December, 2013

N. Huntley, Ph.D.

There is clearly a need for a scientific theory of creation. There are many established subjects that current science fails to explain adequately and, in fact, ignores completely as not even valid or worthy of consideration. For example: spirituality, religion, the paranormal, nature of consciousness and mind. We don't even have a proper science of mind—the brain is the principal focus. Mainstream scientific community will point out that the mind is merely a by-product of the brain; and even more disastrous, that consciousness' causative role in life is an illusion—and again a by-product of the brain.

We might note that we have scientific theories of the universe and life, for example, the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution, but no one has produced a science of creation. We may well ask why. Science will state it is simply because scientific methodology cannot accept or tolerate a non-scientific term such as ‘God'; that is, a concept which is a substitute for everything without explaining anything.

The New Science, however, can do much better than this. The more scientifically-inclined individual tends to think that a disagreement with religion must take an opposite standpoint to that subject. This is actually not a very rational response and this is what creates the atheist. The atheist is simply opposing religious dogma, that is, he or she is only opposing a religious interpretation—which may be an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne in the sky. If there were no inadequate religious descriptions of God, Atheists would probably be agnostics. Atheists are generally intelligent people and when they become aware of the incredible physics of the inner-space regions of the holographic fractal system, interest in a completely different direction will be awakened.

The word ‘creation' relates of course to religion, based on a world created by God. We shall be using science as far as possible to develop this viewpoint. Firstly, why can't we just bring together science and religion. These two subjects should be a single body of knowledge, but they have been set up in a polarity relationship; each will destroy the other if a reconciliation is attempted on that level. Science is imbalanced towards the objective, and even tries to eliminate all subjectivity. Religion is biassed towards subjectivity—beliefs and faith—with the dangers of falsehoods being introduced knowingly or unknowingly. The objective and the subjective are two sides of the same coin—you can't have one without the other. A proper academic course on the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity would resolve many issues, including the greatest scientific debate between Einstein and Bohr. (Ref.1)

In reconciling science and religion one must find the hidden contexts that are in conflict and then introduce the higher-order context, which then places each of science and religion in proper perspective—each is then a partial quantum reduction of the higher context and can be unified within this context, forming, say, a spiritual science or whatever one wishes to call it. This is explained in other works by the author. (2)

As far as possible we shall conform to acceptable scientific protocols in formulating a theory of creation, even leave out the word ‘God' and let the reader contemplate this meaning. In any theory of creation it is so easy to fall into the trap of ‘infinite regression', meaning in this case to question what came before. When an origin requires some explanation one can so easily expose the inadequacy by asking, ‘What came before that?' And repeatedly go into an infinite regression.

A theory of creation must satisfy as far as possible all tests of truth in physics—dualism, infinite regression, preferential formats, generalisations and symmetry, etc. Fortunately we have terms acceptable to science, such as ‘infinite' and ‘absolute', both of which do not evoke a prior cause. Mainstream science studies essentially the particle interpretation of reality, and any wholeness is simply an aggregate of particles held together (or interacting) through forces. This is a composite whole and not a true whole or integration. In a composite whole, the whole equals the sum of the parts. In a natural or harmonic whole—all features of natural creation—the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The latter case is the key to life and ultimately a valid creation theory.

A proper study of the relationship between the whole and the part would be found very revealing and, in particular, the recognition of the whole as an undivided unity—a quantum state. Note that the New Science Theory of Creation recognises (as does orthodox science) the wavelength as a natural whole unit—that it can't be divided. (Though in fact it would be made up of particles below even the recognised subatomic realm, all functioning coherently for one large quantum pulse; the wave is switching on and off—amplitude increasing and decreasing—as it propagates in wave form.)

As more observations are made and evidence gathered on the whole/part relationship it will become clear that the whole is hierarchically dominant over the part.* The whole will be the master control over the part, whether it is an organ (whole) over the cell (part) or a president over the lower ranks, or the wholeness of a work of art as opposed to the part level (say, bits of paint stuck together by forces), or the holographic learning pattern in skills, spanning a group of movements, rather than individual motions—independence of fingers is achieved by increasing control via greater wholes of movements. (3) *[Use the figures at the end of the article where helpful.]

We thus find that there is a special relationship between integration (whole) and differentiation (parts) and that this combines with holographic fractal principles. Thus if the part/whole relationship within nature and the universe is fractal and holographic we then know that all systems of creation begin with the whole, and then divide into parts, for example, the highest fractal level of a tree is the tree trunk (whole), which comes before the twigs (part).

In fact all that mainstream science has to do to reverse its fundamental tenets (in the correct direction) is to recognise the significance of the structures, holographic and fractal, and how they relate to creation—for example, the learning pattern in skills, which is a 4D holographic template that houses programmes and converts nonlinear information into linear information. In fact the learning pattern is an ideal example of the relation between integration and differentiation, which clearly indicates the whole determines the part. (4) The whole (a large wave) carries the smaller parts (fractal waves). (5)

A thorough research into the workings of the learning pattern by the author shows that accuracy and fine control over actions (differentiation) is greater the greater is the organisation. The wholeness, quantum state, or the amount of movements spanned as one whole is the determining factor. For example, in keyboard technique, the more movement activity the learning pattern can span simultaneously (integration), the greater the independence (differentiation) of finger action. (6) There is an extremely important relationship between integration and differentiation. (7)

Let's say this again in a much simpler example. A stimulus response association between two elements; for example, in Pavlov's experiments with dogs, the two items to be associated are bell sound (stimulus) and salivating (response). These two factors don't just stick together as science appears to assume, with no logical explanation. The connectivity is frequency resonance and is achieved by a single quantum state of consciousness or attention. The attention must span the two events in time, bell sound and salivation to form the connection—of which the two factors stimulus and response are then under the control of a third component, a single quantum state (see triad principle (8)).

Why doesn't science recognise these greater wholes, these coherent states? Simply because the method of detection used, scientific methodology, is in itself a lower order than these coherent states, causing collapse of the wave function to the particle level. The mind and consciousness only, can potentially access higher orders without this quantum reduction (collapse) to lower truths. Science is failing to recognise the natural principle of orders and their degrees. (9)

The whole, however, even if a coherent energy state, is still quantitative and fails the infinite regression test. It would thus be unacceptable physics to regard this as a true beginning, even if we called it the ‘Holy Spirit' (think of a homogeneous unified field everywhere). We must go beyond this, that is, beyond particles/antiparticles, waves, frequency patterns, space and time, since these are all characteristics of a relative system and are quantifiable.

We must introduce concepts that science cannot question by asking, for instance, ‘But what came before that?' Fortunately we have the ‘absolute' term and ‘infinity' or ‘infinite', such as in the ‘quantum realm of infinite possibilities'. Both states ‘absolute' and ‘infinite' are acceptable within science. A beginning state, which is absolute and infinite, cannot have any degree of objectivity since the latter means there is separation. This ‘separation' would immediately imply a finite condition, such as containing particles, waves, space and time.

The Absolute must thus contain ‘nothing'* since everything that is something is finite. The Absolute (also called the 'Unmanifest') will be infinitely subjective from a scientific viewpoint and this is, in effect, science's definition of ‘nothing'. However, in the New Science Theory of Creation this absolute infinite is very ‘substantial'. For example, it includes the quantum realm of infinite potential possibilities. *[Note the inverted commas here: There can be no such thing as actually nothing.]

The model of God and all creation is most simplified by the fractal-tree analogy explained thoroughly in the author's other material. The God concept is clearly at the tree trunk fractal level. We would now imagine three large branches extending from the trunk (the triad principle or the Trinity) (10) and continuing to multiply in fractal levels, branches to twigs. This is a template, a formatting system to provide different degrees of orders for different aspects of consciousness to explore by activating and selecting from its infinite possibilities within the quantum realm.

The most important concepts of knowledge on this planet tend to be presented in reverse—to put it bluntly. The obvious one is that life comes from matter, rather than as in the New Science that matter (a much lower order) comes from life (high order). This might be considered to lead to the ultimate enigma, or simply a joke on mankind. Observations on the basis of the top-down principle (‘trunk' first) and not science's bottom-up (‘twigs' first) principle, tell us that we begin with the Infinite and Absolute. Then from this, quantum-reduce this highest state, that is, format it, to produce finite properties in a scale of decreasing subjectivity (and therefore increasing objectivity), a gradient change from internal to external, forming dimensional levels in this holographic fractal system for the exploration of consciousness. For this system, the Absolute must express in relative terms.

The Absolute must go from an infinite condition to a finite one if it is to explore its infinite possibilities. This is achieved by interface systems between the absolute and relative; the holograph and fractal mechanisms satisfy this requirement. The fractal gradient is achieved by imagining extending out ‘telescopically' the different orders inherent within the holograph. This results in a gradient of increasing degrees of objectivity as we move away from the subjectivity of the Absolute down this scale. In effect, the Absolute expresses outwards/downwards by an incremental system of imposed limitations.

How does the Absolute create these limitations? Firstly since this is a theory of creation we can take the liberty of resorting to thought as primary. All the Absolute has to do is to counteract a portion of itself, which manifests two opposing flows. This state, experientially, is the same as denying that portion. This action creates a degree of objectivity (one part of Absolute self separates from another).

Now the big problem for science here is the dualism of the Absolute (which has potential energy), that is non-physical, and the relative states of existences (particles, waves, space and time). How can Absolute ‘nothing' achieve a ‘something'? Taking liberties with creation's thought process we can mitigate this objection by considering there is a kind of condensation (catalytic action). On this basis we can present a weak analogy for this (in particular, it must not have dualism in it, itself).

Consider the two states of matter, solid and vapour. We can use a fine mist (water droplets) for the vapour and consider it invisible, and in dualistic contrast use ice as the solid. We imagine that through ignorance we consider there is a dualism between these apparently incompatible aspects, the solid, and an intangible one, the vapour. To us of course there is no dualism, the vapour is a different state and can be condensed into water, then frozen into ice. Thus the idea is that the Absolute, by thinking outside itself (looking at self or denying a part) by counteraction, creates a degree of objectivity—a separation giving the first essence of energy (which is a flow) and matter (which is balanced counteracting flows).

Let us return now to the subject of creation and its constructive limitations. Keep in mind the triad principle in which a single overseeing state can act independently of the divided parts, which automatically manifest a lower status. That is, the two opposing states of the Absolute, denying a portion of itself, are automatically overshadowed by the original (undivided) Absolute. In fact the Absolute is extended into countless portions, atoms, plants, races, planets, etc. with a fractal gradient of overseeing levels all the way back to the Source, the undivided Absolute.

When one part counteracts another part of itself, a degree of objectivity is created and a separate viewpoint manifests. Each doesn't know the other across that separation but if there is access to the whole Absolute ‘above', then they may take on the whole, the original One again. This counteraction, two opposing flows, forms the basis of polarity, a balanced condition which prevents the motion (waves/energy) from dispersing and thus creates stable structures. The second significant step would be to form the structure of a template (for a particular form). A template would be a specific mathematically-organised morphogenetic field. The same flows that created this would be passed into this form-holding pattern/mould bringing about manifestation.

We imagine now the extension or divisions continuing down the fractal scale, forming dimensional levels with barriers imposed between levels to prevent all the parts from merging back into Source. These constructive limitations are of course very much manipulated by negative beings, for example, the natural dimensional separation between the 3D spectrum (our world) and the higher 4D spectrum—the soul level—is abused, controlled, and reinforced, creating a barrier. (11)

Thus the different degrees of these ordered dimensions are created by the Absolute imposing different degrees of not-knowing by the counteraction principle from which degrees of separation (of the Absolute) are achieved, with subsequent objectivity (resulting in portions becoming a state of unconsciousness relative to another).

In considering the return of portions of consciousness back to Source, we see that basic intelligence and evolution is ascension to higher orders (of the holographic fractal multiverse). In religion this is what holiness means, becoming more holy; more whole (of consciousness), a higher order. Higher orders are achieved by qualitative states of behaviour, which quantum regenerate greater wholes.(12) By creating integration within the lower level, that is, harmony and alignment (for example, putting parts into resonance), the inherent higher orders (that already exist) are catalysed, that is, drawn in and the state is raised to that higher level—the higher the order, the greater the frequency.

Thus cosmic creation is a system of formatting the Absolute into relative quantities (entities, such as atoms, planets, species, etc.), containing a portion of that absolute. The formatting technology is the template. This will act like a mould, selecting the different finite orders required from the absolute ‘medium' of infinite nonlinear possibilities for the exploration of consciousness. (The ocean analogy described in other work is useful.) (13)

The interface between the input mind (that portion of the Absolute) and the mind mechanism itself is actually like the perfect, or ultimate, cyborg system (in principle). That portion of the Absolute, for example, the human pure consciousness (not soul since this includes higher orders of mind) is extended (also similar in principle to bionics) by the machinery of particles and waves, so subtly that one can't tell where it changes from ‘nothing' the nonquantifiable, to the ‘something', the quantifiable. This is what science should be studying; the interface between the Absolute and the relative---the answers to everything lie in this interval. [The author, in studying the nature of the learning pattern in skills, using introspection, identified by direct inner perception the interface between the input consciousness and the learning pattern (mind computer system).]

The fractal law allows specific levels (degrees of order) of the extended holograph to be quantum-reduced into material existences in which formatted portions of the Absolute express in a specific dimension. This can be a dimensional framework, such as 3D or a physical organic vehicle (human body), consisting of particles, waves, space and time. This is a formatting procedure so that the subjective infinite Absolute can express in finite ways to extract its possibilities. Thus the fundamental purpose of life is simply existence in finite realities for the exploration of the absolute infinite possibilities (there are of course other purposes: missions, contracts, programmes).

This is a creation theory but as far as possible it is being made compatible with science and scientific terminology, allowing of course for a fundamental turn around in the cause and effect principle, that is, New Science's top-down instead of science's bottom-up.

The first basic clarification for the foundations of a creation theory is that science must recognise that in life, surrounding us ubiquitously, there are a few nonquantifiable characteristics. Let us list these and the quantifiable properties.

Nonquantifiable aspects:
The ‘aliveness' property; the experiential characteristic; and basic sentience or awareness/consciousness.

Quantifiable aspects:
Particles, waves, field systems, frequency patterns, holographic and fractal systems, templates, universes, mind, brain, body, all energy patterns whether detectable by scientific method now or after millions of years of development in scientific instrumentation.

Nonquantifiable characteristics are direct properties of the Absolute and can never be detected by scientific methods. A relative can never evaluate or understand an absolute. However, since all life's aspects, consciousness in different forms, are portions of the Absolute, life can (or we can) intuitively know such a state by its own nonquantifiable characteristics; the experiential or basic awareness/sentience/knowing by being.

What else can be evaluated from the fundamentals? As we have implied, the holographic fractal system is a natural product of formatting an interface between the Absolute and the relative. Can we derive anything further from this? The infinite Absolute of no particles, waves, or space and time must be considered to be infinitely nonlinear (a difficult concept). The Absolute cannot really be divided since it is inherently holographic and infinitely nonlinear. When any separation or objectivity appears to occur, every part, no matter how small, contains the whole and manifests on a lower dimensional level of the fractal organisation of ordered natural limitations (dimensions, degrees of freedom/randomness). The total state of knowing is not proportionately available except by ascension up the fractal hierarchy.

This is where we arrive at expressions such as: ‘Everything is everywhere at once;' ‘As above, so below, as within, so without; 'What is here is everywhere, what is not here is nowhere'. Each part is everywhere in the whole—the whole has no right or left, or up or down, or front or back. Thus the Absolute expresses out by a system of imposed limitations.

How can we justify assuming that the Absolute is infinitely nonlinear? If it wasn't it wouldn't be complete and would have finite aspects, meaning something or something has ‘preferred' a beginning state (that the origin has already been selected, implying an earlier cause). This would thus fail as a ‘test of truth' in physics. ‘Tests of truth' are reliable, for example, ‘generalisation'. If a principle (or law) explained a few phenomena, and then we find it generalises to more phenomena, its degree of truth is increasing (since it is a higher order than first evaluated). Or if one scientist discovers particles are spherical, and another scientist says they are cylindrically shaped, then we go for the spherical, since it is the same shape for all observers/viewpoints (moving round the object). The cylinder has a preferential axis, that is, will be rejected as not being fundamental. This is similar to comparing the relative encoding system (selected by man) of our computers, which is algebraic in nature; not natural as is the case of nature/mind that utilises geometry, a universal absolute system. The basic geometry is spheres within spheres (higher-dimensional vortices). We can easily see the fractal levels of a tree (twigs, branches, larger branches to trunk), they are projected out in 3D from the hidden vortices within inner space, which would appear as spinning spheres within spheres and be recognised as holographic. The universe would be similar but more complex. (14)

As we have implied, the holographic mechanism is a composite system of different orders, and the fractal scale begins with the highest order (for example, trunk of a tree). We might see some similarity between this description of the holograph (with different orders), and the hierarchy of universe dimensions created from the infinite nonlinear Absolute.

Thus anything less than infinite completeness (infinitely nonlinear) has a preference and must be unacceptable in a sound and logical theory. Realise that normal thinking assumes that an imaginary solid 3D uniform entity is complete (totally ‘filled in'). But the simultaneity, the superposition and the superimposition in an infinitely nonlinear manner gives an imaginary infinite density. Thus all creation must be a (quantum) reduction from the greatest whole to finite, formatted aspects appropriate to the dimension to be explored; that is, assigned to a corresponding limitation for the exploration of its infinite possibilities. These states are limited orders in a limited dimension with prospects of ascension to greater possibilities and orders.

How might this universe system or cosmos begin? Retaining a logical approach as far as possible we can say that western religion, starting with ‘God' (creator of all), ‘projects out' the Trinity (Holy Spirit, Father and Son). In the New Science, the first state, Spirit, would be a neutral energy state. This state would of course be subject to considerable physics speculation---scalar energy would be our best choice. However, we can call it the unified field from which everything springs—the who