On Being

I am not responsible for the precise accurateness of the facts presented in the following post, although I did my best to inform myself before sharing them with you. If in doubt, please check everything for yourselves.

I’ve always been fascinated with the idea of the beginning. How can something not be and then, all of a sudden, begin to be? Fortunately, I was not the first kid on the block to ask this question, the ancient Greeks went way ahead of me, thousands of years ago, when they started this new field in Philosophy called Metaphysics, the treatise on Being.

The most notable idea of this domain was the obvious observation that being cannot come from non-being, without an efficient cause, in the Aristotelian sense of the term, namely that form of causality which imparts the first notable change upon the subject.

Even though natural philosophy had always advocated that the world was eternal in the past, as opposed to the Biblical view that it had been created by God, a finite time ago, lately, scientific progress in astrophysics has advanced the idea of a past Big-Bang, that humongous explosion out of which everything that is physical came into existence.

This idea started out with Edwin Hubble’s observation that the universe was expanding and was definitively placed among scientific dogma with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of the past-finite universe, which showed that any universe/multiverse which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion, has an absolute beginning, a space-time boundary, in the past. This beginning must be understood not simply as the beginning of solid “stuff”, taking on a form, but as the coming into existence of space-time itself.

The theorem allowed for indefinite consecutive expansion-contraction-expansion sequences, thus avoiding the absolute beginning problem, so troublesome for atheists, but clearly posed insurmountable challenges for a universe undergoing such a sequence by pointing out the occurrence of inevitable quantum instability during the contraction phase that would make a subsequent expansion akin to impossible.

It’s important to understand that this model does not require an eternal past, and trying to extend it to past infinity is hard to square with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seems to be ruled out by the accumulation of dark energy, which would, in time, bring an end to the cycling behavior.

Thus, it soon became apparent that physicists needed to reconcile their old naturalistic beliefs of a past eternal universe with the newly found scientific data which confirmed the Biblical idea that the world did, in fact, have an absolute beginning.

But atheists were not quick to give up on the fight, so, even though they were forced one step back, they still tried to find ways to explain an absolute beginning without invoking a Creator as a necessary cause.

The standard cosmological model offers a mathematical description of how the infinitely small, infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved initial singularity became our current beautiful cosmic home, following the Big-Bang.

Important names in science, such as Stephen Hawking, James Hartle, Lawrence Krauss and Alexander Vilenkin, have tried to offer alternative models that would not imply the existence of an initial singularity, such as the “No Boundary” and the “Tunneling from Nothing” theories, none of which affect the fundamental prediction of the standard model regarding the absolute beginning of the universe, though.

However, these scientists and others have committed an unforgivable “sin”, by taking upon themselves to disprove metaphysical truths by appealing to mathematical formulas. More specifically, they’ve declared metaphysics obsolete, redundant and useless at providing an explanation of mere existence and have instead offered a story of the universe, coming into being, uncaused and “out of nothing”, a truly “blasphemous” assertion in the eyes of any philosopher.

In support of this, they argued that, if virtual particles can come into being apparently uncaused and “out of nothing” in our universe, then it would be entirely possible for the universe, as a whole, to do the same and thus become “a free lunch”, as a result of a quantum fluctuation or by applying the laws of quantum gravity.

Krauss, in particular, argued that, since the positive and negative energy in the universe balance each other out, and since all matter is convertible into energy, then the total energy in the universe would amount to exactly zero, which would correspond to a state of nothingness, as in non-being. That process could somehow be reversed and thus have nothingness turned into equal amounts of positive and negative energy, which is exactly what we currently observe in our universe. So, he argues, one would expect to find equal amounts of positive and negative energy in the universe, if it started out of nothing.

Alexander Vilenkin also used his “Tunneling from Nothing” theory to calculate a positive probability of a universe/multiverse to emerge spontaneously from non-being, or nothingness in its correct metaphysical sense, through a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling, while the Hawking-Hartle “No Boundary” model, in particular, raised the possibility that the universe, even though is finite, had no initial singularity to produce a boundary (hence the name of the model). Both of these models have, thus, tried to exclude the necessity for a primordial efficient cause of the universe.

Hawking was also concerned with our universe’s fine tuning for intelligent life, so he argued that there are multiple cosmological theories which point to there being a multiverse out there, as opposed to just this one universe. He claimed that if the number of possible universes is infinite and each of them is governed by different physical constants and quantities, then, by applying the anthropic principle, it is possible that an universe just like ours could emerge by mere chance alone, with no need for some creator to do the fine tuning, specifically for our sake.

A variant of the string theory is the M-theory, which also postulates the existence of a great number of parallel universes and which claims that our Big-Bang could have been the result of a collision of two hyper dimensional membranes or “branes”, belonging to other existing universes, therefore ruling out the need for an efficient cause, outside of creation, for our universe and arguing that the initial “nothingness” which exploded into our Big-Bang was actually just the foreseen contact point between two such colliding parallel “branes”.

Even though this latter theory does admit an efficient cause for the emergence of our universe, it still tries to dodge the God hypothesis by pointing out that whatever may exist beyond nature is still nature so it doesn’t need to be supernatural.

Previously, the atheistic arguments have also tried to prove that it would be non-sense to speak of causality when looking into the Big-Bang, since causality automatically implies a prior moment in time, before the Bang, when the cause needed to have acted, whereas the Bang created time itself so there would be no moment when a prior cause could have triggered the birth of the universe. Therefore, the Big-Bang must have happened by itself, without a cause.

All in all, they’ve apparently done a pretty good job at taking God out of the picture, at least on paper, prompting prominent militant atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, to declare that, if Darwinism has made God redundant in biology, Hawking and Krauss have achieved the same in physics, by eliminating the need for a Creator of the universe.

But, just like in the story of the emperor’s new clothes, there was one in the crowd who sincerely cried out that the big man was completely naked. This keen observer was none other than the atheists’ nightmare, philosopher of science, Prof. William Lane Craig PhD., “the one man who has managed to put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”, as neuroscientist Sam Harris himself characterized Craig during their famous debate.

On Stephen Hawking’s approach, presented for the general public in his books “A Brief History of Time” and “The Grand Design”, Craig argued that, if the former claims that the universe literally arose spontaneously from non-being, without a cause, then Hawking needs to explain why it is that only universes arise spontaneously from non-being as opposed to anything and everything else, such as bicycles, Beethoven, root beer etc. In Craig’s opinion, Hawking cannot resort to saying that this is due to certain quantum gravitational constraints because if what he speaks of truly is non-being, then there is no quantum gravity or any constraints thereof in non-being as non-being cannot be constrained by anything, since it has no properties.

Hawking would be contradicting himself when saying that “the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing”, as the very presence of these laws and the quantum theory indicate the existence of something rather than nothing. In addition, the laws of gravity are just mathematical equations and, as such, are abstractions which cannot stand in causal relations, therefore, Craig argued, Hawking must mean something else by “nothing”, perhaps a quantum state in which the classical concepts of space, time and general relativity break down.

But if this is what Hawking means by “nothing”, then that’s already something in itself and Hawking needs to explain why the primordial quantum state in question couldn’t have been created by God.

Regarding Hawking’s attempt to explain the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life by appealing to the many worlds hypothesis, Craig argued that before going for that model, we would need to know why the many worlds postulate would be superior to a single cosmic designer hypothesis, in particular what mechanism is there which explains the origin of the many worlds and if that mechanism is itself fine-tuned. If the mechanism in question itself exhibits fine-tuning, then, in fact, fine-tuning hasn’t been explained, it’s just been pushed back a nudge.

Further on, Craig argues that there is no reason to assume that the many worlds, if they exist, are random in their physical constants and quantities or that the number of worlds is itself infinite. If the number is, in fact, finite, then, by applying the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of the past-finite universe, it follows that the entire multiverse had an absolute beginning in the past. In this context of a finite number of choices as well as a finite amount of time spent since the beginning of the multiverse, Hawking’s claim that randomness could surely have produced finely-tuned universes by now remains gratuitous and unsupported by evidence.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem of the past-finite universe/multiverse would also break the defenses of the M-theory by pointing out that, even if what created our universe was still something natural, though from another universe, outside of our nature, that itself must have had an absolute beginning in an efficient cause that is outside of the causing universe’s nature. So, postulating the occurrence of our Big-Bang as a result of already existing universes colliding with each other does nothing to dismiss the need to explain where those already existing universes came from and how they came into being from non-being in the first place.

Craig also noted that Hawking hasn’t answered the objection raised by Oxford professor Roger Penrose is his book “The Road to Reality”, in which Penrose explained that, if we are just a random member of a world ensemble or multiverse, then it is incomprehensibly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than the one we, in fact, observe, namely we should observe a universe in which the cosmic order would be confined within the limits of our solar system but not beyond, enough to ensure our survival locally but not to do science at a cosmic scale. And therefore, Penrose argued, our observations make it overwhelmingly more probable that there is no randomly ordered world ensemble.

On Lawrence Krauss, whose recent book “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” endorses Hawking’s model, Craig said that “if, by “nothing”, Krauss means literally “non-being”, then physics is, by its very nature, impotent to explain how being can originate from non-being since physics explains the transition from one physical state to another physical state, according to certain laws of nature, operating on the initial state’s conditions. But, in an absolute origination of being from non-being, there is no transition, it’s not as though there is something that goes from non-being into being, because there is just the beginning, the origin of something, there is no enduring subject that, once had the property of non-existence and then has the property of existence”.

To put it simply, nothingness is not something that is and has the property of non-being, nothingness is the absence of anything at all so it cannot have any properties whatsoever. Therefore it cannot serve as starting-point for any sort of physical state transition and cannot be claimed to have any predictability. There simply is no way to foretell what non-being can produce if it’s true that it can produce anything at all without an efficient cause. So, Krauss’ assertion that you would, in fact, expect to find equal amounts of positive and negative energy in an universe that came out of nothing is groundless.

Craig goes on to show that both Hawking and Krauss have, by virtue of their unfamiliarity with metaphysical discourse, equivocated nothingness as non-being with nothingness as a quantum state, non-solid but still physical and very much existing.

He is being backed-up by an entire mob of physicists who passionately demolishes Krauss’s pretentions by showing that the nothingness he and Hawking speak of when presenting how something can come into being out of nothing is actually the quantum vacuum, a “sea” of fluctuating energy, with a rich physical structure, which preserves all of the physical laws that we are acquainted with. So it’s not non-being, it’s not literally nothing, it’s actually something. Neither Hawking nor Krauss have done anything to explain how something can come into being out of non-being without an efficient cause and why on earth there was an initial quantum vacuum in the first place, instead of just nothing at all.

The virtual particles are, themselves, born of this quantum vacuum and are constrained at a very short life-span, by virtue of Heinseberg’s uncertainty principle and the constrains related to the balancing of positive and negative energy, so they don’t make a good example of how something can come into being out of non-being and still endure indefinitely afterwards, in order to build up our fine universe. In addition, as theoretical physicist David Bohm argued, quantum mechanics is also consistent with a full deterministic approach, so there is no reason to assume that virtual particles come into being uncaused.

Even though Craig agrees with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem’s mathematical proof that the universe or any ensemble of universes must have had an absolute beginning in the past, he also argues against Vilenkin’s “Tunneling from Nothing” model’s attempt to calculate a positive probability for a universe or the multiverse to spontaneously come into being, uncaused, out of non-being. He claims that it is profoundly incorrect to use mathematical formulas to represent nothingness as an existing concrete entity, and that math can only shed light on the inner workings of physics when it is committed to an accurate and logically consistent description of what can exist, otherwise it becomes an empty form, devoid of meaning and utility.

Furthermore, he went on to show that the quantum fluctuation or the laws of quantum gravity which Hawking and Krauss had hoped would explain how you could have something out of nothing would need real energy fields, which could only exist in being, not in non-being. One cannot apply known physical laws and effects to theoretical entities that have no correspondent in actual reality because their resulting properties would be self-contradictory. Nothingness is not something which exists and has the property of non-being, it is something which cannot exist, specifically because it has no properties, particularly that of being. So, it cannot be used as a member in an equation aimed at computing any sort of probabilities.

The final nail in the coffin of godless creation was Craig’s argument that causality doesn’t require a moment in time prior to the effect, as atheists claimed, in an attempt to dismiss the need for an efficient cause of the Big-Bang. The cause and the effect can be simultaneous and a good example of that is the entanglement phenomenon found in quantum mechanics: whenever a particle changes its state, its entangled pair (if it has one) instantly replicates the same change, over indefinite lengths of space, in no time at all.

But even if we grant the premise that the standard Big-Bang model is wrong and that there was something before space-time, such as quantum gravity, we would still need to explain where that came from and why so, either way, we cannot escape the need for a cause of the universe.

Of course, we can try to avoid the causality issue with respect to quantum gravity and quantum fluctuations by pointing out that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics allows for indeterministic chaos but we must, nevertheless, keep in mind that the observed phenomena is, also, consistent with a full deterministic approach, as David Bohm noticed. So, ultimately, there is no basis for the statement that we don’t need, much less that there can’t be a cause for the universe. Deterministic or not, this cause is clearly at work.

So the conclusion is inescapable: you need a Creator in order to explain why there is something instead of just nothing. It is my belief that the initial zero-volume singularity never existed, either God caused the first historical quanta of space-time and energy into existence, from nothing to something, and kept creating the next quanta during the expansion we call the Big-Bang or He created the primordial quantum vacuum which, in turn, generated our universe.

We know since 1998 that the cosmos is currently accelerating its expansion, astronomers studying the red-shift spectrum of remote supernovae have confirmed it. What this means is that quanta of space-time and, maybe, even of more energy, are still being created. However, we should not mistake this on-going linear creation within historical time with the instant creation of all quanta of physical existence, may it be space, matter or energy, across all of time’s tenses, in that “split-second” of “meta-time”, which is God’s eternity.

If Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct, then past, present and future coexist simultaneously and, therefore, anything else in our universe coexists with itself in all of these three tenses.

If we picture the whole of space-time and anything existing in it as a sponge cake (kind of like as seen here), having a stream of cocoa running from one end to the other (as in from the Big-Bang to whatever is at the other end of the universe’s history), then any slice you cut out of it (representing the whole of the universe at any one moment in time) cannot be explained either by the left or the right side of the remaining cake. Of course, you can explain why the slice has a cocoa insertion in its midst by pointing out that there’s a continuity in the cocoa stream, running all through the cake, but you cannot explain the existence of the slice by appealing to the rest of the cake, since the slice is not the result of either one of the remaining left or right cake pieces. At one point, you have to invoke the baker as an explanation not just for that particular slice but for the entire cake.

I find it ironical that scientists who are very well accredited in their field of expertise fail so miserably when it comes to basic philosophical terminology. As Einstein himself once put it, “a man of science is a poor philosopher”. Both Hawking and Krauss and I’ve personally heard Peter Atkins as well claim that philosophy’s time has run out and that it is science’s turn now to explain the deep mysteries of existence.

As Craig himself once stated, “the one who thinks does not need philosophy is the most apt at being deceived by his philosophical preconceptions”. I think, in this case, those preconceptions pertain to naturalism, the belief that nothing exists outside nature. The above case is clear proof that the arrogance of the self-proclaimed beacons of scientific enlightenment can and does turn into blatant ignorance and ridicule.

Lesson of the day is: be humble and you shall have knowledge, the knowledge of Socrates, the only true knowledge, the knowledge which admits it knows nothing. And no, by “nothing” I don’t mean the quantum vacuum, Mr. Krauss.

As Real as Math Talk

This post is in no way to be taken as absolute truth, its content is merely a sample of my own personal considerations and is therefore subject to error.

We have established in a previous post that physical experience, not the physical universe itself, mind you, but the subjective experience of the physical world, is the result of an encoded communication process, from God, a.k.a. the Mind of the universe, to consciousness, may it be human, animal or maybe even vegetal or some other sort, if applicable.

In this communication process, God acts as Encoder (the Father), Code a.k.a. Logos (the Son) and Decoder (the Holy Spirit).

As in all communication processes, The Encoder always remains hidden and inaccessible directly, but all information originates from Him. However, one doesn’t have access to His ideas or thoughts unless the Encoder expresses them, using language or code.

The Code that the Father uses is the Logos, who is also God the Son. The Father uses the Logos to think and He uses the Logos to speak. The Logos contains, implicitly, every single thought that the Father has ever thought and will ever think and, explicitly, every single word that the Father has ever uttered and will ever utter, in eternity and in history, therefore the information contained within Him is infinite, even though its exterior expression can be finite.

This, by the way, I think, is the reason why God’s best creation may always be something yet to come, not something which already exists. The implicit Logos is infinitely vaster than the explicit Logos and, if God is the ceaseless creator par excellence, then He is also the greatest mystic in existence and a true mystic to existence itself, since He always keeps the best of Him inside, as a project of things to be. Thus, even though the implicit and the explicit Logos are, ultimately, one and the same thing (the language of the Father), the latter constantly enriches its content by drawing on the former, as God creates by speaking up His mind.

However, the Code, the Logos, cannot be understood by consciousness without a proper Decoder – the Holy Spirit. He is the One who makes the Code accessible to living creatures and, also, probably limits the extent to which the Code can be understood, within a certain framework. For instance, an electron may be an electron in this universe because the Decoder translates it as an electron, but, in another dimension, the same electron may be translated as something different to creatures inhabiting that dimension, because the Holy Spirit discloses to them much more of the Logos than He does to beings living in this three dimensional universe or maybe much less or perhaps He just chooses a different meaning altogether, changing the very paradigm of interpretation.

So, even though the expressed Logos of the Father is the same for all creatures, eternal and unchanged, the difference is made by how much of it is being conveyed to living things by the Holy Spirit, within a particular category of interpretation and, of course, by the diversity of these categories across all of creation, in space-time and beyond.

The term “consciousness”, in the context of this post, does not necessarily imply self-awareness, but it does require sensory organs of some sort, by which living organisms perceive and assess the physical environment and turn that perception into an experience, however rudimentary or sophisticated it may be. Remember, I include all living and experiencing things here, from bacteria to humans and inter-dimensional aliens.

To get to know a property of an object means to use your sensory organs which, in my own viewpoint, is equivalent to requesting information about that property, straight from the Mind of the universe, who always delivers the information on a need-to-know basis and within a universe-specific framework only.

Hence, it follows that there would be a polysemy of the Logos in each of the possible universes, depending on the decoding performed by the Holy Spirit onto the living creatures inside those universes.

Everything that is perceived within a given physical universe is the result of a dialog between God and living creatures, whereby creatures request information about the properties of objects by voluntarily or involuntarily using their sensory organs as well as purposely using their free will to look into things, whereas God sets the limits of what can be requested but not of the amount requested (by defining and limiting what our senses can sense but not restricting our free will from knowing what can be known) and also delivers the requested information back to the living creatures.

The mathematical description of what I think is the process of the Logos, decoding into subjective physical experience, can be found below and is consistent with every single quantum physics experiment performed so far, including, but not limited to, the double-slit experiment, John A. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment as well as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (check Wikipedia for them). Bear with me, this might be a little too technical for some readers but, in the end, may prove to be a fun and revealing manner of saying things, using the very language of God, which is and always has been mathematics:

“z” is an idea from the infinite and implicit Logos, the unspoken thoughts of God. It is infinite because there is no boundary to what God can think; “z” can never be the empty set “Ø”, it’s always something rather than nothing.

“w” is a choice variable, representing whether or not God chooses to communicate His ideas into a Platonic concept / property or, in other terms, to put His thoughts into “spoken word”.

“L” is the Logos function, its result determines whether or not an idea of God will become a Platonic concept, such as a purely abstract property (e.g. location, spin etc.).

“n” is the total number of ideas that God has about the properties of a particular object and which God may or may not speak into existence in order to turn them into the abstract properties of that object.

“S” is the function’s co-domain and the domain of all the Platonic concepts ever created by God, by “speaking up” His mind, outside space-time. Another term for it would be “explicit Logos”.

“y” is a choice variable, representing whether or not God chooses to allow knowledge of one property of something. One means we are allowed to know “L(z_j)” – a particular Platonic concept, a particular ideal property of an object, zero means we aren’t.

“L” and “n” have been explained previously.

“P” is the Property function, its result determines whether or not “L(z_j)” – the Platonic property – will potentially come into being as an actual property of a concrete object in the physical universe. However, the coming into being inside the physical world doesn’t have to be mandatory, but only possible. The effective emergence of that property as a concrete one depends on whether or not consciousness gets to know it sooner or later.

“K” is the “P” function’s co-domain and the domain of all the abstract knowledgeable properties which an object of the physical universe has.

“x” is a choice variable, representing whether or not consciousness receives knowledge of a knowledgeable property, either by accident or as a result of manifesting a choice to know. One means consciousness gets to know that property, zero means it doesn’t.

“P” and “n” have been explained previously.

“F” is the informational function of the physical object. It is expressed as the sum of all knowledgeable properties of that object, which have already been made known at the moment when “F” is being computed or will be made known to consciousness in the future. This past, present or future knowledge is what makes the abstract Platonic property come into being as a concrete property of an object inside the physical universe ever since the Big Bang, regardless of whether or not the moment of its being known to consciousness has arrived yet, provided that it certainly will, sooner or later, in the timeline of the physical universe.

“E” represents the “F” function’s co-domain and the domain of all existing concrete properties of just that individual physical object, namely those knowledgeable properties which have or will come to be known to consciousness.

“R” is the informational function of the physical universe or what is commonly known as experienced reality. It is expressed as the sum of all the informational functions of individual physical objects.

“F”, “P” and “n” have been explained previously.

“m” is the total number of objects which God thinks about, regardless of whether or not He ever speaks their properties into existence in order to turn them into abstract properties, ready to be known to consciousness and, thus, later on turned into concrete properties of those objects, within the physical reality.

“U” is the experienced physical universe, the “R” function’s co-domain and the domain of all the objects of the physical reality, which can be known and have been known, up to the moment of time when “R” is being computed, or will be known, at a future time. It is expressed as the sum of all domains of all existing concrete properties of individual physical objects, which have come into being ever since the Big Bang, regardless of whether or not these properties have already been brought to our knowledge, provided that they certainly will, sooner or later, in the timeline of the physical universe.

In the worst case scenario, this sum can be expressed as the empty set “Ø” and the corresponding reality would be one where no object has ever been known by any hypothetical experiencing creature, either because nobody was interested in looking at it or there was never any opportunity to observe it by accident or God decreed that it was never supposed to be known or He simply never spoke its properties into abstract existence.

Rejoicing at the fact that our physical reality is not one such barren wasteland, devoid of content, I keep thinking of all the other universes that haven’t come into existence and feel so privileged to be part of one who has been granted this gift. But whenever you watch in awe at the wonders of our enormous cosmic home, keep this in the back of your mind: the best of God is always yet to come!

On the Nature of Reality

WARNING! This post is in no way to be taken as absolute truth, its content is merely a sample of my own personal considerations and is therefore subject to error.

 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

Did you ever wonder what these words are all about? Is Jesus saying that we can do nothing good or nothing at all without Him? Ever since I came to the realization that the physical universe may be virtual in nature and that everything is a huge communication grid between abstract objects which display concreteness only when talking to each other, I began to ask myself yet another question: What is conscious experience? Not what the universe is, I already pointed out it’s nothing but a huge informational construct, at bottom. I mean subjective conscious experience, our perception of what is, instead of what actually is out there, where does that come from?

Classical scientific explanations point to our brain being the artisan of all of our experiences, yet nobody has ever been able to answer how electricity in our neurons turns into color, sound, scent, taste, tingle. Why do we experience all of these things instead of mere electricity? And how do we do that at all? Or, as University of Arizona philosophy professor David Chalmers asked, “How does something as unconscious as matter give rise to something as immaterial as consciousness?”

I got a first glimpse of the answer from an unlikely source: Perry Marshall, the Google Ad-Words marketing guru, who’s also an electrical engineer, Ethernet expert and self-taught theologian. He is the guy behind this scientific website, which I insistently recommend, and here’s what he said in a post written on his other personal (theology dedicated) website:

“I liken the [Christian] Trinity to a communication system which has encoder, code and decoder (analogy Father, Son and Holy Spirit) – communication does not take place until all three are present. The encoder is the source of the information, the code is the expression and the decoder is the understanding. God is love because God is the desire that melds all three together in perfect harmony.”

He then went on to say the following: “I have an analogy to the [Christian] Trinity that goes like this: I have a cell phone, you have a cell phone, communication takes place ONLY when our phones share the same protocols and are connected. A cell phone all by itself is completely useless, communication is not possible with one cell phone all by itself. Communication involves three parts – sender, message and receiver. God is a community, God communicates and God is love. Love cannot exist if there is not another to love. So God is ONE – in the sense that communication itself is one process – but God is also plural because God communicates and loves by His very nature. So in one sense it seems contradictory but in another sense it’s necessary for God to be plural.”

And, in another one of his posts, on yet another one of his personal websites, he stated: “If we define God as self-aware, then we automatically invoke a splitting […]. Which is where the Trinity comes from. Self, expression of self, and self-understanding (Father / Son = WORD / Holy Spirit).”

Now let me ask you this: is that a stroke of genius or what? Yes, this makes so much sense it explodes in countless colors inside my head. God is a Trinity because he must be in order to love and communicate that love, no communication can ever be done without the three instances: encoder, code and decoder. I’m not sure whether this means that God subjects Himself to the necessity of our known communication model or that the model in question was designed in the image of the Trinity. It’s probably the latter, since God created everything as it is. But the point is this: God is a Trinity specifically because He is a communicating entity, who doesn’t use anything other than Himself in order to communicate. So, He simply must have all three instances of the communication model within Himself if He is to convey His thoughts, will and feelings.

Whether God needs the aforementioned model to express all of the above within the Trinity Itself, I don’t know. But the really nice thing about Perry’s insight is that is extends also onto everything that God relates to. The Holy Trinity is not only communicational toward Itself, it is so with everything else, the entire creation.

There seems to be a necessity relationship between the Trinity attribute of God and the communication attribute of God. The Trinity attribute seems to be a prerequisite for His ability to express anything at all outside of Himself. That goes back to the transcendence of the Divine, not one created thing can really understand the true nature and essence of God, since it is completely unknowable and hidden within the Father. But, in order to help His creation overcome this obstacle and be able to reach God, He expresses Himself and communicates to us similarly to the three instances model: encoder, code and decoder.

This helped me understand that conscious experience is actually God speaking to sentient beings. Out of this constant and continuous input of communication, experience emerges. Still, for the sake of being rigorous, I wanted to see if there were some Scripture verses that would support Perry’s analogy. I found them here:

“But”, he [God] said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20) – This verse refers to God the Father, the encoder of information, to whom nobody has direct access to, unless they would cease to exist and return to the Source, the boundless Mind of God, where they would probably no longer be recognizable as individuals.

“No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (John 1:18) – This verse emphasizes the idea that the only way to know the Father, the encoder or the source of information, without the need to cease individual existence, is through the Son, the language of the Father, who expresses Himself using the Son, or the Word or the code – Jesus Christ.

“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13) – Again, an emphasis on the idea that the only one who has access to the true nature and essence of the Father while remaining a recognizable individual, is the eternal Word of God, the only one able to directly express the will of the Father across all of creation, simultaneously in space-time (“down from heaven”) and outside of it (“in heaven”).

“The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15) – Another way of saying that the Word of God is no more and no less than the only expression of the otherwise inaccessible Father.

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26) – This verse discloses the role of the Holy Spirit as decoder of the information coming from the Father and expressed through the language or the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the one who translates Jesus, the Word of the Father, into human conscious subjective experience, according to the category of our understanding of the Word.

My statement here and now is this: not only does the three instances communication model analogy of the Holy Trinity work for conveying the teachings found in the Bible, it also works for expressing the very nature of reality. The Father is the source of the information found in the Scriptures but also of the information which, at bottom, makes up the universe, as well. The Son is not only the bearer of the Father’s good news of salvation to man, He is also the Code that the Father is using to express Himself when creating the universe. The Holy Spirit is not only the one helping people understand and deepen the meaning of the teachings of Jesus, He is also the one directly responsible for turning electrical signals in our brains into subjective experience such as color, sound, scent, taste and tingle. He is also the one who makes subatomic particles “understand” what other particles are communicating about their properties, in the process of turning abstract objects into concrete physical ones.

Now read again John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”

I submit to you that, if the famous Howard Storm, who allegedly went through a near death experience and came back to give an account of the things angels taught him in heaven is correct, then the creation process is an ongoing one. The universe did not simply come into being 13.77 billion years ago and went on by itself ever since. God keeps recreating everything from one moment to the next, slightly modifying things everywhere, in order to give the appearance of continuity in space-time, or in plain English, to make things appear to move from here to there or transform or change in some way from one second to the next.

If this is true, then the great mystery is, in fact, how all of this is happening without our noticing anything at all. If concrete physical existence is not truly continuous but periodically recreated, then there must be “moments” in time during our lifespan and “distances” in space inside of our own bodies when and where we do not exist. This is a serious offense to our common sense but, it turns out to be true.

Max Planck was the famous physicist who established quantum physics as a field of its own. He was the first man ever in the history of our species to come to the jaw-dropping realization that everything in our universe comes in packets, or, as he called them, quanta (singular “quantum”, the Latin word meaning “amount” in English).

He began by pointing out that atoms only absorb or release fixed amounts of energy whenever component electrons get to a higher or a lower orbit around the nucleus. Later on, it turned out that everything, including matter, energy, space and time, comes in packets, nothing is ever continuous. This is quite obvious for matter, since we can clearly see that all physical objects are limited in their size, however small or large they may be. There’s no single object that extends out in space forever. But to come to the realization that the same is true for everything else, not just matter, that was quite another story. But what does it mean?

Well, “the Planck scale” was a term coined by physicists to designate the smallest possible scale at which space-time still exists as space-time. Anything below that scale goes into quantum gravity theory. At the Planck scale, space-time exists as a grid, a fabric so to speak. Each section of a thread in this fabric is a quantum of space-time, a very, very small portion of space existing in a very, very small amount of time. Between the threads there’s nothing, nothing at all. Moving in space-time means to travel from one consecutive thread section to the next, as well as from one thread to a parallel one, as you would if you were walking on a regular fabric but, in order to get from one thread to a nearby one, you simply need to jump across the nothingness between them.

Since we’re all made of quantized space-time, running on quantized energy, the above is a clear indication that physical existence itself comes in packets and is, therefore, not a continuous but a dotted line.

Of course, this raises the question as to where we are when we are not on any one of the dots that make up the dotted line. Do we simply cease to be, in the moments when our own existence takes a break, between two consecutive dots? Well, the short answer is a blunt yes. The long answer is: we cease to exist as concrete physical entities but we go on as abstract physical entities, only to be reborn again into concreteness, as soon as existence reaches another dot in the dotted line. After all, as I pointed out in my previous post, we are, as physical objects, at the very core, merely informational constructs in a virtual reality. Even when we play video games, there are moments when the game images disappear from sight, when the computer display refreshes the picture, but they go so fast that we never notice it (tech guys know what I mean). But that doesn’t mean the game is not running any longer. The video card is still working, so are all the other components in that computer and all the characters and sceneries of the game still exist on the hard drive and in the RAM memory and in the graphic processor and the data buses between them.

OK, so Planck made the first breakthrough in providing evidence that physical existence does not go indefinitely downscale. You cannot divide a distance or a time span forever, you will eventually hit a wall, the Planck scale wall, beyond which nothing can go smaller. Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise was solved by this bright mind of the 20^th century. But how does that tie in with God as a communicating entity?

Well, quantum physics has helped us understand that physical existence alternates with non-existence all across our so-called objective reality and that the universe, even though started out at the Big Bang, is actually being recreated over and over again, from one quantum of space-time to the next, from one moment to another. And since the fabric of space-time requires all of its threads in their entirety and “at once”, in order to be a fabric, then this means that the quanta of yesterday space-time share the same neighborhood with those of today and tomorrow. But, that sounds very much like Einstein’s theory of relativity claim that the past, present and future coexist simultaneously, because they’ve all been created together, at the same “moment” in “meta time”, which is a made-up term designating God’s timelessness or eternity, which is distinct from our time, since it is not part of our space-time.

In this perspective, the Big Bang would be no more special than any other moment in the history of our universe, it is simply the first dot on a dotted line that already contains all the dots. We can and do exist as human beings even when our existence crosses the nothingness between two dots on this line. Perry Marshall helped me understand how that is possible. It is God who recreates the universe from one moment to another, communicating the next quantum of physical existence to my consciousness and turning His communication into my sentient experience. And He does that by acting as encoder (Father), code/Word/Logos (Son) and decoder (Holy Spirit) of the information which He conveys to me.

The Father communicates with me using the Son as His language and the Holy Spirit as my literature professor, the one who integrates the message into my awareness and turns it into an experience. This seamless process is so smooth and ineffable that we take it for granted, never asking ourselves how it is that electrical discharges in our brains translate into color, sound, scent, taste and tingle but never into electricity. It is the Holy Spirit who does that for us, interpreting the Word to our understanding or, in this case, turning electrical impulses in our brain into human subjective experience.

This shouldn’t surprise us since, as we already know, there’s nothing in the physical world which is actually physical, everything is interpreted communicated information, everything is words spoken by the Father, using the Son as His language, translated by the Holy Spirit to our consciousness. It’s not that there is a cause and effect relationship between the speech of the Father and the creation of the universe, but rather that the universe is, in fact, the speech itself, while our perception of the universe is the Holy Spirit’s interpretation of the Father’s words, which is being conveyed onto us.

This is why Jesus said that apart from Him we can do nothing, because He is the Code and if there is no code, no language for the Father to speak, there’s no creation at all and hence, there’s no us and our actions either. Jesus makes it possible for us to do good and He makes it possible for us to do evil, too. He provides a common framework for both. That does not mean that He wishes for us to do evil but it does mean that He allows for it, He creates the prerequisites which are necessary for us in order to obey as well as to disobey God, if we choose to. That’s the essence of true free will, to be able to do both, if this is what you want.

It’s important to understand that these prerequisites can be used for good or ill indiscriminately. There is no single way in which a man can sin and which can’t be put to good use instead. There is no single activity which is altogether sinful regardless of context, since sin is a parasite on naturalness, it is merely an exaggeration for the less or more or a misplacement of what is good and natural. This is why Jesus’ creation is naturally good but can be distorted when free agents choose to turn it against its own character.

Therefore, when we commit evil against a fellow man, we don’t just wrong him, we also make ourselves guilty before God, because we force Jesus to be a witness to it, not as a side person but as the very engine at the core of the reality in which we play our little pathetic disobeying games.

The Bible calls Jesus “the Word of God”, but the Greek word from which the English “word” comes is “logos”. The Greek term designates more than a mere word, it is, in fact, a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used it for a principle of order and knowledge. In common Greek, it had a semantic field extending beyond “word” to notions such as language, thought, reason, due relation, proportion, and analogy.

Given the case I’ve made so far, it is my opinion that the “Logos” of the Bible, in addition to other meanings it may have, should be understood more as language or code rather than simple word. Jesus would be the language of the Father, while the creation would be the words spoken in this language. Everything that the Father does, He does by speaking up His will, using this code, the Logos, to express that will. This is why the Logos of God is also the action of God.

This code would be directly responsible for establishing the relations between subatomic particles as well as the values of their abstract properties, when they become concrete, as a result of a mutual “dialog” between the particles in question. And it is the Holy Spirit that lets particles “know” of each other and “understand” this “dialog”.

The Father speaks constantly in order to keep this universe and all of His creation in existence and whatever the Father is saying becomes conscious physical experience for all of us, through the intercession of the Holy Spirit. The words of God are the raw material which the objects that make up the universe are, themselves, ultimately made of. It is also God who communicates the abstract properties of each subatomic particle to another subatomic particle and turns them into concrete properties.

Everything is of God and, whenever we sin, we are using His own words, translated by the Holy Spirit to our experience as physical objects, including our own bodies, to turn against Him. That’s why God calls sin an abomination, it literally is like a dog chewing on its own leg.

In conclusion, a rhetorical question: isn’t it wonderful how the proof of God, which atheists have always asked for, is to be found in the very fact that we experience life as a result of God communicating to our consciousness, translating the electricity in our brains into color, sound, scent, taste and tingle?

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.” (Luke 10:21)

On Free Will

WARNING! Understanding this post requires prior knowledge of basic quantum physics and quantum information theory concepts, the double-slit experiment and the delayed choice quantum experiment. Wikipedia and Youtube can help you fill in the gaps on that. This post is in no way to be taken as absolute truth, its content is merely a sample of my own personal considerations and is therefore subject to error.

The history of the universe is a history of the abstract becoming concrete. Every object of reality exists, initially, as an ideal informational construct, comprised of all of its possible properties which are being assigned the maximum potential values or value ranges possible. More is always better than less in an universe that adjusts according to needs.

Experiments upon experiments seem to show that objects of the physical reality are merely collections of quantum bits of information which, in turn, are the result of “correlations without correlata”, as N. David Mermin put it, no concrete property comes into being until the object carrying it is being “interrogated” about it by another object of the physical world. At any given moment in time, an object is a collection of both concrete properties (which have values resulted from previous interactions / “interrogations” with other objects) and abstract properties (which have the maximum possible values or value ranges, which can be adjusted when the property becomes concrete as a result of an interaction / “interrogation” with another object).

Physical reality seems to be nothing more than a huge communication grid between objects whose properties emerge from the “dialog” between them. To put it simply, everything is communication and nothing but communication. The objects themselves are literally nothing but abstractions without the communication between them, they don’t display any physical presence until they start “talking” to each other. It doesn’t even matter what properties they “really” have in the abstract realm, what matters is only what they communicate to other objects about themselves. Everything in the universe will relate to that object according to what the object is communicating, whether it is abstractly accurate or not, if such a condition even makes sense.

It’s important to understand that, even though, as a result of a “dialog” between two objects, some concrete properties may emerge for both of them, the objects will both still be entirely abstract to third objects, until an interaction / “interrogation” with that third object occurs for each of them.

Of course, one could wonder how it is even possible for an object to be partially abstract and partially concrete. This would be equivalent to saying that it is partially existent as a physical object. But how could this be? Well, if we really want to understand this, we must give up on our naive realistic preconceptions. Instead of regarding a particle as an object whose properties exist independently of other objects, a more insightful approach would be to consider that particle as a virtual object, which instantiates into concreteness only those properties of itself which other objects have a need to know during interactions.

Virtual objects exist in a secondary world which is completely distinct from the primary or “real” world and yet entirely built upon the latter. Whatever is abstract in our universe is actually based on something very much concrete, which exists in the primary world this secondary universe is built upon. But, what is that primary world? And where is it, if it even makes sense to ask this question?

I guess the most logical answer would be to say that the primary world is the one God lives in and that God would be using raw material from that world, combined with some clever programming, to build our virtual reality, just like in a video game running on a computer. However, we would be assuming too much, since there is no way to tell if what we believe to be the primary world is not itself a derivative of an even more primary world.

If we can indeed point out that ours is a virtual reality, then we have no evidence whatsoever that any world this universe would be built upon would not be virtual as well. To avoid going into an infinite regress, in our attempt to find the “real” world that everything virtual is built upon, I suppose we could simply postulate that the only “real” and ultimate reality is God Himself and that everything else which exists, which He created, is simply virtual. In our quest for God, we would be confronted with the most perplexing paradox, namely that God, whose existence atheists have always questioned, is actually the only “thing” which “really” exists.

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity suggests that, in our universe, past, present and future coexist simultaneously. Our perception of time as a continuous present would merely be a biological determination, set by God, in order to allow the existence of free will. History has already been written, the future already exists, unchangeable. The history of this universe has been predetermined based on the choices that free agents would make across all the temporal tenses of history’s timeline. The past has been written as a consequence of the pre-knowledge of the present and future, the present has been written as a consequence of the past and the pre-knowledge of the future, the future has been written as a consequence of the past and the present.

Benjamin Libet’s experiments on the human brain have shown that the body reacts instantaneously to stimuli, even before the nervous signal reaches the brain in order to be processed and integrated into the conscious experience. We retrospectively “antedate” the beginning of a sensation to the moment of the primary neuronal response. The sensation does not enter our conscious awareness until about 500 milliseconds after the stimulus, but we subjectively feel that the sensation occurred at the time of the stimulus.

This would mean that, as soon as the stimulus gets recorded by the sensory organs, it travels normally to the brain, where it is correctly interpreted and, after that, the brain projects back into the past a sensation response of the body, at exactly that time when the stimulus was recorded by the sensory organs. The brain’s present interpretation of the input causes a reaction effect in the past.

Libet went on to show that, before someone makes a conscious decision to act, his / her brain already builds up the electrical potential required for the body to comply. Again, unless we presume that free will is an illusion generated by unconscious brain processes that go before conscious experience, this can only be explained if we admit that, as soon as the decision to act is consciously made, the brain “sends back in time” the electrical signals required to align the body’s physical resources with the will to act, so that the moment of decision making and that of acting coincide. In effect, the present brain retro-causes the past brain to prepare the body for action.

John A. Wheeler’s delayed choice quantum experiment also clearly proves that particles’ properties which are being observed at the present moment (such as locality) have already come into existence before the present, specifically as a consequence of the pre-knowledge of their future observance.

The double-slit experiment, initially performed without a measuring device placed at the slits, shows that a particle passes through both slits as a wave, hits the impact screen as a wave but only leaves the mark of a single ball of matter, whose position on the screen is dictated by the shape of the wave front impacted on the screen and the laws of statistical probability.

Before this moment, both the particle and the screen exist as ideal objects from each-other’s perspective, the particle is ideal to the screen and the screen is ideal to the particle, they are both an abstract collection of properties endowed with maximum potential values or value ranges.

When the particle hits the screen, a “dialog” between the particle and the screen occurs, in which both interrogate each-other about their respective properties. The result of this interrogation is the coming into being of interrogated physical properties of both the particle and the screen, but the emergence of these properties occurs before they actually interrogate each other upon collision, namely right before either of the two have set course for each other, provided that no other interactions with third parties occur for neither of them during that traveling time. If such interactions with third parties do occur in the process, then it is possible that physical properties may emerge for the traveling particle in anticipation of those interactions instead of the expected one at the impact screen.

So before the particle even begins its journey towards the screen, through the slits, the properties which the universe knows are going to be interrogated by the screen in the future are already there. The same goes for the screen. Both parties come to the meeting already prepared to have a “conversation”, a mutual exchange of information regarding their properties. They come with their homework already done, they don’t make up stories during their “discussion”.

If the screen has no means to interrogate the locality of that particle, the locality property will remain abstract and assigned a maximum value range (the particle will literally be in all possible places at the same time). But when it hits the screen, it’s being interrogated about how many particles they are, since the number of impacting particles is also an abstract property that needs to become concrete through the interrogation.

At this, the super-positioned particle will reply “we are only one”, then the screen will know that the mark left by that particle on the screen should be pinpointed to just one location, but since the particle has no concrete locality property that the screen knows (because the screen has no means to ask that question), the actual position of the mark left by the particle on the screen will be dictated not by the location of the particle hit on the screen (which is abstract and undefined), but by the rules of statistics and probability, applied to the impacting wave front.

One thing that I think has been misunderstood is the idea that the wave impacting the screen is a probability wave. I think it’s actually a space-time wave, the fabric of space-time oscillates and that oscillation propagates from the particle’s point of origin, through the slits, and to the screen. It is only the impact position of the particle on the screen that is dictated by probability. Probability is not the actual “stuff” that the wave is made of, space-time is. Particles are, essentially, portions of oscillating space-time fabric that are being allocated a certain amount of energy.

Also, the space-time wave in question doesn’t propagate unidirectionally toward the impact screen but goes, instead, in all possible directions, even backwards from the point of origin. The only reason why it is just the screen that makes a record of the impact is the fact that the particle’s direction of motion is also an abstract property which is being instantiated into concreteness as a consequence of the foreknowledge of the future collision. And since the screen is set in a particular place in space (established through previous interactions with other objects), the only value which the particle’s direction of motion abstract property will take when it becomes concrete is the one that ensures the impact with the screen. If there had been no screen (or any other object to be hit for that matter), then the particle would not even go in that direction, even if being shot in that direction.

If you were alone in a universe, just you and an automated gun placed in front of you, with its muzzle away from you, programmed to fire forwards, in the opposite direction of where you stand, but without you noticing it, either by sight, hearing or any other sense, then the bullet would come out of the muzzle and hit back at you, even if you were in the exact opposite direction. That’s because the universe knows there is nothing in front of the gun even before it’s being fired, and since everything propagates in all directions, the bullet would hit the only thing which exists in the universe other than itself, and that’s…you. It wouldn’t hit back at the gun itself, because it shoots out of it, making the gun a reference frame for its motion, as departure point.

The gun would already know the direction of the bullet’s propagation by virtue of entanglement, the atoms of the gun having previously interacted with the atoms of the bullet, thus instantiating (disclosing) the bullet’s direction abstract property both for the bullet, as well as for the gun, making the bullet coming back at the gun impossible (at least in our perception of time as uni-directional).

The only way to avoid getting yourself killed in this setup is if you see or hear the gun going off. Or if you’re holding it yourself. That’s because you would then become part of the entangled system made up of the gun and the bullet, so you would also have knowledge of the direction of the bullet, through your senses.

It would be interesting to observe what would happen in this latter case though: here you are, firing a gun forwards, in a universe that contains no target for the bullet. So where does the bullet go ? Well, it shoots forward but, as soon as it leaves the muzzle, it goes into wave-function mode indefinitely, ceasing to be a concrete physical object.

Coming back to the particle, of course, if it interacts with another object which has the ability to interrogate and thus instantiate the particle’s direction of motion abstract property, before the particle reaches the screen (such as a measuring device placed at the slits), then the above reasoning applies to that particular object instead of the screen.

In the double-slit experiment, if we place a measuring device on one of the slits, allowing us to see which slit that particle actually goes through, then that particle seemingly impacts the screen as a localized object instead of as an object riding a wave front. In establishing the impact pinpoint, the rules of probability are no longer being applied.

The explanation of this is that the measuring device at the slits interrogates the passing particle as to its location. Because of that, the abstract property of location becomes concrete and is being assigned a concrete value but not when being measured but right at the particle’s point of origin, in the past. The measuring acts simply as a trigger for a past event. The concrete location coordinates of that particle, starting at its point of origin, will continue to change until the particle reaches the measuring device at the slits, but the concrete character of the location property will come into being at the particle’s point of origin.

What needs to be understood though is that even in this case the particle will still pass through both slits as a space-time wave and will impact the screen as such, with the difference that, in this case, even though the screen doesn’t have the means to interrogate the position of the particle, the particle will still display its location coordinates, because they have become concrete values since the particle’s point of origin, as a result of being interrogated in the future by the measuring device placed at the slits.

It’s important to note that the same scenario happens even when the measuring device is placed at only one slit and the measured electron passes through the other, unattended slit. That’s because, as I’ve already mentioned, the electron comes in as a wave, reaches both slits, including the one where the measuring device is found, and then the electron’s position is being instantiated as a result of the “dialog” of the wave with that device. The result of this “conversation” may well be that the electron declares his concrete position to be at the unattended slit, not at the slit where the measurement is being made.

If quantum information theory is correct, then measurement and entanglement are actually the same thing. Measuring a particle’s properties creates an entanglement between the observer and the observed. From then on, both parties take a commitment to preserve the concreteness of those properties they’ve communicated to each other. This commitment is being kept even when each party goes on to interact with other objects in the future and it is in fact the mechanism which ensures the consistency of the physical universe.

Thus, entanglement between the observer and the observed makes it possible for two people to notice the white color of a sheet of paper even when they don’t observe it at the same time. It suffices that the first one takes a look at the paper sheet and, from then on, it is sure that everyone else looking at it will see the same thing as the first observer. The paper sheet will not be perceived as white simply because it carries the property of being white but because somewhere in the universe another observer has already noticed that the paper sheet was white and is now carrying that information with him. The existence of that first observer and his quality as a former observer of the white sheet of paper ensures that all future observers will see the same thing as he did the first time. All properties of all objects exist only in relationships.

The really nice thing though is that there is no reason to restrict entanglement’s effects only across space and not also across time. “Spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein called it, refers to distance in space-time, not just space. In fact, we would be able to explain the retro-causality observed in Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment by pointing out that entanglement makes it possible to “bind” the observer and the observed in the past, even though the act of observing is being performed in the present or in the future.

So, if the past, present and future coexist simultaneously, then this means that every particle in the universe is not simply a little ball of matter moving around, it’s in reality the sum of all of its properties and property values at all moments in time throughout history. If we could see an electron as it really is from outside space-time, it would look like a cord unfolding through the universe, twisting and turning, with one end at the Big Bang and the other at the end of future space-time, each point on this “cord” being a collection of all of the electron’s concrete properties, such as position, spin, energy level, at a particular moment in time.

Since we are all made of such particles, that means we’re all made of such “cords” and, therefore, to say that it’s possible to go back in time using our present day bodies is to deny the continuous nature of the space-time that our body particles are made of. One simply cannot carry an electron from our present day body back into the past unless the exact properties of the electron in the present overlap with the exact properties of the same electron in the past. At any moment in time, there’s just one informational object called “electron X” in existence. Its properties may be indeterminately abstract or determinately concrete or a sum of both but the object itself is just one. Going back in time for a particle must necessarily mean going back in space, too. It’s the only way to ensure consistency of the particle’s properties throughout time.

Coming back to why we cannot perceive the future and how this is related to free will, I think that, if we accept that all temporal tenses coexist simultaneously, then this would mean that there’s absolutely nothing we can do at any moment of the present time to change any moment of the future. The future already exists, unchangeable, even before we decide what it should look like. Some fatalists might say that’s proof that there’s no such thing as free will, all is predetermined. To a certain extent that may sound reasonable but overall it is profoundly wrong.

Since God created all time and all tenses coexist simultaneously, and since Wheeler’s delayed choice quantum experiment as well as Libet’s experiments on the human brain clearly show that causality appears to have a retroactive effect, from the present to the past, then this means that God created both the past and the future so that they both reflect choices made by free agents in the present. But the price we must pay in order that we may remain free in an universe whose history is already set and unchangeable, is our inability to foresee the future.

This inability is also proof that free will is not an illusory product of our deterministic brains, since there is simply no reason why we should not be able to foresee our already existing future, except for the case when free will is actually real and necessary.

Had it been any other way, we would justifiably argue that we don’t carry the responsibility for our future sins, as it would appear we have no alternative but to commit them. In addition, we would be able to make deliberate choices in the present that would knowledgeably produce future effects that would contradict what we would know in advance would happen for certain in a changeless future. But that would give rise to an inherent temporal incoherence in the universe, which would nullify its changeless nature.

This is why, in order to preserve that changelessness, God has forbidden free agents to know their own future but has devised instead a mechanism by which both the past and the future are being constructed based on the present choices of free agents, thus making it possible for free will to exist and for free agents to carry the responsibility for their actions, at any moment in time.

So, if it’s true that everything which was created by God is virtual in nature, then who or what decides which abstract properties of a particle may become concrete? Who or what decides what an object communicates about itself? Is it the object itself or someone else on its behalf? A subatomic particle has no cognition of its own in order to make arbitrary choices by itself. If we agree that God is in fact the one communicating on the object’s behalf, then our physical universe is entirely a stage set by Him for the physical play that we’re part of.

This stage would be set in advance by keeping a pre-record of all the choices made by free agents across all tenses of our universe’s timeline, so that, regardless of what we may choose to do at one moment in time, the outcome of our actions, combined with the physical prerequisites already set a priori by God, would always lead to the play ending precisely as God had planned it to end, since before it even started.

Thus, free will would cease to be regarded as a possibly illusory product of our deterministic brains and therefore of our physical universe and would instead start to be seen as a handler of our God created reality, much like a gamer interacts with a video game developed by a third party software company.

The catch is, no matter what the gamer does, the game always ends up the way the developer intended it to end. The one lesson we should never allow ourselves to forget is that, however many players may be playing out there, it’s always God that wins. We can only choose to be on the sure winner’s team or the losers’ team. Too bad there’s no replay button for those who feel too lucky.