From Microbits To Everything: Universe of The Imaginator: Volume 2: The Philosophical Implications

IROM MI CROBI 1S 1O LVLRY1HI NG
IROM MICROBI1S 1O LVLRY1HING

UNIVLRSL OI 1HL IMAGINA1OR
Volume 2: 1he Philosophical Implications
Nadeem Haque
M. Muslim
Optagon Publications Ltd.
2007
Irom Microbits to Lverything: Universe of the Imaginator
Volume 2: Philosophical Implications
lirst Ldition
All rights resered under the International Copyright Conention. No part
o this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieal system or
transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission o the
publisher, except in the case o brie quotations embodied in reiews,
articles and books.
Copyright 200 by Nadeem laque and M. Muslim
Published by Optagon Publications Ltd., 1oronto.
Author contact e-mail: haque_nadeemhotmail.com
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Muslim, M., J966-
Irom microbits to everything : a new unified view of physics and
cosmology / M. Muslim, Nadeem Haque. -- Jst ed.
Vol. 2, by Nadeem Haque and M. Muslim, has subtitle: Universe of
the imaginator.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. J. 1he cosmological implications - v. 2. 1he philosphical
implications.
ISBN 0-969960S-J-4 (v. J).--ISBN 0-969960S-3-0 (v. 2)
J. Cosmology. 2. Relativity (Physics) 3. Particles (Nuclear physics)
I. Haque, Nadeem, J960- II. 1itle.
QC28.M88 200J S23.J C200J-90J287-X
1bi. boo/ i. aeaicatea to att tbo.e, tbrovgbovt tbe age.,
ava iv att tace., rbo bare cbattevgea irratiovat iaea..
CON1LN1S
Chapter 1
Holiest God: Saying Goodbye Forever to Atheism,
Mysticism and Polytheism
M. Mv.tiv 13
1here has always been something - 1he Lternal must be limitless -
1he Lternal must be unmoable or unchangeable - Plausible answers
- Chance, Process or Lolution as the Lternal -Lternal Natural
Selection or Lolution - Process: 1he \ae lunction\ae lunction
1heory - Answer Number 1wo: Matter is Lternal - I matter were
limitless, eternal there could be no multiplicity o things - I matter
were eternal, we would neer hae been born - 1he status o the
argument by design ;M. Mv.tiv,âaeev aqve) - 1he Sesamatic or
Relatiological Proo o God - las matter been changing oreer -
Another take: Send matter back and see - Oscillating Unierse
debunked ;âaeev aqve) - Could matter on its own hae caused` its
beginning changes - It is all temporary - Space as the creator o
matter and the ininite enabler o change - \ilul and imaginatie
space as reason or delay in changes - Soling the puzzle o the
Lternal: God as the Answer! - A mind can transcend itsel - \here is
God - Multiplicity and limitations as additional proo or God -
\ho Made God \hy there cannot be ininite regress - God`s
attributes - 1he meaning o all this or human beings - A second new
proo o God`s existence rom the Big-Bang Origin - Preamble:
Beore the Big Bang ;âaeev aqve) - 1he Origin-lorce Proo o
God ;M. Mv.tiv,âaeev aqve) - Change and the S1OP-analysis
;âaeev aqve) - Conclusion
Chapter 2
Human Belief Systems 59
Part 1: Critiquing the philosophies of Socrates,
Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, Zeno, Epicurus,
Pyrrho, Carneades, Plotinus, Cicero, Lucretius, Ibn al-
Rawandi, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Al-Warraq, Al-Tauhidi, Al-
Maari, Hume, Kant, etc.
M. Mv.tiv 61
O Daid lume - Reiew 1: 1he distinction between reasoning and
experience - Reiew 2: Lxperience o particulars and the absence o
cause - Summary - Lmmanuel Kant - Causes as objectie necessities
- A note on indeterminacy - Godel`s 1heorem and the problem o the
paradoxical sel reerential - A. 1his sentence is alse - B. 1his
statement is not proable - Godel`s ersion o 1his statement is not
proable` - \hat is knowledge - 1he mind issue - Lmpiricism, etc.
- 1he measure o truth
Part 2: World Religions: A New
Perspective
âaeev aqve 93
Chapter 3
Where does God fit in?
âaeev aqve 103
1he Mind o God - On the issue o the proo o God`s Lxistence -
Christianity s. the imagination o God - God`s imagination and the
inalidation o pantheism and monism - \hat is the ace` o God -
Could 3D space itsel be a created dimension - 1he Psychology o
Understanding the Objectless Space o God - Conlating and
conusing objectless space with a mindless oid - Approaching
objectless space rom another angle - \hat is the A\L ;M. Mv.tiv,
âaeev aqve) - 1he Answer - 1he main goal - 1ype o unierse -
Consciousness as the property o absolute objectless space -
Imagination o God and ree-will - Non-Anthropomorphic
deinition o need` - \itness! - Is punishment in hell oreer
according to the Quran - 1he inite nature o all punishment
Chapter 4
Solving the Problem of Evil
M. Mv.tiv 14
Lil as a prerequisite to goodness and pleasure - But there is relie -
Dierences in human experience and God`s justice
Chapter 5
The Human Mind and the Issue of the Soul:
The Solution to the Mind and Body Problem
âaeev aqve 161
Contemporary Views - 1he Physicalist 1rap - Microbits and absolute
objectless space as a new oerall iew to explain consciousness -
low exactly does consciousness,will arise - 1he brain as
switchgear: \hy memory is not stored on carbon based bodies
Chapter 6
General Rate of Consciousness (GRC) and Reality 1
Part 1: Quantum Lights: Life as fractions of time
M. Mv.tiv 19
Introduction - \hat is lie - 1he real dierence between the liing
and the dead - 1he speed o lie - Lieness - Is awareness the same as
lie - \e are ractions o time - GRCs - 1he Mechanics o
Consciousness: \hen GRP ~ GRC - Uniersal IDs - 1he
discontinuity o consciousness - GRCs and the relatiity o the
present - Consciousness as a property o space - Proing that
consciousness is independent o matter - Lxpanding the number and
ariety o the conscious - On the issue o the Sel - Sel as Body
,SAB, model - Sel as Drier ,SAD, model - 1he Sel Outside the
Body model - 1he Sel Inside the Body model - Sel as Space ,SAS,
model - Death as an opportunity or a dierent GRC - GRCs and
the relatiity o the present - On seeing the past ater death -
Conclusion
Part 2: GRCs and the Scriptural Evidence:
âaeev aqve 215
Introduction - GRC and the Quran - Another meaning o the word
Kitaab - low GRC works: the cognitie mechanism - 1he
signiicance o numbering - Speed o Angels and GRC: the Quranic
eidence
Part 3: The Quran and Life after Life
âaeev aqve 225
1he Quran on Soul` and consciousness - \hat exactly happens upon
death: 1he physics o it all ;âaeev aqve,M. Mv.tiv) -
1elemorphogenesis ;âaeev aqve,M. Mv.tiv) - Automatic and
seamless continuity o consciousness - 1he mechanics o lie ater
this lie - Deeper meanings o the words death and grae` -
lurther proo o a parallel Unierse o Paradise and lell - Coma,
unconsciousness and non-RLM sleep - Artiicial Intelligence` and
the creation` o new orms o lie - Stepping outside the Reerse
Dream` ;âaeev aqve,M. Mv.tiv) - Secret o the Unierse
Appendix: Resolving the paradox of free-will
âaeev aqve ava M. Mv.tiv 26
1he paradox` o ree-will - A more ormal proo or the non-
existence o commonly inerred ree-will` - Changing the script -
loundational problems with the standard interpretation o ree-will
Bibliography 29
Index 283
Chapter 1
Holiest God: Saying Goodbye Forever to
Atheism, Mysticism and Polytheism
Chapter 1
Holiest God: Saying Goodbye Forever
to Atheism, Mysticism and Polytheism
In this chapter, it is demonstrated that eerything originates rom one
Lerlasting and Intelligent Being, called God. 1he argument is that there
must hae been something always. Let us call this the eternal. 1he eternal is
the one and only source o all things. 1he thesis is that the eternal must be
Intelligent or imaginatie, or i it were mindless or unintelligent, it could
neer account or change.
1here has always been something
rov votbivg, votbivg cove..
By deinition, nothing` is the opposite o some thing. It is thereore, not
possible to get a thing out o nothing. Nothing` added to or multiplied
endlessly is still nothing.
Now it is a act that in the ery least, the reader o this piece is some
thing. In other words, there is something now. Since that thing could not
hae come rom nothing, it must hae always been, or it must hae come
rom something that had always been. Lither way, the conclusion must
ollow that there has always been something. Let us call that thing the
eternal.
From Microbits to Everything
16
1he Lternal must be limitless
Because no thing could arise rom nothing, all things that arise must do so
only rom that which has always been. 1hereore, since the eternal cannot
produce something out o nothing, whateer the eternal produces must be
something that the eternal could always hae produced. All changing things,
thereore, hae always been possibilities o the eternal. Now whateer the
nature o things may be, reality can be no more than the eternal and its
possibilities. 1he combination o that which has yet to be born, and that
which has been born, must make up the whole o that somethingness that
we call reality. Gien that there is no other thing apart rom these two, it
must ollow that there is nothing to limit the eternal and its possibilities.
1hat is to say, that which is neither eternal nor a possibility o the eternal is
nothing. Nothing, o course, cannot limit something. 1hereore, the eternal
and its possibilities together must orm a limitless reality. But gien that all
non-eternal things arise strictly and solely out o the eternal, to state that the
possibilities and the eternal orm a limitless reality is to state in eect that
the eternal is the limitless reality. \here there is nothing else apart rom the
eternal, there is nothing else to limit the eternal. \ithout anything to limit
the eternal, the eternal must be limitless.

1he Lternal must be unmovable or unchangeable
It is true that in reality there are many things, eery one o which is limited.
1his may lead some people to think that perhaps the eternal is the sum o, or
the combination o, all these limited things. 1hat conclusion, howeer, is an
error and cannot be true. 1he eternal is neither limited nor the sum o any
limited things. Let me explain. lirst o all, keep in mind that a multiplicity o
Holiest God
1
things has been possible only because each thing is limited. 1here are two or
more things instead o one, only because one does not occupy all the room
or reality. I 1` took all the room, and illed it up, there will be only 1` in
that room. Reality is the room and we are the 1s` and 2s`. Also keep in
mind that eery one o us moes only because, again, we are each limited.
I you occupied the whole room, you could not moe in that room. \ou
moe only because you do not occupy the whole o space. All limited things
are moable or diisible. Because all limited things are moable, they
cannot be the eternal. 1his is because in terms o positions, in space, at
least, a changing or moing thing is, by deinition, the opposite o the
eternal. 1o be eternal is to hae been what or where you hae been oreer.
1he thing that can be dislodged cannot be eternal. 1his is because that
which dislodges a thing is either itsel eternal or temporary. I the dislodger
is temporary, it cannot dislodge the eternal. On the other hand, i the
dislodger were eternal, it could only dislodge the temporary and not
another eternal. No eternal can dislodge another eternal, either in its
space or quality. In order to dislodge anything, the dislodger must moe
rom its eerlasting position and moe the other rom the other`s eerlasting
position. Now keep in mind that you hae one or more things only because
they are distinct rom each other, either in space or in time. 1hus to state
that there are two eternals is to state that there are two eternal distinctions
between eternal one` and eternal two`. Gien that the eternal cannot
subsequently acquire any quality that it did not always hae, it must ollow
that eternal one`, or example, cannot subsequently lose its distinct
separation rom eternal two`. In order to moe or to dislodge another, one
must lose one`s state to another, and in order to moe another, that thing
too must be capable o losing its state and acquiring another state. But the
eternal cannot gain anything that it did not always hae. It cannot gain
another position or quality that it did not always hae. \hat I am saying is
18
that things which are eternally separate remain eternally separate. 1hings
eternally separate cannot moe each other. 1hereore, the conclusion must
ollow that the eternal can neither be moed nor does it moe.
Consequentially, i a thing moes or can be moed, it is not eternal. Since
eery limited thing is motion and moable, it must ollow that no limited
thing is eternal. Lery limited or moable thing, thereore, is temporary.
1hereore, the conclusion must ollow that the eternal reality is not a
number o limited things. \e know that there has always been something
and that it is limitless. \e also know that there are many limited things that
are non-eternal. An example is a human being.
1
1he undamental
question, thereore, is: \hat is it that is eternal, limitless and unmoable`
2
Plausible answers
1. Chance, Process or Lolution.
2. Matter.
3. God.
Chance, Process or Lvolution as the Lternal
I you ask some people about the ultimate origin o things, they would say
1. Indeed, i, as some current wisdom scientiic wisdom suggests, our world
or the unierse has a beginning, then it certainly is not eternal and this makes the
search or the eternal much easier. lurthermore, it is clear that the unierse itsel is
moing. 1his means that it is limited and again, not the eternal.
2. 1he correct answer is easy rom this point on because the question eliminates
all moable, moing and limited things.
Holiest God
19
chance`. Logically, howeer, chance` must be the wrong answer. lere is
why. 1here are two possible meanings o the term chance. One meaning is
that o disorder`. Now, as it has been explained earlier, the eternal must be
limitless. So, i the answer to the question is disorder`, that would be the
same as saying that in the beginning there was an eternal and a limitless
disorder. Gien that disorder is the opposite o order, a limitless and an
eternal disorder could neer gie rise to any order. Now we know as a act
that there is order in reality. An example o order is lie. 1hereore, it must
ollow that the eternal could not hae been disorder.
3
Di.oraer ai.oraer ~
ai.oraer. So chance, as disorder, is out o the question.
Another group o people hold a dierent deinition o chance. 1o
them, chance stands or reasonlessness` or without reason. But to say that
something is without a reason, is to state that it is just there` as a matter o
act and no more. 1his howeer, does not answer the question. 1hat the
goat, or example, is here as a matter o act, is true. But where does it come
rom 1he answer obiously cannot be it is just there`, or we know that
the goat was not always here. 1he undamental problem with putting
orward chance` as the answer is this: Probability is a unction o ignorance
and it has releance only as a means o determining the reasonableness o
two or more mutually exclusie .ecvtatire propositions. \hat is it that is
eternal and limitless Do not say chance`, because there is no thing or
animal known as chance. 1he correct answer must reer to an animal, thing
or identiiable reality.
3. Indeed, i disorder were the eternal reality, none o us one would hae
been able to say so as a act, since knowledge arises only rom order.
20
Natural Selection or Lvolution
Other people`s answer to the question o the eternal and the limitless is
natural selection` or eolution. Unortunately, natural selection` has the
same problem as that o chance` discussed earlier. It is not possible to
hae any selection` unless there are:
,a, things to select,
,b, dierences between the things to select,
,c, criteria or selection and
,d, time or space to allow or the selection.
All o the aboe imply that natural selection describes a mature or
ordered actiity that takes place only ater things are already originated and
ater the rules or the relationships between things are established. Natural
selection or eolution is a process between things already there.
1he process itsel is not a thing which one can point to as being
independent o things. A process is no more than a summary or description
o how things work. 1he question o course is not how things work, but
what, o all things, is limitless and eternal. 1he answer cannot be eolution,
or eolution is neither limitless nor is it eternal. It does not exist
independently o things and it is no more than a summary or a description o
the actiities o things and their interactions with one another. 1hereore, in
a reply to the question o what it is that is eternal, the actiities and
interactions o things cannot be a good reply. 1o be a thing is to act and to
react in a speciic or certain way. 1hings are not independent o their actions
and reactions. In order or eolution to be eternal, the things that make up
eolution must be eternal. I the things that act and react are not eternal,
then their actions and reactions cannot be eternal either. I a thing is not
Holiest God
21
eternal, neither can its actions and reactions be. Now i eolution has any
releance, it is only this: that present things are the result o the actions and
reactions o other things. Present things are the result o change. Clearly,
that which is the result o change is not, and cannot be, eternal.
Process: 1he Wave Iunction 1heory
1here is a theory o process apparently adanced by Stephen lawking and
others, which states that our world or the unierse could hae arisen
spontaneously on its own based, upon what is called the \ae lunction o
the Unierse`. In the beginning, according to Stephen lawking:
1here will be no singularities at which the laws o science broke
down and no edge o space-time at which one would hae to
appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions
or space-time.... 1he unierse would be completely sel-
contained and not aected by anything outside itsel. It would
neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BL.
4

low exactly does the wae-unction law work Smith Quentin explains it
this way: le supposes that there is a timeless space, a our dimensional
hypersphere, near the beginning o the unierse. It is smaller than the
4. lawking, Stephen, ,1988,, . rief i.tor, of 1ive, p. 136. 1his is similar to
the inlationary unierse idea, where many physicists think that the unierse
came rom a bubble that comprised all matter and energy. But i nothing comes
rom nothing, whence this tiny bubble that grew into such a large unierse, with
not just matter, but lie. A bubble is a bubble. Since rom nothing, nothing
comes, i the thing that had always been were a bubble, it would oreer hae
remained a bubble.
22
nucleus o an atom. It is smaller than 10
-33
centimetres in radius. Since it
was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god o theism. 1his
timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding unierse. Our
unierse begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a and here we are
today in a unierse that is still expanding. Is it nonetheless possible that
God could hae caused the unierse No. lor the wae unction o the
unierse implies that there is a 95 probability that the unierse came into
existence uncaused. I God created the unierse he would contradict this
scientiic law in two ways. lirst the scientiic law says that the unierse
would come into existence because o its natural, mathematical properties,
not because o any supernatural orces. Second, i God created the unierse,
the probability would be 100 that it would come into existence because
God is all-powerul. I God wills the unierse to come into existence, his
will is guaranteed to be 100 eectie.
5
lawking`s theory`, Quentin writes, is conirmed by obserational
eidence. 1his theory predicts our unierse has eenly-distributed matter on
a large scale, which would be on scales o super-clusters o galaxies. It
predicts that the expansion rate o our unierse - our unierse has been
expanding since - would be almost exactly between the rate o the unierse
expanding oreer and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also
predicts the ery early area o rapid expansion near the beginning o the
unierse called inlation. lawking`s theory exactly predicted what the
COBL satellite discoered about the irregularities o background radiation
in the unierse. So a scientiic theory that is conirmed by
obserational eidence tells us that the unierse began without being
caused. So i you want to be a rational person and accept the results o
5. Smith Quentin, 1ro !a,. 1o Prore .tbei.v, speech Deliered beore the
Atheist Alliance Conention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996: 1ext ound
at the Secular \eb` on the Internet |hereinater, Qvevtiv|, pp.2-3.
Holiest God
23
rational inquiry into nature, then we must accept the act that God did not
cause the unierse to exist. 1he unierse exists because o this wae-
unction law.`
6

\hat is the releance o the conirmation o some o lawking`s
predictions Very little. 1o see what I mean, ask yoursel this: \ould you
consider the theory o the \eather Person at your local 1V station on any
issue, say how many angels can roller-skate on a pin`, proen, simply
because he or she announces that it is going to rain at a certain time
and it rains I you hae answered yes`, then tomorrow, accept
eerything I say here as proen, because I predict that tomorrow at
exactly 12 noon and i you want, or hundreds o years to come, millions o
people will eat pasta! \hat I am driing at is that i in act some o
lawking`s predictions hae come true, they do not necessarily proe that
eerything else that he says is true. It is probable that some part o the theory
is true and other parts are alse. 1he true part o course may yield correct
predictions. But then who says that three, our or een ten thousand
predictions proe the entirety o a theory lor eery prediction made by a
theory, there may be a thousand and one other things that it does not
predict. \hen a theory predicts something, it suggests to researchers that it
may hae .ove truth in it and it is thereore something that might be
worth looking into. 1hat is all. lundamentally though, the theory itsel ails
as the correct answer or the ollowing reason. 1he theory simply jumps
into the expansion o the unierse rom a particular point and then proceeds
to discuss mathematical` spheres and so orth. 1he question is not how the
unierse came to expand rom a particular point, nor is the question about
how things hae been working since the beginning, we are not interested in
things which begin, but in the thing which did not begin. I this so-called
6. Qvevtiv, p. 2.
24
nucleus o an atom were the thing that had been always, we would neer
hae been born. 1his is because since rom nothing, nothing comes, that
nucleus could neer hae gien birth to more than itsel. Reality would
hae oreer remained a timeless space, a our dimensional hypersphere ...
smaller than the nucleus o an atom.` lae you seen an elephant lately
Answer Number 1wo: Matter is Lternal
1here are many people who beliee that there has always been matter and
that only matter accounts or itsel or reality. George Smith, or example,
writes that matter is metaphysical primary` and that: On the contrary,
the existence o matter is unconditional - there is nothing else or it to
depend on.`
Apparently St. 1homas Aquinas was not concerned with

establishing a irst cause o the unierse in the distant past. Indeed, he
belieed that one could not demonstrate by philosophical argument that the
unierse had a beginning although he belieed that it did... 1hus he was not
opposed on bito.obicat grounds to the unierse`s haing no beginning`
8
As
or Martin, he posits that it is not necessarily true that contingent` beings
must be caused whereas such beings might simply occur, some contingent
beings might hae no cause.`
9
le continues that it may be the case that
some contingent beings exist or vo rea.ov at att ,italics in the original,, that
they are not produced by themseles or by another.`
10
I am not
7. George Smith, .tbei.v: 1be Ca.e .gaiv.t Coa, ,199, Prometheus Books,
New \ork, p.250.
8. ,Michael Martin, .tbei.v: . Pbito.obicat ]v.tificatiov ,1990, 1emple
Uniersity Press, Philadelphia |hereinater, Martin|, p.98.
9. Martin p.119.
10. Ibid., p.120.
Holiest God
25
accustomed to making such distinctions as contingent` and necessary
beings`. It is, howeer, illogical to state that a thing is neither produced by
itsel nor by another. 1hese are the only two logical possibilities.
If matter were limitless, there could be no multiplicity of things
Smith`s position, howeer, is simply not true and is untenable. Matter is not
completely independent. 1o be matter is to moe or to be moable.
Matter is not one thing but a number o limited things which moe or can
be moed. Multiplicity and resulting uniqueness arise only because each
thing is separated in space rom another by space. 1here is space between
you and me and there is space between all possible things, regardless o
how microbitic, they may be. 1hat is to say that there are spaces` without
matter. Matter, is thereore limited. Besides, we hae already seen that the
limited and the moable are not eternal. Reality is Limitless. So, it is clear
that matter is not eternal. Gien that matter is limited, it cannot account or
all reality.
11

11. As or Martin, he posits that it is not necessarily true that contingent`
beings must be caused whereas such beings might simply occur, some contingent
beings might hae no cause`,Martin p.119,. le continues that it may be the case
that some contingent beings exist or vo rea.ov at att |italics in the original|, that they
are not produced by themseles or by another` ,Ibid., p.120,. I am not accustomed
to making such distinctions as contingent` and necessary beings`. It is, howeer,
illogical to state that a thing is neither produced by itsel nor by another. 1hese are
the only two logical possibilities. Keep in mind that it is not possible or matter to
hae been eternal once and then to be non-eternal at another moment. Once
eternal, oreer lasting, once temporary, oreer temporary.
26
If matter were eternal, we would never have been born
Remember that because rom nothing, nothing comes, matter could neer
get or subsequently acquire anything that it did not always hae.
1hereore, i matter had been eerlasting, eery possible thing that makes
up reality must hae been inherent in matter at all times. 1hat is to say, or
example, since we human beings are alie today, it must ollow that we must
hae been a possibility o reality at all times. But i we hae always been a
possibility o reality, why were we born only recently rather than oreer in
the past 1here are only two possible answers to this: One answer is that we
were born only recently because matter did not hae the ability to produce
us until now. 1he other answer is that matter did always hae the ability
to produce human beings and that the actual birth or change is simply
an actualization o the potential o eternal matter. It is clear that i the
eternal did not hae the ability to produce human beings at all times, it
could not subsequently acquire this ability, since there would be no other
thing to gie matter this ability to do so. 1hereore, the only answer worthy
o discussion is the other one, namely, that change is simply an actualization
o the potential o eternal matter. 1he problem, howeer, is this: By
deinition, that which is eternal cannot change. A potential is something you
are not, which you could hae, or become, proided avotber thing,
condition, eent, or thing dierent, separate and apart rom you was
obtained. But with the eternal or the eerlasting which accounts or all
reality, where is the other` coming rom 1he answer is nowhere.` 1he
eternal is at once the rom` and the to`. In its eternity, it has no other.
1he eternal represents the whole o all reality and so it goes nowhere.
Because there is no other, the eternal reality must oreer remain itsel.
1o simpliy matters and to illustrate the oregoing, imagine eternal
reality as a limitless carpet with endless spots o the colour green. 1his is the
Holiest God
2
world that has been always and there is no other. Let us say that the human
being is a spot o the colour red. low would the eternal reality obtain a spot
o red rom this eerlasting green It cannot. 1he reason is that the green
spots are eerlasting. 1he eerlasting o course, last oreer, they do not
come rom, or go, anywhere. 1his is what I call the problem o the eternal.
1hat which is eerlasting cannot become temporal. Reality cannot just
disappear. Reality is like a knie, it cannot cut itsel. 1he thing cannot
destroy itsel since it cannot unbe and be at the same time. In order or a
thing to become something which it is not at the present, it must gie up
what it is at the present. 1here is an opportunity cost in eery action or
motion. I you think that one green spot could change into one red spot,
think again because there is nowhere else or the eerlasting green spot to
go in order to make room or the red spot. 1here is no other place or
reality to shed, as it were, its present sel. 1he eternal cannot make room or
another, because by deinition, there is no other and there is no room or
another. On its own, thereore, i matter were eternal and limitless, it could
neer change or become anything else other than that which it had always
been. I matter were eternal, it could neer gie rise to change, or to births.
\e would neer hae been born. \e hae been born, thereore .
1he status of the argument by design
I you ask most people why they beliee that this world was made by
God, they might reply that it is because they see order and complexity, and
just as ordered and complex things in actories need designers, so too, must
this world come rom a designer called God. 1his answer is intuitie and
takes a special kind o thinker to reject it. But many philosophers are right
when they say that what may be true in our experiences in our actories may
28
not hold true or the whole o reality iv terv. of roce... \e know that an
airplane requires a manuacturer because all airplanes that we hae seen are
made by manuacturers. Such thinkers claim that because we hae not seen
unierses made beore our eyes, we cannot say or sure that the unierse is
the same as our human made products. Like` is not is`. 1his has led
some thinkers to argue that design does not proe a Creator. 1he unierse
may be like our actories but then it may not, or it may be unique. 1hus
those who say that the world must hae been made by God the Designer,
are ocusing on the origin o existence ,a mind behind the processes as the
only logical possibility,, howeer, those who say the opposite, escape such
an absolute conclusion, by resorting to the processes o an already existent
unierse. 1hey concentrate on a critique o the ascription as to the cause o
the processes and structure. 1he atheists thus eade God` by ocusing on
processes ,i.e. eolution etc., and de-ocusing on issues such as actual
origination and the problem o ininite regress ,other than to lambaste the
cosmological argument,.
In lrom lacts to Values`, co-authored by one o the writers o this
book, seeral other aspects were brought into discussion, as this easion
tactic, that is, shiting the argument rom the indiisibility o origin and
design, to only design, was noted, in order close the gaps brought about by
using only the argument rom design and proe the actvatit, o God. 1hese
gaps identiied and discussed were centred around the issue o eternity
,ininite regress, and intelligence, and were: the fact o the Big Bang origin,
where it was also proen why it is a act and not a theory, the automaticity o
man-made design approaching the automaticity o design o nature, such as
eoling systems, and hence proing the need or greater intelligence
behind design than the human, rather than a blind process, i we consider
eolution as well, the strong anthropic principle, which postulates the pre-
adaptation and pre-planning o the unierse`s parts precisely to bring about
Holiest God
29
human existence, and inally, the connected new discoeries in astrophysics,
all adding to teleology backed, at its basis, by cosmology. 1hese eidences
were discussed in a seamless and indiisible ashion, and were then
compared to an eternity that was synonymous to and was ull`, embraced
with intelligence, as opposed to the contending iew o an empty` eternity
without the intelligence, that was to be accounted or, as the only other
alternatie. 1his argumentation procedure resulted in an entirely new proo
or the existence o God, rather than the conentional unrealistically
compartmentalized teleological, cosmological and ontological proos. 1he
irst two are in and o themseles, inconclusie, whereas the ontological
proo is allacious, since the mere assumption that the ability to imagine the
highest good, which is God, does not mean that the highest good exists. 1he
cosmological and teleological arguments, thereore, were restructured as a
vvit in this new proo, using new eidence rom nature, the whole o which
could be dubbed the teteogevicat roof ,origin o design, purpose,, though such
a name was not applied to that proo in lrom lacts to Values`.
Lssentially, the elaborate and intricate proo showed that design implies an
intelligence greater than that o human intelligence and that intelligence
must be one, creatie and eternal, the unierse haing been originated. It was
stated in lrom lacts to Values` that design has to do with how` the
unierse was created and not whether it was by a singular non-spatio-
temporal dependent entity, but that the how` question has been conerted
into the i,whether` question and then attacked by the atheists,
inordinately, in that, in their stating that like` is not is, they dismiss the whole
argument. \hat is orgotten, irstly, is that design` only reers to the
structuring o the existent elements, and that their origin has to be
accounted or, and, secondly, that although it may be true that like` is not
is`, such a act o design may reivforce the idea o a higher intelligence, rather
than diminish it.
30
Despite the new, teleogenic argument, purported to conclusiely proe
the existence o God, we will soon see below that the question o God
cannot be limited to design, order and complexity, as its oundational
construct, and that there is proo rom an een more undamental leel. In
act, there are much more simpler questions that can lead us to God`s
existence. It is simpler in that one needs only pure logic to realize the truth
o God`s existence as opposed to drawing eidence empirically and rom
inerences on design, despite the act that the steps in the logic are greater.
Please do ollow on!
1he Sesamatic
12
or Relatiological Proof of God
low do things come into being By things coming into being what is meant
is that the way in which children, or example, are born or the irst time into
the world. Prior to my birth, something was here. lor the sake o simplicity
let us say that my parents caused me to be here. And continuing with that
logic let us say that my parents` parents caused them too to be here. Let us
also take the position that it has always been like this, namely, one or more
things uniting to cause another thing to come into being, and that thing too,
causing something else to come into being and so orth. \hen it comes to
the question o the origin o all these changes, there are only two
possibilities. One is that matter has been changing oreer and there is no
beginning point or time or this change. 1he other possibility is that change
has not been oreer and that it was God who made and makes all changes
possible. It is not necessary to go into deinitions o God at this point. lor
12. e.a means change` in the Arican language, Ashanti. \hy Retatiological
Because the proo is based on comparing the relations between matter, change and
eternity.
Holiest God
31
now, though, it is important to keep in mind that the philosophers hae not
proed that change is eternal. \hat they hae said is that it is possible
that matter is eternal and has been changing oreer. I matter has been
changing oreer, then obiously, there is no need or a God.
Has matter been changing forever?
One undeniable thing about reality is change. lor example, you and I were
not here beore our births. \e also know that there were millions beore we
came here and these are no longer here. Lery day, more new comers are
added to the mix. More may come ater we are gone. \here do all these
people come rom lrom the logic o the philosophers the only answer must
be that we all come rom changing matter. According to this position,
eerything that is happening is simply matter changing rom one state to
another. But is it \hen the philosophers say that matter has been moing
oreer, they imply that the changes or moements o matter hae no
beginning. 1here is no point in space or time where these changes began.
1he act, howeer, is that changes, are by deinition, successie. In this
world, all things or changes do not come at once. 1his comes beore that.
1hat comes ater this and so orth. But then i as the philosophers say,
changes o matter hae no beginning or a irst step, how can they explain the
successions that are all oer the place
1o get a subsequent step, you require a prior step. \ithout a irst change,
there can neer be a subsequent change. 1he simplest way to think about
this is that eery changing thing is limited in space and time. Matter is a
collection o limited things. On this note, the act that we are each able to
moe rom one position to another shows clearly that we are each limited.
lor i you are endless, you cannot it into any place and so you moe not. It
32
is a thing`s position in space that deines its presence or existence. It does
not matter how long matter has been around, thereore, i it is limited, it
must always hae had a speciic position in space. But let us assume or a
moment with the philosophers, that matter had been here oreer. 1here are
only two ways by which matter could hae been present or occupied
positions in space. One is what we call rest without motion and the other
is what we call motions. \hether it had been here oreer or not,
matter has either been moing or resting oreer. 1o change, howeer,
is to moe rom one position to the other. I you are moing or resting at a
constant rate and you continue that way, there can be no change. A
change only occurs when a thing accelerates or de-accelerates rom a rate o
rest or a constant rate o motion in space. \hen matter is at a constant
rate o re.t, the manner in which it changes is to acceterate rom that position.
On the other hand, when matter is at a constant rate o votiov, the way on
which it changes is to rest rom that speed or to aeacceterate. Acceleration,
deceleration, diisions and multiplications are the only things that deine
change. A change happens when matter moes rom` to`. I there is no
rom` there can neer be a to`. 1he rom` is where the thing was beore
it moed. 1he to` is what we call change. So, unless one were to say that
matter neer had any position in space, an impossibility, then we are let
with the act that een i matter had been around oreer, matter could hae
changed only by shiting its eternal rom` position to another position.
lere is the crux o the matter. Since matter cannot be said to change beore
it changes, its rom` must necessarily be its position o rest`. It does not
matter whether the rom` position is one o rest without motion or
motion. \hat is important to know is that the acceleration or de-
acceleration is atra,. .vb.eqvevt to the rom` position. Now clearly, since
matter cannot change unless it accelerates or de-accelerates, diides or
multiplies rom the rom` position`, it ollows that the original point at
Holiest God
33
which matter rests rom its motion or moes rom its rest is the begivvivg o
change. 1hus, howeer long matter has been around, its changes had a
beginning. Contrary to what the philosophers hae said then, matter has not
been changing oreer. So, clearly, this shows without a doubt then that this
world as we know it, had a beginning.
Another take: Send matter back and see
One o the easiest way o iguring out that matter has not been changing
oreer is this. Let us conert time into distance so that matter`s changes
would be the same as i it had been traelling rom one point in space to
another oreer. Remember that changes are moements rom one position
to another. Changing oreer, thereore, is the same as moing rom one
position to another, oreer. Using distance or time, we would see that
there can be no beginning point or matter`s traels. I we assume with
the philosophers that the changes had no beginning, then no one can point
to any point in space and say here is where it started`. Now we all know
that matter is here in the present but it was not always like this. \ou and this
page were not here until ery recently. Matter has come rom ar. So,
continuing with the exercise, let us build a S1OP or matter in the now`
and let us see whether, i we were to send matter back to where it came
rom, it could return. Do you think that i matter started returning to
where it came rom it would eer arrie or reach the end 1he answer is
absolutely not. No matter how ar and how long it goes, there could neer
be an end position or matter. 1his is because, according to the
philosophers, its changes did not start anywhere. But the act is that i you
don`t start anywhere, you don`t end anywhere. 1he problem is that the
distance between our S1OP and where matter came rom is the same or
34
matter, whether it is coming or going. 1hus i it is impossible or matter to
reach home or to any beginning point o its changes, it must ollow that
matter could neer hae arried at this present S1OP rom there. I matter
is here, thereore, that must show that matter has not been changing
oreer. It had to start somewhere. Once again, we show that matter`s
changes had a beginning.
13

1he Oscillating Universe debunked
One can apply the S1OP-analysis` o the preious section to the
oscillating unierse model in which it is theorized that no beginning
existed, to see i it is alid. 1he Oscillating Unierse theory was deeloped in
1934, by Richard 1olman. In an oscillating scenario, since the series o big-
bangs and big-crunches hae gone on oreer, the regress is ininite, with no
beginning, hence, it would take an ininite time or the unierse to get here,
13. As I mentioned beore, an object in a constant state o rest is said to
change only when it decreases or increases its speed. An object that increases its
speed expands its positions in space or reaches more o its possibilities. 1he
opposite is also true: An object that decreases its speed contracts its positions and
reaches less o its possibilities. lence, i the original state o matter was that o
constant rate o the highest motion, then the type o change that we would hae
seen in this world would hae been one o contraction or o de-acceleration.
Contraction, howeer, is the opposite o births and growths. 1he type o changes
that we see in this world are expansie rather than contracting. I matter had been
de-accelerating ,decelerating, rom an original state o motion, we would not hae
had an expansion but the contraction o the unierse or o lie. lor birth or growth
is result o an acceleration rom a position o no birth ,rest, to a position o birth
,motion,. It represents a grab o one or more o matter`s possibilities. 1his,
thereore, shows that the oreer` state o matter was not one o highest motion
but that o rest. It has been accelerating rom a oreer` position o rest.
Holiest God
35
to the present S1OP. An ininite time to get here, is another way to say that
it will neer get here, as per the S1OP-analysis. loweer, the unierse i.
here. 1hereore, it would not take an ininite time to get here. I it does not
take an ininite time to get here, then it started somewhere, at a
particular S1OP in the past. 1hereore, there is no ininite regress and
hence no oscillating unierse, but either the one and sole origin o our
unierse, or a fivite number o connected cycles, the latter which we can
eliminate using Ockham`s Razor.
Could matter on its own have caused its beginning changes?
Again, let us assume with the philosophers that matter has been around
oreer. Since reality is all there is, there can be nothing else outside matter
to add to, or to help, matter to change. Lery change that we see in matter
today, thereore, must always hae been a possibility o matter. 1hat is,
matter should always hae had all that it needed to make human beings, or
example. 1he question then is, i all that was needed to make a human being
always existed in matter, why did we only arrie recently \hy weren`t we
born beore \hat`s with the delay Let us say that a quality or quantity x`
is what is needed to inalize the making o a human being. I this x` were
not a part o eternal matter, matter could not subsequently acquire it. 1his is
because matter, according to the philosophers, is reality. I reality didn`t hae
this x`, then x` did not exist and there is no other place to get x` rom.
On the other hand, i this x` was eternally present in matter then
changes should hae occurred long beore they did. Let`s say that a thing,
say M` is at position 1`. Let`s call it M1`. \hen M moes to position
2` it becomes M2`. It has changed rom M1 to M2. Clearly, beore M
moed to position 2`, position 2` already existed. 1he only releant
36
obseration is that prior to the moe there was a gap between position 2`
and M. As M is complete at position 1`, position 2` is not M but M-
or M- depending on the situation. Let us say that x` is the quality whose
presence necessarily enables moement rom position 1` to position 2`. I
x` was a part o M beore the moe, then M could not hae rested at
position 1` since x` necessarily results in moement rom position 1` to
position 2`. 1hus, i x` or position 2` is the acilitator o the change
rom M1 to M2, it must be external to M. \here M stands or matter,
this clearly shows that x` was not eternally present in matter. It is only
when the x` is not inherently present in matter that we can explain the
delay in the actualization o matter`s possibilities. Also, as I mentioned
beore, to be a thing is to be a ixed position in space. As a thing is, by
necessity, neither less nor more than its position in space, whateer
quantity or quality a thing is in space at any time is the totality o that thing.
1his is true o eery thing in space. 1his explains why uninluenced or
undisturbed by external orces or relationships, eery thing remains as it is.
In itsel alone, nothing in space has the power to be less or more than it is.
But then to change is to be less or more than you preiously were. Since no
particular piece o matter can do this on its own, it must ollow that eery
change is by necessity, the result o relationships or positions external to the
subject o that change. Variety o things is proo o the indiidualistic
nature o changes. 1he ariety o things proes that collectie matter is a
number o things. Because matter is no more than a collection o changing
things, the need or an external x` or change applies to all matter as a
whole. Another act that shows that the x` o changes is external to matter
is this. Beore each change occurs, it is preceded by the possibility o the
change. Beore a child is born, children must be possibilities, outside o
and independent o a particular parent. It is neither the parent nor the child`s
state o matter that makes the child possible but childrenability`
Holiest God
3
independent o the parents. It is only when the parents participate or ulil
the conditions o this childrenability` that a child can be born. But then you
must agree that these conditions are not something that the parent dreamed
o. Nor is it possible or the parent to ulil the conditions and not hae
the child. Similarly, a car moes, but it is not the car that makes motion
possible. Motion, in general, exists as possibility in space, independent o,
and external to, the car. 1he car moes only when it ulils certain conditions
or motion. A particular unction is always subsequent and external to an
independent antecedent possibility o the general unction. 1his is true o
eerything or unction in space. No indiidual thing makes any o the
relationships or positions that deine, limit and shape its presence. As matter
is no more than these indiidual things in relationships, it ollows that
neither matter as indiidual pieces nor matter collectiely as a whole has
anything to do with the ery positions or principles` in space that enable
matter to be, moe and change. It is neer our quantities that change us
but our relationships in space. And each one o us is helpless to reuse to
change as soon as we change positions. In the same ein, each one o us is
helpless to start any change as long as we are in the same position. I we
can neer start or stop any change as long as we are in the same position,
that must clearly show that it is not us that cause changes but the positions
that are aart rom us. 1o irm this up, I note that the same possible
relationships that result in changes continue to apply in space een
ater a gien quantity o matter leaes any particular position in space.
\e can imagine the continuing possibility o the relationships or
principles` with or without actual matter being present in a gien space.
But we cannot imagine the presence o change without the applicability o
the relationships or principles o space. 1o change is to diide, add or
multiply the relationships or positions o a gien thing. And, i or example,
we replace matter with numbers, we can still diide, add and multiply
38
without any problems whatsoeer. In other words, that which enables
changes is not so much particular pieces o matter as much as the act
that: 1. the pieces are limited and: 2. the relationships exist as possibilities
in space. 1hese again go to show, thereore, that the relationships or
principles that enable change are external to and independent o matter.
Matter, then cannot be the cause` o its changes. So what causes changes in
matter
It is all temporary
Beore I answer the question o what it is that causes changes, I think that
this is the right time to answer a question that is probably on eerybody`s
mind and that is, whether matter itsel is eternal. 1he answer is: not a chance.
1ime is a measure o eents in sequence. \here there are no eents, there
is no time. loreer then, means endless eents. But the only eents that are
releant are those that are in sequence. 1his is because time is sequential.
\here all the eents happen at the same time without any sequence, those
eents are, or all purposes, one, constant or in a state o rest. 1here can be
no time then. As you are aware there are two kinds o rest. One is by
constant motion without rest. And the second is rest without motion. 1he
problem is that a limited thing cannot moe without rest. 1his is because
being limited, its continuity o motion is a unction o the rate o repetition
o its position in space. 1he position o a thing, howeer, is its rest actor.
I you moe a hundred times, that must mean that you must stop a
hundred times. 1hereore, no matter how ast a limited thing moes in
space, it rests. But motions and rests are the things that we call changes.
And as we hae already seen, matter has not been changing oreer. 1hat
means that matter has not been moing and resting oreer. 1he only other
Holiest God
39
alternatie or matter is rest without motion. But it is impossible or
matter to rest without motion. 1his is because the only thing that does
not moe is that which is resting on something or is being preented
rom moing by something else. Nothing that is limited in space can rest on
itsel. 1ry it or yoursel. 1his is true o all limited things, big and small.
Let us not orget that een the biggest thing in space is still limited. And not
only that, all bigger things are just a bunch o smaller things together. In the
beginning there were small things and they got bigger by joining hands or
changing positions. I this is correct, then matter did not know such a thing
as rest without motion. But let us continue. Len i we say that the small
things rest on the bigger things and so orth and that the biggest things were
always there and not the result o changes and thereore, o motions, still,
the biggest thing cannot hae nothing to rest on. In any eent, rest without
motion is a iction. \e don`t see matter at rest anywhere. So that must mean
that matter has neer rested without motion. On the other hand, we hae
already agreed that being limited, matter cannot moe without rest. 1he
only thing that matter can do, and cannot help but must do, is to moe and
rest, that is, change. So, in short, whereer matter is, it changes. lad matter
been around oreer, it would hae been changing oreer. Since matter has
not been changing oreer and in act, its changes had a beginning, it
must ollow that matter has not been around oreer. Matter was born at the
moment when motion or change was born!
Space as the creator of matter and the infinite enabler of change
I matter was not always here and i matter is not responsible or change,
what is the obious and the only alternatie 1he answer is space`, that
limitless, indiisible eternity in which eerything is and which is the
40
prerequisite or eery presence, moement, diision, multiplication and
change. 1hat eer present space which you can neer imagine as being
absent anywhere, any time, is the creator, container, moer, organizer and
planner behind eerything. In some o my preious books
14
, I show that
Albert Linstein was wrong in talking about the curature` o space.
Only a limited thing cures. But this conusion has had the eect o
giing people the idea that space is matter. Nor was Descartes right when he
talked about space as an extension` o matter. Space is not a shadow and
does not extend rom anything. Space is independent o matter and it is,
and can be, without matter. It is matter that needs space. But space itsel
does not need matter. \e can imagine a matterless space but not a spaceless
matter. But by space what is being reerred to is not positions or areas.
1hese are ractions in space. Space itsel is that objectless constant without
which no limited thing can be. It is that ast expanse through which we
moe but cannot sense, limit, diide or grasp in any manner. Matter is
deriatie rom space as music is a deriatie o plays. 1he best analogy o
the relationship between matter and space is between the singer and song.
\e are the music and space is the musician. \hen the singing stops, the
music stops. But although the song is rom the player, the musician is not
the music and the music is not the musician. But o this, more at another
place. It is the positioning in space, and not just the presence o matter, that
is the cause o changes. As I mentioned earlier, a change is no more than
the diision, addition or multiplication o positions in space. \hen we say
that something has changed, all that we are saying is that its position in space
is now dierent than it was beore. 1he real thing that causes changes is the
re-arrangement o relationships. So, change is another word or
14. Muslim, M., and laque, Nadeem, ,2001,, rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg: .
êr |vifiea 1ier Pb,.ic. ava Co.votog,: 1be Co.votogicat vticatiov.: 1otvve 1
Holiest God
41
relationizing`. But the relations between things is just a code word or the
possibilities o ininite space. It is space that allows or moement or
change. 1he nature o the change o course depends upon the limits o the
thing and what it is that it has added or subtracted rom itsel. But clearly,
positioning and the ability to moe are the result o a constant and a limitless
space. It is the constancy o space that gies each thing, its presence and
stability. It is also the limitlessness o space that allows or that extra` room
that enables all possible moement. A ull space has no new tenants. But
then when you think about it, you would see that all changes are
mathematical propositions o pluses, diisions and multiplications. 1hese are
all unctions o tivit.. And these limits are diisible or multipliable as a result
o ivfivit,. It is the logic o this ininity that gies us the logic o all
relationships, mathematics included. \e do not change then because we are
a gien quantity: we change only because there is space to moe into, and
what is in that space is what we become. 1wo units o hydrogen and
oxygen become water only when one or both moe into the same`
space. I either element remained in its place, we would not see any
water. But then een when they meet, still, each element retains its quantity
and thus again proing that their waterness` resulted rom their positions
in space. At any time, any o us has only two choices: moement or rest,
expansion or contraction. And all o these require and are dependent
upon space. All changes in matter result rom this relationizing` in space.
\ithout space, nothing can moe, be or change. It is space, thereore, that
enables change and nothing else.
Wilful and imaginative space as reason for delay in changes
But then we must ask, i all changes were always possibilities o space and i
42
space has always been around oreer, then how can we explain the delays
in changes \e pose the same question that we gae to matter, to space.
And i space is like matter, namely, mindless, it too can neer explain the
delay in the changes or the same reasons that a mindless matter cannot
explain the delays. I space and matter had been around oreer, then
between the two o them, changes should hae occurred long beore they
did. 1his is because between the two o them they should hae all that they
needed to make changes. 1he only explanation that the human mind can
gie or delay in changes is planning or purposeul delay. Nothing else can
explain delay in the actualization o possibilities except will. 1hink about it.
A non-wilul or mindless reality cannot maintain a distance between its
possibilities and actualities. \ith the mindless, what can be is what is. It is
only a wilul, imaginatie, singular space that can delay the actualization o its
potential. Nothing else can do it. Only a reality that has wishes can say or
example, I want humans now` or I can hae humans but not yet`. \e
come to this conclusion because there can be no other reasonable alternatie
or explaining how the eternal gies rise to the temporal except where
the eternal is imaginatie so that changes occur, not as changes o the eternal
itsel, but as the maniestations o the eternal imagination or will. I you
think that this is not true, try coming up with the temporary rom a
mindless eternity! 1his imaginatie space then is what we call God. \e are
all the imagined or the desired beings o God.
15
15. All this is spelled out in Coa or rer,ove, by M. Muslim.
Holiest God
43
Solving the puzzle of the Lternal: God as the Answer!
\here the eternal is intelligent or a mind, it possesses a special capacity
which nothing else has: It can transcend itsel through its wishes, desires or
the imagination.
A mind can transcend itself
It was stated preiously that a potential is something you are not at present,
but which you could become, proided another thing or condition was
obtained. It was then argued that gien that there is no other thing or
eent apart rom the eternal, the eternal could not hae a potential and must,
or that matter, oreer remain what it has always been. 1he eternal could
neer gie rise to the temporal. 1his is what can be called the problem o the
eternal. 1he eerlasting must oreer remain so. loweer, when the eternal
is intelligent or mindul, the problem o the eternal disappears. 1he reason is
that while the eternal cannot add or take away rom itsel, i it is intelligent,
conscious or a mind, the condition or eent that is necessary or the
actualization o a potential, could arise without changing the eternal sel. 1he
conscious or intelligent eternal is not a mere quantity, it is by nature,
relectie. 1o be intelligent, conscious or mindul is to covtivvov.t, or
vvcea.ivgt, relect, enision, imagine, desire or think wishully.
16
It has
been shown that the eternal must oreer remain eternal. Since the temporal
must come rom the eternal, the natural question, o course, is: low then
16. An imagination is an actie orm o a wish, desire, or will. God`s imagination
is God`s wish or will. But God`s will or imagination is unlike anyone else`s because
le has the ininite power to make lis will as real, sustained and as aried as
possible.
44
does the temporal arise where reality is eternal 1he answer is that
the temporal does arise where and only where the eternal is Conscious,
Intelligent or Mindul.
1

In the imagination, one can add to or subtract rom onesel without
necessarily changing one`s limitations or reality. 1he imagination allows or
qualitatie transcendence: a capacity not open to any dumb or non-
imaginatie being. It is the ability to imagine, wish or to desire that proides
the possibility o the potential to the otherwise unchanging eternal. As
long as the eternal can desire or imagine, it can imagine or desire other than
itsel. 1he temporal, thereore, arises, not as a changing reality, but as the
changing wish, desire, the relection or the imagination o reality. 1he
potential or the temporal, thereore, does not inhere in the eternal as part o
itsel, but rather, arises and departs as desired. Change is not thereore o the
eternal, but solely o the desires o the eternal. Because the eternal is
limitless, there is no other power apart rom itsel, it is thereore, all-
powerul. 1his imaginatie, all-powerul, limitless and eerlasting being is
what I call God.`
Where is God?
God is eerywhere and le is the ultimate space` in which eery possible
17. By a mind what is being reerred to is not a large-sized brain. 1he mind
simply stands or the capacity to order, relect, and to will or imagine. It is not
necessary that this capacity be housed in, or result rom, a brain. \e know that
human beings hae a mind by irtue o the brain. But it does not necessarily ollow
that without a brain such as ours there can be no mind. It is rather, the internal
integrity o the thing and its orderliness that makes or intelligence. \e cannot say
about a thing that it is not intelligent because it has no brain. \e can only say that it
has no intelligence because it has no order.
Holiest God
45
thing moes. By space` I do not reer to any physical thing, object or
place. No, not at all. I am using the word space in this context simply to
stand or the limitless, indiisible, non-material ground or medium in
which eery possible thing is situated and contained, but which o itsel is
contained in nothing.
18

1he bases o this conclusion are as ollows. I hae already shown that
matter is limited. 1hereore, there must be part o reality where there is no
matter. Now eery piece o matter is in space. Lery limited being or
object, whether it is material, angelic or otherwise, must occupy some
space. Nothing sits in itsel. Besides, the law o opportunity cost applies to
all possibilities. It is not possible to hae limited things or worlds unless they
are situated in, and separated by, space. So, whereer there is a countable or
limited thing, there must be space. I there is an objectless part o reality,
there must be space at that part o reality. Nothing else is conceiable as
present where there are no objects. 1here cannot be spaceless nothing.
1hus both at the material and non-material parts o reality there must be
some space. Reality consists only o the material and the non-material.
1hereore, i there is space at both the material and the non-material parts o
18. Many people might eel discomorted about the statement that God is the
Ultimate Space o the world. loweer, it must be repeated that by space what is
being reerred to is nothing physical, limited, created, material, or moable. Space is
not a thing and it is unlike anything at all. It cannot be smelled, seen, touched, heard,
sensed or grasped in any way. It is not measurable or diisible and it is limitless. God
is One, the Lternal, Absolute, Lerlasting, Unique, Mindul and the Source o all
things. 1he essence o being Mindul is that God is a Person. But le is a person
without the limitations o legs, ears, and so orth. I God is the Space o your being,
you moe in lis presence and lis Being and le is the closest to you. 1he lack o
limitations in lim does not make God any less personable. 1o know that God is
that close and that le is with you always, must bring orth the most awesome
possibilities or relating to lim. \hat is required is not condemnation and anger
but a reision o one`s ery concept o reality.
46
reality, it must ollow that there must be space eerywhere.
Now space must be indiisible because in order to hae any dierence
between things, or, in order to diide anything at all, one needs space. One
cannot logically demonstrate the possibility o multiple spaces` separate or
distinct rom one another. Space is not an object. It is not countable. I you
could add` trillion spaces to a trillion spaces you would end up with only
one Space. Consequently, there is only one indiisible space that situates all
things. Lerything must be in some type o space, whateer world you
conceie cannot be but in some type o space. But space itsel need not be in
anything and is not contained in anything. Since this Space` is eerywhere,
it must be limitless. \e hae already seen that the eternal is limitless.
Clearly, there cannot be two limitless things. So, i Space is limitless, it
ollows that it must be eternal. Since God is eternal and` Space is eternal,
God and Space must be one and the same. God is One, non-material, non-
diisible, unique, and limitless. le is present eerywhere and surrounds,
limits and contains all possible worlds, but God limsel is surrounded or
contained by nothing. God is not in Space`, but rather, eery thing is
carried by God and God is the ultimate Space` o all possible worlds.
Multiplicity and limitations as additional proof for God
In this world, there are many things with dierent limitations,
capacities and unctions. In addition, we are not all born at the same time.
1he sun, or example, was here beore you and I were born and
certainly, some people are older than others. I we wished to trace the
ancestors o things, two possibilities could come to mind. One could argue
that dierent things come rom dierent ancestors and that we do not
all come rom one, but rom many dierent ancestors. One could postulate
Holiest God
4
that the irst eent that resulted in the earth, or example, was eternally
dierent rom the irst eent that resulted in the sun. I then one were asked
as to how the sun and the earth work together as a system, one could reply
that each thing possess a certain ixed capacity or limitation and that what
we see as a system is no more than a coincidence o limitations. I this
argument were alid, there would not be only one God but a number o
Gods. 1he argument, howeer, ails. lere is why. As already shown, in
order to hae a number o things, one needs space. 1hereore, whateer the
number o ancestors may be, the space that contains and separates them
must also be eternal. But to be a thing is to be a ixed quantity and quality. A
thing does not possess` a limitation or capacity. Rather, to be a thing is to
be that limitation and capacity. Clearly, i there were many ancestors, each
would be limited. 1he limited, o course, can only account or itsel. But we
know that there is no such thing as a thing arising out o and existing in
isolation. Lery thing is either a part o, or the result o ery wide
relationships. 1he earth, or example, is what it is because o its precise
relationship to the sun and to other things aa ivfivitvv. \ou are a human
being only because such things as air, ood, acceptable weather, etc., exist
and relate to you in a deined way. \ou do not exist apart rom the earth and
the earth does not exist apart rom the sun and so orth. 1he same is true o
eery possible limited thing. All things interrelate and interdepend. Gien
that the ancestors could not subsequently acquire what they did not hae
eternally, it must ollow that i there were multiple ancestors, their
interrelationships must be also be eternal. Gien that each ancestor is
limited, it must ollow that or each thing there could be no ininite regress
as we trace back but must end in that particular ancestor. Now reality
consists o only space and a number o things, each limited to its
position, quantity and quality in space. So, what, or example, is the ancestor
o say, the sun \hateer the name may be, the sun`s ancestor could not be
48
more than this: a limited thing. But where is this ancestor now All things
exist in ixed quantities and in interrelationships o dependence. Lery thing
is a composite o a gien quantity and o a gien neighbourhood in space.
Gien that the position and quantity o that ancestor is ixed eternally, it
could not make the sun and then go somewhere else intact. But eery thing
that one can point to in space is itsel limited and dependent upon its
relationships with others. I the ancestors are in space, they too interrelate
and interdepend. One could not say that the sun is the cause o the earth
any more than one can say that the earth is the cause o the sun. No one
thing in space is the cause o another. \here in space do you think that the
eternal ancestor o the sun is sitting 1here is no such animal. Lerything in
space is itsel limited, moing, changing or, in other words, temporal. Now
reality consists o only a number o things and space. Gien that the things
in space are temporal, the conclusion must ollow that the things, at least as
they exist in time, are caused by space. So, once again we show clearly that
space is the creator.

Who Made God? Why there cannot be infinite regress
Interestingly, the conclusion that all things come rom one eerlasting,
unmoeable God, could also be arried at een by way o the problematic
proposition that eerything has a cause`. 1he traditional problem, o
course, has been that i one says that eerything has a cause, and that
God caused all things, then one must answer the question: \ho caused
God` One cannot then justiiably say that God has no cause. St. 1homas
Aquinas is quoted as stating that God must be the lirst Cause, or otherwise
the causes would be ininite and the unierse could neer
19
start. But that
answer has not been satisactory. John Mackie, or example, asks: \hy
Holiest God
49
must the regress terminate at all \hy, i it terminates, must it lead to a
single termination, to one irst cause, rather than to a number - perhaps an
indeinitely large number - o distinct uncaused causes`
20

lere is the answer: \hen we talk about an ininite regress`, what we
really mean is an ininity o causes. 1he regress is simply another way o
reerring to one`s ancestry. 1he origin o a thing is the sum o its ancestors.
1o posit an ininity o regress is the same as saying that a thing`s ancestry or
predecessors are unlimited. But we hae already seen that only space is
limitless. So while the ultimate ancestor must be ininite, lis ininity cannot
arise rom any motions or causes but only in lis being as limitless and
eternal by nature. Another way to look at it is this. I a thing is a result o
change or i it is caused by another, then when you trace back its roots,
where you stop, is the beginning o the eent. 1he ultimate cause o the
thing becomes the end as you trace back. loweer, when you say that the
number o causes must be endless, you in eect state that there is no place
to stop or that there no end. But to say that there is no place to stop or no
end, is the same as saying that there is no one ancestor or group o
ancestors that is the ultimate cause or the beginning o the subsequent
eents. But then i there is no beginning cause, there could not be a
subsequent eect or change. I one posits change, one must necessarily posit
a beginning cause or an end. Since there is change, it must necessarily ollow
that there was a beginning. In other words, the regress must end. It has
already been shown that it ends in God. lurthermore, and or the sake o
argument, i one were to eliminate space as the undamental ancestor, then
what one would hae would be a number o ancestors. Since the regress
must be ininite, the number o ancestors must be ininite. But we hae
19. Martiv, pp. 9-99.
20. Mackie, J.L., ,1982,, 1be Miracte of 1bei.v, p.8.
50
already seen that things are limited and that the ery possibility o motion
arises only because o the limited number o things in space. \here one`s
ancestors are limited, one cannot trace one`s origin oreer, one has to
end at the limited number. So, here again, there can be no ininite regress.
\ith respect to the issue o God`s cause, the answer is that births,
changes, causation, take place and are possible only in and because o space.
A change is a orm o motion rom one position or relationship in space to
another. 1he question o who caused what is, thereore, the same as who
moed what. 1he question o who caused God is the same question
as who moed God` But in order to moe anything at all, one needs
space. One needs space as a pre-condition to motion. God is space. It is
God that makes motion or causation possible. 1hereore, the moer` o
God needs God to be present or existing as a precondition to causing or
moing God. In other words, God must be existing beore le is born or
simply put, le is the undamental necessity or any births or causation.
Causation applies only to positions iv space. Because God is not in space but
le is space, God is beyond causation. God is lis own cause` or in other
words, simply eerlasting. Again, there can be no problem o ininite regress
here, because there is no possibility o any motion at all beyond or outside o
space. God is eternal.
God's attributes
Is God Intelligent \es, le is. \e hae shown that le must be
imaginatie in order to be able to account or change. loweer, I could also
easily demonstrate God`s intelligence by just pointing towards the
things that le has done. \ou are aware that this world is orderly. \hile it is
true that much o the stu o lie is unpleasant and sometimes extremely
Holiest God
51
painul, things are ordered neertheless. lere, things are appropriately
matched to sustain lie, beauty and consciousness. \hen we look round us,
we see water or the thirsty and ood or the hungry. \e hae taste buds that
delight in the ariety o delicious oods aailable. 1here is a male or a
emale and many beautiul things or the eyes to behold. \e each hae the
ability to understand, and a world that can be understood. I one were to
careully obsere onesel, examine a grain o sand or a single lea and
the delicate balance o the ecosystem, watch ants moe and riers low,
examine, listen, look, eel and think, one would see the organisation,
complexity, order and the creatiity inherent in all things. Lery day the sot
and mysterious winds eortlessly rise rom the ree and the blessed waters
to blend in with the ast and awe-inspiring sky and the beautiul earth to
sing a liing song o community, order and power. \e eel so much at
home and are glad to be here that almost all o us would rather be than not
be. Now o course the author o these must be orderly, because rom
disorder, no order comes. A disorderly eternal cannot gie rise to an
orderly temporal world. So, God must be intelligent. Indeed, it would be
illogical or the human being, who merely ollows the patterns o the things
in the world to be called intelligent while stating that the source o the things
that makes or intelligence cannot be intelligent!
Can God communicate O course le can. 1he ability to communicate
is a part or a unction o intelligence. A thing cannot be shown to be
intelligent i it cannot communicate. \e all represent the communication o
God`s wish or imagination. Communication is the orderly arrangement
o things or symbols to express a desire, a wish or thought. And the world
is just that: all o it is an orderly arrangement o God`s wish. But don`t ask
me whether God has ears or eyes like us, or no one can demonstrate
logically that one needs only ears and eyes to communicate. 1hese things are
limitations to communication and are necessary only to beings who hae no
52
means o co-ordinating multiplicity or without means o accessing order
without processing. God does not need ears because eery thing is the result
o order and le makes order. le does not need eyes and ears in order
to know or relate to what le limsel makes.
low close is God 1here is no distance between God and any o us, or
le represents the ery possibility or ground o our being. 1his also means
that le is neer absent but always present. \hereer you turn is the ace o
God and le is with you whereer you may be. Is God all knowing
\es, le could not be otherwise. le is the ery ground or the ultimate
space upon which erer, thing happens. le is Presence itsel and as such,
nothing escapes lim. God does not need to make any eort to know
things. But by the logic o lis relationship to all things, le knows all. Is
God Just Certainly. God cannot be said to be unjust because justice is the
giing to each o what it deseres. And it is God that determines what a
thing deseres. God, thereore, is Just.
Is God greater than lis creation or all the possible worlds
\es, God makes all worlds possible and all worlds are contained by lim. So
all the worlds are necessarily less than lim and are contained by lim.
Besides, in reality or in eternity, there is no other than God and thereore, it
is le who gies eery possible world its name, orm and content. 1o gie
you an idea o God`s greatness, albeit in a poor and woeully inadequate
manner, try to imagine the magnitude o Space: It goes up oreer, without
limit, down oreer without limit and in eery direction, it is spread
limitlessly going on oreer. God is the Greatest. 1his space is not made o
any parts and there are no gaps or spaces between the Space, this makes the
substance` o God truly unique, in that it is a non-substance, as we usually
deine substance, in terms o matter and energy.

Holiest God
53
1he meaning of all this for human beings
Many people may ind it diicult to accept the proposition that none o us
is eternal, that our existence is not necessary and that we each exist simply at
the Pleasure o God. Discomort howeer, is not the measure o truth. \e
all come rom God and we are ery close and dear to lim. But none o us is
God and none o us will eer become God. 1hereore, all those who seek to
shed their humanity and to become God, or all those who claim that one can
cease to be human and to become God, are wrong. I someone eels God-
like or claims to be God-like, that claim can only arise as a result o either
error or hallucination. One can certainly get ery close to God and be
blessed by lim with all sorts o extraordinary things. But to be close is not
to become. None o us can eer become God. 1here is a barrier between
the created and the Creator. 1his barrier is eternal. In act, it is this ery
barrier, that makes or the otber` between us and God. I we were not
dierent in kind rom God, the whole creation would hae been a silly play
on the part o the One and Only. But it is not. Our otberve..` is necessary
and would oreer be maintained in order to make it possible or us and
God to relate as strangers and as riends, or discourse, or company and or
embrace.
1hat God can easily destroy us and replace us with whateer le
desires, is a conclusion which may be true but that need not lead one to
despair. 1he proposition o the ultimate unreality o the created is merely
academic in the sense that it is only rom God`s perspectie. lrom any
other perspectie, things can get no more real and permanent than we are.
\e are not an illusion, but only that we exist and die simply at the pleasure
o God. 1hat things represent the imagination or the will o God seems
extraordinary, but to be alie and to be conscious, when you were
preiously non-existent, is the most extraordinary thing. \hat are the
54
implications then or human beings \e lie and will continue to lie only in
so ar as God wishes that we do so. I God wished to be without us, we
would all be destroyed and only le would remain. le, in this sense, is the
lirst and the Last. On the other hand, what the oregoing implies is that
since it costs God nothing to make and to keep us, each one o us has the
possibility o being sustained oreer. \e are the result o the most
proound thought, will or wish: o the desire o the eerlasting to be with the
temporary, o the powerul to be with the powerless, o the unchanging to
be with change, o the One to be with many. 1he God that permits us the
space to be in lis reality, must mean that le loes us, or ater all, to loe is
to desire to hae or to be with someone, and the desire o the one and only
God to be with human beings is the most proound o all desires. I we
represent God`s imagination, we are loed because the desire is lis own.
Besides, now that we hae come and God has known` imperection and
company, it will not be the same or lim to be without us. le could o
course, i le wanted to, but i le liked us, that would be a great loss! So
then, it all depends upon whether we make it worth God`s while to keep us.
I you make your presence pleasant to God, you may last oreer, in lis
company!
A second new proof of God's existence from the Big-Bang origin
\e now know or a act that the unierse came rom an origin, commonly
reerred to as the Big Bang. According to the standard explanation o
contemporary physics, in terms o how space and time are iewed, this is
thought to hae been a point o ininite density, around iteen billion years
ago, where all energy and space itsel originated. Now this singularity
existed in the past. 1he obious question that can be posed is: \hy would
Holiest God
55
the singularity not continue to be in the state it always eer was \hat
caused the singularly compressed energy to explode! I the orce that
caused it to explode` was inanimate then could it hae come rom outside`
the singularity, to cause a change in its latent dormancy
Preamble: Before the Big Bang?
1hose physicists who try to circument what was beore the Big Bang claim
that it is meaningless to discuss what happened beore ,outside, the Big
Bang, or there was no such thing as time or space ,or as they would say:
spacetime,, there was no beore`. 1his, howeer, is a highly problematic
conclusion arried at by aulty assumptions. 1he lawed assumptions are
based on a lack o understanding o what time and space really are. 1ime is
nothing but a measure o motion o particles that comprise the unierse
,see, rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg, Volume 1,. Since time is nothing but a
measure o motion by counting repetitie regularly spaced motion, at the
singularity, the motion ceases as there is no distance between the particles,
but such a cessation is only the cessation o the motion o the
constituents ritbiv the singularity. I this point is understood, the issue
o the ininity o time, or whether that which gae rise to the unierse
existed in time or was not in time etc., becomes utterly irreleant. Logically
speaking, the singularity has to be embedded in something. And i so, how
can it be stated that the thing,realm that the singularity is embedded in, call
it Realm 1, cannot hae any other thing in it that can gie rise to the motion
o the singularity in Realm 1. 1he question o outside` is synonymous with
the question o beore`. I all we hae is the motion o particles and all o
them were coalesced at some point in the past, i.e. the singularity, then it
means that there has to be an outside. It is not a question o whether there is
56
an outside, but rather, what is the true nature o that outside`. lirst o all,
one has to realize that there is no such thing as cured space. Cured space
is a deice` that is useul only or calculational purposes, as it orms a
geometrical substrate or the motion o particles which are in reality
moing in actual absolute space. 1his has become a problematical issue
partly due to conceptual reasons as a result o a misconception o the true
nature o time and space, thanks to Linstein. Such a misconception gies rise
to the aulty statements such as \e cannot een talk about what came
beore the Big Bang` \e are consequentially orced with a scenario where
we hae to answer the ery legitimate and most proound question: \hat
was beore \hat orced the Big Bang
1he Origin-Iorce Proof of God
Let us concentrate, or a change, not on how and why the singularity
existed`, but, rather, how we get the unierse rom the singularity` In other
words, what orced the Big Bang Let us postulate an inanimate orce I
i
J
to
hae caused the Big Bang It will be recalled in basic physics, thanks to
Newton, this time, that an object will remain at rest unless acted upon by
an external unbalanced orce`, this principle can be applied to the so called
singularity too, gien the logical considerations in the last section. I we
postulate another external ivavivate orce I
i
2
to explain this irst orce I
i
J
o
the Big Bang that we hae initially postulated, we are getting into the usual
type o escapism o ininite regress, because i we can somehow explain
the existence o such an inanimate orce, I
i
2
, we will be orced to explain
how this orce came into being, and so on, aa ivfivitvv, i.e. we will hae to
hae l
i
2
, l
i
3
etc., unto ininity.

As a result, the singularity` would hae just
Holiest God
5
remained in existence as a perennial lump, as there would hae been no
origin-orce that could reach rom ininite regress to punch` it into
expansional action. loweer, the singularity did not just remain. \e are
here.

1hereore, the pre-Big Bang orce could not hae been an ivavivate
orce at ininite regress. It had to hae been avivate, in the sense o being a
conscious orce, or a orce that was caused by some type o consciousness
,where the orce and consciousness that produce the orce are terms that are
to be taken as being synonymous,. In other words, it must hae been a orce
caused by a conscious agent, call this orce I
c
, where the agent o that orce
has always been there as absolute objectless space, precluding the existence
o anything inanimate. It is I
c
that must hae caused I
i
J
. lurthermore, the
orce I
i
J

is precisely set, gien the preciseness o the expansion o the
unierse, and that which is precisely set, cannot be other than intentioned.
1hat which is intentioned must necessarily hae the components o
consciousness and intelligence o some type. In the context we are analysing,
this I
c
is God, as we hae deined in Chapter 1!
Change and the S1OP-analysis
Another way to summarize the proo that matter-cum-energy could not be
the starting point and cause o the unierse is as ollows: Matter is limited. A
limited thing moes. So matter moes. A moe is a change. !b, rovta a
cbavge occvr vor ratber tbav vot before. Any beore point` one picks though, can
be subject to the same question, aa ivfivitvv. So, one would be orced to say,
i deending this position, that the starting point is at negatie ininity, or at
ininity in the past. But i this is so, change could neer hae started, as per
the S1OP-analysis. I one neer had a starting point, one neer had
58
subsequent change. But there is the fact o change, so matter,energy was not
the starting point, or cause o the change. 1his again leads to immoeable,
objectless space, the space o ininite intelligence, that is, God as tbe cause o
change.
Conclusion
1o conclude, it has been argued that all things come rom one mindul
and eerlasting reality. It has been shown that this reality must be
mindul, because only the mindul can account or change in an eternal
reality. 1his being has been named God. It has urther been shown that God
limsel does not change but that all possible worlds and beings arise only as
the desires or the imagination o God. Change, is not thereore, o the
eternal, but o the desires o the eternal. As or God, it has been
demonstrated that le is the ultimate Space o all things and that le is in act
the only Reality. God is one, eerlasting, imaginatie, just, all-powerul, all-
knowing, eer-present, the irst and the last and the greatest. All things come
rom God and ultimately return to lim.
Chapter 2
Human Belief Systems

Chapter 2
Part J: Critiquing the philosophies of Socrates, Democritus, Plato,
Aristotle, Diogenes, Zeno, Lpicurus, Pyrrho, Carneades, Plotinus,
Cicero, Lucretius, Ibn al-Rawandi, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Al-Warraq, Al-
1auhidi, Al-Ma'ari, Hume, Kant, etc.
In arguing that the unierse is God`s imagination, we are not resorting to
philosophical idealism, relatiism or indeterminism. 1here is indeed an
objectie world out there that has cause and eect relationships. 1o
establish this ground o reality`, albeit as an imagination and creation o
God, many are the brilliant minds whose works are going to be discussed
here. 1here was a temptation to name all o them, but they are ar too many
to mention here. So, or the sake o breity, they will simply be called the
philosophers`. 1here will, howeer, be a discussion in detail o the works o
two philosophers whose iews in a way summarize almost all o the
arguments o the philosophers and who hae greatly inluenced modern
thinking on the matters at hand. 1he important issue here is: what is truth
and how do we know it` 1he philosophers` reply is to show us that in the
irst place, we hae some serious shortcomings. As human beings, we
perceie the world only through our senses and minds. 1hese senses are
limited and so too is the mind. 1his explains why we cannot sense or
experience many things without the help o aiding instruments. Our minds,
argue the philosophers, acts as a sort o siee, ilter or mediator between us
and what is out there. 1hereore, argue the philosophers, we cannot say
that what we get through our sense and minds is what is out there in reality.
62
lurthermore, they continue, we lie or only a ery short period o time on a
little planet in a ast cosmos. It is illogical, thereore, to generalize our ery
limited experience unto the whole. \hat may be true here may not hold
elsewhere. \e oer generalize then when we moe rom so-called truths on
earth to truths about reality as a whole. Lnter Daid lume.
Of David Hume
lume was an 18th Century British philosopher and his ideas hae greatly
inluenced the course o \estern, and or that matter, world philosophy and
scholarship. On the question o the source o knowledge lume`s answer
was that it was upon experience and rom experience only`. 1o clariy his
positions, lume diided all perceptions into two classes: impressions and
ideas. By the term impression,` lume explained, I mean all our more
liely perceptions when we hear, or see, or eel, or loe, or hate, or desire or
will.`
21
According to lume: Lery idea is copied rom some preceding
impression and sentiment, and where we cannot ind any impression, we
may be certain that there is no idea.`
22
And because the ideas are mere
copies o impressions: No object eer discoered, by the qualities which
appear to the senses, either its cause which produced it or the eects which
will arise rom it, nor can reason unassisted by experience eer draw any
inerence concerning real existence and matter o act.`
23
So in eect,
lume`s position was that there are only sensory impressions. Our so-called
ideas are simply copies o these perceptions. 1he idea o sweetness, or
21. lume, Daid ,1988,, .v vqvir, Covcervivg vvav |vaer.tavaivg, p. 21.
22. lume, p. 3.
23. lume, p. 30.
63
example, is based upon one`s experience o sugary taste and no more. 1he
test o knowledge is thereore: show me the impression`
24
to which it
relates. An idea that has no grounding in a sensory impression was thus or
lume, baseless: \hen we run oer libraries, persuaded o these principles,
what haoc must we make I we take in our hands any olume, o diinity
or school o metaphysics, or instance, let us ask, Does it contain any
abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matters o act and existence No.
Commit it then to lames, or it can contain nothing but sophistry and
illusion.
25

lume, in eect, denies the possibility o knowledge through
reasoning alone, since reason cannot operate without ideas that are mere
copies o sensory impressions. lor lume then, what makes a belie
alid is not reason but experientiality. Now, the indiidual`s experience is
limited to that indiidual`s experience. As no person can escape himsel to
alidate his or her perceptions, no one indiidual then can justiiably state
that his or her knowledge necessarily relects reality. So, knowledge, in
lume`s iew, remains entirely subjectie and personal. lurthermore, lume
posits that perception is o particulars and not o generalities or connections.
1he connections that we make are, according to lume, not gien to us by
the things themseles, but low rom our habits.
26
1he mind may see that
one eent is ollowed regularly by another and as a matter o habit the
mind concludes that the one causes the other. But, he beliees, all that has
happened in act is that one eent has been experienced to be closely
24. lume states that: But i you cannot point out any such impression, you
may be certain you are mistaken when you imagine you hae any such idea.`, .v
vtroavctiov 1o Moaerv Pbito.ob,, pp. 59-80.,
25. See lume, p. 149
26. lume, p .43
64
associated with another. Now since only experience gies knowledge,
cause`, not borne out o experience, is a mere act o psychology and
thereore has no basis in reality. Causes and eects`, lume states,` are
discoerable, not by reason, but by experience.`
2

In summary, lume`s corollary is that there is no necessary connection in
our experience o any particular cause and eect. One thing may regularly
ollow another and based upon this, we may conclude that the one is the
cause and the other is the eect. 1his is not true. All eents seem entirely
loose and separate, one eent ollows another, but we can neer obsere
any tie between them. 1hey seem conjoined but neer connected.`
28
Lery
eect, according to lume is dierent rom its cause and thereore, without
an experience o the cause and the eect one could not state which was the
cause o what. lence we may discoer the reason why no philosopher who
is rational and modest, has eer pretended to assign the ultimate cause o any
natural operation. Ultimate springs and principles ,causes, are totally shut
o rom human curiosity and enquiry.`
29
Review J: 1he distinction between reasoning and experience
Is there a distinction between experience and reason And are sensory
impressions the only sources o knowledge It is indisputable that
2. lume, p. 30. In this respect he urther writes that: Let an object be
presented to a man o eer so strong natural reason and abilities, i that object were
entirely new to him, he will not be able by the most accurate examination o its
sensible qualities to discoer any o its causes or eects` ,Ibid,. le also states that:
All inerences rom experience, thereore, are eects o custom, not o
reasoning`,lume, p.44,.
28. lume, p. 0.
29. lume, pp. 32-33.
65
experience is all there is. But experience cannot be narrowly deined as
sensory impression`. Lxperience also includes intellectual` and
emotional` or i you will, spiritual` impression. As human beings, we
experience this world only through the medium o our minds. Neer has any
one had any experience without the use o the mind or reason. It is reason
that interprets sensations and gies us what we call experience.
Consequently, there is neither an experienceless reason nor a reasonless
experience. 1he result o this is that the test or the alidity o knowledge or
or reality cannot be based solely upon the arbitrary show me the
sensory impression` o lume. 1hat uninterpreted impression is meaningless
to the human being. 1o be useul, the impression must be subject to reason.
It is reason that proides the criteria or identiying, judging and determining
meaning. 1hus the undamental issue is not experience` s. reason` or
o acts` s. psychology,` but what reason is and what reason demands.
By ailing to base knowledge upon reason, lume ails in his attempt to
ground knowledge in experience.` An interesting note to remember is that
lume had said that any proposition that does not state quantities or conduct
experiments should, in his words, be committed to lames. Now we note
that lume`s essay was not on quantities, nor was his conclusion the
result o any experiments. lence, i we were to employ lume`s criteria
aboe to his ery own essay, we should commit it then to lames! 1he
undamental problem with lume`s argument position, howeer, is that it is
contradictory. As we hae seen, lume said that i one cannot point to the
sensory impression to which a thing reers, that thing is not true. But ask
this: \here in the world can we ind the sensory impressions o lume`s
arguments \ho has eer experienced a sensory impression o lume`s
arguments` lae you So lume`s project ails.
66
Review 2: Lxperience of particulars and the absence of cause
1he next problem with lume`s position is that een within his own
arguments, he jumps to conclusions too readily. lume had argued that
human beings experience particulars` and not generalities or connectiity.
1hereore, the connections that we call causes do not obtain in reality but
only in psychology. 1he act, howeer, is that een i the human notion o
cause` or connectiity between things were a mere mental habit, it does not
necessarily ollow that the habit is entirely subjectie. 1he test or the
alidity or inalidity o the habit cannot simply be the act that it is a habit,
or that is no argument but a mere assertion. Rather, the test in this context,
is the relationship between the habit and the world. lume ailed to establish
that the so-called habit itsel was not the product o knowledge or that it was
not necessitated by the nature o reality. \hat is een more signiicant is that
the distinction lume makes between particulars` and generalities does not
apply in reality. In act, there are no particulars to be ound in human
experience. No human being, lume included, has eer experienced anything
as a particular.` \e are made up o composites and relationships. \e are
born into a complex world o one thing relating to the other, nothing is or
comes as an independent unit but is itsel connected to or situated in
another. Len the atom is a composite o parts in space, in time, in
relation to something else. I there are particulars` they are not ound
anywhere in experience. \e connect one thing to another, not because o
so-called habit, but because we cannot do otherwise: that is the way the
world is. lume`s conclusion that our notion o cause as a mere mental
habit is not supported, and it is at best, an unwarranted assertion. lume is,
howeer, correct in his critique o a certain notion o cause.` le writes
that:
6
I you see a house, you can conclude it had an architect or
builder because such eects, you hae experienced, proceed
rom such causes. But does the unierse resemble a house so
closely that we can with the same certainty iner a similar
cause 1o ascertain such reasoning, it were necessary that you
hae had experience in the origin o the world. lae worlds
eer been ormed under your eye lae you experienced the
generation o the unierse as you hae experienced the
building o a house
30
I hae to make it clear that there can be no dispute that in language a
cause` is the maniest parent o the child or phenomenon. \hat lume is
right about is that similarity does not equal identity. It is like this` does not
necessarily mean that it must be this`. So ar, so good. But in talking
about causes, we are not limited by analogies. lor example, where the
possible answers to a question are closed and examinable, one may arrie at
the cause` by eliminating all but one o the possibilities. 1he test is not
where is the sensory impression o its regular association` but rather, is
there any other possible explanation` 1hus on the issue o God, i indeed
the argument proceeded merely rom an analogy o human manuacturing,
then the strength o the argument would be directly proportional to the
degree o similarity between the two. But as we will see, this is not
necessarily the case. It is not necessary that we begin the argument about
30. Castell, Alburey and Borchert, M., ,1983,, .v vtroavctiov 1o Moaerv
Pbito.ob, ;1tb eaitiov) |hereinater, .v vtroavctiov 1o Moaerv Pbito.ob,|, p. 194. In the
same ein, lume urther writes that: "1he existence, thereore, o any being can
only be proed by arguments rom its cause or its eect, and these are ounded
entirely on experience" ,lume, p. 148,.
68
God by pointing to human arteacts or analogies. \e all ind ourseles in a
world that is not o our making. \e come or a ery brie period and then
leae oreer. It is only natural that we ask, as we hae minds and are able to
create` things, whether whateer the originator o our being is, also has a
mind, wishes and the ability to choose. In answering this question, all
that we are looking or is whether our experiences, through our reasoning,
yields any other conclusion than God. Len i the best argument that could
be put orward is by analogy only, still, the strongest objection to that
analogy could only be that the answer is not conclusie. 1he objection still
leaes the God-hypothesis, proceeding rom analogy, as probably true.
lurthermore, it is no answer to the question about cause` to show that the
whole may be unique. Uniqueness in and o itsel is not an obstacle. In space
and time, eery thing is unique. Lery position, eery time, eery number
and eery sequence is unique. Reality is nothing more than a collection o
the unique. So, it`s no answer to the question o cause to say but you can`t
say that because it is unique`. 1he issue is better ramed as one o
proportionality. 1he more there is to something, the harder it is to know it.
1he less we know o something the arther we are rom understanding its
source. Implicit in all this is that we obiously cannot judge what we don`t
comprehend. 1he problem o the origin o the whole is a subset o the
problem o induction. As long as the possibilities are not closed, it would be
premature to inalize the conclusion. 1hat`s all. Besides, the issue is not
what is the cause o the unique`, but rather what is the cause o the
amiliar. 1he act that the answer may be unique is irreleant to its alidity.
Nine hundred and ninety nine-trillion times seen hundred and thirty
ie billion, plus ninety nine trillion squared multiplied by nine hundred
and ninety nine trillion squared, is unique, but that is no argument
or stating that there is no answer. lrom the aboe, it is clear that the reason
why the inductie process is limited is only because o the possibility o
69
multiple plausible answers. 1his possibility o other actors not taken into
account by the generalization is the central limitation o the inductie
process. \e shall call any situation with a possibility o indeinite or endless
alternate solutions an open actual.` I other possibilities make the
inductie process limited, then it would ollow that where there are no
such possibilities, the same limitation does not apply. I one has a limited
number o acts and a similarly limited number o mutually exclusie
solutions, say two or three, the ascertainment that two options are alse,
necessarily leads to the alidity o the unexcluded or remaining option. Let`s
call this a closed actual`. 1he answer to the question o the cause` o the
world is a closed actual and presents only a ew possible answers. 1here are
no endless logical possibilities but: God or not-God. Proided each o these
is clearly deined, then their alidity or the lack thereo can be proen upon
analysis.
Summary
Daid lume narrowly deined experience as sensory impression and sought
to establish that human knowledge was limited to this experience.` But
while lie is indeed experience, this experience is not limited to mere sensory
impressions. 1he impressions become meaningul only when iltered
through reason. Knowledge is not gained by merely being impressed by the
senses. \ou might as well go press your head against an encyclopaedia and
let it soak into your head. Knowledge is gained only when we name and
establish relationships in a logical manner. Both the misled and the guided
may obtain the same sensory impressions but they may arrie at
contradictory conclusions. One may be right or both wrong. And it is
reason, not the sensory impression, that determines this. 1he unny thing is
0
that lume was using reasoning to persuade us that reasoning does not gie
us truths and that this is true!
\e created not the heaens and the earth and all that is
between them except with and or a limited term. ,Quran 46:3,
44:39,.
Lmmanuel Kant
Lmmanuel Kant was born in the 18th Century in Germany and like lume,
his ideas hae also greatly inluenced the course o \estern intellectual
tradition. Kant`s philosophy was an attempt to sole some o the problems
raised by lume. Concerning lume, Kant wrote that: Since the origin o
metaphysics nothing has eer happened which was more decisie to its ate
than the attack made upon it by Daid lume. le started rom a single,
but important concept, namely causal connection. le challenged reason,
which pretends to hae gien birth to this idea, to tell him by what right
she thinks anything to be so constituted that it is necessarily connected
with something else, or that is the meaning o causal connection. le
demonstrated, beyond reutation, that it is impossible or us to see why, in
consequence o the existence or occurrence o one thing, another thing
must necessarily exist or occur also. lence he inerred that reason was
deluded with reerence to this conception o causal connection ... that in
reality it was nothing but a bastard child o imagination impregnated by
experience, that a subjectie necessity o habit was mistaken or an objectie
necessity arising rom insight.`
31
31. .v vtroavctiov to Moaerv Pbito.ob,, pp. 591-2.
1
Causes as objective necessities
I cause is deined as that in consequence o the existence or occurrence o
one thing, another thing must necessarily exist or occur also` without
qualiication as to the circumstances, in which the associations must occur,
then lume and Kant are right. loweer, they are both dead wrong when
they teach that in consequence o one, another cannot necessarily occur.
Reality is not composed o causes but cbavge.. But as I will show below,
changes are no more than moement rom one relationship to another.
1hese moements are only o two kinds: that is, o accelerations or
decelerations and o diisions or multiplications. \hat we call changes are
consequences o repositionings in space. Once a thing repositions, it
necessarily changes. As a result, o the repositioning, a new` thing
necessarily occurs. So when we say that in consequence o the existence or
occurrence o one thing, say repositioning, another thing, say newness, must
necessarily exist or occur also, this is beyond habit. It is a question o
mathematics. 1hat is, o diisions and multiplications. I you add one orange
to two oranges, the answer three` is not a question o habit but o
necessity. labit or not, the alternatie answer not three` is not a possibility.
All changes or eents are in the nature o these diisions and
multiplications and it is this repositioning that is the cause o all things in
space. 1hereore, contrary to what lume and Kant proposed, causes are
objectie necessities. But I understand why they came to their
conclusions. It appears then, een as now, that causes were described by
pointing to pieces o matter without reerence to positions in space. Because
Kant belieed lume`s arguments to be alid, he built upon them. As
lume`s arguments crumble, thereore, so too do Kant`s. I we recall rom
the discussion on lume preiously, he had stated that what we call cause
and the connections between things are not part o experience` but are
2
mere habits o the mind. And since we could not escape rom the mind,
idealism or scepticism was lume`s conclusion. Kant`s response to this was
simply, yes indeed, that causation is not a matter o experience and lume
was right. But here is Kant`s contribution: 1he idea o cause is not just a
matter o mere mental habit, the notion is built into human nature itsel.
32
O note is that Kant`s position, in eect, reinorces the distinction made by
lume between reason and experience. Kant argued that the human mind is
not a passie thing that merely receies data unprocessed. 1he mind,
according to Kant, is actie and it is already pre-programmed at birth to
shape the data it receies in accordance with what he called the intuitions`.
1he mind has intuitie knowledge o certain concepts such as space,
causality ,or substance, time, etc. 1hese are not gien by experience but are
the basis or experience or or understanding. 1he world gies us sensations
but it is the intuitions that gie us the ability to uniy, discriminate,
synthesize and classiy and in eect obtain knowledge. In eect, the
intuitions mediate between the impressions and the human being. 1he
degree to which this occurs is the degree to which we gather knowledge.
Our intellect, says Kant, does not draw its laws rom nature but it imposes
its laws on nature.`
33

Kant argues that because human beings are dependent upon the
intuitions or knowledge, we cannot know the degree to which its mediation
or siting process aects the quality o the knowledge that we possess. lor
this reason, there can be no certainty as to whether human knowledge
32. One can see that Kant's response does not in any way undermine lume's
skepticism at all. lor lume was not concerned with the source o what he called the
habit, but with the conclusion that the cause` was not part o the nature o things
and hence necessarily subjectie. Kant did not answer, but only explained lume.
33. Kline, Morris ,1985,, Matbevatic. ava tbe earcb for Kvorteage, Oxord
Uniersity Press, |hereinater, Morris|, p.16.
3
has some undamental relationship to ultimate reality. It is possible, says
Kant, that what we know, is dierent rom what is. Kant then draws a
distinction between what is known through the intuitions ,phenomena,
and things in themseles ,nuomena,. In this respect he writes that:
1he things which we intuit are not in themseles the same as
our representations o them in intuition, nor are their relations
in themseles so constituted as they appear to us. And that i
we take away the subject or een the subjectie constitution o
our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations o
objects in space and time, but een space and time themseles
disappear, and that these as phenomena, cannot exist in
themseles but only in us. \hat may be the nature o objects
considered as things in themseles, without reerence to the
receptiity o our sensibility, is quite unknown to us. \e know
nothing more than our mode o perceiing them.
34

Kant`s conclusion, thereore, was that knowledge o ultimate reality is
impossible.
35
1his led Kant to idealism, and not surprisingly, he wrote:
It remains a scandal or philosophy and human reason in general that the
existence o things outside us ... must be taken only on aith, and that i it
occurs to someone to doubt it, we can produce no counter-argument
suicient to proe it.`
36
\hat Kant ailed to see is that since each person
is stuck, as it were, in his or her own mind, doubt about things existing
outside o us, must include doubt about eeryone and eerything.
34. Kant, Lmmanuel, translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn, ,1990,, 1be Critiqve of
Pvre Rea.ov, p. 35, |hereinater, 1be Critiqve|. Again, Kant states that: Such
properties as belong to objects as things in themseles, neer can be represented
to us through the medium o the senses`, ,Ibid., pp. 31-32,.
4
Lerything includes rules o construction, logic, etc. But in order to doubt,
one needs to think about things that come rom one`s experiences. 1hese are
the things that exist outside the person. 1hinking is possible only with
objects, propositions and motions in space. All these exist outside the
person. But i the ery things that make doubt possible, namely, thinking
about relationships between things, is doubtul, then doubt itsel is doubtul
and hence, meaningless as a position. 1hose who assert meaningless
propositions need not be responded to. lad Kant looked at things this way,
he may not hae gien up on the skeptics as he did. Be that as it may, that
Kant became an idealist ollowed logically rom the act that he belieed
what lume said about particulars and the lack o necessary connections
between things in reality. 1he act that Kant grounded the source o the
connections in human intuitions was not a counter argument, but a more
precise way o saying the same thing. 1he criticisms that apply to lume`s
arguments, thereore, apply to Kant`s arguments as well, in so ar as they
ollow rom the unounded distinction between reason and experience. I,
according to Kant, all we can know, and hae known, is phenomena, then
the question is, how did Kant get his idea o nuomena Do phenomena gie
35. Kant states elsewhere that by making the distinction between phenomena
and things in themseles he was not suggesting that phenomena were mere illusory
appearances`. le sought only to establish that in so ar as this or that property
depends upon the mode o intuition o the subject, in the relation o the gien
object to the subject, the object as phenomenon is to be distinguished rom the
object as a thing in itsel`,1be Critiqve, p.410,. 1he problem is that regardless o his
statements to the contrary, by positing the distinction, Kant creates doubt about the
possibility o the thing in itsel being dierent rom phenomena and hence the
possibility o human knowledge as transcendental ignorance or illusion. 1his, we
will soon show, cannot be.
36. Kant's preace to the second edition o 1be Critiqve of Pvre Rea.ov:
Ce.avvette cbriftev, Vol.3, p. 23.
5
insight into the real nature o things so as to enable Kant to state that there is
such a thing as nuomena I yes, then Kant contradicts himsel. I no, then
we need not take his position seriously. Second, een i Kant had established
that there were such things as things in themseles as opposed to
phenomena, that in itsel would not be a alid reason to moe rom the
alleged phenomenality o things to the proposition that thereore their
ultimate natures may not be known. 1hat is simply a jump to conclusions.
lurthermore, in so ar as ollowing Kant, in that, we cannot experience the
nuomena`, the question about ultimate causes and origins can only be
questions about phenomena. As such, responding to the question o what
is the cause o phenomena` with we cannot know the cause o
phenomena because we do not know nuomena` is the same as saying that
we cannot know. because we do not hae an answer`. lorget nuomena.
\hat is the cause o phenomena Besides, how is it that this unknowable is
able to gie birth to this knowable phenomena lrom where did the
unknowable get the knowable Like lume, Kant also wrote that: Secondly
an empirical judgement neer exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed
and comparatie uniersality ,by induction,, thereore, the most we can say
is that so ar as we hae hitherto obsered, there is no exception to this or
that rule.
I on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute
uniersality that is, admits o no possible exception, it is not deried rom
experience, but is alid absolutely a priori.`
3

\hat is interesting about the aboe is that Kant`s statement purports to
be strict and absolutely uniersal on the subject matter. \et Kant ailed to
establish that this uniersality o his position was deried rom the intuitions
3. 1be Critiqve, pp.2-3.
6
or alid a riori. 1he act is that neither Kant nor anybody else can make an
argument alid absolutely a riori`. An argument is alid only when it
cannot be reuted without sel-contradiction or disorder. Now we note that
Kant ailed to proide an irreutable base or this proposition about the
limits o empirical judgements. 1he point is that i this proposition is not
intuitie, but is o itsel empirical, then in so ar as it is a uniersal statement
or judgement, Kant contradicts himsel. On the other hand, i it is intuitie,
it is not proen. As or the so-called intuitions, they are more imaginary than
real. \e all know that the rules o alid reasoning hae to be learnt. Sure, we
hae in built capacities to learn. But eidence that we can learn wrong
thinking is demonstrated eery day by allacious and superstitious
conersations around us. I logical thinking were intuitie, all o us at eery
time would hae had no allacies and superstitions. 1o think aright is to
recognize the proper positions o things in space. lor this we don`t need
intuitions but perception and the ability to dierentiate between this and
that. I these are the intuitions, they are only a raction o what is required to
think properly. 1he rest alls outside ourseles and impinge themseles on
us by necessity. I we were to place this same mind in a world without eents
except or the mind only, or i we were to place the mind, in a chaotic world
o non-repeating eents that disappear as soon as they appear, what
reasoning would the intuitions come up with None. Kant`s intuitions are
problematic not only because o what I hae shown aboe, but also because
they lead to incurable idealism.
In any eent, the uniersality o a gien statement must not depend
upon whether or not it is intuitie or empirical, or these are problematic and
ague terms. 1he test is whether or not reason can yield exceptions to that
proposition. lor example, we are persuaded that 1-1~2. But this does not
necessarily imply that the proposition is alid intuitiely or a riori. 1-1~2
is uniersal only because the human mind cannot come up with any
circumstance where 1-1 ~ other than two. A thing becomes a uniersal only
when we cannot logically think o anytime or anywhere in the world that it
does not apply. A thing either is or it is not. I it is, it has a speciic position
in space. It is not possible or a limited thing to be, and to be nowhere at the
same time. Indeterminism is nonsense i it is taken to mean that a limited
thing can be said to exist and not hae any position in space at any time. 1o
be, is to be present. And that presence or a limited thing is a unction o
positions in space. And once a thing`s presence or position in space is
deined or grasped, it is. I am writing these words`. I don`t need to make an
exception to that. I you are so and so`, that`s what you are. 1here is no
need or an exception to that. Uniersal statements become problematic
only when we don`t know all the ariables or where there are alternatie
conclusions equally consistent with the gien explanation. 1hat`s all. In the
end, both lume and Kant ail because they did not proe what they sought
to proe. More importantly though, they ail because they use their minds to
tell us that what comes rom the mind is not to be trusted. So why should we
take what they are saying as true 1his takes us to indeterminism.
A note on indeterminacy
\ou hae probably guessed it, but we will see oer and oer again that it is
impossible or human beings to construct logical arguments to establish that
the world is indeterminate, or that knowledge or truth is not possible. Any
attempt to do so results in sel -contradiction. 1his is how order
works. I the world is indeterminate, the proposition or statement coming
rom a mouth in that world must also be indeterminate. But then i the
proposition too is indeterminate, it does not thereby establish any lasting
truths. 1his is the problem or all idealism, relatiism and indeterminism.
8
1heir propositions are contradictory at the core. It is not possible to be in
two dierent places at the same time. \e cannot justiiably reer to that
which can be in two dierent places at the same time as one thing. 1hat
which is at dierent places at the same time, must be two or more things in
the plural. 1he indeterminate plus the indeterminate plus the indeterminate
~ indeterminate. 1his takes us to \erner leisenberg. le is credited with the
uncertainty` principle:
According to the most commonly accepted interpretation,
leisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle implies that quantum
particle does not possess a deinite position and a deinite
momentum at the same time. It can hae one or the other,
but not both. In other words, a subatomic particle does not
behae like a macroscopic object or which position and
momentum can be simultaneously deined.
38
1he problem is that uncertainty is a unction o ignorance and not o the
real world. 1he real world does not diide into microscopic` and
macroscopic`, these are mere abstract concepts. 1he world is a continuum.
1he macroscopic is nothing more than the microscopic multiplied. 1he
largest thing is the sum o many tiny parts. I a quantum ield truly exists, it is
eerywhere, in eery thing and in each one o us. low indeterminate is the
slice o bread traelling to nourish your indeterminate body Look at things
this way. 1he tiny particle either has a position and momentum or it does
not. I it has only a position and not a momentum, there is nothing
indeterminate about it. I it has both, that is the way it is and there is nothing
indeterminate about that. 1he undamental reutation o the uncertainty
38. Morris, ,198,, p.52.
9
principle howeer is this. Momentum can neer be measured o something
which does not exist. I it does exist it must hae a place or a position.
Nothing can be said to be present in space that has no position in it. So, i
scientists can`t ind it, it is not because it is not anywhere. It is just that they
do not know how to look or or to capture it. 1hat`s all. I not so, how does
a positioned scientist with a positioned instrument in a positioned lab
measure a positionless object 1he structure o the world does not allow or
indeterminate or endless possibilities when it comes to a thing in space. Any
statement to the eect that nothing can be justiied without ininite or
indeinite regress is necessarily contradictory and alse. I the assertion
purports to be true, then by its own logic, it is itsel indeterminate. But then
i the principle is itsel indeterminate, it cannot be reliable.
Gdel's 1heorem and the problem of the paradoxical self referential
lere is a supposed paradox: 1he illage barber shaes all those in the
illage who do not shae themseles. \ho shaes the barber But within
the ramework o classical logic, the Barber Paradox is just plain
undecidable.`
39
1his is because: 1racing through the logical possibilities,
we ind that i the barber shaes himsel, then he doesn`t shae himsel -
and ice ersa.`
40
1his paradox is an attempt to illustrate the alleged
problems that exist in logic and hence, problems that are present in proo
and in knowledge itsel. My position is that there are no unsolable
propositions and that paradoxes are not logical problems but games without
39. Casti, John L., ,1990,, earcbivg for Certaivt,: !bat cievti.t. Cav Kvor .bovt
tbe vtvre p. 362.
40. Casti, p. 361.
80
reality. Let me illustrate. Does the barber shae himsel \es. But how
lirst, let us de-artiicialize the proposition by situating it in the world o
real relations and then proceed rom reality. \ho does the barber shae in
the illage According to the proposition, he shaes those who do not
shae themseles`. 1his implies that he does not shae those who do shae
themseles. But in order to shae those who do not shae themseles, he
must determine that they hae not shaed themseles. 1he barber`s
reasoning is as ollows: ley, illager, because you hae not in the past
shaed yoursel and you do not now shae yoursel, I will shae you.` Keep
in mind that distinction has been made in the paradox between the barber
and the illagers. 1he paradox is that the barber shaes eerybody` who
does not shae himsel. 1hereore, the barber`s reasoning must apply to
barber as well. It goes like this: I the barber must shae mysel now because
I hae not in the past shaed mysel and I do not now shae mysel, so I
shae mysel.` le shaes himsel ater this reasoning. Once the barber
shaes himsel, he is one who shaes. It is no argument to state, as Casti
does, that i he shaes himsel he does not shae himsel. 1hat conusion
occurs only when that proposition is iewed in the abstract or remains
artiicialized. Logic is a property o reality and works only with real things.
Lnter Kurt Godel.
A. 1his sentence is false
All paradoxes can be soled in the ollowing manner: Aboe all, naturalize it
or place it within time and space and the necessary limitations that these
impose on things and then proceed as ollows:
1. Pinpoint, isolate or eliminate the empties or artiicialities in the
81
alleged paradox. 1hat is, break the proposition down into things,
eents, rules, etc.
2. I ater analysis you ind that the proposition reers to no thing,
that is, i the proposition or representation is meaningless or
objectless, your logical task is inished. lor you enter the realm
not o logic, but o the imagination where there are no rules o
logic except as determined by the writer. In the imagination o
course, there are no puzzles or logical problems at all, but only
play or antasy.
3. \here the proposition reers to real objects or eents, simply
apply the deductie reasoning o i....then...` and sole the
problem. 1he answer should be either true or alse and nothing in
between, or a logical premise necessarily must lead to a logical
conclusion unless there is a jump or an error in the argument.
1here are no gaps in logic.
B. 1his statement is not provable
1his is the Lpimenides paradox and it is apparently one o the most diicult.
It is described by Casti as the granddaddy o all such
conundrums.`
41
1he reason gien or this diiculty is explained by Casti as
ollows:
I the statement is proable, then it`s true, hence, what it says
must be true and it`s not proable. 1hus, the statement and its
negation are both proable, implying an inconsistency. On
the other hand, i the statement is not proable then what it
41. Casti, p.39.
82
asserts is true. In this case the statement is true but unproable,
implying that the ormal system is incomplete. Godel was able
to show that or any consistent ormal system powerul
enough to allow us to express all statements o ordinary
arithmetic, such a Godel sentence must exist, consequently,
the ormalization must be incomplete. 1he bottom line then
turns out to be that in eery consistent ormal system powerul
enough to express all relationships among the whole numbers,
there exists a statement that cannot be proed using the rules
o the system.`
42
According to Casti, Kurt Godel sought to express such paradoxical sel-
reerential statements within the ramework o arithmetic.` and so he
constructed his amous mathematical theorem expressed in ormal logic as
ollows: lor eery consistent ormalization o arithmetic, there exist
arithmetic truths that are not proable within that ormal system.`
43
Since
there is only one world, it would ollow that i indeed Godel`s theorem were
right, this indeterminacy o ormal mathematical systems would apply to all
things. But could there be paradoxes in an orderly world, and is Godel`s
theorem alid lirst o all, eerything in space is a composite and consists
o an internal integrity ormed out o relationships between its parts and
with other elements. Nothing in reality relates only to itsel. 1he
42. Casti, p. 380. See also Caet, .cber, acb: .v tervat Cotaev raia by
Douglas R. lostadter ,1980,. About the proposition this statement is alse`,
lostadter explains that: It is a statement which rudely iolates the usually assumed
dichotomy o statements into true and alse, because i you tentatiely think that it is
true, then it immediately backires on you and makes you think it is alse. But once
you'e decided it is alse, a similar backiring returns you to the idea that it must be
true. 1ry it.` p. 1.
83
indeterminate is only a unction only o the artiicial or the imaginary. In
nature, no single thing is sel-reerenced. All are interconnected,
interdependent and subject to the same laws in space. It is no wonder then,
that sel-reerencing systems can gie rise to illogical propositions. A thing`
that is sel-reerential, is nothing at all. It is iction. Now how can logic be
applied to nothing In any eent, let us analyse Godel`s paradox.
Gdel's version of 1his statement is not provable
1he this` merely reers to the statement` and the proable` is not part o
the statement but describes what can be done to that statement. 1hus what
we hae to deine is the word statement.` But how can one proe or
disproe a mere word One can logically alidate or dispute only real
relationships. 1he word statement` stands or no thing and describes no
thing. Much o the perplexity about this problem results rom conusing the
word as an abstraction with real relationships that the word ordinarily
represents in a dictionary. A logical statement, as opposed to its mere
spelling, is composed o symbols depicting real eents and relationships in
the world. In reality, something either obtains or it does not. All statements
43. Casti, pp. 380-381. 1he standard explanation o Godel`s 1heorem is that:
it is impossible to proe that any mathematical system which has the complexity at
least that o the leel o arithmetic is consistent. It is not possible to proe that the
system will not be brought down by contradictions, or i such a system is consistent
then it is ivcovtete. In other words, true statements would exist within that system
which cannot be proed within it and these are denoted as vvaeciaeabte. 1he problem
is that one cannot alidly state that a statement is true i it cannot be proed within
the system that gies rise to it. And i it is true, then it cannot be incomplete.
84
about real things are necessarily proable, or how can that thing be real
i there exists no means o proing it I something could exist in space
and was unproable, one could not logically demonstrate its relationship to
anything. It could not, thereore, be represented as a logical proposition.
1he second problem with Godel`s theorem is that it is contradictory. 1his is
because the theorem itsel is a ormal system. Godel states that no ormal
system is complete
44
. 1his must apply to his ormal system as well. lence,
in the inal analysis, the theorem which states that no ormal system is
complete, must also be incomplete. \hat meaning can be taken rom such a
conusing proposition So the theorem ails. 1he act is that no human
being can deny the possibility o truth and uniersals except by contradicting
himsel. Lery attempt to logically deny the possibility o truth or order ails
because logical argument is impossible unless it is based upon them. Is the
statement which represents that human beings cannot know...`, itsel a
statement o knowledge or o ignorance I one argues that knowledge is not
possible, either that statement is o truth or it is o alsehood. I it purports
44. At the most, Godel showed, in an ingenious way, and or that he deseres
great credit, how one can construct sel-reerential statements in arithmetic that
would then be addressed by a ormal axiomatic system. 1he theorem does not proe
that we will not be able to proe God`s existence, or discoer useul practical
relationships between pure and applied mathematics and hence physics backed by
experimental eidences. Many theorists ,physicists and mathematicians, and een
theologians are extrapolating wrong ideas rom Godel`s result. 1he act is as ollows:
Mathematics is subserient to actual existence and relations between objects in
space, where there is no sel-reerentiality and contradiction. 1he simple act which
has been oerlooked is that, in any language, one can come up with sel-reerential
statements. Mathematics is a language, be it a special language, thereore, one can
come up with sel-reerential statements in it as well. \hen the theorem was realized
in the 20
th
Century, the mathematicians should not hae been so surprised at the
result. It is because most o them had an incorrect and oerblown iew o their
proession that the result seemed so deastating.
85
to be true, it contradicts itsel by the attempt to deny the possibility o truth.
And i it is alse, it ails as a meaningul proposition. 1his applies to all
questions as well. Lery question is a statement or a proposition.
Consequently, all meaningul questions airm the meaningulness o the
world.
What is knowledge?
Despite all the complicated language and syllogisms o the learned
men and women to the contrary, knowledge is no more than our awareness
o that which is. All debates about knowledge are simply debates about it
is` and it is not`. \hat we mean when we say something is true is simply
that it has a presence at a gien point in space. It does not matter where you
are in the unierse, there is only one way o inding out i something
exists. It is only through in your ace` undeniable presence that you can
say that something exists or not. Lerything else is hearsay. 1here is no
question that what you know depends upon your capacities. 1he blind do
not know what the seeing know. 1hings in ar away places may exist or only
those who hae the means to trael there or summon the things to their
presence. But it is only when something is present to your presence that you
can say that it exists. I am not saying that a thing does not exist until we meet
it, only that, for v., we say it exists only when, whether we like it or not, it
continues to be present in our presence. In this respect then, knowledge is a
relatiely simple issue. \hen we talk about knowledge, we are only
interested in that which is present to our presence. I a thing is solid at a
gien time, it is solid at that place and time. 1he possibility that it might be a
apour or gas at another time is irreleant to what it is in that particular place
and time in question. I at another place and time, the thing becomes a
86
liquid, that does not mean that it was not once a solid. All that this means is
that we learn about the changing nature o things in dierent spaces and in
dierent relationships. Our preious witness o the solid does not become
erroneous simply because at another place and in a dierent circumstance,
the solid is no more. I the nature o a thing depends upon its position and
relationships in space, then it stands to reason that dierent positions and
dierent relationships result in dierent maniestations. 1o say rom this
obseration that, thereore, the ultimate nature o things cannot be known,
is to jump to unwarranted conclusions. \ho said that there is an ultimate
nature to things and how does one know I reason is the only way to ind
this out, then how can we proe these oxymoronic propositions, namely,
that through reason we know that there is an ultimate nature to things but
urther that through this same reason we cannot know the ultimate
nature o things I we cannot know the ultimate nature o things, we
cannot een say it exists, or knowledge o a thing begins with its
existence. I we say it exists, we can know it. 1his is because
existence implies a gien reality. And that which is real enough to us,
must be capable o being present to our presence. Conersely, i we cannot
know it, it does not exist. I it exists we can know it. Let the philosophers
choose one.
1he mind issue
As we hae seen the philosophers are right that we cannot escape rom our
minds and that it is possible that what we perceie through the mind is not
how things really are. 1his problem is atomic as well as collectie.
Indiidually, we are all prisoners o our single minds and cannot really know
how it eels to another person. \e can guess. But that is all. Collectiely, to
8
paraphrase the philosophers, the entire human experience could be likened
to the experience o a drugged group. \e may all eel a certain way because
o the drugs. But because eeryone is eeling the same way, there is no way
to tell that we are drugged up. laing said all this, the analogy must stop.
1he philosophers` go too ar, when they say that because we perceie
through our brains, that thereore, the brain must act as a distorter. 1his is
only a guess on their part. None o the philosophers has pretended to hae
exited his or her mind to conirm that the brain is a distorter. Len i they
could do so, they themseles would agree that their lone experiences would
be too ew to proe anything uniersally. Neertheless, een i they could
exit their minds, still, upon their return, the philosophers could not proe
that their theory is the case, as they would still hae to use their minds to
explain things to our minds. Just because we need the mind and perceie
through it does not necessarily mean that it is a distorter. \ho is to say
that the mind does not mirror reality O course it is possible or someone
to doubt the alidity o the mind itsel. But in that eent, the doubt would
be tantamount to no doubt at all because it would simply be a doubt based
upon a doubting or unsure mind. All we know is that we perceie because o
our minds. I the mind could not gie us truth about reality, then how do the
philosophers get the idea that mind does not gie us true knowledge about
reality Do the philosophers` minds gie them true insight into the real
nature o things so as to enable them to state that we do not know the real
nature o things I so, they are mad. I what they are saying, by using the
mind is true, then it means that the mind does gie us truths about reality.
On the other hand, i what they are saying is not true, still, that must mean
that the mind gies us truths about reality. I the mind cannot know truths,
then how do they know, using their minds, that reality itsel is oreer
inaccessible to us So either way, the philosophers are wrong when they use
their minds to make allegedly true statements and then say that the mind
88
cannot gie us truths. I we are all born drunk, who is talking about sobriety:
one who is himsel drunk 1he only reasonable conclusion that can be
reached rom knowing that we perceie the world through our minds is to
say that we don`t know how the world is without our minds. But this is no
big deal. It is like saying I don`t know how the world is to a rock or to the
dead`. Any other conclusion is unwarranted and does not necessarily ollow.
So what is the releance o knowing that we cannot perceie except
through our minds \e can say that it remains a possibility that the world
may not be as it appears to us. But this is clearly speculation. I the world
were dierent than it appears, nobody using the mind could know it. So,
why waste our time I there were a undamentally dierent and
incompatible order than that which makes the human mind and knowledge
possible, no human mind could understand it. 1he mind can only make
sense out o organized patterns. \here there is chaos, the mind would
not be: it would be insane. 1he insane would not be able to proe or
challenge the oregoing proposition about order. It is impossible or the
human being to logically demonstrate the inalidity o, or the lack o
organization in the world or any part o the unierse. 1his is because all
demonstrations require order. No logical argument can be constructed to
demonstrate that there is a place in space with two or more eents, that is
not subject to certain rules. 1he ery existence o multiplicity is a unction o
multipliability and or this reason o relationality. 1he point o all this is that
nothing proes that the act that we perceie other than through our minds.
\hen I slip and all on an icy paement and seriously hurt my knee, I do
not care that in nuomena I am not hurt and the ice may not be slippery. 1o
me, the ice is slippery and I am hurt. And that`s all that matters. It is only in
this broken and bloody world that we ask the question about God. Perhaps,
i we were stones, these questions would not matter. But we are not stones.
So it matters to us. Okay, the question is whether we are drugged or not,
89
who made this world` In reply to this question, the possibility that without
our minds, the world may not be as we see it, is totally irreleant and useless
as long as we are stuck in our minds and are only asking about what we
perceie through our mind.
Lmpiricism, etc.
In addition to knowledge that we get through our senses, we also hae
another way through which we meet things. 1his is through reasoning. 1his
is how, or example, we conclude that a trillion times a trillion must be a
certain number een though we may neer hae met that number.
Although, it may seem dierent rom sensual knowledge, it is important to
note that logical knowing can be the same as sensual knowing in that in both
cases, the subject can become undeniably present to us. It is the continuing
presence o a thing to us that makes us say that it exists and nothing else.
1hus, when something becomes present to us, whether through reasoning
or through smelling it, it does not matter. It is. Logically, something is said to
be true only when rom sense data or premises, no other conclusion is
possible without sel contradiction. 1hat is another way o saying that no
matter who looks at it, the thing, that is, the conclusion, remains present.
But we should remember that some o the philosophers hae concluded that
that reason is not a alid guide to truth and that the only measure o truth is
the empirical. 1hese people`s answer to eery question o truth is let`s go to
the lab. But then they narrowly deine the lab to exclude the lab o reason so
that i you cannot show it with chemicals, wires and metals they say that you
hae not proed a thing. 1he irony is that their ery stand that only the
experimental is truthul itsel is not experimental. 1hus these philosophers
contradict themseles when they say that the only truths are those which are
90
subject to experiments. Because we learn all things through our minds, and
because the mind learns only when things are in order, the judge o truth can
neer be the empirical but only the logical. Lxperiments mirror reality. As
we hae seen, we can only know things through our minds. Now our minds
require order and memory in order to know things. 1hings brought in ront
o us without any order do not tell us anything. It is only when things are in
an orderly relationship that our minds recognize and use them. But or the
purpose o recognizing the relationships between things, actual apples and
oranges are not necessary. 1heir representations are enough. \hat matters
or human purposes is the logical relationships between them. 1he
experimental is a subset o the logical and not the other way round. An
experience requires logic to alidate it and not ice ersa. An experiment is
nothing more than a logical argument made practical. 1he things known are
themseles akin to propositions. \ithout more, they proe nothing more
than that they are there.
One cannot plan or do experiments except through the use o logic. Nor
can one determine the alidity o the results o an experiment except in
accordance with logic. No experiment is needed to determine the truth o a
thing i that thing could be clearly expressed as a logical proposition or
which the conclusion ollows. One does experiments only because one
desires the outcome or utilitarian purposes or only where one is uncertain
o the logical argument that makes up the proposition. Once the logical
irreutability o a thing is grasped, no experiment need be conducted on the
matter. I a person understands that a number o oranges: ,2 - 1 - 1, x 2 ~ 4,
one need not bring two oranges take away one, add one and then double the
sum o oranges. 1he alidity o the sum does not lie in the assembly o
physical objects expressing the same picture, but rather in their relationality
or order between the propositions. In this world no thing can be
meaningully thought o, represented, moed, constructed, denied,
91
airmed, understood or communicated expect through reasoning. 1o
illustrate, let us say you get into an argument with someone who reuses to
exercise his logical capacities and you seek to establish what the sum o the
igures ,2 x 1 x 31- 13 x 199, x 0 will be. \ou say that it is zero and
your opponent says that it is not 0. \hat should be done Is it possible to
oer a better proo and arrie at zero by bringing in, say apples and adding,
multiplying and subtracting them No, aside rom the act that the
mathematical concept o zero is nonsensical with real apples and oranges in
reality and thereore, likely to conuse een yoursel, the experiment or
attempt at an empirical demonstration would simply be the statement aboe
repeated in perhaps a more isible manner. 1hat is all. By making them more
isible howeer, you hae not adanced a proo een one bit. 1his is
because it is not the seeing that gies understanding but the organization
that gies knowledge. \hen we understand something, the experiment
becomes a conirmation, and when we don`t, the experiment becomes
magic. An experiment is an attempt to argue rom a gien premise to a
conclusion by positioning the objects o the experiment in the stipulated
relationship. It is the logicality o the subject, not its experientiality or
experimentability which determines its alidity. 1hus all scientiic
propositions are logical propositions and can be inalidated or proen
strictly through logic. 1hat which is not logically sound cannot be meanin-
gul to us, and hence cannot be scientiic. Consequently, there can be no
arbitrary gradation o one type o demonstration oer another. 1hat
which we see is no more alidated because it is in our iew than another
that we do not see. It would indeed be a allacy to state that the test o
truth is only that which is borne out o experiments, or the statement
requiring an experiment itsel cannot be borne out o any truthul
experiment as a uniersal conclusion. So-called empirical knowledge is no
more paramount than the so-called non-empirical knowledge. One need not
92
thereore do science in order to arrie at the truth, one need only do reason.
In either case, the test is: let it make sense.
1he measure of truth
1he truthulness o a statement depends completely upon whether or not
reason can yield exceptions to it. \e are persuaded that 1-1~2 only because
the human mind cannot come up with any circumstance where 1-1~other
than two. A thing becomes true when one cannot logically think o anytime
or anywhere in the world that it does not apply. A thing either is or it is
not. I it is, it is in a particular space and time. Once its position in space is
grasped, it is not necessary that exceptions be ound to it. Lery question is a
statement or a proposition. Consequently, the same rules that make a
proposition true or alse apply to questions as well. Any gien statement or
proposition is either meaningul, orderly and true, or it is not. Lery
reasonable question presupposes order. I the order or structure giing rise
to the question were not real or true, the question or statement too would be
unreliable. I the order that gies rise to the question were inalid or did not
gie genuine knowledge, it could not gie rise to a genuine question. I,
thereore, the philosophers hae posed genuine questions, it must ollow
that the structures o our world as we experience it, gie rise to genuine
knowledge. In eect, i the skeptics` questions purport to be genuine and
thereore releant, they conirm the alidity o the ery thing which they
seek to deny.
It is a remarkable thing that eery proposition o doubt or o scepticism
about the mind, knowledge or truth deeats itsel. In a similar ein, eery
attempt to disproe order also disproes itsel. 1his is because meaning only
comes rom order as seen through the mind. \ou can only make sense
93
when you put words in an orderly relationship. It does not matter whether
the statement is put in the orm o a question or o an answer. A
statement is a bunch o words put together. 1hus no matter what may be
claimed, i it makes sense, it necessarily proes order. And order as we all
know is perceied only because we hae minds. I a statement is sensible, it
is so only because it springs rom a gien order. I that structure is itsel
suspect, then so too must be that statement. I that order is problematic,
then so is the question that results rom it. I that question is meaningul,
then the order that gies rise to it is also reliable. I genuine knowledge is
not possible, then neither is a genuine or an authentic question. I a genuine
question is impossible then, true scepticism is impossible. All that this means
is that no one can deny the possibility o truth without conusion. No one
can deny the alidity o reason without using reason and thereby
contradicting himsel. 1ruths abound eerywhere. It is, consequentially, ery
important to ask what we are searching or as a goal in our lies. low do
arious belie systems approach the truth and what are they ocused on: 1he
glory o God, establishing morality` and a just society, establishing some
spiritual` contact with angels and other experiences, wanting just to get to
paradise In the next ew chapters, we shall be exploring this question so
that by the end o the book, the reader will hae a clear conception on what
the proper goal ought to be, and i and how these categories o goals are
related.
Part 2: World Religions: A New Perspective
Most major belie systems express the uniqueness o the creator, the God o
absolute monotheism in which no partnership can be ascribed, the type o
God concluded in the last chapter, howeer, this message has become
94
hidden and camoulaged. Such belie systems indeed, at their true core, are
not mystical because o the rationality o the existence o one God, but oer
time, hae become accreted with illogical notions. \e shall look at our
belie systems to proe our case. 1hough the Quran ,o Islam, seems to be
clearer than the rest, we irmly beliee that a linguistic,historical and
basic belies` analyses o the other three would point to the act that they
are reerring to the same concept. 1he problem is that the original teachings
hae been misconstrued by many o the adherents and scholars.
1he philosophy o 1aoism, or instance, expresses that some entity
existed beore the creation o the Unierse. 1his entity is not identical or
co-eternal eternal with creation, but is aboe, separate and ultimately not
deinable in human terms, as stated in the 1ao 1e Ching, the main source o
1aoism:

1here is a thing-kind made up o a mix.
It emerges beore the cosmos.
Solitary! Inchoate!
Sel grounded and unchanging.
Permeating all processes without extremity.
\e can deem it the mother o the social world.
I don`t know its name. \hen put in characters we say aao.
lorced to deem it as named, we say great.`
Being great, we say comprehensie.`
Being comprehensie, we say ar reaching.`
Being ar reaching, we say reerting.`
So our aao is great,
Nature ,heaen, is great,
Larth is great,
And kings are also great. \ithin a region are our
95
greats.`
And the King occupies one o those |loty| statuses.
lumans treat earth as a standard.
Larth treats constant nature as a standard. Constant nature
treats aao as a standard.
Dao treats being so o itsel as a standard. ,Chapter 25,
45
\hen we probe into the Bhagaad Gita
46
,o the lindus,, we see that it
espouses a singular intelligent Creator who has no partners - and a
Creator that creates things rom lis mind. In the Bhagaad Gita, we see, at
the kernel o the text, the concept o One Creator and vot idolatry or
pantheism, and rationalism, not mysticism:
le who remembers the Poet, the Creator, who rules all things
rom all time, smaller than the smallest atom, but upholding this
ast unierse . he goes to that Supreme Spirit, the Supreme
Spirit o Light. 8: 9
But beyond this creation, isible and inisible, there is an
inisible, higher, Lternal, and when all things pass away, this
remains oreer and eer. 8:20
1his Inisible is called the Lerlasting and is the highest Lnd
supreme. 1hose who reach him neer return. 1his is my
45. Reer to: http:,,www.clas.ul.edu,users,gthursby,taoism,ttc-list.htm.
1ranslation in progress o 1ao 1e Cbivg, Chapter 25, by Chad lansen, 1he Uni-
ersity o long Kong.
46. Mascaro, Juan ,1ranslator,, ,1962,, 1be bagaraa Cita.
96
supreme abode. 8:21
I am the One source o all: the eolution o this all comes rom
me. 1he wise think this and they worship me in adoration and
loe. 10:8
But those who worship the imperishable, the Ininite, the
1ranscendent unmaniested, the Omnipresent, the beyond all
thought, the Immutable, the Neerchanging, the eer One. 12:3
A spark o my eternaleternal Spirit becomes in this world a liing
soul, and this draws around its centre the ie senses and the
mind resting in nature. 15:
Most strikingly, the Bhagaad Gita is against worshiping more than one
god:
Len those who in aith worship other gods, because o their
loe they worship me, although not in the right way. ,9:23,
lor I accept eery sacriice, and I am their Lord supreme.
But they know not my supreme being, and because o this they
all. ,9:24,
lor those who worship the gods go to the gods, and those who
worship the athers go to the athers. 1hose who worship the
lower spirits go to the lower spirits, but those who worship me
come to me. ,9:25,
Are most lindus obliious to this 1here is a reorm moement
9
called Arya Samaj, who, hae tried to reorm linduism by
drawing attention to the uniqueness o the Creator. lor example,
on the website, www.aryasamaj.com, they describe God as:
God is existent, intelligent and blissul. le is ormless,
omniscient, just, merciul, unborn, endless, unchangeable,
beginning-less, unequalled, the support o all, the master o all,
omnipresent, immanent, un-aging, immortal, earless, eternal
and holy, and the maker o all. le alone is worthy o being
worshiped.
Len within Buddhism, in the most amous o its scriptures, the
Dhammapada
4
, the Buddha clearly espouses a belie in a supreme Creator.
Buddha, contrary to being an atheist or a person who neer answered or
aoided answering the question o God`s existence, as present day
Buddhist sects and most \estern and Lastern scholars portray, also belieed
in One God:
\ho is capable o praising one like a coin o inest gold,
one whom the knowing praise ater inding him impeccable,
controlled, intelligent, insightul, ethical, and composed day
in and day out Len the gods
48
praise such a one, even the
Creator brabvvva.,1:9,10,
49
4. 1homas Cleary ,1ranslator,, ,1995,, Dbavvaaaa: 1be a,ivg. of vaaba.
48. Dera in the original Pali, this likely reers to the created angels or the good
spirit entities.
49. 1homas Cleary ,1ranslator,, ,1995,, Dbavvaaaa: 1be a,ivg. of vaaba.
98
In the vtta-Pita/a which is part o the 1riita/a texts, translated by
1.\. R. Daids o the Buddhist Pali 1ext Society, the Buddha has
categorically stated, in the 1erigga vtta, that he had a relationship with the
Creator and they should listen to him and ollow his ways, since they too
want to know how to relate to the Creator.
. to the 1athagat |the ully enlightened person| when
asked touching the path which leads to the world o
Brahma |the Creator|, there can be neither doubt nor
diiculty. lor Brahma I |do| know Vashetta |the young
Brahmin the Buddha was addressing|, and the world o
Brahma and the path that leads to it. \es, I know it eer as
one who has entered the Brahma world, and has been born
within it!
50

1o paraphrase, Buddha is saying that: Vashetta, I know, as an enlightened
person that the path to God has certainty and is easy. I know God and the
path that leads to God, since I am part o God`s creation.`
Buddha also belieed in hell, a paradisiacal state in the next lie, and the
accountability o deeds in the hereater:
One who speaks untruth goes to hell, as does one who
claims not to hae done what he has in act done. Both
become equal ater death, people o base deeds in the
hereater. ,22:1,
\hen a person long absent rom home returns saely rom
50. Muller, l. Max, ,1881,, 1be acrea oo/. of tbe a.t, p. 186.
99
aar, relaties, riends, and well-wishers rejoice at his return.
In the same way, when one who has done good is gone
rom this world to the beyond, his good deeds receie him,
like relaties receiing a returning loed one. ,16:11, 12,
In the book Ovttive of Maba,ava ,Chapter IX, D.1. Suzuki explains that
God is reerred to by the term Dbarva/a,avaaba or the religious object
o Buddhism. In act in a 1ibetan text, the Dbarva/a,a is described with
eight attributes, which are: Sameness, Depth, Lerlastingness, Oneness,
larmony, Purity, Radiance, and Lnjoyment |some o which are explained
as|:
Sameness, because the Dharmakayas o all Buddhas are
not dierent.
Depth, because it is ineable.
Lerlastingness, because it has no beginning or end.
Oneness, because the Dharmadhatu ,Absolute Reality, and
1ranscendent Awareness ,are not dierent,.
larmony, because it is beyond positie and negatie poles
Purity, because it is ree rom the three taints o hatred,
greed, and delusion.
Possessing enjoyment, because with its wealth o qualities
it is the basis o all enjoyment.
51
Suzuki elaborates that 1he Dharmakaya assumes three essential
aspects: intelligence ,ra;va,, loe ,/arvva, and will ,raviabavabata,.` In act,
51. Guenther, lerbet ,1ranslator,, ,190,, 1be ]eret Orvavevt of iberatiov,
pp.264-5.http:,,www.kheper.net,topics,Buddhism,dharmakaya.htm
100
Proessor Robert l. 1hurman, Columbia Uniersity, who is also a Buddhist
monk, passionately emphasizes that: Buddha not only belieed in God, he
knew God. 1here were numerous atheists in Buddha`s time - the Charaka
materialists - and the Buddha speciically critiqued their lack o belie
in any spiritual reality.`
52
In a chapter entitled: 1he Diering
Viewpoints o Buddhism and the Other \orld Religions regarding Ultimate
Reality` \illiam Stoddart, in his book Ovttive of vaabi.v, explains that the
true Buddhist belie is really theistic, but that the existence o Ultimate
Reality ,i.e. God, who is both immanent and transcendent, has been
misunderstood because o the emphasis o the immanence component. In
act, 1hurman emphasizes that Islam clearly depicts the physical
inconceiability o God, in that there is nothing like God and that
Buddhism, i understood correctly, has one and the same goal. It is easy to
see how the emphasis o the Buddha on the non-corporeality o God has led
to many erroneously belieing that there is no God in Buddhism. In act, the
Dharmakaya is a ormless ininite intelligent entity that we hae described as
being Objectless Space, and that this is what Buddha was reerring to as
God. \et at the same time, this immanent notion has ironically tended to
permeate into perception o the isage o the Buddha himsel as an object o
inordinate eneration through which Nirana can be obtained, by creating
statues o him, he, himsel, would hae neer approed o this and to a large
extent, deeats his whole lie`s work. On the contrary, in the Quran, the
clearest expression o the Oneness o the Creator is gien, and o the act
that this Creator has produced things rom lis mind, i.e. lis will. It also
states that God is the Innermost and the Outermost, on the basis that le is
the lirst and the Last ,5:3, In other words, all existence and possibilities are
52. lenry, Gray ,Lditor,, ,199,, .tav iv 1ibet ava tbe ttv.tratea ârratire:
1ibetav Cararav.,pp. 35-3.
101
contained within lis mind. le is the innermost because le is the basis or
all our consciousness and is thereore also closest to us. le is the outermost,
because nothing can be outside lim and lis thoughts. le is the lirst and
Last, because all creation must come ater lim and nothing can arise
without lim. Indeed, nothing can all outside God, as le is all-
encompassing ,at!aa.i, and le is the Incomparable ,ataai,. Such a iew
is anti-mystical in the sense that we are nothing like the Creator, or we
cannot merge into lim etc. loweer, as mentioned in Chapter 1, we cannot
imagine how it is to be in God`s space and in this sense we seem cognitiely
to be outside lim. \e are in a sense then, cognitiely outside God, but
logically in lim, because we are part o lis thoughts that hae been turned
into an order o reality.
1he closest we come to a non-spatio-temporal creator is where God is
described, in the Quran as being a Person who is completely non-
anthropomorphic:
Say: le God is One, Absolutely Unique and Indiisible.
God is le upon whom all depend or their existence and
sustenance, that is, le is the one upon whom eerything
depends, but le is completely independent o all. le does
not beget ospring, nor is le the ospring o anyone.
And there is nothing like lim, or een anything like the
likeness o lim. ,Chapter 112,.
lrom this analysis, the ocus o these belie systems was on God` and the
nature o God, but that along the way, myriad conusions hae arisen. 1he
most pristine, in terms o God as being One and unique and in
agreement with objectless space, is ound in the Quran. In this discussion,
we noticed that some o the other belie systems, hae anthropomorphic
102
ideas in them. lor example, in the adanced and abstract concept o
Dbarva/a,a, there is, nonetheless, the attribute o enjoyment, which, the way
it has been mentioned can be mistakenly anthropomorphized. 1he Quran
dispels all anthropomorphic projections and truly is a clariier o the true
nature o God. \e shall be exploring this true nature in the next chapter.
1he main trap that pantheists ,including Sui pantheists who beliee in
rabaatat rv;ooa - Unity o Being, all into is: that which is ormless cannot
become a orm. Secondly, the human being, as a inite entity, cannot merge
into the ininite entity and lose the sel, through total annihilation, as such
mystics claim. I you truly lose your sel, you cannot return, unless the
Creator recreates you, which logically means that the Creator is separate
rom you in being. 1hirdly, the act o the Big Bang has not only destroyed
the alse ortress o atheism but so too pantheistic mysticism. Such mystics
hae to make a decision: Since matter,unierse began and i the unierse
and God` are one, then God began, i.e. once God did not exist. I God did
not exist, then how did the unierse arise in the irst place I on the other
hand, God predates the unierse then pantheism cannot be true. I the
mystics do not want to deal with scientiic matters and acts, then what is all
their talk about unity, when they do not een see the unity o knowledge
about the unierse, where spirituality is not separate rom materiality. I they
do accept the Big Bang but, like many atheists, resort to the Oscillating
Unierse hypothesis, then this has been debunked, once and or all by the
S1OP-analysis on pages 34 to 35 o this book. Let the mystics thereore
decide and not be conused by muddled thinking. 1he ision and nature o
God` and the ellowship o all beings is much, much greater than that which
has been, or is, espoused by their recalcitrant and sel-aggrandizing gurus.
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
1he Mind of God
Microbits reeal an origin o the Unierse, precisely set and designed at the
beginning. It points to an Ininite Intelligence. One may call this intelligence
God`, but we must remember that this God is not made o microbits and
hence unlike the unierse and its constituents that are made o microbits ,or
atoms, i you go to a higher leel!,. So much or this Creator`s existence.
53
But how does God create, where is le, and can we describe lis nature
urther Can we indeed say more about what le is, rather than what le
cannot be
God, lis Mind, and lis dimension are one and indistinguishable. \hen
le wills, God`s thoughts become reality. Since this reality is indeed Real,
objects exist only because o lis imagination. 1he consequence is that we
are not sustained by the thoughts o God outside the edge o the expanding
unierse, which is like a bubble o sel-contained imagined reality. Indeed,
we are not sustainable outside o it, because the laws o physics, which are
nothing but an interplay o microbits at arious leels, do not exist there.
Nothing is sustainable unless it was willed to exist outside the bubble o our
created three-dimensional world`. At the edge o the unierse no particles
exists, but only objectless space. 1he edge is like a wall or like a point o
obliteration rom existence. 1his unierse then, has an edge, in the sense that
since it is expanding, it must be expanding into something. It is expanding in
53. lor a detailed proo or the ei.tevce o God, based on ae.igv, reer to
Mehran Benaei`s and Nadeem laque`s, rov act. to 1atve.: Certaivt,, Oraer, atavce
ava tbeir |virer.at vticatiov., pp. 64-108.
106
and due to God`s mind. It is in this sense that we are iv God. As a result, the
interrelationships that we experience in the Unierse are real and concrete
only in the sense that God`s imagination lets them seem real. \e experience
things due to the ivteractabte nature o microbits, urthermore, the
interactability is itsel imagined by God, out o which all things hae
eoled. 1hereore, in one respect, the dierence between God and us is
that God is the vvivagivea reat, whereas we are the ivagivea reat.
Consequentially, we can see why and how God must thereore be the
Ultimate Reality, or as le is described in the Quran: at-aq. In act, the
Quranic concepts appear to accord directly with our conclusions on this
matter. But beore we examine these issues urther, it is ascinating to see
that the God o the Quran also relates the origin and eolution o the
Unierse, in perect agreement with modern day scientiic acts. 1his oers
urther credence to the Quran as worthy o greater scrutiny, by any thinking
and searching person, or these acts were unknowable to an illiterate desert
Arab about 1,400 years ago, during the Dark Ages. Muhammad`s claim that
the book was a diine reelation diminishes the likelihood o human
ascription to it, to the anishing point. lor instance, in the Quran it is stated
that: it is God who has created the unierse with the Big Bang:
Do those who coer the truth not see that the unierse, inclusie
o the earth, were joined together as one piece, which \e then
ripped apart And that \e made eery corporeal creature
|carbon-based,dense microbitic type| out o water \ill they
|een| then not beliee ,21:30,
is expanding it:

\e hae built this unierse with a orce, \e are most certainly
10
expanding it. ,51:4,
and has eoled it in stages:
Moreoer, le |God| turned to that which is aboe |the unierse|
when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth: Come |into
existence,together| oluntarily or inoluntarily. 1hey responded:
\e come, oluntarily.`,41:11,
will end the Unierse in some type o a Big-Crunch:
And the Day when we shall roll up the unierse like a scroll
rolled up or books - as \e began the irst creation, \e shall
repeat it, a promise binding on Us. 1ruly, \e shall do it. ,21:104,
ater which another unierse will be created with dierent properties:
. on the Day when the earth shall be changed into another
earth, as shall the rest o the unierse. ,14:48,
On the issue of the proof of God's existence
1here is a striking similarity between the proo or God`s existence as
ormulated in Chapter 1, that is, the Sesamatic Proo, by M. Muslim and a
tract o erses in the Quran. In act, the ovttive o a proo o God`s existence
and whereabouts ,objectless space, rom Prophet Abraham`s ,Ibrahim, is
gien in the Quran itsel: 1he story o Prophet Abraham is one in which
Muslims are shown how to attain certainty ,6:5,, by the process o
108
elimination, the methodology by which Prophet Abraham arried at the
conirmation o the existence o God. Indeed, Abraham rejected the star,
moon and sun as God
54
because they were in relatie motion and hence
changing`. In order to reject something you must hae an idea` that you
are comparing candidates with, or the possible rejection or acceptance o
the idea. Prophet Abraham did not look at these processes and structures in
the unierse with a blank mind. In act, he had already concluded that a .ivgte
sustainer must exist, hence his analysis o .ivgvtar objects and not
multiplicities, these numerically singular objects being the sun, moon and
one star, one by one. Abraham had in mind that whateer it is that sustains
all must hae the property o changlessness o orm, and no motion either in
relation to our moement, or to the motion o the object itsel. 1his is
because tbat rbicb .v.taiv. v. vv.t bare orer orer v., and i it is not present
beore us because o its limited spatial nature, then there will be a time,
due to our motion, or o the object`s motion, when that object being
considered or deotion will not be there. lence, i it is not there, it
cannot sustain us or hae power oer us. 1he key point to note is that that
which cannot sustain us or be in our presence has no power. So when
these celestial bodies are rising, they are deemed to be in power, and when
they set, they are inerred to lose their power. 1he hypothesized single
sustaining entity must not be subject to motion i it is to retain that power.
loweer, i that entity were all-encompassing ava motionless then it would
ulil the dominant criteria o power and sustenance because o its
omnipresence. linally, i you combine the initial starting conclusion that
there is only one such entity, it means that all other entities must be creations
and hence that the all-perasie immoeable entity ,akin to objectless space,
must perorce be the Originator. Abraham, according to the account in the
54. 6:6 to 6:8
109
Quran, indeed concludes that the Sustainer must be Immoable and
thereore that tbere cav be ovt, ove ivfivite Morer ava Porer.
55
1his is the real
reason why, ater going through his relections on the heaenly bodies,
Abraham discloses himsel as belieing in an origivator or the entire system
o cosmic objects in space, as can be gleaned rom his statement, Lo!
|haing rejected, the star, moon and sun| I hae turned my ace towards lim
who origivatea the celestial systems and the earth.`, in the Quran 6:80. 1his
is how Abraham moes rom the notion o singular sustainer to originator
or those things which comprise particle based structures, i.e. the entire
created unierse.
1he basic logic used by Abraham is: power implies the ability to sustain
and ice-ersa, which implies spatial ininity ,objectless space,, spatial
ininity implies an originator. 1his can be extended to the logical corollaries
that: an originator implies a creator, a creator implies intelligence,
intelligence implies intention and intention implies purpose.
Christianity vs. the imagination of God
lor Christianity, in general, the Old 1estament emphasizes the
transcendence and oneness o the Creator, but at the same time, many parts
o the Old 1estament contain the worst oences against God. loweer,
the act that the unierse is the imagination o the Creator, has not been
either realized, emphasized, discussed or researched deeply by most
Christian scholars because it leaes absolutely no room or 1rinity: Imagine:
I all creation is an imagined reatit,, then there must be one, and only one
55. 1his proo` o the existence and nature o God, actually coincides with
the proo o God`s existence as outlined in Chapter 1 by M.Muslim.
110
imaginator or that one reality, and since only one reality exists, only one
web o cause and eect exists, and ice-ersa. In other words, One and only
One Mind must be operating the unierse, not two or three. 1he only way to
escape this, is to posit no single web, or chain, o cause and eect that
encompasses eents in the unierse, which is utterly impossible.
Remarkably, and most interestingly, Isaac Newton, the pioneering physicist
extraordinaire, who was a Unitarian and not a 1rinitarian, at a time when it
was a capital oence in Lngland to publicly propagate the doctrines o
Unitarianism, wrote that: Artic. 5. 1he ather is immoeable no place being
capable o becoming emptier or uller o him than it is by the eternal
necessity o nature: all other beings are moeable rom place to place.` lere,
Newton regards absolute objectless space as the space o God, who is a
singular intelligent being.
56

God's imagination and the invalidation of pantheism and monism
S7
In the Quran, the mutual consonance, acceptance and recognition, between
the Creator and the Created are echoed by these erses:
O you tranquil soul, Return to your Sustainer, well-pleased and
well-pleasing lim. ,89:2,28,
56. 1his quotation is rom the King`s College Library, Cambridge, Lngland,
Keynes Manuscript. 8: 1retre articte. ov retigiov ,transcribed by Stephen Snoblen,
April, 1998, see www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk,.
57. Monism is: 1he iew that mind and matter are deeloped rom, and are
reducible to, the same undamental substance or being.
111
\e return to God, in that, when we die, we are brought beore
lim. le is pleased with us and we with lim, i we hae ollowed lis
undamental precepts and hae not deiated enormously, where any such
deiations are the subject o lis mercy. \e are in awe o lim and le is
pleased with us. In act, ultimately lis relection on our awe, generates a
unique and quantitatiely dierent type o awe or God or own abilities or
haing created conscious entities who hae lied a proper lie and
communicate with lim in acknowledgement o lis greatness ,more on this
later,. \et although we return to lim and hence deelop urther as
indiiduals unto ininity, we are always nothing compared to the creator
because we are always inite and le is always the Ininite. 1he issue o
merging with God, as is the oundation o mysticism, is totally moot, it
cannot happen because we are nothing but the thoughts o the Creator. It is
not that God is iv eerything as the mystics say, rather, eerything is in the
imagination o God. 1he distinction between the two concepts, one being
mystical and undamentally irrational and the other being wholly
rational, incontroertibly logical and based on the eidence, is indeed
proound and must neer eer be conused. 1he mystical iew is
undamentally irrational because an ininite being can neer be present in
that which is inite. 1he inite cannot contain the ininite.
1he remarkableness about this realization that we are nothing but the
imagination o God is that in one respect, we are not separate rom lim and
no distance preails between God and man. 1his is because no separation
can arise between the thinker and his,her thought. At the same time,
howeer, there can be nothing so dierent as thought and its thinker.
Consequently, in this ein, we are ininitely separate rom, and dierent than
God in type. God is truly one, because lis thoughts, that become imagined
non-god-like realities, are still imagined and not ultimately absolutely real.
1his iew resoles the question posed by mystics, as to the origin o the
112
multiplicity o things, or they enquire what the source o multiplicity is, that
is, i there was only one singular entity as maker. 1hose non-mystics who
oppose the mystics, and rightly so, say that the Creator and created cannot
be o the same substance as the mystics imply. loweer, in order to show
exactly where the mystics are going wrong, more ocus needs to be paid to
what creation means. 1his is where the iew o God as the imaginator o all
that exists helps to resole the issue and puts to rest mystical claims such as
we are in God`, that is, part o God in the sense o being at the same
plenum o lis existence and hence the erroneous corollary that God is in us.
It also debunks the incarnational corollary that God is iv some special
human beings, and that those human beings are gods or part o God,
because they hae realized this through arious mystical exercises. Needless
to say, this mystical notion is used to justiy that we must abandon our
minds to ollow them, indeed, the saannah o the history o the world,
rom the dawn o so-called human ciilization, to the present day, is illed
with the carcasses o spiritual charlatans, bogus-messiahs, new-age gurus,
and human demi-gods`. At the same time, the unierse being the
imagination o God explains why and how God`s reality must be dierent
than the reality o creation. 1hese two realities, that is, ours and God`s are
certainly not on the same plane. I we do not acknowledge this point, which
in act is clear in the Quran, since God and only God is .taq, then we are
alling into the same type o trap as the mystics who see us as ragments o a
greater being seeking to merge into lim as droplets want to merge into the
ast ocean.1he reality o our existence is not at the same leel as the
reality o the existence o God, but it is nonetheless real and not illusory, as
mystics would hae it, in other words, God`s imagination is a real creatiov.
In the Quran, the clearest expression o the Oneness o the Creator is
gien, compared to all other scriptures, and also o the act that this Creator
has created things rom lis mind, i.e. lis will. As mentioned preiously, in
113
the Quran, it is stated that God is the Innermost and the Outermost ,i.e
nothing can be outside God,, and also the lirst and the Last. ,5:3, In other
words, all existence and possibilities must necessarily be contained inside lis
mind. Such a iew is anti-mystical. \e are nothing like the Creator, we
cannot merge into lim etc. \e are always less than lim, since our bodies
are created o a substance that le has imagined - a microbit, or subatomic
particles and not rom lis substance`. 1he human mind too is o lis will.
1his iew o the unierse is counter to mysticism, in the sense that the
mystics who espouse a God` are ultimately pantheistic because they eel that
we are the substance o God and will merge into lim, as we are o the same
essence. Such a pantheistic iew - neo-platonic or otherwise - is extremely
nae, limited, misguided and misdirectional.
58

In summation: Our iew is that God is a liing Being and that we, in
both our mind and bodies, are only a part o lis imagination. God is not
only dierent rom us in degree, but also in kind, and unimaginably so! lis
thoughts truly .v.taiv us and i le were to stop thinking o the Unierse as
existing, we would certainly perish. 1his would add urther meaning to the
already seeral complementary meanings o the rich Arabic word Rabb, in
the Quran, which means v.taiver.
58. Note that i the unierse is the Imagination o God, then God`s Oneness
and Absolute Uniqueness ,tarbeea, is upheld as God is separate rom lis creation-
cum-imagination, creation does not surround lim, nor is it aboe lim in any
manner and le is aboe all things, in conjunction with the tenets o tarbeea as
discussed by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips in his book 1be vvaavevtat. of 1arbeea
;.tavic Movotbei.v).
114
What is the face' of God?
In the Quran, there are other erses which point to God as being the
objectless space that M. Muslim discussed:
\hereer you turn you see the ace o God eerywhere.
All-perading is le and all-knowing. ,2:115,
Now this is normally understood by many as meaning that whereer you
turn you see the signs o God and hence God through lis signs.
loweer, when we iew this erse in conjunction with the ollowing
passage:
And inoke not any other diety along with God - none has the
right to be worshiped but le. Lerything will perish except lis
lace. lis is the Decision, and to lim you ,all, shall be
returned.,28:88,
we see that this interpretation o ace` as meaning the signs o God cannot
be the case. lor when the unierse is destroyed there are no signs and i
there are no signs then there is no ace` and the Quran 28:88 would be
contradicted. Precisely speaking, the logic is as ollows:
Let l~lace, S~Signs. I l~S, and S becomes extinct at some
point, S~0 ,zero,. I S~0, then l~0. But according to the Quran
28:88, l` will still exist. In other words l cannot equal 0. I l
cannot equal 0, then l cannot equal S, that is, the lace ,o God,
cannot equal Signs.
115
lrom this it is easily deducible that ace o God` represents something else,
something imperishable. lace really means mind, that is, the space o
God in which all resides`, or the ocus o lis attention: imagination is
nothing but a sustained ocus that exhibits creatiity. So no matter where
you turn you are in lis realm, in lis space, in lis attention, by which and
only which, eerything is sustained. loweer, this is space that cannot be
elt by any o our senses, or it is indiisible, absolute and cannot be more
than or less than one. Note that we are not saying that God is iv all
things, or this would be the illogical doctrine o pantheism hitherto
debunked. \hat we are saying, instead, is that all these signs in the unierse,
which are comprised o microbit particles ,see Volume 1, or i you hae
not read this, you can substitute the word elementary particles` or
microbits,, do not hae any existence sae by the continual sustenance by
the Creator, speciically, by that Creator`s thoughts. 1here is no other
place` other than the mind o God, in which all actiity occurs and nothing
can be outside God. Any thing` must be God`s thoughts turned into
structures, that are sustained by lis thought or Imagination. Remarkably,
it becomes indubitable that lace means, mind, ocus, attention when we
read other erses in the Quran, when the word ace` is applied to human
beings. lor example:

So turn your ace towards God, the nature o God on which le
has created the nature o man, there is no alteration in God`s
creation, this is the proper way o lie, but most human beings
beliee not. ,30:30,.
And similarly:
Lo! |haing rejected, the star, moon and sun| I hae turned my
116
ace towards lim who origivatea the celestial systems and the
earth. ,6:9,.

\hen we ace God`s lace, that is, lis attention, we realize that le is
perennially attentie. In other words, we become conscious o lis existence
behind the orms o this unierse. \e realize that these orms exist only
because o lis attention and sustenance. 1he circuit and link between the
Creator and created is thereore complete. It is we, howeer, who hae to
turn our ace and not God, or le is always acing us. It is re who hae to
seek lis lace.
In the Quran then, the word ace is used in the sense o attention,
ocus and direction o your mind, aside rom the literal use o the word ace
as meaning a physical object.
59
1he Quran speaks o those on the correct
path as those who submit their ace unto God
60
and those who seek
lis ,God`s, ace.
61
1hese people are the ones who are seeking the approing
attention o God and desire to become more attentie to lim. In this
way, God, in turn would positiely reciprocate.
Could 3D space itself be a created dimension?
1he interesting question which arises is the possibility that the space` in
which we reside was also created, though it still be resident in the mind o
God. In other words, what is being reerred to here is the hypothesis that
the 3D space that we reside in, is also a creation o lis mind. loweer, this
59. lor ocus see 10:105, or physical object see 30:43, 2:150 and many other
such erses.
60. 3:20, 31:22, 4:125.
61. 30:38 and many other such erses.
11
idea is ruled out by both pure logic and by studying some erses in the
Quran ery closely. lirst, the pure logic: I it is purported that God is some
type o other higher space-cum-mind that generates so called 3 D space,
then i we call the higher space Ininity 1 ,God, and the generated space
Ininity 2 ,the imagination-cum-creation o God,, i Ininity 1 supposedly
generates Ininity 2, then Ininity 1 must be the same thing as Ininity 2,
because Ininity 2, by nature being timeless, cannot be created and,
urthermore, there is no room or two ininities. Let us proe this: Ininity 2
cannot be spatially limited and grow to the size o ininity, since ininity by
deinition cannot be reached. I it cannot be reached it is not ininite but i it
reaches ininity, it means it was ininite in extent, and thereore, it has no
moement, it has to just always be existent. In short, since Ininity 2 is
ininite it had to hae been always present. I it was always present then it
could not hae been generated. I cannot be generated ,or imagined to exist
at some point, and was always present, then it is one and the same as Ininity
1, which was also neer generated and was also always present. In other
words Ininity 1 and 2 are colinear` or synonymous. 1he nature o Ininity 1
then, cannot be some type o abstract higher dimensional space, rather it is
like Ininity 2, i.e. objectless space, that we can glean by abstracting away all
particles ,objects, energy, matter,. In other words, Ininity 1 ~ Ininity 2 ~
objectless space ~ the mind o God ~ ground o all generated limited things
~ the Ininite Intelligence. Remember, in the Quran it does not say that God
is Inconceiable, but Incomparable. Moreoer, there cannot be two
Incomparables. I God is Incomparable, which is basically what it states in
the last erse o the Quran, Chapter 112, since Ininity 1 and Ininity 2 are
both ininite, they are comparable in their properties o ininiteness. So they
cannot be Incomparable
62
. Indeed, they are comparable rom many aspects.
As an exercise, the reader should go through Surah /bta. and ask himsel,
hersel, i botb Ininity 1 and 2 satisy the all attributes o God mentioned.
118
lor example, it states that God is le upon who all depend, we would
depend on both Ininity 1 and 2 equally, i either one o these ininities was
generating us, or we would be wholly dependent on that type o space`,
higher dimensional or not! 1hereore, by orce o logic, Ininity 1 and
Ininity 2 are comparable! As they say: 1his town ain`t big enough or the
both o us`. \ou can only hae one Incomparable, so someone has to leae
town!
Secondly, rom the Quran: it is oten stated that God created the
heaens, the earth and that which is in between. 1he heaens` reers to all
celestial bodies where the root meaning o heaen` ,.ava, is that which is
aboe`. 1he things in between` thereore reers to space or distance, plus
anything particle-based that lies in that space that is not yet known or not
isible to us, which we keep discoering or may yet discoer. 1his becomes
clearer when we read the ollowing passages:
. 1o lim belongs whateer lies beore us, and the |space| in
between, your Sustainer neer orgets, Sustainer o the
heaens and the earth and all that lies between them. ,19:64,
loweer, the ollowing erses do vot speak o three categories, namely,
the creation o the heaens, the earth and also that which lies in between,
but only two:
Do those who coer the truth not see that the heaens and the
earth were one piece which \e then ripped apart, and made
eery liing thing rom water \ill they |een| then not beliee
,21:30,
62. As pointed out by ellow researcher, Zeshan Shahbaz, as was his
recognition o the distinction between Inconcieable and Incomparable.
119
1his makes it clear that space` was not created with the Big Bang, or i
space were an object then all three categories would hae been included in
the Big Bang erse ,21:30,. In other words, in the Quran it does vot state, as
shown in the square brackets below, that:
Do those who coer the truth not see that the heaens and the
earth |ava att tbat rbicb i. iv betreev| were one piece which \e
then ripped apart, and made eery liing thing rom water \ill
they |een| then not beliee ,21:30,

Also note that in the nebulaic ormation o the unierse, the term
that which is in between` is not used either. It is noteworthy that when
the unierse was joined together, att orms o matter and energy, that is,
all presently unknown orms as well, were coalesced together and there is
no that which is in between`. 1he act that God ripped` the one piece,
shows that the piece was limited. Lery limited thing, must be in a pre-
existent space.
1he Psychology of Understanding the Objectless Space of God
1he creation o microbits and the eolution o them into myriad structures
orming the unierse means that there must be a distance or space between
things by the ery deinition o what it means to be a thing. 1his is why
distance is one o the things that has been objectiied in the Quran by the
words that which is in between`. Gien all this, we can conclude that 3D
space itsel was not created, there always was the objectless space or mind
o God that had always existed as tbe Lxistence. Indeed when one thinks
about it urther, i there were absolutely no objects o any kind, there would
120
be no distance and no concept o 3D. 1he spatial concept o 3D only arises
because we hae distance and distinction between objects, and o our
existence as conscious entities obsering that. \e may thus ool ourseles
into thinking that were we to remoe all particles rom space we would hae
empty space. 1his is erroneous or we would not hae a concept o 3D
space without anything whatsoeer. \hat one has, in reality, is the
boundless, ininite consciousness o the Creator. 1here is, thereore, no
space in the normal sense o space. But this realm is not that o nothing, it is
a singular entity - absolute and ininitely omnipresent. It is a conscious non-
microbitic reality - tbe conscious ground o all that exists.
\hen we iew things in this manner, we begin to see how indescribably
great the Creator is, being the one who has created eerything through
sheer will. \e begin to see how le has created countless orms that we
obsere rom a single type o particle: 1he most complex rom the
simplest, the many structures rom only one type. Indeed, the Creator is
truly the greatest and there is no better way by which le can show lis
greatness or the purpose or which le has created the unierse.
Conflating and confusing objectless space with a mindless void
One o the conusions that occurs when we state that God is absolute
objectless space` or simply space` or short is that in the minds o
99.99999. o human beings, space` is seen to be the distance between
objects and a oid. 1his is because it has not been realized that a true oid
cannot produce anything unless it has intelligence and consciousness, but i
it does hae these properties then it is not a true oid or a consciousless
oid. Besides that, eeryone would agree that a oid is some thing, but not a
particle based thing. It is a thing that is ininite and does not moe, and as
121
has been shown, possesses ininite intelligence. In that ein, it is not a thing
in the sense o being like any other thing, which is particle based, moes and
is limited, or has limited consciousness like human minds. Note: I a oid`
was truly nothing then what space are we in Indeed, this oid` is some
thing. 1he purported oid` exists. 1he most interesting question then is:
what is the true nature o the purported oid` In reality, there is no such
thing as absolutely nothing, or een an atheist has to beliee that a
consciousless oid would be some thing. Since matter has not oreer been
,as proen in Chapter 1,, the atheist, i rational, is orced to conront this
issue head on, i his,her thinking on this issue is to be completed and is to
be aeatbei.iea by logicality.

Approaching objectless space from another angle
In Chapter 112, within the Quran, there is a deinition o the essence o the
Creator. loweer, let us examine the notion o objectless space` in light o
this chapter.
In these erses it is stated that God is indiisibly One:
.b.otvte ob;ectte.. .ace i. ivairi.ibt, Ove.
God is le upon whom all depend:
rer,tbivg aeeva. ov tbi. .ace.
le does not beget:
ace aoe. vot beget.
Nor is it begotten:
122
ace i. vot begottev
And there is nothing like anything like lim:
1bere i. ivaeea votbivg ti/e ob;ectte.. .ace.
loweer, all o this leads to a seemingly paradoxical conclusion: are
there two gods, that is, God and Absolute Objectless Space 1he obious
answer is a: No! Objectless space is a space o intelligence and is one and the
same. God is not some type o entity walking in a bigger space, or then that
space would be bigger than lim, le would be dependent on that space or
lis existence, and it would hae preceded lim in existence, which is
ridiculous and silly! lence, there is and can be nothing outside God, and
eerything is created within lis mind, or space o intelligence as
imagination.
63
What is the AWL?
A true belie system is one in which there is recognition o the Creator
and grateulness to lim. One must thereore irstly Acknowledge the
Creator, \elcome lim and Lmbrace lim. 1his leads to the A\L:
Acknowledge, Welcome and Lmbrace. One Acknowledges the Creator by
the signs o design in this unierse, or example, and welcomes lim when
63. Note the ollowing three names o God: 1. .taaqi ,1he Lerlasting,:
Objectless space has no bounds and is thereore Lerlasting, 2. .t!aa.i ,1he All-
Lncompassing and All-Perading,: no thing encompasses objectless space but
objectless space encompasses eerything and is thereore All-Lncompassing and
All-Perading, 3. .taai ,1he Incomparable,: Objectless space cannot be compared
to anything and thereore is Incomparable.` A note rom Zeshan Shahbaz
,researcher or this book,.
123
we submit to lis \ill, and when we embrace lim, le is our close riend.
At the same time, the A\L ,call it A\L 1, is reciprocated by the act that
God is in A\L o lis own creation ,call this A\L 2, which includes the
unierse and all that there is in it o matter and also conscious beings.
Unortunately, to illustrate this point o reciprocation, I cannot use any
other word other than A\L 2, but it must be stressed that the type o A\L
God has or us is dierent both quantitatiely and qualitatiely than that
which we hae or lim ,A\L 1,. A\L 2 has to do with God`s relection
o lis own unsurpassable abilities. lrom all this creation, the greatest A\L
is the creation o choice-making entities ,who hae the conerse ability vot
to praise the Creator, and end up praising and ollowing the Creator
and truly become lis riends. 1here is a direct relationship between the
A\L 1 and A\L 2. \hen our A\L ,A\L 1, increases, so does God`s
A\L ,A\L 2, in terms o the reerence rame o the created entities who
are less than God. As or God, since le sees all past, present and uture as
one point, the point is ull o A\L, and as such there is no change. lrom
our reerence rame, howeer, where we see ourseles moing into the
uture, one can perceie that the unierse has been created or the increase
towards ininity o A\L 2, ultimately or the Creator, each time things
unold, in the causal nexus o this unierse. God, indeed, possesses ininite
knowledge and power and le is certainly ininite, in the sense that le is the
ininite absolute space in which lis creation is rittea to exist, but le does
not hae ininite A\L 2, in the reerence rame o created beings, since to
possess A\L 2 is the result o relecting on some actiity and appreciating
it. God has chosen to increase this A\L 2 within limsel, it has no limit,
or it keeps increasing within limsel, simultaneously as le keeps creating
,where keeps creating`, has to do with the pre-existence o past and uture
as a point, which is analysed urther in Chapter 5,. 1be vttivate vro.e of att
creatiov, be it tbi. vvirer.e, or avotber, i. tberefore tbe vvfotaivg of tbe airive are ;.!
124
2). Interestingly, it states in the Quran that the purpose o creation is the
A\L:
And I |God| hae not created the jinn and the humans except
that they should worship Me. ,51:56,
1he word or worship is ibaaaat, used in the aboe-reerenced erse, and
only those who perorm ibaaaat in its true sense are those who praise God,
or i one does not praise God, then one is not worshiping lim. 1his
subrogation o worship being connected to and being a subset o praise can
be einced rom Chapter 1, in the Quran ,vrab ataatibab: 1he Opening,
where it is stated that: All praise belongs to God`, mentioned in erse 1,
and in erse 4: \ou alone do we worship`. Similarly, only those who praise
God are in awe o lim. 1o illustrate this connection, awe and praise are
mentioned together in the ollowing Quranic erse:

And the thunder declares lis glory with lis praise, and the angel
too or awe |/beefatibi| o lim,....,13:13,

1hese entities praise God since they hae awe or lim. In other words,
A\L ,precautionary ear ava wonderment-based eeling due to recognition
o power, is the basis or praising God and i one does not hae the A\L,
one cannot truly praise God. 1o understand /beefatibi` when used in
conjunction with God, imagine, as an illustration, that you hae neer seen a
tornado beore, and it is one thousand eet away rom you. \ou are dreading
it and are also in ear o it, lest it crosses your path. At the same time, you are
amazed by its power and beauty. 1his is what /beefatibi denotes here, you
ear God, lest you transgress lis precepts or human conduct, yet at the
same time, you are amazed by lis power: /beefatibi is a usion o these
125
concepts that cannot be coneyed by one word in the Lnglish language. 1he
remarkable act is that the ery irst word in the Quran, o the irst chapter
o the Quran ,aside rom the standard opener: i.vittab bir rabvaav., is
praise`: Praise be to God, Lord o the \orlds.` 1he more undamental
implicatie statement behind this is: One must be in A\L o God,
Sustainer o the \orlds`, but since the A\L encompasses many aspects o
thought, it was not used or cognitie and pedagogical reasons in the
introduction by God, leaing the more deriatie concomitant term
praise`. 1he opener can be rendered into a more oundational subtext as
ollows:
Praise be to God, since we Acknowledge, Welcome and
Lmbrace lim and, as a result, hae o AWL o lim, since le
is the Sustainer, because le is the Imaginator, o all groupings
o creation, that is, the whole o created Lxistence.

Another reason why the A\L is a more oundational
concept than Praise` is because one can ake praises erbally, but A\L is
that which resides within us as a eeling which either does or does not exist,
and i it does, it would to arious degrees. Yov cavvot fa/e tbe .!.
1he act that this unierse has been created or the desire o God with
respect to the A\L has not been realized in general is because there
has been a misunderstanding o the issue with respect to the dierence
between being .etf.vfficievt and .etffvtfittea. One may be sel-suicient in
terms o not depending on something or existence, but that does not
mean that one is as sel-gratiied as one wants to be. \hen we discuss this
notion with respect to the Creator .ove parallels do indeed apply. God is sel-
suicient and does not need anyone or lis existence. le is also sel-
satisied and sel-ulilled, howeer, one can increase the type o ulillment
126
and satisaction and this is what the Creator has cbo.ev to do. In act, many o
lis attributes eed into increasing the A\L ,rom the created beings time-
unolding` perspectie,, such as the attribute o mercy or beneicence etc.,
because through these, we are in A\L o lim and, likewise, this
increases A\L 2. loweer, since the past, present and uture are all present
beore lim, the increase in sel-ulillment is only an increase rom our
perspectie as we moe rom the present` to the uture`, but is always there
or the Creator. loweer, i le did not create, such ulillment would hae
been absent.
1he purpose o creation then is or the deelopment o sel-conscious
entities by the ultimately sel-conscious Creator who can eole or deelop
their inite created capacities. 1hese capacities mirror the ininite and eternal
attributes o the Creator, so that the Creator can hae higher company,
which is adantageous to the created eoling thought structure ,the human
consciousness, and an existence worthy or the Creator in which the
A\L is increased into perpetuity, when iewed rom the temporal human
reerence rame.
64
No doubt, such a Creator would be content within
limsel, not to hae created anything and neither needs, nor is dependent
on our worshiping lim, whatsoeer. loweer, the unierse is a natural
outcome o the nature o God. God desires to create, but not out o a
shortcoming, rather, the desire is a type o ulillment that has no parallel
in human terms or conceptions, it is incredibly and indelibly sublime
and unimaginably great, inoling the concept o the A\L as has just been
discussed. Indeed, God does not create without need and is not wasteul.
64. In the Quran, such human beings who become the oremost are known
as the riends o God. It is the ideal goal or all o us to become the riends o God.
1his is an achieable ideal and not limited to some so-called special people, but is
open or att humanity. See erses: 4:119, 5:55,56, 45:19 and many other similar
erses.
12
1he unierse was thus necessary and is purposeul. It was necessary to
create such a unierse, or only in such a unierse could entities deelop and
enter higher company. 1hese created entities, such as human beings,
would go through experiences where they could deelop attributes that
would relate to the creator in a meaningul way, irst and oremost o
which are the attributes o higher sel-consciousness and choice-
operationality. A unierse with a deinite purpose necessitates creatures
who praise the creator through the A\L 1, through taking the proper
choices, which thereby unolds the Sustainer`s A\L 2, relexiely. 1he
ollowing passages in the Quran, help to add to this point:
\e did not create the celestial systems, the earth and what lies
between them or play! I it had been Our wish to indulge in
such pastime, \e would surely hae deried it rom that which
is near Us ,or rom Us, or rom Our presence,, i \e would eer
do such a thing! ,21:16,1,
\e did not create the celestial systems, the earth and what
lies between them or play! \e created them or a deinite
purpose, but most o them do not comprehend this. ,44:38, 39,
1he meaning o this erse is that the purpose or creation is not a joke
or or riolous amusement. Creation is or a higher purpose, that engenders
company among the intelligent and sublime, the created intelligences
and the uncreated originatie intelligence, a dialogue and connection made
or eternity, ingeniously planned by the Creator. lor supericial
entertainment, God limsel could utilize beings created or that ery
purpose that would be closer to lim, such as the automatonic angels, but
or eleated intelligent company, based on the positie deelopment, le
128
had a wish or desire to create the type o unierse we reside in. lere,
entities deelop using their will, eleating themseles to higher leels, so that
those who adance suiciently may be in the Creator`s close company, as
guests, or eternity. 1his is because in order to hae meaningul and
intelligent company, God cannot create another God, le has to create
beings lesser than limsel who are imperect and limited, yet use their
choices to enhance themseles.
1he aboe-cited erses 21:16,1 state that the unierse was not
created or mere avv.evevt, or i it had been so, God would hae chosen
.ovetbivg vear at bava - rom that which is with lim or near lim. loweer,
the obious question which arises is: \hat could be that which is near to
lim, or i eerything is part o lis imagination, then is not eerything near
lim 1he resolution to this question is as ollows: I we take the oo.ite.
o the key words o the erse, we realize that God made this unierse or a
.eriov. vro.e, because God wanted .ovetbivg far frov iv, that is, that which
is not with lim ,or not rom lis presence - see Quran 28:5 or a similar
construction o rom near lim`,. Going een deeper now, we may pose the
next logical question: \hat is that which can be ar rom lim, or, i
eerything is lis Imagination and hence in lis mind, then how can anything
be ar rom lim
1he Answer
Beore we answer the question in the aboe section directly, there is an issue
that must be dealt with, at the ery outset, once and or all: 1he main
purpose or creation cannot be the generosity o God, as is usually argued by
some Islamic scholars and philosophers, but must be some type o sublime
desire. Generosity can only come into play as a secondary reason, once there
129
is creation. I there is nothing, then to whom` is God going to be generous
And i le chooses not to create, the issue o generosity as the cause or
creation does not arise, nor indeed meanness. But once le creates, le truly
is generous and merciul to lis creation, which are necessary pre-conditions
or the deelopment o sentient entities so that they may relate to lim. God
needed to create an other` to hae dialogue with, that is, one who could
hae A\L o lim, and since le cannot create something outside o
limsel and outside lis mind, the utmost le can do is to create entities that
hae a high leel o consciousness ava ability to choose. 1hese entities can,
by obsering the unierse, by using reason, eidences, and by passion based
on such oundations, come close to lim, and moe towards lim. 1hey can
come close to lim, rom a position which is both other` and ar. Other`
in the sense o being other intelligences like lim, albeit ery limited,
and ar` in the sense that they are shielded rom God, in that they cannot
experience the existence o the Creator in terms o seeing lim, physically
eeling and touching lim etc. So, being ar remoed rom God has two
complementary aspects: lirstly, by creating imagined characters or
personalities within lis own mind and by giing them limited wills, just as
God has a will, God separates such imagined-cum-created entities rom lis
own personality and makes them distant. 1hey cannot see, smell, eel, hear
or touch God, unless le communicates to them by some indirect means,
and being embedded in a microbitic ,particle-based unierse, most o these
entities start thinking o themseles as absolutely ree-willed and in-
dependent creatures, orgetting that, ultimately, they are sustained and
controlled by the ultimate will o God. loweer, these separate wills, as it
were, are gien a degree o autonomy in that God ractionalizes multiple
wills as lis thought products. 1his issue o ree-will` is discussed in great
depth in the Appendix, or those who choose to dig deeper. Since God is
one ,as in the Quran it says that le is .baa ,indiisible in lis being,,
130
this ractionalization does not mean, o course that God splits limsel into
many. 1he ractionalization is in terms o imagining a scenario in which le
basically commands other entities to come into existence in lis space, on
the imaginational leel, whilst le is still the eer-present One.
Secondly, the separateness that this magisterial God creates by creating
multiple wills in lis imagination ,ractionalization, is necessary or
moement rom ar to near, or those created entities who do recognize
their singular Creator moe towards and return to lim. 1his they achiee
by becoming acutely conscious o lim, through the A\L , and this, in turn,
can only be achieed through intentionally proper behaiour, that relects
the A\L.:
1he Prophet said: God said: 1he son o Adam hurts Me by
abusing time, or I am 1ime, in my lands are all things and I
cav.e the reolutions o night and day.
65
1o understand what God means by time` in the ladith, one will hae to
understand the concept o GRC` discussed in a later chapter.
1he main goal
On page 93, a question was posed with respect to what our goal in lie
should be. Ater discussing this section it becomes clear that gloriying God
ought to be our goal, that is, our main goal, based on the A\L, this
approach would coer and bring about all other categories o goals
65. abib atv/bari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 583. ,See also, Vol. 6, Book
60, Number 351,.1he plutal orm o ladith is Ahadith, but we shall use ladiths`.
131
,subgoals`,, whereas the ocus on each one o the other subgoals will not
bring about a realization o all the others to their ullest extent. \ith the
degradation o the unicity-and-absolute-uniqueness concept o God that
naturally euses with the embracement o the glory o God, the A\L is
undermined, and all the other categories o religious goals` cannot be
ulilled properly, or get side-tracked into erroneous and harmul rituals and
practices. 1he gloriication o God, through realization that le is the
sustainer o all, brings about compassion and the issue o rights being
upheld or the sustenance or all, which in turn, brings about the
ulillment o the other sub-goals: morality and justice on the indiidual and
socio-politico-economical leel, the realization o the proper pathway to the
conirmed existence o paradise, the spiritual` aspects that one engages in to
build up one`s character so as to better engage in these sub-goals, etc. 1his is
the reason why the A\L must be the basis o a trve belie system. Most o
the current belie systems and religions ocus on one or more o the sub-
goals other than the main goal, and, what is more, they do not een hae
ully deeloped and non-contradictory concepts or these subgoals in both
concept and practice.
1ype of universe
God had to create a Unierse with this depth o the potentiality or Good
and Lil, or i it were a shallow` unierse, where one would hae the no
otevtiatit, o transgressing ar, or or receiing much suering, then our
behaiour, which depends on the potentiality o wrong and suering, would
also vot hae had the opportunity or ascending to such heights. 1his
diminishment o potentiality is due to the act that we would not hae had
the ability to achiee the greatest good, which comes as a counterorce
132
against the greatest harms,eils. In this ein, this type o unierse, which
possesses a ast range o moral inclinations, helps maximize and diersiy
the A\L, een i there is a minority who behae this way, or this minority`
stands out as a gem. In essence, the Creator is looking or quality, not
quantity, and it is only through this type o a system that gems can and will
arise. In other words, the ariety and depth o experience needed or the
soul X, when it is created, can only be brought about by passing through the
siee o this unierse. 1hen when soul X meets God, it has something to talk
about. It is not in the state o being almost a zero as it was when irst
ractionalized.
In assessing the type o unierse we happen to be in, the ollowing
obious question arises: could God not hae created a Unierse in
which the extent o the potentiality o suering was not great In other
words, could le not hae created a shallow Unierse and still hae had the
unction o the A\L within it, ulilling lis goal 1he creation o such a
shallow unierse would necessarily hae instilled it with less possible ariety
in the details behind the A\L or each indiidual and, similarly, less
ariety or God in lis interaction with the created wills,entities. It would
be like haing a great music collection but o only one type o music genre,
played oer and oer again. laing a plethora o genres o great music is
more interesting! A deeper unierse with a greater potentiality o suering
and conersely, o a greater leel o peace, joy or pleasure would create the
conditions or maximal ariety. lence the necessity or our t,e o unierse.
Consciousness as the property of absolute objectless space
Consciousness is the ery property o space itsel: it is a unique indiisible
absolute consciousness that is synonymous with God. Consciousness ,as
133
denoting a general term or sentience, is not God, but God is o
consciousness. God creates structures out o atoms ,ultimately microbits, by
sheer will, through lis consciousness, God also ractionalizes other
wills within lis own will. 1his decision by the Creator to create indiidual
objects within lis space, by assigning a number and unique identiication
or each thing,
66
is by the command o the Creator:
1hey ask you about the rvb, say it is a command rom your Sust-
ainer and o |its| knowledge you hae been gien little.
6
1his Being, whose consciousness is the property o objectless space
itsel, is an uncreated ininite boundless entity` we are calling God`. \hen
we are imagined to exist within that space, we are essentially created
as non-particle based consciousnesses within the oerarching
consciousness o God, embedded within that objectless space, there being
no outside. A human, being more complex than a worm, is a better antenna
to travfocv. consciousness, so to speak, and thus has been endowed with
more aspects o that oerarching consciousness than the worm. As that
consciousness becomes tranocused on more complex carbon-based bodies,
it is able to learn and deelop urther, more than, or example, other
creatures with less complex nerous systems. loweer, more on the details
o ractionalism` and transocation`, and what exactly constitutes lie and
consciousness in Chapter 5.
66. Because no two creatures can be born in the same space, and i they are,
then not at the same time.
6. 1:85
134
Imagination of God and free-will
I we are the created imagination o God, do we hae ree-will \hat we can
say is that we do hae choices in this unierse, and that we will be
accountable or making the wrong choices, in ront o God. lrom all
practical points o iew, one could say that we hae ree will` in this sense.
lor all those who are satisied with this, they can go on to lead a lie or the
glory o God and all that this entails. loweer, those who want to dele
deeper and resole some issues concerning ree-will, including some crucial
paradoxes` which are resoled, please reer to the Appendix.
Non-Anthropomorphic definition of need'
Did God hae a need to create the unierse \hen trying to explain the
word need` in relation to God, there is a diiculty because we, as humans,
tend to associate negatie attributes, or weakness this word. \hen the word
need` is used to describe the act that the Creator needs the A\L, it does
not ully capture what we are saying, because the word need` contains
notions o non-sel-suiciency and dependency. Obiously, this is not what
we mean by need`. A better word to use is the word desire`, in that it is
God`s desire. loweer, i the word need` gets attached to the iew we are
presenting, it is most crucial that seeral issues are cleared-up immediately.
lirstly, we cannot ignore the act that we do mirror, in a limited way, the
attributes o God. \here we dier rom God is that lis attributes, such as
knowledge and power, are ininite, whereas ours are inite and themseles
exist only by the will o God. In the Quran, innumerable erses exist in
which it is stated that God loes those who perorm particular actions
sincerely. 1his implies that le intensely likes the perormance o something.
135
le needs that, but certainly not to the extent o undermining the notion o
sel-suiciency. I we engage in that particular behaiour that le espouses,
it will be good or us and we will be appreciatie o God. le wants us to be
appreciatie o lim, but not to the extent that le could not surie, exist or
be diminished in lis majesty, een an iota, were le not to get that
appreciation rom us:
People, it is you who stand in need |or sustenance| o God -
God needs nothing |or sustenance| and is worthy o all praise
|i.e. that results rom A\L|. ,35:15,
In act, the erse aboe shows that though God is in need o votbivg for .etf
.vfficievc,, le would like us to praise lim. 1he argument that criticizes the
ascription o the word need` to God, charging anthropomorphization to the
nature o God, misses the whole point that God does indeed hae
attributes that are mirrored by human beings. \e know, or example, that
God is Intelligent, and we too ourseles are intelligent, i we act wisely and
with knowledge, aoiding harm. Is to say that God is intelligent
anthropomorphizing God Nobody thinks that God is being
anthropomorphized when the word ,ininitely, intelligent` is used in
connection with God, howeer, that is because being intelligent` does not
coney connotations o dependency, as does the word need`. 1he main
point is that since God is not a biological or any type o particle-based being,
we cannot think o the qualitatie aspect o many o lis thought states`
such as lis loe being exactly the same as our types o eeling o loe.
Nonetheless, there are parallels and loe` shows a desire that resides within
lim.
I God did not create anything, le would be Alone, rom past
oreermore, to uture oreermore. \et again, like the issue o need` and
136
loe`, we must not deole into anthropocentric notions o being alone`
and loneliness. Nonetheless, lis sel-relectie existence is clearly
incalculably richer, ascinating and amazing, once le has created.
Imagine: in all likelihood, God has created countless unierses similar to
ours, each with a beginning and an ending. 1he created intelligences that
hae now deeloped rom those unierses that hae ended, would now
be in that higher company with God.
God`s being is not the same once le chooses to create, where we are
one o the prime reasons or the unierse`s creation. In being thankul or
this honour, we should strie our best towards that goal o coming close to
God, as we will end up in some type o relation with the Creator ater
our heay-particle bodily death. 1he worst scenario will be our
consciousness being cut-o rom that Creator i we hae neglected lim and
lis will in this lie. \et such an ascent o the A\L cannot begin i we shut
our eyes to the signs in the unierse that point to the Creator, and i we are
trapped in an inerted ision o reality. In this inerted ision, we think that
ovt, the immediately apparent material unierse exists and may become
ob.e..ea with possessions and the accumulation o objects and all the
concomitant behaiours resulting rom such an outlook. \e do not see
created objects in this unierse merely as tools towards the realization and
consciousness o the Creator and lis will. Our will may try to usurp the
Creator`s will. \e must always strie to inert the inersion and bring it in
line with the reality that all things are being sustained God`s Mind, that le is
the only absolutely real, at each and eery moment. In this manner, we
would be eleated by the attitude o gratitude as encompassed by the A\L
towards such a unique entity as the liing ground or all transormational
existences. 1he lesson is that we must try our leel best not to be neglectul
o this act in our daily lies. 1his is what we can and should strie or, as the
ery purpose o our creation. 1his will indubitably - i ollowed - grant us
13
true success in our lies as we journey into eternity. Beyond our physical
death in terms o shedding our heay microbitic bodies, is a
transormation akin to a ista change or a cocooned worm-like creature
that metamorphizes into a magniicent butterly: to explore ast new and
unimaginably wondrous realms - the gardens o eternity!
Witness!
Our primary position is that o being witnesses unto the Sustainer at the bare
minimum and we must not all rom this leel. I we do, we are being
ungrateul. Man was created or worship ,by praising God, though God
does not need this or sel-subsistence, but it increases A\L 2 and this
pleases lim. Note that the erse in the Quran 51:56, that states that God
has created Jinn and lumankind only to worship lim, is pointing to the
act that the creator desires such worship or limsel, to ininitize the A\L,
praise being a subset o the A\L. And since praise is a dynamic concept
which grows or shrinks, we hae the notion o A\L associated with it, or
when praise increases so does the A\L 1 and when A\L 1 increases, so
does the Creator`s A\L 2, when we consider it rom our sequential
,time-based, perspectie! All pristine morality is deried rom the
recognition o being witnesses unto reality under the consciousness that
God is the Sustainer and Deeloper ,rabb, o all things and hence is the
Creator too. In act, this is why the word Sustainer is used in this passage
and not Creator, as it encompasses the attribute o Creator` and has wider
ramiications. I God is the Sustainer o you and I and o all things great and
small, then how can we shut-o the ountains o sustenance and damage the
beneicence that le has proided to all things 1his certainty based
recognition o, or witnessing` lim being the Sustainer through design o
138
eerything in nature, o seeing things as they are in the pellucid causal nexus,
is indeed the basis o all true morality, encompassing both social and
enironmental domains.
Is punishment in hell forever according to the Quran?
I our \ill is ultimately controlled by the will o God and or all the reasons
connected with the purpose o creation discussed in detail in the
Appendix, then how could le punish such created entities who operate
upon lis will oreer, especially since, irstly, le is the ery one who has
designed the scenarios and secondly, how can le mete out punishment or
ininite duration or eil,s, committed or a inite period Indeed, will those
bovo .aiev. who are extremely nasty characters, that is, those who do not
use their God-like wills judiciously and neer change towards the proper
path o thought and conduct, in that their misbehaiour is a result o
associating,replacing others with God, be punished oreer
1he finite nature of all punishment
In the Quran, eerlasting punishment is neer depicted or anyone. 1he
iew that eerlasting punishment does exist has arisen mostly as a result o
the erroneous interpretation o the word /baatiavvv. Kbaatiavvv rom the
root /bataaa signiies: that which does not decay, to lie in a place without
deterioration`
68
and, hence, goes on or abides, as when the word /bratia is
used to denote the three stones that once sered as a base or a cooking pot,
68. Omar, Abdul Mannan, ,2006,, 1be Dictiovar, of tbe ot, Qvrav, p. 106.
139
which remain abiding despite the deterioration o the contents o an entire
desolated house. It can be translated as tbat rbicb evavre.. lere, the stones
hae the quality o imperishability, due to their constitution as well as their
locational inariance. Let us now apply this concept urther, in order to
understand its usage in the Quran. Let us assume that there was a human
being who was immune to old age or was immune to diseases - hence he
would lie eretvatt, unless hit by a car and was killed. 1his word is a lot like
one o Newton`s laws, which states that an object will stay at rest or moe
with constant motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced orce.
1his is the true understanding o this word, which will bear out in all
Quranic contexts: 1here are some erses in the Quran where /baatiavvv is
used and it is usually translated into Lnglish as oreer`, howeer, this
becomes highly problematic, to say the least, when the ollowing erses are
translated. lere, the word is usually translated as simply therein to abide`,
instead o oreer`, in an inconsistent ashion by most translators. \hy
Because i it were not, then it would read as ollows:
And as or those who will be glad ,that day, they will be in the
Garden, abiding lORLVLR, as long as the heaens and the
earth endure |and they do so only temporarily as stated in the
Quran 46:3, which becomes a contradiction!|, except or that
which your Sustainer wills: a git unailing. ,11:108,
1he aboe translation, with /baatiaiiva, translated as lORLVLR,
would be inconsistent within the Quran. loweer, when we adopt the true
understanding o this word, as outlined aboe, we get the proper
meaning, which is:
And as or those who will be glad |that day| they will be in the
140
Garden, abiding without decay |that is, without acing entropy
or any orm o permanent destruction|, as long as the heaens
and the earth endure, except or that which your Sustainer
wills: a git unailing. ,11:108,
In summation then, let us call an object X existing in an enironment \.
1he word /baatiavvv applies to the nature o the object X ,i.e.
imperishability, in terms o not decaying and hence enduring,. 1he mistake
that has been made is that this particular word has been applied to the
duration o existence o X in enironment \, rather than to the covaitiovat
sel-property o imperishability o object X, situated in enironment \. 1hat
the word /baatiavvv means that which does not decay or is intrinsically
eerlasting, is clear rom other erses in the Quran where, in paradise, in the
hereater, the belieers will be sered by eerlasting youthul entities-cum-
boys ,reer to Quran 56:1 and 6:19,, the tree o immortality ,Quran
20:120,, Satan tempting Adam and his wie to eat rom the tree in order
to gain access to immortality ,:20,, that the prophets were not made in
orms that required no eating o ood and nor were they immortal ,21:8,,
and inally, someone who amasses wealth thinking that it will make him
immortal ,104:3,.
But what does as long as the heaens and the earth endure` mean
Precisely what we shall explain in detail in this book: that the next lie starts
immediately ater this one: leaen and lell exist akin to parallel systems but
are not discernable to our senses or extensions o our senses ,tools,. \hen
one dies, one is placed in either paradise or hell ,i.e. the lighter microbitic
unierse,. 1hese two domains exist until the entire heay microbitic
unierse collapses, at which time so will the lighter system, as they are within
the same boundaries o space. God could either continue the punishment
o those in hell in the next unierse that emerges rom this unierse, or place
141
the person in question in paradise in that next unierse - this is purely up to
God. Such a scenario is precisely described by the ollowing passage in the
Quran:
As or those who will be wretched, they will be in the lire,
sighing and wailing will be their portion therein, abiding
without decay, so long as the heaens and the earth endure,
except as your Sustainer wills. Lo! \our Sustainer is doer o
what le wills. ,11:106-10,
lor those who were placed in paradise immediately ater death, while
this heay microbitic unierse existed alongside, their reward will continue
een ater this unierse is destroyed - it will be a git neer to be cut-o,
een though it could be, since the will belongs to God ,see 11:108, cited
aboe,. Note, that by heaens and the earth`, the new heaens and earth o
the aterlie are not being reerred to, since the new system to arise ater the
destruction o the present heaens and earth, are eternal and the question o
their enduring does not arise.
Now there may be a urther objection and some may say that erses
11:106-108 occur after erses 11:103 to 11:105, which talk about the day o
judgment, hence, God is talking about the new paradise and hell that will be
created after this unierse is destroyed and not a parallel unierse type o hell
and paradise that we are explaining in our book. It appears to us,
howeer, that although God initially talks about that system which will be
created ater the destruction o this unierse, in erses 11:103, 105 where we
are aced with the Day o Judgment, le backtracks and gies us the whole
scenario in erses 11:106 to 10. Such a non-sequential` sequence can also
be ound in the ollowing erses, dealing with the creation o the unierse:
41:9 to 41:12. 1he backtracking here occurs in 41:11, 12.
142
1hat punishment in hell is not eerlasting is also clear rom two other
erses:
Surely hell is a place o ambush, a dwelling place or those who
transgress the boundaries |set by God|: they will abiae tbereiv for
age.. ,8:23,
lere the word used is abqaabaa, meaning a rer, tovg erioa. It is the plural o
bvqvb which denotes seenty or eighty years, or a long time. Another word in
the Quran, namely, abaaav, used in erses 4:169, 33:65 and 2:23 also
means a long time.
69
In these erses, the word /baatiaiiva is used in
conjunction with abaaav. \e hae already shown that /baatiaiiva does not
mean dwelling oreer in a particular location and hence abaaav cannot also
concomitantly mean this, and ice ersa. In addition, the word abaaav as
used in the Quran means to remain indeinitely, as the ollowing erse shows
ery clearly that Propher Abraham would maintain ,abaaav, dislike between
himsel and the idol-worshiping tribe he was brought up in, vvtit they beliee
in One God alone:
And there has arisen between us and you hostility, and
disaection will continue unabated |i.e. the disaection will
not decay`, unless, and thereore| UN1IL you beliee in God
,Allah, only.,60:4,
1o ulill the A\L, God has created entities that may or may not
submit to lis laws as ordained in the Quran, howeer, since God has
69. See .rabic vgti.b eicov by Ldward \illiam Lane, Mvgbvi atabib
;Cravvar), by Al-Shaikh Jamal al-Din ibn lisham Al-Ansari and 1a; at.rv.
;Dictiovar,), by Imam Muhbib al-Din Abi-l-larid Murtada.
143
endowed limsel to be the Most Merciul, it would appear to be a gross
contradiction that le should punish someone oreer, particularly i le
limsel has absolute control o all wills and decisions made by lis imagined
entities such as you or I ,een though le has made quasi-separate wills
through ractionalization: reer to the Appendix,. lere we see that this is
not, nor was it eer the case, that punishment is eerlasting. In 4:168, it
states that God will not orgie those who coer the truth and are unjust.
Similarly, in erse 4:116 it says that i one commits .bir/ ,an Arabic word
meaning: associating a partner with God, one will not be orgien, but or
other transgressions le may orgie, i le so wills. loweer, this is not to
be taken as meaning that one will neer be orgien or .bir/, but rather, that
this is something rom which repentance and correction is required, diine
replacementization being the mother o all major transgressions and at the
ery root o all major eils. God will not orgie this sin` without repentance
and amendment in one`s actions, howeer, le may or may not simply wipe
out other minor transgressions or some types o major ones that are not
associated with .bir/, een i one does not speciically make amends in those.
lor example, on the Day o Judgment a person`s scorecard is 48 on the
positie side and 52 negatie. A person needs only 2 to be admitted into
paradise. God may oerlook 2 to bring his mark up to 50. 1hat 2
would hae nothing to do with associating others with God. On the other
hand, someone`s scorecard is 25 good and 5 bad. 1he additional 25
needed to bring his mark up to 50 cannot be granted by God, since it
inoles shirk and will not be orgien`, so the person will be cast into hell.
Only those who step out o bounds as deined in the Quran, those whose
desires place an object aboe God and whose whole lie is consumed by the
power o that object, be it a person, place or thing, are said to be committing
.bir/. 1hese are the people who are the most wretched, and only these will
be placed in hell
0
. loweer, the punishment o hell, though most seere
144
or such an indiidual and unimaginably lengthy, is reormatory and not
oreer, as discussed preiously in connection with the word /baatiavvv.
Instructie, in this respect, is the story in the Quran ,Chapter 18, Verses
36-38, o the two people who owned property: one o them, who owned a
lot more than his neighbour, was ery proud and elt himsel to be sel-
suicient. According to the Quran, this arrogant indiidual was committing
.bir/ b, bi. rer, bebariovr. One who is in submission to God, cannot, by
deinition, be one o those committing .bir/, and cannot end up in hell.
1hereore, only those who commit .bir/ end up in hell, through their
behaiours and the intention behind these behaiours. 1here are many leels
o .bir/, beyond the threshold .bir/ leel and, just as there are leels in
paradise, so too are their leels in hell. According to this analysis, one
cannot be complacent by calling onesel a Muslim. A person who calls
himsel,hersel Muslim does not get o scott-ree`. Is the sel-claimed
Muslim committing .bir/ in the sense o making some desire,s, his,her God.
Conersely, one who beliees in One God ,tarbeea, and does not commit
.bir/, does good deeds and beliees in the hereater, would hae nothing to
ear or griee about, or so long as he,she maintains this way o liing, such
a person will certainly end-up in paradise and is indeed a Muslim. Such a
person is in submission to God, een though he or she may neer hae
een heard the word Islam`, Quran or Muhammed, due to the limitations o
the enironment that person may ind himsel or hersel in, or may hae
wrong ideas about these terv., but i once shown their true nature, would
accept these most willingly.
1he act that punishment is not oreer, should not lead to alse comort
or the one who is condemned to be thrown into hell or een one year. Do
you know how it eels to be in hell or een a minute And, as has been
70. Quran 92:15
145
illustrated aboe, those who commit .bir/ will occupy hell, not or a minute,
but or an immeasurably long time! Lastly, it has traditionally been stated by
many Muslim scholars that /baatiaiiva means liing oreer in a particular
place and that i one ends up in this situation, punishment is eerlasting or
those who associate,replace others with God. \et, i punishment or such a
crime is oreer and is denoted by /baatiavvv, why is a possible exception
being made in the Quran, where it is clearly stated that: 1he lire be your
dwelling place: you will dwell therein /baatiaiiva, except as God wills ,6:128,.
Gien the analysis aboe, this can mean two things: either God will orgie
you, although you desered to be in hell, or, i we take the standard
interpretation o /baatiaiva, o put being in a place oreer, then God will
one day` remoe you rom hell, which means that een with the standard
interpretation, oreer` is translated to being temporarily`, i God so wills.

Chapter 4
Chapter 4
I there is God and i le is all powerul and good, then why is there
eil` 1his is the so-called problem o eil. It has baled many
minds and has led others to doubt either the reality o God or lis
goodness. 1he argument usually is that there is no God, because i
there were God, le would not hae created a world like this. Let us
examine the eracity o this assertion.
Lvil as a prerequisite to goodness and pleasure
\hat we call eil` is simply the hurts that we all experience as a
result o our ulnerabilities. \ou meet a bully on the road and he
demands your wallet. \ou resist but you hae insuicient resisting
qualities. O course, the wallet just sits there, perhaps quietly
contemplating whether you should hae taken some serious martial
arts training. It is no use. \ou go home broke and hurt. In other
words, all hurts result rom only two things: 1. Someone`s capacity
to inlict hurt on you and 2. \our capacity to experience hurt. I no
one or nothing could hurt you, you would not hae any problem
with eil`. 1o ask the question o why eil exists, thereore, is
simply another way o asking why you hae the capacity or
suering and why do others hae the capacity to inlict suering on
you. 1here are two answers.
150
rit va/e. ivairiavatit,, creatirit,, roavctirit, ava .ociet, o..ibte:
\ou hae the capacity or hunger. \hen you are hungry, you suer.
Because you do not like to suer, you look or ood. I you are not a armer,
this means that you must ind a means to get some ood. In other words,
the capacity or hunger pushes you to work. I we could not be hungry,
there would be no need or ood and there would be no armer. Let us take
another example. \ou hae the capacity to eel lonely. \hen you are alone,
you eel hurt. O course, you do not like to be hurt. So, in
response you look or acceptable company. \our capacity to be
lonely has compelled you to communicate, to raternise and to build a
society. Again, you hae the capacity to be hurt by your ignorance o many
things. lor example, when you are ignorant o how to loat and you jump
into the lake, you end up with a disproportionate share o water in your
system. \ou o course, do not like this. So, as a result you exert your sel to
learn about the mechanics o water and o loating. \ou learn about how to
swim or, in the alternatie, you build or buy yoursel a loatation deice.
\hen you are compelled to learn, you will hae to use your senses
systematically. \ou are orced to use and to deelop your many aculties
with the result that you acquire skills that some people hae not acquired.
Not only does this allow you to ward o one more hurt, but it sets you apart
rom some people and makes you identiiable as an indiidual. \e do not all
suer the same things and certainly not at the same time. \our dierent
hurts and your dierent responses to arious hurts set you apart rom others
and makes your experience unique. Indiiduality is possible only because
none o us has suered the same hurt as the other has suered. \ithout our
dierent ulnerabilities and our dierent responses to same, we would lack
our indiidual personalities. \e are each shaped by our ulnerabilities, be
they o wealth, health or gender. Because I hae not gone through what you
151
hae gone through, you think and eel things dierently rom me. \ou are
in other words, the hurts that you hae suered and your responses to these
hurts.
\ithout our ulnerabilities we could not be human. I you think o
yoursel, you will see that you are no more than your experiences. 1hese
experiences are no more than your hurts and responses to them. \ou
learned this and that and you did this and that only because you needed to
do so, or you wished to aoid or remoe a real or potential hurt. Since
you act because o these hurts, it ollows thereore that i you lied in a
world without suering, that is, a world in which you did not suer hunger,
loneliness, sickness, shame, poerty, insecurity and so orth, you would not
act. \here there is no ear, there can be no heroism. \here no one is weak,
there can be no sense or act o compassion. \here one is happy alone, there
is no need or need or others and no need or loe. Simply put, eery orm
o human pleasure is possible only because o the presence o these hurts
that we suer. I there were no hurts, there would be no action and pleasure.
1o enjoy a thing, you must need it. \ould you rather be born in a world in
which you experienced no need or any one at all and thereore lied all
alone or would you rather be born in a world in which because you eel the
need to be loed, you lie with the beloed in a companionship I we had
no need to eat, to build, to heal, to loe and so orth, we would not do these
things. I we had no need to act and did not act, we would not hae any
inentions, no creatie works, no communication, no society, no indiidual
uniqueness and achieement, nothing: we would just be sitting there or lying
there, like the mountain. I am sure that none o us would like that.
1he important thing here is that not only would we not act, but our
aculties or doing these things would also be unnecessary and absent. I you
hae no need to walk, you will hae no use or legs and so you would hae
no legs. I you hae no need to chew, eat, laugh, drink or speak, you will
152
hae no need or the mouth and thereore, you would be toothless and
mouthless. 1he same goes or all our other aculties. In a world without
hurts, you would be an eyeless, mouthless, earless, legless, stomachless,
toothless.human being. \ou would just be a motionless blob, sitting there
all alone. Just imagine such a creature!
1he conclusion, thereore, must ollow that some type o
suering or so-called eil is logically necessary as a precondition to
goodness, to pleasure, to human creatiity, productiity and to society. A
world o eil` is thereore no more than a world that makes it possible or
each one o us to be unique, to be human and to hae joy. Looked at this
way, one can easily see why a Good God would create such a world to be
and allow it to continue. \ou can see how inestimably brilliant le is. 1here
are seeral other reasons or the creation o this unierse which we shall
examine in the next section.
Another Reason for Living Here: Lvil as a Possibility Of Knowledge
7J
1he second reason or the existence o eil is as ollows: God`s creatie
power is endless and or that matter, le has created many worlds besides
the earth. 1he earth is where the lie o the human being begins, but the
destiny o the human being is not the earth but in many other worlds.
As we hae already seen, it costs God nothing to make anyone o us.
All that God has to do to make you lie in the hereater is to will that you
lie hereater. And God knows that you will loe to lie hereater. Now God
is the Most Generous and the Most Compassionate Being. It is lis nature to
gie and to gie abundantly, oer and oer again. In addition, God loes
those who loe lim. 1heir companionship gies God Pleasure. So, it
ollows that i you loe or please God, you are guaranteed to lie hereater in
153
lis close presence. Because there is a hereater, it has an impact on the
signiicance o our experiences here on the earth. Our experience here
seres as an introduction to the many possible worlds o God. O God`s
many worlds, none is like the earth. Lach world is unique in the same
manner as each human being, each lea and each day is unique. On the earth,
each day presents us with opportunities to hear, see, eel and know a great
many curiosities o unparalleled proportions. lrom some people or eents
we come to know courage, kindness, patience, loe, goodness and so orth.
And rom others, we learn anger, hatred, stupidity, ugliness and so on. 1here
is always something to be learned rom any experience no matter how
unpleasant or unwanted. \e each must shun eil or our own sake, but we
must also learn rom things that happen to us. My conduct and my ortunes
educate my neighbours and I about the many sides or possibilities o being
and their experiences too, educate them and I about other possibilities.
Lery dream, eery nightmare, eery act, eery eort, and in short, eery lie
eent educates us, shapes our iews o reality and enriches our perspecties
1. 1he whole thing is analogous to the deelopment o a etus into a human
being. 1he earth is like the womb o the hereater and we are the etuses in it. Death
is the birth and entry into a greater world. Alas, the human being like the tiny sperm
cannot imagine that the human being is capable o being transormed into a being a
million times greater than itsel and is capable o being born into a world o endless
stars and a ariety o lie orms in constant sound and motion, colourul, elegant,
sophisticated and or period time ten thousand times the lie o the sperm. But it has
happened. Like the sperms that we once were, more possibilities await us than we
can eer dream o, or can een imagine. Indeed, i you pay serious attention to lie,
you will come to know that this entire earthly experience is like a dream,
unimaginable. It is unbelieable that we are happening and yet it is real, God willed
it and there you are. 1he greatest miracle o all is that only a ew years ago, we
were all nothing and now we lie. laing lied once, you hae absolutely crossed
the barrier o non-being into being and it is easy to see how you can lie rom here
to there oreer more, by the will o God.
154
along the way to God, our Goal.
Because I lie on the earth I know what it is to be hungry and to lose a
dear one. I also know what it is like to laugh, to play and to be cherished. I
know how hard it is to accomplish things and I also know how joyous it is to
accomplish things. I hae elt the excruciating pain o illness and I
hae also elt the exhilarating joy o health. I hae worked and I hae
played, won and lost and I hae seen and elt many countless and wonderul
things. 1here is no place like the earth and my experience here has gien me
a perspectie about reality that I could not otherwise hae gained i I had
been born say, in paradise. All God`s intelligent creatures are students
on a course entitled God`s Many Signs and \orlds`. God wants us to
learn about lim and to come to appreciate and to loe lis Greatness and
Glory, through lis creation. 1he earth is one o the signs o God and a
required reading. It is a required reading because o all the unique qualities
described earlier. 1here are more pleasant readings as part o the course.
Now because o the law o opportunity costs, none o us could hae been
born into two dierent worlds at the same time. God, thereore, had to
determine which one o lis worlds to place us in irst. 1he decision was
entirely up to God. lor us human beings, le chose this world as our starting
point. As I hae already explained, i God wills the human being could lie
oreer. As compared to oreer, the time spent on the planet is like one
trillionth o a millisecond, it is almost nothing. I also mentioned earlier that
or those who loe God, at least the hereater is more pleasurable than this
world. 1hereore, gien that the earth is a required reading and the time
spent here insigniicant, it makes sense that God allows us to begin on the
earth in the less pleasant world and then upgrades us to the more pleasant,
later on. By giing us the earth irst and or only a short period, God has
ensured, at least or those who loe lim, that the hereater would be more
pleasant. \e come to lie or the irst time in this world, without much to
155
compare our experience with. It is thus easier on us to handle this type o
eil`: we hae not known anything better. It is easier to be poor and then
rich than to be rich and then poor, it is better to be sick and then healthy
than to be healthy and then sick. It is better to be depried and then
rewarded with abundance later, than to be rewarded with abundance irst
and then depried o it later. Placing human beings in this world as the
starting point o their ery long journey is, thereore, kind. It is a wise
decision on the part o God. 1his is a clear sign o God`s compassion or us.
1o be placed on the earth, thereore, is to be gien an opportunity to
experience a ery unique perspectie o God`s reality. 1hose who hae
been ,created, into dierent worlds, hae not lied like we hae lied,
they hae not known what we hae gone through and we do not know
what they hae gone through. I we human beings had been born directly
into a world o more pleasures instead o this world, we would hae been
oreer denied and preented rom eer experiencing one o the dramatic,
deep and memorable creations o God, that is, the earth. Now i you go to
heaen rom the earth, you can hae something to talk about and to
compare things with. \our company and conersations will be more
interesting and you yoursel would be more pleased, more grateul to God
and happier.
But there is relief
But although eil is a necessity, the degree o suering has been tampered
and limited by two things: by the short span o our lies, and by our desire
and ability to reduce suering. lumanity is, in act in the process o
discoering the means to curing much o the physical and mental hurts that
alict us. low much progress can be achieed is completely dependent
156
upon time and human eort. I there are any limitations to progress, it
would appear to lie mostly in human laziness, greed and stupidity. Right
now, there some types o suering that we could eliminate or reduce i we
choose to do so. \e can reduce hunger, homelessness, tyranny, ignorance
and so on. 1he strong need not abuse the weak, the learned need not deceie
the ignorant, the rich need not rob the poor, nor be greedy. \e need not
hate and hurt one another. \e need not destroy ourseles and our
enironment. \et eery day, these are the things we do and these are some
o the things that rob us o some o the joys o lie. Much o human
suering is attributable to the actions and inactions o our ellow human
beings rather than to the cycles and processes o nature. I people were
inclined to reduce suering or all, many people would suer signiicantly
less than they do right now. At the indiidual leel, much suering could be
eliminated by a undamental change in desires. Loe o the harmul may
result in harm to onesel, no doubt. Loe o the good results in goodness
and thereore, peace. lor example, because o scarcity o some things, the
desire or gold, a high status and the one hundred and one charms o the
material world one can easily be rustrated. lrustration leads to hurt. A
change in the quality and quantity o things you desire would lessen your
desires, the less would be your rustrations and thereore, the less your
pain. In the inal analysis, howeer, because many hurts will occur as a
result o eents or things beyond the person`s control, subjectie exercise
alone would not be enough. Not only must the indiidual strie to change
his or her priorities, but each is called to purposeully help change the
collectie priorities o the society as a whole towards improing the
lot o eeryone. \ou, as an indiidual, hae a responsibility to reduce the
harm that you may cause or allow to be caused to yoursel and to others.
loweer, the society as a whole, has an een greater responsibility to reduce
as much suering as possible or each ellow being. 1his is a call or
15
compassion or the weak and the hurt, and justice or all. 1his is a calling
within human capacity and i responded to positiely, will make this world a
better place.
In addition, God has, out o lis compassion, made our lies relatiely
short so that we do not endure eil or long. Lach one o us has a limit on
how much we can tolerate. 1here is only so much we can take. 1he more
intense or unbearable the eil we experience, the shorter our lies. 1he
unbearable soon kills us. lurthermore, our ability to endure, resist and to
oercome eil is strengthened by the comorting thought that our time is
short, God is with us and that with lim, a hereater more enduring and
oreer blissul exists.
Differences in human experience and God's justice
I God is Good, you may ask, and we are supposed to be learning, why does
not eerybody enjoy or suer equally \hy do some people appear to lie
in aluence whereas other people lie miserable lies 1he answer lies in the
uniqueness o the person. \e could not all hae been born at the same time
to the same parents and subject to the same weather, upbringing,
weaknesses and opportunities. As we are born at dierent times, and raised
at dierent places under dierent conditions, our experiences must dier.
\ou are unique in time and space. So when you suer or enjoy things, you
do so uniquely. 1he question cannot thereore, be why can`t I enjoy mysel
like so and so oer there`, or you are not so and so and you are unlike
anybody else. As I hae already explained, your limitations make you the
unique person that you are. \hen you wish or another`s ortunes, you in
eect wish that you were that other person or that you were non-existent.
1his is a wish or death and that is an insult to your indiidual
personhood and also to the collectie purpose or our being on earth. \e
158
are born into this world to learn about the many possibilities o reality.
Learning is possible only because there are unique eents and experiences.
\our experiences oer unique educational perspecties to yoursel and to
those who know you. In turn, your neighbour`s unique experiences oer you
more educational possibilities. It would deeat the educational purpose and
the adantages o unique indiiduality to hae eerybody subject to the same
experiences.
It is true that some people appear to suer more than others, but the
act is that eeryone suers in their own way and none o us is wronged in
the least. 1he ultimate measure o success is with God. God does not
burden any person, nor does le make any demands upon any person
beyond his or her control. Lach person is judged uniquely according to his
or her unique circumstances. God treats the similarly situated, similarly
and the dierently situated, dierently. Lery diiculty that a person aces is
known to God and le takes this into account eery time in judging the
person. 1hose who hae more are expected to do more and are judged
accordingly. 1he more you are able to act, the more you are judged by your
actions. 1he less you are able to act, the less you are judged by your actions.
1hose who cannot run are judged by how ar they walk. 1hose who cannot
walk are judged by how ar they crawl and those who cannot een crawl are
judged by how much they wish to run or to walk or een crawl. \hen a
person is completely incapacitated as result o circumstances beyond his or
her control, that person is excused rom any human or moral responsibility
and becomes completely blameless. 1he blameless please God. 1he
consequence o that is that eery inoluntary handicap or diiculty opens
heaen`s doors to the person.
Despite the alue o suering as an educational possibility, to the extent
that we can minimize or remoe handicaps to moral choices, or to the
extent that we can minimize or remoe suering, we are obliged to remoe
159
them. Lerybody`s lie is unique and incomparable and thereore, equal to
eeryone else`s. As such, no one human being has the right to increase
another`s misery, or to restrict their moral choices without just cause. 1hose
who hurt others must be preented rom so doing at all times. It is needless
to say that rom our perspectie much suering is undesirable. 1hereore,
een though these are educational possibilities, we are not asked to blindly
seek ater things that make us suer. Rather, while the world has been set-
up in such a manner as to make exposure to the stupidity and eil o others
ineitable, we oten hae a choice as to the type o educational possibilities
that we wish to hae. And wheneer we hae a choice, the reasonable thing
to do is to maximize our exposure to less hurtul educational possibilities
and to minimize destructie educational possibilities. 1he incentie or so
doing or reraining rom the other is oten the practical consequence that
ollows rom choosing one way or the other. 1here are many things to
learn and there is not enough time to learn them all. Some things bring hurt
and lead to destruction, while other things bring goodness and health. Only
the unthinking and the oolish will indiscriminately expose themseles to
whateer possibilities on the basis that they are learning. 1he wise person is
required to choose what type o thing to learn wheneer possible to do so, in
order to minimize their hurts.
It is true that there is not much joy in sickness, broken dreams,
depriations, abuses, betrayals and wars. 1rue, much liing is illed with
sorrow. But look at the other side too. Not long ago, I walked past a little
park with many colourul trees. Scattered about on its ground were
uncountable leaes, some dead and many reshly allen. Close to where I
walked, many pigeons lew here and there in their little amilial groups,
seemingly undisturbed by the little children playing nearby. Up in the
heaens the blue sky seemed like a glorious tapestry, with its gentle clouds
gradually dispersing. As I looked on, cool winds rom nowhere blew past
160
and around me, sotly blending the pigeons, the leaes, the children and my
iew into one complex tapestry o a ibrant earthly amily. 1he ordinary
was, at once, extraordinary and ery impressie. I walked on but I could not
help but noticing how nice it was to be alie, to be able to see, to know and
to experience! 1he point is that much liing is illed with joy, or there
certainly is great joy in being alie and being a conscious witness to it. 1here
is joy in being with loed ones, there is joy in accomplishments, there is joy
in satisying needs, and, or the most part, what people need in order to
make their lies enjoyable are ood, shelter, basic health, caring companions
and the pursuit o meaningul goals. 1hankully, all these are within the
reach o human ability.
1o sum up then, God has gien us lies and placed us in a world that
allows us to experience pain and joy. le has gien us the opportunity to
learn and to accomplish things. God has also gien us the capacity to
increase our joy and decrease our pain. 1he best human qualities that we
hae and cherish, such as compassion, loe, courage and creatiity arise in
us only because we are born in a world with suering. 1o be born unto the
earth is to be gien a ery remarkable educational opportunity unparalleled
in its intensity and qualities and unobtainable anywhere else. 1he One who
has gien such an opportunity and the ability to lie, ree o charge, with
een a promise o greater and better worlds to come, cannot justiiably be
called bad. Certainly, God is not only Good, le is also Most Kind.
Chapter 5
Chapter 5
Contemporary Views
In Volume 1, we showed exactly how and why the unierse is made up o
only one type o particle in absolute space. \hat implications does this hae
on the question o the soul \hat is it and in the irst place does it een
exist And is there a solution to the mind and body problem O the seeral
iews on the issue o the mind,body problem, we shall discuss the three
main ones in connection with the model that has been deried in relation to
microbits. 1oday, we hae the three ba.ic positions, without getting into the
sub-categories:
1. Materiati.t.: \ho say that there is only the brain and no such thing as
mind.
2. Dvati.t.: \ho say that there is the brain and mind and these are o
two entirely dierent categories o things.
3. Proert, Dvati.t.: \ho say that the mind is an emergent property o
the brain and that they both interact with each other strongly.
1he solution to the mind,body problem we introduce in this chapter, its
into none o the aboe and deies all categories. But irst, let us examine
what the critics o the dualists hae to say as a preamble.
164
1he Physicalist 1rap
Philosopher o the mind, Patricia Churchland asks the ollowing questions
regarding the soul`, which she eels is problematic. Let us take these one by
one in order to show how the basic problems hae been resoled by the
microbit concept. Churchland states that:
On this hypothesis |o substance dualism|, no reduction o
psychological theory is orthcoming because the ormer is a
theory about states and processes o mind-substance, whereas
the latter is a theory about the states and processes o a
material substance, the brain. Lach substance is thought to
hae its own laws and its own range o properties, hence
research on the brain is not going to yield knowledge o the
mind and its dynamics, nor by parity o reasoning, will research
on the mind tell us anything about how the brain works.
2
1he unaailability o a solution to the manner o interaction
between two radically dierent substances does not entail that
substance dualism is alse. lor all we now know, urther
research may yet discoer a solution.
3
A staunch anti-dualist, philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his book
Cov.ciov.ve.. taivea, discusses the contrasting iews on the mind:
By thinking o our brains as inormation processing systems, we
2. Churchland, Patricia Smith, ,1989,, êvrobito.ob,: 1orara a |vifiea cievce
of tbe Miva,raiv, p. 318.
73. Ibid., p. 320.
The Human Mind and the Issue of the Soul
165
can gradually dispel the og and pick our way across the great
diide, discoering how it might be that our brains produce all
the phenomena. Our consciousness does not consist in the
act that your brain is inhabited by an inner agent to whom
your brain presents displays.
4
1he problem with Dennett`s iew is that the material that comprises the
brain is solely made o atoms and ultimately micobits ,or those that hae
not read Volume 1 o rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg, substitute the word
subatomic particles`, eery time you see the word microbits`,, and
microbits cannot generate consciousness, no matter how they are arranged,
at the most, re-organized or complexiied matter,energy can only produce
dierent and more sophisticated mechanical, electrical, photonic etc.
unctions. Indeed, whateer Dennett uses to explain the sel, will atra,.
remain a vvifiea covcetvat evtit, iv it. fvvctiovatit, that somehow acts in space to
command the body, whether he calls it multiple drats` or whateer.
lurthermore, his iew cannot explain subjectie experience, such as pain,
pleasure and countless phenomena experienced by the unchanging unity o
sel. Indeed, both philosophers o the mind and philosophically inclined
neuroscientists are at a loss to explain qvatia. Christo Koch, biologist and
cognitie scientist at Caltech in Pasdena, Caliornia remarks that:
It is true that there`s this deeply mysterious aspect o
consciousness that is subjectie eeling. \hy should physical
actiity in some subset o my brain gie rise to this buzz in the
head It`s a logical chasm. It`s non-sequitar.
5
4. Dennett, Daniel C. ,1991,, Cov.ciov.ve.. taivea, p. 433
5. CBC Radio, aea.: 1be Matter of Miva: Part. 1 ava 2. ,Aired in 2002,
166
1he problem with the thinking o many philosophers o science is that
they mistake correlation or causation, they assume that the brain gies rise
to the mind because o the correlation between brain processes and our
conscious reactions. All explanations that seek to show that the mind is the
product o the brain are trying to say that Leel 2 ,the mind, depends on and
is a result o the actiity o Leel 1 ,the nerous system,. loweer, the
actiity in Leel 1 is basically the motion o particles. Now no matter how
those particles are re-arranged and,or moe, they cannot create Leel 2.
Only physical unctionality is changed, that is all! 1he reason why een
quantum mechanics as the new physics or the urther adancement o
quantum mechanics will verer be able to sole the mind-body problem is
because it still deals with subatomic particles and is oreer trapped in Leel
1. 1his is what this I reer to as 1be Pb,.icati.t 1ra. Colin McGinn,
philosopher at Miami Uniersity comments that:
I do sympathize with |mathematical physicist| Roger
Penrose. I think his iew is a little too conseratie in a
way.|in that|.quantum theory applies to non-
psychological phenomena, non-conscious systems, so it`s
unlikely that it will gie you an account o conscious
systems.
6
lurthermore, indeterminism does not exist in the laws o nature. 1his
erroneous assumption is the result o assuming that reality is ormed by
perception and, as discussed in olume one o rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg., it
arose as a counter-reaction to mystical doctrines in the orm o Logical
76. Ibid. Also reer to two books on this subject by Colin McGinn ,see
bibliography,.
16
Positiism. Nothing special lies behind quantum mechanics in reality. Leel
1 comprises o atoms and subatomic particles, essentially in motion. As
stated aboe, a complex arrangement o motion gies nothing but a
mechanical,electrical,chemical,biological unction based on that
coniguration o complexity, and that complexity still remains in Leel 1. In
the mind-body problem, then, the obserer or witness always exists. 1hose
who look at the bottom-to-top solution o the mind emanating rom the
brain cannot proe that the particles that comprise the brain are the
obserers, taken collectiely, because no matter how complicated their
motion and interaction, they cannot rise aboe the category o being merely
the interaction o particles!
In this ein, the ollowing arguments o philosophers o the mind,
Patricia Churchland and John Searle are lawed, rom a number o angles,
which we shall now discuss in depth. lirstly Searle says that:
.we had this debate a century ago about lie.|e.g.| youè got
to hae a ital spirit`, an etav ritat. And now we can`t een
remember it.
1he analogies these philosophers are drawing to criticize dualism are

incorrect: 1he phenomena o light, which was puzzling a century ago, lay in
the explanation o Leel 1 - the motion o particles etc., to produce light.
1hose who could not understand light`, immediately jumped the gun` and
erroneously took light to be something that belonged to Leel 2. 1he issue
o ital spirit`, is more complicated, howeer: Although knowledge o DNA
etc. shows us what the building blocks o nature are, the physicalists proide
no ultimate explanation or what it is that causes the biological deelopment
. CBC Radio, aea.: 1be of Miva: Part. 1 ava 2. ,Aired in 2002,
168
o things, that is, what causes their precise motion to precise locations to
produce precise organisms or biological structures, or precise unctions. It
cannot be plausibly explained by chance ,i.e. no mind behind the process,
laws,! 1he criticisms spouted by Searle and Churchland, as a result, are
erroneous, or these thinkers take the inalid example o light and the
unresoled example o ital spirit. In act, explaining consciousness is a
dierent kettle o ish entirely, since it pertains to explaining qvatia, that
cannot be lumped with light or ital spirit.
Colin McGinn, had expressed the iew that a new physics` would be
needed to explain consciousness, which coincides with what we hae
expressed and explained in depth in the irst olume o this series:
Now the physics you`ll get there will presumably be ery
dierent rom the physics we hae now, because the physics
we hae now isn`t a theory o the conscious world at all. It`s a
theory o the non-conscious physical world. So whateer
physics` we hae which applies to consciousness will hae to
hae ery dierent laws and dierent principles, dierent
explanatory ideas i it`s going to account or the speciicity o
consciousness. But it seems to me that, yes, we do basically
need a new physics, that is to say, a new oerall theory o the
natural world.
8

Let us see how the iew being presented in this book soles the
mind,body problem through an entirely new physics`, and which also, in
the process, nulliies Patricia Churchland`s primary objection that Dualists
will hae a special problem with interpretation - namely, how to reconcile
8. CBC Radio, aea.: 1be Matter of Miva: Part. 1 ava 2. ,Aired in 2002,
169
the results with their conception o the mind or soul as a non-physical
substance in causal interaction with the nerous system.`
9
Microbits and absolute objectless space as a new overall view to
explain consciousness
\e can see that contemporary philosophers on the issue o the nature o
consciousness are considering only two basic approaches: either the
physicalistic approach or dualism. loweer, in this chapter, we claim that
the solution is neither. 1he mind is not made o any particles but is the
transocation o the objectless space o the consciousness o God. In
Chapter 1, M. Muslim proed the unierse to be the Imagination o God
and, as such, lis space. 1he solution to the mind-body problem is linked
directly and seamlessly to this proo. Once this proo is comprehended,
erer,tbivg else lows and one can easily see how and why human
consciousness can arise only as a result o and within another pre-existing
higher consciousness and that taking all undamental points into
consideration, this is the only possible solution. It is indeed impossible to
sole the consciousness problem unless the unique line o argument we are
presenting is understood and ollowed. lere is an analogy to see why: Let
us assume that there is an expert on bird light, he is also someone who has
neer seen any ish. le goes to an aquarium and in the distance he obseres
some ish loating`, according to him. le inds this singularly remarkable
because he notes that the aerodynamic design o ish is not commensurate
or sustained light. In other words, he does not realize that the ish are
ftoativg in water since he does not hae a notion o water associated with
9. Ibid., p. 180.
10
them. 1his water`, analogously speaking, is the all-perasie objectless
space o God ,God`s mind and being, rom whom our consciousness is
drawn and sustained, as a result o lis creatie will. God makes lis space
accessible to microbit based structures and, as such, these structures become
portals, as small wills. lurthermore, i God does not will lis space to be
accessible by microbitic structures, then no matter how they are organized,
such objects would not become sentient, or le is the one who, as it were,
empowers a character who le has created to see through eyes, hears
through ears and thinks thought, as an imagined inite creation within lis
ininiteness. But when le wills such accessibility, then such structures hae
to be orgaviea iv a articvtar ava reci.e ra, in absolute space to be a gateway
or the expression o limited intelligence-cum-consciousness. Such a process
is that which comprises fractiovatiatiov ,the ivitiatiov o creation o other sub-
wills within the \ill o God, and trav.focatiov ,the simultaneous .v.tevavce o
the wills into arious bodies that are comprised o particles as they become
portals or objectless space where the property o Intelligence lies,. In this
chapter, we shall explore and elaborate on this concept at greater length.
\e hae, thus ar, seen that as the particle based body interacts
with objectless space, hitherto deined, it is eused with consciousness,
which we called transocation. Consequentially, our new explanation is
indeed physicalist to a large extent, since we are saying that the body
becomes a content or consciousness, it gies the appearance o being the
solely the result in a particle comprised body. loweer, it is actually a portal
or objectless space, wherein resides the property o Intelligence and
Consciousness, as it is not the particles which really gie rise to
consciousness, but ractionalization and transocation within the space o
God, that is, o God`s mind. In reality, the materialists are correct in saying
that i the mind is in the brain or is an emergent phenomenon, and if body
and brain do indeed stop unctioning, then we shall cease to exist. loweer,
11
the problem, o the continuation o lie ater death, does not een arise
when we are dealing with consciousness being the property o space. Let us
explore this concept urther.
How exactly does consciousness/will arise?
I intelligence is a property o space, since we are in the Mind o God, and
God`s essence and being perades absolute objectless space since it i.
that space, then how exactly do other intelligences arise \hen a microbitic
,subatomic particle-based, structure is created and that body becomes
more complicated, as it deelops, it is able to become a portal o that
ultimate consciousness o the Creator that the Creator has willed to be
accessible to all creation within that space o lis consciousness. loweer,
the leel o consciousness depends on tbe teret of tbe orgavi.v`. biotogicat
covteit,. 1he biological body, in other words, interacts with objectless
space ,i.e. the mind o God, in a limited way and thereby gains limited
consciousness. In other terms, the biological object becomes conscious at a
certain stage and deelops a particularized personality o sel because it is
imagined to orm, as a creation and not pantheistically, rom the ultimate
will o God: indeed consciousness can only arise rom tbe Consciousness.
1his consciousness that sentient entities possess is vot part o God, because
God creates the biological object with lis imagination and as such it is lis
creation, or imagination is a orm o creation.
1he other important actor is that our consciousness is initialized in
terms o knowing its relation to the Creator. 1here are two analogies that
can be used to describe the generation o consciousness: a series o lutes o
dierent sizes are laid out in an extremely windy place - each one produces a
dierent sound, based on its complexity. It becomes conscious,
12
metaphorically, upon producing the sounds. Or yet another analogy:
molecules permeating space are accessed by the ocal chords, producing the
oice, dierent types o ocal chords produce dierent sounds, whilst being
in the same space. 1o know the consciousness`s relation to the Intelligence
,God, that created the orm within lis mind ,God`s mind,, there must be
some type o communication between God and the creator o that
consciousness - this is the initialization that God discusses in relation to
the creation o man, in the Quranic erse :12.
1he brain as switchgear: Why memory is not stored on carbon based
bodies
In order to realize what consciousness really is, let us examine a tiny
creature. 1here is a latworm worm called Ptavaria which, when its head is
cut-o, grows another head, and when its tail is cut o it produces another
tail - in act when it is cut in two, one gets growth rom both ends and you
get two new` Planaria. 1hese creatures break themseles up in order to
reproduce ,reproduction by ission,. Now when this type o experiment on
seering the Planaria was irst conducted in the 1960s by J.V. McConnell, it
was discoered that i this latworm is conditioned by exposing it to a light
source wherein there is a change in oerhead illumination designated by
Conditioned Stimulus ,CS,, ollowed by a weak electric shock, designated as
Unconditioned Stimulus ,UCS,, the worm contracts itsel in a longtitudinal
direction as a Conditioned Response ,CR,. Learning occurs when it
anticipates the shock beore it is gien and curls up, ater simply haing been
exposed to the CS. Now when the worm is cut up in hal, two worms are
produced: one with a new head, and the other with a new tail. \hen these
new worms are reconditioned, botb the new head` worm and the new tail`
13
worm appear to remember their preious conditioning: 1he worm with the
new head has retained a great detail o inormation`, something which was
not expected since the new head neer receied the initial conditioning.
80
Gien this anomalous situation, scientists hae speculated that the worm`s
memory is distributed throughout the body, since they beliee that the
molecules in terms o neurons, RNA or what hae you, could contain
memory in the orm o engrams or structures recorded somehow on the
biological components. loweer, these conjectures all lat with this
organism: 1he experiments on Planaria proe that memory is not stored
on neurons, because the neurons were in the brain part o the creature and
the brain was in the head, and the new head Planaria, that is, the one with
the head that had been amputated, neer receied any training,
conditioning. Indeed, the researcher in one o the latest studies, concludes -
in the report comes to a conclusion which is strikingly at odds with what is
generally considered to be the oicial position` o a purely materialistic
scientiic perspectie - that:
1he inding that organisms deried rom the anterior and
posterior regions or a trained organism retained the same
amount o memory was signiicant because it suggested the
hypothesis that memory is non-neural.
81
lurthermore, there is no proo or such storage o long-term memory and as
ar as short term memory goes, at the most, that which can be proen is that
80. 1he result o this recent experiment conirm the classic experiments
conducted in the 1960s.
81. Mueller, Caitlin 1., ,August 1, 2002,, 1be v.e of cta..icat covaitiovivg iv tavaria
to ivre.tigate a vovvevrat vevor, vecbavi.v.
http:,,www.drmichaellein.org,Planaria,prelimdata,CMueller.pd.
14
some type o thinking vtitie. certain parts o the brain or nerous system
and that these then change shape and orm connections etc. 1his
experiment, or indeed any other experiment so ar, does not proe that
memory is retained in the biological structures. Besides, i memory is stored
and the neurons,other cells and structures hypothesized or memory
storage, they are in a dynamic state o either disappearing or changing
shape, how do we, or example, retain ixed memories. As biochemist-cum-
philosopher, Rupert Sheldrake states:
Not only hae the hypothetical memory traces proed to be
spatially elusie, but their physical nature has also remained
obscure. 1he idea o speciic RNA memory molecules` was
ashionable in the 1960s but has now been more or less
abandoned. 1he theory o reerberating circuits o electrical
actiity . cannot explain long-term memory. . I memories
are somehow stored in synapses, then the synapses themseles
must remain stable oer long periods o time: indeed, the
nerous system as a whole must be stable i it is to act as a
memory store. Until recently this was generally assumed to be
the case . .
82
Sheldrake goes on to explain that the brain, in terms o the unctioning
o the nerous system, is more dynamical than once thought and he
highlights some experiments to illustrate this. Len at the molecular leel -
with the exception o DNA - as lrancis Crick points out, there is a turnoer
o molecules within a ew days, weeks and certainly no longer than a ew
82. Sheldrake, Rupert, ,1988,, 1be Pre.evce of tbe Pa.t: Morbic Re.ovav ce ava tbe
abit. of âtvre, pp. 165-166.
15
months.
83
Steen Rose, the world-renowned expert on research into
memory, states:

So was lebb right: is memory biochemical or synaptic But
this is where the paradoxes begin, for veitber iv tbe cbic/ vor iv
vavvat. aoe. tbe vevor, .ta,` rbere tbe ivitiat .,vatic cbavge. occvr.
I the speciic region o the changes in the chick brain is
remoed a ew hours ater the learning experience, the
memory surprisingly, is vot lost. |All emphasis is ours|.
84
Rose goes on to recount how a patient, whose hippocampus was remoed -
which is inoled with learning and memory - could remember eents o his
lie up to the time o the remoal o the structure, howeer, he could not
retain memories o immediately leeting eents and hence learn new things.
Keeping in mind the iew that is being adocated in this book regarding
consciousness: how can the Planaria`s behaiour be explained Are two
Planaria souls created by God upon cutting the worms in two lere is the
answer: Since the rbote body o the worm experiences the consciousness in
absolute space, or both the top and bottom hal o the worm, when it is cut
in two, then two worm personalities are created which, up to that point o
being cut, retain the same memories ,i.e. experience o preious
conditioning,. 1his is because both hales o the single worm which is cut
has more or less the same accessibility to the property o consciousness in
absolute objectless space, the brain merely being a switchgear to generate the
actiity o the senses o seeing, hearing etc. I a human being were cut in hal
and i the bottom hal produced a new torso and head and the top hal
83. Ibid. p. 16.
84. Rose, Stephen, ,2006,, 1be vtvre of tbe raiv: 1be Provi.e ava Perit. of
1ovorror`. êvro.cievce, p. 160.
16
sprouted new legs etc. then the new head` human would not remember
anything because the bottom hal o the body would not hae been
accessing the consciousness that is the inherent property o absolute
objectless space. 1he human body in other words is not symmetrical with
respect to such accessibility as is a creature such as Planaria due to the nature
o the structuring o the microbits.
Memory then, both short or long-term, is not stored in the brain. It is
not stored on or in any particle in this unierse. Ultimately, eerything that
has happened or will happen is indeed already written and exists in the mind
o God exactly as it happens or will happen to its minutest detail, but it is
only le who lets the sub-wills in lis mind access that which le wills. 1he
basic mechanism or this is the GRC as discussed in Chapter 6. General
human memory is a narrow and low leel access to the personal record
discussed in that chapter. 1he access to one`s personal ile in the record
depends on the ocus and what one pays attention to and i one has brain
damage to a particular area etc., such personal records cannot be built up,
and one only operates in the moment, with short-term memory. 1his is
because that particular part o the brain is responsible or accessing the
record and its malunctioning seers its connection with the record. 1he
continuous, albeit limited, access to the records is necessary or the notion
o sel-hood, learning and mental growth, accountability, and the ery
practicalities o liing. But how then does all o this explain qvatia
Lssentially, since all consciousness exists by the will o the diine
Consciousness within which it operates, the ultimate qvatia are witnessed
because they are imagined to be witnessed,experienced by the
Consciousness o God within each created and sustained consciousness.`
Chapter 6
General Rate of Consciousness
(GRC) and Reality

Chapter 6
General Rate of Consciousness
(GRC) and Reality
Part 1: Quantum Lights: Life as fractions of time
1be.e .tvvberivg vigbt. ta/e ve ri.over
Di, aaaaaaaaa
rov tev tbov.ava oev fieta.
1o tbe care. of arvv/ev .baaor.
O vi.cbierov. braiv:
tbovgbt ,ov rere v, frieva
Pra,, rbevce tbe.e vigbtvare..
bbbb, re.tte.. vet; rbat a circv.!
t`. beev aar/ iv bere for .o tovg
O .vv, rbere bare ,ov beev.
.ea/ tbe.e covvavaivg rora.
ô vet; vo vigbtvare.,
av tev tbov.ava oev fieta.
. vittiov ./ie. ara,!
Introduction
Lerybody knows what lie is. Apart rom our own lies, we see so much o
it eerywhere. Lie is abundant in eery corner o the earth. \et deining
what it means to be alie has eluded us or the longest time. 1he same goes
or consciousness. \e all hae it and yet you only hae to pick up a book on
the matter to see that the Doctors on the subject still do not agree as to what
consciousness is. In this chapter, I will show what lie is and how it can be
180
re-created. I will also explain what consciousness is and how it continues
throughout een ater death. 1he subject is complex. So, keep your best
thinking cap on. Please ollow me.
What is life?
1o answer this question we must irst see what lie is not. 1his calls or a
comprehensie reiew o reality. Reality consists o an ininity o space
85
and a number o things that we call matter. Matter is diisible into ery small
parts. 1hroughout this paper I shall reer to the smallest unit o matter as a
microbit`. Lery piece o matter is made up o a number o microbits. All
microbits are the same. Because eery thing is made up o microbits, the
barest units o matter are the same across all planes. One undamental
property o matter is that eery unit o it moes. 1he reason matter moes is
that eery unit o matter is limited. It is not possible or something to be
limited and to be completely at rest in itsel. Because to be limited is to be
moing or moeable, the irst deinition o being is motion. 1he important
thing about moement is that dierent things moe at dierent speeds. But
how, you ask, do things moe dierently, i they are all made up o the same
stu 1he answer is in their numbers. Lach unit o matter is made up o a
number o microbits. 1he speed at which an object, say a cell, moes is
directly proportional to the total number o microbits that make up the cell.
85. I do not subscribe to the deinitions o space as put orward by Descartes
and Linstein. lollowing Descartes iew o space as an extension`, Linstein
postulated a curature` o space. 1hese iews in eect deine space as an object or
a limited thing. 1his begs the question as to what it is that limits space. In any eent,
or those o you interested in the subject, you may read our Volume 1 o the rov
Microbit. 1o rer,tbivg series.
Quantum Lights
181
Under the same conditions, the less the number o microbits that make up
an object the aster the speed. 1he more the number o microbits in the
object the slower the object. 1he less the number o microbits in an eent,
the aster the eent. 1he more there is, the slower the eent. In the same
conditions eery thing is what it is because o its number and speed.
\heneer the same number o microbits is present as a unit, the same
unction shall be present. 1he reerse is true. As or the question o the
dierences in the qualities between things, apart rom quantities, they arise
as a result o positionings in space. I do not wish to be technical on
positioning except to say this. Lach composite microbit has a airectiov. It
is the directions that allow one thing to join with this and that in a itting
relationship. So, although we see ariety o things, the ariety does not come
rom the dierences in the material`. It is rather the dierences in
arrangement o the same material that gies us ariety o things. 1he
quantities and the positioning o microbits result in unctions and identities.
1he quantities and the positioning determine the speed and the capacities o
eery thing. Let`s call this speed` or short. 1he reason speed is critical is
that it is the means by which nature enables presence in time and space. I
you` are not doing anything at all, you do not exist. And what you are
doing determines where you are and who your neighbours may be. \hen
the speed o an eent changes signiicantly, its relationships also change. 1he
result is that tbat eent disappears. 1his means that in order to hae a stable
world like our own, nature has structured things so that the speed at which
things happen in any deined portion o space, must rigidly repeat. Only
when the speed o things repeat can we get the continuity that we call the
amiliar`. Because eery thing is repeating at a particular speed, the position
o eery recurring eent is ixed as a unique number and as a raction o
time.
Not only does speed account or ariety, it also makes all the dierence
182
in terms o neighbourliness. 1hose who are at the same speed are
neighbours, whereas those at dierent speeds are not. In terms o presence,
what you see depends upon what you are. And what you are depends upon
how ast or how slow you moe. Speed then is both identity and the glue
that holds things together. 1his makes sense because it is easy to see that
objects that moe at signiicantly dierent speeds cannot act as an organic
unit. 1o unction as one organic whole, all parts o a subject must moe at
the same rate.
1he real difference between the living and the dead
Now that we know how the world is set up let us see what the dierence is
between the dead and the liing. 1he dead hae all the properties o the
liing except one. In ordinary language, we say that something is dead when
it stops moing`. Interestingly, we also know that dead or alie, matter
itsel cannot be destroyed, at least not in this world. So ater death, we
should expect the matter that made up the so-called dead to be present in
one orm or another in space. But as I explained earlier, to be matter is to
moe. 1his must mean then that the microbits that originally made up the
body o the dead, continue to moe een ater the death o the organism. O
course, since these microbits are no longer bound together as one body, they
eentually scatter. Because the microbits that ormed the body o the dead
continue to moe howeer, we must reise our notion o death then to say
that to die is not so much a total cessation o motion as much as it is
cessation o motion at a girev .eea. In other words, the dead are not so much
still, as much as they are, as covarea to the liing. Death then is relatie.
Death is a relatie type o cessation, much like what happens when the
slowest runner disappears` rom the iew o the astest runner. Because
both the dead and the liing are made o the same stu and also because
Quantum Lights
183
both the dead and the liing are moing, the clearest, and the only
dierence, between the dead and the liing is in their dierent speeds o
motion. \e say that something has died when the speed at which it was
preiously moing, changes. Conersely, the dead can become alie i the
speed at which they were preiously traelling changes into the speed at
which the liing moe. 1his is the undamental dierence between lie and
death: speed.
I you think that the oregoing is ar etched, ask yoursel how it can be
that the liing can munch on the so-called dead and hae lie rom them I
the dead were completely dierent rom the liing, how come meat gies us
lie \hat we call liing tissue is no more than consumed dead` tissue.
\hat happens when we eat is that the so-called dead meat is re absorbed
into our stream at the speed o the liing. 1his is how lie continues. But
then i the dead are not really dead then what do we mean when we say that
something is dead
As I mentioned a short while ago, the only dierence between the dead
and the liing is that they do not moe at the same rate. In so ar as the liing
become dead` ater the liing`s rate o motion changes, it must ollow that
immediately ollowing death at least, the speed o the dead must be slower
than the speed at which the liing were beore the cessation. But in so ar as
the microbits that orm the dead` are neer destroyed and they neer stop
moing, what is destroyed when some thing dies, is not so much lie, as
much as it is lie as we perceie it. \hat is stopped` in the dead is the
repetition o the speed o the lie-unit.
1he speed' of life
Lie as we know it, like eerything else on earth, is organized at the speciic
speed o light. 1he speed o light is approximately three hundred thousand
kilometres per second. Lery cell, eery ly, eery animal and liing body
184
on earth moes at the bioluidic speed o light. I shall shortly explain what I
mean by biluidic`. 1he things that do not moe at the bioluidic speed o
light are those that we see as dead`. Because eery liing thing is organized
at the bioluidic speed o light, all lie orms on this planet contain photons
in their cellular processing. Light is lie. 1he building blocks o lie on earth
are light. 1his is so because light is critical to our lies. \e cannot warm
ourseles, see anything or do much without light. lurthermore, without
light, plants cannot lie. \ithout plants no animal, ish or humans can lie.
Beore we discuss the implications o all this in detail, please allow me to
explain the type o motion that is required or lie. 1here are two kinds o
motions in reality. 1hese are bioftviaic and geoftviaic. I you can think o an
organism as a number o parts, the bioluidic motion is the moement o the
parts within the organism. 1his type o motion is ibratory or pulsatie
86
. It
inoles the repetition o the rate o rest within the same space. 1his
moement is like music beats. 1here is moement in time but not rom
place to place. 1he geoluid motion, howeer, is the motion o the whole
lie-unit rom place to place. 1he moement o the parts o an organism
bioluidically is the only thing that gies the whole organism presence or
time. Now it is necessary that things moe this way, because nature has no
other way o maintaining continuity o actiities except through their
reetitiov. 1hink o lie as an actiity in space. 1here are o course, dierent
kinds o actiities. But all that lie is just an actiity in time. Let`s call this a
beat or short. 1his beat can be counted as a distinct rame in time so that
the number o beats in, say, a second can be counted. In order to continue
liing, this beat must repeat. 1here cannot be too much o a gap between
one beat and the next. I the beat is lie, not beating is death. It is thus not
eicient or a beat to occur or say a second and then not beat or another
second. lor continuous liing, it is best that the rate o repetition be ery
86. In rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg, 1otvve 1, by Muslim and laque, the
pulsatie motion o the photon is described in detail. 1his new iew o the photon
also resoles the wae,particle paradox o this particle.
Quantum Lights
185
ast so that there will be the least gap or rest between them. In our case,
what this works out in practice is that we are beating a number o times
equal to three hundred thousand kilometres times per second. 1his is ery
ast. It is this ast repetition o our lie-actiity that gies us a sense o being
alie all the time.
Lifeness
So ar, we hae seen that in order to hae lie on earth we need bioluidic
motions at the speed o light. 1he question is: is this enough to create lie or
is there more Another way o looking at the same issue is to ask whether
the photons are alie since they moe bioluidically at the speed o light In
order to answer this we hae to make a distinction between lieness` and
the unctions that a particular organism may hae because o its parts or
diisions. \hat is lieness \hat is the primary characteristic o the liing
On the earth, the simplest deinition o lieness is the ability to eed and
to reproduce. As a matter o necessity, howeer, it cannot be said that all
liing things need to eed and reproduce. An organism needs to be alie
beore it eeds. \e can imagine an organism that does not need to eat or that
lies or only a short period and then dies. 1he need or ood and
reproduction is the result o the particular limitations and capacities that
nature has placed on lie on earth. But that does not mean that all lie orms
need to eat and reproduce. 1here is a uniersal deinition o lie or all
possible rames o existence. \hateer the uniersal actually is, our lies
must also partake in it. 1he particular is always a part o the uniersal. 1his
takes us back to the beginning. \hat is lieness I lie is not necessarily
drinking, eating, sleeping and haing babies, then what do all lie orms hae
in common
186
Is awareness the same as life?
Some people might reply that lieness is sel-awareness and that i you are
not conscious that you are alie, then you are not alie. 1he problem with
this is that nobody would deny that the plants, or example, are alie and yet,
how can we proe that each has an awareness o itsel No one has proed
that the simplest proteins or cells, or example, are aware o themseles.
Besides, it is possible to hae a liing thing that is permanently in a coma. A
human being that is in a coma is alie een though he or she may not be
aware o himsel or hersel. Awareness is a unction o many unctions,
including the senses and the existence o others in order to enable the idea
o the sel as apart rom others. But all these unctions do not deine lie
itsel. 1he ability to be aware o onesel and o others is the result o ery
speciic unctions in lie. It is possible to be simply alie and not hae any
o the senses or organs o perception. It cannot thereore, be said that being
aware o onesel is critical to lieness. Across all possible existences, what all
lie orms hae in common is presence. It does not matter what orm a lie
takes, you cannot be alie i you are not present. lere, I am reerring to a
distinct or special type o presence. It is that presence that is lie. But lie is
no more than a gien actiity in time. lence, when I talk about presence, it
is the same as saying that lie is continuing actiities. Not eery actiity,
howeer, is lie. So, in order to make things easier, we irst need to
understand time.
1he simplest deinition o time is actiity or motion. A second is time.
But so too is one millionth o a second. 1he problem is that each unit o
time can be diided into urther smaller ractions so that we can hae one
billionth, one trillionth and one zillionth o a second and so orth. Now just
as there are endless ractions o time, so too are there endless ractions o
speed. Some actiities can be so ast that a trillion o them can take place in,
say, a second. O course, some are so slow that een a second is not enough
or one o such actiity to occur. 1he short o it is that there is relatiity o
Quantum Lights
18
time and relatiity o speed.
As I said earlier, howeer, only things that moe substantially at the
same speed stay together. Nature`s way o enabling presence or lie is to ix
a General Rate o Presence ,GRP, or eery deined unierse. \hat this
GRP means is that or eery gien unierse, there is a speed that constitutes
the maximum or the norm or the undamental structures that make up what
we call the unierse. \ou can think o this as the protocol, the standard, the
container, border or the medium in which all things take place in a particular
unierse. 1his GRP is also the thing that sets one unierse apart rom
another. 1here is a ery sound logic behind this arrangement. Unless you set
a standard or a gien unierse, you cannot hae dierence, ariety, stability,
amiliarity and neighbourliness. 1his is why nature set up the GRP. 1hink
about it and you can see how brilliant the set up is.
Since time is a number o motions, think o maximum presence as the
astest possible repeating actiity, or as the most endless actiities in the
shortest moment. Lach GRP is a raction o this presence. As dierent
unierses hae dierent GRPs, it ollows that some hae more presence
than others. Dierent unierses hae dierent GRPs so that their time or
presence would be dierent rom ours. 1he GRP o any gien unierse
gies it, it. presence or its now`. 1he consequence is that not only would
lie orms dier rom unierse to unierse, but also, what we call presence`
is relatie. Our now` or een our uture` may not be so at all or those
with dierent GRPs.
In order to be alie, the core o eery organism must be at par with its
GRP. Any thing less than the GRP makes the subject less present or absent
in time. 1his absence is death. \hen the organism is at par with its GRP, the
organism becomes tive in that particular unierse. As time, the organism is at
the same leel as the building blocks o its unierse. It is present. As time,
the organism is constantly` present in that unierse. It is this constant
presence o the make up o an organism that makes it alie. Lie is constant
presence o the same actiity without let. Note, howeer, that the constancy
188
must be at par with time itsel so that the lie unit must beat at the same rate
as the beat o time in that GRP.
We are fractions of time
\hen the speed o an actiity is at par with time, it becomes time. So,
another way o looking at lie is to say that tife i. tive ritb a forv. Or that lie is
time made maniest. Liing things then are no more than ractionalized time.
\e are all ractions o time. \hat this means is that contrary to what people
beliee, the lie orce is not in` you. 1he lie orce is a uniersal, indiisible
quality o which you orm a part or a little while. One important thing to
remember is that een though the GRP is the maximum in any unierse, it is
obious that all sorts o lesser speeds are possible in that unierse. It is only
when an actiity reaches a gien GRP that it becomes alie in that zone.
1hereore, death is no more than the de-acceleration o a lie unit rom a
gien GRP. Birth is the acceleration o matter to a gien GRP.
Being alie, howeer, is one thing. 1he ability do anything with that lie
is quite another. Continuity o lie is maintained by reetitiov o the beat. I
the beat does not repeat at the same GRP, lie ceases. It is the continuity o
the beat at par with the GRP that gies us the continuity o lie. In our world
or instance, nature achiees continuity through continuous supply o energy
by way o light ,or plants, and ood or all others. Lach unit o energy is
timed to replace the one as soon as it is spent so that there can be no
interruption in the beat at the GRP. 1he whole thing is a clockwork.
GRCs
One signiicant characteristic o GRPs is that they can be calculated
mathematically. In the uture, this would allow or communication and or
Quantum Lights
189
moement between planes. But I digress. Related to the GRP is the General
Rate o Consciousness ,GRC,. 1he GRC is o the same speed as the GRP
except that the GRC is only concerned with awareness or perception. As I
said earlier, not eery liing thing needs to hae awareness. So, the GRC
aects only those organisms that are wired in such a way as to hae
consciousness. Just as our lies are based on the GRP, so too are all abilities
to be aware, based on the GRC. Because our GRP is the bioluidic speed o
light, our GRC is also organized at the speed o light.
In organizing our lies at the bioluidic speed o light, nature also
organized our perception at the same speed. 1here is a unity o being. It
does not make sense or the lie o the organism to be organized at the speed
o light and or the perception o the same organism to be organized at a
signiicantly dierent speed. Because eery liing orm in our world is
organized at the speed o light, this orces all o organisms to be together in
the same time rame and to be capable o sensing and being able to relate to
one another.
1his GRC is the same or eery liing thing on earth. Lery person is
aware o eents up to a maximum o his or her GRC. \hat this means is
that we can be aware o anything that moes at a rate that ranges rom 100
percent to 1 percent o our GRC. Anything below 1 percent or oer 100
percent o our GRC escapes our attention and does not ordinarily exist or
us. Like perceies like. \hile the GRC enables us to be conscious o those
like us, what we can actually be aware o depends upon how many unctions
we are. lor instance, i you do not hae eyes, you cannot be aware o things
that require eyes. I you do not hae wings you cannot partake in actiities
that require wings.
190
1he Mechanics of Consciousness: When GRP = GRC
1he consciousness o eery person depends upon and is organized around
our things. lirst, presence as a raction o time. 1his, as I hae explained, is
achieed by continuity o motion at par with the GRP. Second, the capacity
to receie or collect inormation rom within or outside o onesel. 1his is a
unction o receptacles or organs that can collect or receie inormation.
1hird, the ability to process the inormation so as to be able to recognize
and name them. And ourth, memory. 1he ability to process inormation
depends upon memory and it is indeed, a subset o the unctions o
memory. \ithout memory, we are unable to recognize, identiy and to name
things.
1hus, apart rom presence as time, the most important ingredient o
consciousness is memory. 1here are two kinds o memories. 1here is general
memory and particular memory, or objectie memory and subjectie
memory. 1he general memory is the memory o time itsel, or o the gien
GRC. 1his memory exists independent o your indiidual memory. \ou
must know that i you are alie because you moe at par with time, then
naturally, time is itsel alie as well, and this time is also aware. lor i time
could not be alie or conscious, you being a raction o time, could neer be
aware or conscious. But this subject requires details which requires urther
treatment that will be elaborated upon, hopeully, in uture works.
In the sense that eerything is in motion in this unierse, eerything has
its own innate presence. loweer, this presence does not necessarily equate
with consciousness, but with the potentiality or consciousness. lor
consciousness, one needs bioluidic motion at the speed o lie, organized in
the body o the subject in a particular way, as it is, or example, exhibited in
the nerous system through which the bioluidic moement occurs, o
organisms that possess memory and can communicate in their own ways.
lor such creatures, the maximum rate o their GRP ~GRC. A door nail,
gases etc. are in motion at the macro, and,or subatomic leel, but they do
Quantum Lights
191
not hae the requisite bioluidic moement and their GRP alls short o
GRC. loweer, i their constituent microbits were to be reorganized, een
or an instant so as to be able to generate the requisite bioluidic motion,
they would become conscious. ,1his, or example, is illustrated in the Quran
in 41:11,.
Universal IDs
1he remarkable thing about eery thing being run according to numbers is
that eery person or eent can be gien an ID number. lor human beings,
the identiication number o the indiidual can be calculated as a actor o
the date, time and place o birth o the person. 1hus, by way o an example,
where 1` stands or the speed o light, a person on the earth can be
identiied, or example, as 1-10,13,2000-18:00-123456. lor completeness,
ater the death o the person, this number can be extended to include the
date, place and time o death. 1his is how earthlings and all others are
recorded in God`s Book o numbers.
1he discontinuity of consciousness
In addition to the aboe, another way to know that our perception is also
organized at the speed o light is this. Light is a series o on and os. Lery
thing that moes must rest. 1he rests are the os` o light. I our GRC were
aster than that o light, then in any gien moment, our awareness would be
on beore light came on. 1his would mean that we would see the os` o
light. In eect, we would not see light all the time, but we would see light as
rames going on and o. Conersely, i light moed aster than our GRC,
then we would not see any os` or darkness but by the same token we
would not see any light either. 1his is because i the speed o light were
192
aster than our GRC, our times would neer meet. \heneer light was on,
our perception would be o. 1o make things clearer, you can imagine light
as a baton runner. 1he point at which consciousness meets with light is the
exchange o the baton. I our GRC were at a dierent speed than that o
light, then wheneer light was ready to gie us the baton, we would not be
there. \e could neer meet. \e are aware o light. 1hereore, it ollows that
our perception moes at the same rate as that o the speed o light. It is
necessary or our GRP and GRC to be at the speed o light in order or us to
be able process light and to use same. Because we are at par, wheneer light
is o we are o and wheneer it is on, we are on. Because we are always on
at the same time as light or because, we are light, this gies us the sense that
light is neer o. \heneer you trael at the same speed as another, both o
you appear to be resting. It is that simple. I you lied on another planet
where light was not that important, you probably would not need to moe at
the speed o light in order to be alie.
1he speed o things can be both a capacity and a limitation. It is the
GRP that enables the birth, presence and continuity o a ariety o persons
and o eents in an otherwise uniorm microbitic world. \hat the speed
does is to make us capties` or naties o a certain place. It is the GRP
that gies rise to the notion o a place` or sel in an otherwise placeless and
selless unierse. O course, you are not alone in there and by irtue o your
locked position, you meet others regularly and are able to know and to do
stu with them. I you were not locked in by your GRP, the world would
hae had no stability and thereore, no sense o sel or o knowledge and
orderly relationships. 1he speed o being and o perception is thereore, the
great God`s building blocks o entire unierses.
GRCs and the relativity of the present
It is true that our perception appears to be constant. \e ordinarily think that
we are present all the time. But this is not so at all. In truth, because o our
Quantum Lights
193
GRC, our awareness ades in and out, on and o, in 1s and 0s. Our
perception is not constant, but discontinuous rom moment to moment.
1he sense o constancy o things that we all hae, arises as a result o the
unity o the speed o the things that surround us. All the things that we are
aware o all within our rate o consciousness. Because we all moe at the
same rate, the spaces between us remain unchanged. It is this
unchangingess` in the spaces within and between us that gie us our sense
o constancy. \e do not notice things that moe outside o our GRC or the
ery reason that we neer meet. \our GRC is your ixed portion o presence
as compared to an ininity o possible presences. \hat you are able to
perceie and or how long, depends upon how much you can be on within
the least amount o time.
\ou can think o time as the maximum speed possible ,ininity,. 1hen
think o a particular GRC as a raction o this ininity. 1he greater the
raction, the more you can perceie in time. 1he lesser the raction, the less
you perceie in time. 1he result is that een though time is present as a
possibility o endless rames extending rom the past, the present and to so-
called uture at ovce, our GRC orces us to see only one rame. 1his makes
us one dimensional. 1his is good or our kind o world. It is ignorance o the
past and o the uture that oten makes attentieness on the present`
possible. Our GRC leads to the exclusiity o our awareness on our
ractionalized rame. 1his rame can be mathematically expressed as a
unique number within ininity. 1his is what re call the present. But as a
raction o ininity our presence is no more present than a cup o water in
the ocean. 1his is the only way in which the relatiity o time can be properly
understood. It is possible organize dierent GRCs and GRPs so that or
example, our past, uture and present can be a raction o the presence o a
gien person. lor these types o beings, all that we are and would be are
present to them at once.
I hae argued that lie on earth is the motion o matter at the speed o
light. Lie as we know is it bioluidic moement at the speed o light. 1he
194
dead are those who cease to moe at the speed o light. Both our lies and
consciousness are arranged at the speed o light. 1his makes sense, or we
need light or eerything on earth. 1his realization does lead to a greater
understanding about the real nature o consciousness, which we shall now
dele into urther.
Consciousness as a property of space
1he particular consciousness or experiences that we hae as human beings is
shaped by our brains and bodies. But consciousness as a whole is
independent o brains and bodies. It is space that is conscious. \e come
conscious when we come into space and become portions o this space.
\hat is important to remember is that no particular number o microbitic
arrangements is required in order to be conscious. It is only necessary that
you be present in space in order to hae the potential or consciousness.
\hen I say that consciousness is space, I mean by that all portions and parts
o space are conscious. So, when we are born, into space, we are
automatically born into consciousness. loweer, what you become aware
o, depends upon what you are. laing a brain gies you a particular
awareness. But you do not need a brain in order to be conscious. Gien that
it is space, but not the brain that gies us consciousness, not haing a brain,
does not necessarily makes you unconscious. Not haing a brain gies
you a brainless consciousness. O course, in our present condition, you will
neer know how it eels like to be without a brain. But that does not mean
that thereore, brainless objects hae no consciousness. I will get into more
detail about this below. lor now though, what is important is that the reason
we are able to personalize our awareness and claim it as I` is the ullness
that a particular presence brings to a particular portion o space. Let me
explain. Imagine a conscious space beore our births. Let us call this space
empty` or the sake o conenience. 1he type o consciousness that this
Quantum Lights
195
space possesses is solely that o itsel or o the emptiness. It is the presence
o things that result in diisions. \here there is no thing or eent, there is
unity. 1hus, pre-time or pre-eents consciousness is undiided and hence
one. Also, it is passage o eents that gie rise to pasts and utures. So, since
this space has no eents in pre-time it does not allow or the possibility o
past and uture. Now wheneer an eent is born, it necessarily occupies a
portion o space equal to its limits, number, capacity, extension or unction.
Gien that eery portion o space is conscious, that portion o space that the
eent occupies is also conscious. \ith the presence o the eent, the
preiously empty` portion becomes illed to the extent o the eent. \hat
we call the person or the indiidual or the sense o I` is born, when the
gien portion o space becomes exclusiely occupied with the repeating or
continuing actiity o what we call the body. \ou can see then that should
the attentieness o awareness on a gien body break or one reason or
another, the person would no longer be conscious o himsel or hersel. It is
this perect ixation o attention or perect link between consciousness and a
particular eent that enables the ractionalization o the otherwise uniersal
or indiisible consciousness. 1he diide is the body or eent. It necessarily
results in the priatization` o the public` space. It is also this perect
ixation o attention on a particular eent that gies rise to the multiplicity
o times in an otherwise indiisible unity o presence. In act, it is this
priate` sphere that we call the person.
1he whole process o the relationship between consciousness and
eents is akin to acting. But here, it is more serious, more perect in a sense
o necessity. It is only the perect possession or ownership o gien body by
a portion o space that can enable the unity that we call a conscious body.
Obiously, that portion o consciousness that now reers to I` existed
beore the body was born. And naturally, when the body dies, the
consciousness still remains as a portion o space. In between, howeer, this
preiously eentless` consciousness gets to be or hae a body. Gien that
the body is temporary, it must ollow that this type o consciousness is also
196
temporary. 1he interesting thing is that ater the birth o the body, space
changes oreer. lor when the body is no more, still, what the body did,
remains in the memory` o the portion o space that the body occupied. I
you are not clear about this, think o the portion o space that the body
occupies as time. Let us say that a person lies or 40 years. Now assume
that time is conscious so that eery moment or raction o this time
remembers eery thing that you did in that moment. I you look at it
rom this angle, you can easily see how it is that een when the person is no
more, the person remains in time. 1he birth o the body and its resulting
eents, oreer change the contents o the consciousness o space. I you
can think o space as a wall, births are paintings. 1hey leae permanent
portraits in these walls. 1his is one o the acets o immortality. I will discuss
this in more detail later.
Proving that consciousness is independent of matter
low, you ask, do we know that consciousness is a property o space As I
write, there are at present billions o human beings, ish, birds, insects and
animals on earth. Lery one o these beings is conscious at the same time.
But each species is made up o a dierent quantity o microbits.
Compare. And certainly, when it comes to the brain, dierent species hae
dierent brains. So, i consciousness were a property o the brain, then only
those with the same or similar brains should hae it. 1hose with dierent
brains should hae dierent consciousnesses. But there is no such thing as
dierent consciousness. In reality, there are endless arrangements o
microbits. 1he numbers dier greatly rom species to species and rom one
unierse to the other. \et, all beings that hae bioluidic motions, regardless
o how many or how ew microbits they are, can be equally aware or present
proided that they hae the same GRC. Granted that some beings are more
complex than others, still, complexity is not the deinition o awareness.
Quantum Lights
19
Complexities are accessories to lie. In this world, the being that is only
milligram in weight is no less aware or present than the being that is a billion
kilos in weight. Consciousness, like time, or presence, is the same or
eeryone, pea-brain or not. In addition, there are other lie orms that do not
hae heads with brains in them like ours and yet they too are conscious.
1his, thereore, necessarily means that consciousness does not depend upon
the brain or upon how big or small you are. 1he point, howeer is that i two
beings with dierent rates o motion or two beings with two dierent
quantities o microbits, can be equally conscious, then it must ollow that
consciousness does not arise rom any particular speed or any particular
quantity o matter. I consciousness were caused by, say, 1 speed o GRC or
conditional upon a certain quantity o matter, then those with 2 speed o
GRC should not be able to hae it. Continuing with the example, i
consciousness were ixed at say, 2 then those who are not 2, should not hae
it. But then i both 1 and 2 gie rise to the same consciousness then that
must mean that consciousness does not depend upon either 1 exclusiely or
on 2 exclusiely. 1his is because i consciousness were dependent upon any
number then only that number should gie rise to it and not two or more
dierent numbers. 1he act that in our example, 1 and 2 can cause the same
phenomenon shows that the phenomenon is not dependent on either 1 or 2.
But then i it is not dependent upon 1 or 2, it cannot be ixed at any other
number either. lor i any number other than 1 or 2 were the exclusie cause,
then neither 1 or 2 could hae caused it either. 1he act that dierent
arrangements o matter rom the small to the large exhibit consciousness,
thereore, proes that consciousness is not dependent on any particular
arrangement o matter. Now reality is made up o dierent arrangements o
matter and space. 1hereore, i the arrangements o microbits are not the
causes o consciousness, then the only other cause or consciousness must
be their presence in space. loweer, presence in space is just another way o
saying that it is space that gies them consciousness.
O course, one could argue that consciousness is not independent o
198
matter, but that simply, dierent numbers gie rise to the same
consciousness. But i so, then the numbers become irreleant or the
purpose o causation. Lery number is unique and i despite their
uniqueness, eery numerical arrangement o microbits rom 1 to ininity can
gie rise to the same thing, then we hae to moe beyond the numbers. In a
nutshell, awareness is neither dependent upon the number o microbits that
orm a lie-unit nor upon the speed o the microbits at any gien place.
Reality is made up o only numbers ,o microbits, and space. I, thereore,
the microbits do not gie rise to consciousness, then it must ollow that
consciousness must come rom space. Besides, it is more elegant that the
consciousness o all be one than to hae endless beings making up their
consciousnesses as they go. Unity o source gies us unity o world, unity o
communication and unity o experience. Gien that each person is unique, i
eery person made and carried his or her own consciousness, each
consciousness would be unique. 1his would not only be ugly rom a
system`s point o iew, it would pose an in incorrigible communications
problem. low do you propose that each unique consciousness could inent
the necessary language to communicate with the trillions and trillions o
other unique consciousnesses out there across countries, planets and
galaxies
Lxpanding the number and variety of the conscious
1he aboe has seeral consequences. lirst, all proided that it is arranged
bioluidically at a minimum o the speed o light, c, any number o things can
be conscious as we are. It does not matter what material that lie-unit is
made o. Len stones would think and speak i arranged properly. \hile the
contents o consciousness may be unique, according to the eents taking
place in there, consciousness itsel, like presence, is not unique. It is the
same across reality. Second, consciousness itsel, does not rise and all like
Quantum Lights
199
the eents that are the contents o consciousness. Because consciousness is
space, it is capable o aligning itsel with endless speed possibilities o
microbits rom the slowest to the astest. Because eents are dierent rom
space, what happens to eents does not necessarily happen to
consciousness. 1hat is to say, that when the eent that orms the contents o
a particular portion o consciousness stops, consciousness does not hae to
stop with it, and does not, in act, stop.
As I mentioned briely, the person is born when consciousness takes the
orm o the actiities o the body within its presence and ocuses on them
exclusiely to the point that it becomes one with the body. \ou may think o
consciousness as a perect actor. It completely identiies itsel with the
eents in its presence by ocusing on them to the exclusion o all else.
On the issue of the Self
As you know, no two persons can occupy the same position at the same
time. Lery person`s birth, position and capacities in space are unique. Also,
the ariety o circumstances is such that although we all lie in the same
world we do not usually hae the same experiences. Len when we
share the same things, the uniqueness o the person is such that all
experiences get iltered, and reality presents itsel uniquely to eeryone.
lor eery one o us, our identity as a person is maintained by the ixity o
our GRC and the uniqueness o our positions in time. Also, as I mentioned
earlier, the actiities o eery person rom the date o birth to death can be
traced as a number. So, in theory, it should be possible to trace eery step o
the person.
200
Self as body (SAB) model
1here are two iews o the sel. One iew is that the sel is the result o the
total actiities o the body at any gien time. According to this iew, the sel
is not an independent quality separate and apart rom the works o the body.
But it is simply the body at work. As long as there is a liing body, there is a
sel. \hen the body dies, the sel too dies. I this iew is true, then death is
the end o the human being. 1he only way to regain the sel, ollowing death
on earth would be a regrouping o microbits exactly as they were beore. But
een i rebirth were possible, the same indiidual could not be duplicated.
1his is because the indiidual is not only a product o a gien GRC but also
the person is a product o a gien time, place and ortunes o birth. Since
time and circumstances are unique the same experiences cannot be
duplicated. 1hereore, i the sel were the actiities o body, none o us
could eer return as we are. 1his iew then shatters all dreams o another
lie. But is it true
Self as Driver (SAD) model
An alternatie iew to the aboe, is that the sel is not the actiity o the
body but that it is separate and apart rom it. According to this iew, the sel
and the body exist in a relationship that is much like that o a drier in a car.
\hen the body is actie, the sel is the director. But when the body breaks
down, the sel simply steps out and continues elsewhere. Let us explore this
model. I the sel is separate and apart rom the actiities o the body, it
must either be inside or outside the body. Let us irst discuss the possibility
o the sel being outside the body.
Quantum Lights
201
1he Self Outside the Body model
I each person has his or her own sel, then logically, the sel must be
limited. I it is limited, then the sel must be made o microbits. I this
microbitic sel is not inside the body but external to it, the problem is that
being outside the body, these microbits must moe at a speed that is ar
greater than that o the body. 1hings that moe at dierent speeds do not
stick together. \hether as one or as many microbits, thereore, i the
mircobitic sel were outside the body, we would hae a situation where,
because o the dierences in their speed and thereore, time, the sel could
be on Mars or example, while the body could be in Mecca. lurthermore, i
the sel were outside the body, gien that its GRC would be aster or higher
than that o body, we would hae a situation where it could be conscious o
eents taking place at a higher GRC while being simultaneously conscious o
eents at our GRC. 1he sel would thus hae multiple consciousnesses and
be two or more dierent beings at once. Clearly, not only do we not hae
multiple consciousnesses, it is unnecessarily messy. 1his would also be a
negation o the indiidual and or that matter o moral, legal, intellectual and
spiritual responsibility.
1he Self Inside the Body model
Let us suppose or a moment that the sel is in the body. As discussed
earlier, i there is a sel inside, it should be dierent than the rest o the cells
that make up the body. 1he reason why the cells moe at their GRC is
because o the number o microbits in them. 1he cells are multiplications o
microbits. \e already know that in order or two or more things to be
together, they hae to moe at the same speed. Clearly then, in order or the
microbitic sel to be in the body, it too must moe at the same speed as the
cells. 1he problem, howeer, is that the sel cannot moe at the speed o a
202
cell unless it is a cell. But a cell is a cell is a cell. \e know that conception
begins with cells rom parents. I there is a mircobitic sel, it must already be
a part o these oundational cells. I it is a cell, it is simply a cell. It is no
dierent rom any other cell. Lery minute or so, billions o these cells are
spilled around the world without consequence. On the other hand, i the
sel is not a part o the cells that orm the embryo, then it is impossible to
see how it needs to be a cell in order to run the body and yet it does not
orm a part o the cells that make up the body. In addition, cells die rom
time to time. 1he new ones that go into the body are the cells o other liing
things that we consume as ood. No cell orms a part o the human body
that is not rom a parent or rom ood. I there is a microbitic sel then it
must come rom ood or rom the parents. lirst, i it is rom ood or rom
the parents, its speed must be that o its parents and hence no aster than
that o the parents. Second, whether rom parents or rom ood, i there is a
microbitic sel, it must be capable o being identiied in the body as an
irreplaceable and undying group o cells. lor how can it be in charge i it dies
while the body is still running I am not at all discounting the possibility o
permanent cells. But whether it is permanent or temporary, i the sel is a
part o the body, it is the body. \hether or not they are the building blocks
that hold the entire structure together, oundational stones are still stones.
So, i the sel is inside the body, this leads us to a position that is not
dierent rom that o those who say that the body is all that there is. But let
us assume or a moment that there is a permanent group o cells that orm
the sel and this automatically passes on. In this respect, i it is the sel that
gies lie, or i lie depends upon the presence o this sel, then all lie orms
should hae it too.
1here is an een more intractable problem with this model. It is this.
1his model tends to disproe that which it seeks to proe. luman
consciousness is what it is because o our unique GRC. So, i we are orced
to conclude that the sel is made rom some microbits, then upon cessation
o motion at our present speed, the human consciousness must cease. I it is
Quantum Lights
203
said that the sel continues ater death, the rate at which this sel moes,
independent o the body, must necessarily be dierent. 1his would mean
that the sel that continues post-death, does not and cannot hae human
consciousness. 1his necessarily gies rise to discontinuity o the person. Or
in other words, permanent death.
Self as Space (SAS) model
I you hae ollowed this paper careully, it is clear that the answer to the
question o sel was already sel eident when I explained that consciousness
is a property o space. I we deine ourseles by our consciousness and
consciousness is space, then naturally, we are portions o space. But don`t
worry. It works, so it does not matter where the sel is. At the end o the day
though, nobody cares so much about the sel as much as we care about
continuity. 1he question is not whether there is a sel but whether we can
continue to be alie and be as conscious as we are, preerably i not in a
better world, in a place that is no worse o than here. But is there
continuity o lie rom here
Death as an opportunity for a different GRC
\e hae already seen that consciousness does not die since it is a property
o space. \e hae also seen that the microbits that orm the body do not die
and continue to moe een ollowing death. But the question is whether we
can still be conscious o our persons when the body is no longer there. 1he
answer is yes. But or this, we hae to turn again to the GRC. \hen the
person is alie, his or her actiities are like drops o water into the cup o
consciousness. As long as the person is actie, he continues to drip, one
drop at a time. Lery drop remains in the cup o this consciousness. \hile
204
the person is the drop beore it drips, he or she is also those drops that hae
already dripped. On the person`s last breath, all that happens is that he or
she stops dripping. But the drops in the cup that are already me, remain as
they must. All that has happened at my death is that the opportunity or
more drips has ceased. But that opportunity was always uturistic and neer
actual anyway, until the drip occurred. But beore eery drip, I was. It is
always this historical I` that is you. So when because o death, there is no
new drip, that should not erase the you` that was beore the opportunity
or more.
Let me elaborate urther. \our body repeats its motions rom presence
to presence. But you know that you are not just this motion in this second
only. \ou are all those years. So, i the motions o the microbits in this
minute were your consciousness and sel, then you should hae no more
than this second o awareness or sense o sel. 1he sel is historical. So, i
all you are is the present actiity, where is the continuity coming rom 1he
act that the sel is necessarily historical, shows then that your consciousness
extends beyond the present actiities or quantities o microbits. Again, since
reality is made up o only microbits and space, i you are more than the
present quantities o microbits, then you must be a portion o space.
1he body gies content to consciousness. 1he body is also necessary
or the continuity o experience and action on earth. But the body is not
necessary or the continuity o awareness itsel. Ater the actiities o a gien
body hae illed a certain portion o consciousness, the consciousness
retains the eents o the body and is thus able to maintain, as a minimum,
the sel as it was beore the body stopped moing. 1he past is what makes
the person. But death is the cessation o repetition and not the cessation o
the past. 1he past does not and cannot cease. \hat dies is the possibility o
more experiences and not the experiences themseles. In order or the
contents o consciousness to be emptied upon death, we must show that the
contents depend upon the continuity o the body and urther, that the
Quantum Lights
205
contents were no more than one item, to wit, one eent that was repeating
itsel rom moment to moment so that when that repetition stops, there
should be nothing let in the room o consciousness. lor i the historical
eents are present to consciousness, in addition to the actiities o the
repetition, then cessation o the repetition should not erase the historical
contents. 1his also means that it is not the person that dies but the
opportunity or more experiences.
GRCs and the relativity of the present
It is true that our perception appears to be constant. \e ordinarily think that
we are present all the time. But this is not so at all. In truth, because o our
GRC, our awareness ades in and out, on and o, in 1s and 0s. Our
perception is not constant, but discontinuous rom moment to moment.
1he sense o constancy o things that we all hae, arises as a result o the
unity o the speed o the things that surround us. All the things that we are
aware o, all within our rate o consciousness. Because we all moe at the
same rate, the spaces between us remain unchanged. It is this unchanging-
ness` in the spaces within and between us that gie us our sense o
constancy. \e do not notice things that moe outside o our GRC or the
ery reason that we neer meet. \our GRC is your ixed portion o presence
as compared to an ininity o possible presences. \hat you are able to
perceie and or how long, depends upon how much you can be on within
the least amount o time.
\ou can think o time as the maximum speed possible ,ininity,. 1hen
think o a particular GRC as a raction o this ininity. 1he greater the
raction, the more you can perceie in time. 1he lesser the raction, the less
you perceie in time. 1he result is that een though time is present as a
possibility o endless rames extending rom the past, the present and to so-
called uture at ovce, our GRC orces us to see only one rame. 1his makes us
206
one dimensional. 1his is good or our kind o world. It is ignorance o the
past and o the uture that oten makes attentieness on the present`
possible. Our GRC leads to the exclusiity o our awareness on our
ractionalized rame. 1his rame can be mathematically expressed as a
unique number within ininity. 1his is what re call the present. But as a
raction o ininity our presence is no more present than a cup o water in
the ocean. 1his is the only way in which the relatiity o time can be properly
understood. It is possible organize dierent GRCs and GRPs so that or
example, our past, uture and present can be a raction o the presence o a
gien person. lor these types o beings, all that we are and would be are
present to them at once.
I hae shown that ollowing death, consciousness must continue. But
een more so, death proides an opportunity or a dierent GRC. At a
dierent GRC, not only would you be able to experience dierent things,
you could also see your so called past lie! lollow me. In order to properly
understand the relatiity o the present, we must understand how it is tied to
the rate o rest o the person. 1he rate o rest o eery person is what you
are. \hat you are is deined by how many times you come on and o in a
moment o time. I we deine the unit o time as one second or example,
then the rate o rest is how many bioluidic motions the person makes in
that second. \ou will remember that this is the same as your GRC. \hether
the unit o time used is a second, a microsecond or many diisions o micro-
seconds, still, the same reasoning applies. But it should be remembered that
because the capacity o the person is ixed, no matter what unit o time we
use, the rate o rest is always the same. 1he number o times you moe in
say, a second, is also calculable in lesser or greater ractions o time. \hat
this means then is that in reality, our motions are also our rates o rest. 1o
moe, is to reposition yoursel rom one space to another. Since, no one
can moe unless he or she rests, it ollows that the number o our moes is
always equal to the number o our rests. But we hae seen that this rate o
rest is not the same or eeryone across reality. Just as we come in dierent
sizes, so too do we come in dierent rates o rest. Since the rate o rest is
Quantum Lights
20
presence and since this rate is relatie, it must ollow that presence too is
relatie.
lirst, the uture. At our current GRC, we are present a number o times
equal to about three hundred thousand kilometres per second. Naturally,
300,000 kilometres is not the maximum distance possible. Nor is the second,
the least time possible. A second is diisible into trillions o ractions or een
less than that. 1his means then that at our current GRC we do not hae the
maximum presence in reality. 1he thing is that there are a lot o regularly
occurring eents taking place at extremely dierent speeds. 1here is no such
thing as one rate o motion or all things. Because eents at extremely
dierent speeds exist, and because time is deined as regularly occurring
eents as measured, all kinds o dierent times exist at once`. \ou may
think o time as a series o numbers rom 1 to ininity, with eery GRC as a
particular number in that series. It is not that there is you` and then you
moe. 1here is no you` until there is a particular moe. \ou are the moe,
and in particular, you are the moe at that ixed speed. Gien that all kinds
o eents are taking place at dierent speeds, how do we manage to perceie
things 1he solution is that eerybody perceies himsel and o others like
himsel up to a maximum o his or her GRC. And no matter what a person`s
GRC may be, he or she can be present only to eents that happen at the
same speed as does the person. O course, we can perceie eents that
happen at lesser rates than our maximum GRC, but we cannot perceie
eents that happen at rates aster than our GRC. But i it is speed that gies
you a particular presence and i speed is relatie, then it must ollow that
presence too is relatie. So, again, there must be dierent presences` across
space.
\hat does this mean \hat is present to us, may be past to someone
and what is past to us may be present to someone else. \hat this also
means is that i we change our GRC, we change what times we can perceie.
At a dierent GRC, we can perceie our pasts and een our so-called uture.
I will get to the issue o the past in a moment. As or the uture, we
ordinarily think o it as not existing at the present` but something that we
208
moe into. 1he problem, howeer, is that i it does not exist, it is nothing. I
it is nothing, it remains nothing and cannot be moed into. lor example, i
2 does not exist, you cannot go to it rom 1. Lery motion in space,
whether it be physical, temporal, mental or whateer requires space. So, i
the spaces that we are moing into, that is, i the so-called uture, did not
exist, we could not moe into them, since we could not moe into
something` that did not exist. 1he uture is not so much something to
come, as much as it is something to come or us. \e hae a uture only
because our GRC orces us to see only one moment o time. 1he GRC is
the mechanism or delay, par excellence. O an existing ocean o resh water,
it shows you one drop at a time and eeds you one drop at a time. \our
GRC does not allow you to see the entire ocean. And so, naturally, we are
led to beliee that all that there is only a drop at a time. In reality, all things
that hae happened, and all things that will` happen, already exist at once.
But then i the uture exists, so too must the past. 1his is because the past is
no more than a raction o the uture as accessed incrementally. 1he past is
possible only when you hae a uture. 1he past is the step beore the next,
where the next is the uture. \here there is no next or where there is no
uture, there is only the present. \here there is no next, there is no past or
uture. I the uture exists, thereore, so too must the past. Unlike space
where the larger you are the more you can accommodate, with time, the
equation works the other way. 1he aster you are the shorter your steps. Just
as those with dierent speeds are neer in the same place, so too those with
dierent ons and os are neer in the same time. \ith respect to space,
your presence is your extension, so that haing more o it is the same as
haing more place. \ith respect to time, your presence is your speed, so that
haing more bioluidic speed means haing more eents. Lents are to time
what extensions are to space. But all this stu is relatie so that haing more
eents is only reasonable in the context o comparing two or more actors or
obserers. \hat is most interesting is that or all things, the lesser is always
present in the larger. Lerything is a raction o eerything else up to ininity.
Quantum Lights
209
1his is true o distances, weights, depths, speeds, times, powers and eery
thing else. 1he lesser raction is always present to the larger. But the larger is
not always present to the lesser. 1o explain, any number rom one to
ninety is always present to one hundred. 1he lesser is always present to the
greater. 1here is only one time, one space and eerything is a raction o
eerything else in this oneness.
Let me explain things een urther. Imagine eents as a number o
music notes, with the GRC as the music player. Imagine urther that there
are two persons with completely dierent GRCs. One plays one hundred
notes a second and the other plays one single note a second. Both players
are required to play the same notes oer and oer again. 1he total number o
notes is one hundred. 1he irst player plays all the notes in a second. 1he
second player plays all the notes in one hundred seconds. Let us assume that
at any time, the position that a player occupies is his presence. \e can
clearly see then that because o their dierences in speed, the two players
would neer play the same note at once. \heneer the slower is on one
note, the aster player would be one hundred times away. Not only that, we
can also see that the uture notes o the slower player are not the same as the
uture notes o the aster player. In the irst second, the irst player inishes
all his notes and has no uture notes to play. 1he second player, howeer,
would hae ninety nine notes and ninety nine seconds to go. Similarly, we
can also see that because the aster player already plays all the notes in a
second, whereer the second player may be, the aster player knows how
many notes the slower person has played and how much let to go. \hile it
may take the slower player one hundred seconds to see all this, it takes the
irst player only a second to see all o that. Although the number o the
notes are the same, 100 notes o the second player are equialent to one note
o the irst player. One hundred seconds o the second player are equialent
to one second o the irst player. 1his is o signiicance, or in our world it is
the speed o eents that gie us time. So, i the eents that we measure time
by can be slower or aster to someone, depending upon their GRC, then
210
naturally, our present` is not necessarily so present at all or those with
dierent GRCs. All this can be expressed as a simple rule. In order to be
able to perceie the past, present and uture eents o an actor, the state o
rest or GRC o the obserer must be equal to, or greater than, the total
possible lie span o the actor. \hen there is 100 correspondence between
the total moes o the actor and the state o rest o the obserer, the lie o
the actor can become present to the obserer in one moment, much like a
wall. But what type o person can grasp all your moements at once 1he
person must be one whose GRC enables him or her to see all the multiple
times that you cannot see and who can see all your lie`s drama as: stills,
pieces or tiny dots.
On seeing the past after death
1he GRC gies us a certain ersion o reality. lirst o all, it ixes our natures
and abode. Second, the GRC compels us and those like us to be objects o
experience or one another. But in ixing our place out o endless
possibilities the GRC limits our perception to one moment instead o
perception o endless moments in eternity. 1he important question,
howeer, is whether reality is what we can perceie or whether what we
perceie is only a raction o what is out there as a whole. Because we repeat
ourseles a number o times in order to be aware, eery object o our
perception must repeat with us in order or it to come within our awareness.
I the subject o our awareness is an object, the parts that make it so, must
repeat with us in order or us to say that it is there. I the subject o our
awareness is an eent, its parts, being ractions o time, must also repeat with
us in order or us to continue to experience it. But it is one thing to say that
eents must repeat with us in order or us to be aware o them. It is quite
another thing to say that i they do not repeat with us, they do not exist. It is
not our ability to perceie something that makes it real. It is rather, the
Quantum Lights
211
presence o the thing in space, whether we are there or not, that makes it
real. Let`s see.
Remember that eery eent is made up o energy. And energy is another
name or a particular number o microbits moing around rom one portion
o space to another. \hether an eent repeats at the same rate as us or not,
when it happens, it takes place in a speciic portion o space as a ixed
quantity. But we know that energy cannot be destroyed. So, ater the eent
happens, i we cannot perceie it, it cannot be because the energy that made
up the eent has been destroyed. In order or the past to disappear` we
must be able to explain how it is that real eents made up o real matter in
real space can disappear or go anywhere. I rom nothing, we get nothing
then rom some thing ,energy, we cannot get nothing ,disappearance,.
1here is no mechanism in space or turning real things into nothing. It is
impossible to see how the non-repetition o a act or eent at our rate o
perception, automatically erases the eent rom space. \hen the repetition
o the eent ceases, the act that the eent took place in space has not ceased
and cannot cease.
\hether a thing repeats or not, what happened beore, has happened.
Let`s keep in mind that to be is to moe. \hether we moe things or not,
eery portion o matter, rom the smallest to the largest, is moing. Both
beore a gien number o microbits maniest as eents to our perception,
and ater they cease to be within our awareness, they too repeat in
accordance with their state o rest, rom moment to moment. 1he energy
that you used to moe yesterday, or example, is still around somewhere. So,
really, een when eents do not repeat or us, the microbits that ormed the
eent repeat elsewhere. 1hereore, since the microbits that orm the eents
are not destroyed and since the same microbits continue to repeat all the
time, i we cannot perceie them, it can only be that they are not repeating at
the same rate as us. Not only that, eery eent is unique in terms o quantity,
time and position and as such, can be identiied as a unique number. So, the
shapes o the microbits that you used to moe rom point A to B can also be
212
identiied. O course, the area that you moed in also exists. At the time
that you were moing, those present could see what you were doing. 1he
only reason they cannot see it now is because both you and they are at the
same GRC and the GRC orces you to see only one moment at a time. I
you could see multiple times, you would see yoursel as you were. But the
reason you are not able to see multiple times is because o your current
GRC. \hen you die and hae no body with which to do certain things, your
consciousness can either remain in a perpetual state o reminiscence or take
on another orm with a dierent GRC. 1he good news is that because o the
relatiity o times, your consciousness could take on a new GRC that would
enable you to see all your past as though it was lie.
Ordinarily, we deine speed as the distance traelled in time , ~ d,t,.
But this deinition is circular i we go deeper. 1ime is also a orm o motion.
So to say that speed is distance traelled in time is the same as saying
distance traelled per distance traelled. 1his does not make sense unless
there are two or more motions to compare with. I we were thinking as
though there was only one moer in the whole o reality, what would the
least time` be Maximum motion I this were so, then the deinition o the
highest speed would hae to be explained as maximum motion per
maximum motion`. An absurd deinition, since we need maximum distance
to compare to maximum distance. But this is exactly where human
perception leads us to.
\e are used to thinking o time by comparing ourseles to others. But
this is not the uniersal standard. Speed is the maximum distance traelled
but we cannot say per what`, without going in circles. 1he simplest answer
is that in so ar as eery thing is in motion, the astest speed is that which has
maximum distance as its state o rest. 1hat is another way o saying that time
is distance. 1his way, we come to know that the astest time is simply the
whole o space. It takes time to think o an apparently non-moing space as
time. But that is the reality. Now, the whole o space is the present. So, the
time occupied by eery person is the portion o the space he or she occupies
Quantum Lights
213
as his or her state o rest in an ininity o 1. \hat is interesting here,
howeer, is that at the astest speed, the moer is still. At the astest speed,
there is no gap between the moer and its distances. 1he moer is the
distances: one and the same. 1his I what I mean when I say that time is
distance.
But i time is distance, then there is no such thing as time ersus
distance. It is time ersus time and distance ersus distance. low then does
motion igure in this equation Being here at our GRC, each one o us is a
certain distance. 1his is the maximum portion o space each occupies in one
moment o a second. Remember that our bioluidic rate o motion is about
300,000 kilometres per second. But as we hae already seen this is not the
maximum. But to show you how the second is not the standard, let us diide
a second into a billion ractions and call each raction a bino` second.
\hen we diide 300,000 km by the bino second it works out 0.0003
kilometres per bino second. \e can continue diiding time until we get
tired. But the point o the exercise is that as the times get smaller so too does
the distance traeled by us, to the point where the distance traelled
becomes but the tiniest possible point. In the least amount o time all o our
motions work out to an extremely tiny still dot o space. lrom the
perspectie o the person who can perceie the most thereore, we moe
not, except extremely slowly. And i our GRC is an almost inisible point
to another, you can imagine how small are the little slow moes that we call
eents that come out rom the body. I the body is a still dot, the actiities o
the body must be een tinier still dots. \e can correctly describe the body
then as an extremely tiny dot, and its actiities, as little pieces o an extremely
tiny dot. Because these pieces leae the body as used energy, they all as
pieces, as it were, to the ground, but not ar away rom the body. \hile the
actiities o the body are going on, their relationship to the body can be
characterized as the breaking o pieces o our bodies. \hen the eents are
oer, we can describe them as the alling o the pieces. Like leaes alling
rom trees, that`s exactly how our eents relate to us in time. As long as we
214
lie, we continue to stand in the same place. Our GRC ixes our perception
or place in the unierse rigidly like prisoners. It is our leaes that are our
uture and they become our past when they all. \hen the leaes are alling,
that`s what we call actiity. \hen they are alling, they still hae some
connection with us. 1his is why we perceie them. But we must remember
that eery all can be perceied only aguely. lor necessarily, by the time
the process o breaking begins, we hae already lost some connection with
the actiity that we call our own. 1his is so because we and our actiities
do not moe at the same rate. In any eent, we are structured so that we can
perceie only the tree as it stands. 1hat ixed position is our presence, our
awareness. So in reality, we moe not. It our eents that moe and it is our
eents that we call our pasts and utures. Because o the dierences between
our GRC and the speed o the actiities coming rom our GRC, when the
bits happen they must necessarily leae us. 1his explains why we are unable
to perceie the things that we hae done. But whether we perceie them
or not, the leaes, the pieces, the bits are there. Lery lea, eery bit, eery
piece alls close to us and piles up like notes that can be picked up, like
photos that can be seen and like objects that can be elt. 1he one who can
see or pick up our pieces then is only the person whose GRC enables him or
her to see our GRC as those extremely tiny dots in space. But don`t say that
the leaes are not there because you are sti as a tree. I only you were
lexible enough to turn around, you would see the pile up!
Conclusion
I hae argued that lie on earth is the motion o matter at the speed o light.
I hae also shown that consciousness is a property o space and that death
o the body does not end consciousness. As or time, I hae showed that our
pasts and utures are accessible to us, should we be able to change our
GRCs. As long as we are here, our GRC is ixed. But death gies us an
GRCs and the Scriptural Evidence
215
opportunity to change our GRC. So death is not the end but the beginning
o a new lie. As or our pasts, they hae nowhere to go and they do not
disappear, they exist and can be accessed by those who are permitted to see
them. It matters then what we do in this world because eery thing rom the
good to the bad, is recorded. And i you can oreer lie with what you hae
done in your past, what kind o past would you want it to be \hat kind o
lie would you want others to see, i they could also see all that you did once
Part 2: GRCs and the Scriptural Lvidence
Introduction
In this section, we shall be exploring urther the realization o GRC
discussed by M. Muslim in the preious chapter. In urther discussions with
M. Muslim, he has summarized the iew regarding the GRC as ollows:
lrom the antage o God, who has the ultimate GRC ,ininite,, all times are
at one place. 1his is the lip, or the inerse o all places at one time ,the
now`, which we experience. \e thereore experience the unierse in terms
o time extension only ractionally, in the now, and not in multiple times.
Other entities such as angels can experience seeral times and the past and
uture to certain ranges. I the absolute antage point o all times at one spot
deines the totality o all creations or God, as is also indicated in the Quran,
when it is stated that: 1hey see the |Judgment Day| indeed ar-o, but \e
|God| see it in proximity.` ,0:4 and 0:6,, and we call this the Dream o
God, this unierse is the lip, or reerse o this, that is, it is a Reerse Dream.
Let us explain all this urther, so that it becomes cognitiely understood
clearly. Let us say that you throw ie letters on the table at the same time:
QRUAN. In your mind as the author, you know that the word is QURAN
and you know it instantly. \ou see the whole. 1his is analogous to multiple
times at one place. Now you hae a slow student who is reorganizing the
216
letters and a aster student. \hen the slower student has reached QUR, the
aster one has reached QURA and can look back at the work o the slower
one who is only at R`. lurthermore, the aster student can also see the
QUR`. 1his corresponds with other higher GRC entities such as angels
who, due to their higher GRC`s, are ahead in their reading o the written
unierse, as it were. An increase in our GRC due to death, or other special
circumstances in this lie would enable us to see aspects o the past or uture,
as in postcognition` and precognition, respectiely, not as an imagined
ision, but as a concrete reality in space.
1he ision o reality this whole scenario presents is that that absolute
reality is God and that lis ision is absolute. lrom this absolute ision all
exists already as pre-planned existence. 1he ractionalization o
consciousness into created entities within lis oerarching consciousness
in turn means that these entities can only perceie a ractionalized
worldiew. 1he cognitie unctions operating at GRC light speed ,c, are in
snyc with a GRC o a light speed based ,c, unierse. lerein, eerything has
a synchronized binary rhythm o an on,o mode that does not exceed c. I
other entities or the human being utilize,s, those aster microbits wherein a
aster GRC mode is possible, then the extraction o ultimate reality is o a
time other than the vor in which the light speed GRC is operating. 1his then
rees the entity rom the prison o the now. 1he past and uture o the lower
GRC rame can be obsered rom the higher GRC reerence rame.
Breaking away rom the current speed o light GRC would enable the
human being to see the uture. 1o gie an example o the uture, at a higher
GRC, you obsere Mr. Johnson getting into his car to go to the oice, but
you also obsere him reaching the oice one hour later at your now`, while
Mr. Johnson`s now is that o him still getting into the car. \hile Mr.
Johnson can only be at one place, that is, in Mr. Johnson`s vor, your ision
o Mr. Johnson o the uture one hour later is a ision o the microbitic
space he will occupy in one hour.
21
GRC and the Quran
Is there anything on the Quran on GRC In the Quran it is written that God
records eerything and is a witness to all happenings ,58:6,, that le records
the number o all things ,2:28,, that eerything is recorded in a book
,8:29, and that all eents are in a clear book ,6:59,. 1his clear book is
nothing but the record o all happenings that exist, hae existed or will exist,
in microbitic orm. Note that seeing uture or past eents does not mean
that the obsering entity can change the eents. Such entities, with aster
GRC`s, will only be able to obsere them. I someone with the human GRC
is able to peek into the record o the uture and see themseles, they will not
be interacting with the other sel. 1hat obserer will see what amounts to
what is like a three dimensional ideo clip, o a particular eent o the uture,
or o the past. Lerything is in a clear record, and that record is like a book
,/itaab, which leaes out nothing small or large because it i. the ery eent
that can be reiewed in its utmost detail. \hat all this amounts to is that:
All times at one place ,or point, in the mind o God, as lis
imagination ~ Dream o God ~ the pre-existent uniersal
script ~ the clear record` ~ /itaab ,mentioned in .ove erses o
the Quran, in this context.,
GRC ~ General Reading-rate o the ,pre-existent, Uniersal
Script ~ GRUS ~ rate o exposure ,baraa, o the pre-
existent uniersal script or book ,/itaab,.
As mentioned by M. Muslim, the unierse is the lip o all times at one
place` and is all places at one time`, where the time is the now`. In this
sense, being the lip`, the unierse is like the vrer.e Dream o God. In the
last section in this book, we will be looking urther into the concept o
inerse dream` which coincides with the attributes o the Creator, why the
218
word dream` has been used to describe the unierse and what urther
ramiications this has on our understanding o the nature o the unierse and
the human being`s place in the cosmic scheme.
Another meaning of the word Kitaab
Let us proe isochronal existence as the absolute rame o reerence, that is,
that the uture and past already perennially exist and that it is only due to our
limited GRC`s that gies us the now` o moing into the uture rom the
past. \e shall use the ivairect vetboa o proo commonly used in
mathematics, that is, we shall start out by a statement which is the opposite
o what we want to proe and see i it leads to a contradiction or paradox.
\e shall begin by claiming that only the now` exists because the past is no
longer here and is leeting away behind us, at all times, and that the uture, at
all times, is uncapturably ahead o us and not here. loweer, with a little
thought, it is clear that there is no such thing as the now`, or it becomes a
mere abstraction under objectie scrutiny, since one cannot capture a static
moment called the now. 1his is because the now continuously sheds into
either the past and uture and nothing else. But i the past and uture do not
exist, then the now` does not exist either. loweer, we know that .ovetbivg
exists and hae a eeling or the now`, so how do we resole this seeming
paradox 1he paradox can be resoled only by assuming that the past and
uture all exist at the same time`, as was discussed in the preious section. It
is exactly like a book, or /itaab as the Quran calls it, and, moreoer, a clear
book. In a book, all the words exist and are only separated by ai.tavce. Now
a reader who reads the book, has a reading rate. Let us assume that the
reading rate is 4 words per second. loweer, let us also assume that this
same reader has another reading rate ,a speed-reading technique that he does
not normally employ,. Let us assume urther that he is reading Shakespeare`s
avtet ,3.1.65,:
219
1o be or not to be: that is the question: \hether tis nobler in
the mind to suer ,65, the slings and arrows o outrageous
ortune,.
1he speed-reader can stop reading at the slower standard rate, break away
and scan Shakespeare`s play both orward to, and behind the quotation
aboe, ery ast, up to 20 words per second. In this analogy, note that a
reader will, when reading the book at the standard rate hae a so-called
now` position, but that now` is always moing behind and the uture is
always approaching the reader. 1he reality o the situation is that all the
uture and the past is present, in the now, but that it is the ocus o the
reader that makes him a prisoner o his reading rate. 1his imprisonment
can be broken and then he will be able to read the orward and at positions
o the book, which are a distance away. Likewise, the reading rate is akin to
the GRC and the breaking away is like speed reader deocusing on the
sentence that is being read at the general reading-rate to go to the speed-
reading rate. 1his is why the word /itaab is used in the book or the record,
or all times exist at one place, subject to our accessibility like a book or
/itaab.
In the Quran 5:22 it states that God will bring into presence that which
is in the /itaab. 1his is consistent with the GRC concept: \hen one is
reading a book, eerything is already there. In other words the past and the
present already exist but we read them through or GRC or GRUS, just as the
words come into cognitie presence as we read a paper book, indeed, they
do not spring up rom nothing or rom the mind o God when we read
them, or they already hae a pre-existence in the book,mind o the
Supreme Author. 1he word baraa in the Quran in Chapter 5, erse 22
thereore does not mean created or brought into existence or into being, but
brought into cognitie presence, display or show rom pre-existence, or
reealed rom pre-existence. lor example, this word baraa, in another orm,
220
is used in the Quran when it is argued, that the blameless nature o Moses
was exposed or reealed to his unjust critics because the eidence or that
was atreaa, ei.tevt. 1his is in 33:69.
How GRC works: the cognitive mechanism
In the Mind o God all moement can be seen as a series o stills, when
played ast, one gets motion. 1o God, eerything is one oerlapping still that
captures all existence, this still, as it is cognitiely seen by the presence o
one entity, such as the human being, can be enisioned as a set o rames,
stacked one atop the other, with gaps in between each rame. 1he distance
between the rames ,i.e. the gap, is the o` position with respect to the
photon`s rest point, in back and orth motion ,oscillatory,. 1he rate o the
o` position ,denoted here by the size o the gap between the rames,
constitutes the GRC`. lor explanatory purposes, let us say that we hae 10
rames or stills. Let the gap between them be x`. 1he total length will be
L~9x-10t, where t` is the thickness o the rame ,the duration o the on`
position which is the same as the o` position,. I someone had a GRC
twice that o ours then the distance between the rames would be haled
and just in terms o x`, it would now be x,2. 1he resultant equation
would be L diided by 2 or 4.5x-5t. In other words, the rames would be
stacked closer and would thereore hae a shorter total length. lor breity,
we can eliminate t`, or it is not immediately useul or explaining the basic
concept, the x` alue is the only term o import that is to be considered or
now. Now or someone with twice the GRC as our light-speed in acuum
based GRC, the distance between the rames would be haled ,i.e. 4.5x
instead o 9x,. 1his, in turn, means that someone with twice the GRC
would see an eent which occurs in 12 hours, occur in 6 hours and, in eect,
would hae seen the uture 6 hrs o the person with the smaller GRC. 1he
reel o lie, as it were, is being played aster. Remember that cognition in this
221
context is perception o reality and cognition is the GRC, thereore, GRC
is perception o reality. 1he same applies to seeing the past.
1he ratio between the speed o light and the new GRC is the 1ive
Covre..iov actor ,1
c
,: 1hereore: 1
c
~ c
0
,c
n
, where c
n
~ /c
0
and where /
is a real number between one and ininity, c
0
is the speed o light in acuum.
Making the appropriate substitutions, we ind that 1
c
~ 1,/. 1his is the
actor which we use to conert one GRC to another, in this case the light-
speed GRC that we lie in is the reerence GRC. Note that i the rame rate
,GRC rate, or bioluidic cognitie processing rate, is aster, so is the
geoluidic rate and thereore someone obsering the past or uture in
relation to our time` would still see things at a normal rate, because the ratio
o GRC ,bioluidic motion, to geoluidic motion remains the same in any
GRC rame. 1o understand this, without going into mathematical details,
here is an analogy: someone who is able to read aster than another person
will still hae the same understanding o the sequence o eents. In other
words, whether I read the sentence: le threw the ball up the roo` in a
microsecond, or in 3 seconds, I will still hae the same understanding and
the ball will not moe aster up onto the roo just because my reading rate is
aster. loweer, since the sentence would hae been read aster, I am ahead
o the slower reader, and can moe into his uture, since I would hae read
that part o the sentence which he would not yet hae reached to read!
1here are our basic steps in the whole process o past,uture record
access:
1. A higher GRC, or humans, is achieed by the rea/ara,
revt, that can happen to the ollowing entities and in
the ollowing situations:
,a, Ater death by humans and jinn.
,b, By the natural ability o angels assisting the
human by showing him,her the uture,past.
,c, Special cognitie techniques to moe to a higher
222
GRC while still liing in the carbon-based body.
,d, Precognition.
2. Multiple times can be seen, like a person scanning a
book, ,i.e. access to the Mvttitive Covte,. locusing on
a particular time in the past or uture, which is
analogous to choosing a starting line to read rom
anywhere in the book, or a particular person, eent etc.
3. 1he actual reading o the book at a new aster GRC,
rom a starting point, where the rames are compressed
by the 1ive Covre..iov actor, and where the rame
constant C
f
is ixed, so as to see eerything, intelligibly,
with cause and eect, as it occurred in the light-speed
GRC rom which one was deocused ,broke away,.
1he significance of numbering
As has been mentioned preiously, in the Quran, it states that eerything in
creation has been numbered.
1here is none in the hierarchy o the galactical clusters, or on
the earth but comes unto the Beneicent as a serant. le has
enumerated them and numbered them with numbering. ,19:94,
Part o the numbering system is the intended sequence o eents to take
place. I eerything is one point or all rames are co-existent as one
rame or God, le knows the order o eents and that knowledge i. the
numbering system. 1his is rather like arious components o a complex
machine lying around or assembly, a master assembler knows which
223
order they hae to be assembled in, whereas a noice would not. 1he master
does not need an instruction book with a numbering scheme written or
him. le knows the sequence o the jumbled pile. le can, howeer, impart
that knowledge to the noice. Similarly, such knowledge is imparted to the
one who accesses the matrix o all eents ,the multiple-time complex, with
the higher GRC, and such sequencing becomes aailable as rames,stills, as
discussed beore. It is not ery diicult or God to impart such knowledge
into the created entity, since the will o the created entity is simply the
ractionalization o the will o God! It is also important to note that God
/vorivg the numbering scheme, is not just academic knowledge or God,
or something that le muses oer as pastime. 1o /vor the numbering
scheme i. the way in which things actually happen, God`s knowledge i. the
actiity that transpires. lurthermore, the numbering and the sequencing can
be denoted by the same number. All things are in God`s knowledge and are
ordered, or numbering implies order, and that though le knows things in
absolute wholes and ixities, does not mean that they are not sequenced
when accessed by one o lis ractionalizations ,i.e. the human mind etc.,.
\hat is happening, in act, is that when God sees things rom lis
perspectie, all times are at one place, but when le perceies through lis
ractionalization, then they are played out, as it were, in the intended
sequence, the sequence intended by God, that is, according to the
numbering scheme. 1his is tantamount to someone haing ininite reading
rate, who knows the open page in a book instantaneously because le knows
the sequence o the letters. Let us say that I am the author and I create a
sentence and scramble it. \hen I look at the sentence I will know what it
means immediately. 1ake or example the ollowing: ehe logt n de oth
arhilr`. 1his is actually: the dog ran oer the hill`. I, as creator o the
sentence, know it immediately. I know the true sequence o the letters no
matter how they are stacked up. Now I choose to ractionalize in my mind
by creating a sub-will. 1his sub-will cannot read at the ininite rate, and is
limited to a processing rate by particular structures o microbits. loweer,
224
this sub-will is allowed to choose the letters in sequence, it takes time to
complete the sentence. 1his knowledge o sequencing comes rom none
other than the creator. In act, we would go so ar as to say that, or the
ractionalized entity, the /vorteage o sequencing is instantaneous and
automatic and is merely unolded at a particular rate: that rate is the GRC.
1he unolding occurs at a particular rate, yet is instantaneous and automatic
because the ractionalized mind comes rom the domain o objectless space
that knows eerything and is the author o all imagined existence.
Speed of Angels and GRC: the Quranic evidence
In Section 1, it was mentioned by M. Muslim that speed is o two kinds that
he termed geoluidic and bioliudic. 1hat which is motion, related to
oscillatory motion,requency, is bioliud, ,such as the heart-beat, and that
which one traerses distances as per the ormulae r~a,t ,like driing a car
rom A to B, is geoliud. In the Quran, the geoluid or non-oscillatory
ectorial motion o the angels is many times that o human beings. It
states, in the Quran, that the time taken or the angels to trael a particular
distance that would be one day, would take a human being 50,000 years.
lere is that enigmatic erse:
1he angels and the spirit ascend to lim in a Day the
measure o which is 50,000 years..1hey see the ,Judgment
Day, indeed ar-o, but \e ,God, see it in proximity. ,0:4
and 0:6,
Note that prior to this erse, another erse states that God is the Lord o
the ways o ascent`, that is, there are many ways o physical ascent and
mental or spiritual` ascent. Ascent means going up, but going up means that
there is a baseline, which is zero. 1hey hae their own ways o ascent or
The Quran and Life after Life
225
propulsion. Note that angels are not limited to the speed o light, they are
comprised frov light, which means that they are comprised o particles
smaller than light, that is, components ,ractions o the light particle,. It does
not seem that eicient to be limited to light speed when we know the
astness o the unierse, or that it would take one day o traelling or the
angels to receie instructions rom God, rom a Presered 1ablet in space,
as some Muslims hold. 1he instructions o God with respect to the angels
are receied instantaneously as direct communications. 1heir traelling huge
distances has other purposes related to gloriying God and not in order to
trael to receie instructions on how and what to do with the lies o other
creatures on earth. I the geoliudic speed o angels is that ast, can you
imagine the arious bioluidic speeds o angels that pertain to the GRC, as
there is a directly proportionate relationship between the bioluidic
,oscillatory,cyclical, and the geoluidic ,non-cyclical, speeds: the higher
the geoluidic speed attainable, the higher the bioluidic speed and hence the
higher the GRC. 1he greater the GRC, the greater the ability to access the
record o past,uture eents in terms o range!
Part 3: 1he Quran and Life after Life
1he Quran on Soul' and Consciousness
God sustains eerything by lis mind and le has willed sel-conscious
domains to arise in this unierse, that is, indiiduals. loweer, sel-
consciousness can only arise as a result o a sel-consciousness entity that
can imagine localized areas o particle based objects in an absolute objectless
conscious space so that consciousness is essentially transocused at those
points - by the mind o God. At each moment these particle-based bodies
are being sustained by Intent, just as eery structure within that space is
sustained at each and eery moment by God`s will albeit through cause and
226
eect, which is imagined. \e can understand this will` urther, through
some scriptures. In act, among all the scriptures o the world`s major
belie systems, we see a correlation between that which pertains to the
actual nature and structure o matter and that which is in the Quran. As a
result, we shall examine the erses in the Quran to see what urther
knowledge we can adduce on the issue o consciousness. In act, we can now
see more ully why the rvb has been deined in the Quran as a covvava rom
God. lor the Quranic erse says that it is a command o your Sustainer.
low appropriate a choice o words, because the commandment o sel-
consciousness is being sustained continuously by God, hence by the
Sustainer`, by the maintenance o the ractionalized will and body! 1his
becomes easier to realize once we realize the unique solution: that all is in
the mind o the Creator and there is no outside. \e are all part and parcel o
God`s imagination and are created consciousnesses within lis oerarching
consciousness, which alone is absolute and uncreated. 1he sel-
consciousness that makes you and I is not comprised o microbits ,which
are also willed and sustained, but is an immediate and pure` willed
product o the property o objectless space in which the body is situated,
that is, the Mind o God. In other words, all it` needs is to be impinged with
a bioluidic microbitic body through which it can experience the unierse o
microbits.
In Chapter 2, we examined arious scriptures that are united in their
conception on the existence and basic nature o God. 1he Quran is not only
compatible with many scientiic acts, but also with those which hae also
been recently discoered. 1his book - the Quran - has many other
statements that are scientiic` but which present day science has yet to
conirm. lurthermore, in the Quran, it is discussed as to what happens
ater death in conjunction with the nature o sel-consciousness.
Gien the unparalleled record o the Quran, in terms o its accuracy in
depicting reality with respect to unknown phenomena only recently realized,
we shall examine in this chapter the issue o consciousness with respect
22
to the modern debate on this issue as expounded by philosophers and
cognitie scientists. Indeed, it would be oolish to ignore the Quran as an
indispensable resource, once we hae eriied its properties. Most
researchers and scientists, especially in the \est, may not be aware o these
properties o the Quran, and we hope that this work can draw them into the
direction o examining such a book that would help adance knowledge in
their own particular ields.
1he irst question is: \hat is the eidence in the Quran, or the
existence o such an entity integrated with the shell o the human body -
the so-called soul 1here are seeral erses in the Quran dealing with the
word ruh`, commonly taken to be the soul`. 1he most pertinent one or
our discussion is 1:85, quoted earlier pertaining to the issue o the o
God, hitherto discussed. 1his erse essentially states that: people ask you
,Muhammed, about the rvb, say that it is a covvava rom your Sustainer,
Lord. In order to know what it is, you need a large body o knowledge, but
o that large body o knowledge you hae been gien only a little.
lrom the Quran we can gather that the rvb is associatiely linked to the
human body and that it appears during embryonic deelopment, this
coincides with the discussion based on microbits as elaborated aboe. By
associatie linkage what is meant is that the instantiation o your existence in
the mind o God is not located somewhere in space, nor is it in the body
as a particle comprised object. Rather it is relational: it is the ocus o God`s
attention to create a consciousness rom within lis consciousness and
hae it linked to a particular body, once le decides to orm a particulate
,microbitic, body, in that space. loweer, this is a linkage that occurs by the
conscious ractionalization o God to create a will within lis oerarching
\ill, as part o the deelopment o nature.
It has been mentioned that there is a subtler body connected to our
carbon-based grosser body that will exist ater death or us. But what is this
subtler body comprised o In the Quran, the other entities which exist are
the Angels, that are made o more subtle particles ,see erses 6:61-62,. One
228
ladith states that Angels are eoled rom nur` - subtler particles, we
surmise, smaller than the photon`
8
. rov nur means rom ,relected, light,
hence deriaties o the photon, and hence smaller than the photon as per
microbitic concepts
88
, where the photon is not a undamental particle
according the microbit scenario.
!e also possess ruh. 1he Rvb ,Gabriel, the non-human, angelic
messenger o God, brings reelation. lor the rvb see: 15:28 - 33, 16: 2 ,
1:85, 40:15, 8:38, 15:26. 1hereore, we will also inherit a subtler
particle based body ater we lose our grosser body, that subtler body being
comprised o smaller microbit comprised particles.
89
One hint rom the
Quran about the indiidual`s continuation o lie ater death is clear rom the
Quranic passage which states that:
It is God who takes away the souls at the time o death, and
those that do not die, during their sleep. le keeps those or
which le has ordained death, and sends the rest or an
appointed term. Certainly, in this are Signs or those who
ponder seriously. ,39:41,
1he actiation and de-actiation is a result o the motion o microbits in a
certain way in the brain-body system. So ar, it has been realized that certain
gases, or example, inhibit the transer o photons rom the microtubules
8. Ayesha reported that the Prophet Muhammed said: 1he Angels were
created rom light, and the Jinn rom smokeless ire.` lrom Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.
1540, no. 134.
88. Muslim, M., and laque, Nadeem, ,2001,, rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg: .
êr |vifiea 1ier of Pb,.ic. ava Co.votog,: 1otvve 1: 1be Co.votogicat vticatiov..
89. It is interesting to note, that in the Quran, it is narrated that when Iblis
,Satan, was asked by God to bow down to Adam, he said that he would not bow to
a creature made,originated rom clay, he orgot, neglected or perhaps did not realize
the point that he was essentially being asked to bow down to a creature whose
essence was rvb, not rom clay`.
229
which comprise the neurons
90
. Sleep and death disconnect certain
motions, thereby rendering an inactiity o the consciousness or the soul` to
perceie anything.
One does not need the carbon-based body or the vaf.
91
,consciousness
and human personality, to exist and it is possible that a vaf. may leae`
,oreer, this type o body o ours, such as in the case o death or een .ove
brain dead indiiduals who are being kept on lie support. loweer, since
we do not hae the knowledge to know when and i the vaf. has ceased
operating in the grosser carbon-based body, we must not disconnect such
indiiduals rom lie-support because the vaf. may still be associated with
those bodies, and the body might be reied. 1here is a curatie or lie
prolongational aspect or the patient. In such a situation, eort must be
in the direction o lie preseration, een in such aderse situations.
1he 12
th
century Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd ,Aerroes, made a
remarkable analysis o the aboe-stated Quranic passage:
le |God| equates sleeping with death in suspending the
actiity o the soul |or consciousness| .. lor since the
soul,consciousnessreturns to its own state |upon awakening|
we know that the suspension o its actiity does not happen to
it due to a deect in its essence, but is the result o some
deiciency aecting its instrument. lence it does not ollow
that i the instrument is corrupted, the soul must be corrupted,
too. Death is a orm o corruption, thereore it should aect
90. lor more details on this, see Contemporary anaesthesia and anaestheti-
cs` on the website: www.general-anaesthesia.com.
91. Note that in the Quran, in 29:5, it states that Lery vaf. will taste death.`
It does not state that eery vaf. will die, this is because it is not made to die, but only
continue to exist in another enironment: in other words the vaf. will just experience
a phenomenon o death, like any other experience and moe on, hence the word
taste`.
230
|only| the instrument |and not the soul|, as happens during
sleep, or as the Philosopher |Aristotle, De .viva, I, 4, 408b,
21| says: I the old man were to ind an eye like the young
man`s eye, he would be able to see as well as the young man
sees.`
92
In 1:85 the reason why the word command has been used is that the
creation o the rvb is by the command o the Creator in the sense that it is
ractionalized at a certain time and transocused into the human body at a
particular stage o deelopment o the human beore birth, as a result o the
organization o microbits, as preiously discussed when GRP~GRC. 1hese
microbitic particles then become a portal or consciousness that is the
property o space. 1his would be the basic leel o conscious apperception
intended by the Creator or that particular species. Secondly, each creation
has a speciic and unique number or identity associated with it in the mind o
the Creator, which is part o the ultimate record o things that are
created
93
. 1he proo o ractionalization is denoted by the Quranic
words: frov lis Ruh`. Now i we take Ruh to mean command as explained
in erse 1:85, the meaning is: rom lis command`. But lis command is
nothing but lis will, so we can also say: rom lis will`. But lis will is part
o lis consciousness - a directie instance o lis consciousness, as it were -
so we can say rom part o an instance o lis Consciousness` i.e.
ractionalization, remembering that any part o lis Consciousness or \ill,
must also be a will or consciousness. Linguistically, the Arabic word min`
can mean part o something. lor example, in the Quran it is stated that we
are created rom a despised luid`
94
, that is, the seminal luid.
92. Aerroes ,Ibn Rushd,, ,2001,, Najjar, Ibrahim ,1ranslator,, aitb ava Rea.ov
iv .tav: .rerroe.` o.itiov of Retigiov. .rgvvevt., p. 12.
93. See 58:6, 2:28 - 29.
94. Quran 6:2.
231
loweer, we know that we are not created rom this luid but rom that
which is a component o it, i.e. the male germ cell, which orms part o the
equation, the other being the oaries. 1he word rom` ,viv in Arabic, then
means taking rom a larger whole, in this context. Consequentially, frov lis
Ruh means rom lis command and rom lis command means rom lis
thought and will. 1he Ruh is the thought o God and command
simultaneously, and the thought is to create another will ritbiv the \ill ava to
covtivvov.t, .v.taiv tbat ritt, once created, since it is part o objectless space,
which is eerlasting, and only needs the desire o God to hae it exist in
arious orms and enues.
What exactly happens upon death: 1he physics of it all
It is being claimed in this book that a second body` arises in relation to our
current carbon-based body upon which we are ocused, when we die, and
that lie continues with this new body.` \hat is the nature o that
resurrection that we can gather rom our knowledge o the unierse, based
on microbits And is there eidence or all o this, in the Quran 1he
ollowing erse actually depicts the deelopment o the secondary subtle
body:
\e hae decreed death to you all and \e will not be hindered
rom replacing ,vvbaaaita, your likenesses ,avtbaata/vv, and
bringing you into a new beginning ,vvv.bia/vv, in what you
know not ,56:61,
\hat we hae translated here as vvbaaaita avtbaata/vv is the most accurate
meaning o these words. 1he root o the word vvbaaaita is vaaba, which
means: to supply in the place o another. 1his passage then is not saying that
God will change your orm, or een cbavge your likenesses, be that as it may.
232
\hat is being reealed here is that that which is a likeness o you ,a
.ivvtacrvv, will be a product o the continuation o your consciousness plus
the new microbitic body that emerges ater the destruction o the old body.
In other words, your consciousness will automatically, whilst in the
continuum o consciousness, become ocused into another replica that
identiiably has some o one`s original physical characteristics, but is not the
same, by exiting your consciousness into a new orm that you do not een
know about. One is thereore re-orming anew, in what one knows not
not, denoted by the Arabic word: vvva.bia/vv. ^vv.bia/vv, is used many
times in the Quran as meaning bringing something into being that did not
exist, and coneys the idea o grorivg ava forvivg as part o that bringing into
being ,i.e. new ormation,. In act, in the same chapter it is used both ater
and beore the aboe-cited erse 56:61, namely, in 56:35 and also in 56:2.
In erse 0:41 it is stated that:
So I swear by the Lord o all risings and settings, that indeed \e
are able to replace them with better than them, and \e are
not to be outdone.
It is interesting to note is that rising and setting reers to that which already
exists, but is a relational matter: \hen the sun rises, it is due to your
perception o the location o the sun, as you are rotated about the earth.
Like the sun, our consciousness does not anish. It rises as a result o the
utilization o microbits. 1his shall soon be urther explored. In 0:41, the
word vvbaaaita or replace is used, which shows that this word deinitely
means replacement. In part o 4:38 o the Quran, where God is criticising
those who are ery selish in their use o money, the word avtbaata/vv
is used, showing that this word indeed means that which is like, but not
identical, in this case the likeness reerring to the pattern o behaior rather
233
than physical orm:
And i you turn away, le will replace you ,,a.tabait, with
another people, then they will not be the likes o you
,avtbaata/vv,.
Our brain comprises neurons. It has been realized increasingly that
the human will can control the iring o neurons to such an extent that een
in clinical cases, where a person has a pathological condition o the brain,
patients can be retrained to use other pathways circumenting the
dysunctional area and thereby gaining use o physical locomotion that had
been hampered by the damaged region. Neuroscientists Jerey Schwartz
and Sharon Bagley, ater being inoled extensiely in clinical obserations,
hae concluded that neuroplasticity and power o the mind` can indeed
exert a orce to shape the brain.
95
\hen one decides to ocus on
something we see the usage o the brain associated ,controlling and
processing signals to, that actiity. 1he will controls the molecules,
atoms and electrons, and hence, arious aspects o the brain, it is indeed a
orm o internal telekinesis. 1his, o course, is in contradistinction to the
dominant interpretation o classical physics which upholds a materialistic
basis, where there is no top-down control - there is no mind controlling the
processes. \e shall quote at length, lenry Stapp, a leading quantum
physicist who has spent years researching the implication o physics to the
question o consciousness. le has this to say about the issue:
95. Schwartz, Jerey M., and Bagley, Sharon, ,2005,, 1be Miva ava tbe raiv:
êvrota.ticit, ava tbe Porer of Mevtat orce , p. 35.
234
1he core ideas o the arguments in aor o an identity-emergent
theory o mind and consciousness are illustrated by Roger
Sperry`s example o a wheel.` ,Sperry 1992, A wheel
obiously does something: it is causally eicacious, it carries the
cart. It is also an evergevt roert,: there is no mention o
wheelness` in the ormulation o the laws o physics, and
wheelness` did not exist in the early unierse, wheelness`
everge. only under certain special conditions. And the
macroscopic wheel exercises top-down` control o its tiny
parts. All these properties are perectly in line with classical
physics, and with the idea that a wheel is, precisely, a structure
constructed out o its tiny atomic parts.` So why not suppose
mind and consciousness to be, like wheelness`,
emergentproperties o their classically conceied tiny physical
parts
1he reason that mind and consciousness are not
analogous to wheelness`, within the context o classical
physics, is that the properties that characterize wheelness`
are properties that are evtaitea, within the conceptual
ramework o classical physics, by properties speciied in
classical physics, whereas the properties that characterize
conscious mental processes, namely the arious ways these
processes eel, are not evtaitea, within the conceptual structure
proided by classical physics, by the properties speciied by
classical physics.
1hat is the huge dierence-in-principle that distinguishes
mind and consciousness rom things that, according to classical
physics, are constructible out o the particles that are
postulated to exist by classical physics.
235
Gien the state o motion o each o the tiny physical parts o
a wheel, as it is conceied o in classical physics, the properties
that characterize the wheel - e.g., its roundness, radius, center
point, rate o rotation, etc., - are speciied within the conceptual
ramework proided by the principles o classical physics, which
speciy only geometric-type properties such as changing
locations and shapes o conglomerations o particles, and
numbers assigned to points in space. But gien the state o
motion o each tiny part o the brain, as it is conceied o in
classical physics, the properties that characterize the stream o
consciousness - the painulness o the pain, the eeling o
the anguish, or o the sorrow, or o the joy - are not speciied,
within the conceptual ramework proided by the
principles o classical physics. 1hus it is possible, within
that classical physics ramework, to strip away those eelings
without disturbing the physical descriptions o the motions o
the tiny parts. One can, within the conceptual ramework o
classical physics, take away the consciousness while leaing
intact the properties that enter into that theoretical construct,
namely the locations and motions o the tiny physical parts o
the brain and its physical enironment. But one cannot, within
the conceptual ramework proided by classical physics, take
away the physical characteristics that deine the wheelness` o a
wheel without aecting the locations and motions o the tiny
physical parts o the wheel.
Because one can, within the conceptual ramework
proided by classical physics, strip away mind and consciousness
without aecting the physical behaior, one cannot rationally
claim, ritbiv tbat fraveror/, that mind and consciousness are the
236
cav.e. o the physical behaior, or are cav.att, efficaciov. in the
physical world.
1hus the identity theory` or emergent property` strategy
ails in its attempt to make mind and consciousness eicacious,
insoar as one remains strictly within the conceptual ramework
proided by classical physics. Moreoer, the whole endeaor
to base brain theory on classical physics is undermined by
the act that classical theory is unable to account or behaioural
properties ,such as electrical and thermal conductiity, and
elasticity, etc., that depend sensitiely upon the behaior o the
atomic, molecular, and ionic constituents o a system, and brains
are certainly systems o this kind, as will be discussed in detail
later.
96

Seeing that classical physics` cannot explain the phenomena, Stapp and his
colleagues hae resorted to quantum mechanics.
1elemorphogenesis
Major problems exist in the dualist, emergent and materialist positions,
that cannot be resoled by the quantum mechanical approach`, since it
still deals with particles and they hae a location in space, subject to the
Physicalist 1rap, as discussed on page 164-169.
\herein lies the solution, then, and how do we tackle whether, and
i so, how consciousness exists ater death Lssentially what happens is that
when we die, our will does not die but, being sustained as a command o
96. Stapp, lenry P., ,2004,, Miva, Matter ava Qvavtvv Mecbavic., pp. 236-23.
23
God, which it always is, ocuses on ambient microbits in space and orms a
new body. 1he will-based control o particles to alter the shape that orm
this new orm` is what we shall now reer to as: tetevorbogeve.i.. \e are
indeed brought into being in that which we do not know through a
tetevorbic process. Our likeness is thus substituted or the old body in this
process, or, in other words, our body is replaced by that which is like the old
one. Ater this process, the angels take oer and escort` this new orm, o
course the sel or vaf. is now using this new microbitic body. lor those who
are on the right side o God, they will depart rom their now obsolete dead
bodies gladly, but or others who hae transgressed beyond bounds in their
conduct, they will not want to leae and will, in utility, resist departure, as
they know the dread that is in store ,see the Quran 6:93,! 1he human will
would sere as a cohesie orce and an attractor or these smaller
particles, just as the will utilizes the carbon-based brain in arious ways,
which then leads to the usage o our limbs etc. In both the utilization o
the bioluidic luminal and the newly eoled bioluidic superluminal body,
there is an independent will that is a ractionalization o objectless space ,the
Mind o God,. 1hat .ave ritt uses dierent bodies.
1his process is captured by Prophet Abraham`s request to God to show
him how the dead are brought to lie ,Quran 2:260,. Now obiously,
humans did not hae computers around 4,000 B.C. in Sumeria and God
could not tell Prophet Abraham to plug-in a simulation CD based on
Jaa programming in the D -Drie to see what exactly happens to the
body when a person dies. le was, instead gien an analogical simulation in
3D, he was told to take our birds, train them to respond to him and place
them on separate hills. 1hen he was instructed to call them in some
unspeciied manner as per their initial training, they came lying back to him,
in conergence, they were subserient to Abraham`s will. Similarly, a group
o microbit particles ,analogous to birds, will be brought together and
238
will be co-joined much as the gases and dust particles coalesced to orm
the sun. Interestingly enough, another analogy is used in the Quran which,
though it does not capture the simulatie aspects o the ormation o the
new body` ater death, does coney the act that there is a conseration o
matter and energy, or essentially particles. 1his is combustion. In the Quran,
in erse 36:9, those who are skeptical o lie ater death are told that God
will indeed raise create lie because o lis knowledge o eery creation and
immediately ater this, it is stated that:
le is the one who has made ire or you, rom the green tree
and then rom it you ignite. ,36:80,
Now in combustion, there is chemical transormation occurring, as well as
energy conseration. No particles are lost. 1hey are only dispersed within
space. So this erse coneys the concepts o both conseration o particles
and dispersion. 1he analogy o the birds, howeer, coneys will-based
control ,commands,, automaticity and conergence rom particles in a
dispersed state. 1his together with the third analogous concept o vvfotaivg
rom the potentialities present in the seed, gies us an unprecedented iew
o the details o the mechanism o the seamless continuation ater death:
And o lis signs is that you see the earth stilled, but when \e
send rain upon it, it quiers and grows. Indeed, le who has
gien it lie is the gier o lie to the dead. Indeed, le is
competent oer all things. ,41:39,
239
Automatic and seamless continuity of consciousness
1hat there is a seamless continuity o consciousness upon death can also be
realized rom the Quran itsel. Note that in erse 56:61 the word tbvvva
,then`, is not used. 1he ab.evce o this word in the passage is ery telling.
Usually, wheneer the word tbvvva is used in the Quran or a creatie
process it signiies that one eent occurs ater another, is not simultaneous
and that one process may take a long time beore another one ollows. 1he
omission o this word implies gaplessness in and continuity o a process, in
the sense that there is no gap and that you are not deocused rom one
body and reocused into another, you are always in ocus but your microbitic
structure changes. It is simply that the inormation` processing rate changes
,the GRC changes, and concomitantly so does the scenery`, since
your consciousness lies as a ractionalized entity within the
oerarching mind o God, that le chooses to keep actiated.. I you
were on a ery slow moing car, then got o and entered into a aster
moing train, you would retain all your memories and experiences and
notion o sel in a seamless continuity. loweer, there would be a
demarcation o the change o the type o experiences you would perceie
rom the point at which you transerred onto the train. \hen we die, we
lose use o our body and or that instant become bodiless, and or a ery
brie period remain as a ractionalization in the mind o God without a
microbitic body. 1here is thereore some type o indiidual awareness but it
is not the normal awareness o sel. lrom this position, as a ractionalized
component within objectless space, we are almost instantly gien to reassert
our will and shape another body out o the ambient microbits. \e cannot
choose any type o body or orm as these microbits ollow rules ,i.e.
remember that the birds come together in a rule based manner as they are
trained by Abraham, and we are, likewise, impelled to orm a body
240
which is similar, though without any imperections to our earthly body,
hence the term replace their likenesses` in 56:61, in the Quran.
1he next lie, which is not isible to us cognitiely because o our speed
o inormation processing due to our heay microbitic body is not limited to
light speed ,c,. It will, o course, take a bit o time or the indiidual to
acclimatize to the new enironment, because the indiidual is in a totally new
surrounding. It would initially be analogous to a newborn baby in a totally
new ista than the pre-natal enironment.
1he mechanics of life after this life
\e hae described, most probably or the irst time, to our knowledge,
eactt, what occurs ater death in terms o the aetaitea vecbavi.v based on a
new physics in a manner that corresponds with erses rom the Quran. Let
us now get an oeriew rom birth to death, and moe beyond immediate
death, to see what happens to the indiidual consciousness, or the journey o
what in so-called religious terms has been termed the soul. \hat then is
the soul, according to the Quran and our analysis using physics It is a
command rom the Sustainer as it is stated in the Quran, in which the
ractionalized will has an existence without any orm. It is gien a number`
by God, and is singled out or uniqueness o personality. Now, initially,
this will or soul does not hae a completely mature body when it is still in the
embryological phase, but is aware and has consciousness as being a
separate will within the will o God. \hat has happened is that this will has
become transocused to a community o particles as the body, during
embryological deelopment. 1his body becomes an amenable receptacle
to the intelligence that is the property o objectless space. God ocuses will
to body
1
and will , ,another soul`, to body ,
1
. 1be focv. i. avtovatic becav.e
241
.ace ba. tbe roert, of .b.otvte Cov.ciov.ve.. ;of Coa) rbicb i. grabbea, a. it rere, b,
tbe covte boa, tbat ba. ari.ev - rbat re catt biotogicat tife. 1hrough body
1
,
obseres things and indeed commands the moement o
1
. accumulates
experience etc. and deelops memories and a urther distinction in
personality. Now when
1
becomes unoperational, must leae` the
body and is re-transocused in a seamless continuum to the substitute
body`
2
discussed in the preious section. Now is connected to
2
.
2
continues to exist in the parallel unierse o hell or paradise until the entire
unierse, including the parallel unierse o hell and paradise is destroyed.
Nothing remains o these unierses except the lace o God. God then re-
creates a second unierse rom the memory o the last one, where le, God,
remembers eerything o that irst unierse, down to the motion o eery
microbit. le eoles this second unierse out o the preious one`s record.
All the numbers ,entites, are recalled and is transocused into a third body
3
, to lie oreer in a reconstitution o the same paradise and in the
company o the Creator or, temporarily, in a hellish existence until the time
o punishment has been sered, ater which that entity that desered
such punishment is inally granted paradise. It must be realized that this
whole process is necessary i God is to create entities that are like lim, to
the extent that le has maximized the simulation o ree will gien the
constraint that le, being so powerul and omnipresent, cannot create
outside lis sel. Also note that the ractionalization o objectless space
which we call ,your sel or vaf. in Arabic, lies on oreer, through
dierent bodies, inally settling into body
3
, based on the physics
associated with the usion o objectless space with the re-patterning o
microbits in the arious unctional orms we call bodies. All that changes
is the scenery. \ou were thereore built to lie into eternity, you will inherit
paradise immediately, i you ollow God`s laws and establish truth, peace and
242
justice or all mankind and nature, and this is why you should not ear or
griee. In other words, you will be at peace, and at home, in the panoply o
existential continuum.
So it is that when we die and exit rom our isible body, we leae with
the notion o sel and all memories, as there is in reality no death, but only a
continuance and transerence. 1he brain is simply there or moement as a
switch gear or the ie senses, helping us experience pain and pleasure and
signaled mechanical moement. \ou are the drier, the body is the bus. \e
deelop our sel through the body and, ater death, through another body.
\e witness through our bodies, and God \itnesses things both through us
and globally, since le is the Imaginator o all that exists:
Indeed, le comprehends all ision, but ision cannot
comprehend lim.
9

In the ollowing passages, the process o lie ater death is described, as
depicted in the Quran:
1. le ,god, is omnipotent oer lis serants, le sends
guardians oer you until when death comes to one o you,
our messengers receie him, and they do not neglect
,anything,. 1hen they are restored unto God, their
sustainer, the just. ,6:61 - 62,.
2. \ou are taken to a place in this unierse ,where that could
be is anybody`s guess and is inconsequential, because o
your concomitant non-interactability with the isible liing,
and your perception o time and space is obiously not that
9. Quran 6:103.
243
o the normal person who has not died, because, or one
thing, you do not hae a body made o heay microbits ,i.e.
carbon-based, anymore. \ou are literally in a dierent
orm. At this stage, we are at one o the leels o the
Angelic microbitic density and an increased GRC and this
is why we can see Angels when we die, according to the
ladiths ,sayings o the Prophet, and also why the liing
cannot see the dead. 1he indiidual, as a pattern o
interacting microbits with the soul ,i.e. the transocation o
your consciousness in your body, continues to exist in a
parallel unierse o paradise or hell, co-existent with this
isible heay microbitic unierse, until the entire system,
including paradise and hell, are destroyed and a new
unierse is made to spring up. 1he new unierse o
paradise and hell, is created o the same type as the parallel
paradise and hell existent right now, minus the oerlaid
current heay particle based unierse comprised o
electrons, atoms etc. ,14:48,:
And the Day when we shall roll up the unierse
like a scroll rolled up or books - as \e began
the irst creation, \e shall repeat it, a promise
binding on Us. 1ruly, \e shall do it. ,21:104,
Note that the unierse`s inal destruction is compared to a scroll most aptly
because it contains inormation to be re-displayed in another orm when the
scroll is re-opened. One can enision a second Big-Bang rom which the
unierse is re-created by microbits that re-establishes the heaen and hell
that existed in Unierse 1, with no heay unierse component.
244
3. As ar as the rest o the world is concerned, someone who
has died might as well be in another dimension because
when you die there is now a barrier between you and them
,see Quran 23:100,. \ou exist, yet you cannot
communicate with them in any physical manner and
they cannot see you, hear you, eel you or touch you, and
neither can you interact in any such a manner ,unless willed
by God, which is not generally the rule,.
1here is no mention in the Quran and ladiths o any
gbo.t. ei.tivg iv tbe .ev.e of covvvvicativg ritb ,ov or beivg .eeabte,
as is so popularly held in \estern and many Lastern
societies and as popularized in ghost stories in arious
noels, moies etc. And there is absolutely no re-
incarnation. 1he angels will take the lies o those who
are in a pure state, saying: Peace be upon you. Lnter
paradise, because o what you used to do.`
98

In the ot read Chapter \a Sin` it is most clearly stated that the person who
was preaching the Oneness o God to his people, who were rejecting him
was killed, howeer, he was immediately granted paradise. 1hereater, his
tribe was destroyed with a cataclysm ,likely a olcanic eruption,, rorivg tbat
bi. tive` iv araai.e ra. vot after tbe aa, of ;vagvevt, bvt before. In other words,
there is the irst paradise that exists in parallel to this unierse. lere is that
passage:
Verily, in the Sustainer o you all hae I come to beliee: listen,
then, to me!` |le then died| and he was told: Lnter paradise
98. 16:32
245
,;avvat, !` le exclaimed: \ould that my people |still on earth|
knew how my Sustainer has orgien me, and has placed me
among the honoured ones |i.e. others already in paradise|!`
And no host out o heaen did \e send down against his
people, nor did \e need to send down any: nothing was
,needed, but one single blast and lo! 1hey became as silent as
ashes. ,36:25-29,
1hose who are eil, are placed in hell almost immediately ater death:
1hose whom the angels will carry o while doing wrong to
themseles, will oer submission, saying: \e did not commit
eil!` ,1he angels will reply,: \es! 1ruly, God is the All-
Knower o what you used to do. So enter the gates o lell: there
you shall abide.
99
In addition, lell exists now as this erse clearly exhibits, since it is stated
that there are some who will experience the suering o hell soon ater they
die:
I you could only see the wicked in their death agonies, as
the angels stretch out their hands |to them| saying, Gie up your
souls. 1oaa, you will be repaid with humiliating punishment or
saying alse things about God, and or arrogantly rejecting lis
reelations.`,6:93,

lence the hellish or paradisiacal state commences as soon as we die.
99. lere, in 16:28, no mention is made o a lag between death and lie in the
hereater.
246
1here may be a questioning period or some people beore one is placed
into hell or paradise that is akin to a parallel unierse within our unierse.
loweer, this questioning, which many will experience, aries in terms
o duration. Most Muslims hae taken the erroneous iew that the period o
the grae lasts until the day o judgment, when the whole unierse is
destroyed because they hae not analysed the whole Quran in terms o this
question and hae only looked at particular ladiths, each o which proides
a snapshot o the whole process. In addition, the ladiths in which are
stated that both the good and the bad will be in their graes` until judgment
day, contradict the Quran and een many other ladiths. In act, those
ladiths which, in act speak o those who hae departed rom this world
as being in the grae` until the day o judgment that blatantly contradict
the Quran must be rejected, ollowing the rule that the Quran takes
precedence oer ladiths ,sayings o the Prophet,, as many o these ladiths
may be inaccurate and alsely reported.
In Chapter 22, erse , when it states that: And that the Last lour is
bound to come, beyond any doubt, and that God will resurrect all those who
are in their graes` reers to the act that the whole unierse and the earth
will be destroyed and that God will create a new unierse and earth rom
the memory o this earth, and the redeelopment o lie in the second
unierse will be rom the memory o the preious earth ,and unierse,
which resides in the mind and imagination o God. All o those who
had been created in the irst Unierse,Larth plus the co-existent irst
Paradise and lell will, as it were, will be raised as entities rom lis memory,
as it cannot literally mean graes because the unierse would not exist! Note
that the root meaning o grae ,/abr, is to inter` or put into, which is
essentially storage.
1here is a ladith narrated by Abu lurayrah rom the Prophet
Muhammed in which it says that the angels seize the soul o the belieing
24
slae and take it up to the heaens, and the angels say, low good is the
soul which you hae brought rom the earth,` then they bring it to meet the
souls o the belieers |who are already in paradise|, and they rejoice oer it
more than anyone o you does when an absent loed one returns. 1hey |the
people in paradise| ask him, what happened to so and so But they |the
angels| say, Leae him alone, or he was acing the distress o the world.`
le |the person brought by the angels| says, But he died, did he not come to
meet you` 1hen they |the angels| say, le has gone to his home in .t
aari,ab ,the pit o lell,.` So the soul o the belieer meets the souls o
other belieers already in Paradise.
100
1he summary o this ladith is: when
a person dies ,call him 1om`,, he is taken to paradise to meet other
belieers. 1he people in paradise ask him about another mutual riend
,larry`,. 1om thinks that larry is also in paradise but the angels inorm
these dwellers o paradise that larry has been cast into hell. It must be
noted that in this ladith, when it states that the angel takes the soul up to
paradise rom the earth, it cannot be reerring to the soul being brought
rom Doomsday to the Day o Judgment, because o the simple act that
eerything gets destroyed and re-created again on Doomsday ,,avv at
qi,aavat, - there are no angels, earth, or human souls to conduct the
transportation or courier business o carrying souls! 1hereore, this ladith
pertains to pre-doomsday matters and is only one o the ladiths that shows
that people already exist in paradise.
In addition, note the existence o paradise and hell in the viraa; o the
Prophet where the Prophet actually saw paradise and hell, he also
conersed with some o the long departed prophets. 1his eent was not a
ision, but a concrete actuality. lor example, see Quran 53:14-1, where
100. Nasaaì, Kitaab at]avaaì, aab va ,atqa atMv`viv viv at Karaavab ivaa
Kbvroo; vaf.ibi, 1,.
248
the Garden o Abode` exists in tbi. unierse, as the Prophet Muhammed,
on his Night Journey, traeled to a lote-tree` near this region. Also reer to
the related ladith on this: abib .tv/bari, Vol. 4, ladith No. 429.
According to what we hae now discoered, with respect to
microbits, we can say that it was not Prophet Muhammed`s grosser ,heay
microbitic, body that isited these regions in our unierse but the subtler
body. 1hus, i one entered the room, one would still see the body o the
Prophet, sustained in its biological unctioning, but his mind,consciousness
would hae let his carbon-based body in his second lighter microbit
composed body, to isit these arious regions, simply by the will o God
who transocates all wills, where and as le pleases.
1here is one Quranic passage which has been erroneously understood
to reer to the punishment o the grae until judgment day:
.\hile an eil torment encompassed the Pharaoh`s people, the
lire, they are exposed to it, morning and aternoon. 1he day the
hour is proclaimed: Admit the people o Pharaoh to the seerest
punishment. ,40:45-46,
\hat is the seere punishment that the people o Pharaoh receie, it is
indeed the actual lire o lell, not simply a ri.iov o the lire, as proponents
o the punishment in the grae` beliee. 1hey are exposed to the ire in the
sense that they are physically beore it and actually experience it as existing
in ront o them, beore they are cast therein. All that the subsequent
erse is saying is that at a particular time, that is, 1he day the hour is
proclaimed`, they will be thrown into the ire. In the case o the ollowers
o the Pharaoh, they died and were placed in lell, where they are shown the
actual ire repetitiely beore being dumped into it, on a certain day`. Being
exposed to the ire or being brought beore it in the passage aboe is
249
denoted by the word ,varabvva`. 1here are many erses that speak o this
proximity beore something, using the same word. lor example, such erses
speak o being beore the ire, beore being dumped into that ery ire, or
being beore God on Judgment Day. ,Reer to the ollowing Quranic
passages o the actuality o ire in ront o the hell incarcerated, employing
,varabvva, rather than the word denoting merely a ision o it: 42:45,
46:20, 46:34, 11:18, 18:48, 36:32 and 36:53,. 1he main point is that it is not
an image,ision or dream o the actual ire but the ire itsel beore one`s
eyes.
\e hae seen that rom the eidence at hand that bearev ava bett tberefore
ei.t a. arattet vvirer.e. evbeaaea ritbiv ovr ri.ibte vvirer.e. loweer, they are
made o such small particles, so close in size to the smallest unitary particle
out o which all particles hae been made, that they are not isible to us
by any o our senses, unless the Creator makes a special exception, as in the
case o the Prophet Muhammed. In the Quran, reerence is made about the
barrier ,bara/b,, as discussed aboe. It is interesting to note that bara/b is
spoken o, in the context o two saltwater seas that do not intermix ,without
conersion across the barrier,, as has recently been discoered, such as the
Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, each o which hae distinct
properties. 1heir respectie densities are dierent, yielding a barrier o
surace tension`. Similarly, the properties o matter,energy are dierent
between the isible unierse and that which co-exists with this one ,paradise
and hell,, as the latter are on a leel o matter,energy that is o a lesser
density and particle size. 1his barrier or us is, thereore, cognitie ,the
nature o hardwiring o our nerous system,, due to the nature o the
particles out o which this other world is made, in this case, the wide gul
between the sizes, speeds and densities o particles o the next world. At the
same time, the issue arises as to why the inhabitants o the other world
cannot see us, or we are made o larger particles and are more densely
250
constructed. 1he reason or this is also due to the nature o the
hardwiring o the cognitie apparatus o indiiduals in the next lie: or
instance, we may see or hear, or not see or not hear something, in this lie,
because our brains are not hardwired or seeing or hearing certain things or
requencies. 1he barrier is like an opaque wall: 1hose on the inside cannot
look outside, and those on the outside cannot look inside. As a result o
complete non-interaction in this way, it is truly a two-way opaque sensory
barrier. 1he dierence between the barrier in the oceans, and the barrier that
separates the liing rom the departed, is that in the oceans, the low o the
type o water ,without conersion, does not occur rom A ,one ocean, to
B ,the other ocean, whereas in the barrier spoken o in connection with
death, the ivforvatiov low does not occur between A ,the liing, and B ,the
dead, as signals rom each zone` cannot be processed or registered and the
particles are non-interactable. It is erroneous then, to state that ater we die
we are iv the state o the ,barrier,, since we are not in the barrier per se, the
barrier is, howeer, a cognitie one based on the hardwiring o the brain
and particle arrangement causing the liing and the departed to remain
disconnected, until we eentually join them. It is truly a parallel unierse.
loweer, it must be stressed that there are no other dimensions: only
microbits in absolute space that produce these two systems o lie and the
aterlie, that is, the lie that exists immediately ater death.
In summary, this is the process o lie ater this lie:
1. 1he sel-consciousness that man has been inused with was
created as the body was deeloping in the womb and
has had some type o communication with God beore
such inusion: And when your Sustainer brought orth
rom the children o Adam, rom their loins, their ospring,
and asked them to bear witness about themseles |asking|:
251
Am I not your Sustainer` - to which they answered: \es,
indeed, we do bear witness!`` ,:12,
2. 1aste death in this lie. 1his is death No. 1. ,see erse
6:61- 62,
3. 1ranser o the conscious sel into the subtle body. 1he soul
,now re-transocated in the subtler body,soul, is receied
the Guardian Angels at death, as is stated in the Quran
,6:61-62,. 1his reception is in the orm o a cohesie
set o microbits that orms a new physique. Just prior to
this re-transocation, we are literally bodiless or an instant,
and this is what is meant when it is stated that we are
brought back` to our Sustainer:
.the Angel o Death who has been gien charge
o you, will take you, and then unto your Sustainer
you will be brought back.` ,32:10,11,
Regarding bara/b ,the barrier, it is stated that: .behind
those there is a barrier until the Day when they will be
raised.` ,23:100,
4. 1he Unierse is destroyed - eerything is destroyed -
including the soul`. Lerything, then, is regenerated
because it is all in the mind o the Creator. \e stand
beore God on Judgment Day.
5. At the end o the day, there is no more death - there is
252
eerlasting lie in a new unierse o paradise and a
purgatorial type o hell: the death o Death!
Analysing the Quran in these terms ,that is, stages 1 to 5, we see that, or
example, in some passages, only a ew o these stages are mentioned, but by
looking at most o the main erses in the Quran on this subject, we can get
the whole picture. lere is another passage:
1hen le makes the Path easy or him. 1hen le causes him to
die |become still: root o the word vavt|, and puts him in his
grae |storage|. 1hen, wheneer it is lis will, le shall unold
him ,av.barabv,. ,80:20-22,
A human being who dies, or more accurately speaking, whose body dies,
that is, because the consciousness does not die, will be placed in paradise
or hell soon thereater, as shown preiously, or will remain in relatie
dormancy under the physical control or restraint o the angels or a duration
until he or she is cast into either o these domains. 1he aboe-reerenced
erse reinorces this point, as it does not speak o being raised on the day o
judgment. In contrast, the erse explains that the raising unto a new lie
would be at the appropriate time, and could be before judgment day, due to
the usage o the word wheneer` it is lis will ,iaba .baaaa,. 1his is similar
to erse 42:29 which speaks o God gathering together humans and
extraterrestrials wheneer le wills ,iaba ,a.baav,. In other words, God
does vot say: 1hen, on the day o judgment, le will raise him.`
lurthermore, in the aboe passage, most translators translate the last
sentence as being: le shall bring him back to lie, or raise him.` 1his
howeer, implies that the person is non-existent and then God makes that
person exist again. 1his interpretation is not accurate, howeer, or it
253
would contradict other passages which clearly state that the human being
does not really die, but continues lie in paradise or hell as soon as he or she
passes away`. In 43:11, the same basic word is used, when God raises
,av.barvaa, therewith the dead land` by sending rain. Now obiously the
egetation that grows on such dead land does not sprout out o empty
soil. Seeds already exist, ready or sprouting: they are there, latent and are
existent or the vvfotaivg into new orms, which is the basic meaning o the
word as it occurs in erse 81:10: And when the scrolls |record o deeds| will
be unolded ,vv.birat,`. Similarly, our consciousness ,vaf., exists as a seed
ater we die, ready or the new lie and unimaginable growth, whereby God
rejuenates and makes us grow into that new lie, just as dormant seeds are
actiated and grow by rainwater that God sends rom the clouds. 1his is
depicted clearly in the Quran, where the same word is used or raising`:
And le it is who sends down, again and again, waters rom the
sky in due measure: and \e raise |re-actiate, rejuenate|
therewith dead land |i.e. dry earth, when the water interacts
with the oliages` seeds|, likewise will you be brought orth.
,43:11,
1his new lie is actiated in our new bodies. Being in a grae does not
necessarily mean that we are dead in the sense o being non-existent,
rather it is a relatie term in that it connotes, or example, that compared to
the opportunities and possibilities open to a butterly, the pre-butterly stage
in a cocoon is akin to being interred or buried in a grae-like structure until
the creature emerges and has a new lie. Another analogy is that o
someone who is carrying a packet o seeds, they are not actiated and do
not grow until they are planted in ertile soil. Similarly, when we die ,one o
the root meanings in Arabic or death ,vaata, is stillness`,, our
254
consciousness, though it exists, must be planted, in the new enironment or
actiation and growth. Consequentially, in the transition phase, when our
conscious sel is extracted rom our bodies under the superision o the
adroitly punctual angels responsible or this task, we exist and are conscious,
yet need to be released by being placed in the new enironment` o paradise
to continue our journey into ininity. 1here is no barrier ,bara/b, either to
enter paradise or to be placed in hell by the Creator. 1he barrier is only
between this lie and the next. 1hat is why it says that bebiva them` is a
barrier or they cannot return to tbi. lie, nor communicate with the liing o
this lie. 1here is no barrier to moe on forrara to the new enironment
ater death:
.behind those |who leae this world| there is a barrier until the
Day when they will be raised. ,23:100,
Deeper meanings of the words death and grave'
It must be remembered that the word death, in the Quran, is also used to
mean the coering that people put on themseles cognitiely so that they
do not see the truth. I they do not see the truth, it is as i they are dead
because they are unresponsie, as it is explained in the ollowing passage in
the Quran:
Certainly, you cannot make the dead hear.` ,2:80,
Consequently, the blockage o this inormation can exist:
1. I we are selectiely iltering inormation and thereore do
255
not see the truth. Cognitie iltering is gien by the
ollowing passage: \e are best aware what they hear with
when they listen to you .` ,1:4,.

2. I there is no sensory input rom this world to those who
hae just died. Verse ,2:80, can also be applied to this
aspect o not hearing.
3. Non-existence, as when eerything is destroyed and God re-
creates us once again rom lis memory` as in Quran. See
22:.
So we can see that the words death and grae in the Quran, do not
necessarily mean being placed physically in a grae, or that your soul will
be conined in a physical structure called a grae until the day o judgment.
1hese words pertain irstly, to cognitie blockage associated with the
barrier ,bara/b, and secondly, to the act that initially, a period exists when
we are not yet planted, as it were, in the new enironment o the new lie or
actiation and growth, or to put it in more classical` terms, keeping in
mind how we hae deined terms in this book, or the eolution o your
soul.
Iurther proof of a parallel Universe of Paradise and Hell
It is written in the Quran then, that one day the entire system will be
destroyed and nothing will remain except the ace o God:
And inoke not any other deity along with God - none has the
256
right to be worshiped but le. Lerything will perish except lis
lace. lis is the Decision, and to lim you ,all, shall be returned.
,28:88,
According to this iew, we must be made to die twice: once when we die the
earthly death, and the second time when the entire unierse is destroyed
and only God remains, when we are in the mind o God. loweer, is there
such a statement in the Quran Amazingly, there is:
1hey |those who coer the truth| will say: Our Lord! \ou hae
made us die ,stilled us, twice and you hae gien us lie twice.
,40:11,
\hat are these two deaths
1. 1he irst is our earthly death. loweer, this is not really
death but a death o part o us`, speciically our body and
our old, slower GRC. 1hat is why it is characterized, in the
Quran, as eery soul,sel ta.te. death`
101
, since the soul or
sel neer dies but only experiences a moment called death
- the death o the body, or the relatie stillness o the
body. 1his is not really death but transormation to a new
type o lie in a new body.
2. \hen the unierse and eerything in it ,including your
mind,soul that exists, ater your earthly death, perishes.
3.
101. Quran 3:185, 21:35, 29:5
25
Since God made us die the irst time, it means that we must hae been alie,
so this cannot reer to the state o lie before our birth, as many scholars
assume. It can only reer to death after conception o the carbon-based body.
Similarly, when the whole unierse is destroyed you are there` in the mind o
God, because you had once been and are simply reractionalized` and raised
to a high GRC. In summation, God raises us twice when:
1. \hen we are raised rom our earthly death` to a higher
GRC.
2. \hen we are re-created on judgment day rom the mind o
God, rom lis memory, through a recreation o a new type
o heaens and earth: heaen and hell, because
eerything perishes and is rei..vea anew. lere we are
raised rom zero GRC ,existence as a memory in God`s
mind, with no microbitic body, to a ery high GRC in the
new microbitic body orm.
Note that the people mentioned in 40:11 are in hell after the unierse
perishes and are commenting about the two deaths that they hae
experienced as discussed aboe, in point number 2.
It is crucial to note that the word or death means the stillness o
something rom its prior unctional capacity, or its relatie stillness with
respect to its post unctional capacity. 1his word is at-vavt in Arabic, and is
used extensiely in the Quran in dierent orms, based on root letters. lor
example, in the Quran, it is stated that:
low can you reuse to acknowledge God, seeing that you were
dead ,av raatav, and le gae you lie, and that le will cause
258
you to die and then will bring you back to lie, then you will be
brought back unto lim. ,2:28,
1o get the core meaning, the erse can be translated as ollows, with our
understanding o the words death` and lie`:
low can you reuse to acknowledge God, seeing that you
were vot actiratiovat and le made you actiratiovat, and that le will
cause you to become te.. actiratiovat and then vore actiratiovat,
then you will be brought back to lim.,2:28,

1his erse is concerned with the creation o lie, the carbon-based body,
rom non-existence and then the death o the body, though one`s
consciousness continues to exist at a higher GRC, which is reerred to as
bringing back to lie`. God does not speak o the third death here ,the death
or non-existence we ace just beore the Day o Judgment when eerything
perishes except the ace o God,.
Many Quranic Quran translations gie the reader the wrong perception
that there is only one death. lor example in \usu Ali`s translation, among
others, it states:
Is it the case that we shall not die, except our irst death, and
that we shall not be punished` ,3:58, 59,
1his erse, howeer, uses the words ittaa vartatavatvvtaa
means the preious, not the irst`. lence the translation should read:
Is it the case that we shall not die, except our reriov. death, and
that we shall not be punished`,3:58, 59,
259
Coma, unconsciousness and non-RLM sleep
1he interesting question which arises is: what happens when one is in a
coma or under anaesthesia. 1hose who hae general anaesthesia usually
do not recall any thoughts occurring during the state o unconsciousness.
But i there is a thing such as the soul` which has a sort o an independence
rom the body, why then are we not conscious when we are in a coma, when
we are unconscious` or during the state o anaesthesia In order to answer
this question, we need to draw upon an analogy: I one is in or near a library,
three basic states may exist. 1he irst is one where we hae access to books
and read them, the second is one where we cannot access the books because
the library is closed, the third is where we check-out the books. 1he irst
case is where our soul` or rvb is within our body and is interacting with the
library, or our brain, where our brain is a portal to objectless space, the place
where the property o consciousness ultimately resides. 1he second case is
when we are in a coma or unconscious, where our hardware,brain is not
accessible to the sotware, or, the consciousness that is present in
objectless space, since the portal is blocked. Len the normal sense o sel`
is gone, because the normal sense o sel arises rom a body and location in
absolute space. In other words, only the dormant sel preails, as sustained
by the transocation. 1his sel becomes actiational upon the particularized
interaction microbits ,the body,. It is as i the soul is non-existent, though in
actuality it is still there. It is just that the books in the library cannot be
accessed! It is now known that the biophotons that operate through the
microtubules in the brain, play a ital role in consciousness and that certain
chemicals, gien or producing unconsciousness, block the distribution o
this inormation processing that normally occurs through the
biologically acilitated moement o light
102
,which is slowly coming close
to the GRC concepts o our processing or consciousness requiring the
260
bioluidic motion o light,. In the last case, howeer, in our library analogy,
that is, checking the books out when we die, our transocused
consciousness leaes our grosser body, now being transocused on a lighter
body, constituted o less dense and smaller particles. \e retain our
memories, as the memory is part and parcel o the transocused object
through the GRC.
Artificial Intelligence' and the creation' of new forms of life
linally, one may ask: what are the implications o our iews on
consciousness and the soul with respect to the issue o artiicial intelligence
By the end o the 21
st
century, we may produce walking and talking robots
but they will just be tin-headed-dumb-mechanical-contraptions that need to
be ultimately programmed by us humans and will not hae the human type
o simulated ree will. Len an organic irus would hae more ree will` than
such creations! 1his is because consciousness is a direct result o the
ractionalization and transocation o the Consciousness o God into
particle based objects that hae to be arranged in particular way so that
they become a portal to the intelligence in objectless space and this, though
it be theoretically possible, is exceedingly diicult to say the least, as the
hypothetical man-made` nerous system has to interact in a precise ashion
with objectless space. By precise ashion`, what is meant is that the
microbits hae to be arranged in a particular way, so as to exhibit and
maintain particular speeds o interaction and directions ,patterns in absolute
space that go up to the speed o light in acuum`, c, that then become,
as an integrated whole, orming a set o cohesie subatomic particles,
102. Reer to the ootnote no. 90., on page 229.
261
which whole seres as a receptacle to accessing the consciousness that is
atreaa, re.iaevt in absolute space. \hat is needed is a continuum o dynamic
and automatic ,sel-propelled, representation o the outside space by the
internal space ,mechanisms o the body,: 1oita! 1he emergence o lie and
consciousness. As discussed preiously, it is crucial to remember that
without our embedment in the sea o absolute objectless space wherein
the property o intelligence atreaa, lies and has the potential to be borrowed,
as it were, absolutely no arrangement o microbits ,subatomic particles,
would be able to yield any consciousness whatsoeer. lardware made o
silicon, at least in the way it is being currently manipulated, does not
exhibit the dynamical properties o such natural nerous systems, or an
arrangement o microbits ound in animals, down to the lowliest worm.
loweer, i particles rom any material were to be arranged with the proper
iring patterns ,including the binary on-o` GRC mechanism, and speed o
light interaction between the cells so created, then one would create
consciousness, be the medium stone, iron, or o something we cannot
imagine. In act, the ollowing erse in the Quran is actually pointing to this
possibility:
And they say, \hen we are bones and crumbled particles, will
we be resurrected as a new creation Say: Be you stones or iron,
or some created thing, you hae in mind, which is greater. ,1:49
- 51,
In stating that it does not matter whether you are made o stones or iron,
etc., what is being said is that ,ov ,the human being, could be made o those
materials and hence be conscious. Now i we were to be made o stone, or
example, then it would be possible to construct an entity made o stone and
iron and this new entity would automatically become conscious, i structured
262
in the proper way. Achieing the bioluidic speed o light is one requirement.
Obiously, it is not the iron atoms that would moe at the speed o light, but
those particles that would be part and parcel o the matrix o an iron
structure would hae to be channeled to go at that speed bioftviaicatt,, just as,
or example, human beings are mostly comprised o carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen, but hae photons associated in the matrix o these elements which
gies them consciousness. I lie on this earth were to continue or tens o
thousands o years, with adancing technology, it is entirely conceiable that
the creation o a conscious being would be achieed. Obiously, at the end
o the day, it is God who is creating and we are only the manipulators o pre-
existing material, where consciousness always remains the property o
absolute space rom which it is drawn. As such no one creates consciousness
itsel.
Stepping outside the Reverse Dream'
\e hae shown that the unierse is made o microbits and that the physical
laws all emanate rom the intelligent ordering o these microbits in
three-space by a singular Intelligence who is not comprised o microbits. A
theory o consciousness based on our iew is neither scientiic nor religious,
or, one could say, it is both. \hen we are dealing with the mind o God no
such distinctions exist in the laws at the ultimate leel. 1here is the Creator
and the created. 1he created go through deelopmental processes all based
on microbits - willed and existing by the sustenance o the Creator. 1he
existence o consciousness is again willed and exists by the sustenance o
the same Creator as an instantiation and particularized consciousness that
only perceies through the created body. 1he main dierence between
consciousness and microbits is that microbits, unlike sel-consciousness, are
263
not themseles sel-conscious, and they re-cojoined to create the myriad
particles and structures in absolute space. lundamentally, howeer,
we can see that there is no biurcation normally called spirit and matter,
sacred and non-sacred and religious and non-religious, or eerything is
created, sustained and integrated by and on the same platorm o diine
objectless space. Such a iew o nature, space-time, consciousness and
microbits, osters a iew o unierse centred on, and created by, a
personage o Ininite Intelligence whose inimitably resplendent signs are
maniest in eery acet o nature. Indeed, this is the one to whom we
eentually hae to return to, or, indeed, recognize, because le is the
Sustainer o, and behind, all orms.
\e had discussed dream and reerse dream in connection with the
GRC. loweer, there is another angle to describing this term. Many people
oten wonder whether we are liing in a dream, especially since, when we
relect upon the past, it appears as i it were a dream. 1his unierse is like a
dream, but not in the usual sense o a dream, it is a dream that is
sustained by the continuum o God`s intense creatie imagination. \e, as
ractionalizations o God`s will, are witnessing that dream, yet erroneously
think that it is tbe ab.otvte reality and not the ivagiveacvvcreatea reatit, o the
one who is Ler-\akeul and Ler-\atchul. loweer, i we were to still
our minds to the relection o God as the generating source o this dream,
which we call the unierse, we would be able to perceie that we are in a
reerse or negatie dream. It is a reerse dream because we are witnessing
the dream while being still ully awake, and because God is Awake while
imagining it. \hen one reerses the reerse dream, one reatie. that it is a
dream, and that thereore there is, logically speaking, a higher realm o
non-dream as a basis which is responsible or generating that ery dream.
By merely thinking o the word reerse dream`, one can be
instantaneously transported to relect on the Creator o that reerse
264
dream, as one is able to improe seeing through` the eil to the presence
o God.
1hereore, we do indeed hae the potential to transcend the reerse
dream, by re-ocusing our attention, by re-directing our ace towards the
lace o God, because the lace o God is the ocus o God and the ocus o
God is the maintenance o the isage o the unierse, through its created
laws etc. 1his re-direction inoles stilling ourseles rom our daily
distractie busyness-ness, so that we can perceie the true nature o our
placement within that reerse dream. \e do not need a disaster or tragedy
to start thinking about these things at this deeper leel o understanding:
we hae to be igilant towards, work and improe on this awareness all the
time, be we in the midst o good` or bad` times. Proper behaiour, words
and actions in which one is conscious o God will help us realize the reerse
dream een more, as our behaiour would not become a shield to this
realization, but rather, a acilitator. In this acute rame o mind, we would
experientially realize that there is an outside to this dream, and that outside is
God.
1his stepping outside, is by cognitie re-ocusing on the act that God is
the Personality, le is No 1hing, in that le is not comprised o particles and
hence any type o structure, but le is vot nothing. \e are thereore to
acknowledge and welcome lim. 1his rame o being, enables us to ulill the
ery purpose or which we hae been created, which is to be welcomed
and embraced in the grace o God`s creatie company, in peace with lim
and, as a result, ourseles. No matter what our current circumstances might
be, or hurdles we ace, this realization is indeed the supreme goal to strie
or, and it is accessible to all o those who are truly awake.
265
Secret of the Universe
As a summary, here are some inal thoughts in erse..
.t eage`. cba.v of ivfivit, re .tava
10
!bat airectiov re tvrv to, i. ovr covvava
or bor re rea.ov to vvaer.tava
Detervive. iv rbat ab,.. re`tt tava.
1be vvirer.e ra. createa for erotrivg tbe .ovt
1orara. tbe etervat, ovr vererevaivg goat
orget rbat v,tb. gatore bare beev tota
.tcbevicat aetv.iov. tvrv gota ivto vovta
1be vvirer.e`. .ecret ivagivatiov of Coa
. .eea iv .acete.. .ace aia bva
or vaivat airer.it,, qvar/ to coa
1o vaivtaiv ;v.tice re begav ritbiv vva
o ao vot griere orer boait, aeatb
!bev .igb .batt re ov rer, ta.t breatb
or Coa`. ivagivatiov re.erre. tbe /ervet
Ov i. rigbt .iae, re`re vot ivfervat
!bevce iv afterrorta, cove. revaerov. agaiv
. gtoriov. ri.iov of araai.e vot aiv.
103. Poem entitled: 1he Secret o the Unierse`: by Nadeem laque, 2005.
266
v certaivt,`. arv. re veea vot fear
1be vvirer.e`. .ecret for att i. to bear
Ovr trve ae.tiv,`. cr,.tat ctear
t`. atra,. beivg rbi.erea, ;v.t oev av ear.
Appendix: Resolving the paradox' of free-will
1he paradox' of free-will
I we are all part o God`s imagination, where is ree-will 1he basic dilemma
in the ree will issue is the ollowing: i we are truly 100 ree then where
is the control o God and how does le, or can le hae oreknowledge I,
on the other hand, le controls eerything 100, then we do not hae ree-
will and i this is the case, why then would le punish or reward us In this
section, we shall try to resole this issue with a totally dierent approach
based on our realizations thus ar.
At the outset: I my consciousness is a result o ractionalization and
transocation o the conscious space o God limsel, then is my will really
my will 1he answer to this question is yes and no Let us examine the no`
part, rom which the extent o the yes` can be determined. God has the \ill
with a capital \. Our will is really part o lis consciousness, arising because
le creates microbitic orms within that space, which are then transocused
with consciousness through ractionalization, because they experience a
touch o God`s consciousness, due to lis will to ractionalize, be these wills
conined within the limited space in which those bodies exist. So on the
unique leel o vttivate reality, nothing other than God exists, or le is the
.baa ,in Arabic and in the Quran meaning: the Absolute and Indiisible
One,. loweer, one can and ought to appreciate the lengths to which God
has gone to simulate an other` within lis space - an entity that becomes
conscious within that space and appears cut o rom the .baa, and gies the
appearance o haing 100 ree will. Despite this, in reality, this appearance
o ree-will` is just an illusion because we are all part o lis conscious
imagination. It is as i the large \ill becomes indiidually acting small wills.
268
In other words, it becomes indiiduated though retaining the oerarching
indiisible Oneness, since the indiiduation is part o the imagination
within the space and control o the big \ill. lractionalization is like
pouring water rom a big jug into small cups, howeer, this is a special jug
which retains its leel o water and cannot be diminished. Now i someone
does good, he or she is in line with the big \ill`s ideal wishes, and likewise,
nature ollows created laws and is in line with the big \ill`s wishes.
loweer, i someone does transgress, though such behaiour goes against
lis ,God`s, ideal ri.b, it is still 100 controlled by lis \ill becav.e att .vatt
ritt. are art of i. big !itt, tbat ba. ivagivea tbe .vatter ritt.. 1his is indeed the
meaning o the ollowing erses in the Quran:
And unto God prostrates whoeer is in the celestial systems and
the earth, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the
morning and eening. ,13:15,
1he willing are those who consciously ollow the laws o God among
humankind, trees, plants, mountains, stars, animals, the stars, the gases etc.
1he unwilling are those who are ollowing the laws o God een i they
consciously go against God`s laws o proper behaiour - they
unwillingly prostrate because een their rebelliousness and rebellious choices
are 100 controlled and ultimately directed by God ,as explained
preiously,. 1he words used or willing or unwilling` are, taràvrra /ar
bavrra. 1he same basic words or willingly` and unwillingly` are used in:
Say: Spend willingly or unwillingly, it shall not be accepted rom
you, surely you are a transgressing people. ,9:53,
And also in:
269
1hen le directed limsel to the unierse and it was dust,
gaseous, le said to it and to the earth: come both, willingly or
unwillingly. 1hey both said: \e come willingly. ,41:11,
In 41:11, there is proo that the physical objects ollow the created
natural laws all into the category o those who prostrate willingly. 1hen in
erse 9:53 it is shown that unwillingly`, reers to an act perormed
consciously under a compulsion o some sort. In the context aboe, the
compulsion is that no moement occurs without the thought o God or
that moement to occur, yet mentally, the rebellious ones do not want to
submit to God - hence they do so unwillingly. In other words, their
unwillingness is also willed by God. Just as the sun controls particular
shadows 100, so too does the \ill o God control all physical and mental`
moement, hence the reerence to shadows in erse 13:15. In act 13:15
can be phrased as Lerything in the unierse is scripted by God,
both or those who willingly ollow lis laws, as well as those who do not`.
Lerything in existence right now is 100 controlled and sustained by
God and all eents that unold, do so because lis will actiely unolds. In
act, in the Quran it states that:
1his is nothing but a reminder unto creation, unto whoeer o
you wills |i.e. chooses| to walk straight. And you do not will
|choose|, unless ,it be, that Allah wills |chooses|, the Sustainer o
the worlds. ,81:29,
God, with lis will says: Be and it is!` and Be and will Be!` 1hat is, all
uture eents will become sequentially what le has planned. In act, the
ollowing Quranic erse, discussed earlier in the book, with reerence to
GRC, clearly speaks o this type o structuring o existence:
20
No disaster can happen on the earth or in yourseles, but it is in
a book beore \e expose it: 1hat is truly easy or God. ,5:23,
Note that this erse is not saying that God has oreknowledge only, but
that the plan itsel is pre-written in a book`. 1he book` is discussed in
Chapter 6. I Mr. X kills Mr. \ or greed, or example, it is part o the plan
and story that God has written that this will indeed happen. It is an earthly
disaster or Mr. \. It is part o the script, as it were. 1hen according to the
rules that God sets, Mr. X will get punished in the hereater and, at the
minimum, ace psychological turmoil here, unless Mr. X repents sincerely.
Lerything that happens, will happen as is thus written, yet we cannot know
this, unless we are gien knowledge o the uture by lim, because o the
shielding rom us o the knowledge o uture eents. Since all things
happen by lis will, we shall still ace the causal consequences o our
misdeeds and injustices. loweer, the killing o Mr. \ by Mr. X, will lead to
a situation where the A\L can be increased by those seeking justice, or
most o those who realize and seek the justice would hae a
quantitatiely superior understanding o the A\L, than others who do not
see the A\L, and the ormer will grow and eole. 1his is the reason why
God rebutted the angels` misgiings
104
, that although bovo .aiev. were
going to be created and many would indeed shed blood unjustly, such
misgiings were shown to be unwarranted. It was illustrated, by God, that
human beings hae the potential to use inormation, by deeloping
categories through naming things and hence gain knowledge and
consequentially do good. It was or such ends that their creation was
justiied, because not all o them would misuse the inormation in the
unierse. Some would ollow the commands o God. 1eaching Adam all the
104. Quran 2:30
21
names, signiies the vvtivitea capacity o human beings to deine objects. An
analogy will illustrate this: let us say that an ininitaire ,a person who has an
ininite amount o money!, gies his son all his money. 1his does not mean
that he will spend it all in one shot, he cannot spend ininity, anyway! It
means that he has the key to the account and can perpetually keep obtaining
the bank notes at his leisure. Similarly, teaching Adam all the names
means that we hae this inexhaustible bank account o being able to name
things, that is, to keep acquiring knowledge. On the other hand, the dierent
classes o Angels are not gien such an account, or they hae only been
allowed to withdraw certain amounts, in speciic denominations, up to a
inite leel, as each o these types o Angels that are being addressed by God
in the Quran are specialists only.
\hen we realize who we are in terms o our relation to God, in
respect o lis absolute control oer eerything, including att wills as part o
the large \ill, we realize that this unierse is an unolding story o the
Creator, in which each character or person that emerges is part o a pre-
designed text, only then do we truly realize the absolute power o God. It is
interesting to note that the unierse itsel has been described as a script
which olds out like a scroll and closes up. On a scroll, eerything is written,
yet as a closed-up scroll unscrolls, that which is written, line by line, is
unolded or exposed.
105
In conclusion then, one can see that we a hae been made to beriend the
Creator through the A\L and that we hae been endowed with the ability
to act through the choice-based system. \et at the same time we are nothing
but the imagination o the Creator and le, being eternal, has had to go to
such elaborate lengths to create similar though limited others` so that le
can, at the end o the day, include the A\L, as a co-existent tbovgbt within
105. Quran 21:104.
22
lis sel.
A inal question needs to be answered more deeply: could someone not
rightully complain to God o the ollowing: that i he,she was eil, it was
God`s design, and that he,she is consequentially one o those who was
aerse to submit to God, not by his,her own will, but 100 by the will
o God And i this was the situation, then how could God possibly punish
him or her Such retribution would be the height o injustice, yet we all
claim that God is the most just In other words, how would the indiidual
be responsible or intentions and actions, i it is 100 God`s will, and i that
is so, then how can punishment by God be justiied As a corollary, is the
iew being propounded in this book not all contradictory and thereore
sheer nonsense! 1he answer to this ery pertinent question is that creation
is part o the story that God has written, in which the characters
themseles do not know what is coming ,unless accessing the uture through
a higher GRC,, yet the author has inbuilt rules as to how the characters will
be, the behaiour also being ultimately written by the author. Imagine an
author haing written a story with seeral characters, one o who kills
someone and is thereore punished. 1he author`s riend, haing read the
story would sound insane and crazy i he said: \hy did you punish that
character - ater all \OU, the author, made him kill the other character in
Chapter 6. Now you are punishing him by hanging in Chapter 8.` Similarly,
anyone assessing the script o creation cannot thereore complain o any
injustice, or not only is it part o a story ulilling the desire o the Creator to
continuously unold the A\L, but it is also a story or script based on
consistent rules and laws, and a necessary one. It is a necessary one, since a
mix o those who beliee and do not beliee, or at least haing the
potentiality or these behaiours, creates one o the conditions or the
urtherance o the A\L, and, as has been emphatically explained preiously,
it was or this ery purpose that the entire unierse, in all its complexity, was
23
created.
A more formal proof for the non-existence of commonly inferred free-
will'
1. lrom nothing comes nothing.
2. 1he unierse is something.
3. So there was an Lternal, Absolute One that created the Something we
call the Unierse.
4. \e call this Being God.
5. So, only God is the Absolute, unimagined, eer-existing Being.
6. lence the Unierse is lis Imagination and not absolute in the sense
mentioned in 45. le is the source o all Imagination.
. God`s imagination includes the creation o the motion o limited things.
8. 1here are only two types o motion in this imagination:
,a, Microbitic ,subatomic particles that orm all matter and energy,.
,b, 1he non-particle based motion o 1hought, or Consciousness that
wills all microbitic moement in the Imagination. One can call
this thought, motion that causes particle motion.
9. Imagination is, at its base, nothing but thought.
10. So one can say that human thought, which is not made o particles, is
part o the Imagination o God. In other words when I think and act,
my thoughts cause moement, because it is 8 ,b, alone that vttivatet,
causes motion. In other words, the 1hought o God causes my thought
to act on a subset o particles in this unierse, i.e. the neurons to moe
and hence engage in actiities. Since my thought is a subset o the
1hought o God, I hae no independent ree-will.
11. lence vttivatet,, no ree-will exists.
24
Changing the script
Gien the conclusions arried at in the last section, Man is stuck in the
curious position o being neither a robot entirely, nor a god. Man is
almost like a robot because man is 100 controlled by God, being part o
God`s imagination. At the same time man is vot a god, though possessing
tivitea God-like attributes, but is a quasi-multiurcation o God`s will and
thereore has this autonomous eeling`, and hence God-ti/e characteristics.
Man, is not really a god because man is only part o God`s imagination and is
the quasi-multiurcation o the \ill o God into others` with a will, a will
with limitations, where there is no 100 independence o action or choice.
In as much as man is controlled by the thoughts o God, he really is not
responsible or his actions, when we come to mean who is ultimately
behind all choices, howeer - and this is a big howeer - vav i. 100
re.ov.ibte for bi. actiov. iv tbe reatv of tbe cbaracter tbat be ba. beev a..igvea to ta,
iv tbe viva of Coa, with God vttivatet, imagining the choices o that character.
Lach person ,or character, has that God-like capability o choice to
remain a witness to the Ultimate will - God. Lach person can choose to be
aligned with God`s attributes, or go away rom this path. In other words, the
script is changeable. 1he changeability o the script is also written by God,
but nonetheless, is carried out by one o lis imagined entities. \e can see
how ar, in terms o the intricacies, and to what lengths God has gone to
create as much simulation o ree-will as possible within lis mind. o ove
oerate. a. if ove ba. tivitea freeritt. Ove i. re.ov.ibte for ove`. actiov., bere ava
berafter. orerer, tbe aeeer avat,.i. re.evtea, .bor. bor tbe freeritt i..ve i. reatt,
.trvctvrea, iv terv. of tbe vttivate reatit, of tbivg.. 1bo.e rbo vvaer.tava tbi. ritt bare a
fvtter vvaer.tavaivg of ei.tevce to tbeir orv bevefit. It is instructie to note that
nowhere in the Quran is the equialent word in Arabic ree-will` been
used. loweer, in the Quran, the choice o taking the correct or the wrong
paths is indeed mentioned.
\e talked about the aspect o the solution to the ree-will problem that
25
showed that God is in complete control. At the same time, since we are
essentially instantiations o objectless space in that we become ully
conscious when God creates a sentient orm using microbits, that then
participates in a space ull o other structures, we do, nonetheless, deelop a
separateness and a personality. 1his concomitant separateness gies us a
god-like ability and a god-like will, where the choices we make are really our
choices, albeit acted upon ultimately by God but as ivagivea avtovovov.
cbaracter.. At any time, we do hae the choice to return to God. 1he most eil
and depraed man or woman on earth has that choice, examples, such as the
story o the Pharaoh and Moses in the Quran are good illustrations o this,
where Moses is asked to delier the message with some sensitiity to the
Pharaoh, een though he has transgressed so much
106
. 1he changing o the
script is also part o the script and God chooses to guide whom le wills to
the right path. \e start o with the same pure nature o witnessing the
Creator and o knowing right rom wrong, and when we err, le is the one
who guides whom le wills and lets go astray whom le wills ,i.e. those
characters who are consistently rebellious,. \e can see here that God has
done lis utmost to simulate ree-will and autonomy and on this basis, seeks
to bring close, those who are both cognitiely and morally ar rom lim.
Ioundational problems with the standard
interpretation of free-will
Many people would object to the ree-will iew expounded in the preious
section. 1hey think that man has the ree will to choose: indeed, they ask:
why would God punish us i le had vot gien us ree-will Now logically
106. Quran 20:43-44.
26
speaking i eerything is in the Mind o God, which many would agree is the
case ,as we hae discoered in ield-testing these ideas, then i one says that
we hae ree-will it means that we must hae 100 autonomous ree-will
absolutely independent o the will o the creator to make choices, albeit
limited choices. 1he problem is this: i all thought is in the mind o God, it is
100 controlled, as it is the part o the thoughts o God ,taking shape as
reality,. Our thoughts and will cannot be de-linked or decoupled rom the
1houghts o God - this is an utter impossibility. I that is the case, then it is
impossible to hae the 100 ree-will. 1he argument collapses immediately.
One need not enter into secondary or tertiary points such as: i we hae
100 ree-will then how does God know the uture o all eents ,absolute
oreknowledge,, that is, eents in which 100 ree-willed actors, such as
ourseles, act lor example, does le hae 100 extrapolatie knowledge
1he only way one can get out o the 100 God control o our wills is by
disproing that we are not in the mind or part o the imagination o God
,i.e. one would either hae to ind a law in the argument in Chapter 1
and elaborations in subsequent chapters, or clearly show that it is not
conclusie,. loweer, this leads to us being outside` o the space o God,
which is utterly impossible.
An understanding o the reality o the ree-will` issue and lie ater death
that hae been described in this book, enables one to realize that eerything
and eeryone in the unierse has a ixed destiny, controlled absolutely by an
ininitely immense, yet personable, Creator. It enables one to realize that this
type o unierse baa to be here, and that in the more immediate end,
eerything will turn out ine or those who beliee. I this reality is not
known, then there will always be lingering doubts about arious undamental
issues o existence and purpose, since the picture would not be complete. It
is the certainty about the covtete picture that gies one greatest peace - the
picture o the Scribes and the Scrolls.
2
1he Scribes and the Scrolls
J07
Yov .ee, erer, tbivg iv tbi. rorta ba. it. ae.tiv,. 1be .cribe. bare rrittev ava tbe .crott.
bare beev rottea. 1be aiv of tbe great Coa .batt be fvtfittea, rbetber ,ov ti/e it or vot.
1bi. i. rb, tbe .critvre. tett v. tbat rbat.oerer i. iv tbe bearev. ava iv tbe eartb,
.vbvit. to Coa, rittivgt, or vvrittivgt,. 1be foot. re.i.t ava are aefeatea. 1be ri.e,
.vbvit ava are retcovea.
1o bet ,ov .ee bor ri.e Coa i., tbiv/ of tbe rorta e ba. createa a. a great
arava. rer, cbaracter, borerer covticatea, erer, .ceve ava erer, tot iv tbi. act,
borerer .ovtaveov. it va, .eev, i. .critea.
t ba. to be tbi. ra,, becav.e, bor et.e cav ,ov create av,tbivg, if cbaracter., tot.
ava .ceve. ,ov bare vot rrittev, o ovt of vorbere ivto ,ovr roavctiov. .va rbere ritt
tbe, cove frov. .va erev if tbivg. covta o ovt of vorbere, .titt, tbe, vv.t fit ivto a
tav, or votbivg rovta ror/. Do ,ov get it.
et ve vt it avotber ra,. ôtbivg cav ei.t iv .ace vvte.. it ba. a begivvivg ava
av eva. vt to .a, tbat .ovetbivg ba. av eva, i. tbe .ave a. .a,ivg tbat it ba. a ae.tiv,;
tbat i., a vivivvv ava a vaivvv reacb. ô vvirer.e cav be bvitt or vaae to ei.t
ritbovt a tav or oraer. vt if tbe tbivg ba. a tav or av oraer, tbat vv.t veav tbat it
vv.t be a tivitea roo.itiov. 1be evate.. aoe. vot veea to bare av, oraer or tav.
ôtbivg rovta baev to tbe evate.. if it baa vo oraer or tav. vt tbe .ave cavvot be
.aia for tbe tivitea. .tt tivitea tbivg. veea oraer iv oraer to be abte retate to ove avotber.
oo/! f tbe gooa ora revt to great tevgtb. to ev.vre tbat ,ovr arevt., ,ovr
tavgvage, ,ovr viva, ,ovr beart, ava erer, cett tbat va/e v ,ovr boa, ava vore, are
ta/ev care of, ritbovt .ee/ivg av, ivvt frov ,ov, rbat va/e. ,ov tbiv/ tbat e rovta
teare ,ovr ae.tiv, to cbavce. Reftect! or i. it o..ibte for ,ovr ae.tiv, to be teft to
cbavce, rbev ,ov ,ovr.etf ava erer, tbivg tbat va/e. ,ov rbat ,ov are, bare vot beev teft
to cbavce.
107. www.BibleQuran.org - lebruary 12, 200 3:31 pm by M.Muslim ,a.k.a.
1he Bridge`,
Bibliography
Al-Ashqar, Umar S., Al-Khattab, Nasiruddin ,1ranslator, ,2002,, 1be Mivor
Re.vrrectiov ;!bat aev. .fter Deatb) v tbe igbt of tbe Qvrav ava vvvab,
.tavic Creea erie., 1ot. :, International Islamic Publishing louse, Riyadh.
Aerroes, ,2001,, Najjar, Ibrahim ,1ranslator,, aitb ava Rea.ov iv .tav:
.rerroe.` o.itiov of Retigiov. .rgvvevt., Oneworld Publications, Oxord.
Banaei, Mehran and laque, Nadeem, ,1995,, rov act. to 1atve.: Certaivt,,
Oraer, atavce ava tbeir |virer.at vticatiov., Optagon Publications Ltd.,
1oronto.
Castell, Alburey and Borchert, Donald M., ,1983,, .v vtroavctiov to Moaerv
Pbito.ob,: avivivg tbe vvav Covaitiov, ,4
th
Ldition,, Collier MacMillan,
London,New \ork.
Casti, John L., ,1990,, earcbivg for Certaivt,: !bat cievti.t. Cav Kvor .bovt tbe
vtvre, \illiam Morrow and Company, New \ork.
CBC Radio, ,Aired: June 20 and 25, 2002,, aea.: 1be Matter of Miva: Part. 1
ava 2.
Churchland, Patricia Smith, ,1989,, êvrobito.ob,: 1orara a |vifiea cievce of
tbe Miva,raiv, 1he MI1 Press, Cambridge.
Cleary, 1homas, ,1ranslator,, ,1995,, Dbavvaaaa: 1be a,ivg. of vaaba,
Bantam Books, New \ork.
280
Crick, l., ,1994,, 1be ..tovi.bivg ,otbe.i.: 1be cievtific earcb for tbe ovt.
Charles Scribner`s Sons, New \ork.
Dennett, Daniel C., ,1991,, Cov.ciov.ve.. taivea, Little Brown and
Company, Boston,1oronto,London.
Guenther, lerbet ,1ranslator,, ,190,, 1be ]eret Orvavevt of iberatiov, Rider
& Co., London.
lenry, Gray ,Lditor,, ,199,, .tav, 1ibet ava tbe ittv.tratea ârratire: 1ibetav
Cararav., loundation or 1raditional Studies, lons Vitae., Louisille.
lostadter, Douglas R., ,1980,, Godel, .cber, acb: .v tervat Cotaev raia,
Random louse.
lume, Daid ,1988,, .v vqvir, Covcervivg vvav |vaer.tavaivg,
Prometheus, New \ork.
Kant, Lmmanuel, Meiklejohn, J.M.D. ,1ranslator,, ,1990,, 1be Critiqve of
Pvre Rea.ov, Prometheus Books, New \ork.
Kant, Lmmanuel, Meiklejohn, J.M.D., ,1ranslator,, ,1911,, 1be Critiqve of
Pvre Rea.ov: Ce.avvette cbriftev, Volume 3, Berlin.
Kline, Morris, ,1985,, Matbevatic. ava tbe earcb for Kvorteage, Oxord
Uniersity Press.
Mackie, J.L, ,1982,, 1be Miracte of 1bei.v, Clarendon Press: Oxord.
Martin, Michael, ,1990,, .tbei.v: . Pbito.obicat ]v.tificatiov, 1emple
Bibliography
281
Uniersity Press, Philadelphia.
Mascaro, Juan ,1ranslator,, ,1962,, 1be bagaraa Cita, Penguin Books, New
\ork.
McGinn, Colin, ,1999,, 1be M,.teriov. tave, Basic Books, New \ork.
McGinn, Colin, ,2006,, Cov.ciov.ve.. ava t. Ob;ect., Oxord Uniersity Press,
New \ork.
Muller, l. Max, ,1881,, 1be acrea oo/. of tbe a.t, Vol. 11, Clarendon Press,
Oxord.
Muslim, M. and laque, Nadeem, ,2001,, rov Microbit. to rer,tbivg:. êr
|vifiea 1ier of Pb,.ic. ava Co.votog,: 1otvve 1: 1be Co.votogicat vticatiov.,
Optagon Publications Ltd., 1oronto.
Omar, Abdul Mannan, ,2006,, 1be Dictiovar, of tbe ot, Qvrav, Noor
loundation - International Inc., lockessin.
Philips, Abu Ameenah Bilal, ,1990,, 1be vvaavevtat. of 1arbeea ;.tavic
Movotbei.v), 1awheed Publications, Riyadh.
Rose, Stephen, ,2006,, 1be vtvre of tbe raiv: 1be Provi.e ava Perit. of
1ovorror`. êvro.cievce, Oxord Uniersity Press, Oxord.
Schwartz, Jerey M., and Bagley, Sharon, ,2003,, 1be Miva ava tbe raiv:
êvrota.ticit, ava tbe Porer of Mevtat orce , RegenBooks, N.\.
Seckel, Al ,Ld.itor,, ,1986,, ertrava Rv..ett ov Coa ava Retigiov, Prometheus
282
Books, New \ork.
Sheldrake, Rupert, ,1988,, 1be Pre.evce of tbe Pa.t: Morbic Re.ovavce ava tbe
abit. of âtvre, Vintage Books, New \ork.
Smith, George, ,199,, .tbei.v: 1be Ca.e .gaiv.t Coa, Prometheus Books,
New \ork.
Stapp, lenry P., ,2004,, Miva, Matter ava Qvavtvv Mecbavic., Second Ldition,
Springer, Berlin,leidelberg.
Stoddart, \illiam, ,199,, Ovttive of vaabi.v, loundation or 1raditional
Studies, lons Vitae, Louisille.
1zu, Lao, 1ao 1e Cbivg, ,1963,, Lau, D.C. ,1ranslator,, Penguin Books.
Index
A
abaaaa 142
Abraham 10, 109, 142, 23-238, 240
Adam 130, 140, 228, 251, 20
abqaabaa 142
at-aq 106
avtbaata/vv 231, 233
anaesthesia 229, 259
angels 11,23, 9, 12, 224, 228, 244-245, 24, 20-21
av.barabv 252
anthropomorphization 135
artiicial intelligence 11, 260
A\L 9, 51, 111, 122-132, 134-13, 142, 20-22
B
Bagley, Sharon 233, 281
baraa 21, 219
barrier 53, 153, 244, 249-251, 254-255
bara/b 249, 250-251, 254-255
Bhagaad Gita 95
Big Bang , 28, 54-56, 119
bioluidic 184-185, 189-190, 193, 196, 206, 208, 213, 221, 225-226, 260, 262
brain 10, 44, 8, 163-16, 10, 12, 13-16, 19, 194, 196, 19, 229, 233,
235-23, 242, 250, 259
Buddha 9-100
Buddhism 9, 99-100
C
chance 18
Christianity 9, 109
Churchland, Patricia Smith, 164, 16-168, 29
command 133, 226- 22, 230, 240
consciousness 9-10, 132-133, 164-165, 10-11, 16-1, 19, 189- 190, 194,
19, 225, 230, 241, 260, 23, 280
284
D
dao 94-95
death 10-11, 98, 136-13, 141, 153, 15, 10, 180, 182- 184, 18- 188, 191,
199, 200, 203-204, 206, 210, 214, 216, 221, 226- 229, 230, 231, 23- 240, 242,
245, 250-252, 254-258, 265, 26
Dennett, Daniel C. 164-165, 280
design , 2-30, 105, 122, 13, 169, 22
Dhammapada 9
Dharmakaya 99-100, 102
dream 153, 218, 249, 263-264
Dualists 163, 168
L
emergent property 163, 234, 236
Lpimenides 81
eternal , 15- 20, 25- 26, 43, 46- 51, 53, 58, 110, 126
eil 138, 149, 152-53, 155, 15, 159, 245, 248, 22, 25
eolution , 18, 20, 21, 28
l
ractionalization 130, 143, 10, 216, 223, 22, 230, 23, 239, 241, 260, 26
ree-will 9, 11, 129, 134, 26, 23-26
G
geoluid 184, 224
geoluidic 184, 221, 224-225
God - 9, 13, 15, 18, 21- 24, 2- 31, 42-54, 56- 69, 84, 88, 93, 9- 103, 105-
10, 109-119, 121-138, 140-145, 149, 152-155, 15-158, 160, 169- 12, 15-
16, 191-192, 215-220, 222- 229, 231- 232, 23,- 242, 244- 246, 248- 249, 251-
253, 255,- 258, 260, 262- 265, 26- 26, 281-282
Godel, Kurt 8, 9-84
grae 11, 246- 248, 252-255
GRC 10, 130, 16-1, 19, 189-191, 193, 196-19, 199,-203, 205- 210, 212-
219, 220-225, 239, 243, 256, 25- 259, 261, 263, 269, 22
GRP 10, 18-190,192
GRUS 21, 219
l
ladith 130, 228, 243-244, 246-248
Index
285
lawking, Stephen 21-23
leaen 140
leisenberg, \erner 8
hell 9, 98, 138, 140-144, 241, 243-249, 252-254, 25
linduism 9
lume, Daid 8, 61- 6, 69- 2, 4, , 280
I
ittaa vartatavatvvtaa 258
Imagination 9, 113, 115, 128, 134, 169, 23
indeterminism 166
inerse dream 218
J
;avvat 245
judgment 141, 244, 246, 248, 252, 255, 25
K
Kant, Lmmanuel 8, 61, 0-5, , 280
/baatiaiiva, 139, 145
Kbaatiavvv 138-140, 144-145
/itaab 10, 21-219
L
light 121, 16, 12, 183-185, 188-189, 191-193, 198, 214, 216, 220-222, 225,
228, 240, 259-262
logical positiism 166
M
Materialists 163
matter , 10, 18-19, 22, 24-2, 30-43, 45, 52, 62-63, 1-2, 5, 85, 88-90, 93,
106, 110, 115, 119, 123, 152-153, 165-168, 10, 19-180, 182, 185-186, 188,
193, 196-198, 201, 203, 206-20, 211, 214, 223, 226, 232, 238, 249, 261, 263-
264, 23, 29
vavt 252, 254, 25
McConnell, J.V. 12
McGinn, Colin 166, 168, 281
memory 10, 12-14, 241, 243, 259
microbits 4, 105, 115, 119, 133, 163, 165, 16, 180-183, 191, 196-204, 211,
286
216, 224, 226-228, 230-232, 23, 239, 242-244, 248, 250-251, 259-263, 25
mind -8, 16-1, 25, 28, 31, 38, 42-44, 46, 61, 63, 65, 68, 2-3, 6- , 80, 86-
90, 92, 95-96, 100, 106, 108, 110, 113, 115-116, 119, 122, 128-129, 163-12,
15-16, 211, 215, 21, 219, 223-22, 230, 233 -236, 239, 246, 248, 252, 256-
25, 261-262, 264, 24, 26
Muhammed ,Prophet, 144, 22-228, 24-249
Multi-time Complex 222
mysticism , 95, 102, 111, 113
N
vaf. 229
Newton, Isaac 56, 110, 139
vvbaaaita 231-232
vvv.bia/vv 231
O
Objectless Space 9, 119
ocean 112, 193, 206, 208, 250
Old 1estament 109
Origin-lorce Proo , 56
P
pantheism 9, 95, 110, 115
paradise 140-141, 143, 154, 241, 244, 246-248
photon 165, 184-185, 220, 228, 261
Physicalist 1rap 9, 164-166
physics 11, 54, 56, 84, 105, 166, 168, 231, 233-236, 240-241
Planaria 12-13, 15-16
Presered 1ablet 225
Q
quantum mechanics 166, 236
Quran 9-11, 0, 94, 100-101, 106-10, 109-110, 112-11, 119, 121, 124-128,
130, 134, 13-145, 191, 215, 21-220, 222, 224- 232, 23- 240, 242, 244, 246,
248- 249, 252,-25, 261- 21, 24-25, 29
R
Relatiological Proo , 30
Reerse Dream 11, 215, 262
Index
28
rvb 133, 226-228, 230-231, 259
S
.ava 118
Satan 140, 228
Schwartz, Jerey 233, 281
sel 8, 10, 21, 2, 43, 6-, 9, 82-84, 89, 94, 102, 105, 125-12, 134-13, 140,
144, 150, 165, 11, 16, 186, 192, 199, 200-204, 21, 225-226, 23, 239, 241-
242, 250-251, 254, 256, 259, 261-263, 22
Sesamatic , 30, 10
Sheldrake, Rupert 14, 281
.bir/ 143-145
soul 110-11, 132, 163-164, 168, 22, 229, 240, 243, 24, 252,255- 256, 259-
260
Stapp, lenry 233, 236, 282
1
1ao 1e Ching 94-95, 282
1aoism 94
taràvrra /arbavrra 268
tarbeea 113, 144
telemorphic 23
1elemorphogenesis 11, 236-23
3D 9, 116, 119, 238
1ime Compression lactor 221-222
transocation 133, 169-10, 243, 251, 259-260, 26
1rinity 109
U
Uncertainty Principle 8
Unitarianism 110
Uniersal IDs 10, 191
uniersal script 21
unierse 9, 18, 21-24, 28-29, 34, 48, 54-5, 61, 6, 85, 88, 95, 105-110, 112-
116, 119-120, 122-123, 125-129, 131-132, 134, 136, 140-141, 163, 169, 16,
18- 188, 190, 192, 196, 214-21, 225-226, 231, 234, 241-244, 246-250, 252,
256-25, 262-266, 269-23, 26
288
\
Ya iv 244
,a.tabait 233
,varabvva 249

From Microbits To Everything: Universe of The Imaginator: Volume 2: The Philosophical Implications

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

From Microbits To Everything: Universe of The Imaginator: Volume 2: The Philosophical Implications

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IROM MI CROBI 1S 1O LVLRY1HI NG

IROM MICROBI1S 1O LVLRY1HING

Apparently St. 1homas Aquinas was not concerned with

1he analogies these philosophers are drawing to criticize dualism are

S-ar putea să vă placă și