The Squabbling Universe: Simple Thoughts About the Beginnings, at the Outskirts of Conventional Reasoning.

By Terrel Miedaner

This book offers a unique interpretation of the beginnings of the universe and human consciousness. It bypasses currently popular beliefs such as cosmology's notion of a mysterious singularity that suddenly appeared out of nowhere, then exploded into a magnificently structured universe instead of a rubble pile like the customary result of explosions. The book proposes that conscious intelligence was involved in part of the creation process, after explaining the origin of consciousness and the development of intelligence. An almighty and omniscient god is not part of the process.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Sep 13, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664190603

Terrel Miedaner

Miedaner has been published mainstream in a fiction novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," long out of print, currently available via Amazon. which has reviews. He began with a basic degree in Applied Mathematics and Engineering Physics, became a decent machine-language computer programmer who wrote the telemetry handling code for the first astronomical space telescope and the first land-based computer-controlled telescope. He has no credentials for this foray into deep metaphysics, because such credentials are unavailable. No similar attempts to address the beginnings of consciousness and the origins of our universe have been attempted.

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 09/02/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

833506

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ISimple Ideas about Mind, Space, and the Beginnings

IIThe Design Hypothesis

IIIDifferences Between Monotheism and Atheism

IVSimplicity

VDifferences between math and physics, and a few reasons to care.

VIAbsolute Miracles

VIIThe Codon Conundrum — a Simple but Critical Problem

VIIIThe C-Value Enigma, a Darwinian Mystery

IXConsciousness vs. Sentience

XConsciousness

XIThe Stupifying Power of Agreement

XIIAn Alternative

XIIIThe Simple Properties of Hypothetical Spaces

XIVExperimental Verification

XVYour Personal Beon-Level Validations

XVIA Review of Initial Conditions

XVIIThe Onset of Consciousness

XVIIIHow We Might Have Gotten Here

XIXThought and Language

XXEntropy — an Arcane yet Essential Concept

XXIEntropy: the Enemy of Consciousness

XXIIBeon vs. Brain— Who’s on First?

XXIIIMany Questions and a Few Answers

XXIVAeon Space’s Natural Force

XXVInequality

XXVIBeons and Quantum Effects

XXVIIThoughts for those slightly familiar with calculus, and various intrepid readers: Calculus and Quantum Mechanics: Oil and Water

XXVIIICreation from Nothing

XXIXTime and True Dimensions

XXXBits & Pieces of Related Topics

1. Artificial Intelligence

2. Abortion timing

3. Our Purpose: Self-awareness

4. Heaven & Hell

5. Reincarnation and Nirvana

6. Reincarnation and Intelligence

7. What if we actually do reincarnate?

8. Nirvana

9. Three-Space Theory vs. Buddhism

10. Pascal’s Wager

11. The Paranormal

12. Telepathy

13. Telepathy and Hypnosis

14. The Water Heater

15. Apollo 13

16. Precognition and Time

17. An Opinionated House Plant

18. Odd healing techniques

19. Heredity and the importance of ancestors.

20. Thoughts about the nature of matter.

21. Quantum Gravity and the Higgs Boson

22. Fields vs. Spaces

23. Heartaches

24. Prototype Universes?

25. The Voice in Your Head

26. The Miller-Urey experiment

A Brief Summary

There is an alternative to your beliefs, and to your disbeliefs. You have never before considered this alternative.

Rather than trying to explain the universe and our own conscious minds by using a theory based upon something we cannot see, touch, or experiment upon, such as the almighty God of Judeao/Christianity or the mysterious physical singularity of Big Bang cosmology, why not at least try to explain it using the hard-won scientific knowledge that we actually have?

Any genuinely science-compatible explanation of the beginnings must be based upon things known to exist and upon which we can directly experiment.

Accepting that proposition opens up some space for alternative theories about the beginnings that are consistent with science-based knowledge, logically plausible, and entirely unconventional, such as the theory proposed here:

The universe and the phenomenon of self-awareness began neither with a mysterious physical singularity, nor by the will of an almighty God, but with the collision of two simple spaces having opposing rudimentary properties.

Conventional thinking about the beginnings separates ideas about the start of the universe from those about the onset of consciousness, which is treated as an after-effect of the universe’s and our planet’s existence.

Unconventional thinking proposes that the origin of the universe and the onset of consciousness are integrated events. They must be explained together as components of a common theory, else they cannot be explained at all.

I

Simple Ideas about Mind,

Space, and the Beginnings

What is it from which all things began?

The relevant all things are the entire physical universe, biological life, and occasional manifestations of human consciousness— such as air and space craft, submarines, cathedrals, and your wonderful self-aware mind during focused moments.

As the belief systems of the most powerful civilizations to appear on this planet, monotheistic religions and atheism offer well known standards for comparison between one another and the alternative thesis proposed here. They offer two apparently opposing explanations for the beginnings:

1. An almighty God who had no origin and cannot be defined in terms of any known physics principles, who existed for eternity before spontaneously willing everything into existence, or—

2. A physical singularity of unknown origin that cannot be defined in terms of any physics principles, which occupied no space yet contained all matter and energy in our universe plus 26 physical constants that allow matter and energy to interact in a coherent manner to make our universe, ourselves, and our conscious minds; spontaneously came into existence out of nowhere and then, without cause, created time, space, and the bizarre Higgs field before blowing itself up and becoming a highly structured universe instead of the customary by-product of explosions— lots of rubble.

Why a universe, or biological life? There cannot be a reason because reasons are products of minds and the singularity is mindless. What was the cause of the blow-up? None— because that would require an outside force, something other than the singularity, which would require an explanation. The Big Bang just happened, without any cause. Insightful science or quasi-religious nonsense? Keep your mind open on that question, please.

These explanations share similarities. Each one claims that the universe came into existence because of something that cannot currently be physically detected or subjected to any experiment. Each is therefore inherently non-scientific and cannot be honestly argued, either for or against, on scientific grounds.

The beliefs of scientists are not necessarily logical, coherent, or even scientific. How can they be? Because the quantity of information about the workings of things is enormous, scientists must specialize, focusing their work within limited areas of expertise. A mind capable of understanding microbiology might not be enchanted with astrophysics.

Because of the limitations of even the finest human minds, the specialization of scientific inquiry and ordinary human curiosity is essential to our expansion of knowledge.

The scientific specialists known as cosmologists have made a serious study of Big Bang cosmology. Most other scientists accept their opinions, like good Catholics abiding by the latest Papal Bull. And similarly, few competent scientists who accept the modern theory of evolution have actually given Darwinism a serious study— nor have most biologists.

Michael Behe is an exception. His first two books on the subject, "Darwin’s Black Box, and The Edge of Evolution" are required reading for anyone commenting on Darwinian beliefs.

o God is not a well-defined entity. By way of example, consider this somewhat extensive webpage written by authorities on the subject.

(The underlined text above and below is left over from the book’s web page, https://www.beon-cpt.com/SQU.HTM and may be referenced from that page, which mirrors the printed text.)

Evidence for God’s potential reality comes from second-order effects like the existence of complex life forms and improbable events called miracles that are attributed to God’s intervention— except during the good old Fruitcake Fridays on the History Channel where those credits went to little green aliens. (Of course the TV chuckle-heads blow off the obvious question— from whence came their aliens?)

o The mysterious singularity cannot be detected because it blew up.

It could not have been detected before it blew up, even if an almighty God was around to detect it. Since a physical singularity cannot be defined, how could anyone know if they happened to detect it?

Like the evidence for God, verification of the so-called singularity’s existence also comes from second-order effects, such as the alleged homogeneity of WMAP data which to a genuinely objective mind look as homogeneous as pizza barf in a puddle of blue-colored beer.

The similarities between these two supposedly opposing theories arise because they are each derived from the same monotheistic religious premise— the absurd belief that a universe which requires an interaction between at least two opposing forces before anything can happen, could have come into existence from the uncaused, spontaneous action of a single thing or entity.

A Choice of Questions

Richard Dawkins and some religious believers seeking to understand fundamental things like the beginnings of existence have asked, Who created God? That’s a dead-end question, leading to an endless string of `Who created whoever created God’ questions. Why not ask "What created God?"

An effective or even interesting answer might connect the so-called spiritual world to the universe of material things and physical forces in a manner never before accomplished.

The what pronoun implies an inherently mindless component of the universe. Is it conceivable that an entirely different kind of creating force than anything previously imagined by any religion— Intelligent Engineers, extraordinary entities constrained like all engineers by fundamental physics principles— came into being as the result of mindless natural forces?

If those forces are as few as possible and absolutely primitive, why not?

II

The Design Hypothesis

Proponents of Intelligent Design offer several arguments. Many serve a religious agenda, but some are worth considering.

o One I.D. argument seems particularly convincing: The coded information in DNA required an intelligent source because it is too complex to have occurred via random events. (e.g: Stephen Meyer’s video, "Signature in the Cell, Pt. 1: The Presentation.")

While a good argument on its own, Meyer’s position can be enhanced by noting that a cell’s protein-creating function depends upon complex microscopic mechanisms within the cell, such as the ribosomes that decode sub-sections of DNA to produce protein molecules.

The following discussion will refer to eukaryotic cells, the kind that comprise animals and plants. For simplicity it will ignore the prokaryotic cells that make bacteria and archaea. Most of the following material applies to both cell types.

An original self-replicating cell cannot have come into existence unless the complex DNA code and the mechanisms required to put it to work come into existence simultantously. Check out this Wikipedia page for ribosomes. Pay particular attention to the Structure section, then ask yourself how such complex two-part mechanisms could have initially come into existence before any RNA was available to decode? Even better, try to find Richard Dawkins’ or Sam Harris’ explanation.

Of course you will not find one. If you think otherwise, WikiP’s abiogenesis article will grudgingly make it clear that there are no scientific explanations for the origin of any first cell.

Can the existence of a first cell be explained in the context of a neo-Darwinism version stretched to its limits? No! Darwinian evolution cannot operate until after the first functional, self-replicating cell exists.

Suppose that somehow a nearly perfect first-cell is randomly assembled from primeval gorp without benefit of a perfect cell’s ability to replicate from the information stored in DNA, although it must contain the DNA necessary for the cell’s potential replication. It must also include the mechanisms which convert a section of DNA into an mRNA strand that can be decoded by a ribosome to make a protein molecule. Nevermind that the probability of this actually happening is too ridiculous to deserve an attempt to