By Theodore J. St. John MS, MA, Ph. D.

04 Mar 2022

Part 1: Introduction

The theology and philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (CE 1225–1274) came under attack shortly after his death, but eventually his work was revived and recognized “as the paladin [or champion] of philosophy in its true sense, as over and against the vagaries of modern thought since Descartes.” (McInerny and O’Callaghan 2018) But this wasn’t until long after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation of 1517 and only after Pope Leo XIII published the 1879 encyclical, Aeterni Patris, “On The Restoration Of Christian Philosophy,”[1] which focused heavily on his soteriology. Some scholars claimed that Vatican II brought that stage of the Thomistic Revival to a close and even that the council had “dethroned Thomas.” But others felt that this was more a ploy to invoke contemporary philosophy popular “among cultured lay people and young priests who choose to breathe a new air and either do not know or reject the sober way of Thomistic metaphysics.”[2] The result was a philosophical split in the Catholic Church[3], which is still seen today. In a sense, that split marked the end of an era.

A reading of that encyclical leaves no doubt as to the pope’s true opinion about Aquinas. He referred to him as “the chief and master of all towers” and said, “he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way [that he] seems to have inherited the intellect of all.” (AP, 17) There are numerous other accolades for Aquinas as well, such as:

Clement XII in the bull Verbo Dei, affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet.”

Based on what J. Mark Armitage wrote in “Aquinas on the Division of Ages,” it seems likely that Aquinas could have even predicted the philosophical split when he pointed out “the way in which he divides history into a series of ages through which God guides humanity toward its goal of perfection.”[4]

How Aquinas gave salvation history a natural structure

Armitage pointed to where Aquinas quotes Galatians 3:19: “God left human beings under the Natural Law, with the freedom of their will, in order that they may know their strength; when they failed in it, they received the law…”[5] Because they failed to understand the primordial, complementary principles of nature, as we now understand in quantum physics, they chose the default, static, incarnate form and ignored the complimentary, dynamic and necessary process of grace. To a well-balanced, but mostly analytical, “left-brained” person like Aquinas, the ability to accurately predict the outcome of natural systems based on a model that can be described in terms of phases, is an ideal teaching aide and a means of allowing nature to prove itself.

Armitage’s intent was to develop a salvation-historical approach to reading Aquinas that focuses attention on how he presents a “covenantal structure” constructed around the Old and New Covenants as twin pillars. That structure “underpins Aquinas’s treatment of incarnation, law, liturgy and sacraments.”[6] Then he proceeded to use these four “underpinnings” as the pillars of his article, labeled: (1) Salvation History; (2) Legal History; (3) Liturgical History; and (4) Sacramental History. In his conclusion, he explains that Aquinas followed Augustine’s tradition of dividing salvation history into successive stages that seem to automatically integrate spans of history and capture familiar characteristics that echo themselves in every level. “God,” he said, “exercises his government of history… by means of a divine pedagogy built into the structure of the divisions of time, each of which prepares for the one that follows.”[7]

To anyone who understands the basics of quantum physics, characteristics being built into the structure (static) of the divisions of time (dynamic), describes the same concept known as the particle (static)/wave (dynamic) duality paradox. And characteristics that echo at higher levels are themselves echoes of atomic and molecular structures that give matter its characteristics. With that in mind, it is apparent that the methods used in modern science are relevant and may be used to better understand how God “exercises his government of history.” Quantum physics is beyond the scope of this paper, but in principle, one could develop a science-style pedagogy for teaching the faith and/or Scripture to a much broader audience. Teaching the scientific community in their own language would be a parallel (recapitulation) of when the apostles Barnabas and Paul used “nature” as a yoke to communicate with the Gentiles who didn’t know the psalms or prophecies of the Old Testament. (Acts 14:8-20)

According to Armitage, Aquinas already used the scientific method, and this was mildly criticized because it does not allow him to consider salvation history. But he also explained how a salvation-historical reading of Summa Theologica could be “extrapolated from the relevant texts.”[8] He argued that Aquinas “constructs a distinctive soteriology according to which God leads humanity from one age to the next”[9] and outlines a covenantal structure to support his arguments. T. F. O’meara, et al., describes this “construct” by saying it “unfolds from a pattern which lies deep in the human thought form, and which reflects the cyclic nature of things according to myth and philosophy: the Platonic emission and return of the Many from and to the One.”[10]

The Philology of Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas lived during the fourth quarter of the Middle Ages (CE 500-1550). In his day, the term or idea of “salvation history” had not been expressly distinguished from what we might consider regular or “general history”. Instead, he used methods of interpretation and explanation that had been taught by Aristotle and Augustine. He used a type of formal argument to structure the Summa that was not mentioned by Armitage. The key feature that stands out, and in fact might make it as challenging as math is for most people to read, is that rather than getting right to the point and answering the question, he starts with a series of “objections.”

It would seem rational to most of us to make one’s most convincing argument to support one’s case and define one’s opinion with maximum certainty, and leave it to the reader or “opponent” to bring up objections and alternative explanations. Even students who learn to write a thesis are taught to state their argument first, then present counterpoints followed by rebuttals and a conclusion. But Aquinas used a process of elimination that is identical to the way doctors and forensic scientists eliminate suspects and very similar to techniques used in math to cancel out irrelevant terms in fractions. In math, it is very common and extremely helpful to use graphical models to help visualize the relationships. Therefore, a graphical model will be presented near the end of this paper.

Aquinas presents specific questions in a number of “Articles” that all address a more general “Question.”  These are written in the form: “Whether…” something is the case; then he provides “Objections;” then “On the Contrary…;” and then he brings the specific question to closure with his “Answer.” After that, he replies to the objections as if to encourage the reader to think and eliminate suspects. This creates a sense that he is shaping his answer into a well-rounded form. Then he replies to each objection. Why? If his answer was the end-all-be-all, then this would not be necessary. It leaves the reader with a feeling that the matter might not fully closed, that more questions will help reduce the uncertainty and that the case should be reopened if found lacking in the future.

Therefore, in the Spirit of Aquinas, Part 2 will follow his philology. Notice I said philology and not philosophy. Philology is the branch of knowledge that deals with the structure, historical development, and relationships of a language or languages. Rather than diving deep into his ocean of questions, the intent here is to find and understand pertinent questions and articles, but to focus on the structure and flow of his philology in order to show how that static/dynamic combination creates an image with a characteristic that is a direct reflection of his philosophy. The hope is that it is relevant for modern style of teaching the faith and/or Scripture today.

In Part 3, his philology and logic will be expressed in the form of a graphical model, and could be expressed mathematically. One of the beautiful things about math is that it uses symbols that are not emotionally charged, (like most religious symbols are) to represent concepts, such as things and even events. The “characters” in an equation can represent characteristics of matter or characters in stories that capture general history as well as salvation history. It doesn’t matter whether the stories are mythological or records of actual event. And it doesn’t matter if the events are historically verifiable or not, which is a subject that Oscar Cullmann wrestles with in his defense of salvation history[11] As long as they express the truth, the solution to the equation will be an expression of truth.  However, the mathematical model that applies is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be presented here.

Part 2: Whether Aquinas’s philology is a model or reflection of his philosophy of truth

Aquinas clearly states that God is truth. In his answer to the question, “Whether God is Truth?[12]” he quotes John: “Our Lord says, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life’ (Jn. 14:6)” and he finishes with, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.” The purpose of this part then is to present a relatively simple logic-based model of the unfolding pattern that he presents in the Summa and examine how it works to intensify truth and thus outshine untruth.

Objection 1: to process philosophy

It would seem that Aquinas’s philology is NOT a model or reflection of his philosophy about truth because it is a model that represents a type of Process Philosophy,which as of 1986 was “regularly greeted with strong negative feelings and even hostility” by most Catholics[13]. There are a number of reasons why process theology and process philosophy have not caught on in the American Catholic theological community. Many of the reasons are spelled out in his paper. He concludes with a metaphor that identifies process philosophy with an enormous, fast-blooming flower that dies and falls away in time. Then he claims that the main “plant” is “the empirical tradition”[14] as if that is the equivalent of the Catholic theological tradition.

Objection 2: to questioning dogma

Further, the Church has published volumes of doctrine and dogma for the purpose of understanding scripture. They are the models that the bishops and popes have approved and if this “Aquinas model” raises questions or doubts about that dogma, it could lead to more heretical conclusions and attempts to alter the established structure of the belief system. These have historically led to and resulted in heresies that then require more ecumenical councils to produce even more dogma, which most Catholics know little about and the average person in today’s society refuses to read, much less learn.

Those who serve as Christian leaders may read the dogma, but they already have their disagreements about it. Disagreement about the value of ancient Church doctorates like Aquinas leads to a decline in interest in philosophy of history and even more schisms. For example, focusing too much on Aquinas’s idea of “stages” led to the ideas of Joachim of Fiore, who concluded that three stages of increasing holiness correspond to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Despite the fact that Aquinas himself attacked this by explaining that the Old Law corresponded to both the Father and the Son[15]^{, [16]}, a sect known as the Joachimites, or Joachites, arose from the Franciscans in the thirteenth century[17]. In fact, it could be argued that the entire Protestant Reformation was the result of similar attempts to over-simplify the sacred mysteries without fully grasping their underlying meaning.

Objection 3: to selling out religion to comply with the models of science

Further, even if Aquinas’s philology is a reflection of his philosophy, not everyone believes that his philosophy is a true reflection of the intent of God’s word. As mentioned in the introduction, his scientific method was criticized because it “does not allow him to consider salvation history”. Also, there is a tendency for some to place science at the center of reality, to try and force theology to fit the model and then to “sell out” religion. To “sell out” means that it betrays some cause for the purpose of advancing one’s personal theory or perspective. One example appeared[18] to have been presented by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., a French Jesuit priest and Paleontologist who, according to an article in the New York Times, “was all but declared a heretic in his own time by the Catholic Church he loved.”[19] The Times reported that he even said, “When Christ entered the universe, he was crucified ‘not to carry the sins of a guilty world,’ but ‘to carry the weight of an evolving world.’…” Not surprisingly, “The Roman Curia disagreed.” Eventually, he was “ordered into exile by his Jesuit superiors, to Tientsin and Peking.”

On the contrary:

The failures that have presented throughout “general history”, including those used in the above objections, serve as examples of the problem of choosing the static/literal part the whole as the end-all-be-all and ignoring the dynamic/spiritual part. It is very rational to choose because a choice makes us believe that we can actually have 100% certainty. In quantum physics, we have learned and can demonstrate that this is impossible. It attempts to collapse reality into a single “literal,” like a charged particle, and ignores the spiritual (like ignoring the electrostatic field surrounding the particle). The particular answer chosen may capture a certain amount of truth with a high value of certainty, but only certain to those who have acquired enough knowledge, experience and empirical evidence to see it. To everyone else, it presents with a “dark cloud” around it.

Metaphysically, true events get “captured” inside an implicit sphere, like an electron cloud captures the nucleus of an atom. In that analogy, electrons represent the tiniest details that make up an event; electron orbitals or energy levels represent a collection of related events and whole atoms represent a series of ages. At the level of ages, we can tell that they are all related to truth because we can see how they resonate the self-sustaining theme of truth as recapitulations. That effect of resonance is what ties physics to the idea of salvation history.

Once an event happens and the implicit spheres are formed, they never un-happen or disappear from existence, but our perception of them fades by events that are irrelevant to salvation. And the assumptions we must make in science that limit the applicability of our models also limit our understanding of “God’s truth.” In essence, they cloud our judgment, i.e. they form the cloud that “covered the tent of meeting” (Ex 40:34). It’s the same cloud that “filled the house of the LORD so that the priests could no longer minister” (1 Kgs 8:10-11). It doesn’t matter that the “cloud” wasn’t a real rain cloud or if the “tent of meeting” really existed. The “cloud” represents what we call our minds. Most importantly, as long as we remain centered on God (because “the LORD intends to dwell in the dark cloud” 1 Kgs 8:12), they also capture the essence of eternal life. Through honest investigation to reduce uncertainty, the bits of truth that form as minimal uncertainty are the “rain” in 1 Kgs 8:35-36 that allow our minds to grow in grace and mature as children of God.

My answer:

The systematic model of Aquinas’s philology is a reflection of his philosophy of truth. In order to present and better explain this and how his approach logically leads one from a state of ignorance (the unanswered question) to a higher state of knowing – a state that is a better reflection of truth – the visual is presented in Part 3. The following replies are provided for completeness.

Reply to objection 1 on process philosophy:

Rather than the flower in Mueller’s metaphor; process philosophy itself should be identified with the syrup – the dynamic flow of nutrients from the roots to the main plant. The flower is just the part we see (literal) and smell (spiritual). And that should be expected to wither and die with the changes in our knowledge. The proposed model is actually a logical and reasonable systematic model that integrates a quantitative (literal) model with the qualitative (spiritual) process by which the model works. As mentioned above, the quantitative and qualitative aspects of physics are called statics and dynamics respectively and they can be associated with the literal and spiritual sense of interpretation explained in the Catholic Catechism (CCC 115). Therefore, they work together as a whole in a way that can serve as a tool for mathematicians, physicists and other scientists in their quest for truth.

Reply to objection 2 on questioning dogma:

Presenting a model of Aquinas’s philology as a representation of his philosophy does indeed appear to be a simplification. However, it is not meant as a be-all-end-all or an attempt to reform existing dogma. Rather, it should reform our understanding of dogma. And it is not expected to replace the Summa. The intent is to give the reader a taste of the sweet “syrup” that Aquinas used to feed every one of his flowers (his articles). Although many people may not like the complexity of formal logic or even the simple mathematics that I present in Part 3, logic and math are like complex carbohydrates that we need and some people are craving in today’s flat and bland world.  

In essence, the Aquinas-model is simply a representation of his approach to answering questions. It does not contradict Church dogma or doctrine and it does not draw any heretical conclusions. Using his model does not encourage one to reject of even ignore any failed or heretical theories, but rather to treat them as a collection of “not-arguments” (the collective “cloud” of ignorance or the “fog of war”). Many people intuitively know that we are at a critical point in the “Church phase” of salvation history and an Aquinas model may help relieve some of the eschatological tension.

Reply to objection 3 on selling out:

To put it bluntly, Aquinas “cut the crap” by organizing his questions and articles the way he did and there is no indication of a sell-out. On the contrary, by starting each and every article with a list of objections, he exposes potential flaws (chaff protecting the flower pod) that might be covering the “product” of the process (his not-yet-revealed answer). Then, by presenting the “contrary” argument, he puts the objections to rest (the chaff relaxes to let the flower start to bloom) and then turns the discussion inside-out, revealing truth as he sees it via his answer (the flower pod unfolding). In many cases, he included a bunch of branches that he might “leaf out” (pun intended) if he were here today and had the discoveries of modern science and theology. For example, based on modern physics, which has revealed the complementary particle-wave nature of matter, he might reconsider his position on “Whether truth resides in the thing, or only in the intellect,”[20] but that is the nature of the beast and a topic for another paper. Without the science, it is expressed as salvation history in the bible. Like the OT (many seeds of truth) is contained within the NT (the flower pod) and the NT reveals the OT.

Part 3: The Aquinas model

As a whole, the structure of Summa presents as a cycle (notice the dynamic nature of the word cycle) that starts with God (truth itself described as alpha and omega) in Part I as his first priority, knowing that this is also his intended destination. He moves to questions about the creation of the universe,[21] then about a “creature” (Man) that is capable of developing a mind of its own. That creature is introduced in Question 75: “Of man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance”, i.e. an implicit or phatasmic spirit (which implies dynamic) and an explicit or physical “model” called the body (which implies static but flexible and animated by spirit).

As a sub-part of the whole, Part II “describes how the Christian life develops in a human being”[22] but Aquinas starts with the end in mind, i.e. man’s purpose and the meaning of life, which he states explicitly to be “happiness”. He reiterates and reminds us of this in several places, for example in ST I-II Q. 75, A.2, he says, “the end of the soul is the same as that of an angel—namely, eternal happiness,” and Q.82 A.I, “for as the intellect of necessity adheres to the first principles, the will must of necessity adhere to the last end, which is happiness.” That is obviously not a sell-out.

Every article in the Summa addresses a basic question, worded as “whether…” something, call it “C” for “conclusion”, is true. For example, “Whether sacred doctrine is a science?”[23] The way he words it is a clue that something koan-like[24] is going on. Most of us, left to our own volition would word it more directly, like “Is sacred doctrine a science or not?” The way he words it is an implicit form of a question that doesn’t include “Is” or “or not”; it implies both but also implies that we really don’t know the answer. It is understood that he means, “Whether the statement ‘sacred doctrine is science’ is true or not.”  Note that “not” implies “not true” which means “false” and “statement” implies that the sentence is in one of two “states”: true or false. But we won’t use the word “false” here because it hides what is going on behind the curtain (which we will see is a logical inversion). Instead, we will use the term “not-true” for reasons that will be clear below.

By not answering directly, and not even saying the words “true or not,” Aquinas leaves the reader hanging. In theory, the truth will prove itself so the goal is to allow the truth to explicate and express itself as the one that is in the state we call “true”. This is in effect the scientific method, which has proven to work when scientists don’t “sell out”. Sadly, many do and that has given science a bad name to many theologians and religious people.

By leaving the words “true” or “not true” unsaid, he invites us to look beyond the domain of opposites for something nonphysical – to unwittingly move our perspective into the non-physical realm of reality that (some) modern physicists have learned to call “the implicate order.” [25], [26]Most people might call that “implicate order” the mind or perhaps the instinct. Simply put, (in my opinion) it is just a dimension of mind where we can “rise above the opposites.”

So rather than presenting a logical argument (call it “A”) to support his hypothesis, Aquinas plays the devil’s advocate and points in a direction that seems weak and illogical to someone who has a preconceived answer. It seems weak because it is obvious that he doesn’t have a good answer that he’s willing to defend. Instead, he presents a number of “Objections” like “It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science,” which address the implied “or not”. They are not actually conclusions; so let’s call them “not-conclusions” or “not-C’s.” Then in the same paragraph, he supports the objection with an argument, call it a “not-argument” or “not-A.” The “not-A” attempts to convince us that the Objection is true and thus imply that his original statement, which we know will be his conclusion “C”, is not true.[27]

His modus operendi is this: first he throws us off balance and creates a degree of uncertainty with the objection; then he provides the argument for that objection and then the contrary argument, which is the contrapositive of the original statement. This is a critical move that would have been missing if he had gone the explicit route and given a direct answer. It is critical because, if the original statement is in fact true, then the contrapositive is also true. The contrapositive provides the negative-inverse perspective of the same truth, unfolded in a way that automatically reflects and folds back on itself. The effect is that the two perspectives literally resonate perfectly with each other, even though they are mutually exclusive in their outward appearance. In physics, this is expressed as the collapse of the quantum wave function.

Here’s how this could be worded as a conditional (an “if it is true then” statement). Original condition: If sacred doctrine (is true then it) is a science. Inverse: If sacred doctrine is not true then it is not a science. Contrapositive (reverse order of the inverse): If it is not a science then sacred doctrine is not true. This discussion is reduced to the circular model shown in Figure 1 to visualize the “mental moves” that Aquinas takes. It shows the linear and non-linear nature of these moves and illustrates how different perspectives can form mirror images of each other (original and contrapositive, inverse and converse) are described below. The original statement shown in the upper right quadrant, (“If C then A”) means that if his original conclusion (C), turns out to be true, then his argument (A), which he will give as his Answer, is true.”

The curved arrows show how Aquinas takes us in the Summa. He has us consider the inverse first: If “not-C” is true (based on the objection) then the implication is that his yet-to-be-revealed answer, A is not true. Then he presents a counter statement (“On the contrary”), which moves us around the circle farther to the right again and argues that the “not-C” argument that the objection just made is NOT true. That’s the contrapositive. If the original statement is in truth true, then the contrapositive is true – absolutely. We can say it is one with God. The “wet sidewalk” example in Figure 1 should help to make that clear. It also shows how and why the inverse and converse are not necessarily true (NNT). (There could be plenty of other reasons why the sidewalk is wet.)

The linear arrow in the upper part of the circle shows how we normally move. The example in the figure makes it obvious that this is the realm of “not necessarily true”. There, if the conclusion is not true, and if we are not committed to truth, then we can simply ignore the reasons why it’s not true and “spin it” to support what we claim or want to be the truth. That’s relative truth and it feels comfortable. If it actually is true, which is often is, then the inverse (its reflection) will also be true. (We would need to change the wording in the figure from “A is not” to not-A (or ~A)… all models are limited). Being a reflection of truth is what gives it real substance. The value in using Aquinas’s direction is that it is not comfortable because there’s no feeling of closure with in the “not-state”.

Salvation historical wrap up

Oscar Cullmann presented a lecture in 1964 to bishops and cardinals during Vatican II and acknowledged that, in speaking about salvation history, he used “language and concepts foreign to the bible,” and that he understood how some people would object. “But,” he said, “the idea is there.”[28] This paper is far more unconventional than his lecture, but the idea in there. “The idea” is that salvation itself is a state of mind that one reaches by living in truth and thus living in God. Like it or not, we can only see salvation history in the mirror of our mind so it is critically important to have a mirror that actually reflects the truth. The circular philology of St. Thomas is an excellent model to use for framing that mirror.

---

Endnotes

[1] Leo XIII. “Aeterni Patris.” Vatican Website. Aug 4, 1879. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html (accessed Feb 22, 2022).

[2] Komonchak, Joseph A. “Thomism and The Second Vatican Council.” Continuity and Plurality in Catholic Theology: Essays in Honor of Gerald A. McCook, 1998: 53-73.

[3] “Catholic” will be implied in the word Church in the rest of the paper. Otherwise, a fraction (i.e. denomination) will be specified.

[4] Armitage, J. Mark. “Aquinas on the Divisions of the Ages; Salvation History in the Summa.” Nova et Vetera 6, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 253.

[5] Ibid., 255

[6] Ibid., 254

[7] ibid., 269

[8] Ibid., 253

[9] Ibid., 254

[10] T. F. O’Meara and M. J. Duffy. Superstition and Irreverance. Vol. 40, in St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica (Sections 92-100). Cambridge University Press, 2006.

[11] Oscar Cullmann, Foundations: The Theology of Salvation History and the Ecumenical Dialogue. 1968, 26

[12] ST I Q.16 A.5

[13] J. J. Mueller, “Process Theology and the Catholic Theological Community.” Theological Studies 47 (1986), 414

[14] Ibid., 425

[15] Armitage explained that Aquinas firmly rejected this “Trinitarian structure of salvation history.” See Armitage, “Aquinas on the Divisions of the Ages: Salvation History in the Summa,” 260.

[16] ST I-II, Q.106, A.4, ad.3

[17] Marjorie Reeves,The Influence of Prophecy in the Late Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1969.

[18] It only appeared that way from the article. One would have to study his theory and intent to make a judgment. However, the conclusion stated in the article regarding his thoughts on Christ’s purpose suggests that his perspective was warped and he missed the mark.

[19] New York Times. “Teilhard.” New York Times. Feb 20, 1977.

[20] See his answer to ST I, Q.16 A.1

[21] Creation is a word that expresses both a static event or a dynamic a process depending on its use

[22] O’Meara and Duffy. Superstition and Irreverance, xix

[23] ST I Q.1 A.2

[24] A “koan” is a Zen practice to provoke doubt, which turns one’s attention away from any “particles” of certainty and toward the “great unknown”.

[25] David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge Publishing, 1980.

[26] The implicate order is a higher level of reality that Aquinas alludes to when he mentions “phantasms” (ST I Q.54 A.4) and “the medium of the angelic knowledge” (ST I Q.55 prologue). A complete justification of this correlation is too lengthy to include here, but briefly, Aquinas references De Anima III where Aristotle defines and explains.

[27] We know this because, by knowing the process, one can predict his yet-to-be-stated conclusion simply by taking the inverse of the “Objection”. In the example here, the first objection starts with, “It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science,” and later says, “I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science.”

[28] Oscar Cullmann, Foundations, 22

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. “Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.” New Advent Website. 1920. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/ (accessed Feb 2022).

Armitage, J. Mark. “Aquinas on the Divisions of the Ages; Salvation History in the Summa.” Nova et Vetera 6, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 253-270.

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge Publishing, 1980.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican Website. 1995. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM (accessed Feb 24, 2022).

Cullmann, Oscar. Foundations: The Theology of Salvation History and the Ecumenical Dialogue. 1968.

Komonchak, Joseph A. “Thomism and The Second Vatican Council.” Continuity and Plurality in Catholic Theology: Essays in Honor of Gerald A. McCook, 1998: 53-73.

Leo XIII. “Aeterni Patris.” Vatican Website. Aug 4, 1879. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html (accessed Feb 22, 2022).

McInerny, Ralph, and John O’Callaghan. “Saint Thomas Aquinas.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aquinas/ (accessed Feb 25, 2022).

Mueller, J. J. “Process Theology and the Catholic Theological Community.” Theological Studies 47 (1986): 412-427.

New American Bible, Revised Edition. New Jersey: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 1986.

New York Times. “Teilhard.” New York Times. Feb 20, 1977. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/02/20/archives/teilhard-sin-was-part-of-the-plan.html#:~:text=Pierre%20Teilhard%20de%20Chardin%2C%20S.J.,the%20Catholic%20Church%20he%20loved. (accessed Feb 20, 2022).

O’Meara, T. F., and M. J. Duffy. Superstition and Irreverance. Vol. 40, in St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica (Sections 92-100). Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Late Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1969.

Updated 04 Mar 2022: Added link to term paper article

Friends, family and followers:

I’m sorry I haven’t been writing much lately, but as many of you know, I decided to enroll in a graduate level class, for a Master’s degree (MA) in Theology, and I’ve been quite busy. Why in the world would I do that? I’m supposed to be retired and I already have an MS, an MA and a Ph.D. And I have no intention of finding a job, so a degree will not help me like that. Well… I decided to go for it for several reasons.

First of all, it’s there… and I have the funding. I have my VA benefits (Post 9/11 GI bill) just sitting in the VA’s bank account. So rather than doing my own independent study and research, which I’ve been doing for a long time with nothing (no kind of credentials) to show for it, I figured I’d get to work on another degree. For me, a degree program just helps me with my self-discipline. Secondly, one of the main sections in the book I’m writing (Holomorphosis and the Hologenetic Universe) goes through the process that I’m describing, stepwise as follows:

1. From Logical to Physiological
2. From Physiological to Biological
3. From Biological to Psychological
4. From Psychological to Theological and
5. From Theological to Sociological

Long story short: I sent the first draft of the book to a publisher and it was rejected on the basis of what I had written in section 4 about theology. Actually, I gave my opinion of religion, and it wasn’t good. It’s embarrassing to talk about now, but I was a bit insulted by the rejection and the fact that the publisher didn’t explain, so I asked his what the hell? Simply put, he said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and what I had written had no value other than to reveal my ignorance about theology. Still insulted, I let it sink in and it suddenly came clear that he were absolutely right; I needed to get educated about theology rather than religion. Turns out, there’s a difference. Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine; more generally, Religion refers to any cultural system of worship. As a scientist, I wanted a critical study.

Coincidentally (meaning about at the same time), I got into a conversation with a guy that I met at the 20th 9/11 memorial ceremony. He was a friend of a friend (actually her husband was a friend of my friend Alan) and I don’t even know how we got into the conversation about theology. I think he just happened to mention that he had attended a Catholic Seminary and had a degree in Divinity, but I’m not sure. Anyway, I mentioned that, even though I was raised Catholic, I rarely went to church and when I did, it was usually because we were visiting Alan and his family and they went to a non-denominational church. So he began to tell me things about what he had learned in the seminary that made more sense to me than anything I had ever heard about religion or spirituality. One of the first things was about something he called “apologetics”, which is how Christians learn to justify their belief in Jesus and Christianity in general. He actually talked about how he justified Catholicism to other Christians who don’t understand it.

Just a few high points: he started by saying that all people who call themselves Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, so logically, they have to concede that he would have known what he was doing when he established his Church, as the universal Christian Church. That was actually enough for me to feel like I needed to know more about catholicism. So if I were to go to graduate school, it would be Catholic. Well, I knew that the original Christian Churches were all Catholic, but I never knew that the word “Catholic” means “universal”. I also knew that there had been a rebellion (he corrected me and said “reformation”) back-in-the-day, but didn’t know what it was all about. That’s probably enough to clue you in… I was extremely ignorant, and I felt like a big fool. It was like I could hear school bells ringing and I couldn’t wait to start class. He recommended one (Augustine Institute I think) but when I checked, they didn’t accept VA funding. A quick Internet search turned up the Catholic Distance University (CDU), which is physically in Charlestown WV, but entirely online. They accepted the funding so I enrolled and started in the Fall term 2021.

My first class was THEO 503, Catholic Theological Tradition, taught by Dr. D’Ambrosio. (Check him out at his website https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/dr-italy/) It was fascinating! The first lecture included the concept of historical critical method, referring back to the primary sources and using scientific methods to verify sources the best ways available! I learned sooo much in that class about things I had no clue to even ask. If you are interested, you can find most or all of the lectures for free by searching “catholic theological tradition youtube videos”. The first one is just 7 1/2 minutes, an introduction to the course formerly called “Catholic Cultural Tradition”.

I have to confess… I have never felt so humble and continue to be humbled by what I am learning in my current class, SCRPT 530, Scripture and Salvation History. I constantly think about, “if I only knew back then what I know now…” and that sounds like I regret having lived my life the way I did. But it’s not an expression of regret; it’s an expression of how I’m beginning to understand God as the form of conscious that is the projection whereas we are the collective reflection created in His image. Remember, the holomorphic process is Separation, Projection, Reflection, Reintegration.

The more I learn about the Catholic interpretation of scripture, the more it resonates with the physics and metaphysics of holomorphosis. In effect, it’s proofing the model. I am currently working on my term paper for SCRPT 530 on the theology presented by St. Thomas Aquinas and OMG! it too is resonating beautifully. I will be sure to post it here after it’s graded and polished up if necessary. In the meantime, I started attending mass every week, getting immersed in the Catholic culture, attending RCIA (Rites of Catholic Initiation for Adults) classes (sorta like Bible and catechism study) and respecting the seven sacraments. I am finding more and more people that I can relate to on an intellectual and spiritual level so I joined the Society of Catholic Scientists and the Knights of Columbus (KofC). One of the deacons who teaches RCIA actually understood and used some of the information from this website to teach one of the RCIA classes.

So there ya go. I’ll get back to my studies and try to post here more often. I could be posting from the class discussion sessions, but I don’t want to overwhelm this site. I need to keep it focused on the holomorphic process, holomorphosis and the hologenetic universe. Of course, if you want it, just comment below, or contact me and I will try to send you some.

Dec. 9, 2021

Dear Mr. Biden,

I am a concerned Christian, and a patriotic American citizen who wishes you all the best as you serve the office as head of the Executive Branch of our government. I was glad to hear that Pope Francis told you that you are a good Catholic because that tells me that you believe in the Catholic doctrine and dogma. I’m sure you know the difference between the two – doctrine is what we try to follow and dogma is law, approved by the Pope, much like the laws that you approve except that breaking dogma means we have to answer to God. Of course, everyone who believes in God knows that God doesn’t just blow off the part about accountability for the decisions one makes, so I don’t need to tell you that. What I would like to tell you is this:

I’m sure you have your reasons for the decisions you make and it is not my intention to judge or try to discredit you in any way. I can’t even imagine how difficult it must be to make the decisions you have to make, but I hope you don’t mind if I respectfully offer a tidbit of something I found when I read the report of the First Vatican Council of 1870 that is very likely to help you with your reasoning while making those decisions. The following paragraph, under Chapter IV “On Faith and Reason”, follows some discussion about how faith is above reason, which means that as a good Catholic, your faith in Jesus and the decisions and guidance of the Pope (the office that Jesus himself appointed as “president” of the Universal Church), will raise you up to a higher perspective. That perspective is much higher than the flat, two-dimensional perspective held by either of the two political parties. From there you can see the truth, which is centered on the principle of freedom and liberty, and make your decisions based on that. As a career US Naval officer, that perspective helped me more than I can tell you.

The report goes on to state the obvious, that truth does not contradict truth, and then it says, “The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood… or to the inventions of opinion having been mistaken for the verdicts of reason.” Surely we are forgiven for not understanding or seeing the truth, but you know as well as the rest of us that the politicians who try to “help” you make decisions, understand their low-level positions and base their “help” on their own biased opinions. So here’s the paragraph I’m talking about:

“We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Furthermore, the Church… derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, [proscribe means to denounce, condemn, forbid or even outlaw; false science sounds like fake news] lest any should be deceived by philosophy and empty falsehoods (Col. 2:8). Therefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend, as legitimate conclusions of science, such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.”

False science? Do you know what I’m talking about? Come oooon. You know… the stuff you are talking about when you keep saying, “Follow the science”. You know that stopping the living process as it is happening in the womb of a pregnant woman is murder no matter where she happens to be in the process. The living process (the process that we see as the first cell division) is what we call the life process and once the process starts in a human egg, stopping it is what we call death. And when a human induces death in another human, it’s what we call murder. You know that, Mr. Biden. Just take a quick look at yourself in the mirror of your mind and you will see it clearly.

I think you’ll also see that you know this: there is plenty of scientific data that contradicts the data that your “advisors” tell you that makes you try to impose more restrictions on our freedom. As a scientist myself, I know that anyone can manipulate data and make it look like their experiments or epidemiological studies point to the decision that they had already decided they want you to make. That is clearly false science. Your people tell you to say the words, “Follow the science”, thinking we don’t see the hidden word, but we know and we know that they know that what you are really saying is “Follow the false science.”

Bless your heart, Mr. Biden. We still love you, but please… be what you said that Pope Francis said you are. Be a good Catholic. We truly wish you all the best, in the name of the Father, Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit, who is right there waiting to bless your heart if you will just reflect for a moment, and rise up with Him so you can see the truth for yourself.

Sept 21, 2021

Introduction and Basis

It was called “the American experiment” in an article published on November 27, 1860 in the New York Daily Tribune[i]. One hundred years later, in 1960 when I was born, as one of the last of the Baby Boomer generation, the end of World War II was a childhood memory for the young adults raising their children and World War I was practically ancient history. By then Americans had finished celebrating the end of the war and the economic boom that they had enjoyed under the conservative leadership of Eisenhower during the 1950s. Civic order was established and in 1961 President Kennedy took office and promised to lead America to great new heights of success. America was in the flow, life was good and the American experiment appeared to be a great success. At that time, a new Awakening period was underway and the future looked very bright for most of the entire world. However, a pattern that has been identified by historians as a set of Four Turnings[ii] was being repeated.

The pattern describe as the Four Turnings is very important to be aware of, first because it accurately predicted the recent Unraveling and current Crisis in America. More importantly, the attitudinal characteristics of all four “Turnings” match the four qualitative phases of a model called the holomorphic process model, which was originally created to provide a systems approach to understanding quantum physics. The same model was also found to serve as a model for the metamorphic nature of the life process.[iii] However, by comparing the direction of the Turnings with the direction of the holomorphic process model, it becomes clear that society has been operating in a way that tries to run in the opposite direction as nature. This is the basis for my personal Declaration of Independence and it provides the basis for the proposed solution to our current problems.

Background

The Four-Turnings cycle begins with a Crisis, followed by a celebration period called the High. After the last major Crisis, most people spent their time celebrating, but the battle-hardened Hero generation remained hard at work building establishments that were supposed to prevent another Unraveling period like the one they had witnessed prior to the Crisis. However, their children, who became known as the Artist generation, were children during the Crisis, and young adults during the High. Their children spent their childhood during the High with no memory of the Crisis and little or no concern for survival.  They were called the Prophet generation and the era during which they were adults was called the Awakening.

Keep in mind that these archetypal labels don’t fit everyone. If you were taught principle-centered values, then you probably typecast as a Hero. So the following discussion is meant as a generalization.

Children of the Prophet generation grew up in a peaceful word, surrounded by the artistic expressions of their parents’ generation, and were free to expand their spiritual awareness. Their parents, the Artists, worked hard to shield all children from the realities and horrors of the Crisis because they wanted to forget them as well. Therefore, the Prophets were not required to reflect on the underlying cause of the Crisis, which was always an attack on someone’s freedom. As a result, the Prophets didn’t teach their children, called the Nomad generation, to cherish and protect their fundamental freedom or to appreciate the value of standing up for the principle of truth, justice and the American way. Ironically, the Prophets grew up hearing that repeatedly as Superman’s motto, but apparently the message they received was that fighting crime and injustice was the responsibility of superheroes and not them.

Their children, the Nomads, watched “Super Friends” who emphasized friendship and teamwork and the “Wonder Twins”, who could shapeshift into almost anything they wanted. Surely the intention was good – to teach the power of synergy – but they were children and just like the Prophet children, they interpreted it as meaning there is someone else out there who will take the responsibility to defend freedom. Even worse, the intended lesson symbolized as “shapeshifting” may have been about the potential to become something great, but they interpreted it as meaning they can pretend to be something other than their true selves. If “all men are created equal” then they can be it, like magic, without having to do anything to develop the necessary qualifications[iv].

As a result, the Nomads had no sense of the extreme importance of truth or of having to work hard to hold onto freedom. They took it for granted as a right and didn’t learn to appreciate the Constitution as a sacred model worth defending against all enemies foreign or domestic. These were the key factors that led to the next Unraveling and the current Crisis.

The Nomad generation – the generation of people who are now at the top levels of our government – is just like the Lost generation – the people who were in the leadership positions during the previous Unraveling. That seems to point a finger of blame, but the Unraveling is not really their fault; it’s clearly the predictable result of the fact that people forget or choose to ignore the fact that freedom must be continuously worked for, the Constitution must be staunchly defended and the truth must be faithfully reflected on.

Before the end of the 1990s, no one knew about the Four Turnings. The systems view of life slowly began to impress scientists only after mathematicians got a handle on Complexity Theory during the 1990s and I am still trying to bring attention to the holomorphic process model, which is very simply a four-step process model expressed as a cycle of separation, projection, reflection and reintegration. My hope is that it will provide a very clear and specific roadmap or directional template that leaders and managers can use to assist in decision-making and teachers can use to illustrate how attitude translates into direction. Most importantly, it illustrates how actions that are not centered on truth produce a back-projection instead of a reflection and how that will inevitably lead to unravelings and crises. 

They may have been reflecting on spirituality as young adults, but today, most Prophets realize that their intentions were misinterpreted. Until the Crisis became impossible to ignore, we were all distracted by the wonderful products of the process, like the beautiful artwork and awesome new technologies. Now we realize how important it is to reestablish the focus on freedom. These labels don’t fit all Gen-Xers (A. K. A. “13ers”) but in general the Nomads didn’t learn about or recognize the value of truth-centered and freedom-based establishments. So just like the Lost generation, they have been trying to break down the establishments that had formed the structure of the Republic. They wanted to be somebody special in life, so as “shapeshifters” they took positions in the establishments and were granted authorities without having to do anything to prove they had the right qualifications.

Those in society who recognized and held onto those values recognized the structured Republic as a reflection of those values, but they were tagged as deplorable Republicans – as conservatives who wanted to preserve the broken system. The system wasn’t broken, but it was easy to convince people that it was. Rather than reflecting on the truth, that the root cause of problem was that they had loss their base of Freedom centered on Truth, everyone was back-projecting the problems onto the establishment. As expected, and clearly predicted by the cycle of the Four Turnings, their reactions led to an Unraveling of our establishments and now the world is facing a new and different kind of Crisis.

Today, many would say that the American experiment has failed. They would say that despite all the lives that had been sacrificed to preserve freedom and the American way of life, power-hungry politicians have succeeded in turning America into a Tyranny. They may be right, but as an individual who served for 30 years in the defense of Freedom as a US Naval Officer and never lost sight of the fundamental principle of Truth, I am certain that there is still hope for the world if we as independent people come together at the center of the Holomorphic Circle and stand on the common ground we know as Truth and enjoy as Freedom.

Projection of the next phase

I refer to the Holomorphic Circle because the four phases of the circular model of the holomorphic process can be shown to correlate with emotional or conscious qualities that mirror the Four Turnings. Starting with Awakening, the four historical Turnings are Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis and High. The four steps in the Holomorphic process (Separation, Projection, Reflection and Reintegration) correspond to Awakening, High, Challenge (rather than crisis) and Unwinding (rest rather than unraveling). Notice that the conscious qualities of the holomorphic process follow the reverse order of the Four Turnings because Awakening is followed by High rather than Unraveling.

By understanding and following the Holomorphic process in our lives, we can turn things around for society from the inside out. To start with, it is critically important to recognize and accept the current Crisis as a Challenge and be willing and able to do whatever we can as Independent Americans to raise the B. S. flag on all the lies and misdirection that politicians use and Stop the current grabs for power. Collectively, we are the new Hero generation. 

The Turning Point

The American experiment is still in progress. We are simply ready to move on to the next phase, and there are much greater successes to come if we succeed[v]. There is plenty of evidence to support the proof of concept – the concept that freedom and the American way works for the benefit and betterment of society as a whole. By “American way” I mean the established governmental structure, which is a partly democratic republic, established by our founders. It was designed and built to be used to govern, mostly at the local level, in ways that minimally restrict the freedom of people to act the way they feel is best for them as individual contributing members of their communities. Clearly, the root cause is federal government overreach because it not only restricts us as individuals, it restricts and even lames the function of local governors.

The American way is not about having total freedom, but it is centered on truth and freedom revolves around that center. It is fundamentally conservative because it reflects the law of Nature, i.e. the conservation of energy, yet it is also progressive and creative because it allows for natural transformation and growth. The Republic, formally described by the United States Constitution provides a nucleus for the natural growth process to mature and produce progressively higher levels of freedom. It took nearly 150 years for America leaders to grow in awareness that “all men are created equal” means all people regardless of race, creed, color or gender. Today’s federal government is no longer a lean Republic because it so covered up with excess fat that is can no longer function.

The core Republic is sufficient, efficient and highly effective. It can be framed as a self-regulating closed-loop feedback system, which can be well understood in terms of proven engineering principles. In its lean form it operated as designed and its effectiveness can be expressed in the spirit of Steven Covey’s seven-habit model (see endnote)[vi] as follows: America’s Declaration of Independence marked a “Private Victory” for Mankind, and in our very short history, there have been billions of people and freedom-led organizations, including governmental organizations like the military that synergize. They achieved our “Public Victory” and proved the power of Interdependence.

Tragically, America split into two groups in 1861 and fought a bloody Civil War in order to advance to the next level of freedom for people who had remained in the bonds of slavery. There is nothing civil about war, but as evidence of the power of freedom, it won in 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment of Constitution abolished slavery. That was only one generation after the Declaration of Independence. It took another 55 years, but in 1920, women raised the flag of freedom, rang the Liberty Bell, demonstrated how to be civil and won their freedom as well. Fortunately, our leaders had grown in awareness of truth and rather than bloody war, the fight for freedom was won by mostly peaceful protest.

Sadly, our government has become extremely fat and the two parties have become co-dependent on each other. Rather than thinking win/win, they only think win/lose. As a result, the winning side of every election cycle has been methodically forcing us back down to the bottom of Covey’s Maturity Continuum into a state of Dependence. That is what has set us up to be a target for destruction because we are losing our power of freedom.

We are now at the critical point in the process where we all must declare personal independence and take the responsibility to be proactive. Freedom is the end we have in mind and the first thing to put first is Truth. As Independent individuals centered on truth, which the founding fathers had characterized by the name of “Providence” and “Nature’s God”, the American experiment has proven to be a highly effective process and a huge success.

Tragically, most young and mid-life adults today were taught to focus on the products of the process rather than the process itself. They humanized and thus minimized the concept of Nature’s God, identified themselves as dependent members of a controlling society, and lost sight of meaning in life. As a result, fathers and mothers of American society[vii] have become reactive and co-dependent rather than proactive and interdependent.

Reflection on the process

Albert Einstein was part of a Hero generation that understood Nature’s God and reflected the light of truth on what they thought they knew in science and started an intellectual revolution in science based on a quantum process model (a particular unit that qualifies as a cyclic wave function). He once said that religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame. America is becoming both blind and lame because the people in positions of authority have rejected Nature’s God, they ignore the lessons of history and support brain-washing rather than education, they ignore the unbiased results of rigorous scientific testing and use only data that supports their agenda as a weapon against their own people.

Truth in science is revealed in the evidence of nature and anyone who has studied the new science of Biomimicry knows that all life is proactive and interdependent. The holomorphic process is a systems model of the life process – a closed-loop cyclic process of projection and reflection that results in a nested structure kept lean by maintaining internal order during each phase. Each new phase embraces and captures the parts of the old phase that have proven to be true and rejects any unproven as waste. In other words, it revolves around a central principle, it separates and projects for the first half of the cycle, and then reflects on truth and holds itself accountable for failing to monitor its own bodily functions.

Recent presidents may have been great at managing and projecting power but they have proven to be unqualified to reflect on Truth and lead our country to the next level of reintegration. They did not reflect on the truth of freedom as our fundamental principle and were thus unable to recognize it as the very heart of America. Yet they were given authority vested in the position so they made things up as they went without understanding the process. At some point, they no longer cared about what is actually True. They only cared about separating the people and projecting their own agenda. As a result, America as an organism has been feeding on its own toxic waste. Terrorists have not been elevated to our level; we have reduced ourselves to their level. The crap they feed us is Nature’s way of making us put our money where our mouth is.

Unfortunately, the members of the two primary political parties have made it nearly impossible for individual citizens to be proactive and interdependent. Each time a power over the people switches from one party to the other, the government increases the number, style and complexity of the law. This provides them with greater potential to use force to further restrict our freedoms and to control the outcome of elections. At the same time, they pit us against each other and skillfully use us as ideological soldiers in their armies.

All of the tactics that our leaders use to increase their power are clear echoes of the “repeated injuries and usurpations” that our founders listed in the American Declaration of Independence to identify how the King of Britain had used similar tactics for the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny”. When viewed in the light of understanding the holomorphic process, it is very evident that rather than reflecting on freedom when they make new laws, they are back-projecting in an attempt to hold onto their power.

Reunification by a peaceful revolution centered on Truth and Freedom

We can change the way we change by first realizing that we are all fundamentally free humans; we are not Republicans or Democrats. A Republic refers to the structure of government, the body in the American Body/Mind system, and Democracy refers to the Mind or Spirit of freedom: the process by which we the people make our voices heard. The Body is trying in vain to establish order by force, but the Spirit will prevail simply by embracing Nature’s God, which is centered on truth and freedom. The same process is expressed in the science of Complexity Theory as the transformation of chaos into order and we are quickly approaching a critical point of separation called bifurcation.

In order for a society to remain alive, it must follow the holomorphic process to its completion. The progressive party represents the first half (progression by separation and projection) and the conservative party represents the second half (preservation of what works by reflection and reintegration). With that understanding, it would be very easy for both parties to take a step outside of the circle and come up with win/win solutions by agreeing to focus on leaning up the Republican structure of the government while ensuring that it supports the Democratic flow of the process. Rather than competing for dominance of a party, they should focus on peaceful human dominance of the world by free Independent-Human civilizations. The Congress should be balanced, with an equal number of representatives and the office of President should alternate as necessary based on feedback from the people, even if that means alternating every cycle. That way the people don’t have to choose Republican or Democrat candidates. We would all be Independent Voters, free to analyze whether we need to clean up, lean up and restore the integrity of the Republic or if we are ready to progress to the next level. Then we can analyze candidates based on their performance and vote for the person who has proven to be the most qualified.

There is a theory of evolution called Hologenesis that was proposed around 1900. At that time it was ignored because it didn’t fit the limited models of reality. However, upon reflection, in the light of our advanced understanding of quantum physics, bioemulation of symbiotic systems, and realization of the holomorphic process, that proposed theory reflects what we know now to be true. According to that theory, evolution proceeds in phases and species split into two subgroups. One continues to live and thrive while the other one dies out. It is evident to most people that the human race is about to split into two subgroups: those who love and live by truth and natural laws, and those who use lies, deceit, and unnatural laws to force others into submission in order to maintain their power. Our elected officials are not the enemy. They, and all government employees, are our brothers and sisters and most of them have simply been tricked into supporting the few “elites” who hide behind the top levels of government.

We are all tricked into believing that those who get elected are actually in charge. They are not; they are charged and polarized but they are not in charge. They are used to charge the rest of us by making us believe that “our side” is all positive and the “other side” is all negative. By reflecting on our true selves we will see that there is positive and negative in both sides of every issue and if we focus on the principle of freedom, we can declare our Independence, we can think Win/Win, Seek first to understand others and then to be understood, and Synergize to achieve the Public Victory that our founders envisioned. Without getting hung up on the name, we can all say it together with our own personal biases but from our common center of Truth: Although Man tried to damn us, God has Blessed America.

Notes

---

[i] See The American Experiment at https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/new-york-daily-tribune/the-american-experiment

[ii] See The Fourth Turning, What The Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny, by William Strauss and Neil Howe (1998)

[iii] See The Holomorphic Process-Understanding The Holographic Nature Of Reality as a Metamorphic Process; Archives Of Physics Research (2018): Volume 9, Issue 2, pg 17-44 at https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive/apr-volume-9-issue-2-year-2018.html

[iv] This is reflected in the way the Army’s recruiting slogan, which had been “Be all that you can be” for over 20 years, from 1980-2001, changed to “Army of One” (2001-2006), then “Army strong” (2006-2018) to “Warriors wanted” for just a minute and finally “What’s your warrior?” from 2019 until now. Really?? What does that even mean???

[v] Renewing the American Experiment  by David Korten at https://davidkorten.org/renewing-the-american-experiment/

[vi] The first three habits are Be Proactive; Begin with the end in mind; and Put first things first. Mastery of these three habits is called a Private Victory because it releases one from the state of Dependence. The second three habits can only be mastered by Independent people and when they are mastered, it is a Public Victory. They are Think win/win; Seek first to understand others and then be understood; and Synergize. The seventh habit is what Covey calls “Sharpen the saw” and it is the extremely important act associated with “Reflection” in the holomorphic process.

[vii] By fathers and mothers of society I am referring to government leaders and managers as well as individual parents who are supposed to play the roles of family leader and manager.

In my previous post (Demystifying Quantum Physics) I discussed a question that a physics student asked about my paper, A geometric model based on frequency that reveals the nature of time. Basically, the student was confused about why I made my geometric model since it simply displays energy in terms of two expressions of frequency. So he said it was like I was comparing two sides to the same coin. And that was the whole point: physics really is that simple, but since the two sides look different, physicists back in the day used certain assumptions and developed complicated math equations to try and relate the two sides. But since the sides were different by definition, they were believed to be fundamentally different. And if they are fundamentally different, they couldn’t possibly be two sides of the same thing.

At the end of the post, I said that the number 2pi, which relates the diameter of a circle to its circumference, serves the same function for a circle as the golden ratio serves for a pair of lines, i.e. taking two characteristics that appear to be different from one perspective and relating them so that they can be seen as being the same from another perspective. And I said that I would discuss this in my next post and that I hoped to show how one of these constants can be considered more fundamental than the other. However, as I was working on that, I recognized a few things that I felt should be added to my Home page, so I went into it and started making changes. If you previously read my Home page, I highly recommend that you read this revision. I went into much more detail in my description of the holographic process (how a hologram is made) and how the steps in the holomorphic process apply throughout the process. As I was doing that, I discovered a few twists that I had not realized before, so I continued working on that. Those insights also apply to the post about the golden ratio, so I’m still working on that. Then, I realized that I had branched off the subject and started comparing and contrasting the holomorphic process model to the quantum computer simulation model, which is now being called “digital physics”. So I decided to cut it out and post it instead.

What’s wrong with My Big TOE

This digital model of reality was proposed in the mid 1950s and published by Edwin Jaynes (Jaynes 1957). It was explained in terms physics by physicist John Wheeler who coined the catchy phrase, “It from bit”, and it was used as the basis for Tom Campbell’s Theory of Everything, which he called “My Big TOE”. This digital approach models reality as a collection of quantum bits – Planck-sized voxels in space – that repeatedly appear, disappear and reappear to form the appearance of continuous flow.

Before I continue, I suppose I should invent a catchy acronym for the Holomorphic Process Theory. I’ll probably still refer to the Holomorphic Process Theory, but people seem to like catchy titles, and acronyms so in the spirit of the TOE and the GUT (for Grand Unified Theory), I want to use another body part. Since Campbell’s book cover shows a picture of a left foot, I thought about calling mine The Right TOE, which would cleverly imply that his is the Wrong TOE. But my intent is not to step on his toes, (sorry about that, I’m on a roll) even though I am about to explain the fundamental flaws that I have found in his theory. So, as the title of this post already revealed, I’ll call it: My Big HEART (Holomorphic Energy Approach to Reality Theory). 

Campbell claims (Campbell 2003, pg 181, ff.) that his Big TOE is based on only two assumptions – that there exists:

• 1) a fundamental process of evolution and
• 2) a primordial consciousness (an Absolute Unbounded Oneness or AUO) as a fundamental source of structural energy.

The difference that makes a difference between his theory and mine is that the holomorphic process theory is based on only one:

• 1) that there exists a fundamental process of convolution as opposed to evolution.

However, that assumption is implied by the fundamental principle that Truth is true and is the only thing that is true. The existence of Truth is not an assumption; it’s a principle, defined as “a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” In My HEART, I hold that the word “Truth” refers to a universal – an abstract concept, the same as the word “Energy”; but Truth includes the concept of information, whereas Energy does not. Because information is what is fed-back to energy in a holomorphic convolution, it shapes and reshapes units of energy in such a way that it captures Truth in the quantized form as “tidbits of truth”. So the first law of Holomorphosis is

The Law of Conservation of Truth:

Truth can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form.

As I said, this implies that there is a fundamental process of convolution to shape energy into form. I suspect that Truth is what Campbell was referring to as AUO, but he had already discussed truth and separated it into “universal truth and local truth”. He even said, “Universal or absolute truth is the same for everyone – it is timeless and unchanging.” (pg. 185) That means it can neither be created nor destroyed. And what he called local truth is a reflection of the second part of the law of conservation of Truth – it can be changed in form – into bits of local truth. Can you see how this is the first step of the holomorphic process? He separated the universal (Truth) into itself and separate bits of itself.

And he says that, although he calls it primordial consciousness, it is not “all knowing, omniscient, self-aware, or even vaguely intelligent – it is not. At this point, this rudimentary form of consciousness is not capable of forming or holding a single coherent thought.” (Campbell 2003, pg.190) In My HEART, I believe he was referring to Truth. 

Then he muddies his argument by stating “this seemingly infinite Absolute Unbounded Oneness  (AUO) is not infinite. Nor is it absolute, unbounded, or a oneness – but only appears to be an infinite absolute unbounded oneness from a limited point of view within PMR (Physical Matter Reality)” And by doing so, he traps himself into a corner and asks the obvious question that his theory raises, “Where did AUO come from?… I truly do not know… AUO’s origins lie beyond the logical reach of our understanding.” I love his sense of humor, so I have to tell you this: I think his answer set him up for the best line in the book: “Where did the ingredients, the environment, and the spark come from?” [Wait for it…] 

            “Leave me alone,” he said. “Go ask your mother!”

I love it! LOL!

But seriously, a few pages later, despite what he claims about only making two assumptions, Campbell also states (pg 215), “Given that AUO somehow discovers a disturbance or non-uniformity relative to itself, it can return to uniform, then intentionally reestablish the locally disturbed state, then return back to uniform and so on.” That’s not a “given”; it is an assumption to say that “it” discovers something and another assumption to say that it can move back and forth between uniform and disturbed states. These are enormously impactful assumptions that are neither made, nor needed for My HEART. His TOE needs these assumptions because he already knows that everything is vibration (according to My HEART they are projections) and he is back-projecting in order to set up his next statement: “We now have the possibility of a regular recurring event that will eventually evolve into a precisely recurring event.” The words “eventually evolve” and “recurring event” imply that time must already exist. But then he contradicts this implication in the next sentence: “A precisely occurring event might eventually be used to invent time.” Finally, in chapter 29 he discusses “the birth of time.” (Campbell 2003, pg. 239ff)

What’s right with My Big HEART

Without understanding the “twists” introduced by the holomorphic process, the only logical conclusion is that there must be a beginning to time. That is one of the fundamental flaws in Campbell’s TOE. He feels the need to explain how it all started and what made it start ticking. Once you understand the process, you realize that looking outward traps you in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and forces you to come to the wrong conclusion. You have to “untwist” it by turning yourself around and look directly toward the center and face the Truth, where you will see that there is no beginning of time. My HEART is already beating and always has been.

Convolution – the very essence of the holomorphic process – is already a precisely recurring cycle, an implicit circle that has no beginning. (Come to think of it, I wrote an essay for another journal called The Convolution of Consciousness. I’ll post it here later).

Because the process can only be seen by conscious beings, they (we) are already in the middle of the process as projections. We have to look back to see it and we recognized that energy in general–energy of motion in particular–can be separated (mathematically divided) into a duality: one called space and the other called time.

• Aside: In My HEART, I hold that the words space and time refer to two different ways of expressing motion as I’ve tried to explain in The Nature of Time and Spacetime page. In A Geometric Model Based on Frequency That Reveals the Nature of Time, I show how mathematically, they are actually inverses of each other and how undifferentiated energy transforms into Planck-sized voxels in proportion to the Golden Ratio.

 We do this for our own sakes; we need to separate things in order to participate in the holomorphic process. But since we are the “holomorphic film” that holds the holomorphic “fringes” in our DNA, as I explained in the update of my Home page, we are trapped in the medium. My body is my physical “holomorphic film” where every event in my life is written and it is what holds me accountable for my actions. Everything that is true is centered on Truth, which means it has its own internal “reference laser” source (the implicit light of Truth), which it uses to project itself and reflect on itself.

Reflecting means we look at the reflection. And My HEART holds that there are at least two reflections for us to look at. One is the reflection of light off of physical matter. When we look at that, we are looking linearly backwards in time (think about how light reflected off of any object takes time to reach your eyes, so you are always seeing the past). The second reflection is an implicit surface on the inside of our sphere of knowledge (call it our bubble). It acts as a virtual mirror that splits the laser light of Truth, which emanates from our center (our hearts) and projects radially outward. It is exactly the same setup as the setup for making a hologram. Part of our inner light penetrates our bubble and goes out to reflect off of physical matter, and part of it reflects back toward our center. When the two reunite somewhere between our bubble and our heart, they form a holographic projection. If I didn’t already know that some people can see “auras”, My HEART would predict that they exist and I would recommend experiments, like those that use Kirlian photography or water crystals, like those used by Masaru Emoto.

My book, Holomorphosis and the Hologenetic Universe, is my first attempt at projecting this idea but my newest insights are posted on this website and not yet in the book. I post them because it is much faster and easier than publishing a new edition. And your feedback helps. As I said in the most recent version of the Home page, I will send you a free PDF copy of the current version of the book for you to reflect on as long as you will project your feedback to me. If what you say is centered on Truth, then your feedback will reshape the images in my mind and form a more accurate, true and complete holomorphic projection (us and the book).

Works Cited

Campbell, Thomas. My Big TOE. Lightning Strikes, LLC, 2003.

Jaynes, Edwin. “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics.” Physical Review (American Physical Society (APS)) 106, no. 4 (1957): 620-630.

            Feb 3, 2021

Updated Feb 15, 2021

Quantum physics is a mystery to many people, including physicists. Some say that it is proof that reality is materialistic, made up of physical “quantum” units. Others say that it is proof of just the opposite – that reality is ethereal in nature, that the physical nature only appears in the mind, when the “potential”, expressed as the wave function, is observed by a conscious being. As long as it is a mystery, can the physics be considered to be mystified? Or does that word apply to the people? People are mystified, not the physics. And the way to become demystified is to answer the question, “WHY?” – So why is energy quantized into units?

            A very bright 19-year old physics student, who entered college at age 16 and is about to graduate, is looking for a thesis for graduate school. He read my previous post, A Geometric Model Based on Frequency That Reveals the Nature of Time and wondered why I was motivated to present it the way I did; why I would make such an assertion. He sent me the following:

Student:

            “The idea seems very coherent. I do however have a question regarding the graph of spatial energy vs temporal energy. In that graph you use the two equations to represent energy, one with wavelength and one with frequency, but I thought that those are just two expressions of the same thing, two sides of the same coin so to speak. How is it possible to assert that they are independent of each other in the way that you assert with the graphs?”

Before I give my response, notice that the student went back to the standard way of thinking when he said "one with wavelength and one with frequency". In the paper, I emphasized that the graph expressed  the relationship of "spatial frequency vs. temporal frequency". That's because we are taught from PHYS 101 to think in terms of wavelength, which we measure as linear, rather than spatial frequency, which is also expressed wrapped up as a single number but it represents the whole, so it is a non-linear, quantized expression. It is this inverse way of thinking that creates the twist that I am trying to unfold.

My response:

            Your question makes me want to say, That’s the whole point. If I rephrase your question to say: How is it possible to represent two different expressions of the same thing (say a coin) as being independent of each other? My answer is: by using two different scales – one that is linear and the other non-linear. You could characterize the size of the coin either by using a linear scale (radius) or by a non-linear, “holistic” measure of circumference.  Then make a plot of size measured on the front (using radius; r) vs back (using circumference; c). The plot (shown below) would be a point at

(r, c) = (1, 2pi).

            Now imagine that a coin-making machine makes coins of any size you choose but it requires an algorithm to scale the size of the image being stamped on either side. Suppose the backside image-maker was made to read in units of circumference and the frontside image in units of radius. Assuming you used the same measuring scale to measure radius and circumference, a plot (e.g. using the linear measuring-tape scale) of the function for the algorithm would be a line from zero through (1, 2pi) and out to the limit of the machine. And the slope of the line would be r/c = 1/2pi. 

            I said that the circumference scale was “holistic”, which is the same as saying it is quantized (as a whole) because you can’t have fractional values for that scale. It would be like asking someone to dig a hole and then dig half of a hole. Each whole unit on the front (circumference) scale, would correspond to the back (radius) scale in quantized units of 2pi. So if you made the plot in “natural units”, i.e. 2pi on the c axis would be labeled as 1 one “natural”, “holistic”, or “quantum” unit of c. Then a plot of circumference units vs radial units would be a diagonal line at 45 degrees. And you could convert one to the other using 2pi as a conversion factor. That is why Planck’s constant is equal to 2pi in natural units. It simply converts the frequency scale to the holistic energy scale.

Student:

            “I think I see what you are getting at, but at least in the physical sense, it sounds more like a conjecture than a hypothesis, because while you state your geometric model, there does not seem to be any motivation behind the reasoning, or I may be missing something.”

My response:

If you look up conjecture vs hypothesis, you will find:

“Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or observation, and consensus emerges when other interested colleagues agree that evidence supports a hypothesis that has explanatory value.” (Reference)

            The hypothesis is stated in the first sentence in the Abstract: That frequency is the key to understanding the fundamental nature of time. Again, under the heading, The Hypothesis: “The hypothesis presented here is that frequency, which is defined as inverse time, e.g. in cycles per second, should be considered the most fundamental spatiotemporal process-unit in nature. Then time, as the inverse of frequency, is simply a mirror image of a quantum unit of energy, both of which are byproducts of relative motion.”

The motivation behind the reasoning is stated in the second sentence of the introduction, referring to physicist Lee Smolin, who said that “understanding the nature of time might be the most important question for this generation of physicists to answer because time holds the secret to understanding the universe.”

            The explanatory value that makes it a hypothesis is that it provides an interpretation (to supplement the Copenhagen interpretation) of quantum physics. It explains WHY energy is quantized into units: because relative motion separates it (the field of undifferentiated energy, i.e. potential) into one unit of space and one unit of time, yet upon reflection we realize that it is recombined into a spatiotemporal unit that must be modeled as both particle and wave. And the model is the proving ground where “conjecture” is theoretically tested and proven to provide the correct relationships. This geometric model does that by using the correspondence between vector and phasor formats. The fact that it reconciles the two formats, and reveals the fine structure constant, Planck’s constant, and the nature of spin in accordance with the golden ratio tells me that it is testable in the lab. I’m just not sure how to set up the experiment. That would be a great research project for a graduate thesis in my humble opinion. 

My student hasn’t replied to this yet, but if I were to anticipate his next question, it might be:

Question:

So how does this relate to the golden ratio?

My response:

The golden ratio is a numerical value that corresponds to a condition, situation or perspective in which two characteristics that appear to be different from one perspective, are the same from another perspective. In the coin example, the number 2pi does just that. Although it is not the number that most people recognize as the golden ratio, Phi, the two numbers are related in the equation:

Phi = 2*cos(pi/5)

In my next post, I hope to show how one of these constants can be considered more fundamental than the other. I’ll also illustrate with simple math how the equation for the golden ratio can be rearranged and written in a way that represents wholeness on one side of the equation and separateness on the other. This form of the equation will then be used to illustrate how a rational worldview based on separateness, or separation, which is the first step in the holomorphic process, naturally leads to a point of reflection that invites reunification. This is where this dualistic projection of reality looks the same when viewed from a perspective of separateness (the projection) as it does from a perspective of wholeness (the reflection).

The goal is to mathematically prove the value of the holomorphic process model and demonstrate how the reflection naturally presents itself with mathematical certainty. My hope is that, by knowing what to expect, i.e. knowing that we will be facing our true selves regardless of which worldview or perspective we take during the projection phase, and knowing that the reflection actually leads to reunification with Truth, we will make decisions in life that make it less painful to look at our reflection when it appears.

Theodore J. St. John, MS, MA, Ph. D. 17 Jan 2021

Note: After posting this I noticed that a bunch of symbols didn't present properly. So while I try to figure out how to fix them, here's a link to the PDF at viXra.

Abstract

            The purpose of this paper is to present a hypothesis: that frequency is the key to understanding the fundamental nature of time. Time and space are mirror images of each other and they are two different ways of expressing inverse frequency. The reason this is important is because, by starting with frequency the relationships of physics can be expressed by linear equations. It is known that frequency is directly proportional to and thus equivalent to quantum energy. By expressing the relationship of spatial frequency vs. temporal frequency as a simple geometric model, several well-known relationships fall into place without having to stretch the model into warped expressions of spacetime that require complicated hyperbolic functions or field equations. The result is a sensible interpretation of the meaning of time, spacetime, quantum particles and quantum wave functions. The model also lends itself directly to an understanding of how space and time become dissociated and transform into quantum bits of information, which automatically models reality as a quantum computer. The implications of these interpretations provide a bridge between physics, as a physical science, and life sciences that take in information from their surroundings, convolve it with itself as particles and thereby shape and reshape matter, allowing living organisms to change with time and adapt to their environment.

Introduction

            There have been many books and articles about the nature of time, especially since Stephen Hawking, brought it to the forefront in his book A Brief History of time. (Hawking 1990) Physicist Lee Smolin said that understanding the nature of time might be the most important question for this generation of physicists to answer because time holds the secret to understanding the universe. (Smolin, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe 2013) He concluded that time is real in the sense that: “Whatever is real in our universe is real in a moment of time, which is one of a succession of moments.” Another physicist, Richard Muller, explained that the Big Bang as a 4-dimensional explosion “continuously creates not only new space but also new time.” (Muller 2016) But many others still think that time is an illusion (Barbour 1999). And there are a few who consider time to be something that can be viewed as an intrinsic geometric property of three-dimensional space. Chappell, et. al. presented this using Clifford geometric algebra. (Chappell, et al. 2016) However, they “absorbed time into an expression of an invariant spacetime distance”. So rather than explaining the nature of time, they hide it in the square of a quaternion, which agrees with what most Cosmologists believe: that time is somehow mixed with and thus hidden in space to create spacetime.

            However, the nature of spacetime is even more mysterious than time. General relativity theory is the main framework that has been used to approach the problem of understanding spacetime, and it has served to explain a large body of observational information, including the red shift in light from far-away stars and galaxies, nuleosynthesis, (which predicts the amount of hydrogen that should have fused into helium) and the microwave background radiation, believed to be the “echo” of the Big Bang. (Kaku 1993, pg. 643) But this has generated even more questions and complex theories, like String Theory, M-Theory, Causal Set Theory, the Amplituhedron Theory and Loop Theory.

            According to George Musser, contributing editor at Scientific American and author of Spooky Action at a Distance (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015) and The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory (Alpha, 2008), “If physicists have learned anything from the long slog to unify their theories, it is that space and time form a system of such staggering complexity that it may defy our most ardent efforts to understand.” (Musser 2018) “The bottom-line lesson of quantum gravity” said Musser, “is that not all phenomena neatly fit within spacetime. Physicists will need to find some new foundational structure, and when they do, they will have completed the revolution that began just more than a century ago with Einstein.”

            Rather than proposing a new foundational structure, this paper reflects on and reconsiders how the old foundations were interpreted. According to E. A. Burtt in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, before the days of Newton, the treatment of time as an independent entity was considered by many to be a philosophical blunder. (Burtt 2003, pg. 158)

“Clearly, just as we measure space, first by some magnitude, and learn how much it is, later judging other congruent magnitudes by space; so we first reckon time from some motion and afterwards judge other motions by it; which is plainly nothing else than to compare some motions with others by the mediation of time; just as by the mediation of space we investigate the relations of magnitudes with each other.”

            In other words, a unit of time is just a unit of motion that is captured or “clocked” by a cyclical motion device as a unit measured in the past, to be used as a common denominator for other motion. Spacetime then is simply a spatiotemporal process that implicitly flows and we experience it as motion. But it must be expressed as a pair of explicit measurable quantities that appear to “dance with each other” and move independently with an inverse relationship. This inverse relationship will be explained and illustrated below in a simple geometric model.

The Hypothesis

            The hypothesis presented here is that frequency, which is defined as inverse time, e.g. in cycles per second, should be considered the most fundamental spatiotemporal process-unit in nature. Then time, as the inverse of frequency, is simply a mirror image of a quantum unit of energy, both of which are byproducts of relative motion. We may think that we sense time, but motion, which is ubiquitous, is what we actually sense. A quantum unit of energy is just energy in motion and there is no such thing as an object at rest. An object only appears to be at rest in its own reference frame. It is always in motion relative to everything else in the universe that is moving with respect to it. The reason that time is a “problem” in the first place is because we are taught to think of it as a primary fundamental unit. And that is because doing so allowed early physicists to predict the outcome of relative motion. That is where the money is, so to speak, because metering motion and predicting time and location of arrival is extremely practical and useful. But that model separates and hides the fundamental nature of reality and fools us into thinking that the physical aspect is what is real. Eventually that model reached its limit and began to create problems, like the ones described above and other “singularity problems”. (Smolin, The Trouble With Physics 2006)

            The solution I submit is to recognize frequency – the inverse of time – as primary. We start with the concept of energy. The word “energy” refers to an implicit concept that just is. To say that it is implicit means it cannot be expressed, only implied. If we try to express it, we make it explicit via the expression. As implicit to the universe, energy is ubiquitous; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But once explicated, (see David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Bohm 1980)) it can be changed in form. And the word “form” implies a shape that can be represented by a quantity. The most fundamental unit of energy is a quantum unit, and we know from quantum mechanics that it can be expressed as a function of frequency: , where  is Planck’s constant. In fact, the same equation holds whether f refers to temporal frequency, which is inverse time , or spatial frequency, which is inverse space, , where c is the speed of light. The s is usually written as wavelength () as in the equation . And since  defines the momentum of a photon and momentum implies the particulate form of energy (a quantum particle), spatial frequency is generally ignored. Perhaps that is because focusing on “objects” is of more interest to those who want to be objective. However, time is not an object and so it cannot be understood by focusing on objective reality.

Method

            The approach used here is to present a model with one unit of energy and its equivalent – one unit of frequency – on a rectangular coordinate system, as shown in Figure 1 (with energy represented by a vector arrow with magnitude of one), and frequencies represented as the first unit to scale the axes. So the frequency of one unit of energy would be one cycle per whatever unit you choose. And the value of c would depend on that choice of units. We will not choose common physical units. Instead, “natural units” are expressed (i.e. made explicit) so that each one is “one unit of energy”.

            Because the tip of each arrow in Figure 1 represents the “particle boundary” (this means the energy boundary of a quantum particle, not the physical boundary), the region outside of one unit represents the part of the universe that is not the particle. Logically, “not the particle” means the inverse of the particle; therefore, outside of the boundary on the spatial axis represents 3-D space (s) and on the temporal axis, it represents time (t).

Figure 1

            This may seem like an unconventional way of using a rectangular coordinate system because the units for energy are different from the units of space and time. But we do the same thing with vectors that represent motion that has magnitude and direction. It is a superposition of relationships. Regardless of what units of measurements are assigned, the relationships remain the same. The “outside” domain corresponds to relativistic relationships and the “inside” domain corresponds to quantum relationships. These two domains are often mixed mathematically, for example a unit of power is a unit of energy per unit time or . In Figure 1, this uses the inside unit of energy as the numerator and the outside unit as the denominator and the result is the slope of the diagonal line. Or if you rotate the axes with temporal units as the vertical and spatial units as the horizontal, the slope would represent a unit of force, since force is a unit of energy per unit distance or , where s would represent a unit of measure in one dimension – the direction of the force.  (Halliday, Resnick and Walker 1993)

            As it is in Figure 1, the slope of the diagonal line is  on the outside and  on the inside. In Hartree natural units,  is the speed of light and  is the fine structure constant, which is considered by most to be a fundamental constant in nature (Nair, et al. 2008). In the general relativity framework, it is a fundamental physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles. But it has multiple physical interpretations (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant) and some even suggest that it may not be strictly constant (Webb, et al. 1998). According to the model presented here, it is simply a clue that the expression of the quantum domain is the mirror image of the relativistic domain.

            Presenting space and time in this way allows several other relationships to fall in place as well, as shown in Figure 2, where the subscript in  stands for deBroglie, to distinguish it from , which is rest energy and , which is total energy. (Reproduced from Figure 6 of (StJohn, The Holomorphic Process-Understanding the Holographic Nature of Reality as a Metamorphic Process 2018))

Figure 2

            Notice that the kinetic energy term is represented by the part of the total energy vector that lies outside of the “particle” boundary. It is a reflection of the fact that a quantum particle is a unit of energy, geographically expressed in the energy domain, which is superimposed over the relativistic domain (s and t, not labeled in this figure). In other words, a particle, or any physical object, can be perceived as an independent object –or– as an object that is in motion relative to anything else in the universe that is moving relative to it. And the two representations can be superimposed by applying the appropriate scaling factor or coordinate transformation. The Lorentz factor,  serves this purpose here.

            Figure 1 and Figure 2 were presented to validate this model of frequency with its inverses (space and time). In order to use it to understand the nature of time, the outer (relativistic) rectangular domain will be scaled as usual, see Figure 3, with linear increments of time, and the inner (frequency) domain will be scaled with increments of inverse time. Thus Figure 3 is a two dimensional representation of a torus, with the quantum domain as the region inside the circle – the event reference or “event horizon” in black hole lingo – and the relativistic domain on the outside. The vertical axis still represents 3-D space, but we’re focusing on time in this figure, so the labels are left off in the figure. All four quadrants are shown because the inner domain will be identified as a polar domain in the next section. 

Figure 3

            Historically, physicists have taken  to be a legitimate starting point for measurement. But according to Figure 3,  corresponds to  or an infinite frequency.  Obviously there is no such thing as infinite frequency, so using  as a reference point for linearly scaled motion creates a problem. The problem is that regardless of what units of measure you choose, one unit is one unit. And if the fundamental unit of motion is a unit of frequency, then units of space and time must be represented as inverses between 0 and 1. In other words, a measurement of one unit is a true measurement so using  as an event reference makes the model fit reality. The problem with back-projecting that measurement to zero is that it stretches the truth, and trying to force reality to fit the model creates a warped interpretation of reality. Without a geometric model, math doesn’t reveal this problem. Differential Calculus for example, handles this stretching operation by shrinking the polar domain in terms of time down to a point: the , and then defines that using linear units of measure as instantaneous speed in one direction. For most practical purposes this is fine and very useful because it is accurate within the precision limits of measurement.

            But quantum physics is all about the part inside the limit as  and . When it was being developed, Niels Bohr formulated the “correspondence principle”, which requires that the behavior of systems described in the new quantum model must reduce to the same proven results as the classical model. But then they had to provide interpretations that did not correspond to reality as we know it in the “real world”. They accepted that the quantum world was just weird. And physicists working with special and general relativity have accepted the same “cop out”: that the cosmos is just warped and weird.

            To an engineer, the problem is that physicists are not concerned with the real world and therefore, mistake the map for the territory. Engineers recognize the warping effect as an artifact that is caused by mapping, which is a required part of an engineer’s curriculum because it is a standard method used for solving boundary value problems. Conformal maps preserve relationships in the form of size and attitude (sense of angles) from one domain to another. (Kreyszig 1979, pg. 599) In this case, the slope of the diagonal line in the figure is a conformal projection of a unit in the dimension perpendicular to the space-time plane, i.e. the motion dimension. Therefore, the model presented here is called the Space-Time-Motion or STM model. (StJohn 2018)

            So the quantum point,  is just the circle you might draw on a plane to represent the third axis coming out of the page. In control system design, engineers make great efforts to ensure that control systems avoid approaching singular points, like  called “poles” because they represent conditions of maximum instability in the system. (Ogata 1970, pg. 23) That, I submit, is the problem with modern theoretical physics. The models that held time as a primary fundamental unit became unstable and the back-projection “blew up” in a “cataclysmic explosion 10-20 billion years ago”, as Michio Kaku put it (Kaku 1993) because they assume that there was a beginning to the universe. But if there is no such thing as zero time or zero space, i.e. no beginning to the universe, then even though real events can be fit into the model, the model still doesn’t fit reality.

            On the other hand, frequency is equivalent to a real unit of energy. Spatial frequency and temporal frequency are explicit units, just like space and time, but neither one is separated into three dimensions, so they work together as linear relations, commonly used as Fourier and Laplace transforms.  Space and time still work as scales that can be manipulated any way you want, to build symbolic models that are appropriate for specific applications. But extending the linear scales back to the origin brushes over the meaning of the quantum unit of motion. That unit is a unit of vibration – a kernel information. And that information reflects the meaning of time.

            So rather than stretching or brushing over it, we will use a polar coordinate system and correlate the polar domain with quantum space and the rectangular domain with relativistic space. Then we correlate vectors in relativistic space with phasors in quantum space. The benefit of this approach is that it provides interpretations that correspond to proven results in both quantum and relativistic models, described in (StJohn 2018), as well as the real world, i.e. it will be shown below that the relationships derived from this approach produce the golden ratio, which is evident in the structure of living organisms.

Phase Vectors and Phasor Diagrams

            Vectors are defined by their magnitude and direction and are normally superimposed over rectangular coordinate systems. “Phasors” as shown in Figure 4 are phase vectors, i.e. they define their angle as measured from a reference (usually the horizontal axis) in a polar coordinate system. So rather than scaling the inside part of the t axis as , phasors use angular frequency, . They are commonly used in electrical engineering to represent waves of alternating current for transmission of power or radio signals. In these applications, phasors always have constant magnitude, like , the radius of the circle in Figure 1, so they are more useful for constant amplitude waves. Here, the portion of the vector inside the circle in Figure 2 that represents a particle “at rest” is represented as the solid phasor in Figure 4.  The endpoint of this discussion will be to illustrate what this type of coordinate system reveals as time passes (the golden ratio), but was hidden when the quantum domain was ignored and thus hidden.

            A phasor diagram only needs one axis to scale its magnitude and provide a reference for the angle of the phasor, but in this application we need both the quantum and relativistic systems because whatever happens in one domain also happens in the other and we will be able to jump back an forth as needed.

Figure 4

            Even though energy appears to be collapsed and localized into a particle, a particle is still in motion relative to everything else in the universe, so it must be expressed as a spatiotemporal unit. This can be accomplished by separating the phasor in Figure 4 into a spatial component (at an angle  to the left dashed phasor) and a temporal component (at an angle  to the right dashed phasor). The difference angle  represents the phase difference between the two. As time passes, these two express as separate waves, but  represents the phasor that remains constant to represent the solid phasor (not the ones that are dashed lines), collinear with the relativistic vector  in Figure 2.

            The phase angle is the same expression used as the argument of a transverse wave, such as , where  is the maximum amplitude of the wave,  and . But in that case, the model is used to plot the wave moving either in space or in time while the other is held constant A phasor diagram allows them both to change together as inverses of each other. So one phasor in Figure 4 must rotate to the left as the other rotates to the right at the same constant angular rate. Again, this leaves the original diagonal phasor, the total energy of the quantum particle, to remain unchanged.

            As the left vector begins to rotate left and get a higher slope  in reference to the relativistic frame, (as shown in Figure 4), this would be interpreted to mean it is increasing speed and since the vector component projected onto the space axis is getting larger, that suggests that the particle is getting bigger or diffusing. Similarly, the right vector projects as if it were slowing down and getting smaller or collapsing. So this would mean that the particle is beginning to separate itself into an inner sphere and an outer sphere. In reality, one would argue that this is related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and nothing is happening to the actual particle. It’s the model that must change in order to represent change that results from the passage of time. And since the appearance of the physical particle doesn’t change, the spatial part of the expression has to be renormalized, moment-by-moment, whereas the temporal part does not. The question is, what defines that “moment”. That is where the golden ratio appears in the model.

Result: The Golden Ratio

            There is a point in the two phasors’ rotation where the two slopes reach a very special value. Figure 5 shows this for the left phasor (kr) and Figure 6 for the right phasor (). That special value is the point where the slope, which is a ratio, reaches the golden ratio, What’s so special about the golden ratio? It is the solution to the relation . If  is the slope of the left phasor, this means that if the reference scale shifts by one unit on either axis, i.e. one moment in time and one moment in space, then the rotated phasor with the slope, , can be replaced by a new phasor (shown as phasor 3) with the same slope as phasor 2, except as referred to the outside reference frame (just as c and  were shown in Figure 1) and shifted by one unit as shown in both Figure 5 and Figure 6.

            And there is a “twist”: Since the angle of each phasor is found by taking the arctan (the opposite over the adjacent sides of the right triangle), it is easy to calculate that the two new phasors are rotated (ergo twisted) by 13.28^o in opposite directions as compared to the old vector, phasor 1.

            As mentioned above, just before the shift, the “size” of the “new particle” in the unshifted reference frame (the projection of phasor 2 on the space axis in both figures) is different from the original particle (phasor 1).  The projection of the left (spatial) phasor in Figure 5 suggests that the particle is growing, but because it doesn’t appear to be physically larger, the scale of the space axis has to be renormalized. In effect, the “new” phasor, phasor 3, seems to have collapsed along with the new renormalized coordinate system. So we can imagine that the particle expands for a “golden moment” then collapses back to the original size. Or we could say that the rectangular coordinate system rotated to put phasor 3 back at  giving the particle its characteristic angular momentum or spin.  When that happens, the temporal phasor must also rotate to the right to account for the 13.28^o to keep . The result is the same particle that contains a “module” of inverse-temporal information, i.e. it is a frequency modulated unit of information (what Nassim Haramein calls a Planck unit that makes up the unified field).

Figure 5

Figure 6

            So even if nothing physical about the particle itself changed, the observer’s perception changed because the particle appears to have rotated in space and time. We sense the motion in space because it has momentum, and “pulls” the surrounding space inward, which we measure as gravity. And we sense that it has moved in time, but we interpret it to be unchanging in time. Rather than thinking that the particle changed in time, we think that time has changed independent of the particle. And that is a perfectly legitimate interpretation for most practical purposes. But if that is true, where did the time go?

            It went inward as a moment of inverse time and its reflection went outward as our normal notion of a moment in time: i.e. the classic “arrow of time”. Because the space axis was renormalized but the temporal axis was not, the old temporal phasor still appears to represent a smaller particle (projection of phasor 3 on the space axis), which we could imagine objectively as an “event-particle” (a term from Process Philosophy (Whitehead 1929)) or qbit of information collapse inside toward the infinitesimal center of the physical particle. This suggests that a torus is a better model than a sphere to represent quantum particles. And it might correspond to energy levels that represent electron orbitals in the current models of physics, but that has not been verified. And if this model represents a living being, it suggests that the inner “event-particle” might be associated with our memory and with our genetic code stored as quantum units, twisted in the helical form of DNA, being programmed in real time.

            Keep in mind that the projections on the space and time axes do not represent total energy of the particle, but rather waves in space and time. But the difference in phase angles between the new and old particle can be represented as a different wave that modulates the particle frequency. And as a wave, it is a unit of information. This supports the idea that perhaps Information Theory provides a better approach to understanding reality than the Standard Model of Particle Physics. (Davies and Gregersen 2010)

            It is also important to note that the golden ratio can be written in the form . So this refers the slope back to the inside domain of the original reference frame and presents the old energy term as being squared. In classical wave theory, the square of a wave amplitude refers to intensity, i.e. the amount of energy that passes through a unit area perpendicular to the wave direction in time. In this case, that direction is inward.  

            The golden ratio has been known for centuries and used in art and architecture because applying it to determine proportions for figures and buildings creates aesthetically pleasing results. And it appears as a common pattern in leaves, plants, fruits and flowers (very obvious in pineapples and pine cones) as well as seashells (for example the nautilus) and animals, including humans. Clearly the golden ratio is much more than a tool for art. According to the STM model presented here, it is the relationship that shapes every fiber of our being and every moment of space and time. And as projections of life, we literally resonate with it.

         Conclusion

            This process, which I call the holomorphic process, by which the unified field separates into two domains, projects itself inward and outward, reflects on itself (at the point that its motion reaches the golden ratio) and reunifies, is how three dimensions of space are mixed with one dimension of time to make spacetime seem to be some kind of weird phenomenon different than energy when in fact it is just information-modulated energy, which is called “truth” since it actually happened. If space is represented as a sphere on three-dimensional coordinate system, then time is just the inward-outward direction. It is as simple to understand as considering the radius of a sphere to be a fourth dimension, except that each sphere captures the implicit process as information. We just happen to scale it by a standard clock. There’s nothing special about standard clock time. It was a measure of motion that was recorded and is now “clocked” as a reference at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). So it is effectively anointed and treated as being a sacred unit.

            The logical twist (thinking that time itself is different than inverse frequency) and strict definition of time as an unchanging unit, objectifies and hides the meaning of time, because it ignores the convolution process. Convolution means that space and time form a convoluted whole, i.e. the information present on the outside is continuously convolved, with the particle. This process shapes the particle into a form that can be perceived at the macroscopic level as being at rest. It’s the form or shape that implies the information and dictates its behavior. This is exactly how anatomical information gets infused or implied in an x-ray or holographic film. But, whereas the information in a hologram must be deconvolved by illuminating it with another laser, the information in a quantum particle is automatically deconvolved by relative motion (its behavior).

            One example, of how relative motion deconvolves information, was demonstrated by Albert Einstein when he used statistical analysis of Brownian motion (random motion of dust particles) to prove that their motion implied the existence of forms we now know as molecules. In his 1956 paper, Investigations On The Theory of the Brownian Movement, he hypothesized that the movement of dust-particles on the surface of a spherical drop of liquid was the visible macro process implied by random collisions with molecules. He developed an equation for the distribution of the number of particles per unit volume as a function of time (t) and position (x). He said, “we will calculate the distribution of the particles at a time  from the distribution at the time t.” Then he solved for the moment of the distribution. As with any statistical distribution, the “moment” provides us with a single measure of a collective behavior, deduced from the shape of the distribution. That means that the shape evolves by convolving the function, defined by the implicit nature of the micro system, with time. By expanding and rearranging it, he effectively deconvolved it and solved for the diffusion coefficient. This deconvolved expression was then verified by experimental observation of dust particles.

            As each moment of time passes, the quantum bits of information that are present – in the present – (on the surface of every quantum particle) collapse inward and become infused into the particle as bitwise recordings, collectively called “the past”. So a unit of inverse-time is interpreted as a “moment of the past” – a single “logical” quantum bit of information stored in three “physical” dimensions. Collective, it forms a four-bit qbit. As part of a larger quantum computer, it self-programs, self-corrects and runs itself, which is an idea that is currently being studied. (Lloyd d’Arbelof n.d.) (Lloyd 2007)  (Almheiri, Dong and Harlow 2015) (Wolchover 2019) The outward-pointing vector simply corresponds to the mysterious arrow of time.

            The most profound implication of this is that all physical matter, including a living organism, is recording every moment in time. So we are a reflection of every event, action and word that we experience including those that we generate. These interpretations provides a bridge between physics, as a physical science, and the life sciences, which must include information from the environment that convolves with particles to allow life to grow, change and adapt.

Bibliography

• Almheiri, Ahmed, Xi Dong, and Daniel Harlow. “Bulk locality and quantum error correction in AdS/CFT.” Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, no. 163 (2015).
• Barbour, Julian. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Kindle. Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. 1980.
• Burtt, E. A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003.
• Chappell, James M., John G. Hartnett, Nicolangelo Iannella, Azhar Iqbal, and Derek Abbott. “Time As a Geometric Property of Space.” Frontiers in Physics; Mathematical and Statistical Physics, Nov 2016.
• Davies, Paul, and Niels Gregersen, . Information and the Nature of Reality From Physics to Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Halliday, David, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. Fundamentals of Physics. 4th. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc, 1993.
• Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time; From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books, 1990.
• Kaku, Michio. Quantum Field Theory, A Modern Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
• Kreyszig, Erwin. Advanced Engineering Mathematics. 4th. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
• Lloyd d’Arbelof, Seth. “Universe as quantum computer.” https://cds.cern.ch/. https://cds.cern.ch/record/412531/files/9912088.pdf (accessed Oct 20, 2020).
• Lloyd, Seth. Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. 2007.
• Muller, Richard A. Now: The physics of time. W. W. Norton & Company, 2016.
• Musser, George. “What is Spacetime.” Scientific American, June 1, 2018.
• Nair, R. R., et al. “Fine Structure Constant Defines Visual Transparency of Graphene.” (Science) 320 (June 2008).
• Ogata, Katsuhiko. Modern Control Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1970.
• Smolin, Lee. The Trouble With Physics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
• —. Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Kindle. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.
• StJohn, Theodore J. “The Holomorphic Process. Understanding the Holographic Nature of Reality as a Metamorphic Process.” Archives of Physics Research 9, no. 2 (2018): 17-44.
• StJohn, Theodore J. “The Holomorphic Process-Understanding the Holographic Nature of Reality as a Metamorphic Process.” Archives of Physics Research 9, no. 2 (2018): 17-44.
• Webb, John K., Victor V. Flambaum, Christopher W. Churchill, Michael J. Drinkwater, and John D. Barrow. “A Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant.” arXiv:astro-ph/9803165v4, 1998.
• Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Edinburgh: Simon and Schuster, 1929.
• Wolchover, Natalie. “How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code.” Quanta Magazine, Jan 3, 2019.

By Theodore J. St. John, MS, MA, Ph. D.                                                       15 Jan 2021

            Introduction

I recently discovered a website called the Thrive Movement (thrivemovement.com) and watched the documentary video “Thrive I”. Although I don’t know enough to comment on the conspiracy theories they present, their discussion about the unified field was very much in line with the holomorphic process. One of the take-home messages was the assertion that “the solutions to virtually all our problems come through alignment with the flow of the energy in the field.” The question I would like to ask (and offer an answer) is: how do we do that? In order to know how to do it we first have to know what it means to be aligned. In the video, the unified field was represented by the torus, and as a physicist, it made a lot of sense to me. It came as an epiphany because I had always focused on a spherical model of quantum particles and a spherical shell model of atoms. But then I realized that the torus model fell into alignment with everything I knew, from nuclear physics to life in general. I’ll explain in my next post, “A Geometric Model Based on Frequency That Reveals the Nature of Time“, an article that I had written long before I saw the Thrive video.

            My wife watched the video with me and she was not able to grasp the importance of the torus. As a housewife, full-time mother and now a grandmother, she has a worldview that didn’t resonate with the torus model even though I believe that for the most part, she is in “alignment with the flow of the energy in the field”.  I see this as a missing link, a line of reasoning that is needed to connect one’s current worldview, represented by the torus itself, to a person’s center, represented by the central core – the “hole” in the center of the torus.  So in this paper I will present an explanation that I hope will provide the missing link for others.

It’s about time… or rather timing

            Some would say that “aligning with the flow of the energy in the field” means to live in harmony with nature. But as Arthur Young explained in The Reflexive Universe, Evolution of Consciousness most processes that are in harmony with nature act in ways that increase entropy, i.e. increase disorder or disorganization. Then he pointed out that there is a critical turning point in nature: a point where energy, in the form of a polymer (a group of physical molecules), somehow becomes able to go against nature and reverse or decrease entropy. Rather than just being complex chains of molecules (polymers) they become organisms in the true sense of the word: they organize, decrease disorder. As a result, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its physical parts, i.e. the parts synergize. Not only are they able to store energy, they are able to choose how to use it.

            As a nuclear engineer, I am very familiar with this phenomenon in non-living matter. We call it “mass defect” and it is the source of the energy of a nuclear bomb. And we understand how to use it in a controlled nuclear power reactor to provide heat and generate electricity that can then be used to support life. So it is a very real and powerful phenomenon. But what Young points out is that, unlike heavy metals used in nuclear power, organic polymers that make up proteins have molecular bonds that, within a specific range of temperatures, allow the polymers to be flexible – to move in a free and random fashion. And they move as a result of interactions with their surroundings. Sometimes they move in phase with those interactions and sometimes they are out of phase. When they move in phase, they experience what is commonly known as a standing wave, which can collect, store and cause mechanical systems to release a bunch of energy (the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster video shows a great example). The key point that Young makes early in the book (see pg. 49) is that the ability to synergize and then use correct timing to control the release of the stored energy is what distinguishes life from non-life.  That, he says, has to be learned.

            But how do you learn correct timing? Like learning to dance, first you have to learn the basic moves of the process that you want to time. Not only do you have to know the basic moves, you have to know the order in which they happen. Timing then is just a matter of recognizing cues that signal the next step is about to happen. Clearly, if there is a “correct” (right, good, etc.) direction that supports life and points us “forward” in the process, there is an “incorrect” direction. Based on this, I would say that “alignment with the flow of the energy in the field” implies the “correct” direction of the flow – the direction that results in synergy. Therefore we need to learn the basic steps and the correct order, which is what I will present as the holomorphic process model.

The basic steps and the correct order

            As explained by Young, the starting point for understanding consciousness is “light”. He defines light energy as a “unit of action” and he develops a map, called an “arc” that lays out the downward path of transformation (“the fall”) that energy naturally takes due to increasing entropy in the process of becoming physical matter. Then he explains how there is a region within the spectrum of process where certain types of chemical compounds exist in the right state of flexibility (their chemical bonds behave in a free and random fashion) and within a range of temperature that allow them to experience motion. And their motion, which is initially caused by random interactions with other units of energy, can become resonant motion, thereby allowing them to store energy.  At that point, it is possible for them to use that stored energy as feedback to control the timing of their own “bodies” and reverse entropy by increasing organization. This is the turning point – the point at which physical molecules gain a degree of self-control – that he defines as “the origin of life”.

            He explained that “the fall” was a stepwise loss of freedom, referring to the number of degrees of freedom that the energy experienced while transforming from light into nuclear particles and eventually into chains of molecules. This, he explained, could also be seen as an increase in the number of constraints to movement. The turn then corresponds to the point where matter regains some freedom (the freedom of movement), which gives it the ability or potential to climb back toward a state of total freedom (no constraints) – as light. But it is only the potential to do so; it requires work (a form of energy) and it requires some trial and error to learn which actions allow it to rise forward and which actions will cause it to fall backward again.  I submit the holomorphic process, which I will explain below, as a model that provides evidence as to which is which – a practical model that can be used in daily life. But first we need to drill down even deeper into Young’s model.

            Young provided a good model at the physical level, assuming you consider nuclear particles to be physical. He mentioned that an underlying cyclic process was repeated at every level of development, resulting in tiers, levels, sub-stages, stages, etc., which he applied to living beings and categorized them as kingdoms, species, families, etc. He said, “In each case, a plurality of units at one level is a unit at the next level.” And again, he discussed directionality in terms of the “fall” and the “turn”. So he recognized the tiered nature of the pattern present at each level and had good reason to conclude that the process segmented itself into seven distinct steps or stages at the physical level. The eighth step, he said, would correspond to a complete transformation – a metamorphosis into a new type of being: a new kingdom.

            But Young never went deep enough to what I consider to be the “kernel of process”, i.e. the fundamental process that makes the whole theory work. He alluded to it as a “unit of action” and mentioned parts of it when he discussed duality and polarity, such as the separation of unified energy into a duality – binary bits, like a proton-electron pair. And he briefly mentioned a torus as being the intersection of two circularities (pg. xxv), as shown below in Figure 1. But I submit that the bottom line of the process is where we can find the missing link – the line of reasoning that will provide a common theme between worldviews – the key to directionality. Then we should be better able to use that key and unlock our own source of power.

            It is my contention that the cyclic motion between two extremes, and its associated direction, which is what puts the “vector” in the vector equilibrium discussed in Thrive I, is the most fundamental “kernel of process”. Here the word “kernel” is interpreted like the permanent computer code that is at the core of a computer’s operating system. It instructs the computer on what to do at the machine level in order to boot up and operate; and it has complete control over everything in the system. But a kernel also means “the central or most important part of something” and “the soft, edible part of a seed” when used in the context of living things. In that analogy, the holomorphic process would be a “gamete” and is an appropriate model for developing the toroidal seed of process.

Figure 1 Two circularities in the torus. If the horizontal circle represents a magnetic field, the straight arrow would represent the direction of an electric current (discussed in the appendix). The two vertical circles could then be interpreted as a complete path, which is required to make an electric circuit.

The “correct” direction

            The torus is an excellent 3-dimensional representation of a kernel (or seed from which life springs forth) because it provides a visual model of two cyclic processes modeled as two orthogonal circles coupled exactly like an electromagnetic wave. It provides directionality, but its directionality as a whole depends on the direction of the two circular components. Understanding the individual components will allow us to apply this directionality to process in everyday life. The individual components represent individual standing waves, which cannot be considered life even though they store energy. It is the combination and interaction of two that gives it both sustainability and direction as a unit.

            Each circle acts like one of two “gametes” that must combine properly with each other to make the “seed” fertile. They are the mono-processes that have a “correct” direction relative to each other that allows them to couple just like electric and magnetic waves each have inherently “correct” vector directions (in accordance with the right-hand rule). For the purpose of relating the correct direction to events in everyday life, the holomorphic process model breaks the circle into four phases (separation, projection, reflection, and reunification).

            By observing life in action, we can recognize each phase of this process at every level and verify that it is “correct”, i.e. it resonates and supports life. In fact, it has been used as a guide throughout history in the form of mythology, expressed as the “hero’s journey” – the quest for enlightenment. Joseph Campbell relates all enduring myths from all cultures to the “monomyth”, which he lays out as separation, initiation, return. It’s the same process, but Campbell combined projection and reflection into one word, “initiation”. And he explains how the myths warn against trying to go back or refusing the return. There are plenty of examples of how processes that try to operate in the opposite direction die out or lead to crises.  I’ll discuss this in the last section, Evidence of the Holomorphic Process. Thus it can be used as a guide to tell us which way is “up” or “forward” (the direction after Young’s “turn” that supports life and results in a rise in consciousness) and which way is “down” or “backward”.

The torus and the helix of life

            In addition to accounting for the two processes, a torus model can also account for the apparent separation of spacetime (the unified field) into space and time. Here’s how:

            When using a 2-D circle to represent a cycle, we normally consider the end of one cycle to be the same point on the circle as the beginning. But that’s not really the case in spacetime because the end is shifted in time with respect to the beginning. So it would be more appropriate to use a helix, which clearly has an up-and-down or forward-and-backward direction depending on how you orient at it. If you were to draw lines to represent a vortex spiraling into a torus and follow it through the center, out and around for several cycles, you would see a helix.

            The holomorphic process model is simply a way to label one cycle of this helix, with four words: separation, projection, reflection and reunification. The name of the fourth step is reunification rather than return because the model represents a real physical entity that appears to remain unchanged even though it has progressed in time, so we see it as being reunified or renormalized. In effect, it becomes a newer version of its “former self” each time the intersection of the helix with cross-sectional plane moves “up” or “forward” and aligns with the previous version. And that is why it is appropriate to model living beings that evolve.

Expanding consciousness

            Another way to look at the model is by starting with a flash of light and considering quantum particle as being the surface of an expanding sphere of light. As a particle model, it is modeled as two other cyclic phenomena (angular momentum and spin) like a two-axis gimbal that has a “particular” size in space and is distinct from its surroundings. But as light, we would model it as two coupled waves. According to the probability interpretation, it already exists as a particle in potentia and were we to observe it, it would appear to have “collapsed” to that particular size. The problem with that is, if the flash of light were considered to be a regular spherical wavefront, it would expand radially outward and in any amount of time be physically larger than before. Therefore, an observation would have to collapse the “outer sphere of light” into its own center. And light as we know it in the form of photons doesn’t do that. There would have to be a reflector, like a physical mirror in order for the light to turn around.

            So rather than a “flash of light”, we would have to be considered it to be the unified field – the undifferentiated essence that doesn’t move but is implicit to the universe – as opposed to the explicit form that can be measured (photons).  In that case, we might consider our minds to play the role of reflector. And the reflection happens the moment we make an observation, which transforms our “outer space” (images of the physical world) into “inner space”. I use the word “transforms” rather than “brings” our “outer space” into “inner space” because it doesn’t move; it just happens in no time. The information “outside” reshapes the mind of the observer who is “inside”, giving it a broader perspective and expanded consciousness – represented by the “surface” of the torus.

Toward practical application in life

            Regardless of how you get to where you are in life, eventually something happens (either positive of negative) that makes you realize that life has taken you somewhere (by an action or process). So you can model life (a process) as a vehicle (a complex physical “thing”). Then you can look at your vehicle and compare it to other people’s vehicles and wonder why yours runs better or worse than anyone else’s. Or maybe you look back and try to find the “road” that your vehicle took you down to get to where you are. Arthur Young did both, but he made it clear that there is no “road”. Instead, it is more like a flight-path that is not physical but can be illustrated on a map, which he called the “arc”. He looked at the vehicle and noticed how it had changed in a stepwise fashion, experiencing quantum-leap metamorphic transformations as it proceeded on life’s journey. Then he analyzed it and identified the seven waypoints along the journey where the major transformations had occurred.

            The “arc” map even showed the vehicle-manufacturing part of the process. It started at the top of a hill and each step in the assembly process was moved along automatically (suggesting no need for an external vehicle-maker), as if it was “falling” into darkness (loss of freedom). Near the bottom of the hill, the vehicle had developed its engine (“a hypothetical monad”, “a quantum of action”, “a ghost in the machine”, or “a spark of life” all mentioned on pg. 46), already idling and on the tracks that led to the turning point at the bottom of the “arc”.  

            A few points that I found important were

1. The “vehicle” isn’t really a “live” vehicle until it has an “engine” that can move or self-motivate it. He said, “Light is pure action” (pg. 11) and later discussed the importance of proper timing as a key factor in the origin of life (pg. 49). So I interpret the “engine” to be a unit of action that is self-sustaining and therefore properly timed.
2. The vehicle wouldn’t actually move unless it had direction: a purpose or destination, which he identified with a very profound statement (also on pg. 11) that “light is not seen; it is seeing”, which is an action. So the destination is a state of seeing, i.e. insight or conscious awareness.
3. Although the first turn or “bounce” launches the vehicle automatically, the rest of the flight must be intentional, i.e. self-controlled and directed to the next waypoint. Considering the number of waypoints from nuclear particle to human life, it is a very long flight and requires a lot of patience.
4. And most importantly, the vehicle is “living” because it can reverse entropy by learning to find its way and learning the dance (timing and attitude, i.e. direction).

The holomorphic process

            So how does this help us live in alignment with the unified field? First, it tells us we have to direct ourselves to the next waypoint. That is where the torus model and holomorphic process come in. First you must realize that a torus is a physical model – a “vehicle” that helps us to visualize the process. And the points that I want to make are: how it serves to model the process to reverse entropy, allowing us to harness and store energy; and more importantly, how that “free energy” provides power… and can be wasted in the form of force.

            In terms of physics and mathematics, force = energy divided by distance. So force is associated with distance, i.e. separateness. Power is a unit of action; power = energy divided by time, measured in Joules per second or watts and is therefore associated with time. David R. Hawkins discusses this in his book Power vs. Force. He says, “Because force automatically creates counter-force, its effect is limited by definition… Power, on the other hand, is still. It’s like a standing wave that doesn’t move.” He uses gravity as an example, but like gravity, the unified field doesn’t move. “Its power moves all objects within its field but the gravity field [or unified field] itself does not move.” (pg. 132) The same could be said about truth.

            Application

            So picture a group of people trying to find a win/win solution in a spherical room. The spherical shape represents the first harmonic in three dimensions because everyone has organized (in harmony at some frequency, perhaps a very high harmonic) for the purpose of finding a solution. They all have separateand perhaps very different (not harmonic) ideas. Imagine that they stand at the center of the room facing outward and projecting those ideas out for everyone to “see”. Now imagine all these ideas as visual images projected onto the outer surface of the sphere (a screen model). In order for them all to see all of the ideas regardless of where they are facing, imagine the images revolving horizontally around the screen. Obviously it takes some amount of time for everyone to see all of the ideas, so the power that we hope to obtain from this effort has already separated into energy (the vibrational images) divided by time (temporal units – the inverse of temporal frequency).

            Next, the people must reflect on all of the ideas. Reflecting is a form of turning and is what creates the potential for the sphere to turn into a torus. This is not automatic. It requires the people to open their minds to new ideas. To visualize this, imagine that the images that are revolving horizontally around the outer screen begin moving up vertically as each idea “rises up” in each person’s consciousness, resulting in a spiral motion upward. When new ideas resonate with each person, the projections reach the top of the sphere. Their open minds are represented by the path for the spiral of information to move down from the top and into the center (for reunification) forming a vortex that transforms the sphere into a torus.

            Because they are ideas, they flow right back out the bottom of the torus (separation) and project out to the outer surface again for everyone to see. But now they form a new pattern – an image of a solution that is produced by the synergistic combination of all resonant parts of the individual ideas. Then, the people reflect on the potential solution and if that solution is not the “true solution” this new image interacts with any dissonance remaining in the peoples’ minds (reunification). So they separate and project new ideas (or new versions of their old ideas), which rise up and around again and continue to give the new image its form and clarity. With patience and perseverance, they can arrive at the true win/win solution. 

            I think this is also helpful to decrease the tendency for one person to fixate on his own ideas. It clarifies the importance of patience and maintaining an open mind. Although my idea resonates with everything I know (so they seem perfect to me), some of the details are likely to be out of harmony with the true solution. But I won’t see that unless I reflect on other ideas. If I do so humbly (i.e. without fixating) then any parts of my ideas that don’t resonate with the true solution will be met with some other idea and interact with them in a way that informs the error into a shape that I can see and make the necessary modification. Therefore, the details of who was right and who was wrong no longer seems to matter. “Wrong” ideas can be seen as important parts of the process.

            Free energy? 

            So how does this relate to free energy? First let me say this: just like the adage, “freedom isn’t free,” I submit that “free energy isn’t free” in the sense that nobody has to work for it or sacrifice (trade) for it. The word “free” just means it has been freed up for use because although it was required in the formation process, once the metamorphosis has occurred, it is no longer needed for that purpose and can be put to better use. However, using it for another purpose will be a trade off because, in the case of nuclear binding energy for example, the atom that you take it from must lose its particulate form and separate again, i.e. fission. As a nuclear engineer, I don’t yet see how a device can harness usable energy out of the unified field like those discussed in the Thrive videos, but I’m working on it. But it is still an important topic I’d like to discuss as it applies to our personal power to effect change.

            When you gain free energy in the psyche, you know it because you feel it. You suddenly get a feeling of awakening – the Ah-ha! moment – a feeling of an epiphany and a charge of energy. It is a feeling of being raised up to a higher level of awareness when the details fall into place, the extra details fall away as byproducts of the process and you rise above all of the differences. As a member of a group you feel reunited with the people and you feel a collective “high”. This reunification is the fourth step in the holomorphic process (separation, projection, reflection, reunification). You feel the power, i.e. the energy that had been divided by the time it took to experience the process. Remember, energy divided by time is power and you feel “empowered” to take on the next challenge. This power is in the form of the skill and willingness to take the actions necessary to solve a problem. In the words of psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, you enter the Flow zone. “Flow” is a state that you experience when you have the right level of skill (not too much and not too little) and the willingness to accept and meet challenges in your life. It produces a sense of movement in the right direction because it feeds itself and supports its own life.

Evidence of the Holomorphic Process

            In my yet-to-be-published book Holomorphosis and the Hologenetic Universe, I describe how the holomorphic process and its effects are evident in many areas of life, starting with our daily routine: after waking up we separate from home in the morning, and project ourselves out into the world to meet the challenges of our vocations (our daily hero’s journey). Once we gain whatever is needed for survival, we reflect on home and return home to unwind and reunify with our family.

            If you live in the flow, the feelings that are associated with each of these phases are evident. Again, I label them awakening-high-challenge-unwinding, in that order. If you love your job and family, you wake up every morning with joy and enthusiasm about getting to work and challenging yourself or tackling any challenges that present themselves. Afterward, you spend the rest of the day relaxing and finally falling sleeping, which is when your body experiences a mini fall to allow the process to reestablish physical quantum units for you to use the next day when the process repeats.

            Waking up is the event that corresponds to the turn. It’s a holotropic metamorphosis that I call “Holomorphosis”. “Holotropic” means turning as a whole. I took it from Stanislav Grof’s book title: The Holotropic Mind.  In my book I discuss how the feelings that come from every day turning experiences can be used as clues to whether we are flowing in alignment with or against the flow of the field. Each turn affects attitude (meaning the way we feel) in a way that depends on our attitude, (meaning our direction). As Young explained, the process requires a destination in order to progress, and we choose our destination with our attitude. The “right” destination is to a state of increased freedom, which is a state of conscious awareness. That is our destiny. But, as can be seen in the torus model, the journey is not linear and there is a period in every cycle that requires us to fall a little, to recharge enough for the next step. That’s the part that requires no effort on our part.

            Our power is what motivates us to take actions but our attitude defines the direction that those actions take us. In the book I provide historical evidence that society has always taken the direction that is opposite to the direction that would give it life as a “superorganism” (for lack of a better word). “Superorganism” is what I call the “being” that the holomorphic process suggests we will become at Arthur Young’s step 8, which is missing from his arc. It’s a new “kingdom” that is as different from humans as humans are from animals. The quantum change between this kingdom and the next is what I call “Hologenesis”. It was named by Daniele Rosa, an Italian zoologist around 1909 and I hope to revive it as a serious theory. 

            So a superorganism is not the entity we know as society in general, which is usually a selfish, destructive state-person. Historically, once a society becomes unified, it always allows people in authority to use the collective power for personal agenda. As a Commander in the US Navy, I’ve seen and experienced first hand the feeling that comes from having authority and I know how tempting it is to use that collective power for personal agenda. But as a husband, married to only one woman (for 40 years now) I’ve experienced the power of love, which motivates me to use personal power to feed the process. Why? Because it results in more love and more personal power. And nothing can take that kind of power away.

            Love is the feeling that you get from truth, which brings us full circle: I explain in the book that the “right” direction is the direction of truth. I open the first chapter of my book by relating the concept of Truth (capital “T” – implicit to the universe) to events that actually happen (explicit expressions – tidbits of truth) and can’t un-happen. Once an event happens, it is what it is and no matter what you try to do, you can’t make it not-true. It becomes written in the torus, some call the Akashic record. But you can use it to make something that is not based on (or centered on) truth appear to be true by projecting words (since words actually form event particles), and “spinning them” into chains like polymers wrapping the untruth up into lies and propaganda. A certain amount of spin is necessary and useful for structure (like nuclear particles, shelter and protection), but truth is the only thing that is true, so if the chain of words does not have a reflection in truth at its heart, (the metaphor of the “living dead” vampire) it cannot survive being challenged (e.g. honest scientific testing as a stake through a vampire’s heart).

            Authority on the other hand is a vector that points in the wrong direction. It can come from a real unity or a false unity, created for example by tricking people into thinking that, because we are all created equal, we ARE equal in every way. Rather than having equal rights, they convince those who refuse to accept the challenges in life that they can and should have the same… everything… even without working for it. But that is not how the process works. “God helps those who help themselves.” The process provides goods to those who provide for themselves. It moves us “up” the ladder only after we make the turn and provides what we need to accelerate our progress as we mature. By giving too much to those who refuse to participate in the process, we actually hurt them. We prevent them from reaching the turning point in their own lives.

            Maturity is a very important concept to include in the discussion, especially because it separates good, effective leaders from poor ones (see Steven Covey’s maturity continuum in The Seven Habits…). It is not as distinct as Young’s “substages” but maturity also refers to a level or a state. And it is not about being highly enlightened. It is simply related to our “position” on the maturity continuum and on the Flow diagram (challenge vs skill). Rather than having the skill to bring people together to find win/win solutions, immature and unskilled people who are in positions of authority react to situations with the projection of force, which creates separation. Notice how this sequence (unification, projection, separation) is the opposite of the first three steps of holomorphic process (separation, projection, reflection, reunification) and skips the reflection step. Reflection doesn’t happen until after the crisis, which always results when the opposing forces destroy the hard-earned work of civilization. Rather than the holomorphic cycle of awakening-high-challenge-unwinding, the result is a morphoholic cycle as crisis-high-awakening-unraveling. This sequence is described by Strauss and Howe in their book The Fourth Turning exactly like that, as generational attitudes of distinct eras in history: the crisis, the high, the awakening and the unraveling. They document how this cycle has always led to the next crisis. And they relate each era to a societal mood by naming the archetypes: hero, artist, nomad and prophet. I discuss these in the book and relate them to Jungian archetypes, but that’s beyond the scope of this paper.  

            In conclusion, I submit that the next phase of life – the 8^th phase of life that follows Young’s seven – will be a major genetic transformation of humans into Holomorphs – beings of light who truly realize their interconnectedness with the whole cosmos, who exercise self-control and don’t feel the need to control others. I’m not sure how many Holomorphs are currently living among us as humans, but there are certainly plenty of Morphoholics, i.e. people who are addicted to the energy that is morphed into the physical world and therefore failed to reach the seventh grade in three successive lifetimes (giving them the “number of the beast”, i.e. 666, from Revelation 13).

            We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Truth is the only thing that is true.
• Truth will set you free.
• If I’m lyin’ I’m dyin’

Appendix: How the unified field transforms into a quantum particle

            Although quantum mechanics is the most successful and powerful theory in physics, it is thought to be impossible to present in terms of a visual model, like the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom in which a nuclear core is orbited by planetary electrons. That model still works for most practical purposes, but when you look at individual quantum particles like an electron, you can’t treat them as solid, spherical particles. They must be treated as a superposition of standing waves, “eigenstates” of energy that don’t even take form unless they are observed (or somehow measured and thereby “realized”). So rather than trying to visualize physical waves, physicists refer to them as probability waves. But for most people, including myself, the concept of a probability wave is very hard to understand because it is not something that I can visualize. The solution I found is to take a step back and ignore the word probability and focus on the wave.

            A wave is just a cyclic phenomenon and it is easy to visualize or model a cycle as a two-dimensional circle with a reference point on the circle to mark the beginning and end of each cycle. Two circles around orthogonal axes that share the same center point (i.e. a cross) form a three-dimensional sphere and a sphere is what comes to mind when you think of a particle. So it seems like that would be an appropriate model for a quantum particle. But it’s not. A quantum particle exhibits two different kinds of cyclic processes, two types of angular momentum: one is orbital and the other is spin. So in order to model both of these we need two circles; but one circle has to be shown to orbit around the other, separating the whole into a duality. And they must be coupled together to make the duality into a whole. Clearly, a sphere does not meet these requirements, but a torus does.

            A torus, like a donut, is formed by two circles: a circle that defines its central “hole” and one that defines the circumference of the donut itself. Not only are the two circles on orthogonal axes, but the axes themselves do not cross at a common origin. However, if each of the axes are drawn as part of their own three-dimensional coordinate system, these “reference frames” can be “coupled” by a common axis or “dimension”.  I added the straight arrow in Figure 1 to represent the direction of an electric current that would correspond to the direction of the horizontal rotation. Figure 2 shows the complete torus and the vector that represents the direction of a magnetic field around the torus.

Figure 2

            Here, the “donut hole” represents the physical particle with spin and the donut represents the non-physical part of the field – the circle that orbits the particle, giving it orbital angular momentum. It also illustrates the fact that particles exhibit polarity (positive and negative charge) and why there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

            Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon quantized into a single unit, which we call a photon. But light is not the same as the unified field. The unified field does not move so it does not have linear or angular momentum.  This corresponds to a Higgs Boson. So a spherical model would work just fine. But when it interacts with either a photon or particle, it can become polarized, which aligns the electric field lines in a particular direction giving it angular momentum and thereby transforming it into a quantum particle.   

            According to quantum physics, an observation “collapses the quantum wave function”. But it also retains its wave nature. This makes much more sense if it is modeled as a torus, because it collapses only at a point where the information is “swallowed”. Previously swallowed information, which would have formed a quantum particle’s former self, would remain collapsed in its own center. The “new version” of the particle would then be the old version modulated by or “convolved” with and reshaped by new information. That “new information” is simply a quantity of vibrational energy that was “outside” of the “old version” of the particle.

            As a result, what started as a particle distinct from its surroundings morphs into one unit. I call it a “holomorph”; it has experienced “holomorphosis”. According to Young’s arc, it has reached a turning point of a sub-arc (at the lowest level of the kingdom arc) and morphed into a quantum particle. But remember, “particle” is just a physical model. In truth, it is still a unit of light that was constrained in size and position by observation; it just lost some of its freedom of action.

 

 

Written on Easter, April 12, 2020

Updated April 20, 2020

I never had a sense of urgency to get the holomorphic process theory out for scientific scrutiny the way I do now. Thanks to the current crisis – the pandemic that is the Novel Coronavirus or COVID – 19, I feel that I should do the best I can to present the theory to anyone who will listen, even if it doesn’t meet the level of scholarly refinement that I would prefer. That is because I have reason to believe that it will provide an important new perspective that is desperately needed in order to understand life, life forms and the root cause of many of humanity’s problems including viruses and antibodies. I also have reason to believe that it will provide a simple (harmless and free) way of healing and preventing future outbreaks. Keep in mind that it has not been rigorously tested and should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, taking information with a grain of salt, i.e. challenging any theory, concept, rhetoric or spin to make sure that it is based in truth, is part of the solution that I am proposing.

Bottom line up front:

Hypothesis: A virus cell is a megabyte of information spun into microbial form by words (spoken or written) that do not reflect the truth. By combining quantum biology and medical physics with information technology and antivirus software, virus cells can be modeled and treated as a collection of quantum bits of information rather than products of nature. If this hypothesis is correct, then it might be possible, at least in principle, to synthesize the RNA molecules in a virtual space and study how it forms, interacts with human DNA and reacts when subjected to other molecules formed by words (spoken or written) that do reflect the truth.        The underlying basis for this idea is a theory called the holomorphic process – a concept that considers the process known as life as an actual reflection of truth (the vibrational energy of spacetime that interacts holographically with itself to form quantum event particles). If this concept is correct, then a human who is skilled at separating truth from untruth may be able to prevent the receptor proteins from opening when signaled by a virus. These hypothetical people, whose DNA molecules consist only of true event particles, would be human antibodies who might recognize and eliminate the root of virus production sources. In practical terms, they would be human lie detectors, which is what we normally expect from our judicial professionals.

This idea is not unreasonable when you consider that, if an individual human body dies after being exposed to the virus, it is not because the virus killed him or her; it’s because their body overreacted and shut down vital organs and functions. The COVID-19 pandemic provides epidemiological evidence that the collective human being is a megascopic reflection of the individuals, each of which is a macroscopic reflection of an individual cell, which is a physical reflection of the process that forms every quantum particle. As such, it serves as a demonstration of the holomorphic process theory.

Overreaction due to the fear of death is exactly what is happening at the macroscopic level and we fear death because we don’t understand what death is. If the government continues to require businesses, which are the vital organs and functions of our society, to remain shut down, our society will die. A vaccine may provide a temporary fix, but it may come too late and it will not help us produce antibodies for the next virus. According to the holomorphic process theory, every human that is a reflection of truth (most are not pure, but are close enough to sustain their own lives) can be an antibody for any virus that might affect the collective human being.

 

Quantum Medical Physics of Viruses

The purpose of this article is to explain how I perceive this to be true, based on quantum physics, and how every individual can serve to heal humanity. If the holomorphic process theory is a correct model, then everything in the universe is holographic in nature and we are individual units of a unified pattern of energy. At the smallest scale, every quantum particle is not just a particle, but a pattern of energy that presents its space-like “particulate face” to an observer when requested by the observer, and its time-like face “phantom face” when the observer allows for retrospect. That means that if you use instruments that detect any of the various characteristics (like momentum, charge, shape, color, etc.) that is what you will measure. And you will conclude that it is physical. But if you use instruments that detect vibrational characteristics and you are patient enough to allow these characteristics to develop over time (i.e. to mature), you will discover that the non-physical aspect of reality is just as real.

Most physicists have learned to say that observation “collapses the wave function” and some interpret that to mean observation actually brings the particle into existence. According to the holomorphic process theory, the measurement does not bring the particle into existence but rather it transforms our awareness of the energy by perceiving it as being separate from the background field and giving it a name. Even after being observed, a seemingly localized electron still has an electric field that extends outward in all directions. That field is literally part of the electron, but in order to understand how energy interacts with itself to form the astronomical variety of nature, we have to consider the particle as separate from the field. By doing so, the particle serves as a reflection of all electron characteristics.

That reflection of truth is imprinted as holographic fringes, like 1’s and 0’s in a computer, which form the image of a tiny particle named “electron” in our minds. The actual electron (the unified pattern of energy that formed the image) is not what was affected by our observation. It was the image, which formed in our minds. Similarly, using the words from process philosophy (see Alfred North Whitehead) the total cache of information that makes of the observation is called an “event particle”.

My theory is that these holographic fringes are formed in every cell of our body, just like the fringes are printed on every “cell” of a hologram, and each set of fringes form what we call genetic material that makes up DNA molecules. The fringes remain available for us to reform and project the event particle like an IMAX projection in inner-space, i.e. to recall it as a memory. This is effectively the same way a computer read-write memory works, except that the memories in our minds that are written over do not cease to exist. Instead, each new event expands our awareness (the “known universe”) and thereby creates inner-space – what we call “the past”. Information that is based on truth is said to “make sense” and according to my theory, it actually creates the sense of insight, i.e. opens the “mind’s eye”.

The thing about animals is that we have the ability to use vibrational energy to make sounds and thereby effectively synthesize particles. Keep in mind that the word “particle” is just a model. To use the model you have to imagine, for example, that a dog’s bark looks like a ball of energy – just like we imagine an electromagnetic wave (like light) is treated like a tiny ball of energy we call a photon or an electron (the difference between photons and electrons are beside the point). The scale is very different (a sound would make an enormous ball compared to an electron) but the process is the same. Each of these “sound particles” carries meaning and we have to learn that meaning or else we might suffer the consequences, like the pain of a dog bite.

The thing about humans is that we identify with the holographic image – the persona that we create in our minds – in order to survive and thrive among other humans. We call it our “self”; you think to your self and you might even talk to your self. And here is the clincher: if your self is not a reflection of truth, then you will not recognize non-truth and suffer the consequences. One consequence of creating or accepting non-truth is that the receptors in your cell membranes take the shape that allows the entry of a virus into your cells. (See Biologist Bruce Lipton’s book, The Biology of Belief)

The holomorphic process theory suggests that if you are a reflection of truth, and I mean down to every gene that you inherited from your ancestors, you will be immune to any and all viruses. If you are a reflection of truth, then you will understand your true self – including the field that extends outward from your body – and you will know that the event we call death is nothing more than a separation from your current level of life. Life is the eternal process (like a computer program) that looks like what we call biological cells at the macroscopic level but at the most fundamental level it looks like a simple vibration, string or loop.

Every phase of life is marked by a transformation and death is simply the side of that transformation that we see. Death is simply the separation of your holographic self from your body, which is the vibrational energy that had previously been perceived and observed as a collection of the tiny particles that made up the physical body.

The trouble with humans is a direct result of our ability to synthesize particles and then dress them up. By that I mean we invented words that carry meaning; that’s vibrational energy implicated with meaning. (See David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order) And we use those words to communicate meaning and influence others. The trouble comes when we modulate and disguise these “light particles” (they are the light of truth at heart because actual vibrations form the words) with untruth and ignorance, making them “dark particles”. In other words, we lie or spin the truth for whatever reason to try and manipulate the life process for our own purposes. Because all real particles reveal their phantom face when allowed to mature, information that is fabricated, using real vibrational energy to communicate sentences that are not based on truth, creates a shadowy membrane around the surface, making it a dark event particle. A collection of dark event particles that use circular reasoning to form a dark molecule is theoretically what will become a virus.

That in itself is not the problem because without a base in truth, these dark particles simply remain as dark energy. If they are challenged and tested (at the quantum level, in a physics lab that means bombarding it with other particles), then the darkness will be knocked off and the light of truth will shine through. Notice that this suggests that darkness must be perceived as having substance that can shield light. For example, if a subatomic particle is hit by another particle in a magnetic field and it scatters in a curved path, then the truth about the particle will be revealed. We can deduce (know the truth about) its charge and mass characteristics. In effect, the particle is what it does and by observing what it does, the unknown (darkness or hidden truth) is transformed into the light of awareness.

The same would apply at the human level if people were honest with each other and recognized that truth is what it does – it lives. According to the holomorphic process theory, the word “truth” is the noun form of the living process. A “living word” means that a word carries the life process in its essence and a string of words that are combined to communicate truth expresses the life process. Compare that to gene expression. At the cellular level, the “words” are what we call genes and the life process is what we know as mitosis.

Again, the trouble comes when words are spun to form a web of deceit. That web of deceit forms a pattern of energy that looks very much like the truth. At the molecular level, it would look like a single strand of DNA. Why single strand? Because the first strand is the strand of particles formed by the true events and the second is the set of words that are a reflection of the truth. A strand that is synthesized by a shadow self does not reflect the truth so it has no reflection.

Reasonable evidence

It might seem ridiculous to think that that we can actually create viruses by telling a lie or series of lies. But not long ago, it was considered ridiculous to think that tiny particles called germs actually existed at all. In his book, The Scientific Attitude, Lee McIntyre described how medical professionals were extremely resistant to the idea, but eventually the evidence prevailed – that medical students who came directly from performing autopsies, with unwashed hands and instruments (remember that this was before antisepsis and the germ theory of disease), straight to the maternity ward – were transferring “cadaveric matter” to the pregnant women resulting in what was called childbed fever (also known as puerperal fever).[1]

Lying is a way of spinning information energy in such a way as to make self-referential loops of energy. For example, circular reasoning produces a loop of information energy. I can tell you “If I am correct then what I say is true – and – If what I say is true then I am correct.” The second statement is just the inverse of the first, but they refer to or point at each other, making them what I call “a true loop” –to illustrate how it is what it does.

Circular reasoning starts with first-order logic and alludes to truth by using the projection (if “A” is true, which is a projection that points at truth) followed by the supposed reflection (then “B”, which is deduced as a reflection pointing back from truth). I said supposed reflection because it can be done regardless of whether or not “B” is true. Then it connects the first projection-reflection loop with its own reflection by switching the A and B (making it second-order logic) as illustrated in Figure 1.

 

 

 

These loops of energy form dark particles if neither A nor B are true or if one is true yet the referral to the other is untrue. But on the surface, they may be indistinguishable from “true event particles” i.e. natural quantum particle-waves that make up real matter. They will interact with each other and form what appears to be a self-sustaining argument. Fortunately, if it is properly challenged then it will fall apart and the “test of time” will eventually dissolve the darkness.

If it is not challenged, the argument made out of dark event particles can interact with each other to form molecules very similar to natural elements and then form cells that mimic life. However, because they have no base in truth, which is the essence of life, they lack the dualistic nature that provides stability through self-reflection and reproducibility. They cannot survive on their own because they have no reflection and thus require a host from which to steal genetic material. They are not conscious so they don’t do this by intention. They do it simply by chance encounters with the right conditions, like magnets or electromotive forces that attract nucleotides toward each other. As I mentioned, they have no reflection; they are the quantum equivalent of the “living dead” that has been mythologized as zombies or blood-sucking vampires who have no reflection. In the myth, the only way to defeat a vampire is by pounding a stake into its heart. In reality, the stake to the heart is the simple truth.

 

Deconvolution of your Antibody

The most important difference between a living organism and a virus is that a living organism contains DNA, which is able to reproduce itself, whereas a virus contains RNA, which is not. The main reason living DNA is able to reproduce itself is because DNA is a double-stranded molecule, while RNA is single-stranded. The double strands are, figuratively, mirror images of each other with AT (adenine-thymine) as one object-image pair and GC (guanine-cytosine) as the other. I say they are figuratively mirror images to mean that one goes with the other like a negative charge goes with a positive charge or a shadow goes with the object casting the shadow.

Keep in mind that DNA and RNA molecules are quantum memory molecules made out of elements that are made out of quantum particles, which are made out of vibrational information energy. According to the holomorphic process theory, dark event particles can be synthesized by using information energy, e.g. by using words that have implicit meaning and sentences that pretend to communicate the truth but only include twists that point away from the truth. (Note that “pretend” is from Latin prae ‘before’ + tendere ‘stretch’, so the words represent truth but then people stretch the truth and spin it for their purposes).

Dark particles are what I hypothesize to make up what physicists call dark energy, which is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales. Supernovae measurements provided evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating but the reason for this is not know; so it was attributed to the unknown and named dark energy. Dark particles are simply quantum models of the unknown. Any unknown can be identified and given a name. Once it is named, it exists as a dark event particle and is available to be transformed into a light particle by challenging it and thereby revealing truth. Every theory in physics begins with a statement of assumptions, which are dark particles that are presented with the express intention of being challenged. It is only if they are allowed to form self-sustaining, self-motivated, selfish units, that dark particles become viruses (and daemons if you like).

The nucleus of a living cell is centered on information that is true ­– the light of truth – whereas a virus is spun out of just enough genetic material to give it a membrane (a body) and mobility. Keep in mind that when I say a living cell is centered on truth I mean information that is the energy from actual (true) events. It is all vibrational energy, but it is not modulated (or covered) by the vibrational energy “spun up” by humans.

True particles are units of spacetime, i.e. real and imaginary, physical and mental, whereas dark particles are covered and appear to be imaginary. True particles can withstand the test of time because time itself, as I explained here, is just another way of quantifying motion, as the reflection of space. A true particle is like a pixel that makes an image on a computer screen – it appears in spacetime when observed, then disappears and reappears a bazillion times a second. In other words, it projects into space, turns and reflects on the implicit, non-physical information energy that shaped it, and then reforms (“realizes” itself as explicit form) as a reproduction of its former self at a new point in spacetime. Its new explicit self is real and measurable, so it is the subject of science. And its former self modulates the implicit information, allowing the new self to experience change, as in motion (quantum level) and evolution (animal level). The implicit part is not measurable, but sensible, so it is not usually the subject science, but of conscience. The former self can accurately inform the new self of truth only if it is not covered with the dark web. If it is, then it will require self-reflection, self-illumination, and perhaps self-sacrifice in order to regain self-awareness.

The holomorphic process theory is a holistic quantum medical physics perspective of physics. It uses the same well-known technique in principle as that used in medical physics to extract anatomical information from the data obtained from a CT or MRI scan. The technique is to “deconvolve” data and extract 3D information from multiple different sources using a convolution kernel function. In the case of distinguishing dark particles from true particles, the kernel function is a single cycle, which is modeled as separation, projection, reflection and reunification.

A real particle “pops” into existence by moving from the state of oneness (just called energy) to a state of separateness, as a distinct particle, separate from the background field. It is then in a state of spatial projection – in perpetual motion with respect to everything else in the universe. Because it is in motion, it separates spacetime into space (the spatial projection) and time (the reflection of spatial projection), imprinting its vibrational state as fringes in the past. Those fringes serve to inform and actually form and give shape to the new particle. If the information is not corrupted by false information, the process will continue and the form will be a living organism that physically evolves.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that it only refers to the physical results that become apparent after a particle morphs into more evolved versions of itself. It does not consider what happens to the non-physical information energy. The holomorphic process theory is a Theory of Human Convolution as a revision or supplement to Darwin’s theory. The word “convolution” is defined simply as “a thing that is complex and difficult to follow” but in mathematics “convolution is a mathematical operation on two functions that produces a third function expressing how the shape of one is modified by the other. The term convolution refers to both the result function and to the process of computing it.”[2]

The inverse convolution operation is used in medical imaging to extract the information that is convolved in a collection of individual images. According to the holomorphic process theory, the physical human body is one function, the mental body (the self that we create to mask our true self) is the second function, and the true self is the “antibody”. Thus, a human that is made up of true particles is the macroscopic version of cellular antibodies.

How to use your antibody to heal society

So what if you inherited a bunch of non-truth from your ancestors? The only way to get rid of it is for it to die. That is what people call a spiritual death or a rebirth. As I said in the introductory paragraph, “…taking information with a grain of salt, i.e. challenging any theory, concept, rhetoric or spin to make sure that it is based in truth, is part of the solution that I am proposing.” Besides being able to synthesize information particles, we humans are also able to challenge dark particles. However, too many people like the idea of being part of a flock, happy to follow whatever “shepherd” herded their parents or willing to follow any charismatic leader that comes their way. I’m not referring to religious leaders, although there are probably some who twist their religious messages for the sake of their own greed. I’m talking more about political and governmental leaders.

The way to heal ourselves as individuals and society as a whole is to discredit the anthropomorphic image and raise up the word “truth” to the level of “God”. Everyone knows about truth and as I explained in the holomorphic process theory, creation of the universe is a continuous quantum process. The universe is expanding because it is merely the surface of expanding human awareness. So truth is the Creator. Truth is what religions call God. Truth is the essence of life and nothing – no religion, no philosophy, no science and no ideology – should ever be held higher than truth.

Any statements that we make should be made with honor: that means with honesty and integrity. To be honest means that you make your words fit the truth, i.e. you tell the truth. Integrity means that you ensure the truth (by your actions) fit your words. In other words, if you say you are going to do something, you make sure that you do it. If something changes and you can’t keep your word, make sure that you are honest about it. It is time for the people to take back control by insisting on truth and transparency from our leaders and our selves.

As for the coronavirus… I would suggest that all restrictions be lifted, encourage all people to “come clean” to anyone they have deceived, and let the process of truth take over. I am part of the high-risk population. I’ll be 60 years old in a few months with high blood and a mild heart condition. I will continue to be careful about hygiene and wear a mask if I go out in public, but I am certainly willing to die for the sake of truth.

[1] McIntyre, Lee. The Scientific Attitude (The MIT Press) (Kindle Locations 1543-1546). The MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution

I previously wrote a glowing review of Sky Nelson-Isaac’s book, Living in the Flow and regularly receive emails from him about his courses and his music. Although I loved his book, I’m afraid his new song “Stand For Me” is an excellent example of a mindset that can destroy a country or any organization that is made up of individual people. This is so important, especially in the face of recent crises that I’ve pasted my review of his song here. I also inserted a recording and lyrics of another song, written and performed by my son Bobby, called “Save Me From Myself” to give you what I think we need from our artists.

 

*******

Hello Sky,

I watched your video, listened closely and read the lyrics to your song. You have a beautiful voice and play well. I love your spirit, Sky and I love your book Living in the Flow. In your email you said, “The more honest we can be with each other, the more we can forgive each other for our mistakes, the more we will build a just and resilient community.” So I will be honest with you. You also said, “I see examples of this interdependence around us.” The problem I see with the song is that you confuse dependence or co-dependence with interdependence. You can only get interdependence from a group of mature independent people. I recommend that you read Steven Covey’s book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People to understand this maturity continuum.

If the protagonist in the song was the voice of the collective consciousness saying that it needs people to stand for the whole world or even a small organization, like the the one against domestic violence that you are trying to help, I would say it was great. Even our great country cannot stand without its people because “the less it needs the more it disappears” as you said. But as it is, I hear the protagonist in the song as an individual human who can not or will not take a stand from himself. If the first verse had explained that the singer was abused to such an extent that he or she no longer had any hope of helping herself, then I would have felt compassion.  But instead, I was very concerned that the song will be sung by people who think that they are not capable of taking care of themself and beg for the generosity of others who, by the way did not just find, in your words, “a garden they can go to to shutter out the pain”. We all have to suffer the pain that comes from taking care of ourself. Everyone starts out entirely dependent, and the only  “garden” is the state that you are in when you can make your own declaration of independence. The “tyrant” that the protagonist faces is his own shadow and he is the only one who can defeat that shadow. To say, “I depend on you. There’s nowhere I can go, I’m counting on you” is the voice of a coward.

What about living in the flow? What’s wrong with flowing on the river of life – the river of other people’s courage and sacrifices?

If you are not actually the “water” in the river, then maybe you are something floating on the surface. Sure, you can float for a while, but eventually you will get hung up on some obstruction. Perhaps you are a fish in the river. If so, you will eventually be eaten by a bigger fish. Living in the flow is a wonderful and helpful concept for the dependent phase of life, but if nobody wants to become the water, the river will dry up. By living in the flow you come to realize that it is the only way to live, but you don’t really “get it” until you mature spiritually, when you become the flow.

Now is the time that our country needs heros. The protagonist in your song needs to understand that everyone has a hero within himself. Haven’t you ever noticed that the conscience  that guides you is much stronger and braver than you are? That conscience speaks to you from your very own “garden”. At the point in the song when you say, “I believe in you, I’ve seen your courage shine when it needs to,” in my opinion that should be the protagonist pleading to his own hero self. And that IS an emergency because nobody can stand FOR you. I will stand BY you but I can not stand for you. I, Theodore, am just a symbol and I stand FOR the collective whole (group, city, state, country or planet), united with those who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the same whole. That is why I will always stand for the pledge of allegiance.

My son, Bobby St. John who I told to about, who owns St.John Music Lessons in San Antonio, TX wrote a song “Save me from myself”, which is about what he calls “the image in the mirror”, “the shadow you can’t shake that keeps shifting” and then a “lifesize ink blot” that follows you around. He understands that we are all holomorphic projections – seemingly separate individuals but actually just individual parts of that conscience that calls us all to be heros. I’m posting it, along with this review on my website.

 *******

Save Me From Myself, by Bobby St. John

Lyrics:

Verse 1:

When the image in the mirror gets so far from the truth and your footsteps lie contrary to you. Like a shadow you can’t shake that keeps shifting and making you make mistakes then the war is here it’s at your front door. Sometimes the only way to lay waste to a bad thing besides “the bang bang” is a train of thought a tough road to walk. When you’re caught with that lifesize inkblot following you around, fight the urge to throw your arms to the ground. Come on open your mouth brother make a sound and say

Chorus:

Save me from myself. I’m alone and I don’t want to find that a hero has been standing by. Save me from myself cause when there’s nowhere left to run and the man in the mirror’s got a gun, you’ve got the power to bring about the Sun.

Verse 2:

So fight the good fight. You could if you would step on through the night, if you stood up and bled just a little instead of fled, well then you should see the shadow start to fade from sight. And if you’re curious and I know it’s not easy but I wouldn’t leave you behind or show you a lie if you’re bleeding then that means I’m also cut.

Chorus:

So save me from myself well I’m alone and I don’t wanna find that a hero has been standing by. Save me from myself cause when there is nowhere left to run and the man in the mirror’s got a gun you’ve got the power to bring about the Sun.

Bridge:

And when there’s nobody else to… face except yourself, just come on down off your shelf now ’cause there’s no way without a fight we’re going down.

*******

By the way, if you wonder why I chose to include the photo at the top of this page… I don’t recall where was taken, but we were on a trip from San Diego to Oregon. That’s me staring at the carving.  The carving is also me, peeking around from the backside to see if the real me can tell that I am pretending to be a sculpture.