F.A.Q. PAGE

1. Is a New Paradigm Needed to Define Consciousness?

Answer: Yes. Explicitly defining the nature of consciousness requires a new conceptual framework: A different way of understanding everything.

Revolutionary theories reshape how we understand reality. Scientists proclaim: "To advance knowledge we need a new way of understanding things." Scientific revolutions occur after unsolved problems are reexamined in a new way.

New theories need careful examination before acceptance. This happens for two reasons:

A. The old is inadequate to understand the new. Scientific revolutions are initially met by indignation of the "old guard." They tend to cling to "classical" understanding when encountering new paradigms.

Quantum theory and relativity are not properly understood using classical physics. They are understandable only in their own conceptual framework. Interestingly, quantum theory and relativity explained many problems associated with classical physics.

B. Preconceptions hinder understanding. Truth-seeking methodology needs refinement. How does one discern what is true? Operational definitions need clarification and testing. Eliminating "classical bias" requires serious reconsideration of how one perceives and interprets the meaning of "what" he experiences.

Many distinguished scientists of the day embarrassed themselves by suggesting quantum theory and relativity were nonsensical. They failed to study carefully the unique conceptual framework needed for proper understanding.

The lesson is clear: Consciousness needs to be understood in the structural framework that defines it.

How is the defining structure tested for correctness? It must "further" explain contemporary physics. It must be free of logical inconsistency.

Answering the final problem concerning the complete structure of reality leads to the explicit defining of consciousness. Definition correctness is suggested because the ultimate principle combines quantum theory and relativity. The result is a single principle that "further" explains them as a reductive aspect of a shared commonality. Electricity and magnetism are two aspects of a shared commonality called electromagnetism.

Revolutionary theories need a different set of percepts to understand. A new paradigm requires close examination to see whether it is serious science. The structure of reality is associated with "what" we experience. We observe complex structures. Consciousness must finally explain why there is complexity of experience.

2. Will the Theory of Everything (TOE) Principle be Found Using String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity?

Answer: No. There are two reasons these attempts cannot establish the TOE principle.

The first concerns complexity and mathematics. The second concerns how the TOE, once found, explains everything.

A. First reason: Quantum Loop Gravity and especially String Theory are rendered in complex mathematics. These concepts are reductionistic (deductive) attempts to establish the TOE principle. Goedel's legacy assures the ultimate principle will not be found by deductive inference.

If the TOE is to explain everything, it must represent the highest-level conceptual synthesis of everything: Including mathematics and complexity. It can only be established by inductive inference using nonreductionistic conceptualization. And, that is accomplished by erecting higher-level generalizations by elimination of contradiction. It must be a principle that reductively explains derivation of complexity. Simply: It must explain how "things" originate.

Mathematics cannot establish the TOE because simple arithmetic, let alone complex mathematics, needs explanation.

Consideration: How is arithmetic explained? It does not explain itself. No thing explains itself; no concept about anything explains itself! That there is mathematics (complex or not) needs explanation.

Physicists have been so accustom to using math to explain physics that they have forgotten that math itself is in need of explanation. Plato and Bertrand Russell realized this.

The TOE must be a principle that categorically supercedes arithmetic and hence complexity or it cannot explain either, let alone both.

B. Second reason: The TOE is expected to be a very simple equation. This is probably influenced by Ockham's razor: That the simplest explanation is preferred. Einstein supposed a child could understand it.

Most simple equations are already known. The TOE equation may be known, but not recognized (for what it is). This suggests the next problem. Given the TOE, how will it explain everything? Alone, it cannot.

This hints how the TOE will be recognized. Everything (else) to be explained must first be understood. That means the complete structure of reality must be determined before the final question can be properly formulated.

Resolution of the final contradiction in understanding the structure of reality renders the TOE. The final problem is associated with the ultimate nature of space.

3. How Will Consciousness Be Defined?

The book explicitly defines consciousness. It describes how reality's structure leads to the Ultimate Principle. The principle is a conceptual rendering of an equation that explains the ultimate nature of space and time. It unifies the four forces of nature (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces) and merges Relativity with Quantum Theory. And, it defines the nature of consciousness and experience.

The equation solves the most vexing scientific and philosophical problems. It explains biological evolution in a nonreductionistic manner. It explains the Big Bang and (aided by the CPT theorem of physics) it explains the origin of time.  "What was there before the beginning of time?" It solves the logical dilemma left by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems.

Understanding the structure of reality is a step by step process. It is similar to a jigsaw puzzle when one has not seen the finished picture. The puzzle is completed only when every piece finds its place. Each piece informs how it fits with other pieces. Pieces mesh into sections. Sections join to show the whole picture.

The analogy comes full circle by substituting scientific facts for puzzle pieces. Pieces represent evidential facts. Scientific understanding relates one fact to others. Puzzle sections correspond to higher-level concepts and principles of physics.

Principles enabled a systematic arranging of the diagrams into a hierarchy to represent what physics is all about: the structure of reality. The structure defines how everything interrelates. But, it did not immediately answer all questions.

Big questions of philosophy and science are answerable only when the structure of reality is reexamined through the lens of other disciplines. Multidisciplinary research produced a categorical understanding of everything.

The book begins with one assumption; namely that nature is uniform. Otherwise, there is no sense in trying to understand anything. Other than that one assumption, nothing is assumed. There is an interesting twist to the second assumption. The nature of spatial expansion from the Big Bang posed a problem.

If space is defined by "nothing," it leaves the problem of explaining the Big Bang as an expansion of space. Nothingness is everywhere: It must extend indefinitely, even beyond the edge of universal expansion. "There is 'nothing' here; there is nothing there: nothing is everywhere!" Space must be expanding into nothingness: into itself. How can that be? The answer lies with the ultimate nature of space and the correct understanding of the cosmological singularity.

It is said "physics breaks down" as parameters narrow to the singularity. It means the mathematics breaks down, but it shouldn't and it doesn't. The basic elements of mathematics have not been properly understood. This becomes evident when reconciling the expansion of space with the concept of nothingness. If space is nothing, how can it expand as though it were something? Specifically: Is space static or dynamic (therefore nonstatic). How can it be both without contradiction? If it is not nothing, then it is not space. So, either there are two types of space or the ultimate nature of space has not been understood.

The "accepted" understanding of mathematics does not supply a noncontradictory answer to the space-nothingness problem. When applying physics (particularly, the law of conservation) to math it is discovered that the contemporary understanding of the basic elements of math is flawed. One begins to understand why there are paradoxes in math and logic. The problem of space is similar to Russell's Paradox: "The set of all sets which are not members of themselves." It immediately becomes evident that other paradoxes and Goedel's legacy result from an improper understanding of the basic mathematical elements.

Most people assume they understand how the basic elements such as zero, one, and infinity relate. But if these elements are not properly understood, then the physics to which these elements are applied will be misconstrued. And indeed, that is exactly what has happened.

Certainly, a system can only be complete when it is also consistent. Yet it is acknowledged that a system is complete only if zero equals one (0 = 1). The system considered here is none other than the complete system denoted reality. After deciphering the structure of reality and finding no inconsistencies in its uniformity, it becomes evident that perhaps the wrong concept of consistency was applied to a completed system because the basic elements of mathematics have not been properly understood. The detective work narrowed to proving how 0 = 1. Although the journey to truth is mindboggling, once fully explained, it is easy to understand. Einstein guessed correctly: Every child understands the ultimate equation.

4. Why are Religious Ideas Found in a Scientific Book?

Answer: There are many concepts mentioned in holy books. Some of them must be true.

The question is: "Which ones?" After reality is completely understood religious concepts can be examined scientifically. The reasoning is simple. The TOE (either directly or categorically) must address all reality-pertinent questions and ultimately explain them.

Many questions have been posed prior to the capability of science to answer them. Although a word or idea is not solely a scientific term, does not mean it does not represent something about reality.

A foreign-language word for automobile also symbolically represents the object automobile. A religious word may just be a different term for a scientific word.

5. What is Truth; Verification, and Proof?

Truth, or knowledge, is that information that conceptually represents something in reality. A nounal word is different from what it symbolically represents. The word car is not the object car.

Statement truth is established by showing it corresponds to something in reality. Scientific verification pertains to empirically establishing that an idea (or hypothesis) does correspond to something in reality. Verification does not necessarily constitute proof.

Proof concerns logic. Higher level generalizations (concepts) need a logical framework to assure consistency. Logic assures consistency.

6. Is Darwinian Evolution a Viable Concept?

It can explain variation within a given specie (microevolution). It appeals to environmental factors that "select" or enable animals with certain characteristics to better survive.

Darwin recognized that Finches with powerful beaks predominated on islands with big seeds. Finches with small beaks were more plentiful on islands with mostly small seeds.

Darwinian evolution is now attributed to chance changes in an animal's genetic makeup. Genes affect an animal's gross characteristics that better enable the specie to survive in a given environment.

It is too much of a stretch for Darwinism to explain the differences between specie (macroevolution). Pushing Darwin's ideas to cover macroevolution occurred because there had been no better explanation.

There is now a better scientific explanation. It is derived from understanding how the TOE equation can explain development of complex organisms by describing how higher level functionality is established.