Voltaire said, “Define your terms and we may hold a conversation.” So, this would be a good place for this author to define what he means by God. I am not referring in this paper to the Eternal Mind that is and is not a part of the Universe. The Universe (in my model of it) contains everything — body and mind. Just as I have a physical body, and an emergent quality that chemistry seems inadequate to explain, it may be that the universe has a physical body — made of galaxies, stars, atoms, quarkks et al — and an emergent quality that physics is unqualified to explain. I call a complete person a “soul” or a “self,” which we may subclassed as having a body and a spirit or mind. When I must, usually for a paper such as this, I will call the complete Universe “The Universe” or “God,” and the subclasses as “the universe” for the body and “the Eternal” for the spirit. This is not adequate, but serves within the limits of my being … and helps when sharing personal spiritual experiences with other events° within my community.
[° When I say “Event” I am refering to a part of the Universe, such as a person, place, or time.]
In physics, each sub atomic particle seems to have some virtual companion that mediates with other subatomic particles. These virtual particles have mass° but do not seem to exist within the four dimensions that we are certain to exist. Physics recognizes — with a good degree of certainty — the four dimensions of time, height, width, and depth. It is, however, suspected that there may be another seven dimensions that are so tightly elusive that science lacks the tools to measure them. Particles do seem to pop out of nowhere, and then vanish again. These particles may emerge from these dimensions and return again. They may also be the remains of those socks that disappear in the vortex of a dryer. It may be that virtual particles travel within these virtual dimensions and that there is a whole range of events within this virtual world that science has yet to ask about, much less define and measure.
[° They interact and influence mass, and so must have gravitation, and so must have mass.]
This may even answer the question “what makes the difference between an amoeba and a pool of the same chemicals that are not as alive?” This emergent quality that allows an amoeba to will its way through the world may exist within these emergent, virtual dimensions. We call this emergent quality “spirit” or “mind.” There are some events in the universe that do not seem alive, the table upon which I am drafting this essay upon, for one thing. Perhaps events exist entirely of emergent or virtual material. These virtual beings may have an evolutionary process°. This evolution may include a participation with material in the four larger dimensions. Then again, living events contain a virtual species of its own. It is this author’s assertion that gods‡ are one species of virtual beings. Fairies are another. The shapes they take are conditioned by Pareidolia.
[° Which would infer a chance that individuals, and even entire communities or individuals, can die.
‡ I would classify angels with the gods]
A god is a species of virtual being that is a part of the Universe. They have a beginning, and evolution, and an ending. It seems that some gods participate in creation — usually by finding something to make other things with. Still, our stories of the gods may themselves be attempts to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable.
It seems that some of these gods take an interest in human development — a little like 4th grade teachers. Our need to make sense of the world creates archetypes. The gods take these archetypes and “play their parts” accordingly. They do this — I believe — so they may lead us into enlightenment, easily and with a minimum of struggle. Sometimes — for whatever reasons — the Eternal Herself may take on some of these roles.
A theory, according to Dr. Hawking, is a model of the Universe, or an event within her. This model should describe qualities and quantities, relations and antagonisms that are found within the Universe.
Unlike the Universe°, a model exists only in the minds of those who accept it as valid. Ideally, to be valid, a theory ought to go one step further and make reasonable predictions about future observations of the events about which the model theorizes.
[° Which has existed for a very long time without us, and will continue to exist for a very long time without us.]
If two people have different theories about the same event, the best they can do is compare notes. This may or may not result in a new synthesis or model. Each theory is limited to the capacity of the mind that holds it, and serves to help that mind make sense of the world at large.
If one person comes to a different conclusion than another, this does not necessarily mean that faulty logic or intelligence is involved. Each person brings to the question a set of experiences and knowledge that is unique to them. The physicist is aware of this, and includes herself as a part of any experiment, along with a list of other tools used to conduct that experiment.
If two physicists should conduct an experiment, or the one physicist conducts the experiment twice, we will not repeat the results quite the same way. The results may even be vastly different. It is through a great number of experiments that we may develop a theory to explain the events involved.
Mystics, too, are scientists. We are very often on the edge of knowledge, looking into the unknown with paltry lanterns. Much of the language modern physicists use to describe their models has been developed ages ago by mystics trying to make sense of their experiments. Theories of evolution seem to have existed in ancient Egypt. Fritjof Capra has more than adequately blended the perspective of mystic and physicist in his book, The Tao of Physics.