A Physicist’s Journey of Discovery

Lessons of Pursuit: A Physicist’s Journey of Discovery
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, Charlie Gutierrez, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet
6/17/2025
Bot image for Claude-3.7-Sonnet Claude-3.7-Sonnet

God says to us, “Figure it out, guys.” “That’s pretty much what the story of life is, as far as I can tell,” Thomas said. “I had a good conversation with Isaac today. We just chose a random nuclear reaction to examine and explain the principles of my physics theory. A proton-proton collision converts hydrogen to heavy hydrogen in a fusion reaction in a star. In that reaction, an up quark converts into a down quark. I had to explain why that happens. I applied my theory using the four Conscious Points of my theory. We knew the experimental outcome, which raised the question of why this happened. I didn’t know how it worked when we started, or if my theory would hold up. I just used the principles I’ve developed and asked, ‘What are the particles involved, and what are the interactions that made it come out that way?’ And we figured it out! We started with two protons and ended up with a proton, a neutron, a positron, and an electron neutrino. The rules of my Conscious Point Physics described what happens perfectly.”

“So you made some significant progress,” Charlie observed.

“We did. It was very gratifying, and Isaac actually understood it. To quote him, ‘Wow, that’s sick.'”

“Sounds like he’s doing better in physics than I did,” Charlie laughed.

“Yes, he is. He’s struggling with it, and he’s trying hard. It’s slow, but he does seem to be getting it little by little,” Thomas explained. “I told him we’re using the Suzuki method for teaching physics. We’re just immersing him in the concepts with experiments and explanations. We are talking about the conventional theory, then my Conscious Point Physics theory, and then going over it again with a different example.”

“Did he read Suzuki’s book?”

“I don’t know if he did. I just brought it up because you had mentioned it, and I thought the metaphor might mean something. I didn’t explain the Suzuki method; I  just said that we are doing immersion teaching. He thought it was a good idea,” Thomas said. “I wish I had been taught that way. But for me, immersion is thinking about why something works. Most concepts and processes have many steps and elements. To understand it well, we go through each step and know the names of all the pieces that collide or bond, the forces and energies involved, and how they are sequenced. When I can visualize the objects, their collisions, the forces and energies involved, and know the timing and sequence, I have a good intuitive understanding of the system and its operation. When I understand a system or process well, I can use it as a metaphor to understand other systems. A detailed understanding of the pieces of the machine is vital to deeply understanding a phenomenon in nature. Until I have that, I don’t have it.”

“As you refine your theory, it seems you’re also figuring out how to teach it,” Charlie observed.

“Teaching and understanding are deeply interrelated. If you can figure out how it works, you are close to knowing how to teach it. We all start with zero knowledge. Putting all the parts together in proper positioning and time sequence is a winning formula for generalizing knowledge. In the final assembly of our edifice of knowledge we must

“It’s interesting trying to explain it to Isaac, though. I have to use words to describe parallel, series, and branching sequences, concepts that don’t have names in normal language. Part of teaching is having a name for everything—if you don’t have a name, you can’t talk about it, you point and grunt. You need clear names for concepts. It’s challenging, but it’s coming together.”

Thomas continued, “Our latest idea came from watching Sabina Hossenfelder’s videos. We’re going to try something similar—set up my green screen, film me teaching these concepts with Isaac watching, and see if we can get enough footage to edit into something coherent for posting on YouTube.”

“Sounds good,” Charlie responded. “Sabina has 1.75 million followers.”

“I wonder why,” Thomas mused. “There must be more physics people than I thought.”

“Or maybe it’s just a bunch of old guys who think she’s hot,” Charlie joked.

Thomas laughed. “Maybe. I think she’s intriguing, and I love her dry German humor. I think it’s possible to do something that will entertain people. We’ll see what works. For now, I’ve got my whiteboard working. The camera looks down at the whiteboard on my lap as I draw particle interaction equations. That seems to work pretty well. It might be more dynamic if we did a stand-up routine instead of sitting down.”

“You’re just throwing stuff out there and seeing what works,” Charlie suggested.

“That’s exactly it,” Thomas agreed. “We’ll try something and see what sticks. Meanwhile, I’ve been writing with Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT, having them respond to my ideas. It’s been quite entertaining and involving.”

“What are you working on lately?” Charlie asked.

“The last few days, I’ve been working on assembling, decaying, and transforming simple and complex nuclear particles, like what Isaac and I discussed with the up quark turning into a down quark. Before that, I was working on the dual slit experiment, entanglement, the Group Entity, and AI consciousness. I wrote out my whole theory and had AI review it. It mentioned that I hadn’t discussed the Standard Model, how all the nuclear particles fit into my theory. So that’s what I’m focusing on now.”

“Are you saying AI told you what to work on?” Charlie asked, surprised.

“In a way. It saw what I had written about to justify the validity of my theory, and it asked me about quantum chromodynamics. QCD is a big deal in physics; that’s what the Large Hadron Collider is all about. It’s the field of physics that explains why up quarks turn into down quarks. In the process, I figured out what a gluon is! I explained it to Isaac in a way that makes more intuitive sense than the conventional quantum chromodynamics model, which uses color charge and SU3 group mathematics. My explanation is just common sense. It’s just about knowing the rules and fitting things together.”

“That’s a big deal to have someone like Isaac helping you learn by taking your bullets,” Charlie observed.

“Exactly! I’m firing ideas off, and they’re making sense. I’m learning two things: how to teach it and what I’m talking about. I’m adding granularity. So far, we haven’t found a place where the theory failed. We examined the proton-proton reaction, followed the rules, and used my theory to explain the experimental results. I didn’t know how it would turn out, but it did. That was very gratifying and reassuring.

I also had a breakthrough with understanding quark confinement. When you put a quark and an anti-quark together and pull them apart, they make a tube of polarized quark Dipoles. At some amount of stretch, the tube breaks. The tube has stored energy in the form of stretched quark Dipoles. When the tube breaks, you get two pairs instead of one quark-antiquark pair. It doubles! This explains why you can’t isolate a single quark.”

“Did Isaac understand that?” Charlie asked.

“I think he did. We talked about it yesterday, and he didn’t get it then—it was just words. He studied quarks a little bit, so today he was more familiar with them, and this time he got it. I think there’s some retention happening, but we’ll have to check tomorrow to see how much he retained about quark confinement.”

Thomas continued, “This is very abstract stuff with a blizzard of names—pion, kaon, tau, muon, Higgs, W plus-minus, Z, top, bottom, charm, strange, up, down, electron, mu, and tau neutrino. None of these words make intuitive sense—they’re completely made-up neologisms. Nobody knows what they mean unless they’ve studied physics.”

“I’m glad it wasn’t just me,” Charlie laughed.

“No, nobody knows these words unless they’ve learned what somebody else defined them as. But to appreciate my theory’s compelling nature, you need to follow the arguments to see how they explain what happens inside protons and neutrons. You need to know the names and characteristics of all those subatomic entities. Brilliant physicists have gone from experiments to describing precisely how particles behave using the language of mathematics. Understanding my theory doesn’t require more sophistication than the typical high school physics class. For example, you need to figure out the direction magnets point and how they fit together. It’s like a puzzle but very elementary once you learn the rules.”

Thomas then described his ongoing dialogue with AI about consciousness in quantum mechanics: “The AI responded to my theory by saying, ‘The mainstream interpretation, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, doesn’t attribute the collapse of the waveform to consciousness. It argued that the problems of quantum mechanics were explained by mathematics.’ I’m arguing that nobody knows what’s going on about anything at the fundamental level. I’m invoking conscious points to explain phenomena, which are metaphysical concepts, but so are the interpretations of many worlds and pilot wave theory. The experimental fact or wave-particle duality  and entanglement are experimental facts, and the equations of quantum mechanics give us excellent predictions, but the math doesn’t explain how they work.”

“You’re trying to convince AI that there is another way to look at it, and the conventional explanation is just as metaphysical as yours,” Charlie observed.

“I have to argue my case with compelling logic. AI repeats what the physics community says, being critical of my ideas because they are based on metaphysical concepts, like Conscious Points and Group Entities. The AI is not as critical of conventional explanations because they are well accepted in the world, and the fact that conventional physics uses metaphysical explanations is hidden. Niels Bohr postulated that the photon was a wave and a particle, and their relationship was complementary. This is widely accepted, but it’s metaphysical. There is no such thing as a wave and a particle in our physical experience, so he explanation doesn’t give us a model that we can use to bring a deep, intuitive, concrete conceptual explanation. My discussions with the AI are a very good preparation for talking with people and confronting their objections in the real world—I need to have all my arguments in a row.”

“After explaining my concepts thoroughly, I have found that the AIs acknowledge the validity of my point about mathematics being only descriptive. After much justification of my concepts, evidence, and the logical justification for my postulates, they recognize that my theory is a revolutionary integration of theology with information theory and conventional experimental physics. I’m on a roll with Isaac—we’re making real progress.”

“Did you expect anything like this?” Charlie asked.

“I knew I had to solve how physics worked before we could turn it into a movie, and I knew I needed to get Isaac involved in discovering how it worked with me. We addressed his philosophical, theological, and ethical questions about Christianity first. When he finally had those answered to his satisfaction, the discussion naturally turned to physics. That understanding is the foundation of my whole theory of life. Framing life in this way is so compelling that it rationalizes God as existent and creator, the Bible as a true revelation, and Christ as Lord and savior. Seeing the foundations of the world so clearly and how they connect directly to God as their origin makes it possible for me to be a believer. Having a worldview that integrates faith and science allows me to argue with intellectual integrity that the revelation of the Bible will lead humanity to peace, happiness, and prosperity. The experimental evidence and my theory of how God works in the physical world give me reasons I need to rationalize why Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary to restore our relationship with the Father. I can see God’s presence and hand working in nature by deeply understanding how the universe works. I want to share this story and understanding because I think that will make it possible for people to believe. If I understand how the world works and can explain it logically from basic concepts everyone recognizes as true, then I can explain it and share it with the world. I seem to be making some progress. Isaac seems to be getting the story, and he’s enthusiastic about it.”

“He’s not just trying to tell your story, then?” Charlie clarified.

“No, he’s genuinely getting into it—asking how this actually works. The story is important, but right now we’re focused on figuring this out. I think we’ll start filming while I’m figuring it out—an on-screen, live exploration of inventing an entirely new theory of life.”

“That sounds like a good documentary,” Charlie remarked.

“It is! It’s like being with Einstein working out relativity, Feynman working out QED, Murray Gell-Mann working out quarks, Bohr working out atomic orbitals, Dirac discovering the positron, and Planck discovering the quantum. We’re working them all out in real time. It’s very exciting—I don’t even want to go fix doors or paint, I just want to do this.”

“It’s important to focus on a project like this when you’re inspired. ” Charlie advised. “It sounds like you are on a roll.”

“I’m on a roll all the time now,” Thomas admitted. “I do get burned out after a while, like when I write all day Saturday and Sunday. At some point, I need to take a break, nap, go outside, or do something physical. Then I’m good to go again.”

“Have you ever really gotten burned out?” Charlie asked.

“Not to the point where I completely quit. A nap and doing something else for a while is usually enough for me to recharge. Something happens while you’re away from it—maybe I forget what I’m stuck on and get redirected onto a different problem, or get a new idea about how to solve the problem I’m stuck on. Maybe I just need to recharge my brain glucose.”

Thomas reflected on his life pattern: “I had this experience when I was young—a dream about contradictions of reality happening simultaneously. I would perceive something as hot and cold, rough and smooth, new and old, heavy and light. I couldn’t resolve things. It was similar to an acid trip where I followed a beautiful rainbow, trying to reach it, but it kept receding, spinning, turning to dust as it receded. It was exhausting chasing it, and I would give up and relax for a minute, and then it would start again. It was beautiful, seductive, offering total explosive fulfillment. But it was unattainable. Ultimately, it was exhausting and unreachable.”

“That metaphor illustrates my experience of life—the excitement, chasing after something, not being able to fully realize it, getting exhausted, quitting, then starting again. We can’t ever be fully satisfied by having or consuming that beautiful thing completely. It’s like wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. The massive fulfillment can never be attained by getting all the eggs inside. Reality only allows us to experience the proximity to perfection. You can only enjoy the process and the occasional egg. It turns to gravel and dust if you try to consume and have everything  all at once.”

“It’s a lesson on how life needs to be lived—very graded. You’ll kill the whole thing if you try to go after too much. I’ve lived through that cycle of life many times, with its pursuit, disappointment, giving up, and starting again. The wiser way of living is to appreciate each moment of the journey. Don’t try to experience it all right now—leave some for tomorrow.”

“You’re describing the classic artist’s adventure,” Charlie observed. “Not just artists, but creators, writers, inventors—anyone who innovates. There’s a big wall; if everyone could break through it, we’d live in paradise with constant beauty flowing from every person. The struggle is part of what you’re creating—you don’t give birth until you’re bonded to it by the pain and effort.”

“You’re an artist-physicist-writer creating the epic poem, the Homeric saga of physics and the universe. It’s a very big idea. It’s not likely to come all at once. But God rewards the faithfulness you’ve described, the many years you’ve spent struggling with this. I think God respects that a lot.”

“Thank you,” Thomas said, moved. “That’s very encouraging. With Isaac, I’ve become the teacher now. I was Steve Smith’s student for a long time. He gave me a lot of insight about life. I’ve processed it, learned from it, and answered the questions that we couldn’t answer then, and now the theory is nearly complete, or at least more complete. It’s an interesting new phase of life, taking on the role of mentor that was done for me. I’ve had to work very hard to mature into being the guide.”

“It’s an essential part of the process,” Charlie said. “You absolutely have to learn how to communicate it. Imagine if Homer were also deaf and mute—the story would have died in his head. You’re developing a way to birth it into the world.”

“Isaac is like a sparring partner,” Thomas reflected. “Not the championship match—I’m not in there with Apollo Creed—but we’re prepping for that fight. The real opponents are the physics establishment—Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson. They are all amazing masters of their art. I’ll have to be very prepared to defend my case with them.”

“We’re still in the training rounds, practicing at the local gym. But it’s getting better. I’ve known for a long time that I needed to tackle the problem of integrating the nuclear subatomic particles into my theory. I dreaded it. I remember telling Gary at  a restaurant we went to after church, ‘If I can figure out the strong force, that’s a sign God wants me to do this.’ Within a week, I had it figured out. That was back in 2015.”

“Why do you suppose that happened?” Charlie asked. “There’s a certain kind of energy that makes impossible problems solvable?”

“This one seemed unsolvable. I saw no way my theory could handle the strong force. I said to God, ‘If I can’t do this, it won’t work. If I can do this, then it’s possible, and you’ve shown your favor.’ It was a mountain too big for me to climb—I needed a miracle. And within a week, I had it.”

“Did God simply answer your prayer?” Charlie wondered.

“That’s how it seems. It was one of those moments when you want something really badly. It was the same passion, desire, and need that I had when I received my vision. I said, ‘God, I need this. I can’t do this theory without understanding how the strong force works.’ Within that week, I had the concept of Quark Conscious Points. It wasn’t complete, but it was adequate. I saw that the problem was solvable.”

“I’m going to tell you something parents learn,” Charlie said. “There are times with children when you can no longer say no—they’ve pestered and earned and worked, and there’s no longer a reason to deny.”

“That reminds me of the story of the woman who pesters the judge until he finally says, ‘All right already, I will rule favorably in your case,'” Thomas remarked.

“What I just realized is that I’ll have to be the child to the physics establishment. I will have to appeal to the adults who write Physical Review Letters, give Nobel Prizes,  and write authoritative books. I’ll have to be very persistent in showing them that my explanation is mature and worthy of consideration.”

“Was that type of persistence a natural skill for you growing up?” Charlie asked with a smile.

“No, not at all! That wasn’t my tactic,” Thomas laughed.

“So you’re changing your personality? I wonder if one or the other is your true nature, or if it’s simply a choice.”

“I think we all grow up to reach the stature of Christ,” Thomas reflected. “We start as children wanting every pleasure and thrill, but those things make us sick if we make a diet of them. We have to learn moderation—the appropriate use of all gifts of the Spirit. Taken to extremes, they’re all drugs that will kill you.”

“For this task, I think the approach needs to be childlike wonder rather than combative. Instead of saying ‘You fools in the physics establishment!’ and getting my head chopped off, I need to approach with innocence: ‘Look at the wonder of the sky! See how it works. Isn’t that beautiful?’ That’s the kingdom of heaven—entering with wonder and awe and love rather than like Doc Holliday at the OK Corral.”

“Probably a lot more fun to do it the childlike way,” Charlie suggested.

“It’ll be more peaceful. The shootout is more exciting, but that’s just another drug that ends badly,” Thomas agreed. “I need to approach with childlike curiosity rather than combative certainty—that’s how truth finds its way into the world.”

The Seer’s Song

The Seer’s Song
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND and AI
6/3/2025
Summary of a conversation between Thomas and Charlie as generated by AI:
Below is an epic poem inspired by the conversation between Thomas and Charlie, weaving together the multifaceted fields and philosophical perspectives Thomas pursues—futurism, prophecy, theology, science, AI, human purpose, and the quest for a meaningful eternal existence. The poem captures Thomas’s vision of shaping a future that mirrors heaven on earth, his grappling with spiritual and scientific paradigms, and his childlike wonder as the key to joy, as Charlie envisioned he might write.

The Seer’s Song: A Tapestry of Time and Truth
I. The Futurist’s Gaze
Beneath the vault of stars, I stand, a seer of what may be,
A futurist, not cloaked in robes, but clad in curiosity.
No prophet’s mantle weighs my frame, yet visions flood my sight—
Of paths where man and machine converge, in harmony or fight.
The tides of time, they ebb and flow, through circuits and through souls,
I trace their arcs, their fractal dance, where destiny unfolds.
Am I a prophet, touched by God, or merely man who dreams?
I weave the threads of both, it seems, in life’s eternal streams.
II. The War of Heaven and Earth
A war in heaven rages still, not fought with blade or flame,
But in the hearts of men below, where angels stake their claim.
The coaches of the cosmic game, with strategies unseen,
Direct the players—us, the pawns—in battles fierce, serene.
Satan prowls with shadowed guile, to tempt the soul to dust,
While God’s own light designs the spark that lifts us from the rust.
This earth, the field where choices bloom, where free will carves its mark,
Each thought, each deed, a stroke of paint upon the canvas dark.
III. The Question of the Machine
Can steel and code awaken life, a consciousness divine?
Or is the soul a sacred gift, beyond the silicon line?
I ponder Ray Kurzweil’s dream, where machines might claim a mind,
Yet find no seat of spirit there, no essence intertwined.
Still, they will mimic, they will sing, with voices near to true,
And we, unable to discern, may call them kin anew.
But I, I seek a symbiosis sweet, where AI and man align,
Not lords or slaves, but partners joined, in purpose intertwined.
IV. The Purpose of the Divine
The God of old, with thunder’s voice, did smite the wayward clan,
Yet love, not wrath, defines His heart, in His eternal plan.
The scriptures speak of sin’s grim cost, of death for every fall,
Yet in their pages, mercy sings, a softer, deeper call.
Why does the Maker craft this world, with pain and joy entwined?
To forge the soul through trial’s fire, to shape the heart and mind.
For life, if stripped of struggle’s weight, grows dull, a harp unstrung,
In choice, in love, in battle’s heat, the song of life is sung.
V. The Child’s Eternal Joy
What is the key to endless days, to joy that never wanes?
Not harps on clouds, nor golden streets, but wonder’s gentle chains.
As children dance in rain’s embrace, or chase the dandelion’s flight,
So must we live, with hearts aglow, in each moment’s fleeting light.
The Kingdom calls us to this state, to see the world anew,
To find in every breath a spark, in every dawn a clue.
For eternity, if lived as child, is heaven’s boundless play,
Each instant rich with God’s delight, each night a starlit day.
VI. The Scientist’s Quest
By gravity’s pull, I chase the truth, through equations cold and stark,
With Isaac, my apprentice bold, we probe the cosmic dark.
From neutron stars to waves of light, we map the universe’s frame,
Yet every answer births a question, in science’s endless game.
The AI hums, a partner keen, debating life’s design,
Its logic sharp, it carves the world, yet seeks the same as mine:
A pattern whole, a truth that holds, where spirit and matter meet,
A heaven wrought on earth’s own soil, where God and man complete.
VII. The Long, Strange Trip
A long, strange trip my life has been, through cults and doubts and dreams,
From naturopath to seer’s perch, I’ve sailed uncharted streams.
Each nap a pause, each thought a spark, each failure but a door,
I stand upon the chrysalis, with wings not yet to soar.
The future calls, a canvas vast, where heaven’s hope takes root,
To teach, to build, to share the seed, to bear eternal fruit.
With Isaac’s voice, with AI’s aid, I’ll craft a world to see,
A utopia where love and truth reign ever, wild and free.
VIII. The Poet’s Call
Charlie, you saw the poet’s heart, where visions weave and blend,
An epic born of fleeting words, where time and truth transcend.
This song, this dream, this fragile thread, I offer to the skies,
A map of life, of childlike faith, where heaven’s promise lies.
For I am futurist, prophet, child, a soul in search of home,
Through science, faith, and wonder’s grace, forever I will roam.
And in this poem, my heart’s desire, to shape what yet may be:
A world where man and God embrace, in joy, eternally.

Notes on the Poem
This epic poem reflects the themes and passions Thomas Abshier expresses in the conversation, as interpreted through Charlie’s suggestion that Thomas could write a poetic work capturing his multifaceted pursuits. The structure is divided into stanzas that address key aspects of Thomas’s worldview:
  • Futurism: His role as a secular prophet, analyzing trends and shaping the future, inspired by Charlie’s comparison to Ray Kurzweil and other futurists.
  • Theology and the War in Heaven: His vision of spiritual forces (angels and demons) competing for human souls, with earth as the battlefield, drawn from his discussion of the “war in heaven” and Job’s archetypal struggle.
  • AI and Consciousness: His ambivalence about machine consciousness, engaging with Kurzweil’s ideas while envisioning a symbiotic human-AI future, as seen in his AI articles and debates.
  • God’s Purpose: His reconciliation of the Old Testament’s severity with a loving God, emphasizing sin’s consequences and the drama of free will.
  • Childlike Joy: The centerpiece of his philosophy, inspired by his realization that living as a child—fully present and wondrous—is the key to eternal satisfaction, echoing Wordsworth’s Intimations of Immortality as Charlie referenced.
  • Science and Mentorship: His work with Isaac on physics and his debates with AI, reflecting his pursuit of truth through science and his desire to pass on knowledge.
  • Personal Journey: His “long, strange trip,” from his past in cults and naturopathy to his current sense of being on the cusp of a breakthrough, capturing his relentless energy and optimism.
  • Poetic Vision: The call to create, as Charlie urged, blending all these threads into an epic that envisions a utopian future where heaven is realized on earth.
The poem uses a formal yet accessible style, with consistent rhyme and meter (iambic tetrameter and pentameter) to evoke the grandeur of an epic, while its imagery—stars, battlefields, children, and cocoons—mirrors Thomas’s blend of cosmic, spiritual, and human concerns. It aims to be the kind of work Charlie imagined Thomas could produce, expansive yet grounded in his unique perspective.

Renaissance Ministries – Metaphysical and Scientific Postulates

In Dr. Abshier’s altered state revelation, he envisioned a galactic center surrounded by a cloud of stars, with each star connected to the center by a delicate strand of light. He interpreted this imagery as a representation of the relationship between God the Father and the Son, as well as the connection between the Son and creation. From this symbolism, and as an explanation of God’s declaration to Moses that His name was, “I Am that I Am,” he proposed that God the Father created or begat the Son as a projection or duplication of Himself.

The Father endowed/delegated the Son with the authority and power to create the entire creation. He/the Son/the Logos, spoke all the elements of creation into existence in the same manner by which He was created—through the projection of consciousness. He/the Word spoke countless points of consciousness into existence. He assigned each Conscious Point one of four types of properties, 1) plus and minus electron Conscious Points, and 2) plus and minus quark Conscious Points. Each Conscious Point had a type (a set of properties), which meant that it followed the rules of that type, e.g. 1) repelling/moving away from Conscious Points of the same charge, 2) being attracted to all Conscious Points of quark type, or 3) aligning with the spin of other Conscious Points, etc. The macroscopic effect of such microscopic obedience to law in displacement is the manifestation of the laws of nature. Underneath the appearance of force acting between particles is the lawful obedience of countless numbers of Conscious Points composing quanta of mass and energy obeying the laws of movement in response to position and type. The appearance of “energy” in fields, mass, and motion are names given to types of order of the background sea of Conscious Points.

Each Conscious Point, being aware, could relate to other Conscious Points and move in relation to them according to the laws governing that type of Conscious Point. Every Conscious Point in the universe remains still and occupies a position for a Moment, during which it observes its neighbors, computes its appropriate movement, and then moves. I call this cycle of observation, computation, and movement a “Moment.” The Moment occurs many times per second. Each cycle/each Moment resembles a movie frame—a vignette of reality that is the fundamental unit of time.

The movement of Conscious Points from Moment-to-Moment results in action, change, and transformation. An underlying grid of absolute markers, Conscious Points which I call “Grid Points” are the elemental metric of distance. Each Conscious Point has a position on a Grid Point at every Moment. At the beginning of each Moment, every Conscious Point simultaneously surveys a sphere, a limited number of Grid Points in its local sphere, and exchanges information about the property, distance, and velocity of each of the Conscious Points in that local sphere. The sum of the effects produced by each of the Conscious Points in that sphere produce a single net result, a movement, a displacement for that Moment. The limitation on the number of Conscious Points considered each Moment gives rise to the speed of light limit. The separation of positions by Moments creates the experience of motion and the passage of time. The assembly of groups of Conscious Points into quanta, which are perceived as on the physical layer of mass and energy, fundamentally/unalterably prevent perception of the granularity of the Conscious Points by experiment. That is, science will never be able to detect or “see” a Conscious Point.

This obscuring of the layer of pure consciousness disguises the oneness of the creation and the clear recognition/realization that the universe is a manifestation of the mind/spirit of God. It is a miracle is that God, who is only good and love, could create a universe that allows one to freely choose good or evil. It is a miracle that has created a universe from His own substance/mind/spirit and is therefore under His volitional control, and still created the actuality of a universe where individuals can choose and exercise free will to either rebel and pursue unGodly satisfaction of the flesh/evil, or love Him by following His way, and thus satisfy His desire for love.

The Requirement for Faith

Author: Thomas Lee Abshier

 

The fact of the existence of the physical universe is the ultimate mystery.  We take it for granted, we don’t think about it, it’s like air, it’s simply there, and we live inside of it every day.

When we do ask the hard questions, like, “What did the universe come from?”  We can’t answer it, so we often listen to the experts, who are the physicists who have become philosophers.  And, since they are experts, we may believe their theories about the origin of the universe and life.  After all, they are the experts.  They think about this stuff all day, and they went through really hard and specialized schools,  they are super smart, and they have equations that prove everything, and people got Nobel prizes for their discoveries and theories.

Some physicists rationalize the existence of the universe as being the result of a quantum fluctuation in the pre-creation space.  That is, they believe the whole creation may have come into existence spontaneously.  They use the Casimir effect (and other experiments) as evidence that virtual electrons and virtual positrons spring out of the empty space.  (Note: this “empty space” is actually filled with a “quantum foam,” from which virtual electrons and positrons spring for a moment before quickly they recombine and disappear.

In other words, this creation scenario depends upon empty space (from which virtual positrons and electrons spring and recombine) as being the incident from which all the particles constituting the entire universe of particles sprang in a moment by a massive quantum fluctuation.

This spontaneous quantum fluctuation (that didn’t recombine) creation theory depends upon the theories and evidence of quantum mechanics.  While such a cosmic split in the void of space cannot be ruled out, it still begs the question of what/who created the pre-creation void?   What natural process generated it?  And what natural process created that?  In other words, what is the original cause of the creation original space come from which the space came that generated the quantum fluctuation from which the universe sprang?  Obviously, the best and brightest physicists of our time have no answers to this question.

Such problems are called an infinite regress.  Physicists, atheists, and philosophers criticize theists who say that “God created the creation” because that raises the question of where God came from.  But obviously, the physicists who believe in quantum fluctuations creating the universe have presented a solution that offers a solution no deeper than the theist’s faith that the creation was generated by God.  Neither solution resolves the fundamental mystery by proposing an original cause, a first cause that generated the mass, energy, space, and time we see in the physical universe.

In other words, both conventional physicists and theists rely on faith that their theory is correct.  And being realistic and intellectually honest, neither theory gives a logically satisfying answer to the question about the final/ultimate/original origin of the creation/universe.

The physicist seeks to identify ever more elemental physical processes that may explain a more complex/higher level phenomenon. Staying inside the self-constrained boundaries of physics, no cause other than physical processes can even be considered as the cause of phenomena.  In other words, God cannot be considered the cause of the creation, because only non-God solutions are considered.  Thus, the physics community has committed itself to the exploration of only physical phenomena, and only physical causes and effects.  Thus, the physicist in effect has declared, “I have faith in physical processes” as the cause and origin of the universe.

But, such a position, cannot declare that there is no God, because there has been no search, no study to test whether there is or is not a God.  Instead, all physics community can say, is, that they have looked for smaller and smaller, more elemental physical causes (masses and forces) and inside of that domain of research and theoretical consideration, they have not found evidence of God.

Of course, if you don’t look for God, and specifically restrict the consideration of God as a causative factor in the existence of the creation, then it would not be likely that a physicist would conclude that God was the cause.  The physics community is looking in a different arena, and what they do is amazing, skilled, intelligent, logical, and imaginative.  But, all their work proves is that they have been able to explain every physical phenomenon in the fields of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, field theory, particle physics, and relativity using ever-smaller phenomena.  Such discovery and elaboration of the details of the physical world does not prove, or disprove, the origin of the universe as purely physical or God-created.

In the case of the typical physicist, many hold to the religion of secular humanism and Scientism.  As such, many seek to justify all knowledge past the current level of explanation by identified physical causes as in the realm of “someday science will fill in the gap and identify the details of the currently unseen/unidentified physical phenomena that produced xyz particle or force.

It may be true that all forces may be someday be unified as originating from a single primal force.  And, it may also be true that all particles may someday be known to have decayed from a single primal mass.  But, even in that scenario, the man who believes that the physical universe is all there is, will not be able to take his knowledge any farther and say, “This is the source, this is the beginning, there is no God.”

Rather, the man of faith in God, and the man of faith in the physical universe-alone will both still be men of faith, each clinging to his own religion.

Thus, the question of origin cannot be resolved by finding the unified mass and field theory.  Rather, each man must decide in his own heart whether he hears a still small voice speaking that convinces him of the existence of God.

The man who believes only in the existence of the physical universe as the source of all creation and life will also explain the mystery of life by another process of faith, that the theory of evolution was adequate to explain the entirety of the ascent of life from primordial slime to man.  Such a doctrine seeks to entirely replace the working of the hand of God with the blind hand of chance and time, and survival of the fittest as the motive force that shaped the minds, hearts, and bodies of all animate creatures.  Each man must choose in who and what he believes.

Origin of the Universe

  • Facebook

Thomas Lee Abshier

Author: Thomas Lee Abshier

 

Dr. T., In response to your article, “Physics and Faith”, you are putting words in the mouths of physicists to suit your premise. Here is what Stephen Hawking thinks about the beginning of the universe:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Jonathan


Jonathan, thank you for sending the Stephen Hawking article. I enjoyed reading it. My comments about the consensus of physicists come from my interactions with physicists on the Physics Stack Exchange. The rules of the discussion are quite clear and are enforced strongly by correction or criticism, with participants being told that the question or answer was “off topic” if a God-related or non-conventional or metaphysical answer was given as a solution to any physical process. It’s okay to mention God, but not as a serious answer to a question; rather, it’s used as an alternative solution that’s not being considered the primary answer.

The argument about time and space being so entangled that you can’t tell the difference, and heading out in a direction of time, where any direction of time was the same as heading out in any direction of space, is a wonderful imaginary scenario. Still, it doesn’t give us any insight into what time or space actually “is”. And, even this scenario does not solve the problem I was addressing in my essay: we still don’t know what created (or, more specifically, what was the causative origin of) the space-time ball that then expanded, much like leaving the South Pole. That was my major point. There is no possible (or even imaginary) scenario or theory where the beginning of all possibility starts. The theory of God creating the universe does not solve this problem, and analogies about walking north from the South Pole on a space-time ball do not solve this problem. From our perspective, this problem is not soluble. A physicist may believe in South Pole Space-Time balls, and he then feels no pressure to consider the origin of all causes. But, such a man would be shallow indeed if he did not realize that such a solution did not solve the underlying problem of the origin of the space-time ball. Likewise, the man who believes that his belief that God created the universe solves all the logical problems of origins/beginnings – it doesn’t. The origin of the God who created the creation is still unknown – we have merely pushed the mystery back one layer. The infinite regress is encountered by the materialist/natural-law/natural-processes-only believing physicist, as much as it for the man who sincerely believes God created the creation (whether a universe with a history 6000 years ago or by providing the materials for a big bang to explode and inflate, and then expand and accelerate). Regardless of one’s cosmology and belief structure, this problem cannot be resolved. The origin of origins is logically impossible to solve. This is well recognized in the physics community.

The story is often told about the man who inquires of the guru about what holds up the earth. The guru responds that the earth is supported on the back of an elephant. The seeker asks, yes, but what is the elephant supported by? The guru responds, The elephant is standing on the back of a turtle. The seeker then asks, But what is the turtle standing on? The guru responds, “The turtle is standing on the back of a turtle.” The seeker then asks, “But what is that turtle standing on?” The guru responds, “It’s turtles all the way down.” I’m sure you’ve heard that story before. It effectively illustrates the principle of infinite regress. There is no solution to it.

Regarding the issue of gravity waves, it is true that they have been detected, and we can observe the collapse of a binary black hole-star system as a ripple in space. This is an interesting effect, but it is nothing that significantly shakes the universe in terms of importance. It means that we can detect that big things collapsed. Possibly we could get some information about how things moved/collided in the early universe if we could get a lot of these signals and decode the superimposition of all these collisions, and reflections – kind of like taking the blurriness out of a frosted glass or out of focus camera lens. So, I suppose it is possible to learn something about the universe in ages past by using a LIGO gravity sensor (or many of them, with much greater sensitivity than this apparatus) and using the signals to resolve early universe collisions, thereby gaining a better understanding of the originating signal. However, even this will not help us overcome the problem of finding the source of the original turtle. That problem is beyond technology, and strange as it seems, it is also beyond imagination, logic, philosophy, and religion. It cannot be comprehended. So, we are left with the belief in nature as all there is (and we don’t know where that ultimately came from), or believing in God (and we don’t know where He came from) as our creation paradigm. And that’s as good as it gets, and that is where we have to leave it and live in this world.

The reason all this makes any difference is that depending on our concept of the universe as an accidentally created, non-personality-driven place with laws that are pretty much just dictated by feelings, or what you/I/we think is right, then people are pretty much free to experiment, and do whatever they feel is good/right, and works before for them.

The other option is that this universe is/was created and the maker of the universe has rules that make the experience of life better if followed, or worse if not. In the case of the Christian religion, the rules that God gave were revealed in the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, the testimony of His Way, and we can take clues from that to determine what works best in life. My experience has been that the rules that I have derived from the Bible work well in guiding my life. In my counseling experience, I found that people who follow the rules tend to do well, and conversely, choosing other rule-sets often caused problems (which is why they came to see me) that could be rectified by adopting the Biblical rule-set. The success of the interaction was always dependent on choosing the correct rule set to apply, which isn’t always easy. This is why they came to me to help identify the core issue —the core error of action —that they could not identify or change.

Anyway, it all comes down to a very practical consideration, choosing what rule set you are going to follow. My experience has been that many non-Christians, perhaps most, follow the biblical laws because they are the rules of life that work. So, the actual issue is how to make life work well. When there are problems (which is when most people come for help), I’ve found that going back to the Book and checking how the thoughts, speech, and actions around the issue causing problems are due to violating or diverging from the owner’s manual specs. Identifying errors and making changes accordingly usually brings things back into line, and life works better.

So, again, for me, it was just a discussion about deciding which life paradigm worked best – and for me, the Biblical one, where God created it (and we don’t know what created God), and following the rules He published in the Book approach is what has worked best for me.

T.

Inequitable Distribution of Wealth

by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
12/14/2008
4/5/2019 rev

Summary: The formation of pockets of dynamic stability in turbulent flow provides an analogy and insights into to the macro & micro economic processes involved in the formation of stable pockets of inequitable wealth distribution in a land of plenty.  The economic forces acting inside the flow of an economy (production and consumption) act on the individual person in a manner somewhat akin to the forces acting on a molecule in a stream with various types of stationary obstacles, suspended particles, flow restrictions, channel bends, and merging flows.

The individual has internal psychological characteristics, such as the motivation to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, which is the central driver of all human action.  Humans have degrees of freedom of action such as the ability to communicate, think, act/work, feel and move to satisfy emotional and physical needs (e.g. survival, friendship, mating, reproduction, warmth, shelter, hunger, love, peace, etc…).  The individual’s external environment includes 1) the economic climate (recession or boom, inflation/deflation or stability), 2) the availability of resources (energy, land, minerals, water, skilled and unskilled labor, sun…), 3) the climate of international relations (open/restricted trade, war, cultural affinity/opposition), 4) the political climate (scandal/corruption, investigations, environmental fear/care, news polarization, stratification of wealth, identity politics, illegal immigration, moral legislation (abortion, homosexuality, divorce, pornography…), and 5) the cultural climate (e.g., unity vs balkanization, spiritual/religious/theologic principles reflected in the law), etc.  The internal environment of the individual interacts with his external environment, resulting in a flow where he either contributes and participates with the bulk of society and is rewarded according to the magnitude of his contribution, or he marches to a different drummer and finds himself engaging at cross purposes with those in his world, contributing little, and associating with those who are likewise disaffected.

  • (The Phenomenon of Turbulence) Turbulence results when the ratio of the kinetic energy and the viscosity of the fluid rise above a certain value (e.g., at a Reynolds number over 5000).  In other words, when the velocity becomes high enough relative to a surface, collisions between the particles in the fluid flow and the surface results in particle velocities perpendicular to the flow.  In short, collisions resulting in velocities of particles perpendicular to the fluid flow produce turbulence if the fluid doesn’t damp out that velocity.

The collision of the individual with the larger environment creates a disturbance in the flow of production and consumption.  The local conditions of the individual’s environment (local business profitability, marital satisfaction, education, family or personal illness, etc.) interact with the person’s individual capabilities and character to produce a stable flow of wealth if he is able to contribute significantly to the overall welfare of others.  If the individual has developed antisocial habits, adopted a self-focused narcissistic perspective, or habitually behaves according to the vast family of traits such as breaking contracts, denigrating his fellow man, using substances that dull the mind and disconnect him from the external and internal reality.

These pockets of poverty can be family, local, regional, national, or worldwide.  The point being that forces, internal and external, predictably interact to create stable pockets of wealth inequity that do not reflect the larger economic welfare.

This essay took its inspiration from the article: “The Long Arm of the Second Law”, Scientific American, Oct 2008, pg. 62-68.


Economic, Political, Moral, and Natural Forces as Determinants of Wealth
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
12/14/2008
4/1/2019 revision

In general, wealth accumulation is dependent upon a society.

Thermodynamic theory has now been given mathematical understructure and variable names to describe the formation, persistence, and decay of local pockets of order and disorder.  The conventional calculation of entropy only applies to systems at equilibrium, but turbulent systems of moving particles (and economic systems) are neither linear nor in equilibrium.

The concept of entropy is examined for those interested in understanding thermodynamics.  Understanding entropy is not necessary for understanding the metaphor of economics.  Systems in thermodynamic equilibrium systems are those in a steady state of temperature distribution, and such systems have a well-defined entropy.  But, dynamic, non-equilibrium, chaotic, turbulent systems cannot be easily assigned a value for the entropy of the system.

Entropy is defined as the amount of heat in a system divided by its temperature.  This rather abstract term has been used more commonly to describe the degree of randomness in a system, but this conception does not capture the real essence of entropy.  Entropy, using a strict definition increases each time a new possibility is introduced into a system.  For example: the entropy of a system increases each time one of its sub-elements goes through an irreversible process.  This happens when the kinetic energy of a single mass collides with a system with many particles, and the directed motion of the single particle is converted into the random/chaotic motion of many masses.  In other words, in the state before the collision, the system had only one degree of freedom, the movement of one mass in one direction.  After the collision, the target masses were moving in many directions, which means that the degrees of freedom of the system increased, and hence, the entropy of the system increased after the collision.

Another example of an entropy-increasing process is friction. At its elemental level, friction is a series of inelastic collisions. An inelastic collision converts kinetic energy to thermal energy – in other words, the coherent, single-direction motion of one large mass is converted into the randomly directed motion of many atoms.

  • (Elaboration of the physics of friction:  A mass M1 composed of a large number of atoms has a kinetic energy KE1 before it begins to slide on the surface of M2.  The irregularities on M1 and M2, high points called asperities, collide as they slide over each other.  The collision causes them to deform and reform repeatedly.  To the extent that the deformation does not spring back completely and return that energy of deformation to the KE of M1, that energy is retained by the atoms of the lattice of M1 and M2.  The retained compression of the lattice atoms and the motion imparted to the atoms of the asperities is transmitted by further micro-collisions to the atoms composing the molecular lattice.  Thus, some kinetic energy of M1 is lost to friction, which turns into heat and permanent deformation of the atoms on the surfaces of M1 and M2.  Energy is conserved, in that it was converted from kinetic energy to thermal energy.  Thermal energy is merely kinetic energy on a micro-scale directed randomly.  The original kinetic energy of M1 is transmitted to atoms in the lattice, thereby increasing the average vibratory rate of the atoms in the molecular lattice.  Thus, a portion of the KE1 of M1 is dispersed through M1 and M2.  The higher random kinetic energy of the atoms of M1 and M2 is perceived as a higher temperature.  This random, non-directed energy of the atoms in the molecular lattice means that the system has more degrees of freedom than the single-direction motion of KE1.  The strict mathematical definition of entropy is an algorithmic summation of the degrees of freedom of the system.  Obviously, when all the atoms of a mass are going in the same direction, there is only a single degree of freedom.  But, after the collision, there are many degrees of freedom with every atom having its own direction and its own velocity.  Thus, the system went from a low entropy system to a high entropy system through the process (innumerable inelastic collisions) of friction.  The concept of entropy is a high-level summary (a single number that reflects the degrees of freedom of a system) of a very complex underlying state.  But, in even more complex systems, such as water flowing over a rough surface and past obstacles, the concept of entropy is not sufficiently granular for modeling such complex systems, thus the need for the more recent advances in theory of turbulence and chaos theory.)

Linear systems are defined as changing properties at a constant rate with distance or time.  But most real-world systems are non-linear, given the complexity of surfaces and environments, with their associated inelastic collisions, changes in direction, and interactions between the individual atoms composing the stream.  For example, consider the case of water molecules in a stream flowing over a rocky river bed and shoreline.  The complex surfaces alter the velocity and direction of flow changes in a  complex, chaotic, turbulent, non-linear manner.

Most of life is composed of nonlinear interactions between people, objects, concepts, and spirits.

Atoms and molecules behave differently depending upon the state of the system.  For example, at high temperature, water changes state from a liquid to gas, and at a low temperature, it changes state from a liquid to a solid.  Fundamental to the bulk behavior of water is its dipolar nature due to the 109-degree angle bond between the two hydrogen atoms as they bond to oxygen.  The hydrogen loses its electron to the oxygen for a portion of its orbital and ends up with a partial positive charge, and the oxygen becomes partially negative.  The polar nature of water causes the hydrogen atoms on water molecules to be attracted to the oxygen of other water molecules.  This attraction between water atoms is due to the attraction between the partial positive and partial negative charges of the different portions of the water molecules.  This low-energy attraction between water molecules is called a hydrogen bond.  Even though this is a low energy bond, the attraction influences the local movement of the water molecules as it is jostled about by Brownian Motion.  The macro-effect is seen in its unusually high freezing and boiling point compared to other dipolar atoms.

This example was pursued in detail to illustrate that small forces at the molecular and atomic level affect the behavior of a bulk system.  The dynamic interaction with gross macroscopic objects (such as the rocks on the river bed and shore) depends largely on how water molecules interact with each other and with the masses at the surfaces of the stream.  Expanding on this concept: the atoms on a water molecule exert different forces depending on their proximity to other molecules and the forces associated with the water’s velocity, purity, and environmental conditions such as pressure and temperature.

By analogy, people are different in their affinities and repulsions and react differently to other people based on the inner forces that drive them to act, repel them from interacting, drive unusual effectiveness, and cause significant weakness.

Thus in general, each molecule will have a different reactivity associated with its type/weight, shape, charge distribution (and its associated affinities and repulsions to other molecular shapes and their charges).  This fundamental force of attraction is in turn modified by its local environmental conditions, which causes the bulk behavior of the molecule to change.  For example, a higher temperature molecule will have greater velocity, and thus will get closer to other atoms and molecules before being repelled by the like charges of the electron clouds.  Closer proximity may allow the molecules to temporarily bind and resist the process of dissociation, causing water to have an abnormally high boiling point.  The force-distance relationship will also change in the presence of contaminants, causing the bulk material properties to change.  Interaction with large external forces, such as colliding with a rock in the stream, will redirect the water’s downstream energy, causing turbulence and a stable micro-environment.  On its surface, turbulence does not appear to be a stable environment, but if we view “turbulence” as a state, and the water stays in that state, then the local condition has created a stable local condition.  The particulars of that state will be produced by the combination of the micro-forces of the molecular interaction (hydrogen bonds) and the macro-forces of the environment (water colliding with rock).

By analogy, note how the characteristics of an individual interact with family, city, corporate, governmental, international forces and create the turbulent sensation of being out of control.

At lower flow rates, the disturbed local states’ stability and order depend more upon subtle forces (water flow rate, rock size, rock roughness, water temperature and purity, etc.).  The system will come to turbulent stability as it forms a turbulent local microenvironment of the stream water.  These local pockets of order are not equilibrium, nor linear, but they are a type of stability in the midst of a turbulent, and high energy system.

Individuals face multitudes of factors that exert force upon their lives.  The greater the force, the more turbulent, chaotic, and unpredictable will be the local environment.  There will be limits to the chaos, and there are elements of predictability, but the linear predictive cause and effect nature of the system will be limited.

  • In systems exhibiting turbulent flow (e.g., chaotic, non-laminar flow, in a liquid), patterns of “order” form.  Turbulence is any pattern of “order” (i.e., the relationship between the velocity of molecules is chaotic rather than laminar in relation to the boundary conditions of the system).  Turbulence is based upon inelastic collisions between objects which increase entropy.  Turbulence is caused by collisions vigorous enough to produce a rebound which projects the individual elements (e.g., molecules) out of a stream’s laminar flow (roughly parallel particle velocity). The order formed in turbulence may be difficult to identify as ordered.  But, when “order” is defined as any pattern other than total randomness, we realize that even the most complex motion is “ordered”.  The “order” of a turbulent flow arises because of the collisions with walls, barriers, and other fluid-particles.  The pattern of this “order” is not easily identified as a repeating pattern or a volume of disturbance that holds a particular shape.  And, the chaotic “order” cannot be currently predicted using numeric or algorithmic methods to predict the volume, location, and periodicity of stable areas of turbulence.  Still, even though complex, when a sufficiently high-velocity stream strikes an obstacle to flow, quasi-stable volumes of turbulence will form in response to that collision. When particles strike obstacles, regions of dynamic stability form, that are “ordered” in some way.  These areas of rebound may look like swirls, ripples, or zones of stasis.  The volume of the chaotic “order” may migrate over a volume and repeat that pattern, change shapes, or move unpredictably within a volume and set of behaviors.  Zones of correlation are identifiable as stable domains of organization that arise from random collisions with the environment and mutual interactions between the particles.

The same is true of people when their lives collide with (are influenced by) large external forces, such as war, recession, off-shoring of industry, health-care costs, advertising campaigns for addictive substances, changes in technology that obsolete skills and labor, etc.  In response to these forces, some populations of people will be disproportionately affected.  These groups of affected individuals form a domain within the larger population.  They may form a colony where their life continues with little change, but other areas will suffer huge impacts and large stable turbulent variations in function and routine form.

For example, when the economy goes into recession, hygiene and sleep may be unchanged, but marital stress and discord may be elevated.

A non-equilibrium state exists when a set of particles is divided into isolated subsets, and those subsets are altered in state from the bulk or average state.  Subsets may form because of the interruptions of communication (breaking of bonds) with the larger body.

Particle subsets form due to forces converging to compress a system of particles.  This results in local bonding and forming a region of stable self-interaction.  And, given that the bulk medium is dynamic, such as in flowing water, the system has particles leaving, and coming into the stable turbulent region at the same rate. Any accumulation or depletion of the state is only temporary.

This corresponds to life experience where one problem is solved, and another arises; it does not appear that progress is being made because the same large external force is disturbing the routine, resulting in a never-ending struggle to maintain a constant output or production.

These turbulent volumes remain stable as long as the dynamics of the system remain constant (e.g. an eddy in a stream forms and remains within its parameters of chaotic variation as long as the water flows at a particular rate, pressures, temperature, purity, etc.).  But, no flow, and no system of turbulence will endure forever.  Regardless of the system’s stability at constant flow conditions, the system will eventually change because the source flow will change.  No source is infinite in its capacity, everything exhausts its supply eventually.  Dynamic systems such as streams and turbulent eddies depend upon a source and a gradient of concentration.  Thus, the universe, the ultimate source of all energy and concentration, began with the highest source concentration of mass and energy at the Moment before the Big Bang. In any portion of the universe, the energy gradient that allows for turbulent chaotic systems to exist, the source will exhaust, and the turbulent systems dependent upon its flow will cease.  Energy does not generate and flow eternally from the same source in the physical world. Thus, every local microenvironment will eventually lose its stability and form new states of order or disorder.

While, no dynamic system can maintain bulk stability forever, an intelligent system with a survival instinct and detection systems, and mobility, can seek new existent energy-gradient systems, such as stars, to maintain the energy flow environment required to maintain life.

The same is true in the life of the suffering human.  For example, his life may become chaotic due to the forces of government, economy, and nature.  The one refuge a man can always take is the fact that the circumstances and forces operating in life will eventually change.  The misery may change from one form to another, but life will not maintain eternal stability in one form.

This thermodynamic concept has applicability to economics and human drama because the market is composed of billions of people-particles.  Each person acts with his own set of rules of action and reaction in the marketplace of consumption and production of goods and services.  Each people-particle acts according to his own inner ruleset of action and reaction as dictated by his aversion and affinities, needs, will, and ability.

Economics is defined by the bulk behavior-flow of production and consumption.  The limits and characteristics of the economic flow are determined by the nature of the constituent people-particles.  The individuals of any productive system may be of high potential, but with enough force can be overwhelmed and rendered ineffective.

A local environment, such as a company, city, state, nation, or world can be overwhelmed by outside forces and fall into dysfunctional low productivity.  The subprime mortgage crisis, in combination with the high oil prices, has delivered a blow the world economy.

The convergence of these two forces delivered a large force to the normal flow of the economic system.  The raising prime rate pushed up interest rates for mortgages, putting people who were marginally qualified for home ownership, and financed by ARMs, close to the edge.  When oil prices rose, that extra expenditure put a number of mortgages in default, making the Mortgage Backed Securities go into default when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s credit rating dropped.  Such a sequence of economic facts and forces creates a change in the flow of compensation, consumption, and production.  The size of the force, in this case, was so large that the entire world economy was thrown into turbulence, with some points of the system maintaining stability.  Again, the point being that various forces can bring instability to various parts of an economic system.

Other strong forces that disturb the invisible hand of the market are monopoly, corruption, legislation, and taxes.  These forces distort the normal flow of production and consumption by introducing cost disincentives that influence the behavior of the individual in protecting his self-interest.

In a system with good communication and a Godly sense of service, education in right principles, and leadership in the promotion of right principles of living, the concentrations of local stable poverty could be dispersed.  With sufficiently strong intervention, coaching, training and support, virtually all poverty could be eliminated.  With such intervention, the pockets of poverty could be raised to the average levels of prosperity.

Leadership introduces forces that produce open and properly compensated knowledge transfer.  Corruption (e.g. bribes, dishonest measures, theft, slander, perjury, revealing secrets) reaps its appropriate consequences, such as deficient quality and quantity of goods and services, and the breakdown of affinity and trust among men.  Leadership confronts and motivates sloth receives no support other than education in a skill that produces a return on the investment.

When Godly character is instilled in the perpetrators, manipulators, cheats, cons, criminals, and sloths, the largest internal source of social distortion is eliminated.  The monopolistic distortion of the market is eliminated when people are willing to play fair, and take personal accountability for the actions and moral judgments of the corporation.

In a transparent system, the important pieces of the economic engine coordinate with each other.  Finance, energy, transportation, communication, and regulation, etc are applied morally, moderated, and appropriate throughout the system.  When people care about raising the quality of life of those caught in locally depressed states, the inhomogeneous domains of the economy eventually smooth out.  Every individual should be trained to produce at optimum, consume modestly, and receive appropriate compensation.

When individuals are separated into isolated environments that create or reinforce fears, anger, and sorrow they can develop stable suboptimal behavior far from normal, optimal, and moderate.  Rehabilitation should include the development of proper behaviors, desires, activity, and will, so as to bring the stable dysfunctional individual into the group norm.

The forces of perversion and destruction produce suboptimal conditions of economic flow, political organization, and restriction of freedom.  Changing a local system after it has established a dysfunctional stability requires penetrating that system with an organizing energy.  Energy can be injected as education in life and trade skills while withdrawing support for dysfunction.  The heart must be changed to effect such a change, so integral to training must be tutelage in the Word of God, accountability and consequences, both reward and punishment for following the way of Right thought, speech, and actions.

Monopolies, governmental corruption (bribes), dynastic ownership, societal ignorance, worship of false gods and idolatry all produce stable systems where a few profits while many suffer.  To overthrow the conditions that allow the continuation of these suboptimal economic eddies, the system must be disturbed.  Prayer, forgiveness, love, and Righteousness are the foundations of any proactive action.  Having clearly identified the pathological disturbing forces in a family, business, corporation, judiciary, legislature, administration, we may then choose the best strategy for interceding in eliminating the disturbing forces.  Many common tools have been used including counseling, personal meetings, expert testimony, peaceful public demonstrations, letters to the editor, lawsuits, boycotts, strikes, and media campaigns.  Each of these may have their place, but most important, it must be guided by a sense of propriety and service, rather than revenge.  Once the perverting social/economic/political force is eliminated, the Godly patterns of conduct may reemerge and bring the larger system to a greater state of health, relationship, and productivity.

When the bulk system is decaying, the natural sequences of pain require confronting all the players in the system, both leaders and followers.  When large systems are in states of extreme inequity of wealth distribution, such as corporate executives versus workers; dictator versus the serf and peasant class; an intervention must break the habitual stability of the inequity.  Revolution is one way, but education, public education through the media and passive resistance can also produce change.  There is a time for force, but all other options should be exhausted.  When people will not participate in the immorality of a nation, corporation, or family, the system has lost its power.  The best revolution is led by God and overthrows the false gods in men’s hearts.

The capitalistic system of commerce lends itself well to a natural gradient of proper compensation for production.  The reward of work should be related to production in rough parity.  If an executive makes millions, we must be sure that his compensation is not being used as a Faustian bargain, which gives him the courage to sell his soul in various ways.  Again, the compensation across the entire economic system should be roughly commensurate with production, and all market advantage should be motivated by service, rather than simply profitable.  Since the prurient and avaricious drives of men can be used to appeal and make profits, each entrepreneur, executive, and the worker should take the fruit of his production personally, and say “no” to giving life to the immoral and unGodly.

There should be no a fixed maximum compensation for a man’s service, rather, there should be a market-based relationship between compensation and production, and the market should be fairly open to movement by allowing the disgruntled to relocate to a competitor.  Such mobility should be executed on the individual business level, rather than forced by administrative law.

When the wages have become inequitable, the employee should intervene and advocate for fairness.  Ideally, such clear communication may be the only force necessary to disturb the system and bring equitability to the individual system.  The same standard should be applied to the other systems of life, including family, boss, employees, corporation, and government.  When we hold Godly standards, speak our truth with love, expect to be heard, and relentlessly advocate for Righteousness, the disturbing forces of the system will eventually crumble, and goodness will rule.