type of matter.

      Born's postulate is significant because it implies "whole" electron particles are witnessed WHEN the investigation of the experiment's results is conducted. This postulate contradicted Bohr's conclusion which implied partial states, portions of electrons, are witnessed. Both conclude the electron's state is predicated on an external investigation. When acts of experimentation and examination seek to detect the electron, it changes its state in reaction to the act of investigation. Physicists and science avoid even considering an obvious and compelling conclusion – rudimentary sentience. Science would term the most obvious explanation for the phenomena Super Natural.

THE SENTIENT SOUL: 
The Primary objective of the Sentient Thesis is presenting verifiable evidence, physical properties, and behaviors, of the matter that potentially defines the content of the human soul; or consciousness. The Sentience Thesis concludes the human soul consists of electrons/photons. These objects of matter/energy are additionally necessary for, and detected to confirmed, life - both human and animal. The physical senses capture and accrue this matter. Deliberations organize and utilize the matter/energy captured. Further, the Thesis accepts as evidence, accumulated sensory experiences and conscious efforts over a lifetime increase the soul's content and mass. Combined with the decisions taken and the corresponding behaviors acted out, man overtly or passively prepares his soul for the afterlife. 

      The content of the soul being electrons/photons renders them implicitly subject to the scientific conclusions and theories regarding the matter/energy properties and behaviors. Specifically, per Einstein's theory of relativity, Mass/Matter = Energy. Further, classic physics' adopted Lavoisier's: (Theory)-Law of Conservation. The Law stipulates matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This assumption presumes all the matter in the universe was always present, static, and further concludes matter cannot be removed from the physical universe. This Law poses a dilemma – as science concludes the matter/energy powering the body and mind both vanish at death. To what location the matter/energy in the body and soul depart upon death science does not know. Many investigators tried to measure the mass of this matter – with inconclusive results. If matter was always present – the Big Bang becomes dubious. 

      The second aspect of the Law of Conservation quandary involves human thought. The processes that form the creation of a human thought science cannot explain. It is very complicated physical process despite the ease with which we all do it. Pieces of matter, electrons, are examined by our bodies/brains. The matter is considered, recompiled, arranged, and a new idea materializes. Sensory information is different. That is realized from kinetic energy and transformed into electrons captured by the mind. A "new" idea is unique. It can be recalled individually without the constituents used to form it. The newly created idea must be comprised of energy and matter. It can be recalled and used. Is it new matter? The old electrons/matter – (referenced to create the new idea) remain affix to the previous experience that created them. So what matter constitutes the new idea? The new idea matter behaves like the matter used to create it. These phenomena suggest new matter is generated when the idea is formed – potentially defying Lavoisier's: Law of Conservation - matter cannot be created or destroyed.

      Moreover, evidence suggests the electron/photon is a unique sub-atomic component that contains and displays specific properties that are incomprehensible - due to technological limitations and the scale of the environment studied. The electron/photon is currently an undetermined and unrecognized sub-atomic component(s) with the ability to exhibit a reactionary and predictable response to external stimuli. The evidence further suggests the potential for electrons defying traditional classification is present. The interpretation electrons/photons are not universal, homogenous, components is cogent and method stable. How Einstein's Theory appears to support - bears positively upon the eternal potential of the electron/photon in a vital examination. Einstein's theory proposes matter moving at light speed overcome the Time/Space Continuum. 

      Religion views the soul collectively as an eternal entity. No scripture exists that delves into the physical dynamics of the soul's constitution - known to your author. The Christian religion asserts - at a predetermined future time, God analyses the content of the soul and judges the individual based upon compliance standards – commandments, etc. God then directs the soul to an environment, and perhaps another vessel/body, where the individual soul continues on its eternal journey acquiring more information for intellect development.