Synchronous Folds Giving Rise to Consciousness and Matter

The Two-Way Flow

Biographical Data

An Unifying Approach to Consciousness and Matter

DIFFERENTIATING CAUSED AND UNCAUSED COEXISTENCE

Introductory Remarks

In all fields of science, knowledge, and human endeavor, we confront the problem of distinguishing coexistence among phenomena and events that are causal in nature from coexistence that is not causal in nature. It often takes a high degree of sophistication and analytical ability to determine whether the coexistent or coincidental state between things are caused or uncaused.

Causality is ordinarily applicable only to things existing in time and space and engaged in motion. Thus, the enfolding of force and form is a manifestation that is non-causal in nature and does not take place in time and space. Once the enfolding results in the hydrogen molecule, the first manifestation of matter, would we be enabled to speak of causal factors relating phenomena existing in time and space. We have entered a world subject to causality--a world comprised of causal inter-relationships among phenomena. In the world subject to causality, relationships among phemonema may be either non-causal or causal in nature. Thus, the enfolding of force and form may give rise to both causal and non-causal relationships.

Outstanding scientists and philosophers often assert a causal connection based upon faulty analysis or upon presuppositions that have no factual support. Sometimes as a result of greed and the fufillment of vested interests,a causal connection is asserted by persons who really know that there is no causal connection among coexistent phenomena or events. At the same time from the mosaic of interrelated events, all giving rise to phemonena, we tend to treat as causal those events subject to our control or of which we are capable of gaining effective knowledge and not those events beyond our control or knowledge. Thus, both pragmatic and analytic factors enter into our determination of whether a relationship between things and events is a causal one.

In the enfolding universe with sychronous folds, the distinction between coexistence and causality does not arise until the enfolding gives rise to time, space, and motion. Causality implies a temporal sequence in which prior events are treated as causal of later events. In the synchronous enfolding universe, time, space and motion does not exist and an earlier state of the universe could not be causal of a later state of the universe. The enfolding is not an enfolding that takes place in time but is an enfolding in which all states of the enfolding are synchronous. In this sense all states of the universe are synchronous and coexistent, with no distinction between causal and non-causal states of the universe. After the enfolding gives birth to time, space, and motion, non-causal events may be coexistent and synchronoous and causal events may or may not be co-existent and synchronous.

An event has infinite dimensions and all of these ingredients are essential parts of the event. Without any one of these ingredients the event would be something other that what it is. The concept of the cause of an event is a construct we make and is not something inherent in the event itself. Although the event is a product of an infinite number of ingredients, we extract from the event the cause of the event. Many factors enter into our determining the cause of the event, with the determining of the cause even being dependent upon the reference system used.

The causes extracted from the event may include the following:

(1) The controllable cause, which is that cause subject to our control;

(2) The pragmatic cause, which is a controllable cause that is most easily subject to our control;

(3) The proximate cause, which is that cause most foreseeable;

(4) The but-for cause, which is that cause but for the event would not have taken place;

(5) The sequential cause, which is that cause most closely related in time to the occurrence of the event,

(6)The probable cause, which is that cause arrived at by the utilization of proability theory, and

(7) The efficient cause, which is cause that is both probable and sequential if the Cartesian reference system is used and is the probable cause if the synchronous reference system is used, and

(8) The neccesarily synchronous relationships with events occuring together.

The best possible situation would be for the efficient cause also to be a controllable cause and a pragmatic cause. These type of causes necessarily overlap with one another. Under the fixed, Cartesian reference system the sequential cause is often deemed of significance. If the synchronous reference system is used, the but for cause is often emphasized. In a close-to ideal situation, the probable cause might also be the controllable cause and the pragmatic cause. In the best possible situation, the efficient cause would also be a controllable cause and a pragmatic cause.

In the enfolding universe, those features derivative from the enfolding of force with form might be might be treated as being caused by the enfolding preocess. In this sense, causality is a necessary result of the contripetal and contrifrugal enfolding of the universe, with causality underlying the manifestation of the universe.

In our unification of consciousness and matter, the unification must be conducted methodologically and must conform to the scientific method. For this reason, we follow the rule of economy of hythoeses, often referred to as "Occam`s Razor." Under this rule, when more than one explanation or cause of an event is available, we should provisionally choose that explanation or cause involving the least number of assumptions. The rule is accepted by most scientists as a good and proper rule, althoigh it is often violated where its application cast doubt on existing paradigms strongly adered to by scientists.

The criterion of minimum assumption might not be applicable to an event and that is why we accept the minimum assumption provisionally only. If thereafter the rule is not applicable , we may have to replace our hypothesis by a better hypothesis.

Many existing theories of science do not meet requirements of the rule of Occam`s Razor.The big bang theory does not nor do the Lorentz Transformations as an explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Nor does claim that a virus is a cause of that impairment of the immune system termed AIDS.

There is no feature of science subject to as much ineptness, confusion, mumbo jumbo, and ignorance as probability theory. The confused usage of probability theory and probability statistics is often the result of either one of the following:

(1) Failure to distinguish clearly among at least three entirely different meanings of that which confers upon an event a given degree of probability, and

(2) Misapplying probability theory and statistics to phenomena and events.

We use the word probable in at least five different ways, which are

(1) As used in probability theory, which is applicable to the sampling of a portion of a population in order to make statements applicable to the entire population within a specified degree of confidence,

(2) As to statements made concerning a portion of a population or an entire polulation based upon a determination of the actual facts applicable to the portion of the population or to the entire populatuin,

(3) As a prediction based upon mathematical and statistical analyses of actual probablities as to the chances of occurrence of a future event,

(4) As a prediction based upon analyses of all causal factors involved as to the chances of occurrence of a future event and

(5) As to statements made based upon common knowedge and general acceptance.

For example, under probability theory, if we flip a coin 50,000 times, it will come up heads 25,000 and tails 25,000 times. The actual flipping of a coin, however, because of effect of air resistence upon the raised surfaces of the coin, does not conform to probability theory. Depending upon the demonination and age of the coin, the actual probability might be heads 22,000 times and tails 28,000 times. The statement that it is probable that the Sun will rise tomorrow is statement based upon common knowledge and is not a statement based upon probability theory or a determination of actual probability or even a prediction as to the chances that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Insurance company actuaries in determining life expectancies of persons of persons of a given age generally use the third approach. The fourth approach might also be used to determine life expectancies but would take into consideration many more causal factors, such as changes in diet, in the quality of food available, in the nature of medical care and service, and in the use of hormones in food, all being factors that would have a bearing on life expectancies.

Even scientists confuse probability applicable to one population to probability applicable to another population that may be a portion of the first population. A while ago a dentist who had AIDS had several patients who developed AIDS and, even though there seemed no conceivable means that he could have transmiited AIDS to his patients, the conclusion was reached that he must have transmitted AIDS to his patients. However, in the entire population of dentists and their patients, it would become likely that there would be at least one dentist who had AIDS and whose patients thereafter developed AIDS with no causal connection existing as to AIDS of the dentist and his patients. If one uses the population of only one dentist and his patients, it would be unlikely that the transmission would have occurred by chance, but the proper population to be used is that of all dentists and their patients.. The probability of something happening may be one in a million but there is a certainty that it will happen. You and I might not win the sweepstakes but someone else will.

In articles in popular journals, and even in articles by social scientists in professional journals, there is much confusion as to predictions on the chances of occurrence of a future event. Reliance solely on a determinbation of the actual probabilities applying to the event in the past is no assurance that the prediction is a proper one. The conditions and circumstances applicable to the past event might change with the passage of time, and these changes in conditions and circumstasnces should be taken into account. The causal mosaic entering into future events is complex and the analysis should recognize as many factors involved in the mosaic as is feasible. This recognition is seldom attained.

For example, of a randomly selected population of persons eighty years in age, they would be members of a randomly selected population thirty years ago from which it could be determined that a given member had a specified chance of attaining the age eighty after thirty years in time. But these two populations cannot be used to determine the chances of a person in a randomly selection of persons forty years of age attaining the age eighty. If a member of that population without his knowledfge has terminal cancer, he would have no chance at all of attaining the age eighty years.

The approach used by actuaries is a very limited one and ignores many factors that are clearly causal in nature. Although actuaries believe that life expectancies are constantly increasing, with the increassing life expectancies based upon statistics applicable to population groups, there are many reasons to believe that they are probably wrong. Population groups of persons conceived during the late 70`s, 80`s, and 90`s have not lived long enough for their ages at death to become recognized in actuarial determinations. Taking into consideration changes in the practice of diagnoses of diseases and of physical conditions, there does seem to be an increase among the population group of persons under twenty years of age of dyslexia, autism, and attention deficit disorder, and these persons may have a lower life expectancy of persons conceived from the 1920`s to the mid 1970`s. During the past 20 years, there has been an immense increase in hormones given to the animals whose flesh we consume, and in the view of many experts these hormones could have a negative affect on life expectancy. Some girls are now menstruating at the age ten and there seems to be a feminization of the physique of the boys, both perhaps a product of female hormones given to animals, with more serious consequences to the boys than to the girls.

Persons differ in their sophistication in determining the chances of the occurrence of an event. Some handicappers of horse races have been very successful by betting only on long-shot horses whose chances of winning have been underestimated by the track. Apparently once every other week or so the tract underestimates significantly the chances a horse has of winning. By betting on only those horses estimated by the tract, for example, of having one chance in 20 of winning when the handicapper has determined one chance in 10, the handicapper is certain to make more money than he losses. These handcappers may attend the races for 14 days without placing a bet and only places a bet when they are certain that the tract has underestimated a horse`s chance of winning a particular race. The racing form sets forth numerous statistical data from which the handicapper can obtain the data he needs. In many ways the racing form is more sophisticated in setting forth information needed by the handicapper than the Wall Street Journal is in setting forth financial data needed by the purchaser of stocks. Both the handicapper of horse races and the stock speculator need to master the causal factors entering into future events.

Women over forty-five years of age, especially where they are from families with a history of breast cancer, are advised by so-called health educators and the popular press to have annual mammographic examinations. These women are led to believe that the annual mammograms decrease their chances of getting breast cancer. The evidence, however, is to the reverse. Annual mammographic examinations increases a women`s chance of getting breast cancer. It is true, however, that early detection and treatment of breast cancer increases a women`s chance of survival. But the increased chance of survival must be weight against the chance of getting breast cancer as a result of this radiation procedure, and the fact that the breast cancer detected might have resulted from a mammogram. Several years ago in study made in the San Francisco bay area it was found that well-educated, upper middle-class white women had a higher rate of breast cancer than poor, uneducated black women. The experts were puzzled. The explanation was self-evident: It was the annual mammograms that were giving these well-educated and financially well-off white women breast cancer. The poor black women were not having their annual mammograms. The experts, however, were resistent to insight and continued to advise womem over forty-five years of age to have annual mammograms.

Men who were HIV positive in the San Francisco bay area, with no history of the symptoms of that impairment of the immune system termed AIDS, were treated with AZT, a lethal poison that would kill a healthy person within about four years. Their medical practitioners were unnecessarily killing their patients. Why would they do such a horrible thing? It was because they believed that these healthy young men who were HIV positive that they had as patients were destined to die within two or three years and that the AZT would extend their life expectancies a year or so. Their treatment, of course, was based upon the unproved assumption that HIV, a virus, is causal of that syndrome of diseases termed AIDS coupled with the unproved assumption that AZT would extend their lives of their patients, even though it would kill them within four years or so. Unfortunastely the study allegedly showing that AZT would extend the lives of their patients was hopelessly flawed and did not show that AZT would extend the lives of their patients even for one day.

It is one of the goals of the Unified Theory to educate health practitioners as to the causal factors associated with diseases so that these professionals are better enabled to serve the public. It is sad, indeed, that men and women have unnecessarily died as a result of faulty analyses of causal factors related to diseases and to physical conditions of men and women. These unnecessary deaths should in the future be avoided.

In our discussions of causation under the Unified Theory we attempt to make clear in what sense we are using the word probable. We generally use the word probable as a statement of common knowledge and not as a statement as to probability theory or as to actual probability, unless the context indicates otherwise. We also often use the word probable to refer to a prediction as to the chances of an occurrence of a future event based upon an analysis of all causal factors that seem to be involved.

Robert Koch, a nobel laureate (1905), was deeply concern with determining in medicine and biology whether coexisting things had a causal connection. He formulated a law that four conditions must apply in order to assert a causal coonection, which are

(1) The microorganism must be present in every case of the disease.

(2) The microorganism must be capable of cultvation in a pure culture.

(3) The microorganism must, wheb inoculated in pure culture, produce the disease in susceptible animals.

(4) The microorganism must be recovered and grown again in pure culture.

Unfortunately many physicians today seem completely unfamiliar with Koch`s law and often treat mere coexistence as evidence of a causal connection. They seem to think that coexistence is causality. For example, HIV as an asserted cause of AIDS has consistently failed to fulfill a single one of Koch`s postulates. In the more recent example of foot and mouth disease in cattle, none of the Koch`s postulates have been met. A number of years ago it was believed that the so-called Epstein-Bar Virus (EBV) caused symtoms of chronic depression and anxiety. This belief was discarded after it was established that 98% of those with symptoms proved to be EBV positive and 85% of symptoms-free patients were also EBV positive.

There has never been evidence fufilling Koch`s law that the impairment of the immune system termed AIDS is caused bt a virus. AIDS is a syndrome, and a syndrome rarely has one particular cause. There is also no evidence that foot and mouth disease is caused by a virus. Thousands of animals have been unnecessarily killed and England is without beef based upon a clearly incorrect assumption that foot and mouth disease is caused by a particular virus. Ignorance and stupidity is rampant. In the case of foot and mouth disease there is not even evidence of coexistence. When the animal comes down with the disease, the virus is no longer even within the body of the animal. The unproved assumption is that the virus had been in the animal prior to its illness. Moreover, where the animal has not come down with the symptons, scientists cannot tell the difference between a vacinated animal and an animal with the virus. Vaccines have the effect of antibodies, and this failure to distinguish between antibodies and the virus means the scientists are using evidence of immunity of a disease as evidence of the disease. The scientists do the same thing with HIV, using the antibodies that mean the person has vaccinated himself against an illness as evidence of another illness. The foot and mouth disease probably is caused by bacteria and probably is spread by fecal material.

Not only has HIV never met any of the four postulates of Koch`s law but also there is strong evidence that a retrovirus could not be a cause of AIDS. A retrovirus has no DNA of its own and must use the DNA of host cells to replicate. How could HIV supposedly cause AIDS by killing T cells or other cells, although retroviruses can replicate only in viable cells? Moreover, in all other situations, the finding of positive antibodies would mean that the person has achieved antiviral immunity. Why would HIV be the only virus in existence that causes disease only after the onset of antiviral immunity?

The vaccines for foot and mouth disease are only effective for a short period of time, which is really evidence that the virus that is being vaccinated against is not really causal of the disease itself. In fact, the vaccine is probably not effective at all. The so-called evidence of its effectivity is based upon giving the vaccine to animals that have not come down with symptoms of illness at all; and it might take several months for a healthy animal to come down with the symptoms of foot and mouth disease. Ignorance is so prevasive that persons who know the truth have no effective way even to disseminate the truth among the public.

� Wilson Ogg