PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, you haven't left much to believe in from the old worldview.
TINNY: That's because the old worldview was not based on reality; it had no substance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As that which appeared in the old view dissipates into the mists of illusion, I wonder what is left. I can think of one thing which seems undeniably true; that is the law of cause and effect.
TINNY: Didn't many aspects of the old view seem undeniably true until we looked at them from beyond the material plane?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: They did. I suppose cause and effect will disappear along with all the rest.
TINNY: Right, cause and effect does also cease to exist as reality. None of the factors which were part of what we call cause and effect exist as reality. As has been shown, the true nature of existence does not consist of objects acting in accord with the laws and forces of physics in a constant time flow from past to present to future. The very nature of cause and effect means that during the constant flow of time some force acts on some object and a given reaction occurs. Since none of the components of cause and effect exist as reality, then in reality cause and effect does not exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But things do appear to act as if cause and effect is a real phenomenon. Why is that?
TINNY: It is because of the probability factor. If we could see individual particles we would see that they do not act in accord with any strict deterministic law, but act of their essential nature as events of probability; those events of highest probability occurring more often than the events of lower probability. As more and more subatomic particles unite to form any physical object we perceive the action of that object based on the combined highest probabilities of all the particles involved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Surely you can explain why there is no true cause and effect more simply than that.
TINNY: I'll try again. In this example I'll be using arbitrary percentages to clarify the point. If one particle could be observed it might be seen to appear in one small area ninety per cent of the time, in some other larger area nine per cent of the time, and in a very large but more remote area one per cent of the time. Each time you observed that particle there would be a ninety per cent chance it was in one spot, but ten per cent of the time it would be in various other places. Because of the unbelievably large number of particles it takes to make up any object, if you were to observe the position of each of the particles making up that object at any given time most would be in their one specific place of highest probability. So to our senses the object would appear to really exist at a specific time and place. Some of the particles which at other times made up the object would not be present in the object, but most would be in their position of highest probability; thereby creating the illusion of physical reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say that if I am looking at a tree, that at any given time only ninety per cent of the particles that make up the tree are present and the other ten percent are somewhere else?
TINNY: No, as I already said, I just used those particular percentages to make the example easier to talk about. Actually the probability of a large number of particles existing far enough away as to not be part of the tree is so small as to be negligible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this understanding of cause and effect very important then?
TINNY: In some ways it's extremely important. It is for such reasons that we can say we do not live in a totally deterministic universe. Those same reasons are also the basis behind the existence of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Although I most certainly agree that all things exist as a unity and that all things are interconnected, sometimes it is very hard to see that connection.
TINNY: The better one knows the whole; the better one knows the parts. The more one knows of the unified theory of existence, the more obvious the interconnection of all things becomes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you try one more time to explain how cause and effect does not really exist, but only appears to exist?
TINNY: I'll try a very different explanation. Many aspects of physical science, particularly laws, are related to cause and effect. One of the very important and very well known laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes referred to as dissipation of energy. That law is responsible for phenomena such as the water in a hot bath cooling and eventually reaching the same temperature as the surroundings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The hot water in the bath gives up its heat energy to the air, the material of the bath tub, and to the body of the person in the bath.
TINNY: Right, that process is seen to occur in one direction. Any physical system with no external energy source will move spontaneously in the direction of increasing disorder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean when the hot bath water gives up its heat to the things surrounding it, it is moving towards disorder?
TINNY: That's what is meant, although it sounds a little strange when put in those terms. I could describe the entropic effect of heat energy transfer, but it is easier to understand an example of physical objects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's hear it.
TINNY: Consider you are in a closed room; you have a bottle full of very potent perfume, and you open the bottle. The molecules of perfume are very active, and as soon as the bottle is opened some of the perfume molecules will bounce against each other and against the inside walls of the bottle until millions and billions of them would have dispersed all around the room. All of the perfume molecules, when enclosed in the bottle, would be considered an ordered system because all the molecules are arranged in one place. That is how all the heat energy was when it was contained in the hot water in the bath; it was restricted to one area of the room. As soon as the bottle is opened the perfume molecules will begin to dissipate all around the room, mixing with the various molecules in the air and becoming more and more disordered. That is the process of entropy. It was considered to be an irreversible process. Molecules contained in a bottle of perfume always escaped and filled the room, but the molecules of perfume once dissipated through the air in a room never went back into the bottle of perfume, Hot water in a bath always cools, it never heats up; unless of course you use more energy to reheat the water. Water never heats up on its own. It has always been assumed that not only did the perfume molecules not re-enter the bottle, or the bath water heat up of its own accord, but also that such events could never happen. We believed that to be the case because our senses told us, every time we had seen one of those situations, the perfume or the water always acted the same way. We always saw, no matter how many times we looked, the dissipation of energy occur. That effect was believed to be due to cause and effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know what's coming. It turns out that those processes are reversible; all the perfume molecules could end up back in the bottle, and the bath water could heat up of its own accord.
TINNY: It's always the same answer, isn't it? Yes, both those processes could reverse, but they seldom do. Probability once again is the deciding factor. If one were to open a bottle of perfume in each of a billion different rooms every minute for a billion years you would likely never see all the perfume molecules re-enter even one bottle, so low is the probability of that event occurring; and the same is true for bath tubs of water heating up spontaneously. The reason we would be so unlikely to see the process reverse is because of the almost unimaginably large number of molecular actions involved in those processes. It is very likely a few molecular interactions would act in the opposite direction, from disorder to order, but they would be unnoticeable among the incredibly huge numbers of molecules acting in the manner of highest probability, from order to disorder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Like the example earlier of the particles which make up a tree. Those occupying the highest probability time and space make up an apparently solid, unchanging tree; but unnoticed among the multitudes were the few particles acting in accord with the much lower probabilities and existing unnoticed in other time and other space. Some among the multitudes of perfume molecules would re-enter the bottle, and some among the multitudes of bath water molecules would warm rather than cool, those events going unnoticed.
TINNY: Exactly. In all cases things and events are not definite in time, space, or even order of occurrence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there is no true cause and effect, because laws don't always work, they just usually work. There are always some things or events which act other than in accord with the seemingly immutable forces of the physical universe.
TINNY: Could we bring the discussion back to simpler ideas for a while? As we approach those complex areas of quantum uncertainty I become much less sure of how well I understand the true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have been pushing against the present limits of human knowledge. Don't worry if you found it difficult.
TINNY: I don't mind; I always desire that my knowledge should surpass all boundaries. I seek the ultimate knowledge, the fullness of perfect and absolute knowledge. I don't expect the path to be easy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is ecstasy along that path.
TINNY: I know, I have tasted the nectar.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything you would like to talk about while we take a rest from such esoteric topics?
TINNY: Can I ask anything? We have much more to cover about quantum/relativistic reality. Can we just leave that topic, talk about other things, and return to it later?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once knowledge is organised and stored within consciousness it remains eternally; we will find our way back when the time is right.
TINNY: You told me when we began, that knowledge is the answer to the world's problems, that it can even put an end to the threat of nuclear destruction. How can knowledge change the world?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Knowledge determines our perception of reality; our perception of reality determines our thoughts, our beliefs, and our behaviour.
TINNY: So if we incorrectly perceive reality then our thoughts, our beliefs, and our behaviour will be wrong; but if we correctly perceive reality then our thoughts, our beliefs, and our behaviour will be in accord with the natural order. We would then live in harmony with all existence. Could it really be that easy?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is all it would take to solve the many problems facing the world. Remember, the universe is a marvelous organism; the natural order is the preferred way, the easiest way, and the only way which allows continued survival.
TINNY: So because our perception of reality was wrong we acted in a wrong manner; but we thought we were right because our actions were in accord with our wrong knowledge. We thought we were following the natural order, that we could do so happily and survive; but we were wrong. We were fighting unknowingly against the true natural order and had no chance to be happy, or to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To hold those wrong beliefs and to act in that wrong manner left no other possible outcome for the human race but unhappiness and eventual extinction.
TINNY: How sad. Did it have to be that way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It probably had to be that way for some period during the development of the human race, but it didn't have to be that way for so long.
TINNY: We could have understood the true nature of existence earlier in our history couldn't we?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We did, but a very powerful influence kept the human race from acting in accord with the natural order which was manifest in the great truths that had been available to us.
TINNY: What was that powerful influence which kept the human race from accepting the beautiful future so freely offered?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Evil.
TINNY: Both good and evil are very hard concepts to understand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we discuss more of the unified theory of existence those concepts will become obvious.
TINNY: I have often thought about good and evil. Everyone seems to have different ideas about what is good and what is evil. Is there a definite answer which clarifies the true nature of good and evil?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is, and soon you will know that answer without me telling you.
TINNY: Then I'll wait. I also have a question about truth. Since as material beings we can't know perfect, absolute truth, how can we know good and evil or anything else in other than a relative way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our knowledge must be limited as long as we are material beings.
TINNY: So if we cannot have perfect knowledge as material beings we cannot perfectly know good and evil. If we don't perfectly know good and evil we will never be able to become perfectly good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While it is a fact we cannot fully know perfect truth as material beings, we do have the potential to approach perfect truth. As we approach perfect truth we approach the perfect knowledge of good and evil.
TINNY: What then is the path to perfect knowledge?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To know truth more perfectly.
TINNY: There are some who say they are able to commune directly with the absolute.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Possibly they do.
TINNY: What of their claims to have received the knowledge of perfect truth from that contact?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is no material being beyond the limits of all material beings. Contact with the absolute is possible for all.
TINNY: I am ready to continue on the path to perfect knowledge. May we begin again discussing quantum/relativistic reality?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were talking about the metaphysical ramifications of light you explained some of the special effects which occur at the velocity of light.
TINNY: That was special relativity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any other kind of relativity?
TINNY: There is also general relativity which concerns the nature of gravity. There is a relationship between the concept of space-time and gravity. According to general relativity, gravity causes space-time to be curved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The basic fabric of the universe, space-time, is curved. It doesn't seem curved, but then little of this new reality is as things seem.
TINNY: The greater the intensity of the gravitational field the greater the curvature of space-time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since the physical universe consists of space-time, does gravity affect the curvature of the whole universe?
TINNY: It does, the physical universe is curved. There are mathematical formulas which determine what that curvature might be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the curvature of the universe like? If we knew how the universe was curved we could determine the form of the physical universe.
TINNY: The formulas which determine the curvature of the physical universe give two different answers. Those two answers are opposites.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the two conflicting forms the formulas say the physical universe may take?
TINNY: Remembering that space-time is a four-dimensional concept you can see how difficult it is to attempt a description of higher dimensional form in words and concepts limited to three dimensions. I will describe the form of the universe as if it were in three dimensions; this will give some idea of the two different possibilities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is accepted that what you describe as three-dimensional form is in reality of higher dimensional form, whatever that may mean.
TINNY: One result shows the curvature to be such that the form of the physical universe would be a sphere. In that case the universe would be considered closed. The other result shows the curvature to be such that the form of the physical universe would be saddle shaped. In that case the universe would be considered open.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would it mean if the universe were open or closed?
TINNY: Since space-time is curved, in a closed universe if you were to travel in what appeared to be a straight line you would eventually return to the place where the journey began. That same journey in an open universe would result in the place where the journey began becoming ever more distant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it odd that the mathematical formulas show two different possible forms as the shape of the universe? Which do you think is more likely?
TINNY: I think the two formulas reflect different aspects of the one true form. The most likely form of the physical universe is that of a torus, actually a hyper dimensional torus. In three dimensions the torus can be visualised as a doughnut shape. The physical universe would then have the form of a squashed sphere with a hole through the centre. In that particular case the hole would be infinitely small.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by an infinitely small hole?
TINNY: A hole whose diameter becomes zero. It would be a point called a singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mentioned a singularity earlier when you described the beginning of the universe. It was the point of origin where light energy was manifested and became matter, to expand, becoming the totality of the physical universe we now know.
TINNY: That was the same singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears to astronomers that the universe is a sphere, constantly expanding.
TINNY: That's how it appears alright. There is little doubt that the universe is expanding. All parts of the observable universe are moving away from all other parts. If we look in any direction with telescopes or other measuring instruments we find the limits of the physical universe being about the same distance from us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How far away are those limits?
TINNY: The distance is so far it must be given in terms of light years. One light year being the distance traveled at the velocity of light in one year. The velocity of light is one hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second, or about three hundred thousand kilometers per second.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One light year is a very long way. How many of those light years span the distance to the limits of the physical universe?
TINNY: About fifteen billion, that is fifteen thousand million light years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is seen at the limits of the physical universe?
TINNY: It must be recognised that a light year is not just a measure of distance but also of time. What we see at any distance is the way the objects we are viewing looked when the light which carried their image to us left the objects, not how the objects look now.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we can look into the past.
TINNY: We can only see the past; the present cannot be seen. When astronomers view the physical universe fifteen billion light years away, they are looking fifteen billion years into the past. They see the universe as it was fifteen billion years ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why can't we see further than fifteen billion light years?
TINNY: Remember the story about how the physical universe developed. The early universe was first light, then subatomic particles, then hydrogen and helium atoms, and then the first generation stars. There was a time before those first stars developed when the material of the physical universe was so hot and so dense that it was opaque, it couldn't be seen through. Even if we saw back in time beyond those first generation stars, we would reach a point where our measuring instruments could probe no further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we can't quite see to the beginning of the universe.
TINNY: Almost to the beginning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said the limits of the universe which can be observed are seen as they were fifteen billion years ago. What would it be like there now?
TINNY: Probably very much like it is in our part of the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there was someone out there, fifteen billion light years from here, and they were to observe our area of the universe, what would they see?
TINNY: They would see the limits of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Two places, separated by a distance of fifteen billion light years, were both the beginning of the physical universe.
TINNY: Fifteen billion years ago the universe was much smaller, a few billion years before that, at the very beginning, all the matter of the physical universe was together at the singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if an observer fifteen billion light years from here were not to look towards us, but in the opposite direction? What would they see?
TINNY: They would see the limits of the physical universe about fifteen billion light years distant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is also hard to understand. If we begin from this planet the limits of the physical universe are a certain distance away; but at the point of that limit, the limits are still further away. Are there no real limits? Is there no end to the physical existence?
TINNY: That idea of limits comes from three-dimensional concepts. There is no end to the physical universe from a three-dimensional perspective. The true limits of physical existence are in higher dimensions, not in three-dimensional space. As one travels in three-dimensional space one would never reach the end of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have several times mentioned higher dimensions. Since the three-dimensional universe is somewhat illusory and is not the absolute existence, is four- dimensional space-time the higher dimension of an absolute nature or is there a higher dimension than that?
TINNY: There are many higher dimensions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't think I should ask how many.
TINNY: Such a question may have no meaning, just as many questions which derive from a material existence do not have meaning from an absolute perspective. Any answer to such a question must be answered by a paradox.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say the universe is expanding and has been expanding for more than fifteen billion years. Will that expansion continue forever?
TINNY: Scientists have not yet answered that question since it is believed the total mass of the universe, the total amount of matter, is the critical factor in determining whether or not the universe will expand forever. If the total mass is below some critical point there will not be sufficient gravitational force to stop the expansion of the universe, in which case the universe would continue to expand forever. If the total mass is above that critical point it will be sufficient to slow and eventually stop the expansion of the universe, which would then contract back again into a singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The total mass of the universe is not known. Is that why scientists do not know the answer to whether or not the universe will expand forever?
TINNY: True, the total mass of the universe is not known, but that is not where the answer to the question really lies.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know whether or not the universe will continue to expand forever?
TINNY: The answer lies in the higher-dimensional shape of the universe. It is the nature of the universal form that all matter which came from the light at the initial singularity shall return to light at the terminal singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the universe does expand, slow, stop, and contract.
TINNY: The physical universe never comes to a stop. If the universe was thought of as a sphere expanding from a point in all directions it would look much like a balloon. It would expand, reach the limits of its expansion, stop, and contract back to a beginning point. If that was the form of the physical universe the question of whether or not the universe would expand forever would be determined by its total mass. As the universe is in a form which could best be described as a hyper dimensional torus, the total amount of mass becomes meaningless to the question of expansion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the expansion does not reach some limit, stop, and contract back to a point, how can you say all matter originates in an initial singularity and returns to the terminal singularity? Are there two different singularities?
TINNY: No, this is just one singularity, which is both the beginning and the end of the physical universe. The universe stops expanding but its motion does not come to a stop. The physical universe is not a sphere, but that part of the universe within the range of our perceptual limits appears as a sphere. That sphere, described by the limits of our perception, may be thought of as a bubble traveling through the body of the torus, the doughnut shaped form of all physical existence. The infinitely small hole in the centre of this doughnut shaped form is the singularity from which emanates the energy which becomes the matter of the physical universe. The matter which forms our known physical universe expands from that initial singularity and moves through the body of the torus. That movement continues until halfway through the body of the torus expansion ceases, although motion through the body continues, and contraction begins as the matter approaches the singularity from the other side of the torus. All matter in the physical universe then contracts, eventually becoming energy and disappearing from three-dimensional existence into the terminal singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does all the matter go as it becomes energy and disappears into the terminal singularity?
TINNY: Said from the three dimensional perspective, that matter emerges from the initial singularity on the other side of the torus. It is a never ending cycle of creation and annihilation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that the physical universe takes the form of a torus?
TINNY: The torus is the only form which has, as its nature, ceaseless motion. It is the characteristics of the torus which unite the curvature of relativity and quantum uncertainty. The quantum/relativistic reality is based on the form of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This is why then that instead of the parts determining the properties and behaviour of the whole, as in the old view of reality, it is the essential nature of the whole which determines the properties and behaviour of the parts.
TINNY: The essential nature of the whole not only determines the properties and behaviour of the material objects which make up the physical universe, but it also determines the qualities of consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is consciousness also an integral part of the physical universe?
TINNY: If there were no consciousness there would be no physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: The development of perfected consciousness is the very reason for the existence of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had said that time and space were, in effect, artifacts of the existence of matter. Is consciousness also an artifact of the existence of matter?
TINNY: It would be more true to say that time, space, and matter are an aspect of consciousness. It is through a material stage that new consciousness comes into existence, inextricably linked in a deterministic relationship with matter. As the material existence becomes more complex, consciousness manifests an increasing degree of free-will until able to separate from the physical plane and continue the path to perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does knowledge fit into that process?
TINNY: Knowledge is the means by which that transformation takes place. Absolute truth is the goal; ignorance must be overcome before liberation can be attained.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that help answer your question as to how knowledge can put an end to the many social problems presently facing the human race, and can also put an end to the threat of nuclear destruction facing all life on the planet?
TINNY: It does. With the knowledge of the true nature of our existence comes an inner transformation. The new consciousness will be one which will allow the return to a state of dynamic balance, a harmony with the natural order of material existence. We will act in accord with our true nature, which is one of peace and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The human race does not appear to have as its true nature peace and love; indeed, it almost appears the opposite. It seems human nature is one of force and aggression.
TINNY: As we have seen over and over again, what appears to be seldom is. The present dilemma facing the human race is the struggle between our essential goodness attempting to emerge and fully manifest itself, and the strong bond to our past externally developed predilection for evil through the power of force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The perennial struggle between good and evil.
TINNY: It is the only struggle. All conflict in the physical plane is but an aspect of that one essential struggle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which shall prevail, good or evil?
TINNY: Good, of course. That is the natural order of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If good shall prevail, why worry about any impending evil? Why worry about the threat of a nuclear holocaust?
TINNY: The sum total of good and evil in the whole of physical existence must always be weighted in favour of the good. There is no question that good will prevail. In any individual instance, it is the local circumstances which determine whether good or evil will prevail. The nature, though, of physical existence determines that good has a higher probability of success than evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about free-will?
TINNY: At the level of consciousness manifested by human beings we must choose good over evil. That is our obligation to the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And below the level of human consciousness?
TINNY: The probability that good shall prevail more often than evil is determined by the external environmental circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The necessity to choose good over evil is a very heavy responsibility for the human race.
TINNY: It is indeed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While human beings have free-will and must choose good over evil you also say goodness, the following of the path of peace and love, is the true human nature. How can both be?
TINNY: All levels of material form must exist in harmony with their essential nature or cease to exist as a form of material existence. It is the essential nature of beings at the human level of consciousness to live a peaceful and loving existence. We must choose by the exercise of free-will to follow our true nature or cease to survive as a species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there no alternative?
TINNY: None.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then where is the freedom of choice?
TINNY: If we choose good over evil then we shall survive as a species. If we choose to allow evil to prevail over good we shall cease to survive as a species. It is not altogether a nice choice; but we have no alternative but to make that choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems obvious any who were faced with that choice would do no other than choose the path of peace and love.
TINNY: It would seem so.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But the human race appears, if not to have chosen the opposite path leading to the extinction of the species, to at least be undecided as to which path to choose.
TINNY: To make no choice has the same result as choosing the path of evil - extinction of the species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So although we have free-will, we are obliged to use that free-will to choose the path of peace and love.
TINNY: That is the nature of conscious development at the human level. Consciousness cannot progress any further unless a deliberate choice is made to follow the path of peace and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems a bit cold-hearted to say, in effect, choose to exist in a peaceful and loving manner or die.
TINNY: There is never any alternative at any level of existence but to follow the natural order or cease to survive. It is not cold-hearted that the human race must also exist in harmony with all else.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean if the human race transgresses, even slightly, from the path in harmony with the natural order, then the sentence is death?
TINNY: No, if that were the case the human race would no longer exist. The human race has been given greater latitude to stray from the right path than any previous level of material existence which has developed on this planet. There is a limit, though, that may not be breached. The human race has reached and is pushing that limit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The nuclear threat?
TINNY: First among many. Other areas of disharmony with the natural order are close behind. If we do not soon choose as a society to turn from our present path it will just be a matter of which evil we finally and terminally succumb to.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that depressing?
TINNY: But isn't it joyous to know that we have within our power the ability to choose a future of peace and love, truth and beauty?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Indeed it is.
TINNY: If one dwells on the negative, one only strengthens the negative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And, I suppose, that if one dwells on the positive, one only strengthens the positive.
TINNY: That's right. It's also a lot more pleasant to dwell on the positive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that denying reality, which could certainly be dangerous?
TINNY: It is most certainly possible to keep one's attention focused on the positive while remaining objectively aware of the negative. It is the nature of positive and negative that whichever receives the most attention will prevail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's unfortunate.
TINNY: Not really, since it could be no other way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean we could not have a material existence where the positive shall prevail over the negative regardless of the degree of attention each receives?
TINNY: That's the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean the essential nature of things could not be other than it is on the physical plane of existence?
TINNY: That is the nature of physical existence, it can not be otherwise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said that the purpose of the physical universe is to develop perfected consciousness. Is that why the physical plane of existence must be as it is?
TINNY: There is no other way to achieve a perfected nature. Actually though, the purpose of the physical universe is not only to develop perfect consciousness, but its purpose is to allow the development of the perfect and absolute manifestation of all positive aspects of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The physical universe is the cradle of perfected being.
TINNY: At least that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had said the most basic law of physical existence was that the matter of the universe shall organise into the most complex arrangement it can, given the environmental circumstances.
TINNY: That is the one essential law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that process of material development usually referred to as evolution?
TINNY: It is a misunderstanding of that process which has been called evolution; therefore, evolution is an incorrect concept. The theory of evolution is based on some wrong assumptions about the nature of the developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those wrong assumptions contained within the concept of evolution?
TINNY: When the theory of evolution was first developed it was during a time when the old, incorrect view of the world was a major influence on the thinking in all sciences. In the biological area those flawed beliefs influenced scientists who were observing the developmental process of the physical universe and trying to understand that process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain the relationship between some of those flawed perceptions and what has been called evolution?
TINNY: One very basic flaw was due to the old assumption that the universe consists of objects separate from other things. In the theory of evolution it was believed that life began with the first one-celled organisms, and that the billions of years of material development before the first biological life was not an integral, continuous part of that process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the unity of existence went unrealised.
TINNY: Another flaw in the concept of evolution lies at the core of the theory. That core belief says the developmental process can be defined as the survival of the fittest. At a time when the so called basic forces were such an important part of science, and change both physical and social was thought to be the result of conflict, it was believed that the environment acts upon the organism by imposing changes. Within the concept of evolution is the tacit idea that more complex forms develop from simpler forms under the pressure of their environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the environment does not force the organism to change to be better able to survive in the given environmental conditions, why does the organism change?
TINNY: Change is not externally controlled in the physical sense, but instead is internally directed. New forms develop due to a pressure from their essential nature which can only be manifested as the environment allows.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the struggle to survive; the survival of the fittest?
TINNY: Once again the true nature of the physical existence was perceived but misunderstood. Survival of the fittest has been wrongly considered to mean the most physically dominant. In the new view of reality survival of the fittest is more correctly seen as having the most harmonious relationship with the natural order; that is the true criterion of fitness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Success not through force and aggression, but through harmonious relationship with the totality of existence.
TINNY: From the very beginning of physical existence the role of external force has been decreasing in favour of inner harmony. Coercion has been fading in favour of cooperation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about the need for competition in evolution?
TINNY: Competition definitely has a place within the development of material existence. The nature of the competition in that universal progression is not an issue of the dominance of one level of existence over another or of one individual over another, but is the constant striving within the self for personal excellence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any other major flaws in evolutionary theory?
TINNY: Another flawed belief is that evolution has no direction, no purpose; that it is a random process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Evolution is not random?
TINNY: Indeed not. The progressive development of material form is an expression of the essential nature of physical existence. Actually, even without realising that matter has an essential nature to express, it's hard to believe anyone could consider a process random which has resulted in billions of years of development in one direction, from the simple to the complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If change was truly random it would have at each opportunity an equal chance of moving in either direction. The developmental process is not random but is an expression of the natural order of existence which is manifested on the material plane as movement from the simple to the complex. Are there any limits to the ways physical form may be manifested?
TINNY: As stated earlier, the structure imposed by existence on the physical universe determines the nature of the quantum/relativistic reality. The form of the physical universe as a whole determines the limits of expression which may be manifested by its parts.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean there are some physical forms which cannot come into existence through the developmental process as it progresses from the simple to the complex?
TINNY: The number of physical forms which cannot exist is many times larger than the number of forms which can exist. PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even looking at the different forms life has taken on this planet the possibilities seem limitless.
TINNY: The limits provide wide variation at the level of biological existence. They are inherent in the structure of matter. The limits can be seen much more easily in the early development of the physical universe than they can when the development has become so complex as biological form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do the limits of basic matter act in the early development of the physical universe?
TINNY: Changes in material form do not make up an unbroken continuum but, instead, are limited in number and scope by quantum factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What limits do quantum factors place on the expression of physical form?
TINNY: At the level of subatomic particles those quantum factors place limitations on the characteristics manifested by the particles. Those limitations show up as polarity of charge, direction of spin, and others. Those limitations are expressed as quantum numbers. Any characteristics expressed will always be specifically in accord with the quantities indicated by those quantum numbers. Any quantity other than those expressed by the relevant quantum numbers may not be manifested by any subatomic particle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see the effect of quantum factors at the subatomic level of material existence. Is there a similar set of restrictions due to quantum factors at the atomic level?
TINNY: Yes, and those limitations are also easy to see. The word quantum refers to units of some particular amount rather than being continuously variable. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom begins with one in the hydrogen atom, jumps to two in the helium atom, three in the lithium atom, and so on up to about one hundred or more. There can never be an atomic expression of form halfway between hydrogen and helium, with some fractional number of protons greater than one and less than two. That limitation is due to the quantum/relativistic reality which is an expression of the structure of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have shown me the effect of limitations due to quantum factors at the level of subatomic particles and at the atomic level. Do those limitations also exist at the molecular level?
TINNY: Those limitations exist at all levels. The quantum factors at each level express themselves both at that level and all higher levels. The quantum factors which affect light, or more generally electromagnetic radiation, determine which subatomic particles may take material form. The quantum factors which affect both electromagnetic radiation and sub- atomic particles determine which atoms may take material form. The quantum factors which affect electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, and atoms determine which molecules may take material form. The quantum factors which affect electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules determine which forms of biological life may be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the limits to material form at all levels of physical existence are determined by the essential nature of the physical universe. All forms at all levels of material existence are determined by a complexity of interacting quantum factors from their own level and all previous levels.
TINNY: That is how it is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you explain it, the developmental process of physical progression sounds very different from the concepts of evolutionary theory,
TINNY: As always, difficulties occur when an attempt is made to describe the nature of existence in terms of how things appear rather than as they truly are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you call the progressive developmental process which permeates the physical universe?
TINNY: I call it envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's very similar to the word evolution. How do you define that new word 'envolution' which describes the developmental process?
TINNY: Envolution is the natural unfolding of the material existence in a series of successive small steps from a simple deterministic beginning to a perfect transcendental culmination.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That definition includes virtually all properties and behaviour in the physical universe.
TINNY: Envolution is a description of the one basic law. Included in the concept of envolution is a further assumption; that the process is cyclic. After the simple deterministic beginning comes perfect transcendental existence. After perfect transcendental existence comes a simple deterministic beginning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One becoming the many, and many becoming the one.
TINNY: The eternal cycle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me see if I understand the concept of envolution. As the physical universe begins it has a purpose, which is the creation of conscious existence, perfected in every aspect. The physical universe has an essential structure which determines the quantum/relativistic reality. That reality expresses the true nature of material existence. The physical universe begins as simple material forms acting in a largely determined manner in accord with their true nature. As simple matter develops into more complex organisations of matter, it begins to manifest a greater range of characteristics. The material stages of development progress through subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules to become biological organisms. The specific forms which can be manifested in each of those physical levels of existence is limited by the quantum factors of its own level and all preceding levels. That developmental process continues until the state of perfected transcendental existence is achieved. From that perfect transcendental existence emanates new physical existence of a simple deterministic nature.
TINNY: That is the process of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the natural relationship between the particular levels of material development and the environment?
TINNY: It is to be an harmonious, complementary relationship. As the environment changes, further expressions of physical form are given the opportunity to manifest within the limitations of quantum factors. As the physical forms change, their effect on the environment results in changes in the environment. As the environment then changes that once again allows new physical forms to manifest, which further alters the environment in continually complementary cycles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you say was the most pervasive basic difference between the concepts of evolution and envolution?
TINNY: The theory of evolution is based on change through force by the external environment, while envolution is based on change in accord with an essential inner nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That difference has important implications to the human race, doesn't it?
TINNY: As material existence becomes more complex the implications of that basic difference becomes more critical. To the human race that difference is a matter of life and death.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can only hope you succeed.
TINNY: What do you mean, you hope I succeed?
