All Just Is, E.C.Nemeth [important books to read .TXT] 📗

The one cannot precede the other.
That is the absolute foundation of truth.
But our understandings do not fall into the category of the absolute. Our understandings are finite and time-bound. They are limited and prone to inaccuracy. We employ our logic based on the truth of the moment to increase our knowledge of the next larger truth. Then we update our logic based on the truth of the new moment which further reveals the next higher truth, and so on. Our logic and our truth are in lock-step with each other. When one evolves a step higher the other naturally follows.
In this way our perceptions, the way we see and experience the world around us, are past-based. That is: what we will see depends on what we have seen. The truth of tomorrow, then, in our way of assembling knowledge, is directly influenced by what we know of the past.
Buried in the above statement is the key understanding. The issue is not so much that the past should influence the future at all but that the past understanding influences what we will tomorrow understand. For that immediately raises the possibility that if our past understanding is incorrect then all our future understandings will necessarily also be incorrect. In other words: It is imperative to base our understandings on the most irreducible truth, the most fundamental kernel of knowledge if we hope to arrive at the ultimate truths.
There have been many great thinkers throughout history and they have all found themselves coming back to answer one basic question that they realized must be resolved before any subsequent theories could be formulated. The question has to deal with whether determinism rules supreme in the universe or if mystical events called miracles could intervene and alter otherwise unbreakable laws. Determinism is the belief in the immutability of the cause and effect relationship – a state that cannot exist if miracles are possible.
Rational thinking may not begin with the question, ‘Is there a God?’, but all rational thought eventually finds it necessary to answer that exact querry before any coherent universal model can be postulated. Rational thought, or logic, seeks to find the most elementary condition of anything under scrutiny in order to establish an irrifutably sound base from where further observations can be made. These additional studies will then be dependant on the initial conclusion and any future observations will base their conclusions on all the facts that preceded it.
Simply put: logic depends absolutely on its initial conclusion – that kernel of truth chosen as the most irriducible concept, the ultimate statement of reality and by extension of existence itself.
Science, which is also the world’s contempory viewpoint, has answered the above question long ago but its choice has been kept a virtual secret. By choosing determinism, the immutability of the cause and effect relationship, as its most basic tenet science answered the question of ‘Is there a God?’ with a resounding ‘No!’. But science cannot account for all of its own observations and so its model of the universe, the so-called standard model, is obviously somehow in error.
Science’s model is virtually Newtonian, with slight alterations to include aspects of Einstein’s Relativity Theory. There are many small-scale effects, also aspects of the Relativity Theory, that the standard model simply cannot account for without major revisions. At the other end of the spectrum Cosmology has progressed to the point where observations seem to indicate that perhaps the Newtonian model needs to be modified at the largest scales as well.
It is the repercusions of Einstein’s Relativity Theory, which science calls Quantum Theory, that has wreaked havoc on science’s standard model. Newtonian physics is slowly losing its grip on the reality of our contempory viewpoint. But it will not go quietly into the night of ignorance. Our everyday experiences reinforce it. The weight of it presses in on our chests and pins us to the ground. Yet quantum repercusions run so counter to our expectations that science has found the need to coin the term ‘counter-intuitive’ to describe it.
However, by definition, if a fact or observation is counter-intuitive then the logic being employed is flawed. If the logic is flawed then the standard model must be in error. If the standard model is in error then the premise it is based on must be capable of further reduction. Which means that determinism is not the most basic truth of reality.
Science refuses to accept this. Quantum Theory has existed for almost one hundred years now and contemporary wisdom still insists that quantum theory must be stuffed into the standard model and forced to fit. But it is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – it just won’t go. It doesn’t matter if the hole is described as ‘a seemingly round hole that is actually square’ or if the peg is explained as ‘looking square when it is actually round’, the two remain incompatible, period.
The fact is that to uncover the truth it must be recognized and acknowledged when it is encountered. That is often very difficult to do. History can supply many instances of the refusal of the contemporary viewpoint to alter its ‘standard model’ in light of some new, incontrovertible fact. For instance that the world was not flat took a long time to assimilate into the new standard model and not before many were ridiculed or worse by their detractors.
By choosing determinism as its basic truth science voted to believe in the outside world, the world of the finite. There are many observably discrete phenomena in this universe, that cannot be denied. The problem lies in two directions. One, it is impossible to establish the absolute threshold of any particular phenomenom. That is, it is not possible to describe where a phenomenom ends and another begins with absolute precision. And two, it is extremely difficult to describe the actual manifold or container that upholds or supports all the discrete observable phenomena in the universe; it is very hard to answer the question of what is the medium that underlies, or is the space between, all phenomena.
In the contemporary viewpoint that medium is the vacuum of space. Yet that vacuum is poorly understood. It is in fact mostly taken for granted.
Einstein demonstrated that time and space are intimately linked. The standard model now refers to the vacuum as the space/time continuum. But even that understanding has seemingly illogical, or counter-intuitive ramifications of which the concept of the black hole and the singularity are but two related examples.
In the same way that a gas or liquid will take on the shape of its container, so too does the universal manifold influence the properties of all phenomena. It becomes imperative, therefore, to understand the manifold in order to understand the phenomena it supports.
In the context of the universe we observe around us, the most irriducible concept is the universal manifold itself. Yet in the context of the universal manifold there are still a number of further refinements possible. And even in the context of those refinements more precise observations would lead to other refinements. It is this ‘infinite regression’ that ultimately must be addressed.
All observations inevitably succumb to the quandary of the infinite regressive argument, except for one. Whether or not it is provable or desirable, regardless of its logical ramifications, the fact remains that in order to follow rational thought to its only possible conclusion is to state that:
GOD MUST EXIST.
Only one final consideration needs to be understood. Since God exists as first cause there is no first cause for God. So God just is, was and always shall be. (It is for this reason that the initial moment to be considered by this work is the actual moment before the creation of the universe.) With the above in mind it becomes possible to refine the basic truth to: ‘God exists and is first cause’.
With that declaration as the starting point it becomes possible to construct a model of reality that is comprehensive and absolutely logical.
If God exists and we concede the obvious fact that the universe exists we can extrapolate and deduce the initial condition of the universe. First the properties of the universal manifold can be logically arrived at and then the properties of all phenomena as well.
So if God exists then logic will naturally dictate how the universe must have come into being.
The success of science’s technologies proves that the contemporary viewpoint is close to the true picture of reality. It must only be skewed slightly in order for science to have such a remarkable track record. For that reason much of the logic employed throughout this book will still resemble the logic of science, as it would inevitably have to.
That then is the basic premise of this book and its pervue.
This work relies on the fact that God exists and employs that position as its reference point in order to explore the necessary steps of creation that consequently resulted in the universe we observe around us today.
Many interesting conclusions result from adhering to this stance. First, life is given a preferred position, awareness is granted exalted status and sentience becomes the most important concept of all. Second, the purpose behind all of creation becomes evident and the discrete phenomena of the manifest universe are put into the proper perspective. Lastly, the eventual goal of creation is also illuminated.
Besides these ideas the book explores philosophical concepts that have plagued mankind since the origins of rational thought. For example, the nature of good and evil are revealed as well as how they relate to the way in which we construct our experiences. Some time honored beliefs will be shattered outright while others will be redefined so that their original forms will become virtually unrecognizable.
Overall, while the universal model will have undergone an almost complete overhaul, the world we are all used to will still remain. What will have changed, however, is our attitudes, our perceptions.
Our perceptions, after all, is what reality truly is.
INTRODUCTION

What is the purpose of life?
It would be much easier to begin with this question if science had not relegated life to a mere roll of the dice, a chance occurrence, a million to one shot. But it can still be successfully argued that this is in fact the starting point.
First off, we must establish and accept that the human mind is capable of grasping universal truths. This must be a foregone conclusion because if we cannot recognize and understand truth there is simply no reason to discuss anything. In this context the human mind is synonomous with sentience and sentience is basically the awareness of being. Therefore, sentience, the awareness of being aware, is fundamental with regard to any discipline or system involved in uncovering the truth.
There are also levels of truth that are distinct and many times in contradiction with other levels of truth. It is only in regard to universal truth that any lesser level of truth can prevail. Consider the cells of your body as an example. Your individual cells die without death resulting for your entire body. In the same way your death does not cause the death of the whole human race. Still further, entire species can die out and not cause the extinction of all life. What this means is that the truth of a skin cell is not the truth for the whole body which is not the truth for the entire species which is not the truth of life itself. Levels of truth arise due to the limited nature of all awareness confined within the universe and this causes logical ramifications that extend into every aspect of what is considered real.
So to simplify, we arrive at the statement that the human mind is