Metaphysics/ Dream Theory
Physics/ eternity:  How a Star is Created
Metaphysics/ Creationism

Metaphysics/ Dream Theory 1992

        . this tries presents a theory to explain the usual religious questions:
"{ How was our existence was created? What is God?  What is God's plan for the future? }
.  The really exciting aspect of this metaphysical theory,
 is that it doesn't fall back on a "creator",
and it does predict the ability of civilization to survive eternally
.  Furthermore,
it shows that our universe couldn't even be possible  if it weren't able to support
the eternal development of fantastic recreational games!
. In fact, God must find the technology to support us eternally, at any cost;
so this theory should give you reason to reconsider
the meaning of business, freedom, neglect, and crime .
        Try to find a logical explanation for the universe
. If it was created, explain why the creator exists
. The Dream Theory explains existence by reversing a basic assumption about it:
 experience is the only thing that actually exists,
and physical things are   all in our mind
. ( Our natural laws are still able to enforce reality
because they're operating on our experience directly
 rather than on percieved objects )

.  There is no void, no empty space,
nothing except the experience of anything
. Moreover, there is  no  independently existing creative god or rule
 with which to choose a single favorite experience such as bliss or unawareness
. Therefore,
 all varieties of experience must exist
. It is actually for lack of a creator
 that there must exist an infinite variety of experiences
. This infinite variety provides the same information as no experience at all,
 so when seen collectively,
the experiences reflect what exists --the indefinite

. Because experience must exist as an infinite variety,
 this forces the existence of a rule or God that can
define an infinite variety of other rules
. Only by having an infinite variety of rules
 can experience be defined with an infinite variety of quality and structure
. Therefore,
our universe or God, is a rule that must allow us to make other rules,
so we must be able to create recreational systems that impose a
totally synthetic rule apon a brain
-- ultimately with a dream sythesizer
 ( A synthesizer would control "dreams"
by connecting all of a brain's nerve-endings to a computer interface. )

But why synthesize what isn't recreational?
 For an infinite variation in the structure of experience,
 our universe includes war, crime, mental illness, nightmares, and drugs

. An important prediction of the Dream Theory
is that some civilization in our universe
 must survive eternally
. We can't synthesize an infinite number of patently novel experiences
unless each new design is allowed to eternally benefit from the special techniques of previous synthesizers

. The Perfection Plan is a chain of developments that will
fulfill the Dream Theory:
    (1) Our natural evolution has already developed our intelligence.
    (2) The potential of intelligence in war and crime
 has already resulted in a technological evolution
. The economy and insecurity will drive a search for
 robotic defenses and artificial organs
. This will inevitably provide us with a brain-robot interface,
and finally a dream synthesizer
    (3) The potential for recreation in a synthetic world is unlimited
and this inevitably leaves us in the ideal evolution
. If the future actually holds this,
then the Dream Theory can explain why experience exists,
 and how the designs in it formed

Introduction/ Empiricism

. If you've had any realistic dreams, it becomes apparent that our only contact with reality is through a corresponding "dream". Now, without considering dreams, it appears obvious that objects form our experience. But the objects in realistic dreams are imaginary;
so, we might see that experience forms our objects.

. Empiricism is the theory that real experiences are equivalent to dreams; all real observations must be translated from physical signals into the same fabric that dreams are made of; the universe may or may not live independent of experience, but experience is the only substance that we can prove actually exists.

. Empirical observations are ones done without the use of instruments to check the reliability of your perception. The only thing that empiricism can surely detect is the existence of experience. However, even with the use of instruments it cannot be proven that the world isn't simply your dream. Even your dreams could have a world where instruments have measurements that are consistent with eachother and with your direct observations and predictions. There's no way to prove you won't "wake up" from "reality".

Introduction/ Subjective Idealism

If we must always view reality in terms of
       the same substance that dreams are made of;
       and, dreams can make imaginary situations appear to be real,
then could our reality be the imaginary universe of a shared dream?

Subjective Idealism is the theory that our collective experience is the only substance that actually exists, and that perception of a universe is merely the result of a system of rules that act directly on the experience.
        We can neither prove nor disprove that the universe is imaginary; since, by analogy, if several video displays are showing camera views of the same universe, and the ideal computer is capable of simulating the same views, then how could you distinguish camera images from a computer image? Why must we conclude that a real model was recorded by camera, if a computer could have simulated the same "camera" signals?

The Dream Theory

        By using subjective idealism as a hypothesis, the Dream Theory is allowed to explain the creation of the universe in terms of the origins of experience:

. Assume that experience is the only thing that actually exists, and physical things are all in our mind. (Our natural laws are still able to enforce reality because they're operating on our experience directly.) Also assume that there is no creator to select a particular type of experience.
. Thus,
experience cannot simply exist as nothingness because there is no creator to select that experience. There must exist an infinite variety of experiences. This infinite variety provides the same information as no experience at all, so when seen collectively, the experiences reflect what exists --the indefinite.

. Because experience must exist as an infinite variety, this forces the existence of a rule that can define an infinite variety of other rules.  Only by having one rule can a prticular indefinite stream of experience be created. Only by having an infinite variety of perceived environments can experience be defined with an infinite variety in quality and structure. For an infinite variation in the structure of experience, our universe would need more than our natural environment even with war, crime, mental illness, nightmares, drugs, and dreams. It must support an eternity of synthetic experiences.

. But in order to keep the synthetic designs from repeating themselves, there must be a civilization that survives eternally to insure the infinite progression of synthetic design. Thus, we must be able to create recreational systems that impose a totally synthetic rule apon a brain,  ultimately, with a dream sythesizer. (A synthesizer would control "dreams" by connecting all of a brain's nerve-endings to a computer interface.) Also, our universe must create new stars as old ones expire, and we must be able to travel to them eternally
.   The Dream Theory can be disproved only if we find some inherent limitation that either prevents any civilization from evolving eternally, or that doesn't provide the technology for a dream synthesizer. The proof of the Dream Theory depends on a prediction about the nature of all future experiences (it predicts that some civilization will survive eternally and find recreation by being submerged in totally programmable synthetic rules), so there is always some chance that this theory doesn't fit the observations.

All For Naught

        Why isn't there nothing?
 I couldn't fathom how a creative god -- a system of rules -- could exist without itself being created
. many religions use our undeniable existence
 as proof that a creator exists;
 and sure enouph, my beliefs left me with the conclusion
 that there should be nothing more than a null experience in a void universe
. even when I simplified my inquiry with the hypothesis that Experience is the only thing that exists,
 I still couldn't fathom how experience in a void could be anything but null (unawareness).
        My imagination was being hindered by that mind's interpretation of the Law of Sufficient Reason
 (it states: everything happens for a reason; ie, reality follows rules,
A unique state is the result of a particular system of rules).
This is logically equivalent to saying,

unique state implies unique rule

. the following contrapositive form of that sentence
 is another way of saying the same thing:

not unique rule implies not unique state

In a metaphysical context, the contrapositive form is more relevant
since the Dream theory is assuming that no particular system of rules exist:
without a particular system of rules to determine behavior,
all states are possible
.  So, why isn't there nothing?
. Experience could maintain a definite null state if there were a creator to choose that particular state;
 but, a creator simply doesn't exist
. This is a stupendous result !
. The fact that we exist as a myriad of different experiences is actually proof that the God we know was not a creator
. rather, our God or rule was created by the metaphysical requirement that
the infinite variety of states must be defined by some rule -- any rule --
and that rule is what we call god.

        A nonexistent rule (or God) would be nonspecific about the definition that it imposed on experience;
 and, since "nothingness" is a specific state,
the only way to have no particular definition is to exist as everythingness
 -- an infinity of definite states that collectively say nothing in particular
. Such an experience would contain a denial of every affirmed condition;
 so when all the states are considered collectively,
the experience has really remained indefinite about the existence of any particular condition
. everythingness is the only experience available
 if there is no creator or an existing universe to select values.

All Created God

        Another argument for the existence of divinity is the undeniable order that our universe provides: how else could our system of natural rules be chosen without a divine creator? However, rather than look at the rule, assume that the only things that really exist are the patterns formed by the rule into experience. The essential question then is this: has there been some order or consistency about the pattern layed into experience? Now, after the experience of illnesses, nightmares, and an eternity of dream synthesizers, there must be an infinite variety about the patterns, so that no choices have been made.  Natural laws routinely guide our experience in the twentieth century, but the patterns they make in experience are no more "natural" than patterns made by synthetic laws. If our physical laws can support a dream synthesizer, then nightmares and mental illness may even disappear.
        The Dream theory hypothesizes that it was actually for lack of a creator
that our universe mirrors an eternally constant, heroically ordered system
. without a creator to define a universe,
 the experience must exist as everythingness in order to correspond to the indefinite condition;
and since the Experience must exist,
 it must also induce our natural law as a means to define the states
. If no particular definition was induced,
 then there would be no definite states,
 and thus no way to express the indefinite with a continuum of definite states
. Thus, "everythingness" created God, the natural law.

Finite & Constant

        Without finite and constant natural laws, we would be unable to predict reality and build a dream synthesizer
. And, then our synthetic scripts couldn't progress eternally
. The synthesizer is required to generate an infinite variety in the structure of experience;
and, infinite variety is required to provide experience with an indefinite value
. therefore,
the Dream theory predicts that either our natural law is finite and constant,
 or there is more than one physical universe
. However it's highly unlikely that the rule for defining indefinite experience would be so complex,
when a single universe could do the job.

Physics/ eternity:  How a Star is Created 1992

. our universe provides solar power eternally?
this article rejects the Big Bang theory and explains the principle of thermal energy
to support the Steady State theorem .
[1]  Physics, 2nd ed. Kane.
[2]  American Journal of Physics  26(9) 1958 p(600..) 
[3]  Time Magazine 1988-89
[4]  The Big Bang Never Happened, 1991. Lerner.
[5]  Introduction to Plasma Theory


       It is assumed that this universe was designed to sustain experience eternally (see Metaphysics);  and, that experience will eternally depend on life; and, that life will eternally depend on solar energy.
It is known that each star has a finite life ( 1 - 100 billion years ).  Therefore, the universe must eternally give birth to new stars.

The Steady State Theorem

     MacMillan -- the first to suggest the Steady State theory --   didn't offer any suggestions for observing the superiority of his theory over others, like the Big Bang,  "yet it does stand as a bold and pioneer statement of a theme that now has a firm even though somewhat heretical place in cosmological speculation".[2]
        --By invalidating the Big Bang theory, it could appear heretical to the scientific community.  At first glance, it appears that a universe without beginning or end can't be created by God, making such an assertion heretical to the Church. However, time is a creation, just like physical space is. Before the creation of a universe there would be no such thing as time, and it is conceptually impossible to create time at a particular time! Thus, regardless of whether God created objects at a particular time, the universe of time and space must have been created without beginning or end.
        MacMillan is reminded by the darkness of space that star light must get consumed in the process of forming new hydrogen.  He viewed the universe as being infinite and eternal, with galaxies uniformly distributed.  He postulated that no natural process can proceed eternally only one-way; it must be reversable.[2]   If an eternally uniform star system radiates energy by destroying mass;  then to reverse this, new stars must somehow be created as others are consumed.  There must be a natural reallocation of the consumed mass by an energy-to-mass conversion.
        MacMillan pointed out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true only within the context of physical systems of a small, constructable scale; he used the example of water that flows in only one direction until it evaporates and recondences.[2]  The main point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the impossibility of constructiing a perpetual machine.  Any time that energy is used for work, there is some loss by radiation, and this loss of energy cannot be regained without using more energy.  At a certain super-galactic level the universe is indeed a perpetual machine. In fact, in 1988, we discovered, for the first time, what appears to be the birth of a new star.[3]

Plasma Cosmology

        By 1961, observations showed that electromagnetic (EM) waves lost energy as they travelled great distances, so that their frequency became less, and their wavelengths became longer. In more distant objects, the longer, radio-length waves were always more common [4](p148). At first, astronomer Hubble found that the dimmer a source was, the more its energy wave was carried by the longer wave lengths. The longest visible light waves are red, so this effect is called the Hubble Redshift. Now, another possible cause for the longer wavelengths could be the Doppler effect. If the source is moving away from us quickly then it takes longer for a full wavelength to be absorbed, and this is equivalent to absorbing a longer wavelength.
Thus, the Redshift could have been from either:
(1) the universe is expanding, so everything is moving away from everything else, including earth, or
(2) the EM radiation loses energy as it travels intergalactic distances.
In the senventies, Tulley and Fischer developed another way to determine the distance of other stars, so they could confirm that distance causes a red shift. [4](p18)  This contradicts the Big Bang theory that the universe is expanding about us.

ElectroMagnetic Relationism

        Relationism is the doctrine holding that relations exist as real entities.  EM Relationism is an extension of MacMillan's Steady State theory. EM Relationism not only explains how energy can be transferred without "ether" or "time contraction" but also explains how new stars can be formed eternally.
EM Relationism claims that energy travels between objects through separately existing string-like entities that connect each mass to every other mass. These EM entities are not stable without carrying a wave of some definite length, and rather than be completely still they are converted into mass. This sort of mass is then subject to the laws of plasma cosmology, where they become the starting point of star regeneration.

EM entities run through each mass in all directions and maintain their location relative to that particle;  thus, rather than one ocean of ether particles, each mass drags around its own infinite volume of EM entities. Since these strings have no mass, this drag is effortless. EM entities are infinite in length, and transfer energy indefinitely. But if each EM entity is owned by a particular mass, then are your waves importing or exporting? We can see pictures of distant stars that no longer actually exist, so we must exclusively own the strings that give us energy. However, an object will always radiate the same amount of energy regardless of the degree to which it's surrounded by importers; unless every object is completely surrounded by other objects! Space does look empty, but we can not hope to see what is infinitely far away. I need to do some experients. EM Relationism could be off, but the focal question is, what makes the universe create new stars.

 Einstein's Special Relativity theory explained how photons and other EM radiation could defy newtonian mechanics after it was proved that space was't filled with ether (a collection of particles that can propogate waves). EM Relationism theory claims that space is filled with EM entities (a collection of "waves" or strings that can propogate "particles" or photons). While Einstein's theory correctly states that energy and mass are different forms of the same substance, this result does not depend on his Relativity theories. EM Relationism can explain photon travel without metaphysical notions such as "contracted time".

The relativity formula is derived from the light clock experiment. That experiment is a stick with a light source on one end and a reflector on the other. When the light is reflected, then a sensor next to the light source responds by sending out another pulse of light. This is like the routine of pitcher and batter who would always hit the ball to the pitcher. It keeps time like a clock because it measures the speed at which the ball can travel. If the clock is moving perpendicular to the direction of its stick, the ball has obviously moved through more air, even though the relative distance has remained the same. Now because of this, relativity will tell you that the ball has actually travelled a greater distance. However, the experiments confirm that the ball has travelled the same distance because it still produces the same volleys per minute. So relativity will then tell you, with a straight face, that the distance was greater, but it was shortened by a time dialation that occurs whenever things move past you too quick. Relativity must be assuming that light is a wave that is propogated through an ocean of ether.  According to EM Relationism, the EM entities were already connecting the light source to its reflector, and the wave that was propogated over that entity travels the same distance regardless of whether the clock is still, or accelerated.

Unlike Relativity, EM Relationism starts from the question, "how is eternal solar energy supported".  There are two physical laws supporting the theory that new stars will always be forming,  and always have been,

(Law 1) Nuclear theory:
energy and mass are never destroyed,  but converted into the other.

(Law 2) Thermal Radiation theory:
matter always radiates its energy at a rate proportional to its absolute temperature  (if temperature remains constant, then it's absorbing as much as it radiates).  If it isn't absorbing any radiation, then it will reach an absolute temperature of zero.
Also the Hubble Redshift insures that as waves travel infinitely they lose all energy. [4](p18)

The EM entities radiate energy from their particle until its temperature reaches absolute zero.  As the temperature decreases, most of the radiation is released at longer wavelengths;  so it's predicted that an absolute temperature of zero would result in the radiation of energy having an infinite wavelength.
the Hubble Redshift insures that EM radiation from surrounding sources cannot add radiation from arbitrary distnces. This means that without a source of solar energy nearby, any place in the universe will eventually be as devoid of energy as the last time a galaxy was born there.

As stars in a region become exhausted,  the seas of EM entities grow calmer as radiation is emitted in longer lengths. Also, their wavelengths fall longer with distance.  When the length of a last EM wave approaches infinity, the EM entity has failed to define its wavelength;  so, it must exist as something that doesn't have a wavelength!  The resulting energy-to-mass conversion creates a Gravitational (G) entity that is very unstable.

 These G entities combine into more stable nuetrons, and this gain in stability releases enormous amounts of thermal energy. Energy is needed by a particle to maintain its structure, which gives it the quality of mass.  When the particles group together, they are forming a single structure that requires much less energy than the many individual structures needed.  The energy that was no longer needed for maintaining structure is now free to cause the erratic motion is known as thermal energy, and percieved as heat.

 The process of creating thermal energy causes the neutron to separate into a positive proton and a negative electron, and these are the constituents of plasma.  Plasma is the fourth state of matter: just as gas is super-heated liquid, plasma is super-heated gas. Particles in a plasma are charged, and their kinetic (motion) energy is high enouph to maintain that charge (difference in electrical potential). Unlike a gas, a plasma is electrically conductive and affected by magnetism. There are an equal number of positively charged ( ions ) as there are negatively charged ( electrons ). [5] An ion is a molecule that has fewer electrons than protons (protons have a positive charge).  An energy-to-mass conversion will create the mass, and the subsequent stabilizing process will bestow it with the emmense energy needed for a plasma state.

Lerner's Plasma Cosmology [4]

When a current flows through a plasma, it must assume the form of a filament in order to move along magnetic field lines. The flow of electrons thus becomes force-free: because they move exactly along the lines of a magnetic field, no magnetic forces act on them. The axis of galactic spiral is one such filament. Electrons along the center of the filament flow in straight lines, producing a spiral magnetic field along which outer electrons can flow. The outer electrons, in turn, flowing in spirals around the filament, produce the straight magnetic field lines on the axis along which inner electrons flow.

When working with electromagnetism, certain key variables do not change with scale --electrical resistance, velocity, and energy all remain the same. This means that plasma acts the same at the galactic level as at the laboratory level, only the rate of activity is proportional to its size. For instance, if plasmas are fired at high speed toward each other in the laboratory, they pinch and twist themselves into the shapes of spiral galaxies. Both theoretical studies and computer simulations had shown that any plasma with sufficient energy will create vortex filaments, that form thick dense ropes. These filaments will grow until they became self-gravitating: gravity will then break them up, producing blobs of plasma spinning across the field lines of the huge filaments.  This, in turn, will generate inward flowing currents that will produce a new set of filaments, thus repeating the cycle, spinning an ever finer web of matter.

 The first filaments will be dozens of supercluster chains. Each of these will be composed of thousands of galaxies which contain hundreds of billions of stars. At each stage the inward-flowing currents and the backgound magnetic field will brake the spinning plasma, allowing further contraction of the protocluster, protogalaxy, or protostar.

 The energy taken from the rotation and gravitational contraction of the object will go into the creation of the dense plasmoid and will be released in the beams that the plamoids create as they decay. A quasar is thus the birth cry of a galaxy, the means by which the excess energy of rotation, which must be removed if the galaxy is to collapse, is carried away in the form of energetic jets. Quasars expel electrical energy with one beam of electrons that never escape the limits of the quasar, and an opposite beam of protons that radiate radio waves by accelerating electrons.

Once the galaxy forms, the same process at a lower rate fuels the repetitive formation of small plasmoids at its nucleus. The process is today generating stars in the dense filaments of the spiral arms.

I don't really understand how plasma cosmology takes us from plasma to star creation. Conversely, Lerner doesn't seem too concerned with taking us from empty space to plasma. I copied this bit about plasma cosmology because it seems to have the missing piece of my puzzle. In any case, the piece of the puzzle that I put in place is that EM waves travel on entities that exist independently of the energy they transfer, and without any energy to transfer, they perform an energy-to-mass conversion. As this primitive mass forms more stable mass, its thermal energy becomes more intense, and it finally initiates a self-perpetuating nuclear fusion.  A star is born, and it performs the mass-to-energy conversion that keeps a strong wave in all the nearby EM entities.  After repeated fusion reactions ( and some fission ), all the fuel has been radiated;  and, the star finally stops making waves, to make way for a new generation.

The Big Bang Theory

Our universe follows a set of rules that follow a time-in-space model and these rules define our experience. The time-in-space model forms  a collection of expeeriences. Only the model's effect on experience is real -- the model itself doesn't exist at all. As a metaphysical idea, the Big Bang could refer to the theory that all experiences exist simultaneously -- BANG -- as a single indefinite object in a space that has no distance or time. (time, distance, and motion are part of the model, not the reality).

As for theories in physics, plasma cosmologists have alternatives and strong arguments for refuting the Big Bang (see [4]). Physics is our study of how that time-in-space model works.  There is no Big Bang in physics; just an endless procession of stars living to fill void, and dying to create it.  Of course, this theory merely fits my own observations, which are quite limited.

Metaphysics/ Creationism 1992

        Describes how all time could be created at once without life being predetermined. Should be of interest to those comparing Creationism to Evolutionism. Also a study of free will versus destiny.
Experience is a substance that either exists all at once -- indefinitely -- or not at all. But as a substance, experience exists without place or time. The patterns that develope in the experience are designed by a single, unified rule that we know as our universe. Such a rule doesn't preclude a supernatural power, and such a power could use evolution as a tool.

A space is the collection of all the possible values that a variable could have
.  The model space is all the ways to design a physics, or a system for defining experience. The physical space is the collection of all the places that an object could be at a particular time.
The metaphysical space is all the ways in which an Experience could be defined indefinitely. Unlike physical space, there is  no  dimension of place or time. Either the Experience is defined indefinitely, or it is not.

Without the actual existence of time or space, the existence of experience is an all-or-nothing thing:  either a rule does define experience indefinitely, or it does not.
When experience is viewed as a substance, it exists as one object of infinite size that never changes. Each of us, at any given time, is "being" part of this object.

This description makes it sound as if all the moments in history have already happened. After all, some experience obviously already exists, and if experience is an all-or-nothing thing, then the entire experience must already be defined. And if all experience already exists, then all the events of the future must have already happened, and we are being a procession of experience with no more control than if we were watching a movie.

But this confuses your experience with the models that designed it. When you watch a video of real events, you might say that those involved in making the movie really have no control in what they are seen doing --but at the time of the shooting they certainly did. Similarly, you are being subjected to the lives of 20th century earthlings who were very much in control of their future. Their universe didn't support time-travel, and destiny consisted only of the will to survive eternally, and grow technologically --free will had a lot of room to move around in.