The fundamental assumption of “The Theory of Absolutes” is that all physical phenomena
can be understood as rules of interaction executed by conscious particles, and that
these particles follow the laws God has embedded within the particle’s spirit.
But, given the limitations of the human mind and vision, there may be elements of
error in my hypothesis as to the real/true/factual mechanisms by which particles
interact. That is, I may have made an error in my hypotheses and postulates about
the mechanisms or rules governing the Conscious Particle’s interactions. But, even
if (when) such errors are uncovered, I believe the concept of the Conscious Particle
will stand and prove to be a fertile field upon which to remake the theory into a
more accurate nature-representing theory.
The development of the Theory of Absolutes entailed a comparison of its consistency
with a wide range of the data and theory in the natural, social, and spiritual sciences.
The conscious particle thesis came in a moment of inspiration, and resonated in
my heart as a true concept, and all other aspects of the theory were based upon this
one central seed. It was this concept alone that allowed me to come to faith.
In the process of development of this Theory, I engaged in a series of iterative
hypotheses and modifications of those hypotheses once each of the implications of
each hypothesis was explored. Thus, many models were explored: what particle was
fundamental; what were the rules those particles employed so as to manifest all the
phenomena in nature? I examined the particle’s interactions in many, but not all,
phenomena such as:
Refraction, pair annihilation, polarized light, wave-particle duality, dual slit
interferometry, Michelson-Morley experiment, subatomic particle decay, mass-energy
equivalence, Cherenkov radiation, relativistic time contraction, the nature of magnetic
force, the quantum energies available to electron orbitals, antenna radiation, and
the properties of momentum and inertia.
Once a suitable model was developed that would satisfy the observed interactions
in a particular physical phenomena, I then applied this property to a number of other
phenomenon until I found one where it failed. (Failure was identified by seeing
that a hypothesis implied a behavior of particles or fields that contradicted experimental
evidence.) At which point I modified the hypothesized property of the particle to
meet the requirements of that experiment, and then applied that new property to all
other physical phenomena, again searching for a point of failure.
When a particle rule created an interaction outcome which clearly contradicted physical
experiment, I then modified or discarded that theory, and developed a new model to
satisfy that phenomenon where the previous rules had failed. I would then apply
those particle and field interaction rules back through the spectrum of experimental
phenomenon, and again repeat this process until the rules of interaction satisfied
all the experiments that I could consider.
It was through many years of rewriting, reformulating, and making new hypotheses
that the Theory has evolved as it is seen in this work. Given the number of iterations
and modifications, it is unlikely that this particular version is without error.
Thus, I find myself pondering where I should place my stake and challenge all to
consider its postulates. Obviously at this point you are reading this document and
I have either become frustrated and wish someone else to carry the torch on from
here, or it is adequate to incorporate as provisionally valid theory that reflects
God’s reality.
Again, I believe the conscious-particle hypothesis will stand the test of time. I
believe it will prove to be enduring and useful as the guiding concept that explains
the why and how of every force-distance interaction. My theories about space, matter,
energy, or time may be proven inconsistent with experiment, self-contradictory, or
limited. Nevertheless, I urge the Christian philosopher of the future to use new
experimental data and the entire body of all scientific knowledge to rework this
theory.
I have found that metaphors are useful in making new hypothetical conjectures. I
look at the experimental phenomenon in question, and see how it is similar to other
physical, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual phenomena. I find that examining other
similar systems may give insight as to how a particular system functions.
Again, “The Conscious Particle” principle is the only concept that I wish to declare
as primary and correct. All other mechanisms, theories, postulates, and hypotheses
presented in this book are tentative propositions. Other theorists and natural science
philosophers may now examine these proposed rules and mechanisms by which the conscious
particles interact. I present them as my initial offering for consideration.
The existence of a body of rules by which conscious particles interact, which is
consistent with the observed phenomenon of nature, gives evidence to the accuracy
of the conscious particle theory. And conversely, the existence of a holistic theory
that unifies the whole of disparate phenomena seen in life, spirit, and nature is
an inductive validation of the underlying assumption of the foundational particles
from which all phenomena spring.
The existence of the Conscious Particle is by extension a step along the path toward
creating a theoretical connection between nature and God. The existence of a self-consistent
mechanism by which He may have created the physical universe provides a logical foothold
upon which to anchor faith in reality. And a firm understanding of the nature of
the universe in which we live gives us a significant standard by which we can begin
to understand the meaning of our lives and the accuracy of our choice of individual
and social standards of conduct.
The Theory of Absolutes as presented does not prove God’s existence, or the way that
He created it. No experiment or logic can finally and authoritatively prove the
existence of God. Only direct perception from an Absolute Frame is “proof”. But,
such a perspective is unavailable to the human soul in our limited and flesh-bound
frame. Thus, God can only be known by faith. Such is the way that He created it,
and it shall continue to be that way until He reveals Himself to our direct experience,
spirit to spirit without veil or intermediary.
- Nevertheless, the Theory does provide a tool of reason by which we can logically
connect the solid world of matter and forces with the realm of spirit. The concepts
presented in the Theory allow the seeker of Truth to manipulate semi-tangible concepts
such as consciousness, intent, thought, and law to construct a world-view that brings
a new level of concrete definition to the concepts of space, time, energy, and mass.
Likewise, having these foundational concepts anchored firmly in the realm of the
underlying spiritual reality allows us to easily transition to the belief in the
eternal significance of our lives, and the way we pattern our thoughts, speech and
actions.
