Physics and Mental Symmetry
Lorin Friesen, September, 2018
This essay will examine the relationship between mental symmetry and physics. This topic has been discussed previously to some extent. The book Natural Cognitive Theology examined the mental circuits that are involved in algebra, while the cognitive implications of Newtonian thinking and Einsteinian thinking were examined in a previous essay. This essay will attempt to go further, including a look at classical physics, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory.
Table of Contents
Free Will and Divine Sovereignty
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
Uncertainty and Transformation
Uncertainty and Virtual Particles
Introduction
Before we begin, we need to define these terms:
Classical physics (also called Newtonian or classical mechanics) uses Newton’s three laws of motion to analyze the movement of objects, such as balls thrown through the air or planets moving through space. Classical physics was later expanded to include electromagnetism, in which Maxwell’s equations can be used to analyze electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetic waves (radio waves and visible light are examples of electromagnetic waves).
Special Relativity was proposed by Einstein in 1905. Special relativity becomes important when one is traveling very fast. It is based in two fundamental principles: 1) Everyone sees light traveling at the speed of light, no matter how fast they are traveling. Related to this, it is only possible for physical matter to approach the speed of light. A physical object cannot travel at the speed of light or go faster than the speed of light. 2) The laws of physics are exactly the same for everyone who is traveling at a constant velocity. For instance, if I am flying in an airplane, then I will only know that I am moving if I either look out of the window or if the plane speeds up or slows down, which happens when experiencing turbulence.
General relativity was proposed by Einstein in 1915. It becomes important when dealing with massive objects. It states that space-time is like a rubber sheet that becomes curved by the ‘weight’ of massive objects, the way that a trampoline becomes curved by the weight of a person standing on the trampoline. General relativity says that what we interpret as the force of gravity is actually objects moving naturally along the curves of space-time, similar to the way that the path of a ball rolling across a trampoline would be deflected by the curvature produced by a person standing on that trampoline.
Quantum mechanics was developed by several physicists in the early twentieth century. It becomes significant when dealing with objects that are very small. The fundamental principle is that change occurs in finite steps or quanta. Using computer terminology, it says that at a very small distance the universe is digital and not analog. For instance, light will always travel in discrete packages known as photons. Similarly, electrons will jump between specific energy levels in an atom. Quantum mechanics explains this by saying that there is a duality between waves and particles. On the one hand, light is a wave but it also acts like a particle. On the other hand, electrons are particles but they also act like waves. This wave-particle duality extends to all physical matter.
Quantum mechanics also says that very small particles function statistically. For instance, one can work out the probability that an individual photon of light will either pass through a pane of glass or be reflected by the glass. Mathematical equations can be used to determine what percentage of a group of photons will pass through the glass, but one cannot predetermine what any specific photon of light will do. Similarly, equations can be used to determine the probability that an electron will be found at a specific location in an atom. Quantum mechanics also states that there is a fundamental uncertainty about knowledge itself, known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This can be stated in different forms, but in simple language it says that one cannot know at the same time exactly where a particle is located and how fast that particle is moving. Thus, the universe may be ‘digital’ at very small scales, but the digital steps are continually jiggling around because of the dithering generated by the uncertainty principle.
Quantum mechanics may sound like something esoteric that has nothing to do with normal life, but electronics and computers exist because of quantum mechanics.
Quantum Field Theory is used primarily to explain subatomic particles. The ultimate quantum field theory is known as the Standard Model, which explains all of the fundamental building blocks of existence, such as quarks, electrons, neutrinos, muons, and the infamous Higgs boson. On the one hand, the Standard Model is a universal theory of almost everything, because it explains all of physical existence, except for gravity and general relativity. On the other hand, the Standard Model explains very little of human existence, because particle physicists focus upon studying elementary particles that only exist for brief fractions of a second when atoms and protons are smashed against each other at very high energies. In addition, the laws that govern normal human existence appear when many particles interact as groups, while quantum field theory deals either with individual particles or infinities of particles. Thus, as far as humans are concerned, quantum field theory could be described as a universal theory that applies nowhere. Unlike quantum mechanics, I am not aware of any major area where quantum field theory directly impacts normal human existence.
Those who work within quantum field theory describe the mathematics as difficult. I can follow much of the mathematics of quantum mechanics or general relativity. I can barely get the general idea of the mathematics of quantum field theory. The fundamental principle of quantum field theory is that all particles and waves are merely disturbances in a set of interacting fields. Think, for instance, of a mattress or box-spring composed of many springs connected together. If one spring is pulled, then this will disturb adjacent springs, and if one box-spring lies next to another box-spring, then disturbing one box-spring will cause the adjacent one to resonate. QFT explains existence as cosmic ‘box-springs’ of infinite size resonating with each other as various ‘connected springs’ within these ‘box-springs’ are disturbed. Using more technical language, quantum field theory is formulated in terms of quantum harmonic oscillators. Theoretical physicists emphasize that quantum field theory is only mathematically like interacting mattresses of springs and that this mathematical analogy breaks down as the ‘springs’ become connected more strongly together. (Here is a simple introduction to QFT.)
In fact, reading about QFT feels somewhat like reading about mysticism, because in both cases the experts are continually warning that one must not take the analogies too far. Thus, not only is it difficult to find real world applications of QFT, but the experts in QFT insist that one must not mentally connect QFT with the experiences of normal life. In a similar manner, mystics insist that God transcends the real world, and one must not mentally connect God with the experiences of normal life. Going further, mystics emphasize that God is ultimately incomprehensible. Similarly, those who work within QFT explain that the mathematical equations of QFT are only partially understood. I am not saying that mysticism is the same as QFT, because mysticism is ultimately based in Teacher overgeneralization, which by its very nature lacks rational content, while QFT is rooted in heavy mathematics. Instead, I am suggesting that QFT and mysticism will both have a similar cognitive impact.
String Theory is driven by the theoretical need to integrate the Standard Model with general relativity. The Standard Model includes everything except general relativity. String theory tries to bring these two together by viewing elementary particles as vibrating strings (another version of a harmonic oscillator). There is currently no way of experimentally testing to see whether string theory is true or false. This essay will not be discussing string theory. Instead, I will suggest a possible theological and cognitive reason why the gap between QFT and the Standard Model exists. (One could bring general relativity into the Standard Model by proposing the existence of gravitons, but these are essentially impossible to be viewed experimentally and they introduce mathematical problems involving infinities.)
Summarizing, classical physics can be used when dealing with normal sized objects that are not moving very fast. If an object gets sufficiently small, then one must use quantum mechanics. If it gets sufficiently large, then one must use general relativity. If it moves sufficiently fast, then one must use special relativity. If it gets sufficiently small and moves sufficiently fast, then one must use quantum field theory. Finally, if it gets sufficiently large and moves sufficiently fast, then one throws up one’s hands and comes up with an approximate answer because there is no general theory that combines quantum mechanics with general relativity. This combination is rare, because it takes a lot of energy to make a very large object move very fast. Most of this is summarized in the diagram above which was taken from Wikimedia Commons.
The Approach of this Essay
This essay will be quoting extensively from Wikipedia. This is not because I regard Wikipedia as the ultimate authoritative source, but rather because Wikipedia is fairly comprehensible and it is also a good indication of mainstream opinion. Therefore, quoting from Wikipedia is a way of indicating that I am working with ‘bricks’ of information that are mainstream. This essay will not attempt to rewrite the facts of common sense or the facts of physics, but instead will try to describe them as clearly and simply as possible. However, this essay will be questioning some of the underlying assumptions of physics and it will also be connecting mainstream facts in ways that are not mainstream. We will do this by placing fundamental concepts of physics within the theory of mental symmetry. I will try to make a clear distinction between mainstream knowledge and any concepts that I have discovered, using phrases such as ‘Cognitively speaking...’ or ‘Mental symmetry suggests...’ to indicate facts that are based in my research or my thinking.
This essay also will not be delving deeply into mathematics. Instead, we will be looking at these various fields in a general manner primarily at the level of analogies in order to compare these fields with what is happening within the mind. I have already mentioned that theoretical physicists tend to be rather dismissive of analogies, because technical thought and mathematical equations are regarded as more rigorous than analogies. But most human comprehension occurs through the use of analogies. Therefore, those who teach physics usually attempt to explain the rarefied thinking of mathematics by using analogies from the non-rigorous realm of normal life, while pointing out that these analogies do not capture the essence of the mathematics in a sufficiently rigorous manner.
This essay will connect technical thought and analogy in a way that is not normally done. Instead of merely using non-rigorous analogies to attempt to explain the rigorous thinking of physics, we will be extending an existing universal theory of cognition that is based in analogies to include more of the realm of physics. The theory of mental symmetry has been used to explain psychology and personality in detail, it maps onto the latest neurology in detail, and it explains religious thought to the extent of developing a systematic theology. Thus, one is actually dealing with two general theories: a reasonably universal theory of cognition that uses the normal thinking of analogy, and a reasonably universal theory of physical existence that uses the technical thinking of mathematics. On the one hand, QFT can claim to explain every physical event that has ever occurred (apart from gravity). But on the other hand, mental symmetry can claim to explain the thinking of every physicist who has ever lived.
Two Approaches?
Richard Feynman explored this contrast in a set of lectures entitled The Character of Physical Law, which was also published in book form. Feynman begins by saying that the fundamental laws of physics often say very little about normal life: “an understanding of the physical laws does not necessarily give you an understanding of things of significance in the world in any direct way. The details of real experience are often very far from the fundamental laws” (p.124). Instead, there is a hierarchy of laws: “we have a way of discussing the world, when we talk of it at various hierarchies, or levels. Now I do not mean to be very precise, dividing the world into definite levels, but I will indicate, by describing a set of ideas, what I mean by hierarchies of ideas” (p.124).
Feynman then takes several paragraphs to work his way up this hierarchy: atoms → atomic properties → crystals → properties of objects → muscles → living organisms like frogs. Finally, “we come to words and concepts like ‘man’, and ‘history’, or ‘political expediency’, and so forth, a series of concepts which we use to understand things at an even higher level. And going on, we come to things like evil, and beauty, and hope...” (p.125).
He then poses the question: “Which end is nearer to God; if I may use religious metaphor. Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws? I think that the right way, of course, is to say that what we have to look at is the whole structural interconnection of the thing; and that all the sciences, and not just the sciences but all the efforts of intellectual kinds, are an endeavor to see the connections of the hierarchies” (p.125). He concludes: “I do not think either end is nearer to God. To stand at either end, and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is the complete understanding, is a mistake. And to stand with evil and beauty and hope, or to stand with the fundamental laws, hoping that way to get a deep understanding of the whole world, with that aspect alone, is a mistake. It is not sensible for the ones who specialize at one end, and the ones who specialize at the other end, to have such disregard for each other. (They don’t actually, but people say they do.)” (p.126).
Summarizing, mental symmetry suggests that a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general Teacher theory applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. Feynman points out that this Teacher order-within-complexity is especially apparent in two totally different fields: 1) when looking at the fundamental properties of nature, as is done by physics, and 2) when examining concepts such as evil, beauty, and hope, which is done by theology and philosophy. The natural tendency is for each of these two fields to think that they have an inside track on studying the nature of God. But these two perspectives actually lie at the two ends of a long hierarchy of order-within-complexity. The true nature of God is not revealed by either one end of the hierarchy or the other, but rather by both ends combined with the entire range of structures that lie between these two ends of the hierarchy.
Using cognitive language, it appears that the mind can function in one of three ways, which I refer to as technical thought, normal thought, and mental networks. It is not sufficient to use technical thought to study physics, or use technical thought to study theology and philosophy. Instead, if one wishes to construct a reasonably adequate concept of God, then one must use technical thought with physics, technical thought with theology and philosophy, technical thought with all of the hierarchy of topics that lie between these two extremes, and then use normal thought to find patterns that tie these various technical fields together. And one must also use normal thought to include all of the mental networks—with their emotions—that motivate thought and behavior.
The theory of mental symmetry began with a study of one end of this hierarchy, by examining concepts such as evil, beauty, and hope from a cognitive perspective, asking how the mind generates concepts such as these. But I have recently been using mental symmetry as a meta-theory to extend beyond the realms of theology and philosophy. The end result has been a more adequate concept of God. This essay will attempt to build some connections between the two ends of this hierarchy.
These two ends can be connected in one of two primary ways. That is because these two ends deal with two different domains. Physics deals with physical properties and physical matter—hence the name. Evil, beauty, and hope, in contrast, are mental concepts which are generated by the mind. If one extends from physics to the mind, then one will use physical processes to try to explain human intelligence. In contrast, if one extends from the mind to physics, then one will use cognitive processes to try to explain physical reality. In both cases one will have to make a jump between mind and matter. This jump may feel uncomfortable. But it is important to realize that both methods involve the same jump: moving from physics to the mind means jumping from matter to mind, while moving from the mind to physics means jumping from mind to matter. This leap is theologically interesting, because my last project was a 400 page essay on the biblical book of Hebrews, and the hypothesis of that essay is that Hebrews describes—in detail—the process by which God will transform the current realm of matter-over-mind into a future realm of mind-over-matter.
Before we continue, I need to give a word of warning. The next few sections will deal with controversial topics, because we will be attempting to bridge two subjects which are often regarded as polar opposites. Please bear with me. I will try to stick with fundamental concepts and avoid rabbit trails.
We will look first at how physics makes the leap from matter to mind. Physics generates its concept of God primarily through cosmology, suggesting that the universe began with a Big Bang, in which some primordial singularity expanded to generate the current universe. Many physicists explicitly claim not to believe in God. However, we are not discussing the existence or nonexistence of a real God, or examining what people say about God. Instead, we are looking here at the mental concept of deity that emerges when a sufficiently general theory impinges upon personal identity. This mental concept will affect thinking and behavior in profound ways, even if such a God does not actually exist, and even if this concept of God is not verbally acknowledged.
The Big Bang theory has a rational side and a side that is bizarre. On the rational side, cosmology uses the laws of physics to explain how the various elements could have emerged, how stars could have formed and evolved, how planets could have coalesced, and how heavier elements could have formed as a result of supernovas. This theory has problems, but on the whole it describes a plausible chain of events that can be explored using mathematical equations and checked using astronomical observations.
But there is also the bizarre side. According to the standard chronology, the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago. Quarks started to appear 10-12 seconds after the Big Bang, the laws of physics all emerged by 10-6 seconds, subatomic quarks became hidden within one second, and hydrogen and helium emerged within 1000 seconds. Physical matter then became dominant after 47,000 years, the universe became transparent after 377,000 years, and stars began to form after 150 million years. The bizarreness of this chronology becomes apparent when one uses actual zeros and a common unit of seconds. According to the official chronology, the universe began about 435000000000000000 seconds ago but it only took the laws of physics 0.000001 seconds to emerge. Similarly, atomic particles such as protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, which are impossible to view directly because they remain hidden. But quarks were briefly visible between 0.000000000001 second and 1 second after the Big Bang.
There is a principle in physics known as naturalness. The Wikipedia article gives the following (contrived) example of violating naturalness: “Suppose a physics model requires four parameters which allow it to produce a very high quality working model, calculations, and predictions of some aspect of our physical universe. Suppose we find through experiments that the parameters have values: 1.2, 1.31, 0.9, and 404,331,557,902,116,024,553,602,703,216.58 (roughly 4 x 1029). We might wonder how such figures arise. But in particular we might be especially curious about a theory where three values are close to one, and the fourth is so different; in other words, the huge disproportion we seem to find between the first three parameters and the fourth.” Summarizing, the cosmology of physics may be mathematically plausible, but when one looks at the timeline, it is definitely not natural, because very small numbers are being juxtaposed with very large numbers.
My primary point is that one should not view the Big Bang theory as a monolithic structure to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Instead, there are aspects of the Big Bang theory that make mathematical sense while that are other aspects that are quite unnatural. We will return to this contrast in a moment.
The Big Bang theory is usually combined with the theory of evolution, which says that life evolved naturally through random processes. The principle of irreducible complexity says that life is too complex to have evolved through chance, a concept that was recently popularized by the book Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. I know that most of the scientific establishment has gone out of its way to show that Behe is misinformed, illogical, and unscientific. However, the Wikipedia article also describes what may be the primary reason why most scientists reject the idea of irreducible complexity: “In a review of Behe’s paper ‘Design vs. Randomness in Evolution: Where Do the Data Point?’, Denis Lamoureux criticised Darwin’s Black Box as having become central to fundamentalist and evangelical anti-evolution critiques against biological evolution. Behe supports the historically incorrect misrepresentation that Darwin’s views on the origin of life were atheistic, when On the Origin of Species repeatedly refers to a Creator in a positive and supportive context as impressing laws on matter. Though Behe has avoided committing himself to the view that God intervenes directly in nature to create purportedly irreducibly complex structures, Darwin’s Black Box briefly speculates that divine intervention might have caused the direct creation of a cell from which all of life evolved, supporting creationist views of miraculous acts of creation… Behe’s thesis that irreducible structures are created in ‘one fell swoop’ is opposed by other biochemists, including many who are devout Christians, and has no support from the fossil record.” Summarizing, Behe’s thesis must be suppressed because it is being used by Christian fundamentalists to say that God stepped in miraculously to create everything by magic in ‘one fell swoop’. The Wikipedia article also says that “Behe claimed under oath that the book had received a more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal, a claim which appears to conflict the facts of the book’s peer review.”
In other words, science is deeply bothered by the fundamentalist idea that God would step in and overrule the laws of nature. This is a significant point which has a deep cognitive explanation. Stated succinctly, science needs a paradigm and scientists will turn enmasse against a form of thinking that attacks paradigms. Thomas Kuhn describes this mindset in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: “Once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory will be declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature… The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves a comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other” (p.77). Using the language of mental symmetry, when a scientist continues to work with some paradigm, then this general theory will form a TMN (Teacher mental network) within the mind of the scientist, and this mental network will emotionally drive the scientist to continue using this paradigm and to protect it from attack. This emotional drive to protect a scientific theory happens whenever some existing paradigm is attacked. A similar, but deeper, emotional response occurs when the existence of paradigms itself is attacked. When the fundamentalist steps in and says that God does everything ‘in one fell swoop’, then this is not just attacking some specific theory in Teacher thought, but rather attacking the very process of using Teacher thought to construct theories. (Mental networks are collections of emotional memories that form a network and function in an integrated manner. An MMN or Mercy mental network is composed of emotional experiences in Mercy thought while a TMN or Teacher mental network contains abstract words and ideas in Teacher thought.)
Summarizing, the problem with irreducible complexity is that it deals at the level of facts rather than paradigms. It presents a number of facts that question the paradigm of evolution, but it does not present an alternative paradigm. Instead it replaces the TMN of the universal laws of nature with the MMN of an all-powerful, mysterious God. A mindset of using facts to question an existing theory will never pass peer review, because scientists as a group will be driven emotionally by their TMNs to protect the concept of a general theory. What is at stake for the scientist is the very existence of scientific thought.
The average layman does not grasp what this means. Understanding a scientific theory will lead to positive Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity, but a theory only acquires the emotional power of a TMN when it continues to be used over time. A theoretical physicist has to solve mathematical problems for years before becoming fluent in esoteric theories such as quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Thus, the very process of becoming a theoretical physicist will form a potent TMN within the mind, which will cause the theoretical physicist to recoil with emotional horror at the concept of a miraculous God-of-the-gaps. I know what this feels like, because I have used the theory of mental symmetry to develop an integrated rational understanding of God, theology, and Christianity, and I now find the idea of a mystical, incomprehensible God to be emotionally abhorrent. I have also noticed that the typical Christian finds it strange that I would respond so negatively to the idea of a mystical God. I must, because the concept of a mystical God shuts down my mind and it disregards decades of careful thought on my part as meaningless. That is how the scientifically trained mind responds when faced with a God-of-miracles.
With this in mind, let us turn to the relationship between cosmology and the theory of evolution. From a factual viewpoint, the theory of evolution does not make sense. I have a Master’s degree in Engineering, and engineers design complex systems. If someone told me that a complex system such as a modern computer evolved randomly by chance over several million years, I would laugh. Random changes are the bane of engineers, because they introduce errors and failures that have to be fixed by engineers. They attack the order and structure that engineers struggle to build. Thus, as an engineer, the idea that the complex organisms of life would evolve through chance seems absurd.
But the theory of evolution is a theory, and the scientist must have a theory. If the choice is between a theory and a God of miracles, then the scientist will always choose the theory—even if it is an inadequate theory. Using cognitive language, the mind of the child is held together by MMNs of culture, emotional status, blind faith, and personal experience. The scientist has left this childish mindset behind in order to pursue the TMN of an integrated understanding. The scientific mind cannot—dare not—return to the previous emotional state of childish ignorance.
However, mental symmetry is also a theory. And one can use the theory of mental symmetry to repackage Christianity as a rational theory of cognition. This is significant, because scientific thought came to birth within the context of a Christian mindset. And this is not just being stated as a possible hypothesis. Instead, this repackaging has been done. This is also significant, because there is a huge difference between saying that one can construct a general theory and actually constructing such a theory.
Making Evolution Plausible
I have mentioned that the theory of evolution does not make sense from an engineering perspective. However, the theory of evolution can acquire a veneer of scientific respectability by attaching it to cosmology. Cosmology is based in the TMN of theoretical physics. It uses the mathematics of quantum field theory to suggest how the current structure of the physical universe could have evolved step-by-step from a primordial point through natural processes. This theory has aspects that are unnatural, but it is mathematically plausible.
The theory of evolution suggests that if the physical universe evolved, then it makes sense that life also evolved. In other words, if cosmology is plausible and backed up by the rational TMN of theoretical physics, then this implies that the evolution of life is also plausible.
Notice the explicit—and implicit—jump that is being made from matter to mind. At the explicit level, evolution says that changes in physical matter, such as physical mutations in the DNA, or changes in the physical environment, can be used to explain the human mind. But if one wishes to explain the mind, then what is needed is a cognitive model of the mind.
One can see this same kind of jump in movies. An actor who is pretending to be a medical doctor does not have the mental content that is possessed by a doctor. Instead, he is performing physical actions that make it look as if he is a physician. But acting like a physician is not the same as thinking like a physician.
For instance, Spock may be the ultimate science fiction icon of rational thought. But Spock does not exist. Instead the imaginary character of Spock was played by the actor Leonard Nimoy. In 1974, researchers at a computer-based education research laboratory invited Leonard Nimoy to see their latest technological achievement, a computer system known as PLATO, which was capable of carrying out what was then the amazing task of playing chess. Imagine, Spock would play chess with the computer. Who would win? It turned out that Leonard Nimoy, who was smelling faintly of booze, did not actually know how to play chess. He was only acting like an icon of rational thought and did not actually think like an icon of rational thought. I suggest that using the theory of evolution to explain the mind is like expecting Leonard Nimoy to be good at chess. An explicit jump is being made from matter to mind, from acting to thinking.
Going further, there is also what is known as the hard problem of consciousness. Neurology, a study of the physical brain, can tell a lot about human thought. (And the theory of mental symmetry integrates well with the latest findings in neurology.) But consciousness itself cannot be explained by neurology. In other words, there is a core aspect of the mind that cannot be explained by only studying matter.
The theory of evolution also makes an implicit leap from matter to mind, which has to do with information. For instance, there is a qualitative difference between explaining how the actions of wind and wave grind rocks into sand, and explaining how silica, the primary ingredient of most sand, becomes purified into silicon ingots which are then transformed into integrated circuits. The structure of sand is fairly random and contains many impurities. In contrast, a silicon ‘boule’ is formed out of a single crystal that is 99.9999999% pure. Going further, the typical modern computer chip (as of 2015) has over 1,000,000,000 transistors, all arranged in a very precise manner and interconnected in a very precise way, formed through the precise application of a precise amount of impurities at precisely the right locations. Every one of those ‘precises’ is the result of careful human thought in which mind is being used to arrange matter. And the human mind and body are far more complex than a computer chip. Thus, when evolution says that the structure of the mind and body were formed through physical processes, then an implicit leap from matter to mind is occurring. Evolution may be able to explain why one structure became dominant over another structure, but this still does not address the origins of all of the information contained within these structures.
A theory of the cosmology of the physical universe does not have to generate precise structure. The theory of the evolution of the physical universe is plausible largely because natural objects, such as stars, planets, and galaxies, do not have detailed, precise structure. Thus, it is possible to explain how they evolved by using natural mechanisms. In contrast, the theory of the evolution of life is utterly implausible primarily because life has precise structure, which is the argument that is being made by irreducible complexity.
But I am using the argument of irreducible complexity in a different manner. Instead of telling the scientist to abandon his general theory and stop thinking, I am pointing out that a jump is being made from matter to mind. When one moves from matter to mind, then one should stop using theories of matter and start using theories of mind. And mental symmetry is a theory of the mind.
From Mind to Matter
We have looked briefly at how physics starts from matter and then makes a leap to mind. In contrast, my research began with a theory of the mind. Among other things, this led to a theoretical need to propose that there is more than just physical matter. Notice that I said theoretical need and not personal need.
This distinction needs to be clarified. A personal need is driven by MMNs of identity and culture. For instance, the person who is dying has a personal need to believe that there is more than just physical matter. Science naturally responds to this personal need by asserting that personal existence ends at physical death.
This assertion has been repeated so many times by scientific experts that we have lost the horror of what it means. Saying this more colloquially, science damns the individual to annihilation at death. And this is an appropriate term because the dictionary definition of damning is ‘causing or leading to condemnation or ruin’. Looking at this cognitively, science trains itself to avoid being contaminated by subjective MMNs and to base its thinking upon physical, empirical evidence. This attitude is fine when coming up with general theory of natural law, but it is a mindset of annihilation for the individual who is dying. This illustrates the emotional power of a TMN, because the mind of the typical scientist is being driven by a TMN of natural law to exclude anything which falls outside of the realm of this paradigm of physical, natural order.
I am not suggesting that every physicist thinks this way. However, I have noticed that the juxtaposition of fundamentalist belief in God and heaven and a rational understanding of natural law appears to be mentally unstable, because one of these two sides will inevitably grow at the expense of the other. That is because there is only room in the mind for one universal Teacher theory. Using religious language, it appears that the educated mind is naturally monotheistic, because there is an emotional drive to make general theories more general by eliminating or subsuming competing theories. Again using religious language, there is a natural drive for the mind to regard the One-and-Only-True-God as above all other gods. This is not just a religious statement, but rather a general cognitive principle. For instance, this same emotional drive can be seen in the growth of a bureaucracy. As Oscar Wilde famously said, “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.”
Turning now from the typical scientist to my personal experience, studying the mind turned the theory of mental symmetry into a TMN, and this TMN drives me emotionally to 1) treat the mind as an independent entity that could exist apart from the physical body, and 2) make the theory more complete by postulating the existence of a mirror-image supernatural realm.
Expanding on the first point, science builds a TMN (or paradigm) by studying the physical universe, which leads the scientist to the conclusion that it is natural to regard the physical universe as something that can exist independently by itself. But there is an inherent contradiction in this, because the scientist is using his mind to study matter. Ignoring this inherent contradiction will turn to bite the scientist when he faces death, because he will be emotionally driven by a TMN based in years of technical practice to conclude that the mind will not survive the demise of the physical body.
Similarly, if one spends years developing a TMN of the mind, then it will become natural to regard the mind as something that can exist independently by itself, which will lead naturally to the conclusion that the mind can continue to exist independently by itself after physical death. In the same way that there are vocal scientists who adamantly claim that there is no life-after-death, so I find myself now responding at a gut level with revulsion at the idea that the mind stops functioning at death.
Which of these two assertions is correct? As long as there is no definitive proof one way or the other, I suggest that the best way to decide is by examining which underlying TMN actually applies to the subject matter. Scientific theories do not apply to the topic of life-after-death because science only studies physical matter and natural processes. A person who dies leaves physical matter and is no longer governed by natural processes. Thus, the scientist who makes strident comments about life ceasing at death is making statements about a topic that lies outside of his area of expertise. The TMN of a general theory will drive a person to do that, but it is not intellectually valid. In contrast, a theory of the mind does apply to life-after-death, because what would remain after physical death is a disembodied mind. (Notice that I said mind and not brain. The hard problem of consciousness implies that the mind interacts deeply with the brain but also extends beyond the physical computer of the brain. This would include what people normally refer to as the soul.)
Symmetry
Turning now to the second point, the theory of mental symmetry also drove me to postulate the existence of a supernatural realm. Looking at this in more detail, the name ‘mental symmetry’ was chosen because of the extensive symmetries that emerged when studying the mind: Teacher thought is the mirror image of Mercy thought. For every Mercy trait, a mirror-image Teacher trait can be derived by replacing experiences with words, space with time, and concrete with abstract. Similarly, Server thought is the mirror image of Perceiver thought. For every Perceiver trait, a mirror-image Server trait can be derived by replacing connections with sequences, space with time, and abstract with concrete. Likewise, Exhorter, Contributor, and Facilitator thought can each be subdivided into two different aspects which are mirror images of one another. (This mental symmetry can be seen physically in the symmetry between the left and right hemispheres of the brain.) This symmetry played a major role when working out the character traits of the various personality styles. For instance, my brother and I discovered back in the 1980s that Server persons find it very difficult to analyze how their minds function, while the Perceiver person finds this kind of self-analysis quite easy. Therefore, most Server traits were uncovered by taking a Perceiver trait, turning it into its mirror image, and then observing the behavior of a Server person to see exactly how that trait exhibited itself.
Science loves symmetry. More generally, Teacher theories adore symmetry, because they are vivid examples of order-within-complexity. For instance, notice how many times the word ‘symmetry’ appears in the Wikipedia description of the Standard Model, the quantum field theory of almost everything used by theoretical physics: “The construction of the Standard Model proceeds following the modern method of constructing most field theories: by first postulating a set of symmetries of the system, and then by writing down the most general renormalizable Lagrangian from its particle (field) content that observes these symmetries. The global Poincaré symmetry is postulated for all relativistic quantum field theories. It consists of the familiar translational symmetry, rotational symmetry and the inertial reference frame invariance central to the theory of special relativity. The local SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) gauge symmetry is an internal symmetry that essentially defines the Standard Model.” For those who do not feel like counting, ‘symmetry’ or ‘symmetries’ is used seven times in four sentences when describing the ultimate theory of particle physics.
Going further, physicists find any asymmetry in the Standard Model to be troubling. For instance, it was discovered that when kaons decay, then this decay occasionally violates what is known as charge parity (CP) symmetry. Who cares if symmetry is violated by a particle that lasts for only about 0.00000005 seconds? Physicists care, because asymmetry disrupts the elegance of a general Teacher theory, and the physicist is driven emotionally by the TMN of a general theory of physics. In fact, physicists cared so much that the Nobel Prize was given in 1980 to the two scientists who discovered this asymmetry.
In a similar manner, a major asymmetry emerged when I was studying the mind. As I have mentioned, the mind itself appears to be highly symmetric. But the interaction between the mind and the physical world is not symmetric. Even though Server thought is the mirror image of Perceiver thought, Server thought controls the physical body through sequences of action while Perceiver thought observes the world by looking for connections. Saying this another way, Server thought provides output, while Perceiver thought deals with input. Similarly, Teacher thought may be the mirror image of Mercy thought, but experiences of pain and pleasure from the physical body fill Mercy thought with emotional experiences while Teacher emotion must be constructed by building general theories. That is why the average person does not know what it feels like to be a scientist. The average person is driven by MMNs of culture and identity which are acquired primarily through experiences of pain and pleasure via the physical body. In contrast, science is driven emotionally by the TMN of a general theory that was acquired by working with the paradigms of science. The scientist knows what it is like to be driven emotionally by a TMN. The average person does not. (Similarly, a bureaucrat knows what it is like to be driven by the TMN of a bureaucratic system, while a professional knows what it is like to be driven by the TMN of some profession.)
The symmetry that I observed within the mind drove me emotionally to try to eliminate the asymmetry that exists in the relationship between the mind and the physical universe. I did this by postulating that the physical realm and the physical body are only half of the story. Suppose that a mirror-image realm exists populated by minds that inhabit mirror-image bodies. That would restore the symmetry. That is why I said earlier that I was driven by a theoretical need to postulate the existence of a mirror-image realm. The TMN of the theory of mental symmetry drove me to restore symmetry to this general theory when asymmetry became apparent.
What would this mirror-image existence be like? Instead of using Server thought to perform physical actions via the application of physical strength, the mind would use Perceiver thought to impose connections upon the environment through some application of power. And instead of learning naturally about MMNs through physical experiences of pain and pleasure, a mirror-image being would learn naturally about TMNs by ‘physically’ experiencing emotions of order and disorder.
Aliens?
I have attempted to explore this hypothesis further in previous essays. In brief, what emerges is a form of existence that sounds like popular descriptions of UFOs as well as biblical and popular descriptions of angels.
At first glance, this sounds rather nonscientific. After all, one would think that science would never be driven by a theoretical need to postulate the existence of some realm that lies outside of existing matter and energy. Actually, science currently does precisely that. Theoretical physics is currently being driven by a theoretical need to postulate the existence of matter and energy for which it has no rational or physical explanation. I am referring to what is known as dark matter and dark energy. Neither of these is rational because neither can be explained by the Standard Model. And neither of these is physical because neither of these involves anything that is known to exist within the physical universe. Despite this, scientists believe that there is four times as much dark matter in the universe as normal matter. In a similar manner, the current scientific hypothesis is that there is twice as much dark energy in the universe as normal energy. There is some indirect physical evidence for dark matter. But as far as I know, the only reason that dark energy is required is to explain the rate at which cosmology says that the universe is expanding.
If that kind of hypothesizing is scientifically permissible, then it should also be permissible to restore symmetry to the theory of mental symmetry by proposing the existence of a mirror-image realm of energy for which there is deep theoretical evidence as well as circumstantial physical evidence. After all, I am only postulating the existence of one—or two—additional universes (mental symmetry suggests that a spiritual universe may also exist) and not suggesting that there may be gazillions of universes, as stated by the multiverse hypothesis.
This does not prove that UFOs and angels exist, but it changes the nature of the question, because one can now view the supernatural as a way of completing a general theory of the mind, instead of viewing the supernatural as a way of violating a general theory of physical reality. Going further, current theories of physics teach that a very similar kind of symmetry, known as particle-wave duality, is embedded within the very structure of the physical universe, and we will discuss this duality later in the essay.
Stating my hypothesis as clearly as possible, I propose that humans, aliens, and angels all have the same kind of minds (which implies that aliens and angels also have cognitive styles). However, the mind of an alien (or angel) resides within a ‘physical body’ that is cognitively the mirror-image of a human physical body. Humans live within a universe composed primarily of particles, while aliens would live within a mirror-image universe composed primarily of waves. The end result is that what a human regards as concrete thought, an alien or angel would regard as abstract thought, and what a human regards as abstract thought, an alien or angel would regard as concrete thought. (Theologically speaking, what humans regard as God the Father, aliens would regard as God the Spirit, and vice versa.)
I should emphasize that I am not suggesting that biblical stories about angels are actually describing alien UFO encounters. Instead, I am suggesting that both aliens and angels are the same kind of beings who come from the same mirror-image universe. (I suspect that there is also a spiritual realm, also populated by beings with the same minds who interact with their environment via ‘physical bodies’ that directly sense and express mental networks.)
Summarizing so far, if one starts with the theory of mental symmetry, then one comes up with a meta-theory that is capable of acting as a universal theory of personality, religion, psychology, and social interaction. This meta-theory is also capable of explaining the thinking of the scientist. In addition, this same theory leads naturally to a concept of life-after-death which can be rationally explored. And this theory leads to the hypothesis of a supernatural realm that relates to the natural realm similar to the way that waves and particles interact within physics, a hypothesis which can also be rationally explored. We quoted Thomas Kuhn earlier as saying that the scientist will only let go of an existing paradigm if given a better one. I suggest that mental symmetry is a better paradigm because it makes it possible to explore many topics that are currently being ignored by science—while still holding on to a scientific mindset.
I make this hypothesis about a mirror-image universe for three primary reasons: First, the theory of mental symmetry demands this hypothesis. Second, the hearsay evidence that is out there regarding aliens and UFOs appears to be consistent with this hypothesis. Third, this hypothesis is also consistent with what the Bible says regarding angels.
Looking briefly at two pieces of hearsay evidence, one characteristic that continually reappears in stories of UFO encounters is that aliens communicate with humans through telepathy. In order to communicate with someone, I must have something in common with that person. For instance, if I do not speak someone else’s language, then we can still communicate by pointing to objects in the environment, because both of us live within physical bodies within the same physical world. If I am hungry, I might point to some food and then point to my stomach. Similarly, if humans can communicate telepathically with aliens, then this implies that there is a fundamental similarity between the minds of humans and the minds of aliens, because the mind of one is communicating directly with the mind of the other.
Another repeated characteristic of UFO encounters is that a UFO which is leaving some location does not vanish off into the distance. Instead it will usually move at high speed and then suddenly disappear. Hence, an unidentified flying object. This implies that one gets closer to the ‘other’ realm by moving within the physical realm, which implies that movement within the physical realm is related to position in the other realm, a relationship that is akin to the duality between wave and particle.
The typical scientist is also being driven by his paradigm to make a specific hypothesis regarding aliens: A general theory about the physical universe demands that one search for aliens by looking for physical evidence. Thus, sending radio waves into space through SETI is regarded by the scientific establishment as kosher, while attempting to communicate with ‘them’ through telepathy is verboten. However, the evidence that exists does not support this viewpoint. SETI has yet to come up with any sign of intelligent life, while there are literally millions of humans who claim to have communicated telepathically with aliens, as well as millions who claim to have seen unknown flying objects appearing out of nowhere. However, asserting that UFOs come from some distant part of the physical universe is consistent with what science asserts about physical reality. Again we see that the TMN of an understanding of the physical universe is driving scientists to search for physical evidence of alien life, and that this focus upon the physical is being backed up by the consensus of the scientific community, even though the evidence that is available is inconsistent with this viewpoint. In other words, the typical scientist is being driven by his mind to ignore the mind when searching for other intelligent minds. This may not describe the thinking of all scientists, but it does describe the current consensus of the scientific community, a consensus that has been defended for several decades with considerable vigor.
This essay is not about UFOs. Instead, we will now stop talking about aliens. Our next major topic will be the history of science and how this relates to different mental circuits, and after that we will examine a number of fundamental concepts of physics in the light of mental symmetry. When we get to the duality between waves and particles, then I will briefly point out how our discussion of physics can be naturally extended to include aliens and angels.
But before we can talk about physics, we need to talk about two more basic assumptions that lie behind the thinking of physics.
The Copernican Principle
One of the most important principles that I learned when studying the mind is that research cannot be separated from personal identity. That is because the mind is studying itself. On the one hand, a general theory about the mind is being constructed. But on the other hand, this general theory is being constructed by a person who is using the same mind that is being studied. Therefore, whenever one makes a discovery about the mind, this leads simultaneously to two different problems: 1) Does this new discovery makes sense? Does it fit into the TMN of the theory of the mind? 2) Is this new discovery subjectively acceptable? Can I live with this idea? Is it compatible with my MMNs of personal identity?
I have repeatedly encountered theories of cognition that turned into self-deception because the researcher could not subjectively handle the results of his research. Therefore, I do not want to spend decades of my life working on a theory of the mind and then end up with a faulty theory because I could not live with the results. Spending one’s life in order to develop a theory of the mind is bad enough. Spending one’s life in order to build a theoretical system of self-deception would be intolerable. Therefore, whenever I come up with some new idea, I do my best to apply this new understanding to my personal identity in some way, even if this means forgoing some career or being ostracized by others. The end result is a theory of the mind that is simultaneously a description of how the mind works as well as a prescription of the process that one follows to get the mind to work.
It is within this general context that I first encountered the Copernican principle when doing research for this essay. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that “The Copernican Principle is a basic statement in physics that there should be no ‘special’ observers. For example, the Aristotelian model of the solar system in the Middle Ages placed the Earth at the center of the solar system, a unique place since it ‘appears’ that everything revolved around the Earth. Nicolaus Copernicus demonstrated that this view was incorrect and that the Sun was at the center of the solar system with the Earth in orbit around the Sun. The implications of Copernicus’ work can not be exaggerated. His views challenged the literal interpretation of Scripture, the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of moral theory, and even common sense itself. The result was a massive opposition to his reported ideas. It was the slow, sure acceptance of the heliocentric theory by natural philosophers that ultimately quieted the general clamor, however the name of Copernicus is still a battle cry against the establishment in religion, philosophy and science. In later years with Freud, man lost his Godlike mind; with Darwin his exalted place among the creatures of the Earth; with Copernicus man had lost his privileged position in the Universe. The lesson learned by future scientists is that if a theory requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible.” (I think that this quote comes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica because the link that I am quoting from claims that it is an excerpt, but the encyclopedia itself is behind a paywall.)
I have included the entire excerpt in order to provide a fuller picture of the mindset that lies behind the Copernican principle. In simple terms, this principle states that a person should not come up with a theory of the universe that revolves around people. Stated cognitively, the TMN of a general theory should not be warped by MMNs of personal identity. This is a significant principle which I do my best to follow. But notice that this excerpt does not follow its own advice, because it immediately descends into language that is dripping with subjective emotion: ‘The implications cannot be exaggerated’, ‘Challenged the literal interpretation of Scripture’, ‘foundations of moral theory’, ‘massive opposition’, ‘quieted the general clamor’, ‘battle cry against the establishment’.
The excerpt closes with a moral imperative: ‘The lesson learned by future scientists is that if a theory requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible’. The Wikipedia article makes an even stronger statement: “Michael Rowan-Robinson emphasizes the Copernican principle as the threshold test for modern thought, asserting that: ‘It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the Earth occupies a unique position in the universe.’”
Summarizing, belief in the Copernican principle is ‘the threshold test for modern thought’ which ‘no well-informed and rational person’ would think of questioning. Instead, all future scientists will have learned that a theory which does not accept the Copernican principle is not plausible.
The Copernican principle addresses a legitimate concern. The childish mind is driven by deeply flawed MMNs of culture and identity which will prevent Teacher thought from coming up with the TMN of a rational understanding. Science deals with this problem by ignoring the subjective and focusing upon objective facts. The Copernican principle describes this approach of suppressing subjective MMNs, because it automatically rejects any general theory of existence in which humans play a central role. As Wikipedia puts it, “In the late 20th Century, Carl Sagan asked, ‘Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.’”
Unfortunately, there are several reasons why this advice will not work. First, I have just mentioned that it is only possible to construct a rational and well-informed theory of cognition if personal identity is placed front and center. The Copernican principle is not a theory of science. Instead it is a general principle about thinking scientifically, and when one is thinking about ‘thinking about science’, then one is actually studying the mind. If one follows the Copernican principle when studying the mind, then it is almost guaranteed that one will deceive oneself—while thinking that one is rational, as illustrated by the encyclopedia excerpt that uses subjective language when describing the Copernican principle. When one is thinking about scientific thought at the meta-cognitive level, then one dare not regard people as merely ‘living on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy’. This does not mean that thinking should be warped by childish MMNs. Instead, I suggest that childish MMNs need to be transformed by the TMN of a rational understanding. (This process of personal transformation guided by a rational understanding appears to summarize the essence of Christianity.)
Second, quantum mechanics has shown that the observer cannot be ignored, because the process of observing some event will influence that event. This is also a psychological principle. Going further, objective data is always interpreted by placing it within the mental structure of some paradigm. A paradigm may be a general theory, but it is still the general theory that is being held within the mind of the specific person doing the observing. I am interpreting the data according to my paradigm. Thus, an observer can influence the data at the factual level of Perceiver thought, and an observer will also interpret the data in the light of some paradigm at the theoretical level of Teacher thought.
Third, the Copernican principle is violated by the fine-tuned universe. In the words of Stephen Hawking, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
(Added in 2020) Fourth, the Copernican principle appears to be inconsistent with empirical data. Several hundred multi-planet systems have now been discovered by the Kepler space telescope. It turns out that the solar system is not a normal multi-planet system. Instead, it is highly unusual in terms of the arrangement and size of the planets. This violates the Copernican principle, which insists that the human solar system should not be viewed as unusual.
Fifth, the Copernican principle is not really a scientific theory. This can be illustrated with quotes from the Wikipedia article. It is an underlying assumption: “Modern mathematical cosmology is based on the assumption that the Cosmological principle is almost, but not exactly, true on the largest scales. The Copernican principle represents the irreducible philosophical assumption needed to justify this, when combined with the observations.” It is an unprovable hypothesis: “The Copernican principle has never been proven, and in the most general sense cannot be proven, but it is implicit in many modern theories of physics.” And it is official dogma that determines how data must be interpreted: “On scales comparable to the radius of the observable universe, we see systematic changes with distance from Earth. For instance, galaxies contain more young stars and are less clustered, and quasars appear more numerous. While this might suggest that Earth is at the center of the universe, the Copernican principle requires us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the universe with time.” (Added in 2021) Growing evidence indicates that the cosmological principle is not valid. Instead, the distribution of matter is not uniform at large scales. This questions the need for hypothesizing the existence of dark energy.
Sixth, the Copernican principle is continually violated by the equations of physics. That is because almost everything in physics is named after physicists. Most the units of measurement are named after physicists: Newtons of force, Joules of energy, degrees Celsius, Teslas of magnetic flux density, Ohms of electrical resistance, Pascals of pressure, and so on. Every time a physicist makes a numerical statement about the universe he is treating some (usually) dead physicist as a privileged observer of the universe. Similarly, most of the theories and equations of physics are also named after physicists: Newton’s laws of motion, the Pauli exclusion principle, Schrödinger’s equation, Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty, the Lagrangian, Euler’s number, Maxwell’s equations, Lorentz transformation, Biot-Savart law, and on and on. If leaving personal identity out of the equation is so important to physics, then why has physics brought personal identity into all the equations of physics? Summarizing, if one examines how physicists think about thinking about the universe, one realizes that this thinking violates the Copernican principle.
One might respond that it is fine to give personal names to units, equations, and theories as long as the equations and theories themselves do not emphasize the human perspective. But Teacher thought constructs general theories out of words, and the words themselves are reflecting an inordinate focus upon personal identities. How can one construct a pure and uncontaminated edifice of physics, if the very bricks that one is using to construct this edifice are emotionally contaminated? This fails ‘the threshold test for modern thought’. In other words, if it is important to gather and publish scientific data in an objective manner that eliminates the subjective, then it should be equally important to name the equations and values of physics in an objective manner that eliminates the subjective. Instead, physicists name equations and values in a manner that focuses upon the subjective, while gathering and publishing data in a manner that eliminates the subjective.
Looking at this further, even if the equations of physics are totally correct, naming quantities and equations after physicists will have two fundamental cognitive effects: 1) Physicists will be viewed as priests of society. A priest is a person who has a special relationship with God in Teacher thought. A concept of God emerges when a general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. The equations of physics are universal theories in Teacher thought that apply to the physical world in which people live. Naming these equations after physicists will give the impression that physicists have a special relationship with the realm of God and universal theories in Teacher thought. In practical terms, this will mean that people will look to physicists to learn about God and find universal meaning. Physicists will feel that they are qualified to make statements about God and universal meaning, and they will also feel that they can make these statements without having to learn anything from theologians, philosophers—or ‘normal’ people, because physicists have an inside personal connection with God which others do not have. All these names will also obscure the fact that the equations themselves are capable of creating a powerful concept of incarnation which connects between a concept of God in Teacher thought and personal identity in Mercy thought.
2) Physicists will have the illusion of personal immortality. I have mentioned that the materialistic theories of physics naturally lead the physicist to assert that personal existence ceases at death. However, if the names of famous physicists continue to be spoken after death in the context of general equations of the universe, then this will give the feeling that physicists can continue to exist after death. Simple logic tells us that attaching my name to some equation of physics does not make me continue after death. But we shall see later in the essay that there is a powerful cognitive relationship between Teacher understanding, personal identity, and personal names. Naming equations after physicists misuses this cognitive mechanism, giving the illusion that personal identity extends beyond death. This implicit illusion of personal immortality makes it possible for physicists to talk about personal annihilation at death without feeling personally threatened, and because physicists are regarded as the priests of society, this deep illusion will be accepted as gospel truth by the general population. Stated bluntly, physicists will naturally turn into priests who lie to themselves and others at the deepest level of personal existence. I am not suggesting that every physicist will fall into these two cognitive traps. However, I suggest that these two cognitive effects will have a strong enough impact to define the general consensus of physics.
Moving on, the Copernican principle is intimately connected with the Big Bang theory: “Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths… Hubble’s law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 and Georges Lemaître in 1927, well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson, and Walker.” Notice how an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory is automatically rejected because it violates the Copernican principle.
But there is a major theoretical problem with the interpretation of an expanding universe, because the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. In order to explain this, the existence of dark energy has to be hypothesized: “In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.” One possible source of dark energy is the cosmological constant, which describes the amount of energy that is generated by empty space because of quantum uncertainty. Unfortunately, there is also a major problem in this area, known as the cosmological constant problem, which “is the disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude, a state of affairs described by physicists as ‘the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science’ and ‘the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.’”
The Multi-Universe
That brings us finally to the concept of the multi-verse. The many-worlds interpretation was formulated by Everett in 1957 to explain the problematic concept of wave-function collapse within quantum mechanics. In brief, quantum mechanics says that at the atomic level, one can only work out the probability of some event. This probability can be calculated by squaring what is known as the wave-function. But when an event occurs, then the wave-function collapses and one of the probable outcomes becomes real. The standard illustration of this is the hypothetical situation of Schrödinger’s cat. While the box is closed, one can only give a probability of the cat being alive or dead. But when the box is opened, then the cat will be revealed to be either dead or alive. The wave-function will have collapsed, and probability will have turned into reality. The mathematics of this is clear. The interpretation has been argued for decades.
Quoting from Wikipedia, “The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wave-function and denies the actuality of wave-function collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual ‘world’ (or ‘universe’). In layman’s terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.” Applying this to Schrödinger’s unfortunate cat, the universe actually splits into two universes: In one universe the cat is alive, while in the other universe the cat is dead.
The multi-verse also provides a possible explanation for the fine-tuned universe. Looking again at Wikipedia, “The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), then some of these universes (even if very few) would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve.” In other words, there are many universes. We just happen to live in a universe that has been fine-tuned to be compatible with human life.”
But there is no physical evidence that any of these other universes exist. If an idea is being proposed for which there is no physical evidence, then this tells us that the idea is being proposed for cognitive reasons. Therefore, one can use a theory of cognition, such as the theory of mental symmetry, to analyze this idea.
One can examine this with the help of Occam’s razor, which says that “the simplest solution tends to be the right one”. Occam’s razor is a way of describing Teacher thought, because Teacher thought looks for order-within-complexity; it comes up with a simple way of summarizing the essence of some situation. However, when it comes to the multi-verse, “Proponents and critics disagree about how to apply Occam’s razor. Critics argue that to postulate an almost infinite number of unobservable universes, just to explain our own universe, is contrary to Occam’s razor. However, proponents argue that in terms of Kolmogorov complexity the proposed multiverse is simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe.”
Looking at this in more detail, the conclusion that one reaches about the multi-verse by using Occam’s razor depends upon one’s perspective: “A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.” Two kinds of elegance are being compared in this quote. One elegance involves words. The multi-verse is a more elegant theory of words because one does not have to add extra concepts such as wave-function collapse. The other elegance involves worlds. Physically speaking, the idea of multiple universes is inelegant. In fact, it is difficult to come up with a concept that physically violates Occam’s razor in a more egregious manner, because physical order-within-complexity literally does not exist. Instead, whenever some event occurs, then the universe fragments—and these fragments never come back together.
This desire to preserve elegance of words over elegance of worlds is cognitively illuminating. Notice first that this is not just a matter of choosing one alternative over another choice that is almost as good, but rather holding on to verbal elegance even if this means viewing the physical world in the most inelegant manner imaginable. Going further, if elegance of words is more important than elegance of worlds, then one has left the realm of science with its study of physical matter and has entered the realm of cognition and the mind. That is because the physical world does not talk. Instead, words are spoken by minds. This backs up my earlier assertion that the idea of a multi-verse is being pursued for purely cognitive reasons.
A cognitive theory can be evaluated by the effect that it has upon the mind. A theory that shuts down aspects of thought is cognitively harmful, while a theory that encourages more parts of the mind to function in an integrated manner is cognitively helpful. Using this criterion, one can come to the following conclusions:
1) Multi-verse is destructive of Teacher thought. As I have mentioned, Teacher thought wants order-within-complexity. Multi-verse brings some order-within-complexity to theories about the physical universe, but it does so by proposing that the physical universe is characterized totally by order leading to complexity: Universes are continually splitting apart; they never come together. One cannot bring order to something that is continually splitting apart and never coming together. One cannot find order-within-complexity if complexity only leads to further complexity and never to order. Saying this more carefully, Teacher thought is being given a general theory that brings order to the equations which describe the physical universe. But this general theory also implies that it is impossible to come up with general theories about the physical universe. It is a deep contradiction to say that one can come up with a theory about a theory about something, but cannot come up with a theory about something. That is like saying that I can build the second floor of a building, but I cannot build the first floor. But a second floor cannot exist without a first floor. Teacher thought hates contradictions; Teacher thought deeply hates deep contradictions.
2) Multi-verse is destructive of Contributor thought. Contributor thought chooses between alternatives in order to improve some bottom line in concrete thought or some general theory in abstract thought. Multi-verse makes choice meaningless, because it asserts that whenever I make a choice, then some doppelgänger of me makes the opposite choice in a parallel universe.
3) Multi-verse is destructive of Mercy thought. Mercy thought tries to avoid painful experiences and hold on to good experiences. It tries to build a personal identity that is composed of pleasant experiences. It wants to interact with other people in a loving manner that generates good experiences. Multi-verse makes a mockery of any attempt to seek goodness or practice kindness, because it asserts that whenever I choose to be kind to some other individual, then some other version of me is choosing to be unkind to that individual. What is the point of giving a starving person a piece of bread if making this choice causes my doppelgänger to withhold the bread from that starving person in another universe?
One concludes that multi-verse is cognitively not just bad, but very bad. The advocate of multi-verse would probably respond with some version of the Copernican principle: ‘You are evaluating theories about the universe using personal arguments. Humans are not privileged observers of the universe’. In contrast, I suggest that multi-verse is actually a deep violation of the Copernican principle. As I have mentioned, words are produced by people. The universe does not speak. Therefore, elegance of words comes from the minds of people. If there is no physical evidence for this elegance of words, then this elegance of words is coming purely from the minds of people. If elegance of words that comes purely from people’s minds is being used to describe the entire physical universe, then this means that the entire physical universe is revolving around personal feelings of verbal elegance. And that treats humans as privileged observers of the universe.
Before we continue, I would like to point out my present viewpoint. I currently do not know how old the universe is or how much of the Big Bang theory is true. However, I do know that if one postulates millions of years of human suffering and death, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a theodicy.
I also know that one must start by learning to think rationally in the present before attempting to tackle large questions about the past or future. This is how science started: Galileo observed the swinging of a pendulum; Kepler observed the movements of nearby planets; Newton thought about a falling apple, and he shone white light through a prism. Similarly, the theory of mental symmetry began as a theory of personal development before it turned into a cognitive meta-theory. Thus, I suggest that one must first eliminate cognitive errors in the present before attempting to analyze the distant past. Otherwise, assumptions about the present will warp one’s thinking about the past.
I should also point out that I am not trying to attack physics. Instead, I am merely following the same methodology that I use whenever analyzing some book or system. I consistently find that the key to understanding some book or system is to determine the underlying mental networks that lie behind that book or system. One of the deepest assumptions of scientific thought is that one can only pursue rational thought by suppressing MMNs of culture and identity. Saying this another way, subjective bias can only be avoided by remaining objective. This method will work for a while when one is studying the physical world. But it will break down if one starts to think about scientific thought or if one starts to think about the mind. Remaining rational by suppressing subjective emotions in an objective manner must then be replaced by becoming rational through transforming MMNs of culture and identity.
There is a societal reason for this. When subjective identity is eliminated from rational thought, then the end result is a rational, inhuman society. And humans cannot live in an inhuman world. Science and technology are now experiencing a major backlash precisely because they have created a society that is inhuman. Going further, because the average person equates objective science and technology with rational thought, and because the scientific establishment claims to be the ultimate source of rational thought, people are not just rejecting objective rational thought but rather rejecting all rational thought.
There is also a personal reason. When a person constructs the TMN of a general theory, then this TMN will eventually rule the mind and turn into a mental prison within which personal identity must live. This means that personal well-being depends upon constructing the TMN of a rational understanding of mental and societal wholeness, which is what I have attempted to do with the theory of mental symmetry. Someone who spends much of life following the TMN of a theory which demands that MMNs of personal identity be suppressed is actually building an inhuman mental prison for personal identity.
Finally, there is also a political reason. If scientific thought suppresses MMNs of culture and identity rather than transforming them, then scientific progress becomes vulnerable to being hijacked by political leaders who appeal to these suppressed MMNs. That is because a mental network that is suppressed retains its emotional potency, and this emotional potency will emerge to drive behavior when the mental network is triggered. Dictators specialize in triggering such suppressed mental networks. Science and technology then becomes a tool of evil that is used to amplify the evil of dictators. For instance, ‘It is your duty to your country to use your scientific theories to come up with more efficient ways of killing people and destroying property’. On the contrary, I suggest that scientists have a duty, both to self and to humanity, to practice a form of rational thought that places value upon humanity, because the alternative is to become accomplices to human oppression.
Methodology
We have examined some of the methodology of objective science. We will now take a brief look at the methodology that I have been using to develop the theory of mental symmetry. Physics uses a form of rigorous, math-based thinking that I refer to as technical thought. The relationship between mathematical equations and the mind is discussed in the book Natural Cognitive Theology. This essay, and the theory of mental symmetry in general, use a form of thinking which I refer to as semi-rigorous analogical reasoning, an expression of what I refer to as normal thought. As I have mentioned previously, the mind appears to be capable of three forms of thought: technical thought, normal thought, and mental networks. These three forms of thought can interact. For instance, analogy plays a major, though subordinate, role in the technical thinking of science. Similarly, the motivation for scientific thought comes from the TMN of some paradigm. This paradigm usually plays a subordinate role, unless it is being questioned or threatened. Paraphrasing what Thomas Kuhn said, the typical scientist spends most of his career solving technical puzzles within some assumed paradigm.
The analogies of normal thought can be made semi-rigorous by including technical thought and mental networks within these analogies. In fact, it is this inclusion which makes normal thought semi-rigorous, leading to the following requirements:
1) Using an analogy, analogies should include the fingers as well as the entire hand. Continuing with this analogy, a ‘hand-waving argument’ comes up with some general analogy between one area and another—between one ‘hand’ and another ‘hand’. But instead of looking at the details by comparing the ‘fingers’ of one ‘hand’ with the fingers of the analogous ‘hand’, a ‘hand-waving argument’ makes it more difficult to examine the details by ‘waving the hand around’. For instance, this description is itself an example of ‘including the fingers’ because we are adding details to this analogy. It is easy to say that one thing is like another. It is much more difficult to say that one thing remains like another even when one examines the details.
Every analogy breaks down at some point, but then so does every scientific theory. Instead, one has to be satisfied with effective theories that deal with some limited realm. Normal thought and technical thought typically break down in different directions. The analogies of normal thought can cover many diverse areas, but they break down if one adds too much detail. A semi-rigorous analogy can handle significant detail before breaking down. In contrast, the technical theories of science can provide detailed analysis, but they break down when being extended too far. A general scientific theory can handle a broad range of events while remaining accurate.
This first requirement of ‘including the fingers’ preserves technical thought, because technical thought works with details. An analogy that ignores details forces the mind to choose between normal thought and technical thought.
For instance, theoretical physicists are reluctant to use analogies because an incomplete analogy will undermine the conclusions that are reached by the technical thinking of math. But analogies are required for comprehension. Therefore, a physicist will use some analogy to illustrate a concept in physics and then point out where this analogy is incomplete. For example, physics uses the analogy of a flexible sheet to illustrate the idea that mass warps space-time, as stated by the theory of general relativity. But the proviso will usually be added that it is space and time themselves which are being warped and not some sheet of material within space-time.
If one wishes to use analogies in a manner that preserves technical thought, then one must look at as many details as possible. This means that using analogy effectively requires developing technical thought in the areas that are being compared. For instance, I did a lot of reading on theoretical physics before writing this essay, and I am only attempting to write such an essay after having developed the theory of mental symmetry to a sufficient level of detail. It is easy to say in a hand-waving manner that the functioning of the physical universe is like the functioning of the mind. It is much more difficult to say this in a semi-rigorous manner that includes looking at the details of how the physical universe functions and comparing this with the details of how the mind functions.
2) Analogies should compare hand to hands and fingers to fingers. What is general in one area should not be compared with what is specific in another area. For instance, one of the books that I have analyzed was written by a Harvard physicist and a Harvard theologian, who attempted to look for parallels between the functioning of the universe and religious thought. This book was very helpful and gave me a number of ideas. However, it also illustrates the error of comparing hands with fingers rather than hands with hands. The problem is that the theologian defined religion as taking the mystical leap described by Kierkegaard. The authors then found an analogy for this mystical leap in the singularities of physics. A singularity is a region where the equations of physics break down because one is using a certain set of equations beyond where they should be used. Therefore, a singularity is a sort of problematic fingertip that lies at the very edge of the hand. But this kind of problematic fingertip where rational theory ceases to apply lies at the very heart of the religion of Kierkegaard. Thus, finding an analogy between religion and science in singularities is like taking the ‘hand’ of mystical religion and comparing it with a ‘fingertip’ of science. A more appropriate analogy in this case would be yin-yang, because the ‘yin’ of mystical thought is being juxtaposed with the ‘yang’ of scientific reasoning; when the technical thinking of science breaks down, then one turns to the mental networks of mysticism for personal and cosmic meaning. We will return to this concept in a few paragraphs.
Comparing hands with hands and fingers with fingers preserves general theories within Teacher thought. Teacher thought appreciates analogies because they add new facets to the general theory. But Teacher thought does not appreciate an analogy that messes up a theory by confusing general with specific.
3) Analogies should recognize that hands are attached to bodies. Science has historically tried to remove subjective bias by separating facts from people. But facts do not motivate people. Instead people are motivated either by MMNs of culture and identity or by the TMN of some paradigm. Scientific thought performs the necessary function of pursuing information in a manner that is largely free of the emotional biases of culture and identity. But it does so by pretending that the hands can function in a disembodied manner that is free of the rest of the body with its mental networks.
But hands are moved by the body. If the ‘hands’ of specialized, objective research are not motivated by MMNs of personal identity, then they will ultimately become motivated by the TMN of some paradigm. Thus, objective research does not eliminate emotions. It simply replaces one emotion with another; it suppresses Mercy feelings in order to pursue Teacher feelings.
Recognizing that hands are attached to bodies preserves mental networks within Mercy thought. A scientist may spend most of his time thinking about theoretical matters, but he still lives in a physical body with physical appetites and physical needs. The danger of including subjective thought is that rational thinking can be overwhelmed by subjective emotions. That is why science tries to remove subjective bias. I suggest that the key lies in recognizing that subjective bias itself functions in a rational manner which can be explained through the cognitive styles and mental networks of mental symmetry.
Saying this all in a single sentence, which Teacher thought likes to do, semi-rigorous analogical reasoning uses analogies in a way that builds and preserves mental wholeness. Thus, I suggest that analogical reasoning provides the glue that integrates the mind. This is extremely significant, because the modern mind currently juxtaposes the yin of mysticism with the yang of science.
4) Analogies should deal with work gloves. Saying this more clearly, analogies should compare how various systems behave and not be sidetracked by surface similarities. Medieval thought was heavily guided by inadequate allegorical reasoning. For instance, “The doctrine of signatures, dating from the time of Dioscorides and Galen, states that herbs resembling various parts of the body can be used by herbalists to treat ailments of those body parts.” In other words, if a plant looks like a certain body part, then it can be used to treat that body part. The common justification for the doctrine of signatures was the belief that “God marked objects with a sign, or ‘signature’, for their purpose. Plants bearing parts that resembled human body-parts, animals, or other objects were thought to have useful relevance to those parts, animals or objects.”
A more modern example can be found in the observation that the protein laminin is in the shape of a cross, leading some Christians to conclude that this is a sign of Christianity. Notice again how an analogy is being made based upon surface appearance: laminin looks like a cross.
I too am being guided by a belief in a monotheistic God to use analogical thinking to bridge disparate fields. However, I am building analogies based upon underlying functions. This may sound like a minor distinction, but we will see when looking at Kepler that one of the major factors in the birth of science was to start examining how a system behaves rather than how it appears. Science is not a description of how the world looks. Instead, it is a description of how the world behaves. If one wishes to use analogies in a way that is compatible with science, then one must focus upon behavior and not appearance. Going further, I have found that this same principle applies to Biblical interpretation. If one looks for analogies based upon underlying function, then I have found that even allegorical books such as the book of Revelation make rational sense.
This does not mean that surface appearance should be totally ignored. Instead, surface similarities should be seen as secondary. One does not build upon them, but they are useful for teaching, remembering, illustrating—and enjoying. The world is a nicer place to live in when there is a relationship between form and function.
Moving on, most scientists think that the technical thinking of physics can be used to come up with a universal theory of everything. Physics has managed to come up with an almost universal theory of the physical universe, but evidence suggests that there is more to existence than just physical matter. Going further, even if only the physical universe exists, and even if the theory-of-almost-everything can be stated as a single mathematical equation, this equation is largely useless from a human perspective because 1) It is incomprehensible to both the average layman as well as most university educated individuals, and 2) It explains the physical universe at the level of atomic particles and has no direct bearing on how the universe behaves at the human scale of normal existence.
Instead, particle physics lie at one extreme end of the hierarchies described earlier by Feynman, and one must travel through many layers of hierarchy before reaching the level of normal human experience. Saying this more simply, physics’ theory-of-almost-everything is not an effective theory of human existence because it does not apply to normal human experience. Instead, an effective theory of human existence must include the mental networks that motivate people as well as the patterns and analogies of normal thought that people use to maneuver through the everyday physical world.
The average person today constructs such an effective theory of human existence in the following manner:
1) Technical thought is used to deal with the gadgets of technology, as well as the specializations of technical expertise, business ventures, and organized games. For instance, a dentist will study the technical specialization of dentistry in order to practice dentistry in a technical manner, usually working within some incorporated business of dentistry. Modern society is filled with these islands of technical specialization.
2) Mental networks are used to fill the emotional void created by technology and technical specialization. For instance, a dentist does not practice dentistry 24 hours a day. This would be physically impossible as well as emotionally meaningless. That is because specialization ignores universal understanding within Teacher thought, while objective skill ignores personal feelings within Mercy thought. Therefore, these emotions must be added to modern technical existence in some manner, which is usually done through some combination of family, social interaction, entertainment, altruism, and religion.
3) Normal thought with its analogies is used to maneuver through the normal experiences of life. But even though normal thought guides most thinking and activity, it tends to be ignored, because it lacks either the rigor of technical thought or the emotional appeal of mental networks.
Summarizing, the average modern person alternates between technical thinking that suppresses mental networks and mental networks that suppress technical thought, while both assuming and ignoring the normal thought that is required to tie these two together.
We have looked at how the technical thinking of science suppresses mental networks of personal identity through objective thought and the application of the Copernican principle. Modern technical thought suppresses TMNs of general theory through specialization. As Kuhn observed, the typical scientist spends most of his time solving technical puzzles within some paradigm and is no more skilled than the amateur when it comes to evaluating paradigms. We will now look briefly at the most common way in which mental networks suppress technical thought.
Mysticism?
The easiest way to add ultimate emotional meaning to human existence is through Buddhism or some other form of mysticism. The thinking of Buddhism has been analyzed in previous essays. In brief, mysticism combines overgeneralization in Teacher thought with identification in Mercy thought. Overgeneralization comes up with a general Teacher theory by ignoring Perceiver facts. The ultimate overgeneralization is the mystical statement that ‘All is One’, because it says that everything fits together—without providing any details. This could also be described as the ultimate hand-waving argument. Identification involves personal identity in Mercy thought—also by ignoring Perceiver facts. For instance, when I identify with some character in a movie, then I am ignoring all the facts which point out that I am not the same as that person. The ultimate identification is to pretend that I am ‘All is One’ because this ignores all the facts which point out that I am not the same as the entire universe. Notice the combination of Teacher and Mercy thought. Teacher thought uses overgeneralization to come up with a universal theory by suppressing all facts. Mercy thought then uses identification to identify with this universal theory, also by suppressing all facts.
The end result is intensely emotionally satisfying, because the TMN of a ‘universal theory’ in Teacher thought is being united with MMNs of personal identity in Mercy thought. This produces a feeling of cosmic and personal meaning, which is precisely what technical thought does not provide. It also forms a concept of God, because a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought.
It is possible for mysticism to coexist with scientific specialization as long as the mystical theory that ‘All is One’ is regarded as more general than rational, technical, scientific thought. Mysticism does this by regarding the facts of physical reality as more specific and less important than the ultimate meeting of life that is provided by mysticism. This relationship is described in the essay on Martin Buber’s I and Thou.
This may sound like a rather esoteric problem, but I have found over the decades that this juxtaposition of mysticism and rational technical thought pervades every aspect of modern society, and it is becoming even more pervasive within postmodern society. In fact, one can go further and say that the yin-yang of mysticism combined with science and technology has now become the dominant worldview of postmodern society.
The alternative is to use the analogies of normal thought to come up with an analogical theory that is more general than both science and mysticism because it integrates the various specializations of technical thought as well as the mental networks of culture and religion. It is easy to follow the overgeneralization of mysticism; one simply has to assert with sufficient emotional vigor for a sufficiently long period of time that ‘All is One’ and ‘I am God/the universe’. In contrast, coming up with an analogical theory of everything is not trivial. It has taken 30 years to develop the theory of mental symmetry to the point of being a possible candidate for such a theory of everything.
Putting this all together as simply as possible, the typical scientist will feel at a gut level that it is very non-rigorous to compare the technical thinking of physics with the patterns of cognition and religion. But the real choice is not between technical thought and semi-rigorous analogy but rather between semi-rigorous analogy, mysticism, or fundamentalism.
Scientific thought attempted during the twentieth century to replace the blind faith of religious belief with the rational thinking of technical scientific thought. It failed, because science cannot answer questions of ultimate personal and cosmic meaning. Therefore, scientific questioning created an emotional vacuum within the subjective, and postmodern thought is now attempting to fill that emotional vacuum.
It is not possible for society to return to the religious faith of previous generations, because science has successfully belittled all of the ‘sacred cows’ upon which this religious belief was based. People used to have respect for religious leaders, political leaders, and religious texts. This respect no longer exists. Therefore, the only alternatives are 1) strict fundamentalism, which attempts to return to the past by clinging emotionally to the religious truths that were attacked by science, 2) mysticism, which uses overgeneralization and identification to create the feeling of emotional meaning, or 3) an analogical meta-theory which uses normal thought to bridge specializations and mental networks.
I do not know of any other alternatives.
Using cognitive language, mysticism uses brute emotional force to say that the TMN of a theory of overgeneralization is more general than the rational thinking of science, while fundamentalism uses brute emotional force to say that MMNs of religious culture are more important than the rational thinking of science. Both of these methods are a frontal assault upon scientific rational thought. The goal of mental symmetry, in contrast, is to use the analogies of normal thought to come up with a meta-theory that bridges and integrates the various TMNs of science with the MMNs of religion, culture, and identity. The end result is a general meta-theory that truly is more general than the specialized, materialistic theories of science.
A cognitive theory that uses analogies will lead naturally to the concept of what I call cognitively natural symbolism. For instance, Perceiver thought builds connections between Mercy experiences, and Mercy thought acquires most of its experiences from locations in the physical environment. Similarly, a map portrays locations connected by roads and paths as dots and lines on a piece of paper. Thus, a map is a cognitively natural symbol of Perceiver thought, and the Perceiver person finds it easy to interpret maps. (This concept of something being ‘cognitively natural’ is used extensively in the Cognitive Science of Religion. Mental symmetry defines cognitive naturalness as that which resonates with the structure of the mind.) Looking at this in more detail, when I use the theory of mental symmetry to analyze some system or book, I begin by asking which cognitive modules are being used. For instance, science is based upon paradigms. Paradigms are an expression of Teacher thought. But science also observes natural processes by studying how the natural world behaves. This involves Server thought, which deals with concrete sequences. Now suppose that one asks these same questions about religion. Higher religions define God as a universal being. This is also an expression of Teacher thought, because Teacher thought comes up with general theories. Server thought also plays a role in religion because rituals are often performed for religious reasons, or a person will act in a certain manner in order to ‘obey God’. It then becomes possible to compare how Teacher thought and Server thought behave and interact in science with how they behave and interact in religion.
This process of identifying which cognitive modules are being used and then comparing how they are being used in different fields can also be used to build an understanding of how the mind functions, because all of these various fields share the common feature of being interpreted by the mind: Scientists are using their minds to perform science; religion is being guided by the mind. Notice also that one is looking for analogical similarities based upon function. For instance, one is comparing how the mind functions in science with how it functions in religion.
I have used this principle of cognitively natural symbolism in previous essays to interpret biblical passages. One can also see this principle functioning at a general level in science and religion. Science focuses upon natural processes and universal laws and officially disapproves of mentioning the concept of God. But scientists continually find themselves slipping naturally into the language of saying that ‘Nature does...’ or “Nature behaves...’, treating Nature—with a capital ‘N’—as an intelligent agent and ascribing attributes of divinity to Nature. That is because both science and higher religion involve interaction between universal theories in Teacher thought and behavior in Server thought. Therefore, the mind will find it natural to represent one with the other, and it will take effort to prevent scientists from using religious language to describe science.
I recently presented a paper at a conference where this issue came up in the context of CSR (Cognitive Science of Religion), revealing additional layers of cognitive contradiction. The theory of evolution was initially formulated in order to describe how life could have emerged without appealing to the actions of some intelligent divine agent such as God. But one of the basic discoveries of CSR is that the mind naturally believes in intelligent agents—such as God. (And the research of CSR fits well into the theory of mental symmetry.) However, CSR officially bases itself in the theory of evolution, which was constructed to avoid the concept of an intelligent divine agent. Therefore, CSR is officially based upon a theory that it contradicts at a fundamental level. Going further, I was told by someone at the conference that CSR has discovered that children find it cognitively unnatural to believe in the theory of evolution, because children naturally think in terms of intelligent agents. (For instance, ‘The sidewalk made me stumble’.) Therefore, children have to be taught the theory of evolution in a manner that acts as if evolution is being guided by some intelligent agent, such as Nature. Students of evolution are then taught later that evolution actually does not involve the actions of any intelligent divine agent. When a theory that was initially formulated for cognitive reasons ends up creating so many layers of cognitive dissonance, then this is a sign that one needs to come up with a better theory.
Concluding, even if God does not exist, the idea of God (or Nature) guiding behavior in an intelligent manner is a cognitively natural symbol of the laws of physics.
Going further, even if there is no actual relationship between human thought and the structure of science, the principle of cognitively natural symbolism will ensure that people will act and think as if there is a relationship. Therefore, any thinking about scientific thought needs to take this into account.
Geocentric vs. Heliocentric
We have all been taught that scholars used to believe that the earth is the center of the universe, the sun and planets revolve around the earth, and the stars exist within celestial spheres of cosmic perfection. We also know that science was preceded by alchemy and astrology. It is interesting to look further at this subject from a cognitive perspective. (I learned some of these ideas at a keynote talk given by Dennis Danielson at the 2018 CSCA conference.)
The earth may have been regarded as the center of the universe, but it was also an imperfect realm, and the ultimate imperfection of hell was believed to reside inside the earth. Notice this strange juxtaposition: the center of the universe is also a realm of imperfection where humans dwell. This juxtaposition relates to an important characteristic of MMNs (Mercy mental networks): An MMN can be constructed of pleasant experiences or unpleasant experiences. An MMN that is composed of painful experiences will still provide emotional stability for the mind. Think, for instance, of the abused spouse. Living with an abusive spouse is painful, and these painful memories will form MMNs within the mind of the person who is being abused. Leaving an abusive spouse will feel good, because one no longer has to endure painful experiences, but it will also feel unfamiliar, because MMNs of abuse have sufficient emotional potency to turn into core mental networks that provide stability for the mind.
The medieval geocentric model resembles the mindset of the abused spouse. On the one hand, the earthly realm of human experiences was regarded as imperfect, reflecting the painful reality of struggling through life in a pre-scientific society with limited technology and inadequate medical knowledge. For instance, it is estimated that 25% of people died before reaching the age of five and about 40% died before adulthood. But on the other hand, this imperfect, earthly realm was also viewed as the center of the universe. This cosmology reflects a mind that revolves around imperfect MMNs of culture and identity. Going further, hell, the ultimate place of human pain, was actually believed to be at the center of the universe, illustrating a mindset centered upon MMNs of societal and personal pain.
Going the other way, God was believed to reside beyond the cosmic spheres, in a realm that had three primary characteristics: It was perfect, it did not move, and it could not be reached by mortal humans. Again one sees a mindset that thinks in terms of Mercy experiences, because perfection is being seen as a place or a state. The standard reasoning was that if God is in a state of perfection, then God cannot move because any movement would lead him away from his perfection. Going further, this state of divine perfection was unreachable by humans.
Cognitively speaking, this describes a Platonic form that emerges when one uses Teacher thought to think about facts that are separate from reality. In brief, Teacher thought will think about some collection of facts and come up with a general theory that describes the purified essence of these facts. This general theory will then lead indirectly to the internal image of a Platonic form within Mercy thought. For instance, Teacher thought will take Perceiver facts about round objects and come up with a general theory about circles. This will lead to the imaginary picture—the Platonic form—of a perfect circle within Mercy thought. This imaginary picture will be more perfect than any circle seen in real life.
Platonic forms normally interact with reality: Platonic forms idealize the facts of reality, which then creates a drive to make reality more like Platonic forms. But this will not happen if Teacher thought deals with facts that are disconnected from reality. For instance, if one acquires facts from textbooks, holy books, or ancient tomes, then the resulting Platonic forms will have no connection with reality because they are based in verbal facts that are disconnected from reality. This describes medieval scholastic thought, because scholasticism was primarily a study of ancient tomes. Similarly, if people who think about Platonic forms avoid acting in the real world, then this will also lead to Platonic forms that are disconnected from reality. This describes classic Greek thought, because a philosopher was expected to be a man of leisure while most physical labor was performed by slaves.
Going further, the concept of static perfection at the periphery of the universe tells us that theories in Teacher thought are still being formulated within the context of MMNs of human experience. That is because Mercy thoughts thinks naturally in terms of static experiences, while Teacher thought thinks naturally in terms of sequences.
This same mindset can be seen in the classic elements. Mercy thought adds emotional labels to experiences. Similarly, the Greek concept of elements interprets all of reality in terms of fundamental experiences with emotional labels. More specifically, Greek thought believed that everything was composed of four primary elements, each with sensory attributes: fire is hot and dry, air is hot and wet, water is cold and wet, and earth is cold and dry. In addition, each element had its ‘place’ and it was believed that elements would naturally return to their place. Thus, water goes down and air goes up. Using cognitive language, each element has a ‘home’ culture within Mercy thought to which it wishes to return. Most ancient societies came up with a similar system, strongly implying that people are being driven by cognitive structures to organize reality in similar ways. In addition, studies have found that students naturally develop a form of Aristotelian physics and that part of the process of learning physics is to stop thinking in this manner. And this type of elemental thinking is more prevalent in students who grow up in non-Western societies which place a greater emphasis upon cultural MMNs. In other words, growing up in a physical body in the physical world naturally develops a mind that is ruled by MMNs, and students have to be taught to stop thinking in this manner and learn instead how to think in a manner that is guided by TMNs of general theory.
It is good to replace childish MMNs with TMNs of rational understanding. The problem arises when the rational understanding suppresses MMNs of identity and culture and explicitly states that they have no validity, while implicitly continuing to refer to these MMNs. We saw this juxtaposition when looking at CSR and the teaching of evolution. Curiously, a cognitively similar approach is taken with Santa Claus. Children believe in Santa Claus and this childish belief is encouraged by adults. But a child is eventually taught that Santa Claus does not exist, and anyone who continues to believe in Santa Claus as an adult is regarded as mentally immature. Despite this, the adult world has constructed an entire industry upon pretending that Santa Claus exists, while explicitly denying the existence of Santa Claus. The general cognitive principle is that people think naturally in terms of personal MMNs, and if rational understanding has no room for personal MMNs, then people will find some way of continuing to act as if they exist, even if this means deceiving little children and performing continual slips of the tongue.
Johannes Kepler
One can also see cognitively natural symbolism in the thinking of Johannes Kepler, a key figure in replacing the egocentric view with the heliocentric belief that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Kepler did not have a TMN of the laws of physics to guide his thinking, because scientific thought did not yet exist. Instead, he had the religious analog of this because he was “motivated by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason…transforming the ancient tradition of physical cosmology by treating astronomy as part of a universal mathematical physics.” In other words, Kepler discovered that the physical heavens are ruled by rational, general Teacher laws because he believed that the physical heavens were created by a rational God who is following an intelligible plan accessible through reason.
Kepler’s religious orientation is often disparaged by modern historians of science, but I have learned from personal experience that Kepler was taking a radical step. That is because I have been following a similar path with the theory of mental symmetry, also guided by the belief that ‘that God has created the world—and the mind—according to an intelligent plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason’. However, when I have discussed my work with theologians, every theologian that I have met so far has ultimately responded with the assertion that God is following a transcendent plan that is not accessible to the light of reason. When I respond that I have developed a rational theory that is capable of explaining Christianity, religion in general, psychology, neurology, and scientific thought, the reaction is consistently a lack of curiosity. This leads me to conclude that the typical theologian’s mind is being ruled by the overgeneralization of a mystical concept of God. And overgeneralization can only survive in a scientific world if one asserts that God transcends rational thought and cannot be analyzed by rational thought. Stated simply, it appears that Kepler was willing to take a step that theologians today are not willing to take.
As a result, the typical modern scientist concludes that religious belief tends to be opposed to rational thought. But scientific thought is controlled by its own cultural MMNs of academic respectability. Stated bluntly, I suggest that today’s typical scientist would also not have the moral or intellectual guts to be a Kepler or a Galileo. I am not suggesting that all of Kepler’s work is correct. Instead, I am suggesting that what really matters is how far a person goes beyond their existing culture.
Saying this more generally, we saw in a previous paragraph that the mind naturally develops in a manner that does not follow ‘the natural light of reason’. Instead, as teachers of physics and other rational disciplines have discovered, the naïve mind needs to be taught to submit to TMNs of rational thought rather than be guided by MMNs of culture and/or childish perception. Translating this into religious language, the unregenerate mind needs to recognize that it is a sinner who falls short of the perfection of God who needs to submit to the word of God. Continuing with this religious perspective, if one analyzes the Protestant Christian ‘prayer of salvation’ from a purely cognitive perspective, one concludes that this prayer actually makes it emotionally possible for a person to break free mentally of cultural MMNs in order to discover and be guided by the TMN of rational theory. Obviously, such a transition to an attitude of personal honesty that seeks rational understanding will only happen if one believes—as Kepler did—that it is possible to use rational thought to explore the character and plan of God. One would think that those who have studied religion as an academic discipline within a university or seminary would subscribe to this belief. It appears that this is not currently the case. I am not suggesting that theologians pursue only mysticism. Extensive rational thought is being used to explore many aspects of religion. However, there always seems to be some inner shrine of religious experience where rational thought is not allowed to enter.
It is interesting to examine Kepler’s religious beliefs about God in the light of cognitively natural symbolism: “Kepler thought he had revealed God’s geometrical plan for the universe. Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit.” The sun is a cognitively natural symbol of a universal Teacher understanding, because it illumines the entire earth of human existence, similar to the way that a universal theory ‘sheds light’ upon all human knowledge. (Notice how one can find examples within normal speech of using the sun to represent a general understanding. This is an indication that one is dealing with a cognitively natural symbol. Going further, biblical references to the sun make cognitive sense when one interprets them as referring to a general understanding in Teacher thought.)
Continuing with Kepler’s concept, the sun has moved from the periphery to the center of the universe. Cognitively speaking, this means that Kepler is building his thinking upon the TMN of a general understanding rather than upon MMNs of culture. One finds this mindset illustrated by the behavior of Kepler, because he and his family were banished from Graz in 1600 because they refused to convert to Catholicism, and Kepler continued to practice his Lutheran faith when he moved to Prague even though this was not an acceptable religious doctrine. Going further, God is no longer being viewed as the unmoved mover. Instead, “In Kepler’s religious view of the cosmos, the Sun (a symbol of God the Father) was the source of motive force in the solar system.” We saw earlier that viewing God as an MMN in Mercy thought will lead naturally to the idea of God as an ‘unmoved mover’ who resides within a state of perfection and does not dare move from this state. (This reminds me of my mother, a Mercy person, who forbade us from actually using the fancy pillows on our sofas for fear that they would be moved away from their states of pristine perfection.) In contrast, God is exerting a force upon the planets that affects their movement. Instead of thinking in terms of static Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences with emotional labels of personal perfection, Kepler is thinking in terms of general Teacher theories that guide the Server actions of the planets. And one can tell that Kepler is being motivated by the TMN of a theory because he is viewing God the Father as a source of motive force.
Kepler also described the Holy Spirit as distinct from God the Father, viewing the space between the sun and the celestial sphere as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. The earth and the planets resided within this intervening space. An ‘unmoved mover’ is a Platonic form that emerges within Mercy thought when one thinks about God using Perceiver facts that are independent from Server actions. It is static because it involves Perceiver facts and not Server actions, it is distinct from reality because it is based upon Perceiver facts that are distinct from reality, and it views God as some sort of perfect finite being sitting immovably upon some heavenly throne because it works with a limited set of Perceiver facts that typically come from specific ‘holy’ book or have been spoken by specific ‘holy’ experts. One sees a similar combination in the typical Christian view of heaven, which believes that the Christian who dies will instantly become perfect and complete when entering heaven, and will spend the rest of eternity in an attitude of static worship before the throne of God, as described in Revelation 4 (Revelation 4 actually describes the opening scene in heaven and is followed by a process of heavenly transformation described in chapters 5-22.)
A concept of the Holy Spirit is a universal Platonic form that forms within Mercy thought as an indirect result of building a universal theory in Teacher thought. Plato described this universal concept as the form of the Good, a kind of uber-Platonic form that ties together the essence of all other more specific Platonic forms. Notice the precise distinction. An unmoved mover is a specific Platonic form of perfection within Mercy thought. There is sufficient Teacher thought to create the mental concept of God as a sort of perfect Superman within Mercy thought. In contrast, a Holy Spirit is a general Platonic form of perfection within Mercy thought. Teacher understanding has developed to the extent of forming a TMN of God the Father within Teacher thought, and this integrated understanding is indirectly tying together all of the Platonic forms within Mercy thought to form a Platonic form of the Good. This Mercy hierarchy of Platonic forms creates a meta-culture of invisible perfection within which MMNs of human existence reside. Similarly, Kepler viewed the Holy Spirit as the invisible context within which the earth and the planets resided.
Kepler started with a model of the solar system based in static Platonic forms. In the words of Wikipedia: “Kepler claimed to have had an epiphany on July 19, 1595, while teaching in Graz, demonstrating the periodic conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the zodiac: he realized that regular polygons bound one inscribed and one circumscribed circle at definite ratios, which, he reasoned, might be the geometrical basis of the universe… He found that each of the five Platonic solids could be inscribed and circumscribed by spherical orbs.” Kepler was teaching astrology, which relates the position of the planets to MMNs of personal identity. Teacher thought within his mind then came up with a general theory. He realized that he could fit the five Platonic solids (cube, octahedron, etc.) between the orbits of the six known planets. Notice the cognitive combination: Teacher thought is functioning, but it is using Platonic forms to work with static facts, and this thinking is happening within the general context of MMNs of personal identity.
Going further, Kepler is interpreting his Teacher theory in personal terms, guided by his belief in the Bible: “Kepler thought he had revealed God’s geometrical plan for the universe. Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit. His first manuscript of Mysterium contained an extensive chapter reconciling heliocentrism with biblical passages that seemed to support geocentrism.”
In a similar manner, the theory of mental symmetry began with a list of seven ‘spiritual gifts’ from the biblical book of Romans, and the initial research focused upon dividing people into seven different static categories. For many years, I deliberately did not quote from the Bible or study the Bible in depth, because I wanted to build my understanding upon the TMN of a general theory and not upon MMNs of fundamentalist faith. I have recently been returning to the Bible, but my attitude to Scripture has now changed. Instead of viewing the Bible as a source of Absolute Truth based upon MMNs of religious respect, I now view it as a way of checking and expanding my TMN of understanding.
Kepler also took the step of removing the Biblical references from his manuscript and replacing this with a focus upon Teacher understanding: “Kepler received permission from the Tübingen university senate to publish his manuscript, pending removal of the Bible exegesis and the addition of a simpler, more understandable description of the Copernican system as well as Kepler’s new ideas.”
One can see that Kepler’s theory of Platonic solids turned into a lasting TMN within his mind because he held on to this theory for the rest of his life: “Though the details would be modified in light of his later work, Kepler never relinquished the Platonist polyhedral-spherist cosmology of Mysterium Cosmographicum. His subsequent main astronomical works were in some sense only further developments of it, concerned with finding more precise inner and outer dimensions for the spheres by calculating the eccentricities of the planetary orbits within it. In 1621, Kepler published an expanded second edition of Mysterium.”
Kepler then started working with Tycho Brahe in order to test his theory using Brahe’s astronomical data on the orbit of Mars. The process of observing the planets led indirectly to the discovery of mathematical principles of optics, and Kepler eventually published a book on the laws of optics entitled The Optical Part of Astronomy. This book also introduced the idea of using math to analyze how Platonic shapes such as circles and ellipses morph into one another. Thus, Kepler’s theory may have been inadequate, but it created a mental framework of rational thought within which he could start to discover modern principles of physics. These principles described what Kepler himself was doing as he observed the planets and used mathematical Teacher theories to explain the relationships between Platonic forms.
A similar transition happened within my research. My brother learned more about ‘Romans 12 spiritual gifts’ by analyzing 200 biographies, and the two of us took several years to analyze these traits in order to develop the theory of mental symmetry. But studying these traits had an impact upon my mind. I then started to uncover cognitive principles based upon the process of analyzing cognitive styles. And instead of viewing the cognitive styles merely as static categories, I began to understand how one could become mentally whole by developing and integrating these various forms of thought.
A supernova appeared in 1604 which is now known as Kepler’s supernova. This changing astronomical light challenged the notion that the celestial sphere was a place of unchanging perfection. Kepler studied this supernova for a year, observing how it faded over time, and he eventually wrote a book on the supernova. Looking at this cognitively, a Teacher understanding of natural law was beginning to develop within Kepler’s Teacher paradigm of static Platonic solids. The supernova challenged the very concept of static heavenly objects, while Kepler’s process of studying the changing supernova expanded Kepler’s Teacher understanding of heavenly processes.
One can see Kepler’s changing attitude in his book on the supernova: “Kepler addressed the star’s astronomical properties while taking a skeptical approach to the many astrological interpretations then circulating.” In other words, Kepler was no longer analyzing heavenly events in terms of personal MMNs in an astrological fashion, but rather from the TMN of studying natural processes.
However, let us take an astrological perspective for just a moment. Wikipedia describes the astrological context of that time: “Astrologically, the end of 1603 marked the beginning of a fiery trigon, the start of the about 800-year cycle of great conjunctions; astrologers associated the two previous such periods with the rise of Charlemagne (c. 800 years earlier) and the birth of Christ (c. 1600 years earlier), and thus expected events of great portent, especially regarding the emperor. It was in this context, as the imperial mathematician and astrologer to the emperor, that Kepler described the new star two years later in his De Stella Nova.” Kepler’s supernova appeared in 1604, and no supernova of similar brightness has appeared since then. From a Teacher perspective, 1604 really was the beginning of a major cycle, because it signaled the start of Western scientific thought. Cognitively speaking, an emperor is like a general Teacher theory, because both rule over some domain as the ultimate source of law. The ‘emperor’ of medieval scholasticism with its focus upon MMNs of academic authority began with the reign of Charlemagne, while the thinking of Kepler played a major role in giving birth to the modern era of scientific thought.
Looking at this more generally, my analysis of human history has led me to the conclusion that some divine being seems to be intervening regularly in human history in order to manipulate society through timing and coincidence. This is not a God-of-the-gaps who steps in to abrogate the laws of nature through indisputable, miraculous acts. (If God reveals himself through miracles that violate natural law, then who created the order of the universe?) Instead it is a God of cosmic order who is carrying out a subtle yet profound plan by adjusting the laws of probability.
Kepler then started to analyze the solar system guided by the concept of a God-who-motivates, which was quite different than the idea of the Immovable Mover: “In Kepler’s religious view of the cosmos, the Sun (a symbol of God the Father) was the source of motive force in the solar system. As a physical basis, Kepler drew by analogy on William Gilbert’s theory of the magnetic soul of the Earth from De Magnete (1600) and on his own work on optics. Kepler supposed that the motive power (or motive species) radiated by the Sun weakens with distance, causing faster or slower motion as planets move closer or farther from it.”
Free Will and Divine Sovereignty
It is interesting to compare Kepler’s mindset with the thinking of John Calvin, who died seven years before Kepler was born. Calvin taught that God ultimately controls all human events—both good and evil—in a mysterious manner. In the words of one author, “Among Calvin’s central aims is to oppose the idea that any event occurs by fortune, chance, or caprice. ‘All events are governed by God’s secret plan,’ says Calvin; ‘nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by God.’ Holding that it is insufficient to affirm a ‘bare foreknowledge’ of God, Calvin declares that God governs the course of nature and history down to the smallest details. God ‘directs everything by his incomprehensible wisdom and disposes it to his own end.’” Looking at this cognitively, Calvin is using Teacher overgeneralization to describe the plan of God, because he is asserting that God controls everything, while also saying that it is not possible to add factual details to this universal assertion because the ways of God are mysterious. This combination of universal statement with no factual details defines overgeneralization. In contrast, Kepler developed the concept of a God of generalization who motivates human activity in a manner that can be studied rationally. Kepler’s concept of God laid the foundation for modern science, while Calvin’s concept of God lies at the heart of mysticism.
It is still considered heretical in most Christian circles to suggest that God allows most specific events to unfold in a probabilistic manner, and most Christians will assert that God controls every single event in the universe. However, there are several problems with this viewpoint. First, I don’t know of any Christian who actually acts as if God controls every specific event. Thus, this assertion is an overgeneralization that has nothing to do with the events of normal life. Second, if God controls every single event, then human free will is ultimately meaningless. One can go through many verbal convolutions to try to minimize this problem, but the underlying conclusion still remains. Third, if God controls every single event, then God is the source of evil. And restating this problem using complicated words and convoluted concepts does not remove the problem. Fourth, the physical universe contradicts this belief because the entire physical universe functions probabilistically.
This final point needs to be discussed in more detail, because it will return later when discussing quantum theory. Quantum theory has shown that one can predict with mathematical certainty how a group of atomic particles will behave, but one cannot predict how an individual particle will behave. If the character of God is revealed in the structure of the universe, then this means that God in Teacher thought can control the overall plan of history with total certainty, while most specific events occur in a probabilistic manner that is not predetermined by God. I should point out that what I am suggesting is different than Open Theism. Open theism suggests that the plan of God is flexible and uncertain because humans have a free will. I am suggesting that the plan of God is flexible—at the level of details, while remaining inflexible and sovereign at the level of generalities.
Saying this another way, I am suggesting an intermediate position between the libertarian free will suggested by open theism and the determinism implied by total divine sovereignty. Decades of observing people has led me to the conclusion that people have limited free will. This free will is real and meaningful because is not foreknown by God. But this free will is also limited in scope. The choices that a person can make are limited by core mental networks. Free will becomes maximized when a person or society is faced with conflicting core mental networks, and free will becomes minimized when a person or society is guided by a single set of consistent mental networks. This means that God can use an awareness of mental networks and their associated probabilities to foreknow—or predict—with certainty the general paths that will be followed by individuals or groups.
I suggest this viewpoint of limited, real, specific, human free will within a general context of divine sovereignty for five main reasons: First, that is how the entire universe functions. (I know that there are different interpretations for the collapse of a wave-function. But one can still conclude that the laws of physics are stated deterministically when dealing with a large number of atomic particles, while they describe probability when dealing with individual atomic particles. Regardless of how one interprets this, general certainty is being combined with specific probability.) Second, that is how the mind functions. Teacher thought comes up with general theories while Mercy thought deals with specific personal experiences. Ironically, the assertion that God is totally sovereign over every detail leads in practice to the pragmatic belief that God is not sovereign, because one cannot add any details to Teacher overgeneralization. Third, that is how the average person behaves. Most people spend most of their lives making specific decisions about specific situations while ignoring and/or assuming the larger issues of life. Fourth, this interpretation appears to be consistent with a careful reading of the scriptural text. Fifth, my study of human personality backs up this juxtaposition.
Looking at this final point in more detail, I keep finding, on the one hand, that people’s choices have real consequences, and that the direction that a person’s life will take can be determined by the choices that are made. On the other hand, I also keep finding that the thinking of a society is determined by the spirit of the age, and that attempting to change the course of the spirit of the age is like blowing into a hurricane. For instance, everywhere I look within current society I keep seeing people follow the same path of combining objective intelligence with some form of subjective mysticism. The only difference that education seems to make is that educated people use more complicated words and more convoluted concepts to justify following this path; the simple person uses simple words to say that God cannot be understood, while the educated person uses complicated words to say that the nature of God is incomprehensible. Going further, people and groups appear to be rushing down a path from modern thought through postmodern thought to special interest groups like lemmings plunging off a cliff. No matter what I say or do, no matter how much research I do, I find that the vast majority of people ignore my analysis—while mindlessly continuing a lemming-like march off the cliff into irrational tribalism. Thus, when I propose that God controls the overall course of history, I am not stating this as some abstract theological overgeneralization. Instead, this conclusion is the result of several decades of personally attempting to swim against the stream of society, following a personal path that was initiated by a set of improbable personal events, enforced by a number of unusual decisions, and is now motivated by the TMN of a concept of God.
I am not aware of anyone else describing a similar reconciliation between divine sovereignty and human free will. (People do use quantum mechanics to support open theism, but these discussions seem to ignore that the laws of physics stop being probabilistic and become certain when one is dealing with a sufficiently large group of particles.) I think that this is because people do not have a theory of the mind that allows them to understand—and thus predict—how a group of people will respond. In a similar manner, most discussions about open theism appear to be based upon the presuppositions of technical thought. I suggest that this is because open theism is regarded as a philosophical question, and Western analytic philosophy uses abstract technical thought almost exclusively. But abstract technical thought is only one aspect of human thought: the mind is ultimately motivated by the emotions of mental networks, and not by the rigorous logic of philosophy; the average person spends most of his time using the analogies of normal thought—and not rigorous logical philosophy. Thus, if one wishes to understand how God would manipulate human society, one needs to understand all aspects of human thought, and not just the rigorous logic of philosophy. These statements are themselves illustrations of the limited nature of free will. If one thinks within the context of analytic philosophy, then one can only come up with descriptions of free will that are phrased in the language of rigorous logic. Similarly, if one lacks an understanding of how the mind functions, then any discussion of open theism will occur within the context of lacking an understanding of how the mind functions.
Looking at the entire mind leads to the conclusion that human free will is limited, and that it becomes greatest during periods of societal or personal conflict. For instance, there was extensive internal conflict—and free will—during the second half of the 20th-century, when mental networks of traditional authority were being questioned by the new attitude of personal freedom and postmodernism. But now that postmodernism has largely defeated traditional authority, people are losing their free will, and conflict is being replaced by societal and academic consensus.
Finishing with Kepler, the thinking of Kepler eventually entered a new and more productive phase. He used mathematics to analyze Brahe’s detailed observations of Mars and after about forty different attempts realized that the orbit of Mars could be described mathematically as an ellipse, with the sun at one of two foci of the ellipse. He then concluded that all planets move in ellipses. Going further, Kepler discovered that a planet traces out equal areas in equal times throughout its orbit, and that ‘the square of the periodic times are to each other as the cubes of the mean distances’. Kepler’s three laws were a watershed, because this was the first time that planetary motion was being described using general laws of mathematics.
In conclusion, the life of Kepler is significant because it describes the shift away from the MMNs of prescientific thought to the rational, mathematical TMNs of modern science.
Isaac Newton
My brother Lane Friesen began the research in mental symmetry by analyzing 200 biographies back in the 1980s. He only found two biographies of Teacher persons: Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. More generally, observation suggests that the Teacher person is the rarest of all seven cognitive styles. I learned how Teacher thought functions by interacting extensively with Lane for several years, because he is a Teacher person.
One can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that the Teacher combines abstract, analytical, and emotion. This means that Teacher thought forms general theories out of various sequences, such as sequences of words, guided by emotions of order-within-complexity.
Academia emphasizes technical thought which is controlled by Contributor thought. Teacher thought, in contrast, works with the paradigms that lie behind technical thought. Newton excelled at original thinking and not at the technical thought that characterizes normal education: “Although he had been undistinguished as a Cambridge student, Newton’s private studies at his home in Woolsthorpe over the subsequent two years saw the development of his theories on calculus, optics, and the law of gravitation.”
Teacher thought functions emotionally: Teacher thought feels good when there is order-within-complexity and bad when there is an exception to the general rule. Wikipedia describes this attitude: “A perfectionist by nature, Newton also refrained from publication of material that he felt was incomplete, as evident from a 38-year gap from Newton’s conception of calculus in 1666 and its final full publication in 1704.” The Teacher person may respond emotionally when other people provide an ‘exception to the general rule’. Newton typically responded with strong emotions when his ideas were questioned. For instance, When “Robert Hooke criticised some of Newton’s ideas, Newton was so offended that he withdrew from public debate.” And when Newton eventually published his system of calculus, this led to bitter multiyear controversy with Leibniz over who invented calculus. In both of these cases, Newton continued his acrimony until the other party died.
Because Teacher thought functions emotionally, the Teacher person will generally try to avoid MMNs of culture and religion in order to prevent Teacher thought from being clouded by Mercy emotions. This explains why Newton avoided the institution of the church: “He was a devout but unorthodox Christian, who privately rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and who, unusually for a member of the Cambridge faculty of the day, refused to take holy orders in the Church of England.” Institutional religion emphasizes MMNs of religious experience and ritual. For Newton, pursuing a concept of God in Teacher thought meant avoiding being emotionally contaminated by the MMNs of institutional church.
In a similar manner, my brother Lane has avoided attending church for many years, and my collaboration with him ended around 2004 when he told me to stop attending church and I refused. (I agree with him that the MMNs of institutional church are deficient, but I have also found that I can only continue to make progress by building upon a combination of theoretical TMNs and experiential MMNs.)
Going further, notice that Newton did not believe in a Christian Trinitarian God. Instead, he believed that biblical references to God refer to God the Father, and that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are subsidiary beings who are inferior to God the Father. Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God the Father emerges when a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. A concept of God the Son emerges when technical thought is used to connect general theories in Teacher thought with specific experiences in Mercy thought, as illustrated by the way that technology connects general theories of physics in Teacher thought with specific gadgets in Mercy thought. And a concept of God the Spirit emerges when Platonic forms in Mercy thought become integrated into a form of the Good. Newton had a concept of God the Father, but he minimized the concepts of God the Son and God the Spirit, reflecting the typical mindset of the Teacher person who tries to pursue pure Teacher thought without being biased by Mercy emotions or influenced by a desire to connect Teacher theory with Mercy experience.
Newton kept his views about God private: “Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says, ‘Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs.’” One reason for this is that religious blasphemy was punishable by death at that time. But I suggest that there was also a cognitive reason. The goal of the intellectual Teacher person is to stop Teacher thought from being influenced by irrational MMNs of religion, culture, and societal pressure. Openly discussing religious controversy would defeat this purpose, by causing the Teacher person to become emotionally enmeshed within the very MMNs that are trying to be avoided. Similarly, even though my brother studied the Bible in depth before starting his research on mental symmetry, and even though we worked together for many years, he has shared with me little of what he uncovered when studying the Bible.
Newton saw extensive evidence for God the Father in the order of the universe: “When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose.” But he also thought that God had to intervene occasionally to preserve natural order: “In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God’s active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction.” One sees here the inherent contradiction that is typically present in the Teacher person. On the one hand, the Teacher person claims to be a servant of Teacher understanding. But on the other hand, the Teacher person also reserves the right to be the one who defines the nature of Teacher understanding. This is similar to the Mercy person who claims to follow a standard of love, but who also reserves the right to be the one who defines what is and is not love. The end result is a juxtaposition of intellectual freedom and personal dictatorship.
Newton had an incredible impact upon the thinking of society, replacing the MMNs of magical thinking as well as the overgeneralized TMN of mysticism with the TMN of a rational understanding of the universe held together by a mechanical thought. In the words of Wikipedia, “The attacks made against pre-Enlightenment magical thinking, and the mystical elements of Christianity, were given their foundation with Boyle’s mechanical conception of the universe. Newton gave Boyle’s ideas their completion through mathematical proofs, and more importantly was very successful in popularizing them. Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles.”
Looking more closely at the phrase ‘mechanical conception’, a concept of incarnation emerges when abstract technical thought becomes integrated with concrete technical thought. A machine is a physical object that combines concrete technical thought with abstract technical thought. On the one hand, a machine can be used as a tool by concrete technical thought to reach goals more efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, the same machine can be viewed by abstract technical thought as a set of functioning parts that work together in an integrated fashion. (These concepts will be discussed later in the essay.) Thus, a ‘mechanical conception of the universe’ describes a partial concept of God the Son based in the technical laws of nature.
Looking at this in more detail, “By deriving Kepler’s laws of planetary motion from his mathematical description of gravity, and using the same principles to account for the trajectories of comets, the tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and other phenomena, Newton removed the last doubts about the validity of the heliocentric model of the Solar System and demonstrated that the motion of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies could be accounted for by the same principles.” Using cognitive language, Newton based the laws of Kepler in the TMN of a general mathematical theory, and he used this same mathematical theory to explain both the movements of everyday objects upon ‘imperfect’ earth as well as the movements of the planets in the ‘perfect’ physical heavens. This was a huge step, because the Platonic MMNs of heavenly perfection had been viewed as completely separate from earthly MMNs of culture, personal identity, and religion. Newton united these various physical realms with the TMN of his laws of gravity and motion.
But this mental integration did not extend to subjective MMNs. Part of this is due to the personality of Newton as an individual, because we have just seen that Newton suppressed his subjective MMNs in order to protect Teacher emotions from being influenced by subjective feelings.
Newton also invested—and lost—a lot of money in a commercial enterprise that suppressed subjective MMNs of personal identity: “Newton was one of many people who lost heavily when the South Sea Company collapsed. Their most significant trade was slaves, and according to his niece, he lost around £20,000.”
Going further, Newton followed a method of thinking that emphasized Server sequences and Teacher theory, while downplaying Perceiver meanings and Mercy reality. Newton described this as Hypotheses non fingo. Looking at this in more detail, “Newton’s postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing ‘occult agencies’ into science. Later, in the second edition of the Principia (1713), Newton firmly rejected such criticisms in a concluding General Scholium, writing that it was enough that the phenomena implied a gravitational attraction, as they did; but they did not so far indicate its cause, and it was both unnecessary and improper to frame hypotheses of things that were not implied by the phenomena. (Here Newton used what became his famous expression ‘hypotheses non-fingo.’)” Using the language of mental symmetry, Newton says that one should use Server thought to observe how the natural world behaves, and then one should come up with general theories in Teacher thought to explain this behavior, even if the end result implies Perceiver facts that do not make sense or Mercy experiences that feel unpleasant (such as occult agencies). One should simply observe the natural world, follow the math, and ignore what this means. A similar mindset can be found in modern quantum theory, known colloquially as ‘Shut up and calculate’.
But when subjective MMNs are suppressed, then they continue to live on under the surface. And they will continue to be triggered, because humans live within a physical environment that originally programmed many of these MMNs and will continue to activate these MMNs. Saying this more simply, the Teacher person may try to avoid MMNs, but he is still a finite human being in a physical body who has to interact socially with other human beings as well as provide for his physical needs.
The end result is that the supposedly theoretical Teacher person is still driven subconsciously by traditional MMNs of culture and religion. Similarly, Newton was still motivated subconsciously by medieval MMNs of knowledge: “John Maynard Keynes, who acquired many of Newton’s writings on alchemy, stated that ‘Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians.’” Likewise, I have noticed that my brother Lane still behaves socially like a conservative Mennonite.
Looking at this in more detail, “Newton spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible.” But “Newton did not publish any of his works of biblical study during his lifetime.” Newton also wrote extensively on alchemy, but “due to the threat of punishment and the potential scrutiny he feared from his peers within the scientific community, Newton may have deliberately left his work on alchemical subjects unpublished… In 1936, a collection of Isaac Newton’s unpublished works were auctioned by Sotheby’s on behalf of Gerard Wallop, 9th Earl of Portsmouth, who had inherited them from Newton’s great-niece. Known as the ‘Portsmouth Papers’, this material consisted of three hundred and twenty-nine lots of Newton’s manuscripts, over a third of which were filled with content that appeared to be alchemical in nature.”
Newton’s ‘rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture’ are actually fairly similar to the rules that I attempt to follow. In brief, Newton says that one should use consistent symbolism, respect the surface meaning of the text, treat the biblical text as much as possible as an uninterrupted sequence, and come up with a simple, self-consistent explanation that fits the facts of history. These principles summarize how Perceiver thought and Teacher thought cooperate to come up with rational understanding. Perceiver thought evaluates facts as carefully as possible, and then Teacher thought combines these facts into the sequence of a general theory.
Newton tried to analyze the Bible using the same technical thinking that he used to analyze the physical universe: “Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible.” He focused upon the physical geometry of the Jewish Temple: “As a Bible scholar, Newton was initially interested in the sacred geometry of Solomon’s Temple, such as golden sections, conic sections, spirals, orthographic projection, and other harmonious constructions.” Going further, “Newton would spend much of his life seeking and revealing what could be considered a Bible Code. He placed a great deal of emphasis upon the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, writing generously upon this book and authoring several manuscripts detailing his interpretations.” Notice the emphasis upon numbers, shapes, dates, and chronology, all expressions of technical thought.
Newton believed that the Bible needed to be interpreted by individuals like himself who had learned to use technical thought: “Newton considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.” And he believed that the Bible and other ancient sources had been written by experts in technical thought: “Newton felt that just as the writings of ancient philosophers, scholars, and Biblical figures contained within them unknown sacred wisdom, the same was true of their architecture. He believed that these men had hidden their knowledge in a complex code of symbolic and mathematical language that, when deciphered, would reveal an unknown knowledge of how nature works.”
I too have written extensively about Revelation and other prophetic books of the New Testament. But, unlike Newton and most other scholars of biblical prophecy, I have done my best to stay away from numbers and dates. Instead of using technical thought, I have used normal thought to focus upon patterns and analogies, guided by the TMN of a cognitive theory together with MMNs of personal transformation. Strangely enough, I did not actively try to decipher prophecy. Instead, I was reading Revelation 12 three years ago and found to my shock that the text made sense. I kept reading, and the text kept making sense. I then continued to go through the New Testament in order to check my analysis and I found that other New Testament books were saying something similar. I have posted about 1000 pages of analysis on my website. My conclusion is that the biblical text makes sense in three primary ways: First, it makes sense from a cognitive perspective in the light of the theory of mental symmetry. In other words, the Bible appears to be talking primarily about the mind and the transforming of the mind and not about the physical world. Second, it makes analogical sense from a scientific perspective in the light of the history of science and technology. Thus, one can comprehend the Biblical description of the transforming of the mind by comparing this with how the development of science and technology has transformed human thought and culture. Third, it makes sense from a personal perspective in the light of personal transformation. I have repeatedly found the biblical text resonating with my personal experience of allowing a rational understanding of the mind in Teacher thought to transform personal identity in Mercy thought.
Summarizing, I suggest that Newton made four fundamental errors when analyzing the Bible: First, he used the wrong kind of thinking to analyze the Bible. Instead of using technical thought, he should have used the analogies of normal thought. Second, he focused upon the wrong domain. Instead of studying Biblical descriptions of physical objects and physical events, he should have focused upon thinking and the transformation of the mind. Third, he did not analyze his own thinking. Instead of analyzing the chronology of history, he should have analyzed the process by which the mind becomes capable of rational thought—a process with which he would have been personally familiar. Fourth, he did not apply his own thinking. Instead of allowing Teacher theories to transform MMNs of religion, culture, and identity, he protected Teacher thought by suppressing Mercy feelings within his own mind as well as attacking anyone who questioned his theories.
We have looked at the thinking of Isaac Newton in some detail. That is because he “is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time, and a key figure in the scientific revolution.” Newton’s cognitive style of Teacher person caused him to pursue a path of building rational Teacher understanding while suppressing MMNs of culture, religion, and identity. Over the centuries, this mindset has become institutionalized within academia, and it is now unusual—and difficult—for anyone to swim against the stream of the river of academia that began at least partially with the thinking of Newton.
Isaac Newton gave birth to classical mechanics. Albert Einstein, another Teacher person, is largely responsible for the birth of modern physics. Thus, if one wishes to understand the thinking of science, then one must understand Teacher thought, because much of scientific thought was shaped by the thinking of two Teacher persons. (A previous essay looked at Einstein’s description of how he thought.) As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, most scientific work consists of technical problem solving, which is performed primarily by Contributor persons and Facilitator persons. Technical thought is not the same as Teacher thought, and the only reason that I understand how Teacher thought functions is because I worked with a Teacher person for several years. Similarly, I suggest that the ‘God of the Old Testament’ becomes comprehensible if one imagines what it would be like for a Universal Being who uses Teacher thought to interact directly with a tribal society, knowing that this interaction would set the direction for human society for thousands of years.
Classical Mechanics
Now that we have looked at the thinking of Newton as a person, we will examine the mindset of Newtonian physics, expanding upon what was written in a previous essay. The work of Newton led to a system of physics known as Newtonian mechanics or classical mechanics. In a nutshell, classical mechanics is a mathematical description of concrete thought. One can see in the diagram of mental symmetry that concrete thought combines Mercy and Server. The physical body programs Mercy thought with experiences of pain and pleasure from the physical world, and then Server thought uses physical actions to seek pleasant experiences and avoid painful ones. One can also see from the diagram of mental symmetry that there is no direct connection between Mercy and Server. Instead, these two are connected indirectly through Perceiver. Perceiver thought organizes and connects Mercy experiences, which places Mercy experiences within a map of Perceiver facts. This map then makes it possible to use Server actions to move from one Mercy experience to another.
The physical world provides the mind with an implicit Perceiver map, because all Mercy experiences occur in fixed physical locations, and one can use Server actions to return to these locations or flee from them. One can also use Perceiver thought to construct a mental map, making it possible for the mind to move between the memory of one Mercy experience and the memory of another. The distinction between these two approaches can be seen in the behavior of the typical Server person. Perceiver thought is subconscious in the Server person, and as a result is often poorly developed. Therefore, physical location acts as an implicit substitute for Perceiver thought. Instead of having a mental map, the typical Server person will continue living within some home or neighborhood where every object or tool ‘lives’ within a certain known physical location. For instance, the scissors may live in the drawer to the right of the sink, and the pens may live in the small drawer at the end of the counter. Everyone practices this sort of organization to some extent, but the typical Server person uses this physical organization to hold concrete thought together, and will often live in the same house for decades, experiencing deep emotional upheaval if forced to move to a different neighborhood.
Classical mechanics uses mathematics to analyze the motion of everyday objects from one physical location to another. In the words of Wikipedia, “Classical mechanics describes the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, and astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars and galaxies. If the present state of an object is known it is possible to predict by the laws of classical mechanics how it will move in the future (determinism) and how it has moved in the past (reversibility).”
Notice the term ‘macroscopic objects’. In simple terms, a macroscopic object is something that can be seen with the naked eye; it can be noticed and analyzed by the physical senses of the physical body. Saying this another way, concrete thought is concrete because it can be sensed directly by the physical body and controlled directly by the physical body. Classical mechanics can be extended by using tools such as telescopes, microscopes, or radios to extend the range of the five physical senses, but the fundamental basis still remains using math to determine how visible objects move.
As was mentioned at the beginning of this essay, if an object gets sufficiently small, then one must use quantum mechanics. If it gets sufficiently large, then one must use general relativity. If it moves sufficiently fast, then one must use special relativity. If it gets sufficiently small and moves sufficiently fast, then one must use quantum field theory. And if it gets sufficiently large and moves sufficiently fast, then one throws up one’s hands and comes up with an approximate answer because there is no general theory that combines quantum mechanics with general relativity.
Calculus
Classical mechanics was accompanied by the development of calculus in mathematics. Newton himself formulated one version of calculus while Leibniz independently developed another version. The version of calculus that is used today is primarily that of Leibniz. One can use mental symmetry to see the relationship between classical mechanics and the mathematics of calculus.
I have mentioned that classical mechanics comes up with a general abstract theory of concrete thought. Saying this another way, mathematics are being used to analyze the concrete experiences of normal life. This leads naturally to a cognitive mismatch, because mathematics are an expression of technical thought, while normal life usually involves—normal thought. Technical thought requires a limited set of clearly-defined rules in order to function, while normal thought is more flexible and open-ended. One can see this contrast by comparing a game of hockey or football with its rules and limited playing field, and the normal life that exists outside of the game off the playing field.
The components of concrete technical thought are described in a previous essay. (That essay uses Cp, which stands for practical Contributor, to refer to concrete technical thought, and Ci, which means intellectual Contributor, to refer to abstract technical thought. These earlier terms were used by my brother Lane, who encountered these two primary sub-types of Contributor person when analyzing historical biographies.)
I have mentioned that concrete thought uses Server actions to move from one Mercy experience to another, and that these actions and experiences occur within a grid or map of Perceiver facts. Contributor thought functions in the middle of this circuit, connecting specific Perceiver facts with specific Server sequences. Technical thought emerges when Contributor thought takes control of this circuit. Saying this another way, technical thought emerges when Contributor thought takes control of normal thought, while normal thought emerges when thinking is not under the direct control of Contributor thought but rather is permitted to function in a less rigorous manner. This transition from normal thought to technical thought can be seen whenever a specialization goes through some process of accreditation.
In concrete thought, Contributor thought connects Perceiver facts to Server actions. This combination leads to a sense of cause-and-effect or sowing-and-reaping. Cause-and-effect appears to be the fundamental cognitive unit of concrete technical thought. In abstract thought, Contributor thought adds Perceiver meanings to Server sequences of words. This combination leads to a sense of precise definitions, and the precise definition appears to be the fundamental cognitive unit of abstract technical thought.
In mathematics, the focus upon cause-and-effect can be seen in the mathematical function. A function relates some input x to an output f(x). Using cognitive language, it relates some cause to an effect. The concept of a function accompanied the development of calculus: “A function was originally the idealization of how a varying quantity depends on another quantity. For example, the position of a planet is a function of time. Historically, the concept was elaborated with the infinitesimal calculus at the end of the 17th century.” Mathematically speaking, “Functions are widely used in science, and in most fields of mathematics. Their role is so important that it has been said that they are ‘the central objects of investigation’ in most fields of mathematics.” This corresponds to the cognitive statement that the concept of cause-and-effect is the basic unit of concrete technical thought, because a function is a mathematical way of representing the concept of cause-and-effect. (Using the hand analogy, this means that we are comparing hands to hands and not hands to fingers; a central concept of mathematics is being compared with the central concept of concrete technical thought.)
One of the attributes of technical thought is that results must be certain. There can be no ambiguity in the answer. This demand for certainty can be seen in the definition of a function, because, as every high school student learns, a legitimate function must always come up with one output for every input. For instance, if one regards a pop machine (Coke machine, soda machine?) as a function, then pressing a certain button must always result in the same kind of drink. One must not receive Coke part of the time and Pepsi the rest of the time. Getting the same output with several inputs is fine because the results are still certain. Thus, a pop machine would still be regarded as a legitimate function if three of the buttons lead to the same result of Coke.
This technical demand for certainty is reflected in the published paper, a set of results that have—supposedly—been tested and checked sufficiently to be capable of being treated as certain. That is how the system works in theory. In practice, most psychological and cognitive studies published even in reputable journals are not reproducible, and therefore do not actually pass the threshold of certainty that is demanded by technical thought. In contrast, normal thought uses patterns and analogies based upon partially certain facts to come up with answers that are usually correct. Saying this more personally, the Perceiver person is never 100% certain of any information, while the Contributor person seems to treat information as totally certain once some threshold of confidence has been crossed. Technical thought has developed mathematical methods for working with the uncertain facts of normal thought, known as statistical analysis. But here too a fact is regarded as totally certain once some threshold for statistical significance has been passed. For instance, the Higgs boson was officially announced when the statistical evidence reached a p-value of five-sigma, which means that there was a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the data collected was merely random and not evidence for the particle.
As an aside, I have increasingly noticed the appearance of the ‘case study’ in psychological papers, a technical label for describing what used to be disregarded as anecdotal evidence. Cognitively speaking, building a general theory upon a case study is an example of intuitive thought, which jumps directly from specific situation in Mercy thought to general theory in Teacher thought. Both case studies and intuitive thought can be very helpful as a starting point for more rigorous thinking. For instance, when I began reading neurological papers in the 1980s, I sometimes found the anecdotal comments to be more enlightening than the data itself. But when case studies replace statistical analysis, then this is generally a sign that technical thought is being deconstructed and replaced by mental networks.
As was mentioned earlier, Contributor thought can function in one of two primary modes: concrete technical thought and abstract technical thought. In a similar manner, a function, which is the primary unit of concrete technical thought, can be approached from either a concrete or an abstract perspective. (This is similar to the manner, described earlier, in which a machine can be viewed either from the perspective of concrete technical thought or from the perspective of abstract technical thought.) When viewed from the perspective of concrete technical thought, a function carries within it the concept of time. The input leads to the output; the input is the independent variable while the output depends upon the input.
When a function is viewed from the perspective of abstract technical thought, then it loses any sense of time. Instead, a function becomes merely a way of equating one set of conditions with another, a way of using Perceiver thought to define one side of an equation as having the same meaning as the other side. This loss of time can also be seen in the mathematical equations that define the laws of physics. The real world is subject to the arrow of time, with natural processes always occurring in one direction and not the other. In contrast, there is no sense of time with the mathematical equations that describe natural processes: “As far as we know, the fundamental dynamical laws are time neutral --- preferring no direction of time over another. Yet our universe exhibits a number of ‘arrows of time’ --- general phenomena that distinguish directions in time.” For instance, concrete technical thought would view F=ma as a function in time: If one imposes a certain force, then this will cause an acceleration. Such a relationship could be rewritten as F → ma. But abstract technical thought views the same equation as a relationship that is independent of time. If one knows the force, then one can calculate the acceleration. Similarly, if one knows the acceleration, then one can calculate the force.
Looking closer at the relationship between normal concrete thought and technical concrete thought, normal concrete thought uses Server actions to move from one Mercy experience to another. For instance, I just walked from my desk to the kitchen in order to get a cup of coffee. But if one looks at the diagram of mental symmetry, one sees that the connection from Mercy to Server actually goes from Mercy→ Perceiver → Contributor → Server. Perceiver thought organizes Mercy experiences into categories and then builds connections between these categories, placing the Mercy experiences within a mental map. There are many kinds of mental maps, but the map of physical location is the primary map which classic mechanics analyzes. With concrete technical thought, Contributor thought relates Perceiver facts to Server actions: Each Perceiver connection between two locations also represents a Server action that leads from one location to the other.
We saw earlier when looking at mental symmetry that Perceiver thought functions as input while Server functions as output: Mercy experiences come into the mind from the physical body and Perceiver thought organizes these Mercy experiences into facts. In contrast, the physical body is capable of translating the mental sequences of Server thought into the physical sequences of physical action.
Contributor-controlled concrete technical thought can optimize physical activity by internally treating the connections from Perceiver facts to Server actions as functions. The Contributor person, who is conscious in this mode of thought, describes this as mentally placing possible actions within an internal grid of cause-and-effect that predicts the path along which a certain sequence of actions will travel. This internal simulation makes it possible to mentally practice some sequence of actions, such as hitting a ball in a game of golf. Mental practicing is more effective if a sequence of actions is broken down into separate individual steps. That is because Contributor thought builds specific connections between specific Perceiver facts and specific Server actions, creating mental bricks of cause-and-effect. In order to accurately simulate some extended sequence of actions, such as skiing down a slope, or playing a round of golf, many specific mental bricks have to be mentally assembled to recreate the entire sequence.
Calculus does the same thing but reverses input and output. The input of a mathematical function (typically x) represents the independent variable, the action that is being done to some device. The output of a mathematical function (typically y) represents the dependent variable, the result of doing some action, which is typically analyzed using Perceiver thought. The slope of the graph is a way of measuring how much ‘bang’ I am getting for my ‘buck’, the ratio of result-to-effort or benefit-to-cost. Saying this more mathematically, If x is the input and y is the output, then the slope is defined as ∆y/∆x, or the change in output divided by the change in input.
If one takes this approach, then one will run into the same problem that was encountered with mental practicing. Contributor thought thinks naturally in terms of specific connections with straight lines. But the real world is full of curves and is not naturally composed of straight lines—unless human civilization uses technical thought to impose straight lines upon the physical world. The solution is to break up the complicated curves of reality into tiny little straight-line segments. This process of dividing up some curve into small straight segments defines the essence of differential calculus. For instance, instead of looking at the distance that I travel in one hour of driving (in this case, the distance is the result and the driving is the effort that is needed to produce that result), differential calculus calculates the speed at which I am traveling at each moment—the current number on my speedometer. Mathematically speaking, a speedometer is performing a derivative with respect to time, because it is calculating my precise speed at each moment. This turns normal concrete thought into technical concrete thought. Normal thought uses comparison and analogy to evaluate the journey: ‘I am going with the flow of traffic.’ ‘The other lane is traveling faster.’ ‘The traffic seems heavier than usual today.’ Technical thought wants values with certainty and not just vague comparisons. Technical thought does this by dividing the journey up into specific segments and then calculating the speed for each specific segment.
That is what calculus does in concrete technical thought. It divides real world cause-and-effect into tiny segments of cause-and-effect that can each be treated as simple connections by Contributor thought. But abstract technical thought can be combined with concrete technical thought. In abstract technical thought, infinitesimal cause-and-effect turns into manipulating algebraic equations: Rules of differentiation and integration are used to replace one mathematical statement with another statement that has the same meaning.
For instance, suppose that the height of a ball can be represented by the equation h(t)=10t-4.9t2. In terms of physics, if t represent seconds, then this would describe the height of a ball that is thrown upward with an initial velocity of 10 m/s. The term h(t) is a way of mathematically describing that the output h is a function of the input t. Suppose that one wants to find the velocity of the ball at some specific moment. Calculus turns this concrete technical task of analyzing specific segments of cause-and-effect into the abstract technical task of manipulating clearly-defined terms using precise rules. The rule in this situation is as follows: If t is the input variable, then one multiplies each term that has t in it with the power of t and then subtracts one from the power of t. For instance, t can be written as t1; therefore, the equation could be written as h(t)=10t1-4.9t2. Applying our rule of differentiation turns this into 1·10t1-1-2·4.9t2-1, which simplifies to 10t0-9.8t1, which is the same as 10-9.8t. This equation makes it possible to calculate the velocity at any point in time. Thus, after 1.5 seconds, the ball has a velocity of 10-9.8·1.5, which is -4.5 m/s. The negative sign indicates that the ball has stopped moving up and is now moving down.
I know that this example is simplistic for those who are used to calculus, and that it may appear complicated to those who are not fluent in math, but I am attempting to demonstrate that the mechanisms of calculus can be explained in terms of the interaction between concrete technical thought and abstract technical thought. Normal thought is turned into concrete technical thought by splitting up a long curve into specific straight-line segments. Concrete technical thought is then transformed into abstract technical thought by applying rules of differentiation.
I suggested earlier that a cognitive theory can explain the thinking of physicists. We saw when looking at Kepler and Newton that this principle applies at the general level of assumptions and mindsets. We see here that this principle also applies at the detailed level of mathematical analysis.
Looking at this more generally, significant portions of mathematics can be described as using abstract technical thought to extend concrete technical thought. (I know enough about mathematics to state that this is a fundamental principle. I do not know if it is a universal principle.) For instance, the angle between two vectors (a vector is a line pointing in some direction) can be calculated using the dot product: If the dot product is zero, then the two vectors are perpendicular. This mathematical principle is an example of using concrete technical thought to analyze physical three-dimensional space. Abstract technical thought then generalizes this geometric principle by using the concept of an inner product: If the inner product of two vectors is zero, then these vectors are said to be orthogonal. This may sound like a repeat of the previous statement, but it is not, because the vectors can have any number of dimensions, and an inner product can be defined in an arbitrary manner as long as it satisfies certain basic properties. This type of abstract generalization from concrete analysis is common in higher mathematics.
Calculus has two major components: differential calculus and integral calculus. Integral calculus simply goes the opposite direction of differential calculus. For instance, suppose that I know how fast I am traveling. How far will I travel in a given period of time? Normal thought may notice that the traffic is heavier than normal and conclude that I will not travel as far as I usually do. Integration makes this calculation with the certainty and precision demanded by technical thought—by again dividing up the journey into small segments. If I know my velocity at every moment in time, then I can sum up all the tiny distances that I will travel at every moment and know with certainty exactly how far I will travel. This extensive adding up sounds rather tedious, but abstract technical thought can again come to the rescue of concrete technical thought, because my velocity at each point in time can be represented as an equation. For instance, in the previous example, the velocity at each point in time was described by the equation v=10-9.8t. In order to calculate some final position, one simply reverses the rules that were applied to calculate the derivative. This is the simplest method of calculating an integral, which is known as finding the anti-derivative. Differential calculus is the more fundamental of these two, because one can always find the derivative but only sometimes find the integral.
Going one step further, control theory improves the performance of some system by adding a feedback loop. The output of some system is measured and then that measurement is used to adjust the input in order to minimize the discrepancy between the actual state and the desired state. There is a deep relationship between control theory and calculus, because the most commonly used feedback system is known as a PID controller, which stands for proportional, integral, and derivative. The feedback controller will measure the output, calculate the integral and the derivative of the output, and then use these three signals to correct the system.
For instance, I have played violin in many orchestras. One of the main differences between an amateur and a professional musician is correction based upon feedback. An amateur group may repeat a piece many times until the playing becomes well-practiced and habitual, but if the critical ear is missing, then the musicians will simply become more proficient at playing a piece badly. Instead, effective practicing listens to the playing, notices the discrepancy between what is being produced and what should be produced, and then adjusts the playing to minimize this discrepancy. Saying this more simply, effective practicing goes beyond repetition to listening and adjusting. This kind of practicing is most effective if one focuses upon some small segment of the musical piece instead of playing through the entire piece. My experience is that many amateur musicians lack the patience and/or the skill to practice effectively. That is because one must be able to perform the piece in a reasonably automatic matter (neurologically speaking, automatic movement involves the cerebellum) in order to free up technical thought so that it can focus upon observing and minimizing discrepancies in the playing. The unskilled player is focusing so fully upon merely trying to play, that no mental attention is available for either listening or improving results. This freeing up can be seen neurologically, because a beginner actually generates more brain activity than an expert.
Summing up, I have mentioned that classical mechanics uses abstract technical thought to analyze concrete experiences. We have now added some details to that general statement; we have transformed a hand-waving statement about classical mechanics into a semi-rigorous analogy that looks at the fingers as well as the hands. Going further, the same kind of relationship between abstract technical thought and concrete technical thought is found in the biblical concept of incarnation, known theologically as God the Son. In the same way that technical thought can translate between abstract theories in Teacher thought and specific experiences in Mercy thought, so God the Son is described as the intermediary between God in Teacher thought and humans in Mercy thought. And in the same way that technical thought combines the two halves of abstract technical thought and concrete technical thought, so incarnation is described as a God-man who combines a divine side with a human side.
The biblical concept of incarnation is discussed in much more detail in the essays on the Gospel of John, and the cognitive similarities between mathematics and a concept of incarnation are discussed in chapters 8, 9, and 11 of Natural Cognitive Theology. One significant concept in those chapters that will not be discussed in this essay is the relationship between exemplars, Platonic forms, and the mathematical equations of physics. Looking at this very briefly, whenever a mathematical equation is used to solve some problem in physics, then the elements of this problem will first be idealized into their Platonic forms before being plugged into an equation. Going the other way, when the solution is applied, then some safety margin will be added to make up for any possible discrepancy between the ideal solution and the real world. The mathematical equations of physics are also exemplars in the sense described by Thomas Kuhn: Learning how to solve one problem makes it possible to solve an entire class of problems. Applying this to incarnation, a concept of incarnation emerges within the mind when the two sides of Contributor thought become integrated. One can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that Contributor connects Perceiver and Server. This means that integrating Contributor thought has a Perceiver side and a Server side. Platonic forms provide the Perceiver side of incarnation, while exemplars provide the Server side.
One final word before we move on to the next section. I have mentioned that technical thought wants answers that are certain while normal thought works with information that is only partially certain. The tension between these two standards of confidence can be seen in the definition of the limit, which plays a major role in calculus. The idea of a limit is that if I get close enough, then I can ignore the details. For instance, if I look at a small enough segment on some curved line, then I can treat this small tiny segment as a straight line and ignore the small amount that it is curving. I have just described a limit using non-technical thought, and that sort of loose language disturbs philosophers and mathematicians—because abstract technical thought requires precise definitions. Therefore, mathematics defines the limit in a manner that preserves the control of Contributor thought: I can make the answer as accurate as I want by controlling the input with sufficient precision. My natural inclination as a Perceiver person is to regard such a definition as both convoluted and unnecessary, because Perceiver thought never knows any fact with 100% certainty. But for a Contributor person this means that control can still be maintained in the absence of total certainty. (And the Contributor person hates to lose control of a situation.) Technical thought may not know exactly what the answer is, but technical thought can still generate an answer with any desired level of precision by controlling the input.
Free Will
We have spoken several times in this essay about free will. Contributor thought appears to be the central module for free will. One can see this in the behavior of the Contributor person who is naturally stubborn and hates to lose control.
If one looks at the diagram of mental symmetry, one notices that we have only discussed one aspect of Contributor thought, which is the link from Perceiver to Contributor to Server. There is also an arrow running from Exhorter → Contributor. I have mentioned that mental practicing places imagined behavior withn an internal grid of cause-and-effect. The grid is provided by Perceiver – Contributor – Server. The imagination comes from Exhorter → Contributor. Exhorter thought is the mental source of imagination and also the mental source of motivation. Contributor thought builds precise connections between Perceiver facts and Server sequences. Exhorter thought, in contrast, connects Mercy experiences with Teacher theories in a general, intuitive, hand-waving manner. (In order to indicate this distinction, the Contributor links are drawn in black on the diagram of mental symmetry while the Exhorter links are drawn in gray.) Thus, Exhorter imagination will typically provide Contributor thought with some range of possibilities accompanied by a range of motivations. Contributor thought will then choose one of these possibilities, and this choosing is known as free will. This means that free will always occurs within some context. It is like an election in which one can choose between the candidates that are on the ballot, but one cannot choose candidates that are not on the ballot. That is why I say that free will is limited.
Free will becomes maximal when Exhorter thought provides Contributor thought with a range of possibilities that includes widely differing mental networks. Using the election analogy, this is like being able to choose between candidates that belong to widely differing political parties. This explains why free will becomes maximal when the mind contains conflicting core mental networks. Free will becomes minimal when all of the alternatives are expressions of the same fundamental mental network. This is like a communist election, where one can choose between electing comrade Ivan or electing comrade Aleksandr. American presidential elections are becoming similar, because one becomes a presidential candidate by going through a process that is designed to eliminate those who are not acceptable to the establishment.
I mentioned that the Contributor person has an exceptionally strong will. For other cognitive styles, there appear to be two aspects to free will. There is still the free will that is exerted by Contributor thought, but it is not as strong because it is subconscious. In addition, there is the free will that is exerted by conscious thought. For instance, as a Perceiver person, I can choose to think about one set of facts rather than another. The set of facts that I choose to think about will indirectly impact the choices that are made by Contributor thought within my mind by altering the context for free will. Free will is strongest in the male Contributor person because the free will of Contributor thought is emphasized by gender and lines up with the free will of conscious thought. (We will look at gender in a few pages.) In fact, it is often the male Contributor person who believes in libertarian free will: ‘I can choose anything I want’. But the typical libertarian male Contributor person (and I now mean this in the political sense of libertarian) does not seem to recognize that all of his stubborn choosing occurs within the mental context of ‘anything I want’. All choices are still being made between the candidates that are written on the ‘ballot’ that is being provided to Contributor thought by Exhorter imagination.
A similar principle applies to abstract technical thought. The professionally trained scientist may think that he is using rigorous thought to reach logical decisions. But all of these rational decisions are still occurring within the context of some paradigm, guided by the rules of that paradigm. The end result is what I call locally rational thought. The relationship between paradigms and technical thought was discussed at the beginning of this essay.
Notice how this is reflected in the mathematical definition of a limit. A limit by definition is not exact, because one can get close to some value but never actually arrive at that value. Technical retains its composure by redefining the limit in terms of choice and control: One can choose to calculate the output to any precision by picking an input that is sufficiently close to some value. Stated cognitively, Contributor thought can still act like it is in control because it can still choose—it still has free will.
Newton’s Three Laws of Motion
We have analyzed the thinking of Newton, and we have also examined the mathematics of calculus that was invented by Newton and Leibniz. We will now take a cognitive look at Newton’s most famous equations. Newton’s three laws of motion portray a mindset that is quite different than the mindset associated with the classic elements of Greek thought and other traditional societies. Newton’s first law says that ‘An object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force’. Both Aristotle and Newton agree that an object that is at rest will remain at rest if no force acts upon it. But Aristotle said that an object will only move if a force is applied to it, and that it will stop moving when the force is removed. In contrast, Newton said that an object moving at a constant velocity will continue moving at this constant velocity even if no force is applied. (I should point out that velocity is a vector and not a scalar. A vector includes both magnitude and direction. For instance, moving 80 km/h from Paris to Berlin is a vector, because one is moving at a certain speed in a specific direction.)
Looking at this cognitively, for Aristotle the primary unit was the static Mercy experience. As was mentioned before, everything returns to its natural place: “The Aristotelian explanation of gravity is that all bodies move toward their natural place. For the elements earth and water, that place is the center of the (geocentric) universe; the natural place of water is a concentric shell around the earth because earth is heavier; it sinks in water.” If one thinks in terms of Perceiver objects and Mercy experiences, then one will conclude that it is natural for objects to be static and immovable, and that an object will only move as long as a force is being applied. Going further, if MMNs rule the mind, then one will conclude that that every object ‘wants’ to return home to its ‘tribe’ or ‘culture’.
Newton’s first law introduces the additional cognitive element of the habit. A habit is a Server action that is naturally repeated. Using the language of vectors, a habit is not just an action but rather an action that naturally travels in a certain mental direction. Cognitively speaking, a habit is mentally backed up by a TMN: If Server thought repeats some action enough times, then Teacher thought will come up with a general sequence that represents the essence of this action. This general sequence will turn into a TMN and this TMN will emotionally drive the mind to continue performing this action in a habitual manner.
Graybiel and other researchers have studied how habits form within the basal ganglia and how they are controlled by the orbitofrontal cortex, the brain center for mental networks. Notice in the following quote how the mind switches from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics when forming a habit: “In the initial stages of habit learning, behaviors are not automatic. They are goal directed, as in an animal working to obtain a food reward. But with extended training or training with interval schedules of reward, animals typically come to perform the behaviors repeatedly, on cue, even if the value of the reward to be received is reduced so that it is no longer rewarding.”
Summarizing, Aristotle implied that everyone wants to return to their tribe and that individuals find peace immersed within the MMNs of their tribe. Newton recognized that human behavior is naturally habitual: If a person is performing some Server action, then there will be a natural tendency to continue performing this Server action unless some outside force intervenes.
Newton’s second law can be summarized by the simple equation F=ma. Translating this into words, if a force is applied to some mass, then this will cause the mass to accelerate, which means to change in velocity. The greater the mass, the greater the force is required to produce a certain acceleration. Interpreting this cognitively, some outside force is attempting to influence a situation. This force will lead to a change in habit; it will alter the velocity of the object. Again, it is important to realize that velocity includes direction. For instance, if I am traveling in a circle, then my speed may stay the same but my velocity is changing because my direction of movement is being altered. Similarly, cognitive force is needed not just to start or stop a habit but also to change the direction of a habit.
That brings us to the cognitive meaning of mass: “In Newtonian physics, mass can be generalized as the amount of matter in an object.” If mental objects are composed of Mercy experiences, then mass can be defined cognitively as how many Mercy experiences are contained within some mental network. Mass can be measured in two primary ways, leading to the two concepts of inertial mass and gravitational mass.
Inertial mass relates to the inertia of an object, which Wikipedia defines as “the resistance of any physical object to any change in its position and state of motion. This includes changes to the object’s speed, direction, or state of rest.” In other words, inertia describes how strongly some object follows Newton’s first law—the extent to which it attempts to continue performing its current habitual movement. Using cognitive language, inertia describes the emotional power backing up the TMN of some habit. A habit that is easy to break or alter has low inertia, while a habit that is difficult to change has high inertia.
Gravitational mass relates to the gravitational force that one mass exerts upon another. For instance, the earth revolves around the sun because of the gravitational force that the sun exerts upon the earth. Similarly, an object falls to the ground when it is released because of the gravitational force that the earth exerts upon the object. Every object exerts a gravitational force upon every other object, and the gravitational force exerted by some object is proportional to the mass of that object. For instance, the earth exerts a gravitational force upon the sun, but this force is much smaller than the force that the sun exerts upon the earth. Similarly, when an object falls to the ground, then the earth will actually rise to meet the falling object. But the earth will move far less than the falling object, because the Earth is far more massive than the object. Similarly, the sun has 333,000 times as much mass as the earth.
All experiments have indicated that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. In other words, one can calculate the mass of some object either by attempting to change its movement or by seeing how it attracts other objects or is attracted by other objects.
Turning now to the cognitive analogy, the force of gravity can be seen in the behavior of MMNs (Mercy Mental Networks). That is because mental networks will naturally form an emotional hierarchy, with more massive MMNs imposing their structure upon less massive MMNs. Thus, gravity could be defined cognitively as the force that one MMN exerts upon another MMN. And in the same way that larger objects attract smaller objects, so core mental networks will impose their structure upon peripheral mental networks.
Going further, in the same way that mass is a fundamental property of matter, so it appears that MMNs provide the fundamental content for Mercy thought. In other words, if one attempts to probes as deeply as possible within Mercy thought, one does not discover anything else that lies behind mental networks. Instead, it appears to be ‘turtles all the way down’. Mercy thought, at its very core, appears to be composed of core mental networks, and when these fall apart, then Mercy thought itself falls apart and a person experiences angst.
The strength of an MMN can be ‘measured’ in one of two ways: One can see how strongly this mental network resists change, and one can also observe the pull that this mental network has upon other mental networks and/or how much this mental network is affected by other mental networks. The first method corresponds to inertial mass and the second to gravitational mass.
When discussing an MMN, it is important to distinguish between the power of a mental network as a whole and the emotional valence of the experiences that are within the mental network. An MMN may be composed of unpleasant experiences, but its overall ‘mass’ will still generate an attractional force. As was mentioned before, one can see this in the behavior of the abused spouse. I use this example because a spouse will be mentally represented by powerful MMNs formed through many experiences of sex and years of living together. Similar statements could be made about the country of one’s childhood. Living with an abusive spouse is painful, while not living with the spouse is unfamiliar. Similarly, one’s childhood culture may be uncomfortable, but it is also familiar. Therefore, an abused spouse will often return to an abusive situation because of the ‘gravitational attraction’ exerted by associated MMNs.
It is also important to distinguish between mass and the way that mass is usually measured. One may say, for instance, that some object has a mass of 2 kg, but what is usually being measured is weight and not mass. Weight describes the gravitational attraction that the planet on exerts on an object. A scale measures weight by indicating how strongly an object is attracted to the earth. Converting from weight to mass is usually quite simple. On the surface of the earth, one simply divides the weight by the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2).
Physics distinguishes carefully between mass and weight, but the focus is still upon the weight of the object versus the mass of the object. However, the real center of attention is the planet to which all nearby objects are being gravitationally attracted. Similarly, one may talk about the ‘mass’ of various mental networks. But what is really being compared is the cognitive pull being exerted upon these various ‘masses’ by the foundational mental networks of the country and civilization—the ‘mass’ of the ‘planet’ upon which a group of citizens reside, and planetary motion could be compared to the interaction between civilizations with their fundamental worldviews.
It is possible to measure mass without involving some planet by measuring the inertial mass of an object. This can be done by measuring the force that is required to spin an object in a circle and from this calculating the mass. Similarly, one can measure the cognitive ‘mass’ of a mental network by seeing how large a force is required to change the direction of this mental network. This method is rarely used when measuring either physical masses or cognitive masses, because it involves disturbing an object or person at a fundamental level. A cognitive measuring of ‘inertial mass’ often happen when a person or group goes through a crisis, because the mass of mental networks becomes apparent when some external force attempts to affect their behavior. Saying this more simply, the way that one responds to a crisis will often reveal ‘what one is really made of’.
I am not suggesting that mass is a mental network. Instead, I am suggesting that there is a semi-rigorous analogy between the property of mass in physical reality and the behavior of a mental network within Mercy thought. It is semi-rigorous because the analogy continues to hold when one looks at the details, and because one is comparing a fundamental property of nature with a fundamental property of the mind. From a cognitive viewpoint, this similarity makes it possible for the human mind to model the behavior of the physical world. And from a theological viewpoint, such similarity implies that the structure of the physical universe and the structure of the mind were both designed by the same designer.
Notice that this is a new version of the argument of intelligent design. Instead of using it as a way of preventing Teacher thought from functioning by saying that some organism is too complicated to have been designed by Nature through the process of evolution (and one finds oxymorons such as ‘Nature designed’ or ‘evolution made’ continually popping up in such discussions), I am attempting to use the analogies of normal thought to construct the meta-theory of a concept of God by finding similarities between a theory of cognition and the general theories of physics. This form of thinking may only be semi-rigorous, but I suggest that this is better than either fundamentalist blind faith which shuts down Teacher thought, or else the oxymoron of an impersonal ‘person’ of Nature ‘designing’ through some random process.
Saying this another way, there is only room in the mind for one universal Teacher theory. A mind that contains two general theories will be driven by Teacher thought to find some way of integrating these two theories. This implies that there will naturally be a finite window of maximal free will, because Teacher thought will do its best to eliminate the mental contradictions that make free will possible. That is why it is imperative to follow the TMN of the most general theory possible, because this preserves significant free will while bringing emotional peace to Teacher thought. Going further, if one builds the mind upon the TMN of a general theory of mental and physical wholeness, then one will actually lose the free will to choose to be a self-destructive idiot.
Returning now to the equation F=ma, the cognitive analogy is that the application of some external force will lead to a change in habitual action, and that the change that is produced will depend upon the emotional power of the underlying MMN. It will only take a small force to produce change in actions that are being motivated by a peripheral MMN, while it will take great effort to alter actions that are being motivated by core MMNs.
So far we have treated TMNs of habit as distinct from the MMNs of religion, culture, and identity. However, these two kinds of mental networks tend to interact, and the emotion that a person feels is the sum of Mercy emotion and Teacher emotion. This is reflected in a composite property known as momentum, which is defined as mv, or mass times velocity. Cognitively speaking, momentum describes the combined strength of the various MMNs and TMNs that are associated with some entity within Mercy thought, such as a situation, person, or institution. In more advanced physics, momentum appears to be a more fundamental quality than mass. Notice that momentum is still an expression of concrete thought, because Teacher thought is forming implicit TMNs based upon repeated concrete actions in Server thought, rather than being guided explicitly by TMNs of verbal understanding within abstract thought. A similar distinction exists within religion between the implicit theology of religious rituals and the explicit theology of religious doctrine.
One of the fundamental principles of classical mechanics is that momentum is conserved in a collision. A collision occurs when two moving particles stick together, one particle separates into two particles, or two particles bounce off each other. Using a simple example that would be taught in introductory high school physics, suppose that a two kilogram ball traveling at five meters per second collides with a three kilogram ball traveling at four meters per second and that the collision causes the two balls to stick together. The total momentum before the collision is 2 kg · 5 m/s + 3 kg · 4 m/s, which works out to be 22 kg·m/s. After the collision, the mass of the combined balls will be 2 kg + 3 kg which is 5 kg. Since momentum does not change after a collision, the momentum of this combined ball will still be 22 kg·m/s, which means that the velocity of this combined ball will be 22/5 m/s, which is 4.4 m/s.
A collision happens very quickly. Thus, one is looking here at a change that happens quickly and does not take a long time to emerge. The cognitive analog would be a collision between mental networks. Conservation of momentum would predict that the total emotional strength of mental networks will be preserved when mental networks collide. This appears to be the case. For instance, suppose that I hear of a tragic airplane crash in a foreign land. I may say ‘Isn’t that terrible’ but then I will probably move on and forget about the incident. But suppose that I have been to the location where the accident occurred, flown on that kind of airplane, experienced some sort of air disaster myself, or spent time flying a simulated airplane on a computer. Learning about the airplane crash will have a greater emotional impact upon me because my mind has emotional momentum; mental networks with emotional ‘mass’ and ‘velocity’ are being triggered within my mind. Similarly, if I am in some sort of tragic accident and experience personal injury, then the reason that this accident is experienced as tragic is because of all the mental networks that developed over time as a result of living within my physical body. In other words, when some traumatic event causes a painful MMN to form within Mercy thought, these painful emotions do not emerge out of nowhere. Instead, the event will be remembered as traumatic because it involved people and situations that I already regarded as emotional. Notice that we are not looking here at the long-term process of building up or tearing down mental networks. Instead, we are examining the immediate response that occurs when mental networks collide.
This principle can also be seen in computer games. If a small blob of light collides with a large blob of light on a computer screen and the large blob of light falls apart, then this visual collision will create no emotional impact. But if the small blob of light is made to look like a bullet and the large blob of light is made to look like a human being, then the visual collision on the computer screen will have an emotional impact, because it will trigger mental networks of humanity, injury, and death.
I do not think that it is possible to calculate mental qualities such as mass or momentum in a mathematical manner the way that one can using the laws of physics. Instead, I suggest that the relationship is similar to the relationship between the laws of physics and music. Music theory is rooted deeply in the laws of physics, but these laws express themselves in an emotional manner. For instance, it feels good when two notes are played together and the frequencies are related by a simple ratio. Describing this in more detail, perfect musical intervals sound pleasant because a perfect octave is twice the frequency, a perfect fifth is 3/2 of the frequency, and a perfect fourth is 4/3 of the frequency. In contrast, the tritone sounds unpleasant because the ratio of frequencies is √2:1, which is an irrational number. Notice how a mathematical ratio in the physical frequencies of two sounds corresponds to a feeling being generated within the mind. Similarly, physical mass and momentum, which can be described using numbers, are being related to the emotional strength of mental networks.
That brings us to Newton’s third law of motion: “When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.” For instance, the weight of my body is exerting a force upon the ground. But at the same time, the ground is holding up my body by exerting an equal and opposite force.
Newton’s third law says that stability is dynamic and not static. When some object is at rest and does not move, then this does not mean that the object is experiencing no forces. Instead, it means that the forces upon the object are in equilibrium—they balance each other out. The same principle applies to an object that is moving at a constant velocity, or in cognitive terms, carrying out some habitual action. Here too, the various forces are in equilibrium.
For instance, a bridge does not move. But even though it is at rest, huge forces are being transmitted along the cables and supports, and the bridge will collapse if critical structural members lose the ability to transmit these forces. Looking at this cognitively, a childish mind that is built upon MMNs of culture and religion will assume that these core MMNs are stable entities that will remain unchanged forever: ‘My parents will always be around.’ ‘Government will be there to support me.’ ‘The pillars of society will always be respected.’ But these various entities are actually in dynamic equilibrium, subject to many opposing forces. Parents die; governments are overthrown; and people lose respect for pillars of society.
Recognizing that this is the case makes it possible to anticipate potential disruption and prepare for it. In contrast, a mind—or a society—that is based upon MMNs will assume that these MMNs will not change, cling to these MMNs with ever-growing desperation when an imbalance of forces threatens to disrupt them, and then crack in a brittle manner when the forces of society eventually become too great.
A similar principle applies to the habits of daily routine. I may assume, for instance, that my job will always be there for me, or that I will have the physical ability to get up every morning and perform my normal activities. But this too is a dynamic equilibrium involving many opposing forces.
Action at a Distance
Moving on, there is an inherent contradiction between specific and general in classic mechanics. For instance, we all know that the earth revolves around the sun. In the language of Newton, the specific object of the sun exerts a force that instantly affects all nearby objects in a general manner. (Technically speaking, the force of gravity has an infinite range, but the effect of gravity becomes insignificant if one is sufficiently distant from the source of gravity.) This instantaneous long-distance control is known as action at a distance. But how can the sun ‘reach out’ and remotely control the path of the earth and the other planets? How can the specific object of the sun have a general impact upon all the surrounding planets? This question troubled physicists living during the Newtonian era.
A cognitive analogy to ‘action at a distance’ is the central plan, in which some government ministry dictates what everyone in the country should do, regardless of conditions, assuming that this command can be instantly transmitted and applied to the entire country.
For instance, the Soviet Union decided in 1918 that cotton needed to be grown in the south of the country, and by 1932 the Soviet Union was officially self-sufficient in cotton production. But so much land was devoted to growing cotton that fruit and vegetables became in short supply, and so much water was needed to irrigate this cotton that the Aral Sea, which was the fourth-largest lake in the world, almost disappeared, wiping out the local fishing industry, and turning the local agricultural region into a dust bowl. In addition, the heavy level of chemicals used in growing cotton led to exceptionally high rates of infant mortality and birth defects.
I suggest that ‘action at a distance’ and central plans both reflect a mindset of absolute truth. Absolute truth occurs when some central, esteemed authority is regarded as the source of Perceiver truth—which is then applied generally. For instance, Lenin and Stalin decided in Moscow that the Aral Sea region should grow cotton, and this decree was then applied generally in unaltered fashion to the entire Aral region—with disastrous results. A mindset of absolute truth can be found in many contexts. For instance, ‘The Constitution is true because it was written by the founding fathers of our country.’ Or ‘The Bible is true because it was written by God and is backed up by church authorities.’ Or ‘The laws of physics are true because they are written down in textbooks and were discovered by geniuses who won Nobel prizes.’
The mindset of absolute truth can also be seen in the Newtonian concept of a universal clock. In simple terms, Newton assumed that clocks which are synchronized will remain synchronized, no matter where these clocks are or how they move relative to each other. One can see the mindset of a universal clock in most schools, because it is assumed that every student will take the same amount of time to learn a topic and that every student will graduate after taking classes for the same amount of time. But students do not all learn at the same rate; their clocks of learning do not remain synchronized. One can also find other assumptions of absolute truth in a school, because a typical class consists of some authority figure acting as a source of absolute truth broadcasting information to an audience of students, irrespective of their personal differences. Similarly, the typical religious service consists of esteemed clergy at the front performing a scheduled activity or preaching a sermon in front of a passive audience.
Phrased this way, one gains the impression that a general Teacher theory is nothing more than the opinions of some dominant group using its position of societal power to give the illusion of universal understanding. And that is how deconstructionism interprets general theories. The current general consensus within most of the soft sciences is that all apparent theory is simply some domineering group fooling people into believing that the culture of that domineering group defines universal truth and understanding.
Looking at this first from a cognitive perspective, I suggest that the solution is to recognize that absolute truth is an intermediate form of thought, a way of constructing a TMN of rational understanding upon a foundation of cultural MMNs. Thus, school should be viewed as an intermediate form of instruction that leads from the ignorance of the child to the critical thinking of the graduate student. I suggest that religious fundamentalism should also be viewed as an intermediate form of religion that leads from the MMNs of tribal gods to the TMN of a rational concept of God.
Similarly, even though Newtonian physics is now regarded as incomplete and has been replaced by relativity and quantum theory, classical mechanics is still used most of the time for normal situations because it gives answers that are close enough.
Examining the cognitive situation in more detail, suppose that some important person writes some thoughts down in a book and that this book is then printed and widely distributed. This method ultimately bases Perceiver truth in MMNs of personal status, because Perceiver thought is being overwhelmed by the MMNs associated with the important person to believe that the thoughts of this person define truth. But writing these facts down in a book gives them permanence, printing and distributing many copies of the book gives the facts the appearance of universality, and arranging these facts into sentences, paragraphs, and chapters composed of words places these facts within a structure that feels like a general Teacher theory. The end result is to fool Teacher thought into interpreting Mercy emotions of respect for the author as Teacher emotions of order-within-complexity, causing Teacher thought to swallow the words of this expert and regard it as a universal theory. Saying this another way, the TMN of a general theory has been simulated.
Phrased this way, one really gains the impression that a general Teacher theory is nothing more than the illusion of universal understanding backed up by societal power. And that would be a valid conclusion if universal Perceiver truth and general Teacher theory did not exist. But the very fact that the mind is being fooled implies the existence of a mental strategy that is being fooled: If I am being fooled into accepting personal opinion as universal truth, then this means that some mental strategy exists within my mind that thinks in terms of universal truth. Similarly, if I am being fooled into accepting some general theory, then this means that there is a part of my mind that thinks in terms of general theories. And if these mental strategies exist within my mind, then reaching mental wholeness will require satisfying these mental strategies in the best way possible.
Going further, deconstructionism actually deconstructs itself. When deconstructionism becomes widely accepted within academia, then people with PhDs will use their status as academic experts to spread the doctrine of deconstructionism—which asserts that all academic expertise is fake, teaching the general theory that general theories do not exist. When experts use their status as experts to say that you cannot say anything, and when experts make the general statement that MMNs of identity and culture are too complicated to be analyzed using general statements, then this describes the appearance of a general understanding. And according to deconstructionism, one should respond to the appearance of a general understanding by rebelling from the authority figures that are imposing their fake theories upon the population.
This may sound like an exaggeration, but I just read through a textbook on pastoral counseling which was essentially devoid of theology, despite being written by a professor at a recognized university who has a PhD in theology. The starting point of this book is deconstructionism and the book makes no mention of the universal laws and theories that have been discovered by science. Instead, the focus of the book is liberation theology: Struggling against the Western societal overlords who have imposed their opinions upon the world in the guise of rational understanding and universal truth. This type of textbook has become commonplace because many of the social fields have now become dominated by such un-experts who use their social status to preach the doctrine that one should rebel from those who use social status to preach doctrine.
If one looks historically at truth and deconstructionism, one observes that a number of cognitively similar breakthroughs happened during the Renaissance. In art, there was the discovery of perspective. In music, rules of harmony were discovered. In religion, there was the Protestant Reformation. Within politics, democracy and the rule of law started to be discussed. Universities became widespread. It was within this general context that the scientific revolution of Newtonian physics occurred.
In each of these areas a similar cognitive step was taken of submitting MMNs of identity and culture to a framework of rational Perceiver facts held together by a general Teacher understanding. Most of these breakthroughs have now become negated by the questioning of deconstructionism. Perspective gave way to Impressionism and modern art. Classical music gave way to modern music with its atonality. Theology has now become largely displaced by spirituality without content, as illustrated by the textbook on pastoral counseling. Democracy is currently under threat in many countries around the world. And in many universities, rational discussion is now being limited by political correctness.
It is only within the hard sciences such as physics that one still finds a pursuit of universal Perceiver truth and general Teacher understanding, and even here this thinking is on a precarious foundation. Thus, it appears that most of the breakthroughs of the Renaissance have been crushed by the steamroller of postmodern deconstructionism, and that scientific thought is the only fruit of the Renaissance that still remains—barely—intact. I suggest that this is because only science has made the transition from absolute truth to universal truth, from the simulation of a TMN of understanding to the TMN of an actual understanding. Only a hard science has the TMN of a paradigm that is potent enough to withstand MMNs of identity and culture.
Looking further at this distinction between hard and soft science, it is interesting that the Wikipedia article on hard and soft science quotes experts in the soft sciences who describe how a hard science appears to others. For instance, “In 1967, sociologist of science Norman W. Storer specifically distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the social sciences as soft. He defined hardness in terms of the degree to which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of increased hardness as including better integration and organization of knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the difficulty of learning the subject.” This describes what it looks like to follow the TMN of a rational theory. This may be an accurate description, but it is missing what it feels like to be driven by the TMN of a paradigm rather than by MMNs of culture and identity. Compare this with Thomas Kuhn, who grasped the fundamental importance of a paradigm in his book on paradigm shifts.
The Lagrangian
One can also see the significance of Teacher thought in what physics refers to as the Lagrangian. We will begin our discussion of the Lagrangian by returning to the concept of incarnation. The biblical doctrine of the incarnation is described most concisely in the opening verses of the Gospel of John. We will look briefly at the first three verses, because there is a strong relationship between what John says and the concept of a Lagrangian. (Theologically speaking, it would be more accurate to refer to the Lagrangian as the ‘Incarnational’ or the ‘Christos’, but physicists treat fellow physicists as ‘privileged observers of the universe’ by naming the laws of the universe after physicists.)
Quoting from the NASB translation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The New Testament was originally written in koine Greek. The original Greek text is rather striking, and a more literal translation would be: “The Logos was first and has pre-eminence, and the Logos existed towards and with the God, and God was the Logos. He existed first and has pre-eminence towards and with the God. Every part of the totality came into being through the instrumentality of him, and detached from him, not even one thing that has come into being came into being.” (This focus upon the details of the original Greek text may appear excessive, but I have gone through approximately 1/3 of the New Testament at this level of detail and have posted essays on the mental symmetry website. Don’t worry. This essay will be focusing upon physics and cognition, and will not be quoting endlessly from the Bible. However, there is a strong relationship between this passage and the concept of the Lagrangian, and I also want to give a flavor of the kind of Biblical analysis that is found in previous essays. The links are all to an online Bible dictionary, so that the reader can check that I am translating these words accurately.)
Translating these biblical words into cognitive language, the apostle John is saying that Incarnation starts with God in Teacher thought at the level of words. Incarnation is focusing upon Teacher generality, and is an equivalent way of stating Teacher generality. Every detail of physical reality is the result of Incarnation translating the words of Teacher generality into the specifics of Mercy experiences, and absolutely everything came into being through Incarnation.
I have suggested that a concept of incarnation emerges when abstract technical thought becomes integrated with concrete technical thought, and we have looked at calculus as an illustration of this interaction. We have also seen that this incarnational combination of abstract and concrete technical thought makes it possible to use the Teacher words of universal mathematical equations in Teacher thought to explain specific situations in Mercy thought.
But John 1:1-3 goes further than this by claiming that general words in Teacher thought are actually the ultimate source of all specific laws of Nature. And this is not just an overgeneralized statement that ignores details because the Greek word translated all things ‘focuses on the parts making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts’.
Turning now to the Lagrangian, “Lagrangian mechanics is a reformulation of classical mechanics, introduced by the Italian-French mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange in 1788.” In other words, this is not a new law of Nature that was discovered, but rather a way of reformulating all of the details of existing physics; the discovery of Lagrangian mechanics did not add anything new to physics but rather led to a deeper understanding of physics. Quoting again from Wikipedia, “No new physics are necessarily introduced in applying Lagrangian mechanics compared to Newtonian mechanics. It is, however, more mathematically sophisticated and systematic… Lagrangian mechanics is important not just for its broad applications, but also for its role in advancing deep understanding of physics.”
Saying this theologically, Newtonian physics led to the concept that a God of verbal generality in Teacher thought rules over specifics situations in Mercy thought, and that one can use the technical thought to explore in detail how this works. Lagrangian mechanics goes one step further by starting with verbal generality in Teacher thought and then descending through technical thought to specific situations.
This may sound rather vague and theoretical, but it is possible to illustrate what this means by looking at how the idea of Lagrangian mechanics emerged historically. The starting point was when Fermat discovered a curious principle about the path that light takes when it is refracted from one medium to another and wrote a letter describing this principle to a friend in 1662. This refraction can be seen in the way that a spoon or straw appears to bend when it is placed into a glass of water. The amount that light is refracted can be calculated using Snell’s law. Fermat’s discovery is known as—Fermat’s principle. (One sees again that the Copernican principle does not apply to physicists.)
Fermat discovered that light always follows a path that takes the least time. This would be like a commuter always managing to find the fastest route to and from work. But how can the commuter know ahead of time which route will be the fastest? Human commuters try to navigate rush-hour traffic by referring to traffic maps and listening to traffic reports, and even then they only succeed some of the time. Light manages to take the fastest path all the time, without exception. One can see why the recipient of Fermat’s letter instinctively rejected what Fermat was saying, because it implied that light is using intelligence to predetermine the best path: “The principle which you take as the basis for your proof, namely that Nature always acts by using the simplest and shortest paths, is merely a moral, and not a physical one. It is not, and cannot be, the cause of any effect in Nature.”
However, not only is Fermat’s principle true, but a generalized version of Fermat’s principle can be used to reformulate all of Newtonian mechanics, which is known as the principle of least action. (This principle is probably not named after a physicist because three different physicists can be given credit for discovering this principle.) This reformulation is known as Lagrangian mechanics, and the process of finding the standard that some system always applies in an optimal way is called finding the Lagrangian. Going further, all aspects of modern physics, including electromagnetism, relativity, quantum mechanics, and even quantum field theory, can be analyzed by this approach of finding Lagrangian. In fact, finding the Lagrangian (or in this case the Lagrangian density) is the standard starting point for quantum field theory.
We have looked at the Biblical description of incarnation in the beginning of the Gospel of John. We also introduced the principle of least action and have seen that it is a ubiquitous principle that appears to apply at a fundamental level within every branch of physics. We now need to tie these two together by taking a cognitive perspective. Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian mechanics take fundamentally different perspectives with regard to space and time. In the words of Wikipedia, “The differential equations are statements about quantities localized to a single point in space or single moment of time. For example, Newton’s second law F = ma states that the instantaneous force F applied to a mass m produces an acceleration a at the same instant. By contrast, the action principle is not localized to a point; rather, it involves integrals over an interval of time and (for fields) an extended region of space.”
Saying this more simply, Newtonian mechanics describes the relationship between objects at some point in time. This describes how concrete thought functions, because concrete thought starts with Mercy experiences, uses Perceiver thought to organize these Mercy experiences into Perceiver facts (or objects), and then uses a mathematical knowledge of cause-and-effect to predict how one situation will turn into another situation. Most—if not all—problems in high school physics involve either analyzing the relationship between objects at some instant in time, or else taking ‘before’ and ‘after’ snapshots of some process in order to analyze what has changed. Using cognitive language, Newtonian mechanics uses the equations of abstract technical thought to analyze concrete processes, but this analysis is being done within an overall context of the experiences and objects of concrete thought.
For abstract thought, time, sequence, and generality are the fundamental concepts. Abstract technical thought assigns precise definitions to sequences of words and actions, and then Teacher thought comes up with a general verbal theory that summarizes the essence of all these sequences. One can see this process illustrated by rules of grammar. Abstract technical thought will subdivide sentences into well-defined elements such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, predicates, and so on. Teacher thought will then come up with general theories that summarize the essence of many sentences. For instance, in English the standard sequence is Subject-Verb-Object: ‘I hit the ball’.
This same kind of processing can be seen in the Lagrangian. Some path or sequence is being analyzed. The definition that physics gives to action may be more general than the common concept of physical action, but it still describes primarily a path that is taken over time. Stated cognitively, the starting point for analysis is some kind of Server sequence. This action is then minimized according to the standard of some Lagrangian. In the case of light, a beam of light will always follow a path that takes a minimum of time, and one can calculate which path the light will take by comparing the various times that different paths would take.
Optimizing a path is a description of abstract technical thought. Using the analogy of the machine, one is trying to adjust the machine so that it functions in the most efficient manner possible, instead of using this machine to achieve the most desirable results. This is like a mechanic tuning up a car instead of a consumer driving the car to some desirable destination. Abstract technical thought optimizes machines, while concrete technical thought uses machines. But the machines of Nature are not being optimized. They already are optimized. Light already takes the fastest path, and it did so long before Fermat noticed that this was the case. Using theological language, the starting point is incarnation living with statements of divine perfection in Teacher thought. And all of the laws of physics can be formulated from this starting point of divine perfection. Using the language of the Gospel of John, every detail that exists came into being through the technical thinking of Incarnation—the Word who is God and lives with God.
One might think that it is overstating the case to bring God into the picture, but the official explanation that physics gives for the principle of least action can legitimately be described as a form of divine thought. In the words of Wikipedia, one can “consider the classical description as a limiting case of the quantum formalism of path integration, in which stationary paths are obtained as a result of interference of amplitudes along all possible paths.” Path integration is a way of formulating quantum mechanics that was developed by Feynman. Quantum mechanics deals with probability rather than certainty. Instead of calculating the precise path that a stream of photons will take, one calculates which path an individual photon is most likely to take, and if one looks at the path taken by a number of photons, then this will end up being the precise path calculated by classical mechanics. This is similar to the distinction between saying that a coin has a 50% chance of turning up heads and saying that many coins that are tossed will turn up heads half of the time.
But listen to the bizarre way in which one is supposed to calculate this path integral: “In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the [probability] amplitude of... all possible paths of the system in between the initial and final states, including those that are absurd by classical standards. In calculating the probability amplitude for a single particle to go from one space-time coordinate to another, it is correct to include paths in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, curves in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path integral assigns to all these amplitudes equal weight but varying phase, or argument of the complex number. Contributions from paths wildly different from the classical trajectory may be suppressed by interference.” In other words, if one wishes to calculate a path integral with complete accuracy, one must take the viewpoint of an infinite being and include all possible paths, including bizarre paths such as ‘shooting off into outer space and flying back again’. The only reason that finite humans can come up with a reasonable approximation of a path integral is because all of the bizarre paths tend to cancel each other out, leaving only the ones that are most probable.
Using theological language, not only does everything start with Incarnation in abstract technical thought, but Incarnation is with God and is God, because calculating the optimal path actually means taking the perspective of a divine being who lives within infinities. As I said at the beginning of this section, it would be more accurate to refer to the Lagrangian as the ‘Incarnational’ or the ‘Christos’.
Special Relativity
We have looked at the relationship between absolute truth and universal truth from a cognitive perspective. I suggest that one can add details to this discussion by comparing Newtonian physics with Einstein’s theory of special relativity. (I originally got the idea for comparing these two forms of thinking from the book by James Loder and Jim Neidhardt that was mentioned earlier in this essay. That book compares these two mindsets but does not analyze them.)
In the words of Wikipedia, special relativity “is based on two postulates: 1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference). 2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.” Thus, the term ‘relativity’ is actually somewhat of a misnomer because special relativity says what is universal and not relative. Two things are universal: 1) Everyone will measure the speed of light in a vacuum as traveling at the speed of light, no matter how fast that person is traveling. For instance, if I travel in a spaceship at half the speed of light and shine a flashlight forward, then the light traveling forward will not travel at one and a half times the speed of light. Instead, I will measure it as traveling at the speed of light, an observer who is standing still will conclude that it is traveling at the speed of light, and so will every other observer in the universe. What is mind blowing about this statement is that objects will shrink and time will slow down in order to ensure that everyone does measure that all light travels at the speed of light.
We have seen that the sun is a cognitively natural symbol of a general Teacher understanding, because it throws light upon all specific experiences. Thus, light and Teacher thought are cognitively related. Looking at this cognitively, the Perceiver facts of the universe shrink and the Server sequences of the universe slow down in order to ensure that the Teacher concept of the speed of light remains unchanged. This represents a mind that is ruled and shaped completely—without exception—by Teacher thought, which describes the mindset of a hard science. That is because a science becomes hard when it becomes guided by an integrated theory in Teacher thought. For instance, chemistry became a hard science with the discovery of the periodic table of elements.
Notice the cognitive difference between special relativity and a heliocentric view of the universe. A heliocentric viewpoint says that the entire universe revolves around the sun. In contrast, general relativity says that what is universal is not the presence of some central sun but rather the behavior of individual photons. Similarly, I suggest that one ultimately finds universal understanding not by learning from the same almighty source of truth and light, but rather by observing how Nature behaves in specific situations, which science refers to as performing experiments. Science still claims to be based in experiments, but most scientific decisions are now made by the consensus of academia. In other words, most present-day science subscribes cognitively to a heliocentric view of the universe by assuming that all intelligent thought revolves around the ‘sun’ of academia.
Orbiting around some ‘sun’ of Teacher understanding is cognitively a step up from being bound gravitationally to some ‘planet’ of cultural and religious MMNs. For instance, many psychological systems, such as Freudian psychology or Jungian psychology, are ultimately based upon the MMN of some important scholar and not upon the TMN of a general theory.
But orbiting around the ‘sun’ of some Teacher theory is still a cognitive contradiction. At a surface level, a sun is a light up in the sky that illuminates everything on the earth below, similar to the way that a general Teacher theory sheds light upon all specific situations. But if one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, one recognizes that the sun itself is a large mass that is using gravitational force to hold planets within its orbit.
Notice that this is a secondary cognitive problem that appears at a system level and not at the level of the individual. As far as the individual person is concerned, the gravitational attraction that is exerted by the Earth is far greater than any gravitational attraction from the sun. And personal life continues on earth while the sun remains a distant orb in the sky. Translating this into cognitive language, a general theory in Teacher thought is being regarded as something different and separate from the MMNs of culture that guide society. This kind of mental separation is essentially for maintaining the mindset of law and order that makes civilization possible. And this level of mental separation is normally sufficient.
The secondary problem becomes significant when society itself goes through a shift, as is being experienced today at the beginning of the 21st century. Stated symbolically, deconstructionism is pointing out that the ‘sun’ of a general Teacher theory is also a ‘body of mass’ that is using the ‘gravitational attraction’ of social pressure to impose itself upon society. Using the language of deconstructionism, all supposed general theories are merely the opinions of some societal group masquerading as universal theories. When society experiences this sort of deep self-questioning, then I suggest that the solution is to move cognitively from Newtonian thinking to Einsteinian thinking.
The basis for Einsteinian thinking can be seen in the second universality of special relativity, which states that all of the laws of physics appear the same locally to anyone who is moving at a constant velocity. Therefore, if I am in a moving spaceship, then I will experience exactly the same laws of physics that I would if I were standing still on the earth. (In fact, the earth itself is actually moving through space like a large spaceship.) It is only if I look out a window of my spaceship and observe what is happening outside or on other spaceships that the laws of physics will appear to have changed.
Looking at this cognitively, universal truth exists, because the same laws of physics apply everywhere, and the same laws of physics can be taught to every individual. But if I on my spaceship try to tell someone else on their spaceship how they should apply the laws of physics from my perspective, then my opinions will be inaccurate because my viewpoint of the other spaceship will be distorted.
It is this relativity that describes the primary impact which the theory of special relativity has had upon society: ‘How can you judge me from your perspective if you live in a different environment than I do? Don’t you tell me what to do!’ Notice that what is being questioned is the Newtonian concept of ‘action at a distance’, the mindset which supposes that some source of absolute truth can act as a ‘sun’ which sheds the light of truth and understanding upon its surroundings. Special relativity points out that absolute truth ultimately does not exist; one person or society cannot shed the light of absolute truth upon another person or society. Deconstructionism then goes one step further and concludes that if absolute truth does not exist, then there is no such thing as truth, which means that all supposed general theories are merely personal opinion.
Saying this more clearly, relativism says ‘You have your truth and I have my truth. I am glad that your system of understanding is working for you.’ Deconstructionism says, ‘There is no truth and understanding. Anyone who claims to believe in truth and understanding is oppressing the masses.’
I suggest that mental symmetry provides a way out of this dilemma because it points out that everyone is subject to the same cognitive principles, no matter what their frame of reference. But cognitive principles apply locally. They are not imposed upon my mind by the mass of some society or the light of some theory. Instead, they describe how my mind functions, and the same cognitive principles describe how everyone’s mind functions.
A distinction also needs to be made between truth and the means of conveying this truth. Absolute truth is a means of conveying truth, a messenger of truth which should not be confused with truth itself. A mindset that is based in MMNs of culture and identity cannot grasp this distinction. Instead, it will equate the message in Perceiver thought with the messenger in Mercy thought because mentally speaking they are equivalent. Perceiver thought, which determines truth, is being overwhelmed by Mercy emotions of culture and identity. In contrast, special relativity says that Perceiver truth is universal while MMNs of culture and identity are not. Everyone lives in a different environment, and the more different my environment is from the environment of another person, the less accurate will be my value judgments about that other person. But everyone does not have their own truth. Instead, everyone has exactly the same truth—in their own unique environment.
However, even though everyone has the same mental structure, everyone is also at a different stage of developing the mind. This means that the same universal principles of cognition can be taught to everyone, but one person cannot tell another person what they should do in their specific situation, because everyone is making value judgments from the perspective of how their mind currently functions. Saying this another way, the structure of the mind is independent of culture. Describing how the mind functions has nothing to do with white Western hegemony. But if a white Western expert insists upon telling someone from a different culture what they need to do right now in order to get their mind to work, then that is an example of white Western hegemony. I have learned over the years that there is a subtle—but very important—distinction between telling a person how the mind works, and telling someone else what they should do in their current situation.
For instance, one can apply this principle to the question of attending church. As was mentioned earlier, there are major flaws in the current thinking and culture of Christendom. And even if some church did have perfect doctrine and rituals, it would still be composed of inadequate human beings. The solution is to find a church that is emphasizing the character traits that I need to develop at my current stage in personal growth. This means that a church that is mentally and spiritually healthy for one individual may be mentally and spiritually damaging to another individual. (I mention the example of attending church because churches are supposed to focus upon the path of personal growth. However, a similar principle would apply to any organization or social group that deals with deeper emotional issues.) Notice the combination of universality and relativity. At the local cognitive level, there is a universal path of personal transformation that applies to all individuals, because everyone has the same kind of mind. (Piaget’s stages of cognitive development describe some of this path.) But at the societal level, it will appear that truth is relative because different groups and individuals will be at different points in cognitive development and thus will need to handle the same universal cognitive truth in different ways.
For instance, is absolute truth good or bad? It depends. For a young child, absolute truth is bad because the mind of the child is not yet ready to accept the concept of absolute truth. For a beginning student, absolute truth is good because the beginning student thinks in terms of MMNs of personal authority, and absolute truth packages facts and understanding within such a mental framework. But for an advanced student, absolute truth is bad because it limits the critical thinking that is required to build the TMN of a general understanding.
Deconstructionism concludes from this that truth does not exist because all truth is relative. But special relativity conveys a different message. It implies instead that telling others from a different culture what to do will lead to a distorted message, and if one wants to convey truth in a more accurate manner, one needs to transform the message into a form that will communicate more accurately to the local culture.
Looking at this more closely, special relativity does not imply that all communication of truth is distorted. Instead, it says that my view of another person’s frame of reference will become increasingly distorted as I move in a direction that is increasingly different from the other person’s direction of movement. Therefore, if I want to interact with someone else with the least distortion, then I need to come alongside that person and move in the same direction. This principle applies especially to religious groups and social agencies that try to help or educate people in another culture. The message that one communicates will be distorted if one flies in, delivers the aid or message, and then immediately leaves, or if one resides in some kind of compound apart from the local culture. If one wants to communicate most effectively, then one must enter the local culture and learn to live within the local culture.
This does not mean being immersed in the local culture or submitting to the local culture, because the very reason for coming is to bring something into the local culture that is different than the local culture. But it does mean becoming familiar with the local culture at both a theoretical and personal level. Saying this symbolically, the goal of cross-cultural sensitivity is not to become emotionally dominated by the local ‘masses’ of culture and religion, but rather to convey a message with the least distortion by coming alongside the path of local society.
Waves
We have jumped ahead to some of the implications of special relativity. We now need to step back and look at waves, because the discoveries about electromagnetic waves in the 19th century laid the foundation for Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
We will start by looking at mechanical oscillations and mechanical oscillations because these are easiest to decipher. Think, for instance, of the pendulum of a clock swinging back and forth. When the pendulum is at one end, it briefly stops moving and is also at the greatest height. When the pendulum is in the middle, it is moving the fastest and is also at the lowest height. Using the language of physics, when the pendulum is at one end, then it has no kinetic energy but the greatest potential energy. When the pendulum is in the middle then it has the greatest kinetic energy and the least potential energy. The general principle is that any oscillation involves energy being transported back and forth between a kinetic form of energy related to movement and a potential form of energy, in this case related to height. (This tossing back and forth of energy does not happen in a wave, but a wave still requires a kinetic form of energy combined with a potential form of energy.)
In the words of Wikipedia, “Mechanical waves transport energy. This energy propagates in the same direction as the wave. Any kind of wave (mechanical or electromagnetic) has a certain energy. Mechanical waves can be produced only in media which possess elasticity and inertia.” Both oscillations and waves involve energy. Elasticity makes it possible to store potential energy, while inertia makes it possible to store kinetic energy. A wave is a sort of unwrapped oscillation in which the energy travels rather than moving back and forth in one location.
Turning now to the cognitive interpretation, energy can be defined as the emotional content contained within some mental network. In other words, a mental network is like a sort of cognitive battery that drives a person or society. Like a battery, a mental network needs to be regularly recharged. Using cognitive language, a mental network needs to receive input that is compatible with its structure in order to remain intact. If a mental network continues to motivate behavior without experiencing compatible input, then it will gradually ‘discharge’ and eventually ‘run out of energy’. For instance, when a student goes to school, then learning will build a number of mental networks of knowledge and skill within the mind. When a student graduates, then most of these mental networks will gradually atrophy because they are no longer being activated, and restoring this knowledge may require taking a refresher course.
The careful reader may notice that I have already equated Mercy mental networks with mass, while I am now connecting a mental network with energy. One of the discoveries of Einstein was that these two are equivalent. According to the famous equation, E=mc2. This means that one can think of mental networks in two different ways. The childish mind sees an MMN as something solid, a core emotional structure upon which the mind can rest, or using the language of physics, a solid mass that attracts other masses through the force of gravity.
But neither mass nor MMNs are eternally solid. In the same way that mass can be defined as rest energy and can be transformed through a nuclear reaction into energy, so an MMN can be viewed as a finite source of energy that can be tapped, utilized, and eventually used up. This relationship between mental networks and energy can be seen in the structure of the mind. Exhorter thought is the part of the mind that provides the energy and drive for thought and action. Neurologically speaking, Exhorter thought is related to dopamine, the chemical of desire and addiction. Exhorter is connected to Teacher and Mercy, and Exhorter thought bases most of its energy in the mental networks of Teacher and Mercy thought.
Saying this more clearly, Neurology makes a distinction between liking and wanting. ‘Liking’ describes emotional pleasure generated by either Mercy or Teacher thought. ‘Wanting’ describes the motivation that is generated by Exhorter thought. These two are normally related, because a person will naturally want what they like. But in addiction these two become disconnected, because an addict will ‘want’ to take a drug even though no longer ‘liking’ the drug. ‘Mass’ represents the ‘liking’ side of an MMN: how much emotion does it generate? Energy represents the ‘wanting’ side: How much activity can it motivate?
Energy and Work
This idea of using energy to propel change is summarized by the simple physics relationship that ∆E = W = Fd. Stated in English, change in energy is equivalent to work, and work is defined as force times distance. We interpreted force earlier as a drive for change. Work is force times distance, or ‘drive for change’ times ‘how much change this drive generates’. Doing this work costs energy; it drains energy from the battery of some mental network.
This same principle can be used to ‘charge’ a mental network. For instance, the force of gravity is mg, or mass times the acceleration of gravity. When one lifts an object, potential energy is being added to the object; work is being done upon the object. The amount of work is Fd, or in this case mgh, because one is lifting the object a distance of h against a force of gravity mg.
Postmodern and post-Christian society provide a vivid illustration of this concept that work is change in energy. Centuries of scientific thought and Christian ethics generated potent core mental networks within the minds of Western individuals. People who lived during this era viewed these mental networks as solid structures of society that would never shift. But when society became postmodern and post-Christian, then these core mental networks stopped being recharged and instead were viewed as obsolete relics from the past. However, for several decades these mental networks continued to implicitly guide society. Even though society no longer subscribed to these viewpoints, society was still being driven implicitly by their memory. This memory of the past can be seen in the terms post-modern and post-Christian. Now at the beginning of the 21st century, these ‘batteries’ of society are largely discharged; all of their mass has been converted into energy and the energy has been dissipated. The average Western individual is now searching for a new set of core mental networks that can replace the ones that have been discharged.
During the period of ‘discharging’, the emphasis was upon free will, because everyone wanted to have the freedom to use this energy in ways that they saw fit. Looking at this cognitively, Exhorter thought, the part of the mind that generates drive and motivation, is followed by Contributor thought, the part of the mind that chooses.
Now that the core mental networks of modernism and Christianity have become largely dissipated, the focus of society has shifted from freedom to stability and passion. The average person now wants something solid with emotional meaning, and is willing to give up personal freedom in order to find this stability and passion. In America, 9/11 was probably the watershed event. Before this event, the primary urge was for freedom. After this event, the two primary drives have been ‘Make America #1’ and ‘Keep American safe’. The first searches for emotional meaning, while the second looks for something solid. Americans may still talk about freedom, but most of the recent decisions have been in the direction of restoring American greatness and preserving American security at the cost of personal freedom.
Looking at this cognitively, a mental network wants to experience input that is consistent with its structure. Saying this more technically, a mental network generates positive emotion when it is triggered and the internal or external environment is consistent with the structure of that mental network. For instance, if I am visiting a strange foreign country and enter a familiar fast food restaurant, then a mental network of my home culture will be triggered and the external environment of this fast food restaurant will be consistent with the structure of this mental network. In simple language, it will feel like home. In contrast, a mental network will generate negative emotion when it is triggered and the internal or external environment is inconsistent with its structure. This will happen, for instance, if I enter some local, inaccurate copy of a familiar fast food restaurant. The familiar mental network will be triggered in my mind, but everything will feel wrong.
Going further, whenever a mental network motivates some thought or behavior, then the memory of that thought or behavior becomes part of that mental network and increases the overall potency of that mental network. Saying this another way, energy has been added to the mental network. For instance, this happens when a churchgoer spends time in the environment of church studying the Bible, listening to sermons, or singing about God and Christianity. This type of behavior and environment will ‘charge’ the mental networks of Christian religion.
A mental network will be ‘discharged’ if it constrains behavior within a more general environment that is being motivated by other inconsistent, mental networks. For instance, society in general is motivated by mental networks of personal prosperity, which are inconsistent with the fundamentalist Christian attitude of ‘religious self-denial’. (An attitude of fundamentalism will lead naturally to self-denial, because one will only continue to believe the absolute truth of a ‘holy book’ if one feels in Mercy thought that the source of this ‘truth’ has far more emotional status than personal identity. In the extreme, this leads to what is known as worm theology.) The fundamentalist Christian who behaves selfishly in the secular world will feel that he is violating his religious attitude of self-denial, and this will tend to put a brake upon more blatant expressions of self-seeking behavior. This will ‘discharge’ mental networks of self-denial because they are being triggered, they are having some impact by shifting behavior slightly, but the overall context is being motivated by mental networks of self-seeking prosperity.
A similar principle would apply to following Christian principles in a post-Christian society (or to following modern thought in a post-modern society.) Behavior is being motivated by non-Christian mental networks, but it is still being constrained by the memory of Christian principles. But these Christian mental networks are never being reinforced through any ‘church’ experiences. Therefore, Christian mental networks are being ‘discharged’ without being ‘recharged’, and they will eventually ‘run out of energy’.
It is possible to ‘charge’ a mental network by choosing explicitly to follow that mental network in the presence of other mental networks. This would happen, for instance, if I deliberately choose to perform some altruistic act within an environment of selfishness. (If religion is defined from a viewpoint of MMNs and absolute truth, then the average person will think that being religious implies denying self.)
However, it is also possible to build a concept of God in Teacher thought based in a general understanding of universal principles, and the resulting TMN will also motivate behavior. This can be seen in Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative, which says that one should be guided by principles that can be applied universally. For instance, one should not steal, because if everyone tried to steal, then there would be nothing to steal. But one should protect ownership, because it is possible for everyone to own things. Using religious language, one can define ‘righteousness’ as behavior that is motivated by the TMN of a concept of God.
The average person is motivated by short-term, temporary pleasure, and does not think in terms of long-term, universal principles. Therefore, if one chooses to be guided by the TMN of a universal understanding within a society that is being motivated by MMNs of personal gain, then this ‘righteous’ behavior will become mentally connected with the TMN of God that motivated this behavior. (A mental concept of God forms when the TMN of a general understanding applies to personal identity. Personal behavior can only be motivated by the TMN of a general understanding if that general understanding applies to personal identity.) This will not happen if one behaves in a way that appears righteous in a society that gives approval to righteous behavior, because such behavior is actually being motivated by MMNs of social approval.
Jesus put it this way: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 6:1). Kant thought that behavior should only be motivated by the categorical imperative. In contrast, it appears that one becomes righteous by being guided only by the TMN of a concept of God, but once the mind has become righteous, then it is possible to place MMNs of identity and personal gain within the context of following the TMN of a concept of God.
Notice the major role that free will plays in determining which mental networks get ‘charged’ and which ones ‘discharge’.
These cognitive concepts can be applied to the physics definition of work. Work is force times distance. If force generates no movement, then there is no work. Similarly, a mental network will only be mentally charged or discharged if it is triggered—and continues to be active—in the presence of behavior. No work occurs if one thinks of a mental network, does nothing, and then forgets about the mental network.
The idea of choosing to obey a mental network in the presence of contrary mental networks can be seen with gravitational potential energy. The large mass of the earth, which represents the MMNs of society, is pulling objects in a downward direction. An object gains gravitational potential energy when it is lifted against this pull of gravity.
Going further, as Newton’s first law points out, it does not take any force to keep an object moving at a constant velocity. If the force is zero, then the resulting work is also zero. Cognitively speaking, one is simply continuing to behave in a habitual manner. But it does take work to continue pushing an object at a constant velocity when one is fighting the force of friction. The cognitive analogy is that following a mental network takes work when the environment is chaotic and fragmented. For instance, it takes work to study when everyone else is wasting time. It takes much less work to study in an environment where everyone else is studying, but one still has to overcome the ‘friction’ of random internal thoughts.
Now that we have discussed the cognitive analogy of energy, I would like to return briefly to the concept of the Lagrangian, because it is defined in classical mechanics as kinetic energy minus potential energy. I cannot find any website that explains why this is the case. Instead, they all point out that the laws of Newton emerge naturally if one defines the Lagrangian in this manner. More generally, determining the Lagrangian for some system is typically a matter of making an educated guess and then seeing if this guess works out.
But it is possible to use symbolism to come up with a cognitive interpretation of this Lagrangian and then use an understanding of the mind to see if this interpretation makes any sense. In Newtonian mechanics, kinetic energy = ½ mv2. Thus, an object acquires kinetic energy by moving faster. An object gains potential energy by becoming separated from other objects to which it is attracted. For instance, all objects on the earth are attracted to the earth by the force of gravity, and objects acquire potential energy by being separated from the earth. If kinetic energy minus potential energy is being minimized, then this means following a path that contains the least kinetic energy and the most potential energy.
In simple English, be efficient and do not succumb to peer pressure. Minimizing kinetic energy means minimizing actions and movement. Increasing potential energy means maintaining some distance from the large ‘masses’ of society. This does not sound like the traditional standard of morality that is preached by fundamentalist religion. Instead, we have just seen that fundamentalism leads naturally to an attitude of religious self-denial, in which one feels that one must suppress self in order to be devoted in service to God, because God is far more ‘important’ in Mercy thought than personal identity. But this does describe the mindset of the typical engineer, who tries not follow the status quo but rather develop new methods of doing things that involve less effort. Notice that one is not ignoring peer pressure and doing nothing, because the goal is still to get from one point to another. Instead, one is attempting to reach the goal by following a path that is more efficient rather than being driven by the status quo. Discovering or pioneering such a path often involves acts of righteousness, because ‘one follows God rather than men’ in order to experience the benefits of following God. Similarly, technology comes up with laborsaving gadgets by being guided by a Teacher understanding of how the natural world functions instead of being driven by the ‘massive’ MMNs of culture and convention.
I do not know if it is possible to interpret other Lagrangians in a similar fashion, because some of the Lagrangians are rather complicated. However, this general principle of kinetic energy minus potential energy is characteristic of a number of Lagrangians.
Mechanical Waves
Continuing with our look at these two kinds of energy, energy swings between kinetic energy and potential energy in an oscillation. (In an oscillation, the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy is a constant. In contrast, the typical Lagrangian looks at the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy.) Kinetic energy comes from movement, and movement is generated by Server thought. We saw earlier that habitual movement is mentally reinforced by the TMN of some habit. Potential energy involves some sort of force that moves something from its equilibrium location. For instance, if I pick up an object from the floor and let go of the object, then it will fall back to the floor, because the object has been moved away from its equilibrium location of resting on the floor. Similarly, if I stretch or compress a spring, then that spring is acquiring potential energy, because it is being pulled or pushed away from its equilibrium position. Cognitively speaking, an equilibrium position is reinforced by some MMN. For instance, when some situation does not fit the local culture, then this creates an emotional stress to restore the situation back to what is familiar. This drive to restore what is familiar is based in MMNs.
Putting this together, personal and societal activity are driven by an oscillation between TMNs and MMNs. Some action is done, this disturbs the status quo, the response is some action that will restore the status quo, but this action acquires a life of its own, which means that it goes beyond restoring the status quo to disturbing the status quo in a different direction, which results in the response of some other action, and so on. The point is that two kinds of mental networks are required for thought and behavior, one rooted in time and the other in space. One can see this illustrated by the Greek concept of God, which was viewed as the immovable mover. This static concept of God is the cognitive result of viewing God purely as the ultimate MMN. If there is to be thought and activity, then this kind of static God requires a Satan who will disturb the status quo.
An oscillation swings back and forth. A wave transmits energy from one location to another. If energy represents content within mental networks, then this means that waves are associated with changing mental networks. Saying this in more detail, progress involves oscillations, such as doing and resting, or performing actions and preserving culture. One primary example is the cycle of waking and sleeping. One acts when awake. When one is sleeping, then both the body and the brain repair and consolidate. Sleep is needed to consolidate the changes that are generated when being awake.
Going further, there are three main kinds of mechanical waves: transverse waves, longitudinal waves, and surface waves. A transverse wave oscillates in a sideways direction, somewhat like a vehicle wobbling from side to side as it travels down the road. A transverse wave is only possible in a solid medium, something elastic that will bounce back when pushed. In a medium that is not solid, such as air or water, a transverse wave is not possible. Instead, mechanical waves must be longitudinal. In a longitudinal wave, the oscillation occurs in the direction of travel. Speech is a longitudinal wave, because air is being compressed or decompressed. A longitudinal wave is like pushing a person in a crowd. The person who is pushed will jostle the next person, who will disturb the next individual, and so on. A surface wave occurs at the surface of the liquid, as illustrated by waves that can be seen on the surface of a lake or ocean.
In order to look at the cognitive analog, we need to work out the symbolic interpretation of solid, liquid, and gas. These three primary states of matter were discussed in previous essays when analyzing the Bible, and we will use the same cognitively natural interpretation when looking at physics. (Using the same symbolism consistently is one aspect of adding rigor to normal thought.) The physical body fills Mercy thought with a flood of experiences from the world. Perceiver thought then organizes these Mercy experiences into solid facts and builds solid connections between these facts. A solid is related to Perceiver thought because Perceiver thought makes Mercy experiences solid. Mercy experiences that lack solid Perceiver connections will be experienced as a mental liquid—a roiling sea of emotional memories, as illustrated by phrases such as ‘I got in over my head’, ‘I felt inundated by experiences’, or ‘I am trying to keep my head above the water’. As I have mentioned, one of the characteristics of a cognitively natural symbol is that it will be reflected in normal speech. This concept of cognitively natural symbolism is discussed further in Metaphors We Live By, written by Lakoff and Johnson. Going further, I suggest that air represents Teacher thought. Teacher thought does most of its thinking using words, and words are expressed through the medium of air. Teacher theories are invisible entities that have a subtle yet widespread impact upon the mind. Similarly, air is invisible, but moving air can have a major impact upon physical structures. I have suggested that the sun represents a general Teacher theory. The sun appears to be in the air, ‘up in the sky’, giving the mental impression that a general theory resides within Teacher thought. (I am not suggesting that the symbol is reality, but rather that the structure of the mind will cause certain symbols to become naturally associated with reality.)
Applying this to the three kinds of mechanical waves, a longitudinal wave can occur in any of the three media. (The plural of medium is media. Similarly, datum and data). A longitudinal wave applies stress directly to a neighboring entity, which is why I used the example of pushing a person in a crowd. Similarly, when some society is guided in a liquid manner by MMNs, or in a gaseous manner by TMNs, then generating waves of progress will require disturbing culture or questioning paradigms. A wave will be by nature disruptive.
When material becomes solid, then transverse waves become possible. Stating this cognitively, when Perceiver facts and Perceiver truth give stability to society, then it becomes possible to generate waves of progress in a less abrasive manner. Instead of directly challenging the status quo, one can question the facts in a manner that people do not experience as a direct shove.
A surface wave occurs at the interface between water and air (or at the interface between two liquids with different densities). The cognitive analog is intuitive thought, which jumps between MMNs of personal experience and TMNs of general theory. Intuition skips the intermediate step of discovering solid facts and repeatable sequences and jumps directly from personal experience to sweeping statement. (Mysticism is the most extreme example of intuitive thought, because it jumps from a personal ecstatic experience to a sweeping statement about everything.) A central plan goes the other direction, jumping directly from general theory to specific situation, without bothering to learn any Server sequences about how things work, or any Perceiver facts about the local situation. What concerns us here is that intuitive thought can drive people and societies. Waves can form on the surface between the ‘water’ of Mercy experience and the ‘air’ of Teacher thought. A similar kind of wave can result from the interaction between two different societies, as symbolized by liquids with two different densities. Movement at the edge of one society will disturb the neighboring culture, causing it to respond, and this response will itself disturb the first culture.
Electric Charge and Gender
Now that we have looked at mechanical waves, we can turn to electromagnetic waves. In order to decipher what they represent, we have to look at the cognitive analog of electric charge. That is because electromagnetic waves are created when electric charges accelerate.
Physics tells us that there are four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak. We have looked at gravity and have related the force of gravity to the attractive force exerted by MMNs. The strong and weak forces have very short ranges and apply only at the atomic and subatomic level. They will be discussed later when looking at quantum theory. Electromagnetic force is related to electric charge.
A particle can have a positive charge or negative charge. Opposite charges attract; like charges repel. Electric charge exerts a much, much, stronger force than gravity. However, the primary force that one experiences in daily life is that of gravity rather than electric charge. That is because gravitational forces add up. Even though the force of gravity is tiny, a planetful of mass will exert a significant force. Most electric forces, in contrast, cancel out, because the positive charge of protons in the nucleus of an atom is balanced by the negative charge of electrons ‘spinning’ around the nucleus. (I put the word ‘spinning’ in quotes because the electrons are not actually orbiting around the nucleus. However, an atom can still be visualized approximately as electrons orbiting around a nucleus of protons and neutrons, as shown by the illustration at the beginning of this essay.) Electric force becomes apparent when electrons are separated from protons.
I have thought long and hard about the cognitive analog to electric charge, and the only possible candidate I can come up with is the relationship between mental networks and technical thought. These are opposites, because one is an expression of emotions while the other attempts to think in a manner that is not biased by emotions. But they also attract each other. Technical thought is always guided by some emotional bottom line, and this bottom line is provided by mental networks. Saying this another way, mental networks give technical thought a reason to exist. This explains, for instance, why the most of the units and equations in physics are named after famous physicists, and why receiving the Nobel Prize is such a big deal. It is mental networks such as these which give technical thinking a reason to exist. Going the other way, technical thinking saves mental networks from personal disaster. The physical world is ruled by inescapable natural laws that require technical thought to comprehend and follow. Technical thought literally preserves mental networks from doing stupid things that result in injury or death.
Going further, male thought naturally emphasizes technical thought, while female thought naturally lives within mental networks. Thus, electric charge would also be symbolic of male and female thought. Finally, there is also physical gender, which also falls into two opposite categories. (Human gender is visibly ambiguous or inconsistent with chromosomes in only about 0.018% of births.)
Notice that I have defined this category in term of technical thought versus mental networks. If one defines the category in terms of physical gender, then some people will say ‘I don’t feel the same as my physical gender’. This suggests that male thought versus female thought is more fundamental than physical gender. But feeling male or female is a vague statement that can be asserted as a matter of personal opinion; a person who emphasizes technical thought will feel male, while a person who emphasizes mental networks will feel female. Thus, I suggest that the most basic distinction is between technical thought and mental networks. Every human mind is capable of using technical thought, normal thought, and mental networks. Therefore, every human mind has a male side and a female side, and becoming a whole person means developing—at least to some extent—both of these primary aspects to human thought. This can be done regardless of gender or cognitive styles. For instant, I have played violin professionally for many years. When I play violin, I am expressing the female side of my mind.
Putting this together, the interaction between male and female thought can be seen in purest form in the marriage between a male Contributor person and a female Mercy person. That is because both gender and cognitive style will cause the Contributor person to emphasize technical thought, while both gender and cognitive style will cause the Mercy person emphasize mental networks. This is also the most common marriage combination, and it typically results in the traditional stereotypical marriage. I am personally familiar with this relationship because my father and mother were this combination. In brief, the tendency is for the two partners to remain mentally incomplete, find completeness in each other, view each other as very different, but also find each other very necessary at a deep level. One could describe such a relationship as codependent. In my case, dad made the money while mom raised the children. Dad had no clue about cooking while mother had no clue about money. Dad had a job while mother made the house a home. Dad took the family on trips, while mother involved the family in projects. Thus, I suggest that there is some cognitive truth to the familiar trope when describing marriages that ‘opposites attract’. (If one looks more closely at which pairs of cognitive styles tend to marry, one observes that pairs which complete mental circuits tend to marry, while total opposites do not. For instance, Perceiver and Mercy marry, as do Teacher and Server. Teacher and Mercy, or Perceiver and Server, in contrast, do not.)
The relationship between female thought and mental networks can be seen in the field know as women’s studies. Wikipedia describes it in this way: “Women’s studies is an academic field that draws on feminist and interdisciplinary methods in order to place women’s lives and experiences at the center of study, while examining social and cultural constructs of gender; systems of privilege and oppression; and the relationships between power and gender as they intersect with other identities and social locations such as race, sexual orientation, socio-economic class, and disability.”
Examining the words and phrases of this quote: ‘Feminist’ tells us that the focus is upon female thought. ‘Interdisciplinary’ shows that the emphasis is upon general theories in Teacher thought rather than upon specific technical specializations. ‘Place women’s lives and experiences’ indicates a focus upon MMNs of identity, while ‘at the center of study’ means that the mind is building upon these MMNs. ‘Social and cultural’ describes MMNs of culture. ‘Constructs’ reflects the deconstructionist attitude that Perceiver truth is based in MMNs of culture and identity. ‘Of gender’ indicates that thinking in terms of mental networks is being contrasted with technical thought. ‘Systems of privilege’ reflects the deconstructionist belief that cultural groups with social status are universalizing their cultural MMNs and treating them as TMNs of universal understanding. This describes intuitive thought, which makes sweeping statements within Teacher thought based upon personal experiences within Mercy thought. ‘And oppression’ tells us that cultural groups with Mercy status are using their power to impose these systems upon other groups with lower Mercy status. ‘Relationships between power and gender’ implies that male technical thought is being reinterpreted in terms of personal and societal MMNs. ‘As they intersect with other identities and social locations’ illustrates the tribal mentality that emerges when one focuses upon personal and social MMNs. Finally, I have mentioned that childish thought acquires its initial MMNs through emotional experiences from the physical body: ‘Race’ is a MMN of personal identity that one acquires from the color and shape of one’s physical body. ‘Sexual orientation’ is an MMN of identity acquired through the sexual urges of the physical body. ‘Socio-economic class’ describes MMNs of identity that result from physical possessions. And ‘disability’ describes MMNs of identity that result from physical limitations. Summarizing, what is being described is a form of intuitive thinking that makes sweeping statements based upon personal and cultural MMNs and is ultimately rooted in childish MMNs of personal identity.
Looking more generally at this article, the words ‘science’, ‘physics’, ‘math’, ‘chemistry’, ‘rational’, ‘logic’, ‘fact’, ‘technology’, ‘law’, and ‘male’ do not appear in the article, while the word ‘truth’ appears once in quotes. In contrast, the word ‘social’ appears 21 times, ‘theory’ occurs about 22 times, ‘feminist’ occurs about 20 times, and the word ‘women’ is found about 70 times. (I am not including the times that these words are used in either the links or the references. If one includes these, then ‘women’ is actually used a grand total of 162 times, while the generic word ‘the’ occurs 164 times.) Thus, I suggest that women’s studies illustrate the type of mindset that emerges when female thought uses social status to impose female thought upon the academic realm of male technical thought. When one analyzes this thinking from a cognitive perspective, one concludes that women’s studies are an expression of mental networks, corroborating the suggestion that female thought uses mental networks. Mental symmetry would concur with the feminist observation that academia suppresses mental networks. However, the solution is not to replace technical thought with mental networks but rather to use normal thought to integrate technical thought with mental networks.
That brings us to the next question. If charge is the physical analog of gender, then which is which? I suggest that male thought corresponds to the electron, which has negative charge, while female thought corresponds to the proton, which has positive charge. (The labels positive and negative are purely a matter of historical convention.) That is because the mass of the proton is about 1800 times the mass of the electron. If mass is symbolic of the ‘size’ of a mental network, then it makes sense that the charged particle that has much greater mass would represent female thought, which emphasizes mental networks. This is the hypothesis that we will be following as we continue looking at charge. I should point out to those who are unfamiliar with physics that the electron and the proton are the only charged particles that are stable and observable. Other subatomic particles with charge exist, but they only exist for fractions of a second. Thus, when one is discussing charge, one is really discussing the relationship between electrons and protons. (Protons are composed of up and down quarks which also are stable and have electric charge. But a quark never exists by itself. (The top quark is extremely rare and may exist by itself for about 10-25 seconds.) That is why I say stable and observable.)
Because the mass of an electron is much less than the mass of a proton, the electron exhibits properties that are strongly wave-like. For instance, one calculates how an electron ‘orbits’ the nucleus of an atom by treating the electron as a wave. Using a musical analogy, this is like determining the harmonics of a vibrating string, or the overtones of an air pipe. The resonant frequencies of the electron ‘wave’ determine the permissible ‘orbits’ for the electron.
That introduces the general concept of wave-particle duality, which “is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts ‘particle’ or ‘wave’ to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.” Notice that this is a universal statement that applies to all particles, but it becomes especially apparent when dealing with atomic-sized particles. Because the electron is such a small elementary particle, its behavior is strongly characterized by the particle/wave duality.
Turning now to the cognitive analog, a particle is something static composed of matter, while a wave is some sort of traveling sequence that is not composed of matter. Mercy thought thinks in terms of static experiences, while Teacher thought works primarily with sequences of words. Thus, there is a strong particle-wave duality within the mind between Mercy thought and Teacher thought. This duality is not apparent when dealing directly with Mercy experiences and Teacher words, because concrete experiences are obviously not the same as abstract words. But an extensive overlap between these two will emerge when one uses technical thought to analyze experiences and words.
This overlap is illustrated by the example of the machine mentioned earlier. A machine is a physical example of technical thought, because it is composed of a limited number of precisely fabricated parts that perform well-defined functions. A machine can be viewed as a tool within the particle-oriented concrete realm of Mercy experiences. For instance, my car is an object that sits in the garage. When I want to travel to some location, then I get into the car and use the car as a tool to drive me to that location. The motivation for driving to that location is usually provided by the MMN of some person or situation. I may be going to visit my parents, or traveling to a restaurant. But the same machine can also be viewed as a system within the wave-oriented abstract realm of Teacher theories. For instance, my car is an integrated system of interacting devices and parts. When I want to get this machine to function properly, then I take the car to a mechanic who will ensure that all the parts of the car are functioning together in an integrated manner. In this case, the emotional motivation comes from the Teacher order-within-complexity of a system that functions together in a smooth manner.
Summarizing, in the same way that one must consider the physical duality between particle and wave when examining electrons, so one must consider the cognitive duality between object and sequence when discussing technical thought.
The only long-lasting atomic particles are the electron, the proton, the neutron, the photon (the ‘particle’ of light), and the neutrino (as well as the anti-particles of each of these). Everything else decays in a fraction of a second. (Technically speaking, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, but one (almost) never sees isolated quarks. We will look at quarks later in the essay.) Neutrinos are very small particles that interact very little with anything else. Thus, even though there is a small zoo of elementary particles, the only ones that count when examining long-term interactions are the electron, proton, neutron, and photon.
The neutron is slightly heavier than the proton but is electrically neutral. When existing by itself, the neutron is not stable but will rather decay after about 15 minutes into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. However, neutrons are stable when they are present within the nucleus of an atom, and all atoms except for hydrogen require neutrons to remain stable, because the neutrons prevent the positively charged protons in the nucleus from getting too close to each other. When a neutron decays, a lot of energy is released, which shows up as kinetic energy. In almost all cases, the proton and the electron have so much kinetic energy that they fly apart. But in 1/250,000 cases, enough of the kinetic energy will go to the electron anti-neutrino to allow the proton and electron to remain together and form a hydrogen atom (which is composed of one electron orbiting one proton). Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and it is estimated that hydrogen composes 75% of the visible mass of the universe.
If a proton symbolizes mental networks and an electron represents technical thought, then by extension a neutron would represent normal thought. Normal thought, by itself, is not stable. That is because Perceiver thought and Server thought are secondary: Perceiver facts connect Mercy experiences or give meanings to Teacher words, while Server sequences either lead from one Mercy experience to another or else provide a grammatical framework for sequences of words in Teacher thought.
Thus, in the same way that neutrons normally reside with protons in the nucleus and are stable in this configuration, so the Perceiver facts and Server sequences of normal thought normally reside within a context of mental networks. Perceiver thought and Server thought acquire their raw material from Teacher thought and Mercy thought, but they function independently of Teacher thought and Mercy thought. And just as neutrons are needed within a nucleus to keep protons from coming too close together (because like charges repel), so the facts and sequences of normal thought act as a buffer that prevents mental networks with their strong emotions from coming into direct contact with one another. For instance, when I walk past someone on the street, then I say ‘Hello. How are you?’ This is a repetitive, habitual response with no deep emotional meaning that allows me to recognize another person without getting emotionally involved.
In the same way that a neutron by itself is unstable, Perceiver facts and Server sequences by themselves have no reason to continue existing. Instead, they will tend to be replaced by a ‘proton’ of tradition and an ‘electron’ of technical thought. Looking at this more closely, technical thought always functions within the framework of some set of Perceiver facts and Server sequences which define the official ‘rules of the game’. For instance, the game of chess is based upon the official Perceiver objects of pawns, knights, rooks, etc. And each of these official objects can only perform official Server actions: A pawn can move one step forward; a knight can move in an ‘L’ pattern, and so on. Speaking symbolically, a ‘neutron’ of normal thought can be replaced by an ‘electron’ of technical thought.
But technical thought finds it difficult to function in the presence of strong emotions. One can see this in the technical thinking of science, which remains objective in order to avoid subjective Mercy feelings, and which specializes in order to avoid Teacher emotions of generality. Thus, a decision to start technical thought is simultaneously a decision to step away from emotions. This is symbolized by the split into an electron and a proton. But technical thought is built upon some foundation of facts and sequences that has been separated from the emotional context of mental networks, which is symbolized by the isolated neutron decaying into an electron, proton (and anti-neutrino).
If the nucleus of an atom becomes too large, then the atom will probably split into two smaller atoms. Similarly, a social arrangement that contains too many mental networks will also tend to split into separate fragments. For physical elements, Uranium 238, with 92 protons and 146 neutrons, is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. Similarly, Dunbar’s number suggests that “humans can comfortably maintain only 150 stable relationships… numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group.” I am not suggesting that there is any causal relationship between these two numbers, but the fact that they are in the same ballpark is consistent with the analogy between protons and mental networks.
Finally, the most common element in the physical universe is a hydrogen atom, with a single electron orbiting around a single proton. When there is a single proton, then there is no need for any neutrons to keep the protons apart. The obvious cognitive analogy is marriage, a common stable relationship with one partner who emphasizes mental networks combining with one other partner who emphasizes technical thought. (Cognitive style also plays a major role in marriages. For instance, we have already seen that it is common for a Contributor person to marry a Mercy person.) The hydrogen atom is the only atom without a neutron. The implication is that marriage is the only stable social relationship that can exist without a social buffer zone. I know that gay marriage has recently become legal in many countries. Therefore, I should emphasize that we are looking here primarily at the relationship between mental networks and technical thought and only secondarily at the relationship between male and female people.
I do not want to stretch this analogy by taking it too far. In fact, any physicist who has read this far is probably cringing at the very idea of comparing marriage to a hydrogen atom, because this type of thinking feels very non-rigorous. I myself did a lot of cringing when writing this essay. As was just stated, technical thought feels uncomfortable—deeply uncomfortable—around the intuitive thinking of mental networks. But I do not see any other alternative. Divorcing technical thought from mental networks as is currently done is not a valid option. Applying technical thought to all of existence is also not a valid option; life cannot be reduced to a game of chess, or to any other technical system with a limited set of rigid rules. Technical thought always has a limited domain. If one wants to go beyond this limited domain, one has to use normal thought with its semi-rigorous analogies—and learn to live with any cringing that using normal thought might generate. The lasting feeling of Teacher integration that results is worth the temporary sensation of intellectual cringing.
And if one steps back and looks at the big picture, then no other analogy is really possible. One of the basic principles of analogical reasoning is that hands must be compared with hands; fundamental concepts must be connected with fundamental concepts. There are only three stable, visible, interacting particles with mass: the proton, the neutron, and the electron. (Quarks are not visible, neutrinos barely interact, and photons have no mass.) Similarly, the mind functions in one of three general ways: mental networks, normal thought, and technical thought. Therefore, if fundamental concepts are to be compared with fundamental concepts, then this is the only valid analogy.
Going further, I suggest that such an analogy meets a deep cognitive need. Speaking from personal experience, my mind currently contains two almost-universal Teacher theories: the theory of mental symmetry which explains the mind, and the theories of physics which explain matter. Teacher thought cannot handle two competing universal theories. The analogy would be bringing two protons into direct contact with one another. It does not work. The only option is to use normal thought to build bridges between these two theories, which symbolically means using neutrons to separate the two protons.
When one uses the analogical thinking of normal thought to integrate general Teacher theories, one does not have to form complete analogies between paradigms. After all, every analogy breaks down at some point. It is sufficient to build substantial analogies between the paradigms. That is because Teacher thought appreciates order-within-complexity. The analogical similarities provide the order, while the details that differ provide the complexity. As long as the primary features of one system are analogically similar to the primary features of another, Teacher thought will find order-within-complexity. Using the analogy mentioned at the beginning of this essay, one must compare hands with hands and then compare fingers with fingers. One does not have to compare every cell on one hand with every cell on the other. This type of analogy-with-some-details is sufficient to bring unity to Teacher thought. (Contributor thought demands technical rigor. Teacher thought is not rigorous. This distinction is discussed in a previous essay that looks at the thinking of Einstein, a Teacher person.)
Applying this concept to the relationship between mental networks and technical thought (and by extension to the relationship between women and men), one does not have to connect every aspect of these two in order to have a stable, satisfying relationship. In fact, building a complete set of connections between these two would be impossible because they function in such a different manner. Women and men really do think differently. Instead, it is sufficient to build connections between the primary functioning of the one and the primary functioning of the other. Saying this another way, successful marriage partners do not have to see eye to eye on everything, but they do need to agree on the fundamentals.
Fields
We are almost ready to tackle the concept of electromagnetic waves, but we first need to look at the concept of fields. The idea of an electromagnetic field was initially conceived by Faraday in the 1830s. A field is a way of portraying the influence that some entity has upon its environment. For instance, one can visualize a magnetic field by sprinkling iron filings on a piece of paper held above a permanent magnet. The iron filings will line up in a manner that illustrates the magnetic field associated with the permanent magnet.
A field eliminates the problematic concept of ‘action at a distance’. For instance, instead of saying that a positive charge exerts a force of attraction upon a negative charge (and vice versa), one can say that the positive charge creates an electric field and that the negative charge is affected by this electric field.
This may sound like minor quibbling but it was a revolutionary concept in the field of physics, and I suggest that the cognitive equivalent of thinking in terms of fields is also a revolutionary concept. We will look at this cognitive analog before examining fields in more depth. We saw earlier that the nucleus of an atom is only stable if the protons with their positive charges are interspersed with neutrons that lack electric charge. The corresponding cognitive principle is that mental and societal stability can be increased by preventing mental networks from coming into direct contact with one another.
However, the underlying problem still remains, which is that mental networks are attempting to control each other through the use of force. Saying this another way, people are still jockeying for position, attempting to improve their status within the social pecking order. The ‘neutrons’ of normal thought can reduce the intensity of this social struggle, but they will not eliminate it.
This social infighting can be eliminated by placing personal MMNs within a ‘field’ of Perceiver facts and Server sequences. This can be done externally through a system of rules and procedures. This changes the mental perspective. Instead of viewing my neighbors as direct competitors, I view both myself and my neighbors as existing within the ‘field’ of some system of rules and procedures. Instead of challenging my neighbor directly, I follow rules and procedures which will then have an impact upon my neighbor.
A social system of rules and procedures can minimize physical conflict, but it will not eliminate internal conflict. That is because other people can judge my behavior but they cannot tell what I am thinking. Stated more simply, a social system can control behavior but it cannot control thought. Therefore, a social system will create the appearance of civilized behavior, while leaving intact the mindset of struggling for dominance. Saying this another way, a social system places behavior within a ‘field’ of appearance but it does not place thought within a ‘field’ of thinking.
The solution is to place thought and behavior within the ‘field’ of a system of cognition. When I interact with people, I use mental symmetry to evaluate behavior, placing it within a mental grid or ‘field’ of cognitive development and cognitive style. For instance: ‘She appears to be a Contributor person who is struggling with issues of control, but she has worked as a nurse in other countries, so she has expertise in areas of physical and psychological care, and will be flexible in areas of culture’. Or ‘He has a degree in a soft science, and he appears to be a Facilitator person. Therefore, he will tend to think in terms of established authorities rather than general paradigms or universal laws, and these established authorities will define his views of ‘truth’. But his university training has taught him to use technical thought’.
This type of thinking may sound judgmental, and in a sense it is. But individuals are being judged by a field and not by other individuals. The end result is an attitude of patience toward self and others. People cannot be transformed instantly, because they reside at a certain location in the field. There is no ‘action at a distance’. Instead, there is only local action as a person moves from where they are to someplace close by, motivated by the local forces in their vicinity. Saying this another way, judging tries to impose my mental networks upon another person, tolerance tries not to impose my mental networks upon another person, while patience places both myself and the other person within a field of cognitive development. What matters for patience is how far a person has come, and how much further they could go.
For instance, Canadian and American society used to be guided by the ‘field’ of a democratic, civilized society, with its established institutions. Justin Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of Canada, is an epitome of tolerance. Tolerance is ultimately motivated by Teacher overgeneralization. Teacher thought comes up with the sweeping statement that ‘we are all equal’, and any Perceiver facts which suggest that we are not equal are suppressed. This leads implicitly to judging through the following sequence: A field does not have the same value at every point. People are at different stages of cognitive development, and these various stages are not equivalent. If they were, then there would be no need for school. Trudeau should know this, because he was a schoolteacher. If one imposes the overgeneralization that a field should have the same value at every point, then this will end up eliminating the field and replacing it with direct conflict between mental networks. Saying this more concisely, the Trudeau administration is currently rewriting and reforming the laws and institutions of Canadian society in the light of the Teacher overgeneralization of tolerance. The ultimate result is that these institutions are being replaced by direct conflict between special interest groups.
Turning now to the United States, Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, is an epitome of judging. This is immediately apparent if one googles the terms ‘Trump’ and ‘tweet’. But Trump and his followers do not realize that the institutions of American democracy are being undermined by their incessant un-factual personal attacks. Trump does not realize that the fabric of international law and order is being disrupted by his egotistical desire to ‘Make America great again’. Because it is this fabric—this field—that makes it possible for politics to rise above zero-sum competition in which one person can win only by making others lose. And Trump appears to view essentially everything as making himself look like a winner by portraying others as losers.
This provides a partial explanation for why American evangelicals continue to support Trump even though Trump behaves in a manner that is antithetical to Christian ethics. A fundamentalist mindset believes that absolute truth is imposed by personal MMNs: God used his power to reveal truth to mankind. Therefore, it makes sense for an egotistical leader such as Trump to use personal power to impose his version of ‘truth’. Similarly, it makes sense for American conservatives to use underhanded tactics to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court who will impose a conservative version of ‘truth’.
Going further, objective science has constructed Teacher theories of physical reality while denigrating fundamentalist belief as irrational and non-rigorous. Fundamentalism views this as a struggle between MMNs of authority in Mercy thought. In this kind of zero-sum competition, attacking liberals is seen as equivalent to supporting truth: ‘Trump repeatedly attacks liberal adversaries. Therefore, he is supporting absolute truth.’
What is missing from this discussion is the concept that one is transformed through the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:1-2), which means placing personal identity within an internal ‘field’ of honesty, righteousness, and integrity. Using theological language, Christians claim that they are following a new covenant with God. This new covenant is described in Hebrews 8:10: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts.” Thus, being a Christian means following an internal ‘field’ of divine law, and this is more basic than imposing an external ‘field’ of conservative jurisprudence. That is because a system of rules and procedures that is backed up by some TMN of institutional memory will not survive if it only functions as a constraint upon core mental networks that are lawless.
Summarizing, it is important cognitively to think in terms of fields. Physics agrees that it is important to think in terms of fields, because the ultimate theory of almost everything is a quantum field theory, which interprets everything in terms of interacting fields. However, it is not easy to think in terms of fields. The concept of a field was first popularized by Faraday in the 19th century, one-and-a-half centuries after Newton came up with his groundbreaking theories. Similarly, cognitive transformation starts by using absolute truth based in MMNs of personal authority to construct a general theory in Teacher thought, leading to Newtonian-like thinking. One then extends this general theory over a period of time by applying it to a wide range of cultural and personal MMNs, similar to all the rethinking that happened after Newton. Only then does it become possible to think in terms of fields by replacing the idea of submitting to absolute truth with the concept of living within a grid—or field—of universal truth. Saying this more simply, the TMN of a general theory provides an emotional alternative to MMNs, while extending this theory makes it possible to place MMNs within this theory.
Electromagnetism
Now that we have looked at mechanical waves, charge, and fields, let us turn our attention to electromagnetic waves.
We will begin by looking at static electricity. In the words of Wikipedia, “The phenomenon of static electricity requires a separation of positive and negative charges. When two materials are in contact, electrons may move from one material to the other, which leaves an excess of positive charge on one material, and an equal negative charge on the other. When the materials are separated they retain this charge imbalance.” For instance, this happens when the air is dry and one shuffles on a carpet. Touching something metal allows this imbalance of charge to equalize, leading to the familiar feeling of an electric shock. Static electricity will set up an electric field, and this field will impose a force that will repel neighboring charges with the same polarity while attracting neighboring charges of opposite polarity.
One can find an obvious cognitive analogy to this by observing what happens when a group of men are separated from women. The brothels that have historically surrounded army bases provide a crude but vivid illustration of ‘static electricity’. Quoting from the Asia-Pacific Journal, “Where there are soldiers, there are women who exist for them. This is practically a cliché. History is filled with examples of women as war booty and ‘camp followers,’ their bodies being used for service labor of various kinds, including sex. Contrary to common assumptions in the West, prostitution is not ‘part of Asian culture.’ Just about every culture under the sun has some version of it during times of war and times of peace.” This practice typically becomes official policy, and it tends to continue even if it is officially banned. Today’s gender politics may convey the impression that homosexual attraction is a major force, but this strident propaganda is not consistent with the facts. The ubiquitous presence of military prostitution demonstrates that when MMNs of social convention are minimized, then the attraction between male and female will become one of the dominant forces. In the words of the BBC article about WWI, “There were no restraints in France; these boys had money to spend and knew that they stood a good chance of being killed within a few weeks anyhow. They did not want to die virgins.” This explains why I am using such a crude example. We are looking for a fundamental cognitive force that emerge when the trappings of social convention are eliminated.
I have suggested that the relationship between men and women is a physical illustration of the deeper relationship between mental networks and technical thought. Western scientific thought is cognitively like an army base with its focus upon ‘male’ technical thought and its suppression of ‘female’ mental networks. Western scientific thought is accompanied by the mental ‘brothels’ of Western entertainment, which provide short-term emotional gratification to mental networks. The primary purpose of a brothel is to provide emotional gratification without long-term commitment. Similarly, the primary purpose of entertainment is to provide emotional gratification without long-term commitment. In both cases, one pays some money in order to have an exciting experience, and then one gets up and walks away and pretends that nothing happened. I am not suggesting that all entertainment is equivalent to attending a brothel. Attending a brothel has deeper cognitive implications because it involves the most ecstatic experiences that the physical body can impose upon the mind. But I am suggesting that a brothel is an extreme example of the same kind of thinking that is involved in most entertainment. I am also not suggesting that it is wrong to have fun. The problem lies with the attitude of escapism—‘walking away and pretending that nothing happened’. Instead, entertainment should in some way be meaningful. North American culture shows what happens when this is not the case, because a century of entertainment has created a throw-away culture of instant gratification that is almost devoid of meaning, in which everything and everyone is enjoyed for a moment and then discarded for the next emotional kick.
The modern world of consumer gadgets illustrates this attraction between technical thought and mental networks from the other direction. That is because consumer gadgets use technical thought to enhance the MMNs of culture and identity. Here too the typical goal is short-term gratification without long-term commitment. The typical consumer who buys a gadget wants a device that will satisfy the emotional needs of existing mental networks without requiring any long-term commitment to technical thought. The ideal consumer object functions in an intuitively obvious manner, it fits seamlessly into social life, using it requires no technical knowledge, and it never breaks down or requires technical support—until it is thrown away when purchasing a newer gadget.
One sees again that there is a natural attraction between mental networks and technical thought, and that this attraction will remain a dominant feature of society even if society places a huge wall between the objective realm of scientific technical thought and the mental networks of subjective identity. As far as I can tell, this division between objective technical thought and subjective mental networks is one of the primary features of Western civilization. I lived in South Korea for several years and discovered that Korean society does not separate between objective and subjective in a Western manner. Instead, the primary South Korean split is between Western and Asian, and this would probably be true of most Asian countries.
This split may be personally and societally destructive, but it is also productive. Electric charge creates potent forces but most of these forces are latent. These mighty forces become revealed when there is a separation of charge. And this separation of charge will create an electric field. Similarly, strong forces of society become unveiled when mental networks become separated from technical thought.
And if one looks more carefully at the Western split between subjective and objective, one notices that it is instinctively violated. On the one hand, areas of subjective thought will naturally develop implicit ‘spouses’ of technical expertise. For instance, I played violin in professional orchestras for a number of years. Music is a form of entertainment which the average person uses to emotionally satisfy mental networks. But if one wants to play as a musician, then one must satisfy exacting standards of professional skill. More precisely, one must become so skilled at playing an instrument that it appears to the audience as if one is being guided purely by mental networks. Similarly, a ballet dancer may look like a pure emotional expression of artistic mental networks, but it takes years of professional training to be able to generate that expression of grace and elegance.
Going the other way, technical fields will naturally develop implicit ‘spouses’ of corporate culture. The Wikipedia article explains that “organizational culture represents the collective values, beliefs and principles of organizational members and is a product of factors such as history, product, market, technology, strategy, type of employees, management style, and national culture; culture includes the organization’s vision, values, norms, systems, symbols, language, assumptions, environment, location, beliefs and habits.” Most, if not all, of these terms describe various aspects of cultural and personal MMNs. But in the same way that technical skill is usually invisible to the outsider who is being entertained, so corporate culture tends to be invisible to the consumer who is purchasing gadgets. Instead, gadgets are often marketed by appealing to mental networks that are quite different than the mental networks of corporate culture.
I know that these last paragraphs are painting with a broad brush, but that is deliberate, because one is dealing here with fundamental forces. The relationship between male and female thought is a fundamental force of human nature. Similarly, electric charge is responsible for one of the four fundamental forces of physics. One of the requirements for semi-rigorous analogical thought is that fundamental characteristics have to be compared with fundamental characteristics: hands must be compared with hands and not with fingers. One must find cognitive analogies for the fundamental forces of nature in the fundamental forces of society. And if these truly are fundamental forces of society, then it will probably be politically and/or religiously incorrect to analyze them in a rational manner. However, if one wants to build a cognitive model, then one must acquire the ability to think rationally in the presence of strong emotions.
Going further, physics textbooks will illustrate the laws of physics using simplistic examples with well-defined forces. Similarly, we are attempting here to illustrate cognitive principles using simplistic examples with well-defined forces&mdashsuch as the interaction between armies and brothels. The interaction that occurs both within the real world and within most actual societies is usually far more complex. Protons, electrons, and neutrons can form complex molecules which can interact in many different ways, as studied by chemistry. But these complex interactions can still be summarized by the simple interactions between elementary particles described by physics. Similarly, people and forms of thought can interact in many complex ways—and postmodern thought often concludes that society and identity are too complex to be analyzed. However, I suggest that this complex interaction can still be analyzed in terms of simple relationships between cognitive modes of thought. The complexity of the physical world does not stop physicists from using simplistic examples to illustrate fundamental principles. Likewise, the complexity of the social world should not prevent one from using simplistic examples to illustrate basic cognitive principles.
Notice that both mental networks and technical thought are required. One is not inherently superior to the other. But they are different, and a powerful force emerges when one is separated from the other. Similarly, protons and electrons are different particles, but they both possess the attribute of electric charge.
A proton has much greater mass than an electron. This explains why electrons orbit (or more technically resonate) around protons in an atom and not vice versa. Similarly, if one takes off the modern glasses of gender politics, one observes that male technical thought ‘orbits around’ female mental networks and not vice versa. Female thought nurtures the mental networks of home, society, and religion, and these mental networks provide a ‘mass’ that gives male technical thought a reason to exist. Going further, if one examines the glasses of gender politics instead of staring through them blindly, one observes that this is also an example of female thought with its mental networks calling the shots.
An electric field emerges when electrons become separated from protons. This is known as static electricity. In most cases this involves outer electrons moving away from the nucleus of the atom with its protons and neutrons. Similarly, what one typically views in a society is male technical thought leaving the home in order to explore or provide needs, while female mental networks ‘keep the home fires burning’.
Moving on to the next point, we have looked at static electricity and electric fields. When electric charges stop being static and start moving, then this movement will create a magnetic field. Saying this more clearly, the existence of a charge will create an electric field. The movement of a charge will create a magnetic field in addition to the electric field that is being created by the existence of that charge. Both an electric field and a magnetic field will create a force that is experienced by charged particles. But the direction of this force will be different. An electric field creates a force that attracts or repels. Saying this another way, this force is along the ‘lines of force’ that ‘connect’ positive charges to negative charges. In contrast, a magnetic field creates a force that pushes a charged particle in a direction that is perpendicular both to its direction of movement and to the direction of the magnetic lines of force. Something similar happens when pushing a spinning gyroscope, because pushing it in one direction will cause it to move in a different direction.
Saying this mathematically, for electric force the equation is F = qE. (The bold letter indicates a vector, which is a number with a direction.) The magnitude of the force is the charge q times the electric field E, while the direction of the force F is in the same direction as the direction of the electric field E. For magnetic force the equation is F = qv x B. The ‘x’ is not a normal multiplication but rather indicates a cross product. When one takes the cross product of two vectors (in this case v and B), the direction of the result (in this case F) will be perpendicular to both of the two vectors. This equation says that the magnetic force will be perpendicular to both v, the velocity of the charged particle, and to B the magnetic field.
So far, everything that I have said is standard physics which one can find in any introductory college physics textbook. That brings us to the cognitive symbolism, which one will not find in a physics textbook. Separating technical thought from mental networks will create a cognitive force that will either lead towards or away from these various entities. For instance, a Contributor person will naturally develop some area of technical expertise. When there is more than one Contributor child in a family, then a younger Contributor sibling will usually develop an area of expertise that is different than the specialization of the older sibling. Looking at this more generally, modern technical thought has splintered into many distinct specializations, each with its own technical terms and its own standards of technical excellence.
One can see the same tendency for like charges to repel in the mental networks of culture and religion. For instance, gender politics began as a focus upon gay rights. But this has now fragmented into an ‘alphabet soup’ of labels. Quoting from the current article in Wikipedia: “The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) has also resulted, although such initialisms are sometimes criticized for being confusing and leaving some people out, as well as issues of placement of the letters within the new title. However, adding the term ‘allies’ to the initialism has sparked controversy, with some seeing the inclusion of ‘ally’ in place of ‘asexual’ as a form of asexual erasure.” Notice how the strong focus upon MMNs of sexual experience has led to a splintering of ‘similar electric charges’. (This leads to an interesting question which I will merely point out without discussing. What is the primary cognitive drive motivating male homosexuality? Is it mainly technical thought or is it mainly mental networks?)
The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinct direction to cognitive ‘charge’. The statement that like charges repel means that they are repelled from one another. They do not just drift apart in semi-random directions. Instead, they have a natural tendency to head away from each other.
Mental networks can be static. One sees this illustrated by traditional societies that have not changed for thousands of years. Technical thought can also be static, as illustrated by the guilds of medieval Europe, in which technical expertise was passed down from one generation to another without being altered. I suggest that a different force, analogous to the force of magnetism, becomes apparent when mental networks and technical thought start to move. As far as I can tell, some form of Teacher understanding is required to enable both societal and technical progress. Having the TMN of some general understanding may be necessary but it is not sufficient. Instead, what is needed is the TMN of a theory that has the power to change MMNs of culture and TMNs of habit, which means developing a theory that does not kowtow to mental networks of cultural preservation and political correctness. The alternative is for progress to become stymied by various protest groups all attempting to preserve some ‘way of life’. (I am not advocating progress at any cost, which happens when one follows Teacher understanding in an objective manner that suppresses MMNs of culture and identity.)
Technical thought and mental networks can also change. When technical thought develops and mental networks grow then I suggest that a new cognitive force emerges analogous to magnetic force. I would like to illustrate this by looking at my personal experience with mental symmetry. The theory of mental symmetry began as a way of statically categorizing people into seven different cognitive styles. But it soon became transformed into a study of how people and societies develop and change. However, I was not just studying how the mind functions, but also following a path of getting my mind to function, a path that involved transforming mental networks and developing new areas of technical thought. As I continued to follow this path, I discovered a new mode of abstract thought. I knew that the Perceiver person has a natural ability to discover facts and use these facts to poke holes in Teacher theories. (Saying this another way, Perceiver facts limit Teacher overgeneralization.) That is because my brother, a Teacher person, was continually coming up with new theories, and I was responding to these theories by using facts to find problems with them. But I thought that I as a Perceiver person was only capable of finding flaws and contradictions in the general theories posed by others. However, I discovered that it was actually possible to use Perceiver thought to construct theories and not just attack the theories of others. This was an incredible personal breakthrough, and I have now spent several decades using Perceiver thought to construct the theory of mental symmetry.
One can find an explanation for this in the diagram of the symmetry. I mentioned earlier when looking at concrete thought that Mercy and Server are not directly connected. Instead, the connections are Mercy → Perceiver → Contributor → Server. (The connection from Mercy to Exhorter to Teacher is in gray, indicating an imprecise connection of imagination and intuition.)
Similarly, Teacher and Perceiver, the two components of abstract thought, are not directly connected. Instead, the connections are Teacher → Server → Contributor → Perceiver. (In concrete thought, Contributor provides connections cause-and-effect; in abstract thought, Contributor determines precise meanings.) Perceiver thought typically functions at the end of this abstract chain, using specific facts to limit the domain of Teacher theories. Using an analogy, if a Teacher theory is like the law of some country, then Perceiver facts play the role of adding or taking away land from this country. If enough land is taken away, then Teacher thought will eventually move on to some other country by coming up with a new theory.
But suppose that Perceiver facts acquire a sense of time and sequence. This will happen if mental networks move, because Perceiver facts will then come from Mercy experiences that are changing over time. It will also happen if technical thought changes, because this will cause Contributor thought to connect Perceiver facts with extended Server sequences. The end result is to move Perceiver thought up from the end of the chain of abstract thought, because some Perceiver facts are now connected with Server sequences, and Server sequences have a direct impact upon Teacher theories.
Applying this to my personal experience, my mental networks were moving because I was following an emotional path of personal transformation which was questioning and rebuilding core mental networks within my mind. And technical thought was also changing within my mind because I was going through a long-term process of developing a model of the mind based in precise definitions. The end result was to supercharge normal thought. I was still using Perceiver thought to build connections between Perceiver facts. But these Perceiver facts now summarized functions, systems, and deep cognitive sequences. For instance, we began this section by comparing male thought with female thought, a topic related to potent MMNs. But we interpreted these MMNs as expressions of cognitive mechanisms, with the underlying assumption that these MMNs are not static but rather have changed in the past and can change in the future. Going further, we are now analyzing thought in a technical manner. But what is being discussed is not just a static picture of how the mind works, but rather a dynamic analysis of how the mind develops.
We have looked at the kind of abstract thinking that emerges when Perceiver facts become connected with Server sequences. I have described this thinking from the viewpoint of a Perceiver person, but I suggest that a similar process would apply to all cognitive styles, as viewed from the perspective of conscious thought. For instance, for the Mercy person, most of this process would be subconscious. But the Mercy person can use conscious coit mainly mental networks?)
The point I am trying to make is that there is a distinct direction to cognitive ‘charge’. The statement that like charges repel means that they are repelled from one another. They do not just drift apart in semi-random directions. Instead, they have a natural tendency to head away from each other.
Mental networks can be static. One sees this illustrated by traditional societies that have not changed for thousands of years. Technical thought can also be static, as illustrated by the guilds of medieval Europe, in which technical expertise was passed down from one generation to another without being altered. I suggest that a different force, analogous to the force of magnetism, becomes apparent when mental networks and technical thought start to move. As far as I can tell, some form of Teacher understanding is required to enable both societal and technical progress. Having the TMN of some general understanding may be necessary but it is not sufficient. Instead, what is needed is the TMN of a theory that has the power to change MMNs of culture and TMNs of habit, which means developing a theory that does not kowtow to mental networks of cultural preservation and political correctness. The alternative is for progress to become stymied by various protest groups all attempting to preserve some ‘way of life’. (I am not advocating progress at any cost, which happens when one follows Teacher understanding in an objective manner that suppresses MMNs of culture and identity.)
Technical thought and mental networks can also change. When technical thought develops and mental networks grow then I suggest that a new cognitive force emerges analogous to magnetic force. I would like to illustrate this by looking at my personal experience with mental symmetry. The theory of mental symmetry began as a way of statically categorizing people into seven different cognitive styles. But it soon became transformed into a study of how people and societies develop and change. However, I was not just studying how the mind functions, but also following a path of getting my mind to function, a path that involved transforming mental networks and developing new areas of technical thought. As I continued to follow this path, I discovered a new mode of abstract thought. I knew that the Perceiver person has a natural ability to discover facts and use these facts to poke holes in Teacher theories. (Saying this another way, Perceiver facts limit Teacher overgeneralization.) That is because my brother, a Teacher person, was continually coming up with new theories, and I was responding to these theories by using facts to find problems with them. But I thought that I as a Perceiver person was only capable of finding flaws and contradictions in the general theories posed by others. However, I discovered that it was actually possible to use Perceiver thought to construct theories and not just attack the theories of others. This was an incredible personal breakthrough, and I have now spent several decades using Perceiver thought to construct the theory of mental symmetry.
One can find an explanation for this in the diagram of the symmetry. I mentioned earlier when looking at concrete thought that Mercy and Server are not directly connected. Instead, the connections are Mercy → Perceiver → Contributor → Server. (The connection from Mercy to Exhorter to Teacher is in gray, indicating an imprecise connection of imagination and intuition.)
Similarly, Teacher and Perceiver, the two components of abstract thought, are not directly connected. Instead, the connections are Teacher → Server → Contributor → Perceiver. (In concrete thought, Contributor provides connections cause-and-effect; in abstract thought, Contributor determines precise meanings.) Perceiver thought typically functions at the end of this abstract chain, using specific facts to limit the domain of Teacher theories. Using an analogy, if a Teacher theory is like the law of some country, then Perceiver facts play the role of adding or taking away land from this country. If enough land is taken away, then Teacher thought will eventually move on to some other country by coming up with a new theory.
But suppose that Perceiver facts acquire a sense of time and sequence. This will happen if mental networks move, because Perceiver facts will then come from Mercy experiences that are changing over time. It will also happen if technical thought changes, because this will cause Contributor thought to connect Perceiver facts with extended Server sequences. The end result is to move Perceiver thought up from the end of the chain of abstract thought, because some Perceiver facts are now connected with Server sequences, and Server sequences have a direct impact upon Teacher theories.
Applying this to my personal experience, my mental networks were moving because I was following an emotional path of personal transformation which was questioning and rebuilding core mental networks within my mind. And technical thought was also changing within my mind because I was going through a long-term process of developing a model of the mind based in precise definitions. The end result was to supercharge normal thought. I was still using Perceiver thought to build connections between Perceiver facts. But these Perceiver facts now summarized functions, systems, and deep cognitive sequences. For instance, we began this section by comparing male thought with female thought, a topic related to potent MMNs. But we interpreted these MMNs as expressions of cognitive mechanisms, with the underlying assumption that these MMNs are not static but rather have changed in the past and can change in the future. Going further, we are now analyzing thought in a technical manner. But what is being discussed is not just a static picture of how the mind works, but rather a dynamic analysis of how the mind develops.
We have looked at the kind of abstract thinking that emerges when Perceiver facts become connected with Server sequences. I have described this thinking from the viewpoint of a Perceiver person, but I suggest that a similar process would apply to all cognitive styles, as viewed from the perspective of conscious thought. For instance, for the Mercy person, most of this process would be subconscious. But the Mercy person can use conscious control to decide whether to hold on to existing MMNs or allow them to change. Clinging to positive MMNs leads to an attitude of cultural preservation, while clinging to painful MMNs will create an attitude of bitterness. Either of these will limit the development of abstract thought.
Let us turn now to the direction of abstract thought. I also learned about this through interacting with my brother. I already mentioned that he would abandon a theory and come up with a new theory if I found enough Perceiver facts that contradicted his existing theory. But this new theory would not emerge in some random area. Instead, I consistently found that the new theory would appear in some area where my knowledge of Perceiver facts was weakest. This makes sense from a cognitive perspective. If Teacher thought functions emotionally, if positive Teacher emotion comes from generality, and if Perceiver facts limit the generality of theories, then one can find the greatest Teacher emotion by moving away from Perceiver facts. Saying this more simply, Teacher thought likes to make sweeping statements, and it is easiest to make sweeping statements in the absence of facts. Saying this even more succinctly, there is a mental force from the known to the unknown. This expresses itself as curiosity and exploration.
That brings to mind the direction of magnetic force, because it will always push in a direction that is different than both the direction in which the charged particle is moving and the direction of the magnetic field. Saying this another way, magnetic force will push in a ‘novel’ direction.
And that leads us to the next question of attempting to determine precisely what a magnetic field symbolizes. As before, I will attempt to keep this discussion on solid ground by focusing upon what I know from personal experience to be true. And by personal experience, I do not mean that I have had a few emotional or ecstatic experiences that have overwhelmed Perceiver thought into ‘knowing’ what is ‘true’. Instead, I mean that my mind used to function consistently in one manner, it went through a transition, and it now consistently functions in another manner. And I find that others who study the mind have made similar observations.
The Perceiver person tends to be a black-and-white thinker, dividing facts into the digital categories of ‘truth’ and ‘error’. If one ‘googles’ ‘Perceiver person’ or ‘spiritual gift of prophecy’, then one will find that most people describe the Perceiver person as a judgmental black-and-white thinker who pronounces truth and denounces error. I used to be that way, but I have learned to work with uncertain information. One can see this in the theory of mental symmetry, which examines partially certain facts for underlying patterns. (With technical thought, much of the rigor comes from working only with facts that are known—beyond reasonable doubt—to be true. With normal thought, the rigor comes from finding the same pattern repeated in different contexts.)
The Facilitator person is not a black-and-white thinker, but rather thinks naturally in terms of grays, balancing one opinion with the other in order to find a consensus. As far as I can tell, Perceiver thought and Facilitator thought cooperate within the mind to generate a sense of reasonableness about facts. Reasonableness judges new information by how similar it is to existing information that is known with certainty. For instance, 100 years ago almost every man in Western society wore a hat. Therefore, going out without a hat would have been considered totally unreasonable. Obviously, this is no longer the case. Perceiver thought sets the standard for reasonableness by deciding which facts are solid. Facilitator thought then determines the reasonableness of some piece of information by deciding how close it comes to the standard set by Perceiver thought.
A similar interaction occurs between Server thought and Facilitator thought. Server thought sets the standard for reasonableness about sequences by deciding how things are done or how things behave. Facilitator thought then determines the reasonableness of some sequence by deciding how closely it adheres to the standard of behavior. The two sides to this interaction can be seen in the typical behavior of the Server person and the Facilitator person. On the one hand, the Server person has a strong tendency to continue doing things the way that they have always been done. In the same way that the Perceiver person tends to be a black-and-white thinker, so the Server person tends to be a black-and-white doer, making sharp judgments between ‘how things are done’ and ‘how things are not done’. The Facilitator person, in contrast, loves to experiment, and is constantly adjusting how things are done. But this Facilitator adjusting occurs within a context of Server stability, because the Facilitator person may adjust ‘how things are done’ but will seldom make any fundamental changes to the underlying procedures. When the Facilitator person is in charge of an organization, then there will usually be endless change but little transformation. Thus, the Facilitator person is most effective as the number two person in an organization, facilitating the decisions that are made by the number one person, who is often a Contributor person.
Using the language of fields, one could say that Facilitator thought places facts and sequences within a field of reasonableness. A field of reasonableness consists of ‘circles of reasonableness’ surrounding some core of certainty. These ‘circles’ are not perfectly round but are more like contour lines on a map—or like the loops of a magnetic field. In other words, the cognitive analogy to a magnetic field appears to be reasonableness.
A magnetic field emerges when an electric charge moves. I have suggested based in personal experience why Facilitator reasonableness requires movement of thought. There is also a simple cognitive reason. Using an analogy, reasonableness is like a blurry picture, and a blurry picture will result if the image is moving relative to the camera. If everyone always does the same thing or believes the same thing, then this leads naturally to black-and-white thinking, because the choice is between adhering to the pattern or doing something different. But if there is a variety of beliefs or a variety of actions, if the mental networks and technical specializations of society are moving relative to the ‘camera’ of Facilitator thought, then there will be a blurry picture, and one will have to use reasonableness to decide which aspects of this blurry image are more reasonable and which are less. Saying this more simply, Facilitator thought becomes dominant in a society when there is a plurality of viewpoints, because Facilitator reasonableness is then required to blend these various perspectives.
Statistics uses mathematics to calculate reasonableness. For instance, a normal distribution is defined by μ, the mean, and σ, the standard deviation. Using cognitive language, σ describes a ‘circle of reasonableness’ around some standard μ. Statistics allow Facilitator thought to generate a ‘field’ of reasonableness without having to appeal directly to Perceiver or Server thought. That is because the mean can be calculated from the data itself, and the use of mathematics provides the appearance of certainty. But numbers that are generated by statistical analysis will be heavily influenced by underlying assumptions. In fact, one of the best-selling statistic books in history is entitled How to Lie with Statistics, a conclusion backed up by the famous phrase “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”. Looking at this cognitively, Facilitator thought generates a field of reasonableness based upon standards that are set by Perceiver and Server thought. Statistical analysis may give the impression that Facilitator thought can calculate reasonableness without requiring assistance from either Perceiver or Server thought. But the way that the statistics are being formulated and calculated will be heavily influenced by the implicit assumptions that are present in Perceiver and Server thought. And these implicit assumptions make it possible to lie with statistics.
Returning now to physics, the equation of magnetic force is F = qv x B. In English, the direction of the force is perpendicular to both the velocity of the particle and to the direction of the magnetic loops. The cognitive analog would be a motivational force that is both perpendicular to ‘what is being done’ and perpendicular to ‘lines of reasonableness’. The end result is a force for novelty. This may seem like a rather complicated way to generate a force. After all, why not simply head in the direction of what is new? But ‘new’ is not a direction. There is nothing there to aim at. If there were something there, then it would not be new. Instead, if one wishes to determine what is new, then one must gain a sense of what is most certain and what is less certain, which means constructing a mental field of reasonableness. One can then define novelty as heading in a direction that is perpendicular to a ‘circle of reasonableness’.
We looked earlier at electric charge, and related the electric charge of a proton to mental networks and the electric charge of an electron to technical thought. Either of these charges will create an electric field. Cognitively speaking, both mental networks and technical thought are driven by a force generated by Exhorter thought. Thus, in the same way that Facilitator thought generates a cognitive field that is analogous to a magnetic field, so it appears that Exhorter thought generates a cognitive field that is analogous to an electric field. Looking at this in more detail, one can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that Exhorter connects Teacher and Mercy and leads to Contributor. Exhorter thought can generate mental energy by focusing directly upon mental networks and other emotional experiences in Teacher or Mercy thought. This describes the sort of Exhorter ‘field’ that is generated by a ‘positive charge’ of mental networks. But Exhorter thought also generates mental energy for technical thought by pushing technical thinking in the direction of improving some bottom line or general theory. This describes the sort of Exhorter field that is generated by a ‘negative charge’ of technical thought.
The point is that Exhorter thought provides excitement and motivation both for mental networks and for technical thought. In both cases, an Exhorter field is being generated. Mental networks are finding excitement in the intensity of this field, while technical thought is being guided emotionally by the contours of this field.
Summarizing, Exhorter thought generates a ‘field’ of drive versus boredom. Drive is not the same as emotion. As the neurologist Berridge has pointed out, ‘wanting’ is different than ‘liking’. First, Exhorter drive is attracted to extreme emotions whether they are positive or negative. Both pleasure and pain are exciting. Second, Exhorter thought finds repetition boring. Anything that is repeated will be less exciting the second time around, and will become boring if repeated enough times. The excitement will only return if something else is pursued for a while. This is known in psychology as habituation. Facilitator thought generates a ‘field’ of new versus familiar. Anything that is regarded as too new will tend to be censored as extreme. This type of censorship is known in statistics as eliminating statistical outliers.
Exhorter and Facilitator thought are actually both capable of driving the mind. This can be seen vividly in Oliver Sack’s descriptions of Parkinsonian patients: “In one famous case, a drowning man was saved by a Parkinsonian patients who leapt from his wheelchair into the breakers… Another patient at Mount Carmel Hospital would sit completely motionless unless she was suddenly thrown three (or more) oranges. ‘Instantly she starts juggling them – she can juggle up to seven, in a manner incredible to see – and can continue doing so for half an hour on end, But if she drops one, or is interrupted for a moment, she suddenly becomes motionless again.’” Putting this together, dopamine is the brain chemical of wanting. Dopamine is related to Exhorter thought. The brain of a Parkinsonian patient can no longer produce enough dopamine. Facilitator thought appears to be related to Noradrenaline. Exhorter thought, based in emotions, normally provides the motivation for the mind. But when there is a physical crisis, then noradrenaline will take over and Facilitator thought will control the mind. For instance, both of Oliver Sack’s patients temporarily regained the ability to move when faced with a physical crisis. Similarly, the Facilitator person becomes muddled when faced with an emotional crisis but achieves mental clarity in a physical crisis. In contrast, the typical Exhorter person shines in an emotional crisis while lacking physical coordination in a physical crisis.
The tension between Exhorter excitement and Facilitator reasonableness can also be seen in ‘the minimal counterintuitiveness effect’, a fundamental concept of the Cognitive Science of Religion. This principle suggests that ideas are most memorable if they violate reasonableness in minimal ways. For instance, a unicorn is memorable because it violates the concept of a horse in the single way of adding a horn. Saying this cognitively, if a concept is totally reasonable, then Exhorter thought will eventually find it boring. But if the concept is too unreasonable, then Facilitator thought will eliminate it as an outlier.
While both Exhorter thought and Facilitator thought can guide the mind, Exhorter thought is more fundamental than Facilitator thought. Cognitively speaking, Exhorter thought works with mental networks, which provide the core of thought. Facilitator thought, in contrast, observes—and adjusts—the various modules of thought from the outside. The Facilitator person finds it very difficult to alter the mental networks with which Exhorter thought works. Looking at this neurologically, Facilitator thought appears to be carried out by the thalamus of the brain, which observes and balances the various regions of the cortex and the basal ganglia. A similar imbalance can be seen in electromagnetics, because isolated electric charges exist, while there is no such thing as an isolated magnetic pole, or monopole. Instead, it is the movement of electric charge that creates a magnetic field. (I am not sure how magnetic spin fits into this picture. I looked on the web for an answer, but encountered theoretical physicists arguing with one another.)
We have now looked at Exhorter thought from two different perspectives. I have suggested that a mental network can generate mental work for a period of time, and I have also suggested that separating technical thought from mental networks will create a field within Exhorter thought. As far as I can tell, these are distinct effects. Using up some mental network to provide energy is probably analogous to burning a fossil fuel. This used to be the primary way of generating energy, both physically and cognitively. Physically speaking, people burned wood, peat, and coal for energy. Cognitively speaking, most of the energy for a society came from mental networks provided by powerful political and religious leaders. But around the time of industrialization, a new form of energy started to be used. In the physical realm, electricity was discovered. Electrical networks now provide power throughout the world, and every household in the Western world has access to electrical power. In the cognitive realm, this is when a separation emerged between the technical thinking of the factory and the mental networks of home. This split between objective technical thought and subjective mental networks has become the defining characteristic of Western civilization, and every home in the Western world is now filled with entertaining and laborsaving technical gadgets.
Electromagnetic Waves
When we looked at mechanical waves, we saw that two different methods of storing energy are required: potential energy and kinetic energy. Similarly, the interaction between an electric field and a magnetic field makes electromagnetic waves possible. Describing the physics in more detail, we have already mentioned that an electrically charged particle that is moving will create a magnetic field. Going further, a changing magnetic field will induce an electrical potential difference. Lenz’s law says that “The direction of the current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes the initial changing magnetic field. Or as informally, yet concisely summarised by D.J. Griffiths: Nature abhors a change in flux.” For those who are unfamiliar with electromagnetism, ‘current’ is a way of measuring the movement of electric charge, while ‘flux’ describes the intensity of a magnetic field. Saying this more simply, if a magnetic field changes, then this will push electric charges in a direction that minimizes the change in the magnetic field.
Lenz’s law has an analog in Facilitator thought, which can be stated informally as ‘Facilitator thought naturally defends the status quo’, or more formally as ‘Facilitator thought will attempt to maintain existing definitions of reasonableness’. The way that this is done can also be seen in Facilitator thought. The cognitive analog of an electric field is the tension between mental networks and technical thought. Thus, Facilitator thought will attempt to maintain existing standards of reasonableness by adjusting the balance between mental networks and technical thought. My brother noticed this tendency several decades ago when analyzing the biographies of Facilitator persons. If society is too structured, then Facilitator persons will call for freedom. But if society becomes too emotional, then the Facilitator person will call for structure. That is because the Facilitator person wants emotion-within-structure, a balance between mental networks and technical thought. But the Facilitator person’s concept of what constitutes too much structure or too much emotion will be determined by existing standards of reasonableness. For instance, what a German Facilitator person would consider to be too emotional would probably be regarded as too structured by the typical Brazilian Facilitator person.
Looking now at waves more generally, I suggested that mechanical waves are an expression of concrete thought, because mechanical waves involve the movement of mass, and mass represents concrete ‘substance’ in Mercy thought. By the same token, electromagnetic waves would relate to abstract thought. That is because an electromagnetic wave can move through a vacuum and does not require any physical substance. In addition, an electromagnetic wave is primarily a wave. (It can also be interpreted as the movement of photons, but photons are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light.)
Speed of Light in a Vacuum
Now that we have looked more carefully at the cognitive symbolism of electromagnetic radiation, we can return to the theory of special relativity with more confidence. Einstein said that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. This must be a significant statement, because the entire fabric of the physical universe deforms to ensure that this remains true. Therefore, the cognitive analog must also be fundamental. My initial chain of reasoning was along the lines of: Light represents Teacher thought. A concept of God forms within Teacher thought. If the speed of light is the same for everyone, then this means that we ultimately all have the same concept of God in Teacher thought. Unfortunately, this is not true. Instead, people have vastly different concepts of God within Teacher and/or Mercy thought. One can see that this is the case by asking people to describe their concepts of God. In addition, this chain of reasoning is actually a version of Newtonian thinking, because one is viewing God as ‘the large ball of light in the sky that shines on everyone’. However, Einstein’s statement is more individualistic, because everyone is not staring at the same source of light, but rather noticing in their own frame of reference that the speed of light—any light—is a constant.
I think that the key to deciphering this statement lies in comparing the nature of Mercy-based morality with Teacher-based morality. Societal norms are ultimately based in MMNs of personal status, as is absolute truth. Mercy thought views the sources of truth as far more important than personal identity. This emotional importance then overwhelms Perceiver thought into knowing that the pronouncements of these sources define ‘truth’. For instance, ‘If it is in the textbook then it must be true, because the textbook was written by an important person’. Similarly, ‘the Constitution must be followed, because the Constitution was written by the founding fathers who were important people’. Or, ‘my holy book must be true, because it was written by God who is the Ultimate Important Person’.
But what happens if I gain personal status, if I get a PhD and write a textbook, if I become elected to political office and become a source of national law, or if I become an esteemed religious leader and people look to me to interpret the word of God? Perceiver thought in my mind will become un-mesmerized, because I will no longer view the source of truth as significantly more important than me. I have now joined the club; I have become one of the inner circle; others now fear me. The end result is a strong tendency to become lawless. And from there it is a short step to becoming a cynical manipulator of public opinion for personal gain. In the words of a famous quote, probably from Gibbons, but attributed to Seneca: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” This is a huge problem, and a fundamental shortcoming of any moral system that is ultimately based in MMNs of personal status. Stated simply, those who make the law will naturally think that the law does not apply to them. Instead, they will naturally use law as a method of protecting and furthering their personal status.
A similar situation exists with physical gravity, the analog to the attraction of MMNs. The force of gravity that one feels from the earth is greatest when one is standing on the surface of the earth. If it were possible to dig a hole to the center of the earth, then the force of gravity would get weaker as one continued to descend this hole. That is because some of the mass of the Earth would be above one’s head, and the upward pull of this mass would cancel some of the downward pull. At the center of the earth, one would feel weightless, because all the forces of gravity would cancel each other out. Similarly, MMNs of society and religion have the greatest pull when one is on the outside near the source, and this pull becomes less as one enters into the inner sanctum. In actual fact, it is not possible to climb down to the center of the earth, because other factors come into play, such as pressure and heat. For instance, in a deep mine, the greatest danger is a rock burst, in which the rock explodes due to the extreme pressure. Rock bursts kill about 20 miners a year in South Africa. Similarly, those who occupy the inner sanctums of power often fear they will get caught in outbursts of societal instability.
This problem can be eliminated by basing morality in the TMN of an understanding of righteousness. It is possible to use words to construct a rational theory in Teacher thought. A verbal theory will affect thinking in abstract thought but it will not necessarily affect behavior in concrete thought. It will lead to understanding but not necessarily to righteousness. Righteousness is action in Server thought that is guided by the TMN of a general understanding. Righteousness becomes possible when abstract technical thought becomes connected with concrete technical thought, because abstract technical thought assigns precise definitions to words, while concrete technical thought looks at the cause-and-effect of actions. Science is righteous in the objective realm because it combines the abstract technical thought of the words of mathematics with the concrete technical thought of experimental action.
Turning now to the symbolism, light represents pure Teacher thought, because it is a massless wave. But what is constant is not the presence of light but rather the speed of light. The light is moving, implying that Teacher thought is being combined with Server action. Teacher thought comes up with general theories by looking for a simple statement that can summarize the essence of many similar situations. For instance, all squares can be described by the statement ‘four equal sides with equal angles’. The general principle is that no matter how righteously one acts, Teacher thought will always come up with a theoretical summary of this action that is more elegant and more ideal. This may sound depressing, but it also means that one never becomes free of the rule of law. One never turns into a lawless lawmaker. Special relativity says that any object with mass can only approach the speed of light. Similarly, whenever one descends from the ‘massless’ realm of Teacher abstraction in order to behave within the concrete realm of Mercy ‘mass’, then this practical action will always fall short of the elegance and beauty of ‘massless’ perfection.
Going further, no matter how fast one travels, special relativity says that one still perceives light traveling at the speed of light. Similarly, Teacher thought with its ideal concepts of elegant perfection will continue to function independently of personal behavior no matter how close this personal behavior comes to the universal standard. This is incredibly important, because it makes it possible to escape Lord Acton’s seemingly universal observation that ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.’
A Teacher standard of righteousness also eliminates the hero worship upon which absolute truth is based, because every observer will also view every other movement as being slower than the speed of light. Saying this cognitively, every source of truth will be seen as falling short of the abstract perfection of righteousness.
Finally, light only travels in a vacuum at the speed of light. Whenever light enters some physical medium, then it slows down. The analogy is that abstract Teacher thought itself becomes less than ideal when one descends from pure abstract thought to thinking about real situations. Philosophers and theologians may talk in abstract language about the perfection of God, but these concepts themselves become incomplete when one adds real details to these generalities.
I suggest this also provides a way of viewing evil. One of the primary questions in religion is reconciling the concept of a perfect God with the imperfections of reality and society, and some argue that the existence of evil proves the nonexistence of God. In essence, I suggest that God is perfect, but when God has to work with fallible humans living in flawed societies, then God is forced to use methods that are less than perfect. In other words, God is a perfect builder who is working with imperfect tools. This does not mean that the building will not be constructed. As a perfect builder, God can guarantee that the building will eventually be completed. But the tools are still imperfect. This places the onus upon humanity, because humans can make the process of constructing the building less painful by becoming less imperfect tools. Stated bluntly, if humans stopped exploiting, enslaving, and killing other humans, then God could execute a plan of history that involved less exploiting, enslaving, and killing.
The apostle Paul describes this combination of concepts in 1 Timothy 6. Verses 9-10 describe the corruptive effects of pursuing wealth and how this leads to a questioning of faith and morality: “But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Verse 11 describes the alternative of following a God of righteousness: “But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.” Verses 15-16 then talk about God carrying out a cosmic plan, and describe God as ‘living within unapproachable light’ which a Mercy-based human perspective is incapable of grasping: “which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” Verse 16 continues with the instruction to view God from the concept of universal Teacher thought that acts: “To him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” (The word translated dominion means ‘to perfect, complete… properly, dominion, exerted power’.) And verses 17-18 say that rich people should not regard themselves as important in Mercy thought, but rather recognize God as the source in Teacher thought and add Server actions of righteousness to their concept of God: “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.”
E = hf
Even though Einstein is most famous for his theories of special and general relativity, he actually received his Nobel Prize for explaining what is known as the photoelectric effect. This was groundbreaking because Einstein was the first to propose that light travels in particle-like chunks known as photons. Suppose that light is shone on some material. The energy from this light will cause electrons (or other free carriers) to be ejected from the material, similar to the way that throwing rocks at a wall will cause fragments of material to be ejected from the wall.
But the way in which electrons are ejected is counterintuitive. If the frequency of the light is below some threshold, then no electrons will be released, no matter how bright the light. (For visible light, the eye detects frequency as color. Infra-red light has a lower frequency than red which is the lowest frequency of visible light, while ultra-violet light has a higher frequency than violet which is the highest frequency of visible light.) Instead, electrons will only be emitted if the impinging light is above the threshold frequency, and changing the intensity of light will then determine the rate at which electrons are emitted. Planck had proposed that energy is related to frequency by the simple proportion E = hf, with E being energy, h being Planck’s constant, and f being frequency. Einstein took this idea further and suggested that the energy in each photon of light is proportional to its frequency. Thus, a photon of light will only dislodge an electron if this photon has sufficient energy, which means having a high enough frequency, because energy is related to frequency.
Turning now to the cognitive analog, I have suggested that abstract thought involves an oscillation between an Exhorter ‘field’ of motivation and a Facilitator ‘field’ of reasonableness. The ‘frequency’ of some idea would be related to the rapidity with which the idea moves between these two fields. This ‘frequency’ would also determine the ‘energy’ of a concept. The cognitive analog to the photoelectric effect would be that an abstract concept can only produce a change if that concept has sufficient energy.
This probably sounds like meaningless jargon, so let us try to tie it down with some examples. Suppose that I come up with some new idea using either intuition or technical thought. The resulting emotions will create an Exhorter ‘field’ of motivation, which will probably motivate me to try to share this idea with other people. But both raw intuition and logical structures are rather poor at convincing people. The Internet is full of intuitive leaps that the average person ignores, as well as conspiracy theories constructed using technical thought that convince no one. And people will still remain unconvinced even if the ‘intensity’ of the message is increased by shouting or using stronger words.
If one wishes to convince others, then one must alternate between Exhorter motivation and Facilitator reasonableness. One must come up with a motivating concept and then immediately check this concept for reasonableness. The faster one can oscillate between developing ideas and checking them for reasonableness, the more convincing they become. Eventually a threshold will be crossed where the idea begins to become accepted.
For instance, notice that I just did such an oscillation in the previous three paragraphs. I first came up with a strange idea about ‘cognitive frequency’ using intuition guided by the analogies of normal thought. I then followed this immediately by attempting to show from common knowledge that this was a reasonable leap of intuition.
Looking at this more generally, this entire essay can be described as an oscillation between an Exhorter ‘field’ and a Facilitator ‘field’. Some of the sections are emotionally intense, guided by the strong emotions of theoretical TMNs, or cultural and personal MMNs. These emotional sections are interspersed by other sections that attempt to demonstrate reasonableness by describing well-known principles of physics and quoting from reasonable sources.
Examining this personally, I mentioned earlier that it felt as if two different forces were struggling within my mind as I was writing this essay. On the one hand I was being strongly motivated to build a theoretical bridge between the theory of mental symmetry and the theories of physics. But on the other hand, there was an equally strong force that was trying to prevent me from spewing unreasonable garbage that did not make sense. These interacting mental ‘fields’ must have generated significant mental energy because I found that writing this essay dislodged a number of structures within my mind.
Notice that this principle applies to both mental networks and technical thought. The ‘minimally counterintuitive effect’ described earlier is one example of the interaction between an Exhorter ‘field’ created by magical or religious elements and the Facilitator ‘field’ created by common sense. It is exciting to think about mythical creatures and heavenly realms, but such concepts will only be convincing if they violate Facilitator reasonableness in limited ways. Thus, for instance, a giant is memorable, because it is like a normal human in every way except for height. Similarly, the theory of evolution is memorable, because is like the normal mechanism of adaptation, except in the dimension of time. One simply has to imagine normal adaptation functioning over millions of years.
But the technical thinking of modern physics is now facing a similar struggle. The laws of Newton may make sense, but the predictions of quantum mechanics do not make sense. Instead, quantum mechanics continually comes up with predictions and findings that are not reasonable. The end result is a disconnect between science and normal society. One of the reasons that modern society is becoming post-scientific is because physicists spend much of their time investigating particles and properties that are never encountered in real life. The average person can demonstrate Newton’s law of gravity by letting go of an object and allowing it to fall to the ground. But how can the average person make sense of a quark? What the average person will remember is that quarks come in three colors and that they were named after a quote in a book by James Joyce, because those facts are reasonable.
In a similar vein, it is utterly unreasonable to propose the idea of a multi-verse, in which every supposed wave-function collapse actually splits the universe. But it is reasonable to interpret the multi-verse to mean that historical and personal time-lines split when critical decisions are made, because that is part of normal life. For instance, ‘What would have happened if I had married Joan instead of Jill?’ Or, ‘What if Germany had invaded Russia earlier in 1941, instead of delaying to help Italy conquer Greece?’ However, that is not an accurate interpretation of the multi-verse, but rather an extremely limited version of the multi-verse that fits within the reasonableness of human behavior.
Facilitator reasonableness depends upon the context. Saying this more technically, Facilitator thought determines what is reasonable based upon Perceiver facts and Server sequences that are acquired primarily by observing the environment. For instance, when a physicist ‘interprets’ quantum mechanics by saying ‘shut up and calculate’, then this may work for the physicist, because solving mathematical equations within an academic environment for years will create a sense of reasonableness. Thus, what the physicist is really saying is ‘shut up and calculate’—according to the sense of reasonableness that was acquired from working within the profession of being a physicist. (We will look later at the relationship between the equations of theoretical physics and the profession of being a physicist.)
Similarly, the conspiracy theorist who interacts on the Internet with fellow conspiracy theorists will think that his strange theories are reasonable, because his mind is immersed in a context of conspiracy theories. Likewise, the religious fundamentalist who continually quotes from a holy book will also think that his ideas are reasonable if most of his social interaction is limited to individuals who hold the same beliefs.
Compare this with Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Computers. He was a genius at integrating these two mental ‘fields’. Instead of suppressing common sense by saying ‘shut up and calculate’, he created electronic devices that functioned in a manner that was consistent with normal common sense. And instead of following esoteric Teacher emotions of mathematical and technical elegance, he created devices that appealed to a normal human sense of beauty and elegance. This combination can be seen in the 1984 Apple Macintosh computer, a powerful personal computer within an elegant package that could be manipulated using the common metaphor of objects and folders on a desktop. Under Steve Jobs, Apple Computer turned into a company with a message that communicated to the average person. Compare this with the current Apple. For instance, in 2016 Apple removed the ubiquitous headphone jack from their phones and declared that this ‘took courage’. But the headphone jack defines reasonableness in the audio realm; if I want to listen to some sound, I plug a set of headphones or speakers into the headphone jack. The end result of such ‘courage’ is that dongles (adaptors on short cables) have become Apple Computer’s top-selling products. But adding a dongle to an elegant Apple device is like wearing a tuxedo and then putting on a set of flip-flops.
One final point. It is important to use the right kind of reasonableness. For instance, Steve Jobs packaged devices guided by what the average consumer would find reasonable, and he was very successful at selling devices. But when Steve Jobs got cancer, he treated his cancer using a similar kind of reasonableness. Instead of following the reasonableness of medical practice, he followed the reasonableness of naturopathy and Buddhism. One could say that he approached his cancer the same way that he approached selling gadgets, because in both cases he rejected technical standards of reasonableness. But cancer follows natural law, while marketing appeals to common sense in the average non-technical person. One cannot ‘market’ cancer away; one cannot eliminate cancer through some form of personal ‘reality distortion field’.
I have struggled over the decades with this question of appropriate reasonableness. Many of the principles that are taught by mental symmetry would be useful to know within a corporate setting, but that would mean packaging the theory of mental symmetry in a manner that a corporate culture would find reasonable. But how can one do this when mental symmetry leads to the conclusion that the modern consumer society suffers from fatal flaws? Similarly, mental symmetry could also have been packaged in a manner that a fundamentalist Christian audience would have found reasonable, because the initial list of seven cognitive styles came from the 12th chapter of the biblical book of Romans—and that is how these seven cognitive styles are typically taught. But how can one do this when mental symmetry leads to the conclusion that the mindset of fundamentalism suffers from fatal flaws?
I have come to the conclusion that the theory of mental symmetry must ultimately be guided by the reasonableness of how the mind functions. Saying this another way, modern society suffers from a cancer of the mind, and survival depends upon treating this cancer and not being misguided by the reasonableness of some social, religious, or academic group.
Saying this another way, Facilitator reasonableness is not a fundamental quality, but rather depends upon Perceiver facts and Server sequences. Similarly, Exhorter motivation is also not a fundamental quality, but rather depends largely upon mental networks (including the implicit mental networks that are provided by the paradigms and bottom lines of technical thought).
Math and Relativity
Einstein came up with two theories of relativity: special relativity and general relativity. It is interesting to compare these two from a cognitive viewpoint. Both of these theories are based upon simple premises. As was mentioned previously, special relativity postulates that 1) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for every observer, and 2) The laws of physics are identical within any an inertial system (an inertial system means moving at a constant velocity). General relativity is basically Newtonian gravity translated into the idea of a gravitational field. Stated in simple terms, objects create a gravitational field by warping space and time around them, and this curved space-time guides the path of objects. Space-time affects objects; objects affect space-time. (More technically, space-time is warped by energy and momentum.)
One would think that the theory of a gravitational field would fit easily within the mathematics of physics. After all, we have just seen that quantum field theory describes everything in terms of fields. That is not the case. Instead, general relativity is the one aspect of physics that is not included in the Standard Model of the universe. In fact, the primary motivation for string theory is to come up with a theory of everything that can combine quantum theory with the force of gravity.
And the mathematics of general relativity are nasty and inelegant. At first glance, the mathematical equation that summarizes Einstein’s theory of general relativity looks fairly harmless and simple:
Rμν - ½Rgμν + Λgμν = 8πG/c4 · Tμν
But in this case, looks are deceiving. The capital letters are all 4x4 tensors. A tensor is a more complicated version of a matrix. Thus, this one equation is actually 10 equations. Digging deeper, the first term Rμν is called the Ricci curvature tensor, while Tμν is the stress-energy tensor. Calculating these terms means solving a number of differential equations. But one cannot use the normal derivative that was discussed earlier. Instead one has to calculate the covariant derivative, which is a derivative with a correction factor. This correction factor is called a Christoffel symbol and has to be included because one is attempting to perform calculus within a warped space-time grid.
We saw earlier that calculus zooms in on the details in order to regard the curves of real life as a sequence of short, straight-line segments. But calculus still places its curves upon a grid that is assumed to be square and true, which is like drawing a curved line on graph paper. General relativity says that the graph paper itself is warped, which means that the rules of normal calculus no longer apply. Instead one has to add Christoffel symbols in order to adjust for the curvature of the grid on which one is doing the calculus. Using an analogy, normal calculus is like placing curved pieces of furniture on a flat floor. Using calculus with general relativity is like trying to place these curved pieces of furniture on a floor that is not straight and level. The Christoffel symbols are the mathematical ‘shims’ that have to be placed under all the ‘furniture’ in order to adjust for the uneven floor of space-time.
Going further, electromagnetism can be summarized by Maxwell’s four equations. These equations are short and use normal derivatives with simple vectors (a vector is simply a number with a direction). Maxwell’s equations fit almost seamlessly within special relativity. What happens is that what looks to one observer as a pure electric or magnetic field will appear to another observer as a mixture of electric and magnetic fields. (Cognitively speaking, what appears to one person as pure personal motivation will probably appear to someone else as a combination of novelty and personal drive.) But when one attempts to place Maxwell’s four equations within general relativity, then the result is a mathematical mess.
Before we continue, I suggest that a distinction should be made between true elegance and the appearance of elegance. Maxwell’s equations have true elegance because the simple looking equations describe mathematical operations that are reasonably straightforward. In contrast, the equations of general relativity have the appearance of elegance. They look simple, but if one opens up the box one discovers a mathematical mess. Using an analogy, true elegance means opening up a drawer and finding inside neat rows of carefully folded socks, while the appearance of elegance means opening up the drawer and finding inside a messy pile of mismatched socks. They both look the same—as long as one does not open the drawer.
Turning to the universe as a whole, if one did not know better, one would conclude that the universe had more than one architect: One architect put together the general structure and then another architect stepped in and added gravity by warping and curving the neat straight lines of the first architect. Using our house analogy, the builder constructed a home with square sides and level floors and then something—or someone else—stepped in to make the floors uneven. I say this because the ‘uneven floors’ of general relativity do not fit well with the rest of physics: 1) The equations of general relativity themselves need mathematical ‘shims’. 2) Adding general relativity to electric magnetism turns simple math into complicated math. 3) No one has yet succeeded in adding general relativity to the Standard Model in which everything else can be placed.
However, even though general relativity is mathematically complicated and theoretically inelegant, it is conceptually simple. One can visualize the universe as a sort of fabric-that-stretches. Masses are like weights that sink into the fabric and stretch it, and this stretching distorts the path of both objects and light. (In contrast, quantum mechanics is not easy to visualize, and in quantum field theory there is almost a taboo against visualization. Physicists will point out in no uncertain terms that the visual crutch of a Feynman diagram should not be taken as a picture of reality.)
Looking at this theologically, Christian theology says that the universe was created by a Trinitarian God, composed of the three aspects of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. A concept of God the Father emerges when a sufficiently general theory in Teacher thought applies to personal identity. A concept of God the Spirit emerges when Platonic forms come together to create a Form of the Good. And a concept of God the Son emerges when a combination of abstract and concrete technical thought is used to connect Teacher theories with Mercy experiences. Using modern society as an illustration, science is a partial example of God the Father, technology illustrates God the Son, and the modern technological society illustrates God the Spirit. (I am not suggesting that God the Father is science, because that would be panentheism. Instead, I am suggesting that science illustrates the character of God the Father.)
Applying this to general relativity, one gains the impression that the universe was constructed by God the Father in cooperation with God the Son. God the Spirit then used Mercy thought to modify the fabric of the universe. I say this because 1) Mass represents MMNs and it is mass (and its equivalence of energy) that distorts the fabric of space-time. 2) While it is difficult to comprehend general relativity using the Teacher language of mathematical words, it is easy to comprehend general relativity using the Mercy language of pictures. This implies that general relativity is an expression of a divine mind that uses Mercy thought.
In contrast, special relativity is simple in abstract thought. ‘The speed of light is a constant’ is the sort of simple statement that Teacher thought loves to make. And if all of the laws of nature are the same for every inertial observer, then the laws of nature define universal truth for Perceiver thought—and Teacher thought loves truth that applies universally without exceptions. But this simple verbal statement gets messy when one descends to reality in order to work out the practical implications of what this means: objects shrink, time slows down, and clocks get out of sync. This implies that special relativity is an expression of a divine mind that uses Teacher thought.
As an aside, notice that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical theory about the expansion of space-time. In other words, the Standard Model is being applied to space-time, the very aspect of the universe that is not explained by the Standard Model. This takes the Teacher-based thinking of mathematics and applies it to the Mercy-based realm of space-time. In theological terms, the thinking of one divine architect is being applied to the realm of another divine architect, which would be like applying the laws of the United States to the European Union. One can do this to some extent because both are Western democracies, but it will probably lead to inconsistent and incorrect conclusions.
One can go further with this theological interpretation. When one gets to the level of quantum field theory, then one gains the impression that the math is gasping for air, struggling to keep moving through the rarefied realm of multiple infinities. For instance, I mentioned earlier that one of the basic concepts of modern theoretical physics is Feynman’s idea of a path integral. Classical mechanics says that an object follows a specific path as it travels from one location to another. Feynman’s path integral says that the object takes an infinity of possible paths and that all of these possible paths cancel out except for the one path that the object appears to take. Similarly, the probabilities of quantum field theory have to be calculated by including all possible ways that particles could interact either directly or indirectly. Physicists address this problem by including only the most straightforward interactions. This generates answers that are approximately correct because simple interactions are far more likely to occur than complicated ones.
The theoretical physicist typically interprets this difficult math to mean that only well-trained theoretical physicists are qualified to address the big questions of the universe. But we have seen in this essay that the theoretical physicist is not necessarily qualified to tackle large issues. Instead, technical thought always functions within some limited domain and breaks down when attempting to address universal questions. Therefore, another possible interpretation is that calculations involving infinities can best be calculated by Infinite Beings. In other words, I suggest that quantum field theory is an example of finite humans attempting to think like God. Mysticism asserts that it is impossible for finite humans to think like God. In contrast, I have learned through personal experience that one can construct a reasonably adequate concept of God, but it takes several decades to do so. Similarly, I suggest that quantum field theory illustrates the struggle that is involved when finite humans and finite computing devices attempt to come up with answers using thinking that comes naturally to a Universal Being.
The power—and limitations—of mathematical analysis also suggest that one should regard God the Son as a distinct entity. Looking at this in more detail, abstract technical thought is based in precise definitions while concrete technical thought is based in cause-and-effect. A concept of incarnation forms within the mind when these two sides of technical thought become integrated. Similarly, science comprehends the physical universe using a combination of abstract mathematics with its precise definitions and concrete experiments with their concrete cause-and-effect.
This is a powerful combination, because the technical thinking of science has led to technology, which has been used to transform the physical environment. This combination is also expressed in the biblical doctrine of incarnation (found especially clearly in John 1), which says that God the Son dwelt with God the Father as the living word, but then became incarnate as human flesh, living within human society.
However, the technical thinking of science has its limitations. On the one hand, God the Father goes beyond God the Son. This is illustrated scientifically by the way that mathematical analysis grinds almost to a halt in quantum field theory, and is also described theologically by the doctrine that God the Son ultimately submits to the will of God the Father. On the other hand, God the Spirit also goes beyond God the Son, as illustrated scientifically by the complicated mathematics that are present in general relativity, and also described theologically by Jesus’ statement in John 16 that his disciples will perform greater works than he because he will leave them in order to be replaced by God the Spirit.
Wave-Particle Duality
I have mentioned that abstract technical thought is based in precise definitions. This means that physicists get annoyed when concepts are defined inadequately. This is especially the case when talking about the relationship between waves and particles. Therefore, I will attempt to describe the wave-particle duality as simply and carefully as possible, based upon my understanding of physics. (I have suggested that abstract technical thought is driven emotionally by the TMN of some paradigm. This underlying emotion becomes apparent when one attempts to ‘google’ some subject in physics—such as wave-particle duality—in order to gain a more accurate understanding. About a third of the responses typically fall into some version of ‘You and/or your instructors are idiots who do not understand the topic properly’, ‘The previous answer was given by someone who has an inadequate understanding of physics. I will give you the correct answer.’ Or ‘This is what I think is correct. But I am not a real expert in physics.’ Another third of the explanations use advanced mathematics that can only be properly understood by an expert, while the final third attempt to explain the concept clearly but rigorously.)
Every object can be treated either as a particle with some mass or as a wave with some frequency. An object will behave either as a particle or as a wave. It will never behave as both at the same time. The tendency for some object to behave as a particle or wave depends upon its mass. An object with larger mass will behave more particle-like and less wave-like. Going the other way, light will behave primarily like a wave because photons have no mass. In the words of one webpage, “To understand some aspects of how light behaves, such as interference and diffraction, you treat light as a wave. To explain other aspects (photoelectric effect and Compton effect) you treat light as being made up of particles. Light exhibits wave-particle duality, because sometimes it acts like a wave and sometimes it acts as if it is made up of particles. Things we usually think of as particles exhibit wave-particle duality too. The behavior of relatively large objects, like baseballs, is dominated by their particle nature; to explain the behavior of very small things like electrons, however, both wave properties and particle properties have to be considered.”
A similar kind of duality exists within the mind between Mercy thought and Teacher thought. As I have mentioned several times, physical experiences of pain and pleasure will naturally cause mental networks to form within Mercy thought, and the mind will integrate around these core MMNs. Saying this another way, growing up in a physical body within a physical universe will lead to a mind that is particle-like. That is because the macroscopic world of human experience is composed of particles and Mercy thought thinks in terms of static experiences. Going further, if mass is analogous to the ‘size’ of an MMN, then normal human development will create a mind with mass in which particle-like behavior dominates. So far, what I am saying is basically a restatement of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.
One can go further using symmetry. The mind is symmetrical and can be guided either by the ‘particles’ of Mercy thought or by the ‘waves’ of Teacher thought. Thus, it is theoretically possible that a human mind which grew up within a wave-like environment would be cognitively and emotionally integrated around core mental networks within Teacher thought. One can see this illustrated by the behavior of a professional. Quoting from Wikipedia, “A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns their living from a specified professional activity. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform their specific role within that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct, enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations… In narrow usage, not all expertise is considered a profession. Although sometimes incorrectly referred to as professions, occupations such as skilled construction and maintenance work are more generally thought of as trades or crafts… A professional does mainly mental work, as opposed to engaging in physical work.” Summarizing, a professional is primarily an expression of abstract thought because a professional is doing mainly mental work rather than physical work. A professional is being guided by the TMN of some systematic framework because one becomes a professional through ‘education and training’ that teaches ‘knowledge and skills’. This TMN of professional training is an aspect of personal identity because the professional is earning a living from professional activity. We have talked about general theories in Teacher thought. A profession, in contrast, describes some specialization within Teacher thought. This distinction can be seen in the theoretical physicist. On the one hand, theoretical physics works with general Teacher theories about the universe. But on the other hand, the theoretical physicist is a professional who has learned the specific skill and knowledge that is required to manipulate the mathematical equations of theoretical physics.
A human being lives within the finite object of a physical body. A professional can be described by the finite label of some name, such as lawyer, medical doctor, architect, physicist, or civil engineer. Thus, professionals illustrate what human minds would be like if they lived within Teacher-like bodies that inhabited Teacher-based universe. Saying this another way, a professional provides the best illustration of the mindset of a mirror-image alien or angel. When one visits a medical doctor, the physician shows up, does the examination, and then leaves once the examination has been completed. Similar, angels in the Bible behave like professionals. They show up in order to perform some task and then vanish once the task has been completed. Saying this another way, a professional—and presumably an alien or angel—moves from one Server task to another while humans move from one Perceiver location to another.
This concept of disembodied professionalism can be found in the Wikipedia article on alien abductions: “When describing the ‘abduction scenario’, David M. Jacobs says: ‘The entire abduction event is precisely orchestrated. All the procedures are predetermined. There is no standing around and deciding what to do next. The beings are task-oriented and there is no indication whatsoever that we have been able to find of any aspect of their lives outside of performing the abduction procedures.’” I am not suggesting that everything written about alien abductions is valid. However, it is encouraging when one makes a theoretical prediction about some strange subject and then encounters someone else making precisely the same statement guided by anecdotal evidence.
Summarizing, the human mind is naturally particle-like because it grows up integrated around core MMNs of experience. But a human mind is capable of becoming partially wave-like by integrating around the core TMNs of some profession. The human mind is capable of being either particle-like or wave-like but not at the same time. For instance, one can interact with a medical doctor on an experiential level, guided by social MMNs. But one seldom, if ever, interacts with a physician on a social level and on a professional level at the same time. If one is interacting socially and asks a professional question, then the typical physician will postpone this discussion to a professional setting. If the physician is willing to discuss the professional question, then the conversation will switch gears from being a social interaction to being a professional consultation. Mental symmetry suggests that real aliens and/or angels have the same minds as humans and that the relationship between humans and aliens would be like the interaction that already exists between normal humans and professionals.
Thus, the professional individual is a sort of hybrid particle/wave who mentally switches gears between being guided by MMNs of personal identity and being guided by the TMNs of some profession.
This mental ability to switch between particle-like and wave-like behavior makes personal transformation possible. That is because the mind requires core mental networks to exist. It is only possible to let go emotionally of core MMNs if they can be replaced by the TMNs of some theory or specialization. This is similar to Kuhn’s statement that a scientist cannot exist without a paradigm and can only let go of one paradigm if given an alternative paradigm.
Mental symmetry suggests that the process of personal transformation can be divided into three primary stages:
1) One constructs a mental concept of God in Teacher thought which is independent of personal MMNs. Using religious language, one recognizes that God is holy while I am sinful. This attitude is essential, otherwise understanding in Teacher thought will become corrupted by the behavior of childish MMNs, and the end result will be rationalization rather than a rational understanding. Using the partial example of professional training, the knowledge and skill that one acquires should be based upon facts and not upon personal opinion. This means that deconstructionism is antithetical to professional training, because deconstructionism asserts that all knowledge is merely personal opinion, while professional training requires knowledge that transcends personal opinion.
2) One allows the TMN of a rational concept of God to guide personal behavior. Using religious language, one performs righteous acts guided by God. This stage is also essential, because it transforms a verbal understanding into an understanding that guides behavior. Using professional training as a partial illustration, professional training starts with book learning but then leads to practical training. For instance, a medical intern applies knowledge that was learned in the classroom to a real hospital setting.
3) One rebuilds MMNs of personal identity upon the TMN of some name. The second stage made it possible to become a new person. The third stage becomes this new person. This final stage is like a person re-entering normal life as a trained professional; it is like a medical intern graduating from medical school and taking up the job of a medical doctor.
If following MMNs means being particle-like and following TMNs means being wave-like, then this three-stage process starts as a particle, becomes a wave, and then returns to being a particle. This detour away from Mercy thought to Teacher thought and then back from Teacher thought to Mercy thought makes it possible to transform major aspects of human thought and behavior. That is why a professional thinks and behaves differently than the average person.
A similar kind of transition can occur in particle physics, which is known as quantum tunneling. Stated simply, if a particle hits some barrier, then there is a chance that the particle might go through the barrier rather than bouncing back. A tunneling particle does not actually jump across a barrier. Instead, it bridges the gap by acting like a wave. If part of this wave extends across the barrier, then the wave-particle can reformulate as a particle on the other side of the barrier. Similarly, a person does not jump from being a normal person to being a professional, or jump directly from being immature to being personally transformed. Instead, one leaves the human realm of social and personal MMNs in order to become defined by the TMN of some profession (or standard of righteousness). One then re-enters the realm of MMNs as a different kind of person.
The probability of quantum tunneling depends upon the size of the particle and the size of the barrier. The probability of tunneling will obviously be greater if the barrier is smaller and thinner, and the probability will also be greater if the mass of the particle is smaller. Thus, quantum tunneling is a major factor when dealing with electrons or photons of light, but human beings have too much physical mass to quantum tunnel from one location to another.
If one views quantum tunneling from the perspective of particles, then a particle that tunnels is actually teleporting from one location to another, because it is jumping directly from one location to another. Teleportation is a hot topic in quantum mechanics, and is also portrayed commonly in science fiction, especially in the Star Trek series.
The ethical considerations of teleportation are seldom mentioned in any of these discussions. Most human laws assume the efficacy of walls: Criminals are kept in prisons behind walls. Valuables are protected in safes behind walls. Countries prevent citizens from leaving and/or enemies from entering by erecting walls on the boundary. Similarly, most people live in houses with walls and lock their doors at night to prevent burglars from entering. And it is also assumed that information can be kept secret by having conversations in private behind walls, and by storing secret files in locked cabinets behind walls. All of this would stop being effective if human teleportation was possible. Stated succinctly, the very fabric of modern society presupposes the existence of walls, and teleportation would make all walls obsolete. Thus, teleportation would become the ultimate ‘threat to national security’.
A person could only be trusted with the ability to teleport if that person abhorred killing, always followed conscience, and deeply respected laws of private property. Otherwise, the teleporter might teleport in and kill someone, kidnap someone, or steal some valuable property. If physical walls no longer limited people, the only barrier that would remain is the mental walls of conscience. (Alternatively, a location or object could be protected from enemy teleporters by making it emotionally and/or spiritually abhorrent to enemy groups. That type of barrier would be based upon incompatible core mental networks.)
As far as I know, the only way to achieve this level of personal integrity is to go through the three stages of personal transformation that were just described. Looking at this more carefully, a mind that is based in MMNs will be attracted by the lure of valuable objects, and it will also attempt to remove itself from unpleasant situations. And it will think naturally in terms of us-versus-them, feeling that ‘us’ need to be protected while ‘them’ need to be suppressed and/or eliminated. This attitude can only be eliminated by replacing these MMNs of temptation and tribalism with the TMN of an understanding of personal and social wholeness.
Saying this more bluntly, anyone who thinks in terms of ‘threats to national security’ could not be trusted with the ability to teleport. One can make this statement with certainty, because those who protect ‘us’ from ‘threats to national security’ have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the limited ability to ‘teleport’ that they now possess. The Internet makes it possible to peer behind walls and see what a person is doing and to some extent thinking in private. It has become clear that the biggest threat to personal privacy and personal security is national government, which is supposedly protecting ‘us’ from ‘them’ in the name of national security.
That brings us back to our starting point. We began by observing that the three stages of personal transformation are a cognitive analog to the ‘particle → wave → teleported particle’ process of quantum tunneling. We now see that these three stages of personal transformation are a cognitive requirement for permitting teleportation. And if a mirror-image realm of waves exists, then the three stages of personal transformation might make human teleportation possible. A human would leave the physical universe of particles, enter the mirror-image realm of waves, and then re-enter the physical universe at some different location. This kind of teleportation is a common feature in stories of aliens.
Moving between these two realms would require having a dual particle/wave identity, which would be like being a professional with a name that extends to all of personal existence. One can tell that achieving this would not be trivial because in most stories of alien intrusion, the human response is utter terror. Acquiring a dual identity would mean facing and overcoming this terror at the deepest level of one’s being.
This discussion about teleporting may sounds more like science fiction than theology, but it is also in the Bible. John 20:19 claims that the resurrected Jesus was able to teleport through walls, while Acts 8:26-40 talks about an angel sending Philip on a task to share a message (the word angel means ‘messenger’) with a traveler and then being teleported away when the task was finished. And this biblical account of teleportation is immediately preceded by a story portraying the danger of having supernatural power without personal integrity.
Moving on to the next point, the famous double-slit experiment demonstrates that if one treats a photon or electron as a wave, then it will behave as a wave, but if one treats it as a particle, then it will behave as a particle. In the words of Wikipedia, “Versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave). However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.” In other words, when two slits are used then an interference pattern will emerge on the screen, an expression of behaving as a wave. But this wave-like behavior will vanish and be replaced by particle-like behavior if one treats the stream as a stream of particles by trying to determine which of the two slits each particle is moving through.
We encountered an analogous principle when looking at righteousness. Righteousness is behavior that is motivated by the TMN of a concept of God. Using the particle-wave analogy, it is wave-like behavior. As Jesus pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6), righteous behavior will stop being righteous if one does it in orders to receive praise from people. Stated cognitively, behavior will stop being motivated by a TMN of God if it is motivated by MMNs of people and social status. Stated analogically, wave-like behavior will stop being wave-like if one treats it as a particle. This is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, and the cognitive analog is a fundamental principle in reprogramming the mind.
The idea of quantum decoherence provides at least a partial explanation for what is happening in the physical situation. In simple terms, a system will lose coherence when it interacts with the environment. When one tries to measure which slit a photon (or electron) is traveling through, the measuring device will interact with the photon, messing up the coherent interaction that is required to produce a wave interference pattern. For instance, imagine a wave of water passing through two small openings. The ripples of water that emerge on the other side of the holes will interfere with each other creating a pattern. Now imagine that one disturbs the water near one of the openings. This disturbance will prevent the pattern from forming. (This paper suggests that there may be two related effects. Interaction with the environment may cause a random change in phase, while measurement will explicitly alter the system. In either case, interaction with the environment is messing up the system.)
There is an analogous cognitive principle. Pursuing a path of righteousness becomes difficult if one is interacting too closely with the environment, especially if this environment insists upon continual measurement. For instance, most of my research in mental symmetry has been done outside of the environment of academia. Looking back, I see that this was essential, because I continually find that those who work within academia have become mentally contaminated by their environment. Going further, academia requires continual measurement, because one must continually prove that one is doing research that is worthy of support. This happens primarily through the measuring process known colloquially as ‘publish or perish’. This Guardian article describes one example and the results: “Not long ago, Imperial College’s medicine department were told that their ‘productivity’ target for publications was to ‘publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five.’ The effect of instructions like that is to reduce the quality of science and to demoralise the victims of this sort of mismanagement.” Publishing a paper means passing peer review, which is the primary way by which academic research is ‘measured’. This continual measurement will mess up the coherence of abstract thought, because one is continually having to pause pursuing the TMN of an understanding in order to appease MMNs of authority.
Speaking from personal experience, I have continually chosen over the years not to allow ‘peer review’ from others to alter my path of research. This does not mean ignoring the research of others. On the contrary, most of my recent research has involved examining the findings and theories of others. Instead, one is dealing with the deeper issue of wave versus particle. If one is thinking in a wave-like manner by pursuing the TMN of an understanding, then one must not allow the intrusion of continual external measurement to decohere this process. In a similar vein, I have found that pursuing righteousness often implies living with personal ambiguity. If one wants to live a wave-like existence in Teacher thought, then one’s personal existence in Mercy thought must be to some extent uncertain. I know from personal experience that this is a significant cognitive principle.
Wave-function Collapse
That brings us to the more general issue of ‘collapsing the wave function’, which may be the most controversial topic in theoretical physics. I cannot address this question from a mathematical perspective, because I can barely understand the mathematics. However, I think I know how this question relates to cognition and theology. One can explain this question with the help of the double-slit experiment. This experiment shows that a stream of photons (or electrons) passing through two slits will create a wave-like interference pattern on a screen that is placed behind these two slits. (This effect is most noticeable with photons that have no mass or electrons that have a very small mass.) This wave-like pattern will not be obvious immediately. Instead, every photon will hit the screen at some specific point. The wave-like pattern will emerge over time, as one observes the combined effect of many photons hitting the screen. Saying this more carefully, each photon has a probability of hitting the screen at some specific point. This probability becomes apparent after many photons hit the screen. But each specific photon will hit the screen at a specific point. This transition from ‘probability that a photon may hit the screen at various points’ to ‘photon actually hitting the screen at a specific point’ is known as collapsing the wave function.
Using a simple example, if I flip a coin, the probability that I will get heads is 50% and the probability of getting tails is also 50%. But if I actually flip a coin, the result will be either heads or tails. The probability of getting heads or tails has ‘collapsed’ either into the specific point of ‘heads’ or the specific point of ‘tails’. One never gets heads-and-tails. Instead, the coin will always land with one of the sides to the top. (Assuming that the coin does not land on its edge.) The probability of 50% heads and 50% tails will only become apparent if I flip the coin a number of times, and if the coin is flipped sufficient times, then this same probability will always emerge.
Similarly, the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics can be used to calculate the probability that some specific quantum event will occur. But what actually occurs is not probability but rather some specific event, and the probability only becomes apparent after many specific events. The mathematical process of calculating probabilities is well-defined, and it is also obvious that one observes specific events. What is not clear is the relationship between these two. How does mathematical probability get translated into specific physical event? Using the language of physics, how does the wave-function collapse? That is a matter of interpretation.
And when one is dealing with interpretation, then cognitive mechanisms come into play, because the way that one interprets information will be heavily influenced by underlying paradigms and assumptions. For instance, one can see this cognitive influence in the many-worlds interpretation. In brief, this interpretation says that wave function collapse does not actually happen. Instead, the universe splits, and each of the possible results continues within one of the universes. For instance, if one rolls a die, then ‘heads’ will appear in one universe and ‘tails’ in another.
I should add that many physicists who support the many-worlds interpretation would not conclude that real universes are being created, but rather are simply making mathematical statements without worrying about the implications. Quoting from Wikipedia, “According to Martin Gardner, the ‘other’ worlds of MWI [multi-world interpretation] have two different interpretations: real or unreal; he claims that Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation... Martin Gardner reports Hawking saying that MWI is ‘trivially true’. In a 1983 interview, Hawking also said he regarded the MWI as ‘self-evidently correct’ but was dismissive towards questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying, ‘When I hear of Schrödinger’s cat, I reach for my gun.’ In the same interview, he also said, ‘But, look: All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities—in other words, the probability of A happening, given B. I think that that’s all the many worlds interpretation is. Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you’re calculating is conditional probabilities.’ Elsewhere Hawking contrasted his attitude towards the ‘reality’ of physical theories with that of his colleague Roger Penrose, saying, ‘He’s a Platonist and I’m a positivist. He’s worried that Schrödinger’s cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can’t correspond to reality. But that doesn’t bother me. I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully.’”
This is a long quote, but it also illustrates the distinction between addressing universal questions and working within some profession. Hawking says that he is only performing the profession of calculating mathematical results: “All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities”. Viewed from the perspective of this profession, “MWI is trivially true”. Hawking then accuses others of going beyond this professional activity to making universal statements: “Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you’re calculating is conditional probabilities.” In contrast, Hawking is not worried about the larger implications of his professional work: “That doesn’t bother me. I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality.” Instead, all Hawking cares about is his professional work of solving the mathematical equations: “All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully.”
But Hawking did not practice what he preached. Instead he was infamous for declaring that God does not exist. Thus, when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own interpretation of physics, Hawking retreated to his profession. But when dealing with the theological implications of other people’s interpretation of physics, Hawking was quite willing to go beyond the limits of his profession and make universal pronouncements.
I refer to this kind of behavior as being ‘locally rational’. Within a paradigm, thinking will be dominated by abstract technical thought to the exclusion of other forms of thought. Thus, the thinking will tend to be not just rational, but excessively rational in a manner that carries out the calculations without dwelling upon the implications of these calculations. However, if the TMN of the underlying paradigm is questioned, then behavior will switch from being rational to being dogmatic and dismissive. This form of locally rational thought is a common characteristic of the male Contributor (or possibly Facilitator) person who specializes in abstract technical thought.
Postmodern thought will naturally emphasize locally rational thinking. Modern thought believes that it is possible to learn Perceiver facts and Server sequences by observing how the real world behaves. Postmodern thought brings this to an end by asserting that objective Perceiver facts and Server sequences do not exist because all knowledge is merely a matter of opinion being imposed through emotional status. But Server thought can recover from this questioning because Server thought—in the human mind—has a way of gaining confidence that Perceiver thought does not have. Perceiver thought must gain confidence in facts by observing connections being repeated. Similarly, Server thought can gain confidence in sequences by observing processes being repeated. But Server thought can also gain confidence by choosing to repeat some sequence of actions. This happens when practicing some skill. The end result is that postmodern questioning transforms scientific study of how the natural universe behaves into a system based upon how a group of scientists behave. Saying this another way, the scientific search for universal understanding turns into the profession of solving scientific equations in a professional manner. The theoretical physicist will no longer care about the implications of his equations. All he cares about is that his equations work and that he can do something meaningful and worthy of academic praise within his profession of theoretical physics. Going further, if there is no such thing as objective truth or natural process, then no mental fields will exist within which to place mental networks, and professional respect will be replaced by dogmatism.
The theory of mental symmetry also leads naturally to an interpretation about wave-function collapse, because it suggests that wave-function collapse illustrates the interaction between divine sovereignty and human free will. In brief, this means that the ‘equations’ of divine providence operate primarily at a group level, making it possible for God to predict and guide the responses of groups with mathematical certainty. In contrast, most specific situations occur probabilistically, and human free will has significant freedom in this realm of specific situations.
I know that this interpretation violates the Copernican principle, but the fine-tuned universe shows that the laws of physics violate the Copernican principle, while the practice of naming everything in physics after physicists shows that the human formulation of these laws of physics also violates the Copernican principle. What I am proposing is actually similar to what evolution teaches. According to evolution, Nature—with a capital ‘N’—is guiding the development of species, while Nature does not care about the individual organism within a species. Saying this more crudely, Nature is lifting the group ever upward, while the individual is doomed to a struggle in which only the fittest survive within the jungle of personal survival. In both cases, divine providence is guiding a plan that applies primarily to the group while giving substantial freedom to the individual within the group.
I know that it is standard Christian theology to state that God ultimately controls every decision, no matter how small. But the laws of physics tell us that most events occur in a probabilistic fashion. And I do not know of any Christian who lives as if God controls every decision. Instead, all Christians seem to act as if it is possible for humans to make meaningful choices. As was mentioned earlier in this essay, I am not suggesting, as open theism or process theology does, that God is struggling valiantly to carry out some plan with good intentions but limited power. Instead, I suggest that God can carry out a cosmic plan with total certainty while still giving humans substantial freedom. This suggestion is backed up by decades of observation, because I have consistently found that one can use the theory of mental symmetry to predict with depressing certainty how a group of people will behave. The average person seems utterly incapable of walking against the spirit of the age.
I conclude that a Universal Being who could read people’s minds would find it quite easy to manipulate the path of history by guiding and juxtaposing the core mental networks of societies. This hypothesis is backed up theologically by the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The crux of this story is that people want to remain unified within Teacher thought and God responds by ensuring that Teacher thought will remain fragmented by splitting humanity into different languages. The underlying assumption is that God’s manipulation of history requires that humanity be divided into different cultural and linguistic groups, each with its own unique core mental networks. The implication is that any group or country which asserts that God speaks or works only through them does not grasp the true nature of God.
Turning now to the individual situation, I suggest that most situations, including most traumatic situations, occur according to chance, guided by the laws of probability. This does not mean that human free will is meaningless. On the contrary, human free will can substantially alter the probability of events. For instance, if one chooses to construct solid buildings, then this will reduce the probability that buildings will collapse in an earthquake. Similarly, if one chooses not to smoke, then this will reduce the probability of getting lung cancer.
Cognitively speaking, human free will collapses the ‘wave-function’ of mental possibility. As was mentioned before when looking at fields, Exhorter thought presents Contributor thought with a range of possibilities. These possibilities are not limitless, but rather are shaped by core mental networks—the same core mental networks that God uses to manipulate societies. Similarly, a wave-function of probability is not limitless. Instead, it states which outcomes are most likely to occur. When the wave-function collapses, then this probability turns into a specific event. Similarly, when a choice is made, then the range of possibilities being suggested by Exhorter thought collapses into a specific choice made by Contributor thought.
If the mathematics of quantum mechanics can be interpreted in many different ways, then I suggest that it makes most sense to interpret these equations in a manner that is consistent with how the mind functions. After all, physicists use their minds to study physics, which means that the thinking of physics is already subject to the laws that govern the functioning of the mind, whether this is acknowledged or not. And the guiding light of physics is that one does not come up with any theory that one wishes, but rather allows theories to be shaped by how things work.
This means that human free will is both limited and meaningful. We looked at free will earlier in the essay. We will now return to the topic and add more details. On the one hand, free will is always limited by the emotional power of underlying mental networks. Using an idiom, the apple cannot fall far from the tree. But on the other hand, free will is also meaningful because it turns possibility into actuality; it transforms a range of possibilities into a specific path; it collapses the wave-function of probability. Looking at this theologically, the Bible often talks about God putting people into situations to test how they will respond. On the one hand, the core mental networks of a person make it possible for God to predict how a person will respond—within a certain range of possibilities. Testing then narrows this range down to a single alternative. As far as I can tell, God will always test individuals before using them in a significant way. And as far as I can tell, this testing is meaningful, in the sense that God does not know beforehand what the specific response of free will will be.
Going further, God could predict with certainty that some infants will develop in a specific direction, based upon core mental networks of family, environment, and culture. God could then choose to manipulate the circumstances of these individuals in order to optimize this path of development. Human society takes a similar approach with gifted children. This option is described in Romans 8:29.
Continuing in this vein, most situations of life may occur randomly guided by probability, but how one responds to these situations is incredibly important. Saying this more bluntly, I may get hit randomly by some drunk driver and end up crippled. But I still have free will in deciding how I will respond mentally to this devastating event. And this free will is meaningful, because it will determine whether I become more mature inside or get locked into MMNs of bitterness, self-pity, and blame. This implies that prayer is meaningful. I am not suggesting that prayer can automatically guarantee freedom from random disaster. For instance, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake struck on All Saints’ Day, when most people were in church praying to God. Almost every important church in the city of Lisbon was destroyed, and tens of thousands of people perished. But I have also heard enough stories of prayer making a difference to conclude that praying is worthwhile. (Looking further at the Lisbon Earthquake, the Portuguese empire was based heavily upon slavery and the slave trade. Thus, God was merely treating the Portuguese with the same lack of personal concern that they showed for their fellow human beings. I am not suggesting that the earthquake was a divine retribution for the Portuguese slave trade. Rather, I am suggesting that if prayer to God does have some impact, then how one acts will speak more loudly than what one says. In the words of James 5:16, “The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” In a similar vein, Matthew 5:23-24 warns, “if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”)
If God knows and controls every single event, then praying to God is ultimately a form of security theater: It gives the impression that something is being done but makes no real difference. However, if most specific events occur probabilistically and are not predetermined, then this makes the concept of prayer meaningful, because it creates a context within which prayer could make a difference. Using an analogy, there is no point in talking to my boss if he has already made up his mind. But if the decision is still up in the air, then why not ask? It might make a difference. Besides, the very act of praying to God is itself a form of collapsing the mental wave-function of possibility, because one is choosing to believe that Teacher thought has power over the situation. A similar principle applies when one is ‘thankful to God’, because this also chooses to believe that Teacher thought has power over a situation.
Human free will becomes maximized when the mind contains conflicting core mental networks. This only happens occasionally when a society is going through a major transition, and God could take advantage of these rare situations to manipulate the circumstances of people or groups so that they would choose to follow one set of core mental networks rather than another. In such a situation, human free will would become significant, because human choice would temporarily gain the power to alter the path of divine providence in major ways. I do not think that human free will could stop the plan of God, even in periods of major societal transition. Instead, these transition points could be viewed as forks in the road, in which human free will could determine whether God would follow plan A or plan B. ‘Plan B’ usually involves more human suffering than ‘plan A’, but ‘plan A’ usually requires intelligent cooperation from humans. Therefore, it appears that humans could alleviate human suffering in major ways by choosing to make intelligent choices during these transition points. Note that we are looking here at the individual. The laws of human probability would still predict what percentage of the population would choose each of the possible options.
Notice how the concept of collapsing the wave-function plays a critical role in this interpretation, because human choice is turning a range of possible futures into a specific historical past. In contrast, the multi-worlds interpretation makes human free will meaningless. I am not suggesting that human consciousness is required to collapse the wave-function. Instead, I suggest that a wave-function usually collapses by itself through decoherence via some version of objective collapse theory. However, it may be possible that human consciousness can also cause a wave-function to collapse.
I know that this interpretation is not mathematically complete, but I suggest that the ultimate guideline is not the profession of solving the mathematics of physics, but rather the reality of how the real world behaves and how real minds appear to function. In essence, this restates the general principle that one cannot use technical thought to come up with a universal system. Instead, technical thought is always limited to some domain.
A Theodicy of Existence
That leads us to a deeper set of questions: Why would a good God construct a universe that functions probabilistically if this makes human suffering possible? Going further, why would a good God give humans free will, if free will can be used to choose suffering or impose suffering upon others? This brings us to the essence of what is known as a theodicy, which means attempting to reconcile a good God with an evil world.
I suggest that quantum field theory provides a possible avenue for addressing these questions. QFT says that nothing exists except interacting fields. All waves and particles are the result of disturbances in these fields interacting with one another. And every wave or particle is indistinguishable from—and replaceable with—every other wave or particle of the same kind. Thus, for instance, all protons are identical and one cannot distinguish one proton from another. Going further, one analyzes these disturbances mathematically through the use of creation and annihilation operators. When I first read this, I found it rather unsettling. Am I nothing more than a disturbance in a cosmic field? Am I some faceless, replaceable cog in the cosmic machine that can be created and annihilated at will?
The typical response of physics websites to such feelings of existential angst is something like ‘Don’t worry. We all know that these disturbances are actually very solid and stay around for a long time.’ But what is the basis for this confidence? We have already seen that the typical physicist focuses upon the specialization of calculating the math while ignoring the implications of these calculations. If implications are being ignored, then this gives the impression that the personal confidence of the physicist is actually based upon presupposition and not upon mathematical calculation. This means that the physicist is assuming that his calculations have no bearing upon the real world while at the same time claiming that his calculations predict the behavior of the real world. Going further, the physicist is assuming that his calculations have no bearing upon personal and cosmic existence while at the same time claiming that his calculations can be used to analyze the very existence of the cosmos.
And when one is calculating equations of QFT, one is supposed to follow the principle that ‘Anything that might happen, could happen’. This is also highly unsettling, because the human mind needs stability. I need to know that my next step will land on solid ground and not on some sinking sand. People do not want a universe in which ‘Anything that might happen, could happen’. When things become too uncertain, then people will turn to dictators and strong beliefs for certainty, which is what we are seeing happen today (in 2018).
Thus, I suggest that the ultimate question is not ‘How can a good God create a universe that contains evil?’ Instead, the ultimate question is ‘How can a universal being create a universe that guarantees the continued existence of matter and people?’ These same two levels can also be found in mental networks. A mental network can contain pleasant memories or painful memories, and it is much nicer to work with mental networks that are composed of pleasant memories. But a mental network that continues to receive incompatible input will eventually fall apart, and a mental network that is falling apart will generate an emotional discomfort that goes beyond normal pain. People will go to extreme lengths to prevent core mental networks from falling apart, including choosing to embrace pain.
The point I am trying to make is that existence is a deeper issue that the question of good versus evil. But this deeper issue of existence is usually ignored. That is because the pain or pleasure of individual situations is immediately apparent, while the angst of personal fragmentation will only emerge when core mental networks are falling apart.
This means that there is a principle that is more fundamental than the Copernican principle. The Copernican principle states that general theories in Teacher thought should not be influenced by MMNs of personal identity or culture. The purpose of the Copernican principle is to come up with theories that are uncontaminated by personal bias. The goal of the Copernican principle is to promote clear thinking. But having a mind that is capable of thinking is more fundamental than using this mind to think clearly. There is no point in learning how to program a computer if I do not have a computer. Similarly, it does not make sense to learn how to think clearly if the mind stops functioning at death.
This does not prove that life continues after death, but instead it is a principle that can be used to separate meaningful theories from absurd theories. After all, the Copernican principle is used to evaluate intelligent thought, even though it is merely a principle and is contradicted by evidence and violated in practice. In simple terms, I suggest that any general theory which does not include personal existence is absurd, and will end up creating a society that is deeply damaging to humanity. For instance, what is the point of dying for my country if my personal existence ceases at death? It is absurd.
I suggest that this principle can be applied to the divine cosmic plan. The first stage in a cosmic plan must be to guarantee the continued existence of humans. Once existence has been guaranteed, it then becomes meaningful to try to make existence pleasurable. Thus, if God is allowing human suffering, I suggest that this is because removing the human suffering would threaten the existence of humanity.
One can see what this means by looking at the practice of religious mysticism. As far as I can tell, all religions practice mysticism to some extent (three examples are Orthodox Christianity, Sufism in Islam, and Kabbalah in Judaism), but Buddhism practices mysticism in its purest form. The ultimate goal of mysticism is to become united with God, and the word Nirvana means ‘blown out, as in an oil lamp’. But does personal identity continue to exist as a distinct entity if one becomes united with God? Buddhism claims that achieving nirvana does not mean personal annihilation, but if one becomes united with God a manner that extinguishes passion and causes the activity of the mind to stop, then one has essentially ceased to exist as an individual. When forced to address this issue, Buddhism typically retreats to doubletalk and appeals to mystery. But doubletalk and mystery are not enough when dealing with the ultimate question of existence.
I should mention in passing that there is some truth to Buddhism, because desire indicates the incomplete form of mental programming that is illustrated by Newtonian thinking. However, I suggest that the solution is not to go back to pre-rational thought but rather to move forward to an Einsteinian mindset which thinks in terms of fields.
If the ultimate human question is to guarantee human existence, then mysticism provides the wrong answer to the ultimate question. Looking at this from the divine perspective, a religion of mysticism tempts God to renege on the guarantee of personal existence and go back to the pre-creation of divine possibility. And as long as every religion practices mysticism to some extent, then God must focus upon preserving independent existence rather than eliminating human suffering. This may seem like a private interpretation, but it becomes apparent when one examines the biblical book of Revelation.
Looking at the very big picture, if the ultimate mental drive in society is to become united with God, then humans must be kept distinct from God by being forced to live within a physical reality that exists independently of God. But being subject to the laws of physical existence makes humans vulnerable to suffering. Personal suffering occurs because I cannot escape when my physical body is damaged. When somebody shoots me in a computer game, then I can escape the game and start again. But when someone shoots me in reality, then I cannot escape reality and start again, because matter rules over mind. But if matter did not rule over mind, then people would use their minds to identify with groups, theories, and ultimately God. Matter must rule over mind in order to preserve human existence, but when matter rules over mind, then this makes personal suffering possible.
The solution is for people to become mentally independent of God. If enough people within society reached this stage of mental independence, then God could start to remove human suffering by allowing minds to rule over matter. Becoming mentally independent is a two-step process: The first step is to learn how to control nature through science and technology. Instead of appealing to God for miracles, one understands the underlying structure of the universe that has been created by God, and then uses this understanding to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure. Current society is capable of functioning at this level. The second step is to extend independent thought to the subjective realm, which includes God, religion, society, and personal identity. Instead of trying to become united with God through mysticism, the goal is to become mentally whole through the process of personal transformation. Again, this may sound like a rather unusual interpretation of Christianity, but it is explained in detail in a 400 page series of essays on the biblical book of Hebrews.
Saying this another way, I suggest that the plan of God is for human beings to exist as independent, intelligent beings. A major aspect of this plan involves the discovery of science and technology. In fact, my hypothesis is that God wanted the Jews and the Greeks to discover science in the city of Alexandria before the time of Christ. (This hypothesis is explored in other essays.) But this failed to happen, and so God had to implement a plan B which involved replacing the Roman civilization with the Western civilization, developing Christianity, and then creating a social climate in which science would be guaranteed to emerge. This illustrates the general principle that human free will can postpone the plan of God but cannot overturn it.
With this in mind, let us return to quantum field theory. Let us suppose that quantum field theory provides an accurate picture of the character of God. What emerges is not individuality but rather the potential for individual existence. On the one hand, QFT says that nothing exists except infinite fields, and that all finite waves and particles are merely perturbations in these fields that are interacting with one another. This sounds very much like the thinking of a Universal Being who lives in the realm of infinite possibility. But this is not the overgeneralized infinity of mysticism. Instead, each of these infinite fields of existence behaves in a specific manner that can be analyzed by using the technical thinking of mathematics. This implies that God is infinite and knowable. Going further, if all waves and all particles are perturbations in the same infinite fields, then this implies that the ‘particles’ of human existence and the ‘waves’ of alien/angelic existence become integrated at this fundamental level of divine thought. As far as God is concerned, both human and angelic realms function together in an integrated manner.
On the other hand, QFT also says that everything is fundamentally quantum, and quanta imply the possibility of personal identity. Looking at this in more detail, properties do not change continuously but rather in discrete steps. Using an analogy, if the average family has 2.3 children, this does not mean that every family has two whole children and a third child that is only 3/10th of a person. Instead, the size of a family increases in discrete steps, because people exist as quanta. Similarly, the operators of quantum field theory may say that particles and waves can be created and annihilated, but this creation and annihilation is occurring in quantum steps. When a particle is created, then an entire particle is created and not just part of a particle.
QFT adds that every created particle or wave is indistinguishable from every other particle or wave of the same kind. This could be viewed in a negative light as implying that all finite creatures are merely replaceable cogs in the cosmic machine. But it also means that the justice of God is blindfolded. One can see what this means from the Platonic Form of Lady Justice, because she is typically portrayed as wearing a blindfold. Quoting from Wikipedia, “Since the 16th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents impartiality, the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status. The earliest Roman coins depicted Justitia with the sword in one hand and the scale in the other, but with her eyes uncovered.” It is interesting that this concept of blind justice emerged historically during the same period when people were discovering that the physical universe is ruled by universal laws.
Summarizing, what one finds is not uniqueness but rather the potential for uniqueness. Looking at this cognitively, all Perceiver persons, for instance, are identical with one another. A Perceiver person (or any other cognitive style) becomes unique by growing up with a unique set of cultural and personal mental networks and then choosing to express these mental networks in unique ways. This principle of potential uniqueness relates strongly to what is known as the arrow of time. At the microscopic level, all (or almost all) reactions are reversible. The uniqueness arises when dealing with many particles at a larger scale. For instance, suppose that a container of pure oxygen is allowed to mix with a container of pure nitrogen. The oxygen and nitrogen atoms will become intermingled with one another. It is theoretically possible to separate the oxygen atoms from the nitrogen atoms again, but doing so would mean examining every single atom and then moving that atom to the appropriate container, requiring the use of a hypothetical sorter known as Maxwell’s demon. The arrow of time can also be seen in the collapse of a wave-function, because many possibilities are being reduced to one single outcome.
It is common in educational and self-help circles to state that ‘each individual is unique because there is nobody else like him’. However, I suggest that this is not the case. Instead, I suggest that everyone is potentially unique. If I passively imbibe the mental networks of my culture and refuse to make any decisions that set me apart from the crowd, then I will not be very unique. Becoming unique means making choices that go beyond the mental networks of my family and culture, and the average person is not willing to follow this path. One can see this illustrated by the typical teenage rebel, who becomes ‘unique’ by behaving exactly like his peers. In other words, people like to hear that they are unique, as long as they can be told this as a member of a group in which they are not unique. A person who is really unique will probably be shunned by the crowd, and that is quite different than being called unique as a member of the crowd. Going further, claiming that everyone is unique is actually a way of protecting Teacher overgeneralization. Teacher overgeneralization makes sweeping statements within Teacher thought and then protects these sweeping statements by saying that Perceiver facts do not apply. This can be seen in the website (chosen at random) that was linked to at the beginning of this paragraph: “All educational systems depend on comparison: somebody comes first, and somebody is the last in the class; somebody passes, somebody fails… The whole structure of society is continuously comparing, and the very idea of comparison is absolutely false. Each individual is unique because there is nobody else like him.” Perceiver thought organizes Mercy experiences into categories, making it possible to compare people and behaviors. This quote is essentially saying that Perceiver thought has no right to exist. If Perceiver thought is removed from the scene, then it is possible for Teacher thought to assert the overgeneralization that ‘we are all the same’. This is cognitively similar to the way in which the mystical overgeneralization that ‘All is One’ is protected by stating that all facts about physical reality are ultimately illusion. And we have just seen that mysticism actually provides one of the deepest threats to individual human existence.
Moving to the next point, physicists have found that the mathematics of quantum field theory do not violate principles of cause-and-effect. This is significant, because cause-and-effect provides the basic building blocks for technical concrete human existence. Again one sees the potential for unique human existence in the structure of the universe. This same potential can be seen in the fine-tuned universe, which tells us that the universe has been designed in such a way to make human life possible.
This means that the Copernican principle is actually deeply flawed, because it tries to stop humans from doing exactly what humans have to do in order to continue existing as individuals. Using an analogy, this is like entering a cage of tigers while refusing to use any of the weapons or shields that are being offered, on the grounds that one should not regard human existence as privileged. However, it is imperative that a human entering a tiger cage remains concerned about staying alive, because the tigers definitely will not care about human survival.
I have noticed a similar disregard for human survival in many websites and books that talk about contacting UFOs. One is typically instructed that ‘they’ can be contacted if one empties one’s mind of all human thoughts and reaches out to ‘them’ in a mystical manner. This is like entering a tiger cage and eliminating all thoughts of human survival in order to think like a tiger. If the human who is attempting to contact aliens does not think about human survival, then the aliens certainly will not, because they are aliens and not humans.
In contrast, I have attempted to follow a path of mental wholeness that integrates the Mercy realm of human existence with the Teacher realm of alien existence. As of this time of writing, I have not had any physical ‘alien encounters’. However, I do have a strong internal sense that I am interacting with aliens/angels who also care about mental wholeness, who are concerned about interacting in a mutually beneficial manner.
We are again seeing the general principle that existence is deeper than pleasure. It feels bad to be rated as inferior by some categorization; it feels bad to get a D- on a test. But if all categories are removed and everyone receives the same mark, then this threatens humanity at the deeper level of existence. Saying this analogically, how can humans protect themselves from tigers if one is forbidden to distinguish between humans and tigers and if both humans and tigers are given equal social approval? If overgeneralized tolerance becomes the standard, then those who distinguish between humans and tigers and try to save people from tigers will be suppressed in the name of tolerance.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It can be introduced with the help of the following joke: Heisenberg is driving a car and he gets stopped for speeding. The police officer walks up to Heisenberg’s car and asks, “Do you know how fast you were going?” Heisenberg replies, “No. But I know where I am.” The officer then clarifies: “You were going 140 km/h.” Heisenberg then replies, “Great. Now I am lost.”
Interpreting this joke, if one attempts to determine the precise position of some particle, then one will not know how fast that particle is going. Going the other way, if one tries to determine velocity more accurately, then position becomes less certain. That is why Heisenberg in the joke cannot know at the same time where he is and how fast he is going.
The uncertainty principle is stated mathematically as a simple inequality: ∆x·∆p > ħ/2. ∆x is the uncertainty in measuring the position x. ∆p is the uncertainty in measuring the momentum p, and we saw earlier that momentum is mass times velocity. Finally, ħ, an ‘h’ with a dash through it, which is referred to as ‘h bar’, is known as Planck’s reduced constant. Planck’s constant is a very tiny number: 6.626 x 10-34. And ħ is this tiny number divided by 2π. The presence of mass in this equation means that the uncertainty principle only becomes significant when dealing with very small masses, such as electrons, and to a lesser extent, neutrons and protons. That is why the uncertainty principle becomes a joke when applied to massive objects such as cars. A driver of a car would be able to determine simultaneously where he is and how fast he is going with sufficient accuracy to satisfy any police officer. But if one attempts to determine the position of an electron with any precision, then its velocity immediately becomes uncertain, and vice versa.
One can use the uncertainty principle to explain why electrons ‘orbit’ around protons and neutrons in an atom and not the other way around. Protons and neutrons are about 1800 times as massive as electrons. Thus, one can only be certain that an electron is located somewhere within the atom, while one can determine that the more massive protons and neutrons are located within the much smaller nucleus of the atom.
A fairly recent paper explains that “The uncertainty principle is shown to appear in three manifestations, in the form of uncertainty relations: for the widths of the position and momentum distributions in any quantum state; for the inaccuracies of any joint measurement of these quantities; and for the inaccuracy of a measurement of one of the quantities and the ensuing disturbance in the distribution of the other quantity. Whilst conceptually distinct, these three kinds of uncertainty relations are shown to be closely related formally.”
In other words, there are actually three related but not identical concepts: 1) The uncertainty principle reflects a fundamental property of matter. This can be seen in an atom where electrons are fundamentally incapable of being limited to the nucleus. 2) The uncertainty principle becomes apparent when measuring. This is illustrated by the joke of Heisenberg driving a speeding car, because the driver of the hypothetical car cannot know simultaneously where he is and how fast he is going. 3) The uncertainty principle means that measuring some system disturbs it. Using the car joke as an analogy, a police officer measures the speed of a car by pointing a radar gun at the car, which works by bouncing a stream of light particles off of the car. Suppose instead that the officer attempted to determine the speed of a car by bouncing large boulders off the car. Obviously, hitting a car with a large boulder would tend to disturb its path. That is what it is like when one attempts to determine the speed (or position) of an electron by bouncing a photon of light off of this electron. As far as an electron is concerned, a single photon of light is like a large boulder.
It took physicists several decades to clarify these three different aspects, and they eventually came to the conclusion that the uncertainty principle really is a fundamental property of matter. Quoting from the linked web-page, “This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.”
Thus, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a result of matter being both particle and wave. This is the fundamental principle that lies behind all of the other manifestations of the uncertainty principle. This means that one can observe a version of the uncertainty principle whenever dealing with something which is both wave and particle. For instance, suppose that one plays a note on a piano. A musical note is obviously a mechanical wave with a certain frequency, but it is also an object in the sense that a specific key on a specific piano is being played at a specific instant in time. One can state with great accuracy exactly when a very short note was played. But if a note is too short, then one can no longer tell exactly which note was played. In contrast, it is much easier to tell which note on the piano was played if one hears this note for a while, but one can no longer state precisely when this note occurred. (I have perfect pitch, and for a note in the middle half of a piano keyboard, I can determine the frequency to within one percent after hearing it for half a second.)
Now that we understand the physics, let us look at the cognitive analog. We will start by looking at some simple implications before turning to the larger picture. We have related electrons to technical thought and protons to mental networks. I have also suggested that male thought emphasizes technical thought while female thought emphasizes mental networks. The uncertainty principle implies that technical thought is less localized than mental networks. In other words, technical thought will tend to move around some domain, puttering on details here and there. In contrast, mental networks will tend to occupy and nurture some realm. One of these ways of thinking is not superior to the other. Instead, this distinction is a natural result of living within the ‘mass’ of mental networks versus being motivated by some goal or paradigm.
Continuing in a symbolic vein, I suggested earlier that mass represents an MMN while velocity represents the implicit TMN of some concrete habit. Position relates to Perceiver thought, because Perceiver thought uses facts and connections to build a mental map in which to place people and objects. These three elements are found in the uncertainty inequality: ∆x·∆p > ħ/2. (Remember that ‘p’ is momentum which is mass times velocity.) Stated symbolically, one cannot simultaneously determine the precise nature of facts and practical mental networks. If one wishes to know the facts more precisely, then one will have a less precise grasp of mental networks of culture, identity, and habit. On the other hand, focusing upon these mental networks will make the facts less certain. This relates to the question of short versus long mentioned earlier when explaining the uncertainty principle. Suppose that I want to know the facts more accurately. Perceiver thought gains confidence in facts by seeing connections being repeated. For instance, I know with considerable confidence how to distinguish a car from a truck because I have seen many examples of cars and many examples of trucks. In fact, the more cars and trucks that I see, the more it becomes possible to distinguish precisely what is a car and what is a truck. This is similar to the way that it is easier to distinguish one musical tone from another when one hears a tone for a longer period of time. (Notice how Facilitator reasonableness is helping Perceiver thought to decide which facts are solid and which facts are not.)
In contrast, the structure of a mental network is most apparent when that mental network expresses itself suddenly in an explosive fashion. When a mental network is triggered as a gut response under pressure, this reveals most clearly the desires that are contained within that mental network. This is when I—and others—discover what lives within my mind. These gut responses are seldom reasonable, but they are definitely revealing. However, when one is in the midst of such an emotional ‘gag reflex’, then the facts usually get quite vague, and what one blurts out often corresponds with the facts in only a vague manner. Extricating the facts from an emotional outburst means reflecting upon the incident over time in a manner that connects this situation with the rest of thought.
Summarizing, there is also a symbolic sense in which ∆x·∆p > ħ/2, and it relates to the concept of long versus short sampling times mentioned earlier. Perceiver facts become most evident when one reflects and connects over time. The ‘momentum’ of practical mental networks becomes most apparent when these mental networks are triggered in a short outburst. It is not possible simultaneously to focus upon the facts and determine the nature of underlying mental networks.
Uncertainty and Transformation
Turning now to the more general cognitive application, the uncertainty principle is ultimately based in the wave-particle nature of matter. Similarly, the mind has a particle-like mode that is driven by MMNs and a wave-like mode that is driven by TMNs. Saying this another way, one can either be driven emotionally to reach some goal in Mercy thought, or one can be guided emotionally by Teacher understanding to follow some path or process. Using the example of an automobile, one can either use the car to drive to some location, or one can take the attitude of a car mechanic and view the car as a functioning machine. The more that one focuses upon using the car as a tool to drive somewhere, the less one will focus upon how the car is running as a machine. And if the car develops some mechanical problem, then the focus will shift from reaching the goal to getting the car running.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not just a digital switch. More recent research has found out that one can gain a partial knowledge of both position and momentum. Similarly, one can think—to some extent—about both goals and functioning within the mind at the same time. But focusing more upon one will inevitably mean focusing less upon the other. This appears to be a fundamental property of how the mind functions, based upon the fact that the same mental content can be viewed either from a Mercy perspective or from a Teacher perspective. Saying this more precisely, abstract thought and concrete thought are not distinct circuits. Instead, one can see from the diagram of mental symmetry that they are overlapping circuits which share cognitive modules but operate these modules in a different manner.
This alternate perspective of overlapping content is critical because it makes personal transformation possible. A child has a mind that is organized around MMNs of childish experience, as described by Piaget’s pre-operational stage of cognitive development. Personal transformation uses the TMN of a general theory to explain this same mental content. The emergence of independent Teacher thought can be seen in Piaget’s formal operational stage. The path of personal transformation finishes by applying everything that has been learned previously to the concrete world of Mercy experiences. The point is that a mind that is whole does not view abstract understanding as divorced from concrete experience. Instead, these two are viewed as two sides of the same coin—two alternate ways of viewing existence. For instance, developing the theory of mental symmetry has meant simultaneously following two paths: On the one hand, I am attempting to discover how the mind functions, working within the abstract wave-like realm of theories. On the other hand, I am also attempting to reach the concrete goal of becoming a better person, living within the concrete particle-like realm of experiences.
Notice how all three aspects of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle come in to play: 1) One cannot simultaneously focus upon both abstract understanding and concrete application at the same time. Looking at this personally, I find that theoretical discoveries are usually followed by personal applications. Saying this more clearly, I typically find that shortly after I come up with some understanding, life presents me with an opportunity to apply my understanding. This has happened sufficiently often to give me a strong suspicion that divine providence is at work. (This views divine providence as a subtle hand that is ‘causing all things to work together for good’ (Rom. 8:28) rather than as a total control over every detail.)
2) One must let go of one aspect if one wishes to pursue the other. Saying this cognitively, if one wishes to be guided by the TMN of an understanding, then one must stop clinging to MMNs of culture and identity. We contrasted being motivated by a TMN with being driven by MMNs. The cognitive analog of the uncertainty principle goes beyond motivation to certainty. If one wishes to become defined by an understanding in Teacher thought, then one must allow personal existence to become vague within Mercy thought. Personal life must become ambiguous. Saying this more pointedly, if I insist upon being defined by my country, my culture, my race, my religion, my job, my home, or my family, then abstract understanding in Teacher thought will remain something vague that only applies to me in some imprecise manner. If righteousness is to goes beyond vagueness to something that clearly defines me, then I must allow my connections with country, culture, race, religion, job, home, and family to become vague and imprecise.
This does not mean that I turn my back on these entities or attack them in some manner. Instead it means that if someone asks me what my citizenship is, I will answer something like ‘My passport says that I am Canadian and I appreciate a lot about Canada, but I don’t really feel that much like a Canadian.’ Similarly, I may still work at some job, but I will not view it as a career that defines my existence. Speaking again from personal experience, I have found that ‘divine providence’ seems to be leading me along a path in which my attachments to cultural and personal MMNs become less certain and more vague. And I have found that this vagueness helps me to gain a more precise understanding of cognitive functioning. However, I also sense that a time will come when the focus will shift from building theory to applying theory.
3) One must include both theory and application because measurement disturbs the system. The cognitive principle here is that one cannot separate objective research from subjective bias. Objective science attempts to minimize this disturbance by using steps such as peer research to remove subjective bias. But it is impossible to avoid disturbing the system when one is attempting to understand the mind. The solution that I have tried to follow is to make the disturbance part of the system that one is analyzing. Saying this more simply, when I discover a new principle about the mind, I know that this will affect me emotionally and subjectively. I also know that how I choose to deal with these emotions will disturb my mind and will affect what I discover when analyzing the mind. And I am deliberately describing this in the first person, because any attempt to analyze the mind will inevitably be in the first person, because I have a mind and I am a mind.
Summarizing, this third principle means that studying the mind must become a combined process of ‘analyzing the mind’ and ‘pursuing personal transformation’. The first principle means that this combined journey will involve taking steps that alternate between theory and practice. And the second principle means that whenever one takes a step in this journey, then one must rest the weight of one’s mind upon one ‘leg’ while no longer resting it on the other ‘leg’.
One can state this in more detail. Noether’s Theorem says that every symmetry leads to some law of conservation. For instance, I can perform an experiment tomorrow and get the same results as performing the experiment today. Using the language of physics, there is symmetry over time. This leads to the law of conservation of energy, which says that the total energy before some event will be equal to the total energy after that event, a simple principle that is used to solve many high school physics problems.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, the mind is deeply symmetric. I am not just saying this in a hand-waving manner that compares left and right hemispheres of the brain. Instead, I am saying this in a semi-rigorous analogical manner. Each of the seven cognitive modules is either symmetrical with another module or else is composed of two symmetrical parts. Server thought is symmetrical with Perceiver thought. Teacher and Mercy thought are symmetrical. Exhorter thought connects the two symmetrical modes of Teacher and Mercy thought, and can either move through Mercy experiences guided by some Teacher paradigm, or else develop a Teacher theory based upon Mercy experiences. Similarly, Contributor thought connects the two symmetrical modes of Perceiver and Server thought, and we have examined the two sides to Contributor thought. Finally, we have seen that Facilitator thought uses Server sequences to evaluate Teacher words in the left hemisphere, while using Perceiver facts to evaluate Mercy experiences in the right hemisphere. This extensive mental symmetry (hence the name theory of mental symmetry) makes it possible to conserve human thought when making a transition between using the mind in a particle-like manner and using the mind in a wave-like manner.
One can go further with this concept of symmetry and conservation. I have suggested the existence of a mirror-image alien/angelic realm. The comprehensive symmetry of the human mind means that the same mind could function equally effectively in both realms. This does not mean that a human could automatically and instantly live within a mirror-image realm. In fact, doing so would probably drive the average person insane. That is because the content of the average human mind is not symmetrical. Instead, the childish human mind is integrated around MMNs of culture and identity and has to be taught the very existence of Teacher thought.
I have mentioned that the three-stage process of personal transformation leads to mental wholeness. Reaching mental wholeness can also be viewed as a process of becoming mentally symmetrical. The first stage of personal honesty places MMNs of personal experience and culture within the TMN of a concept of God in Teacher thought. This is necessary but it is not sufficient, because specific experiences in Mercy thought are being connected with a general understanding in Teacher thought. The second stage of righteousness connects specific Server actions with the general concept of God in Teacher thought. This leads to a new way of defining personal identity according to profession, which was discussed earlier. Instead of defining identity by using the Perceiver facts of some self-image, identity can be defined by using the Server sequences of some profession. The third stage of rebirth translates this Teacher relationship between specific profession and general concept of God into a Mercy relationship between specific identity and general concept of Holy Spirit. The mind is now fully symmetrical because in both Teacher and Mercy thought, specific identity is living within a general framework held together by a concept of God.
If a mirror-image realm exists, then a fully symmetrical mind would be capable of living with the angels surrounded by the presence of God, and such a mind would consider this to be heaven. And I suggest that this provides the starting point for a theologically meaningful definition of heaven. Similarly, if a mind that is not transformed is forced to live in a mirror-image realm, then such a mind would find the presence of alien beings repulsive and would not want to live in the presence of God. Using theological language, the unregenerate mind will end up in hell apart from God being tormented by demons. Thus, it is important to be ‘saved’ by ‘asking Jesus into your heart’. But ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ is not a magical statement of blind faith. Instead, it is an essential aspect of following a process of personal transformation that leads to mental wholeness. Saying this more carefully, a mind becomes whole by using a concept of incarnation in Contributor thought to integrate Teacher understanding with Mercy identity. Mercy thought thinks in personal terms. Therefore, Mercy thought will view a mental concept of incarnation as an imaginary person, and will see the relationship with incarnation as a personal relationship with an imaginary person who is the ‘Son of God’. Using psychological language, ‘asking Jesus into your heart’ means establishing an internal relationship between the cognitively natural imaginary person of incarnation and personal identity.
Going further, the concept of a Trinitarian God is also symmetrical, because God the Father is the mirror image of God the Spirit, while God the Son is composed of two symmetrical parts. A fully symmetrical mind will naturally contain a fully symmetrical concept of God, with a universal understanding of God the Father in Teacher thought, a universal ‘Form of the good’ of God the Spirit in Mercy thought, and an integrated technical structure of God the Son that holds these two together. Notice that I said concept of God. Verbally stating that one believes in a Trinitarian God is not the same as having the mental concept of a Trinitarian concept of God. Going further, one can postulate that the mental concept of a Trinitarian God corresponds to the real God because the attributes of God that emerge are consistent in detail with the attributes of the Trinitarian God that are described in the Bible, as well as being consistent in detail with the structure of the physical universe. This expands upon the theological concept of general revelation. It is also theologically legitimate to make such a leap from concept of God to real God because one of the most basic theological concepts is that humanity is made in the image of God, which I am interpreting in a substantive matter.
Missionary Activity
This principle of symmetry leading to conservation also explains missionary activity (any form of cross-cultural education is to some extent a form of missionary activity). The three-stage process of personal transformation starts by 1) using words to construct a concept of God in Teacher thought, and 2) teaching that personal identity cannot connect directly with God through some form of mystical manner but rather needs to connect with God through the intermediary of incarnation. This describes the essence of Christian missionary activity which 1) teaches people verbally about the nature of God and humanity, and 2) teaches that Jesus is the intermediary between God and man. (For those who want to examine this topic in more detail, the Christian doctrines of justification, atonement, and sanctification are analyzed in previous essays.) These fundamental principles are usually implicitly present in many forms of cross-cultural education, but as far as I know, they are only taught explicitly by Christianity.)
I am not trying to justify all Christian missionary activity. As deconstructionism has pointed out, much Christian missionary activity has consisted of white missionaries exporting MMNs of Western culture to third-world cultures in the name of God. However, I also suggest that there is a cognitively legitimate core to missionary activity, because the process of personal transformation does start by using words to construct a concept of God, and this verbal message is based upon the critical assumption that one must connect God and man through the technical structure of incarnation rather than attempting to link them directly through intuitive thought. In addition, Christian missionaries have made immense strides in recent years in learning how to focus upon the Christian message of personal transformation while leaving behind the cultural baggage that has historically accompanied this message. In fact, many current Christian missionaries have become so ‘culturally sensitive’ that the core message of personal transformation is itself being abandoned as a cultural artifact. Analyzing Christianity from a cognitive perspective makes it easier to distinguish the core elements of the Christian message that are cognitively necessary from the peripheral elements that are merely cultural expressions.
Returning to the relationship between symmetry and conservation, the missionary is assuming that the Christian message of salvation is conserved when it is moved from one culture to another. A verbal message will only be conserved if there is mental symmetry, because words are interpreted by the mind. Saying this more simply, if the Christian message describes how one is ‘transformed by the renewing of the mind’ (Romans 12:1-2), then this message will only apply to another culture if people within that culture have similar minds. (Physics defines symmetry as some property that is invariant. In this case, the structure of the mind remains the same when one moves between cultures.) This does not mean that the Christian message automatically applies to a different culture. That is because each language assigns meanings to its words based upon the experiences of the local culture. Therefore, even though there is a cognitively universal message of personal salvation, it still has to be translated into the language of the local culture in a manner that conveys the same underlying cognitive principles. This means that an effective missionary has to enter into the local culture in order to learn how to communicate the universal message in the local language. This principle was mentioned earlier when looking at special relativity.
Going further, suppose that real aliens showed up. How would traditional religion respond? Saying this colloquially, did Jesus die for Klingons too? A recent study has concluded that fundamentalist Christianity would find it hardest to reconcile religious belief with the existence of aliens. The reason given is that fundamentalist Christianity violates the Copernican principle by saying that God sent Jesus to earth to live and die among humans, and that God revealed the word of God to humanity through the Bible. However, we have seen that the Copernican principle is rather flawed.
If aliens and angels are beings with similar minds living within a mirror-image symmetrical realm, then this symmetry means that both the human path of personal transformation and the human-oriented divine plan of cosmic redemption would be conserved. The human-oriented Christian message would apply in mirror-image form to both aliens and angels. Jesus would not have to live and die as a finite creature on each finite alien world. Instead, one would simply have to translate the human message of incarnational salvation into the language of aliens and angels. Such a translation would not be trivial, because everything would have to be transformed into its mirror-image. Performing such a translation would require becoming a symmetrical person by completing the process of personal transformation. Stated more bluntly, a fundamentalist Christian message of a physical Jesus dying on a physical cross in the physical land of Palestine 2000 years ago would not translate to aliens. But if one worked out the cognitive essence behind these physical events and then translated this cognitive essence into its mirror image, then that message would communicate to aliens. (The essays on the Gospel of John interpret the life and death of Jesus from a cognitive perspective.)
One can glimpse the extent of translation that would be required by comparing an alien concept of God with a human one. I suggested at the beginning of this essay that what humans call God the Father, aliens would regard as the Holy Spirit. And what humans view as the Holy Spirit, aliens would call God the Father. Going further, the alien path of personal transformation would start with the Holy Spirit and then end up with God the Father. The type of conflicts that would emerge can be seen by comparing Pentecostal Christianity with traditional evangelical Christianity, because Pentecostal Christianity downplays a Teacher understanding of Christian theology and attempts to jump directly to a personal interaction with the Holy Spirit in Mercy thought. (This essay focuses upon evangelical Christianity. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are discussed in previous essays. In brief, if humanity has to break free of mystical religion, then I suggest that Protestant Christianity is furthest along this path, because Catholicism has a strongly mystical flavor and Orthodox Christianity is essentially mysticism in Christian clothing. However, Catholicism has an intellectual side to Christian thought that has been largely lost by the dumb-downed message of Protestant Christianity, while Orthodox Christianity adds an emotional meaning to the Christian path of transformation which is not present in the consumerized ‘four spiritual laws’ path taught by Protestant Christianity. Thus, Protestant Christianity may emphasize the essential truths in a purer and simpler form, but it lacks the Teacher depth of Catholicism and the Mercy depth of Orthodox Christianity.)
This assumes that aliens and angels actually are mirror-image creatures who live in a mirror-image realm. I cannot prove this statement. But I can say that the hearsay evidence that exists about aliens is consistent with this interpretation, as is the biblical description of angels. And I am not aware of any other competing, rational explanation. I am also assuming that the salvation of Jesus extends to angels. This may not be standard evangelical Christian doctrine, but it is clearly described in the first chapter of Colossians. Verses 13-14 define personal salvation as being transferred into the kingdom of Incarnation: “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” This describes personal transformation as an aspect of cosmic renewal. Verse 15 adds that Incarnation is an expression of God in Teacher thought, using the concept of ‘being in the image of God’ that was just discussed: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Verse 16 describes the starting point of creation: “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.” Notice how the concept of being in the image of God is not just a hand-waving statement but rather applies to everything in a technical incarnational manner. Notice also that this is explicitly being extended beyond physical matter to the heavenly and the invisible, and beyond humanity to ‘thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities’. Verse 17 emphasizes the role that technical thought currently plays in creation: “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Verse 18 then describes a plan of redemption and rebirth that starts with humanity on earth, but will extend to have a universal impact: “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” Verse 19 explains that this plan is the expression of a general theory of wholeness in Teacher thought: “for it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” Verse 20 concludes by saying that this plan of redemption includes both the human realm of earth and the angelic realm of heaven: “and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” And the phrase ‘having made peace through the blood of His cross’ describes the essence of what an evangelical Christian would regard as the core of the message of personal salvation.
I have taken the time to go through this passage in detail because the standard evangelical Christian interpretation is that all aliens are demons. I would agree that many—if not most—aliens are demonic. But this passage makes it clear that the Christian message of salvation extends to all created beings, including angels and demons, which means that this message of salvation needs to be translated into a form that is compatible with angelic thought. If fundamentalist Christianity is the only version of Christianity, then all aliens are demonic, not because the Christian message is incapable of being applied to aliens, but rather because the fundamentalist mindset is bound to human existence. In other words, the mindset of fundamentalism may be limited, but the message of Christianity is not.
Uncertainty and Virtual Particles
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be stated in the alternative form of ∆E·∆t > ħ/2. Here, E refers to energy, and t refers to time. This version plays a fundamental role in quantum field theory where it is used precisely because it guarantees uncertainty. We saw earlier that the uncertainty principle becomes a major factor when dealing with the neutrons, protons, and especially electrons of an atom. In a sense, at this size and distance Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle becomes like Alice’s looking glass through which one can only see confused events in a dim light.
Physics suggests that there are four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force. The first two of these forces have been discussed at some length in this essay. That is because both of these forces have unlimited range. For instance, the earth orbits around the sun due to the force of gravity, even though the sun is about 150,000,000 kilometers away. Similarly, when we see a distant star, this means than an electromagnetic wave has traveled from that distant star to the earth. In contrast, the strong force has a range that is limited to the nucleus of an atom, while the range of the weak force is even shorter. This means that the strong and weak forces actually function on the other side of Alice’s looking glass where the uncertainty principle rules, and it is the uncertainty principle that determines why these forces have such a short range.
Looking at this in more detail, Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 says that energy is equivalent to mass. The alternate version of the uncertainty relationship can be seen as a ‘looking glass’ that divides certainty from uncertainty. Above some threshold of mass and time (since mass is equivalent to energy) is the realm of normal human certainty, where one can look at a particle, be certain that it is there, and know that it will continue to exist. Below this threshold of mass and time lies a realm of virtual particles that can be described mathematically but do not really exist. In fact, there is no way of being certain whether virtual particles actually exist or not because they lie on the other side of the looking glass within Heisenberg’s realm of uncertainty.
Saying this more mathematically, ∆E·∆t = ħ/2 can be viewed as a time limit that determines how long a virtual particle can exist. As long as the ‘energy of the particle’ times ‘the length of time that the particle has existed’ is less than ħ/2, then the virtual particle can continue to exist. But once this threshold of energy times time has been reached, then the virtual particle reaches Alice’s looking glass and winks out of existence. And because no particle can travel faster than the speed of light, this also determines the furthest distance that a virtual particle can travel before it ceases to exist. The greater the mass—and thus energy—of a virtual particle, the less time it can exist, and thus the less distance it can travel.
This is important because quantum field theory says that all forces are actually transmitted by virtual particles. The weak force has the shortest range because it is transmitted by massive W and Z bosons. The strong nuclear force (more technically, the residual strong force between neutrons and protons) has a longer range because it is transmitted by less massive mesons. Electromagnetism has infinite range because it is transmitted by photons which have no mass. And gravity—there may be no way of experimentally determining exactly how gravity works. But if the graviton exists then it must also have no mass because gravity, like light, has infinite range.
One of the primary characteristics of a virtual particle is that it can have a mass that does not make sense. Using an analogy, it would not make sense if combining a two kilogram snowball with another two kilogram snowball would create a 50 kilogram ball of snow. But that is the sort of thing that happens with virtual particles. They can be far more massive than they are supposed to be. That is because they only exist on ‘the other side of the looking glass’ where energy, and thus mass, is uncertain. As long as this excess mass vanishes before the allotted time is over, everything has happened within Heisenberg’s land of uncertainty.
That is as far as we will go with the physics. That is because the math gets ugly fairly quickly and I will probably end up saying something that is incorrect. However, I have provided links so that you can check that what I am saying is accurate, at least at a hand-waving level. I should also mention that this ‘time limit’ is not a brick wall but rather a statistical description: It is highly improbable that a virtual particle will continue to exist beyond the time limit and it eventually becomes essentially certain that this particle will cease to exist.
Let us turn now to the cognitive interpretation. A similar sort of ‘looking glass’ exists with the mind in which certainty can be found above this threshold while uncertainty rules below this threshold. This threshold exists within the mind of each individual, making it possible for God to manipulate the responses of a group with total certainty while giving substantial freedom to individuals within this group. The long-term response of a person will be strongly guided by core mental networks. It is possible to reprogram core mental networks by following a path of personal transformation, but it takes years to truly change one’s underlying personality. In contrast, the short-term response of a person can vary all over the map, giving the impression that humans have total free will.
In other words, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not just the end of the road where thinking stops because certainty is no longer possible. Instead, it is actually a looking glass beyond which one can dimly glimpse an entirely different realm in which uncertainty provides the fundamental principle—and where mathematics can still be used. Similarly, human behavior can also be divided into a long-term, large-scale realm where societal and religious mental networks propel people with a certainty that approaches determinism. This is illustrated by the observation that even simplistic ideas can be spread to the rest of society when the time is right. But when the time is not right—when an idea does not line up with the path of society—then even a concept as powerful as a meta-theory of cognition that explains personality, religion, neurology, and physics will be largely ignored.
But this predictability is not apparent in short-term interpersonal interactions. Here uncertainty rules and people have free will. For instance, I have had innumerable conversations with individuals who have shown short-term interest in the theory of mental symmetry. But the vast majority of this interest has been virtual enthusiasm that winks out of existence when some cognitive Heisenberg uncertainty limit is reached. A similar principle appears to apply to the extreme voices of society. People are continually making statements that violate the status quo. But these seem to be virtual statements that do not travel very far or last very long before winking out of existence and being submerged by the status quo.
I am not suggesting that major change does not happen or that it is impossible for individuals to alter the stream of society. On the contrary, what keeps me going is the belief that individuals can alter the course of society in major ways. But I have also found that following such a path requires a major commitment. One must leave the social realm of virtual interaction in which statements are made today and forgotten tomorrow, and enter a far deeper realm of encountering and transforming core mental networks.
The length of time that a virtual particle can exist depends upon the mass of the particle: the more massive a virtual particle, the shorter its lifetime. A similar principle appears to apply to social interaction. Mass represents the strength of an MMN. A person with little social status can be permitted to make extreme statements for a long time. In contrast, when people with great social status make extreme remarks, then strong forces will gather to silence such individuals.
The Strong Nuclear Force
The strong nuclear force is the aspect of the strong force that prevents the nucleus of an atom from flying apart. The nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons, which are known corporately as nucleons. As we all know, like charges repel, which means that some attractive force is needed to keep the protons together in order to balance the repulsive force that comes from bringing the positive electric charge of one proton next to the positive electrical charge of another. This attractive force is provided by the nuclear force, which is an aspect of the strong force. It is a strong force—hence the name, but it is also a short-range force that does not extend beyond the nucleus of an atom. The nuclear force is actually transmitted by mesons, which are short-term particles composed of one quark and one antiquark, held together by the strong force.
Both electromagnetic and gravitational forces vary as the inverse square of distance. For example, at half the distance, the force is four times as large; at twice the distance, the force is one quarter the strength. The strength of the nuclear force, in contrast, has an unusual shape. The strongest attractive force occurs when nucleons are almost touching (This is a hand-waving statement because neutrons and protons aren’t actually solid balls that can touch each other. That is because we are dealing here with the other side of the uncertainty divide where nothing is certain, including shape or size.) If the nucleons move any closer, then this attractive force turns into an even stronger repulsive force. Going the other way, if nucleons are separated, then the attractive force will weaken at an exponential rate, and it will become insignificant at a distance of about three times the size of a nucleon. Using an analogy, the nuclear force is like the social space at a social gathering: People tend to talk with each other at a social distance, but they find it uncomfortable when their personal space is invaded.
Cognition faces a similar problem. I have suggested that protons represent mental networks, and mental networks, like protons, also tend to find each other repulsive. One can see this illustrated on the Mercy side by feelings of tribalism, ‘us versus them’-ism, or culture shock; people find it repulsive when other people or groups follow mental networks that are different; different is regarded as bad, while same is viewed as good. On the Teacher side, competing paradigms also do not get along well with one another. Thus, some cognitive force is needed to prevent mental networks from fragmenting into mutually repelling cultures and worldviews.
This cognitive force appears to be related to concentration. When my brother and I were studying cognitive styles, we realized that three of the seven cognitive styles have a unique ability to concentrate that is not present in the four other cognitive styles: The Mercy person can concentrate upon some goal. For instance, a Mercy person can be so focused upon reaching the goal of reaching the fridge that he will bang his shins on the legs of the chair on his way there. This fixation upon the desired goal to the exclusion of unrelated items appears to be a general characteristic of Mercy thought. Similarly, the Teacher person can concentrate upon some abstract theory so intensely that normal life gets forgotten. For instance, my Teacher brother has both told me—and demonstrated several times—that when a Teacher person gets tired, he does not let go of a problem but rather tends to fixate on it in an increasingly inflexible manner.
The Contributor person is the third cognitive style who has the mental power of concentration. Teacher and Mercy concentration could be compared to pounding a stake in the ground; everything then flows around this point of fixation. Contributor concentration is like surrounding some property with a fence; anything outside of this fence will be ignored as unimportant. (Notice that the three styles that can concentrate are also the three cognitive modules that create the mental concept of a Trinitarian God.)
We have talked a lot about mental networks in this essay. Concentration is related to mental networks but is not the same. This can be seen from neurology, because mental networks and concentration are related to different aspects of the physical brain. The orbitofrontal cortex handles the emotional core of mental networks. Teacher and Mercy concentration, in contrast, appears to be related to the inferior frontal gyrus. (Contributor concentration appears to be controlled from the nucleus basalis of Meynert.) In brief, the left inferior frontal region appears to calculate focus-within-context for words and ideas. Words are retrieved together with the context for these words. Similarly, the right inferior frontal region notices significant visual items within some visual context. This retrieving of item-plus-context occurs continually during normal thought. For instance, the meaning of the two words ‘ship sinks’ is only clear if these words are placed within some verbal context. Is the topic bathrooms and kitchens, or is it oceangoing vessels? Similarly, a flashing red light could have several different meanings depending upon the context.
Summarizing, both mental networks and item-within-context are basic elements of Teacher and Mercy thought. These two are strongly related. Teacher emotion is generated by order-within complexity, in which some context can be explained by a simple statement. Mercy thought emphasizes love, which can be defined more rigorously as mutually beneficial social interaction, in which people are interacting in a manner that is glued together by some common thread. Saying this another way, item-within-context performs the mental calculations that make it possible to generate Teacher feelings of order-within-complexity and Mercy feelings of love.
Similarly, we have seen earlier that Contributor choice always occurs within some context; Contributor thought chooses between a range of options that are provided by Exhorter thought.
Item-plus-context may seem at first glance to be a rather minor cognitive effect, but I have learned over the decades that the three forms of concentration provide the primary force for determining the direction of thought and activity. In addition, this sense of item-plus-context, together with ‘eliminating distractions from a plan’, makes it possible to remain oriented at the immediate personal level. If one compares item-plus-context with the sense of reasonableness that was discussed earlier, it appears that item-plus-context is more basic. I say this primarily because Perceiver, Server, and Facilitator persons—the three forms of thought responsible for the sense of reasonableness—do not have a natural ability to concentrate. Instead, their focus of attention is continually being pulled here and there by external factors. Mercy, Teacher, and Contributor persons, in contrast, can and do fixate, and this fixation spreads to those around them. For instance, when my Mercy mother got some ‘bee in her bonnet’, then the whole family would be enlisted in carrying out her project. Similarly, when my Teacher brother focuses upon some theory, then his entire family becomes drawn into his web of thought. And it is well-known that Contributor persons are capable of creating a reality distortion field which affects those around them.
Concentration is also strongly related to individuality, because being an individual who is different than others requires pursuing some personal focus in Mercy thought, carrying out a plan in Contributor thought, and/or being guided by some theory in Teacher thought. Going further, this ability to concentrate operates over the short-term and gives the illusion of total free will. For instance, everyone can talk about love in the short-term and choose to perform acts of love. Similarly, most people can temporarily adopt someone else’s point of view and interpret situations in the light of some novel paradigm. And the average person also has the ability to formulate and carry out some short-term plan. But most of these acts of love, theories, and plans do not continue over time. Instead, the short-term individualistic behavior that gives the illusion of total free will usually becomes swallowed up by the social MMNs and societal TMNs of society.
One can see this distinction in dementia. Dementia is associated with a breakdown in brain acetylcholine circuits, and acetylcholine is required for attention, which is another word for concentration. More specifically, “Attention is the first non-memory domain affected in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), before deficits in language and visuo-spatial function, and it is claimed that attention deficits are responsible for the difficulties with daily living in early demented patients.” My mother suffered from dementia at the end of her life, and I noticed a rather strange juxtaposition which seems to be present in other elderly individuals. On the one hand, her mind became fragmented as she lost the ability to concentrate. On the other hand, the underlying mental networks of her personality continued to shine through these various mental fragments. It was also interesting to see the interaction between concentration and her conscious ability as a Mercy person. For many of her final years she was able to use conscious control within Mercy thought to give the appearance of being intellectually ‘with it’, but as her dementia spread, her conscious efforts became increasingly transparent, because content became increasingly absent from her social responses. Near the end, she would smile sweetly at you, look intently at you as if she was following what you were saying, and then respond with a statement that was non-verbally meaningful but devoid of any nouns.
Saying this more generally, it appears that the personality of aging individuals becomes increasingly a reflection of their core mental networks. They lose the human ability to give the appearance of free will in the short-term, and what remains are long-term habits and desires, unfiltered by social convention. Again one sees the contrast between personal individual freedom and underlying long-term determinism. I am not suggesting that human free will is an illusion. But I am suggesting that most of what passes for human free will is a cognitive form of quantum fluctuation, a mental bubbling on the personal side of the uncertainty divide. Exercising true free will is a long-term process that requires rebuilding mental networks at a fundamental level, as described by the process of personal transformation.
Concentration is actually a way of bringing mental networks close together, because concentration includes examining many related mental networks in the light of one network, or else choosing one mental network from a group of related mental networks. (Not all concentration involves mental networks, but a significant portion of it does.) This type of examination brings mental networks close together, but not too close, similar to the way that the nuclear force brings protons and neutrons close together, but not too close. Like the nuclear force, concentration also has a short range, because the comparing is limited to some context, and one eventually gets tired and loses the ability to concentrate. This description builds upon the analogy made earlier between protons and mental networks. In other words, we have added another ‘finger’ to the ‘hand’ of analogy which says that protons are like mental networks.
Going further, building up a general network of understanding means thinking through the relationship between item-and-context within many related areas. For instance, each section of this essay examines one aspect of physics and connects several related concepts to a central theme. Putting all of these sections together creates—hopefully—a general framework for viewing cognition and physics. Similarly, protons in the nucleus do not come into direct contact with one another but rather are interspersed by neutrons. This interleaving of neutron and proton is held together by the strong nuclear force. Similarly, concentration builds—and functions within—an internal grid of mental networks held together by normal thought.
The Strong Force
We have looked at what is known as the nuclear force or the residual strong force. This is the secondary aspect of the strong force that keeps neutrons and protons together within the nucleus. The nuclear force is mediated by mesons. A meson is composed of a quark and an antiquark. A baryon, in contrast, is made up of three quarks. The only stable baryons are the proton and neutron. A proton is composed of two up quarks and a down quark, while a neutron is comprised of one up quark and two down quarks.
Saying this as clearly as possible, the strong force involves quarks and is mediated by gluons, which ‘glue’ the quarks together. The only stable quarks are the up quark and the down quark. A baryon is composed of three quarks, and the only stable baryons are the proton and neutron, each composed of three quarks held together by gluons. A quark and an antiquark can also combine to form the temporary particle of a meson, and the residual strong force is mediated by virtual mesons, which keep neutrons and protons together in the nucleus. Obviously, there is much more to the story, but this essay is attempting to find connections between the fundamental elements of physics and the fundamental elements of cognition.
If a proton represents a mental network, and if a proton is composed of quarks held together by the strong force, then this implies that the strong force is related in some way to the structure of a mental network. In other words, if one attempts to open up a mental network and look at the details inside, then the interaction should be similar to what one finds if one attempts to open up a proton and look at the details inside. This appears to be the case.
One commonality is that both protons and mental networks strongly resist fragmentation. Both electromagnetic and gravitational forces decrease over distance, varying as the inverse square of the distance. The nuclear force also decreases with distance, decaying exponentially. The strong force, in contrast, increases with distance. Trying to pull apart a proton is like stretching a rubber band: the further one pulls, the greater the strong force resists. In a similar manner, when a mental network experiences impending fragmentation, then it will exert a level of emotional discomfort that goes beyond normal pain, which I have referred to in previous essays as hyper-emotion. The greater the threat of fragmentation, the more intense will be this feeling of hyper-pain.
If one continues to pull a proton (or neutron) apart, then eventually the energy will reach a high enough level to cause a quark and an antiquark to emerge from the vacuum, forming a meson. This means in practice that one never sees an isolated quark. Instead one always sees quarks in triplets as baryons or in pairs as mesons. This principle is known in physics as color or quark confinement. If one continues pulling, then what will eventually emerge is a jet of particles, through a poorly understood process known as hadronization.
In a similar manner, when a mental network is directly assaulted, this will not result in critical analysis in which one can examine the various aspects of the mental network. Instead, the mental network will be defended with increasing ferocity, leading to the emergence of further short-term mental structures. If one continues this direct assault, then the end result will be an emotional jet of mental particles through a poorly understood process known as ‘losing one’s temper’.
Another common property of the strong force and mental networks is known in physics as asymptotic freedom. Quarks strongly resist being pulled apart, but the force between quarks becomes small when quarks are close together. One can visualize this by comparing the strong force to a bag made out of rubber. Quarks that are in this ‘bag’ have the freedom to bounce around inside. But if one tries to pull the quarks apart, then this will require stretching the bag, which will require increasing force.
Mental networks exhibit a similar property. A mental network that is not being challenged will be almost invisible, and will exert very little force upon thought. For instance, the average person in some society will not think that personal behavior is being driven by the mental networks of that culture. Instead, such individuals will simply feel that they are expressing free will and behaving in a natural manner. However, if this ‘free and natural’ behavior is questioned or threatened, then the presence of underlying mental networks will become apparent.
There is another aspect to asymptotic freedom. The interaction between quarks also becomes weaker at high energy. Thus, at sufficiently high energies, one can model the strong force as isolated quarks that occasionally bang into each other. In a similar manner, mental networks become more simplistic at levels of high emotional energy. Saying this more simply, the nature of a mental network is most obvious when it expresses itself in a crisis situation. That is when it becomes clear what a person is made of.
We have looked at the ‘protons’ of mental networks. The ‘neutrons’ of normal thought function in a similar manner. Normal thought is based in connections and similarities, and these cannot be pulled apart because connections and similarities are always between one thing and another. Perceiver thought uses connections to determine what is true, while Server thought uses connections determine how things are done.
For instance, based upon many connections, I know that ‘following a path to reach personal maturity and wholeness’ describes the essence of the message of Christianity. I also know, based upon many repeated facts and incidents, that president Donald Trump is lacking in personal maturity, wholeness, and integrity. Therefore, Perceiver thought in my mind concludes that it is wrong for American Christians to connect themselves with Donald Trump. I can see how American voters might have chosen to elect Donald Trump as an alternative to Hillary Clinton, but as American evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump, this is pulling apart the deep connection between Christianity and personal character. As this discrepancy becomes increasingly apparent, Perceiver thought within my mind has reached the point of screaming ‘You can’t pull apart Christianity and personal character’. And it is becoming increasingly evident that if this pulling continues, then it will result in an ugly ‘jet of fundamental particles’.
I think that a similar form of processing is happening within the mind of the typical American evangelical, because they are convinced that God and country belong together—that Protestant Christendom must remain connected with the country of the United States. (This connection can be seen in the American evangelical attraction to the culture and trappings of Americana.) As liberal American thought has continued to pull these apart, the pressure to keep them together becomes stronger, and is currently resulting in the ‘jet of fundamental particles’ known as Trumpism.
Notice that one is not dealing here with the logical thought processes of technical thought. But this is also not a case of emotional mental networks—though mental networks are definitely getting involved. Instead, it has to do with Perceiver truth at a fundamental level, guided by how things are connected. Notice also that this thinking becomes more simplistic when one deals with fundamental topics, similar to the way that mental networks become more obvious when dealing with emotional topics.
While we are on the subject, I would like to look very briefly at the two evangelical hot buttons of homosexuality and abortion. In both cases, I suggest that a physical fixation is masking an underlying cognitive problem that is not being addressed. Looking first at homosexuality, male thought emphasizes technical thought while female thinking emphasizes mental networks. These two are kept separate in Western society by the fundamental split between objective and subjective thought, which tries to prevent male technical thought from interacting with female mental networks. This split between objective and subjective is especially strong in the United States: work is distinct from leisure; profession and family do not mix; common sense is separated from entertainment; science and religion are kept apart. This means that the thinking and mindset of American society is deeply homosexual. As long as this mental homosexuality remains dominant, any attempt to address physical homosexuality will be unsuccessful.
Turning now to abortion, I have mentioned several times that absolute truth leads to an attitude of religious self-denial, in which personal identity is suppressed in order to follow God. In contrast, following science and technology will benefit personal identity. Pursuing science and technology has caused the United States to experience more personal prosperity than any other group of people in history. These two threads have been colliding within the minds of American evangelicals: Believing in absolute truth as a fundamentalist Christian means denying self for God. But being an American—and the typical American fundamentalist is convinced that Christianity and America belong together—has led to unprecedented personal prosperity. The end result is repeated mental abortions, in which either living mental networks of personal prosperity are sacrificed in order to appease the fundamentalist God of self-denial, or else mental networks of Christian fundamentalism are eliminated in order to follow the American dream of personal prosperity. As long as this mental contradiction between denying self for God and experiencing the prosperity of God remains unresolved, I suggest that any attempt to address physical abortion will be unsuccessful.
Stating this as a cognitive principle, if a deep split exists within my mind, then I will become sensitive to external manifestations of this internal split, and I will try to eliminate these external manifestations because they are triggering contradictory mental networks within my mind. This principle is mentioned at the beginning of Romans 2: “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” Curiously, this verse occurs right after the infamous passage at the end of Romans 1 that talks about homosexuality.
Normal thought also exhibits a form of ‘asymptotic freedom’. When there is a general consensus of Perceiver truth, then this truth tends to be loosely defined. But if the fundamental connections of truth begin to be pulled apart, then this will lead to a polarization in which truth becomes more clearly defined and more firmly defended.
By now one may have the impression that we are actually talking about mental networks and not normal thought. Therefore, it may be helpful to compare these two. Mercy mental networks deal with the personal experiences of culture and identity: the experiences feel unfamiliar; I feel personally threatened; immigrants need to leave; people with different skin colors and strange clothing feel threatening. Teacher mental networks deal with paradigms and general theories: they are using unfamiliar words; I cannot understand; strange paradigms need to be rejected; people with strange theories who speak strange languages feel threatening. Perceiver normal thought, in contrast, deals with facts and connections: Perceiver thought feels disoriented when dealing with new topics for which there are no factual connections; connections that cannot be separated define truth; error needs to be eliminated. Similarly, Server thought feels disoriented when dealing with situations in which nothing can be done: actions must be guided by how things work; people need to follow examples. (The connection between the ‘strong force’ and Server thought is not as obvious because of the impact that the physical body has upon Server thought. One can gain Server confidence by choosing to repeat some set of actions. Perceiver thought does not have this option.)
We have seen some of the similarities between mental networks and normal thought. Technical thought, in contrast, functions quite differently. Technical thought usually follows chains of logic in which each step is known with sufficient certainty: If ‘a’, then ‘b’. If ‘b’, then ‘c’, and so on. Similarly, the electron, which corresponds symbolically with technical thought, is a fundamental particle. Unlike the proton and the neutron, it is not made up of quarks. For instance, technical thought would never say that electrons are like technical thought. Instead, this is the kind of statement which normal thought would make: this is like that. It is also the kind of statement which mental networks would make: when I experience this then I should also experience that. Thus, it is common for technical thought to reject normal thought as merely another version of irrational mental networks. And when analogies are used in a hand-waving manner, then there often is little difference between these two. But it is possible to use normal thought in a semi-rigorous manner by going beyond saying ‘this is like that’ to saying ‘the details of this are also like the details of that’. Thus, it may be non-rigorous to compare protons with mental networks, but if this comparison continues to hold as one looks at the details, then the comparison becomes semi-rigorous. This kind of semi-rigorous analogical comparison is common in physics, because one can often use the same mathematical equations to analyze totally different situations. For instance, the relationship between mechanical springs, masses, and dampers is mathematically similar to the relationship between electrical capacitors, inductors, and resistors. This correspondence makes it possible to construct analog computers which use electrical circuits to represent mechanical systems.
Returning now to the strong force, quarks interact on the basis of color charge. There are six quark colors, which are called red, green, blue, anti-red, anti-blue, and anti-green. (Any of the six varieties of quark can have any of the six colors. Thus, there can be a red up quark, or an anti-blue strange quark.) The basic principle is that all of the colors in a particle must add up to white. For a baryon that is composed of three quarks, this can be done by combining the colors red, blue, and green. For a meson this means combining a color with its anti-color.
Saying that the colors of a baryon or meson combine to form the color white is actually a symbolic interpretation. What really happens is that color charges always combine to form a neutral color charge. In a similar manner, a mental network typically presents itself in a self-consistent manner that appears to be free of bias, but inside the mental network all sorts of emotional biases are continually interacting with one another. In a similar manner, normal thought may be filled with internal inconsistencies, but it is typically packaged in a manner that appears internally consistent.
Looking at this more generally, if one could look inside a proton or neutron, one would see a form of social chaos, in which quarks are continually interacting through gluons in order to change color. This is significant, because a proton or neutron has much greater mass than the mass of the three quarks of which it is composed, and 99% of the mass of a proton or a neutron actually comes from the intense energy contained in this continuous interaction.
In a similar manner, most of the ‘mass’ of a mental network comes from the interaction between the various elements of a mental network. When one memory in a mental network is triggered, then this will activate all of the memories in the mental network, which will then interact mentally with one other in an energetic, semi-random manner.
The Weak Force
Descriptions of the weak force all use essentially the same phrase, saying something like ‘The weak force has the shortest range. It is responsible for radioactive decay.’ After googling extensively, it appears that the primary role of the weak force involves converting neutrons into protons and protons into neutrons. This can happen through beta decay, positron emission, or electron capture. In each of these cases, some form of neutrino is also emitted. These conversions play a major role in in the process by which the sun and other similar sized stars generate energy by converting hydrogen into helium.
Neutrinos are elusive particles that are almost massless. They only interact with other particles through the weak force and through gravity. Because they have such a small mass, most of their interaction occurs through the weak force, which means that neutrinos barely interact at all. Detecting a neutrino is extremely difficult. I have no idea how neutrinos relate to cognition.
However, the weak force does have some interesting properties with cognitive implications. The weak force is the only force that is capable of transmuting one kind of particle into another. In particular, it can change neutrons into protons and protons into neutrons. When this happens within the nucleus of an atom, then the atom changes from one element to an adjacent element in the periodical table. For instance, a magnesium atom can turn into a sodium atom through positron emission, or an aluminum atom can turn into a magnesium atom through electronic capture.
The Standard Model says that forces are transmitted through virtual particles. The weak force is transmitted by massive particles known as W and Z bosons. The uncertainty principle says that a massive virtual particle can only exist for a short period of time, which explains why the weak force has the shortest range of any of the four fundamental forces.
Turning now to the cognitive implications, the properties of the weak force imply that: 1) The weak force represents something personal, because it functions within the uncertainty divide. 2) The weak force represents some form of transformation, because it is the only force that transmutes one element into another. 3) This transformation involves normal thought and mental networks, because the primary transmutation is between neutrons and protons. 4) This transformation involves MMNs because mass represents MMNs and W and Z bosons are massive particles.
Putting this together, one concludes that the weak force represents a force of personal transformation that deeply impacts mental networks. Theologically speaking, this introduces topics such as sin, redemption, and atonement.
We have described personal transformation as a long-term process that goes through three primary stages. That is what it looks like on the macro side of the uncertainty divide, where one is dealing with long-term personality changes. On the personal side of this divide, transformation is typically experienced as a series of small scale transmutations, in which the ‘protons’ of mental networks are turned into the ‘neutrons’ of normal thought and vice versa.
This can be seen in the breaking of a habit. Fighting a habit is difficult, because one has to choose continually not to allow a mental network to express itself. But when a habit finally dies, it goes out with a whimper and not a bang. What usually happens is that one will wake up, act in a normal manner and then realize several hours later that one is no longer being bothered by the habit. The mental network is gone. The memories remain, but they have now entered the realm of normal thought and no longer function as an integrated mental network. Symbolically speaking, the ‘proton’ of the habit has been transmuted into a ‘neutron’ of normal thought. A similar cognitive transmutation happens when dealing with hurtful or painful memories. The memories are still there, but it is no longer painful to think about them. It is not possible to process an extensive range of traumatic memories all at once, because one is dealing with the mental ‘molecule’ of a nested web of interlocking mental networks. But this processing of hurt also does not seem to happen one memory at a time. Instead, it appears to happen one mental network at a time, with each mental network containing a chunk of memories, and the processing of a chunk of memories is similar to the breaking of a habit in which one struggles over time and then a breakthrough suddenly occurs. A similar timing can be seen in the weak force. Because the carriers of the weak force are so massive, the transmutations occur infrequently. But when a transmutation does happen, then it happens quickly.
The analog of a neutron turning into a proton can be seen in the forming of a TMN. A general Teacher theory does not immediately acquire the emotional power of a mental network. Instead, one must work with a theory for a while before it turns into a TMN, but when this transformation occurs, then one will notice that the theory has suddenly acquired a life of its own. One is no longer simply studying the theory. Instead the theory is exerting an emotional drive to explain situations that it encounters. Saying this symbolically, a ‘neutron’ of normal thought has been transmuted into the ‘proton’ of a mental network. Many of the mental networks of culture also arise in a similar fashion. If one traces some tradition back to its origins, one often finds that it was the result of some semi-random choice in which some individual or group decided to behave in a certain fashion. This behavior was then repeated and over time transmuted into a tradition, backed up by some MMN of culture.
I am not suggesting that all mental networks are formed in this manner. Mental networks are often created quickly and suddenly when traumatic or ecstatic experiences impose themselves upon Mercy thought. Instead, we are looking here at how mental networks form and dissipate when the physical body is not imposing emotional experiences upon Mercy thought. This purely mental process is usually seen when building theories and forming cultures, or when attempting to recover mentally from what the body has imposed upon the mind.
Symmetry Breaking
Moving on, the weak force also plays a major role in the Higgs mechanism involving the infamous Higgs boson. The cognitive implications of this mechanism are intriguing and add details to the concept of associating the weak force with personal transformation. (I am not suggesting that the weak force causes personal transformation. Rather, I am suggesting that there are similarities between the functioning of the mind and the functioning of the universe, which implies that both were created by the same Universal Being working off the same cosmic blueprint. Expanding upon this concept, similarities between different species can be interpreted either as evolving from a common ancestor or as being created by the same cosmic designer. However, similarities between the structure of the mind and the structure of the universe can only be interpreted as having the same cosmic designer, because the mind is totally different than the universe.)
In order to understand the Higgs mechanism, one must introduce the idea of symmetry breaking. Suppose that I place a ball at the top of a smooth hill that is perfectly symmetrical, as shown at the top of the diagram. Everything is symmetric, with the ball in the middle and the left side a mirror image of the right side. But this symmetry is not stable. Instead, any disturbance will cause the ball to roll down the hill either to the left or to the right. This is a simple illustration of symmetry breaking. Electroweak theory suggests that something similar happened at the beginning of the universe: Initially, there were four force bosons that all had no mass. But through some form of symmetry breaking, this transformed into the three W and Z bosons which all acquired significant mass, and the photon which remained massless. Saying this another way, before symmetry breaking, the electromagnetic force and the weak force were combined into a single force known as the electroweak force. After this symmetry breaking, the weak force became distinct from the electromagnetic force, and the three force carriers for the weak force acquired a large mass, restricting the range of the weak force, while the proton, the force carrier for electromagnetism, remained massless, giving electromagnetic force an infinite range.
Because of this symmetry breaking, electromagnetism and the weak force are often described as a single combined electroweak force. These two forces combine when energy reaches a sufficiently high level. This energy level is high but it is not impossibly high, and current accelerators are in the neighborhood of this energy. Physics goes further to suggest that all fundamental forces become unified at an even higher energy. But this ultimate unification would occur at impossibly high levels of energy: The strong force would become integrated with the electroweak force at a level of energy that is a trillion times higher than the energy at which electromagnetism and the weak force come together, while gravity becomes included at a level of energy 100,000 times higher than even that.
Looking at this symbolically, there are cognitive connections between cognitive ‘electromagnetism’, which illustrates the interaction between technical thought and mental networks, and the cognitive ‘weak force’, which illustrates personal transformation. Saying this more specifically, one can view the process of personal transformation as starting with mental networks, moving on to technical thought, and then returning to an integrated form of mental networks and technical thought. This is illustrated by the learning of some skill: The beginner acts intuitively but inadequately. The student acquires technical skill but applies this skill in a mechanical manner. The expert combines mental networks with technical thought, by applying technical thought in an intuitive manner.
I have suggested that the strong force represents concentration and attention. This is cognitively more fundamental because it relates to one’s very existence as a finite individual. Saying this more clearly, electromagnetism and the weak force both represent how one uses the mind as an individual. The strong force represents existing as an individual. Existence is more fundamental than behavior. Going further, existence of the environment is even more basic than existence as an individual within the environment. Similarly, gravity, which relates to the existence of physical space/time, and symbolically represents the forces that guide human society, is more fundamental than any finite creatures who live physically within space-time and cognitively within human society.
Looking further at the symmetry breaking of the electroweak force, when this symmetry breaking occurred, it created a field known as the Higgs field. According to the linked webpage, “The Higgs field (unlike most of the elementary fields of nature) has a non-zero average value throughout the entire universe. And because it does, many particles have mass, including the electron, quarks, and the W and Z particles of the weak interactions. If the Higgs field’s average value were zero, those particles would be massless or very light. That would be a disaster; atoms and atomic nuclei would disintegrate. Nothing like human beings, or the earth we live on, could exist without the Higgs field having a non-zero average value.” The Higgs field is the only field with an average nonzero value (except for the gravitational field that establishes the existence of space and time). If the Higgs field had an average value of zero, then the universe would be a very different place. I am not going to try to explain how this works, but have provided some links to a good explanation by a professor of physics.
Instead, I am going to make all physics professors cringe by making a cognitive—and religious—connection. We will start by summarizing what physics says: The universe began in a state of perfect symmetry in which all elementary particles were massless (except for four Higgs particles) and moved at the speed of light. But this symmetry was unstable. Instead, symmetry broke, a non-zero Higgs field emerged, and elementary particles acquired mass. (Protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, and acquire most of their mass from the vibrating of gluons.) In addition, electromagnetism became separated from the weak force. Electromagnetism retained an infinite range while the weak force became restricted to a very short range because of the mass that the W and Z bosons had acquired.
Looking at this cognitively, the universe began in a state of universal Teacher perfection, because Teacher thought loves symmetry. In this state of complete symmetry, MMNs of personal identity did not exist and everything functioned at the level of divine perfection. However, this initial state was unstable, and symmetry was inevitably broken. Using theological language, there was a fall of creation. This breaking of symmetry had several results: 1) Electromagnetism emerged as a distinct entity. We saw previously that electromagnetism is based in electric charge, and we suggested that electric charge represents the division between male technical thought and female mental networks. Saying this symbolically and theologically, a tension between male and female thought emerged after the fall. 2) The range of the weak force became very limited and the probability of weak interaction diminished because the W and Z bosons acquired significant mass. If the weak force represents personal transformation, then this implies that personal transformation became much more individualistic as well as more difficult because of the significant ‘mass’ of MMNs that were now involved. 3) A new non-zero Higgs field emerged that was responsible for giving mass to elementary particles. If mass represents MMNs, then this implies that a new concept of divine spirit emerged in Mercy thought, which made it possible for individual creatures to acquire MMNs of culture and identity.
Before we continue, the idea of divine spirit needs to be explored. A concept of divine spirit emerges when Mercy thought gains the impression that all experiences are interrelated in some universal manner. The human mind can acquire a concept of divine spirit either directly or indirectly. A direct concept of divine spirit forms when one is personally immersed in an environment in which everything interacts in a personal manner. This can happen to the ‘primitive’ person living in a jungle that is filled with interacting lifeforms, and it can also happen to the ‘modern’ person living in a concrete jungle in which all needs are met through social interaction. The point is that this concept of divine spirit is being ‘inhaled’ directly from the environment. In contrast, the concept of a Holy Spirit will emerge when Teacher thought creates many Platonic forms within Mercy thought, and all of these Platonic forms become integrated into a form of the Good by a universal understanding in Teacher thought. The word ‘holy’ means separate and distinct. A mental concept of a holy spirit is ‘holy’ because it is separate and distinct from a concept of divine spirit; instead of coming directly from an integrated environment, it is a way of viewing the environment in an integrated manner that is an indirect result of understanding.
A similar distinction can be seen in the Higgs field. If God the Spirit imparted the mass of Mercy substance directly to creation, then this would lead to some form of pantheism or panentheism in which one could not distinguish between finite life and God the Spirit. The symmetry breaking of a Higgs field provides an indirect method of giving mass to creation which leaves the universe distinct from God the Spirit. This associating a primordial Higgs field with the Holy Spirit provides a possible interpretation for some very confusing verses at the beginning of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Genesis 1:1-3). The process starts with God the Father creating some Teacher structure. This is then followed by some form of breaking of symmetry. This makes it possible for a Spirit of God—a divine Mercy expression of Teacher thought—to move over the waters of Mercy experiences. It is within this modified, post-symmetry-breaking universe that God the Father then creates the light of universal Teacher law. (When looking at the mathematics of general relativity earlier in the essay, we gained a similar impression that God the Father first created the laws, God the Spirit then stepped in to warp space-time, and the laws of physics now function within warped space-time.)
God would have to create the universe in this kind of indirect manner because existence is more basic than pleasure. The bottom line is creating a universe that exists independently of the nature of God, and this is more basic than any divine pleasure that God would derive from a perfectly symmetrical universe. One of the results of creating a universe in this manner is a tension between the male technical thought required to live within the physical universe and the female mental networks required to exist as human individuals.
This process of cosmic symmetry breaking is then repeated at a personal level in the story of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. Anyone who has studied human personality will know that the innocent perfection of a Garden of Eden is unstable. It is inevitable that Adam and Eve will eventually get kicked out of the garden. Symmetry will be broken. But the book of Genesis also implies that this symmetry could have been broken in one of four ways. If water represents Mercy thought, then a river would symbolize the stream of a society. Genesis 2:10-14 says that four rivers flowed out of Eden, implying that humankind could have developed in one of four primary ways: “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” The meaning of many of these words in the original Hebrew is uncertain. That does not really matter. What does matter is that these four rivers are not all the same. The first river flows by a land that contains good gold. The second river flows around an entire land. The third river is the Tigris which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. It is easy to determine which stream humanity followed, because one of the primary themes of the final book of Revelation is the destruction of the city of Babylon which lies on the Euphrates River. In other words, humanity followed plan D, the worst of the four alternatives. Looking further at the results of this personal symmetry breaking, Genesis 3 describes in extensive detail the conflict between male and female thought that emerged as a result of this fall.
This provides a different view of the theological concept of the fall of man. God did not create humanity and then decide beforehand which ones would be damned to eternal hell, as stated by John Calvin. And the fall of mankind is also not some divine plan gone horribly wrong. Instead, the fall of mankind was an inevitable cognitive ‘breaking of symmetry’ that was required to give humanity an existence that was independent of God. Unfortunately, this breaking of symmetry played out in the worst of four possible ways, forcing God’s plan for humanity to take a number of painful detours. This adds some additional detail to the standard theological statement that giving humanity free will makes it possible for humans to reject God.
Since we are already in the book of Genesis, I would like to talk very briefly about the six days of creation. It does not make sense to try to map these six days on to some process of evolution, because the two sequences do not line up. But the six days of creation do make sense if one interprets them symbolically and cognitively as stages in the development of civilization. That brings us to the whole question of the age of the universe. I think it is important to make a distinction between the age of the universe and the age of the earth. It is theoretically possible that the universe is several billion years old. It is also possible that the evidence which implies an old universe has been misinterpreted because of the Copernican principle. I do not know which is the case. But I do know that the evolution of life is utterly implausible and that theological concepts of sin and redemption become meaningless if human life evolved through some long process involving suffering and death. Stated more bluntly, I do not know how it is possible to reconcile the concept of a good God with a theory of human evolution. Any God who would use a process of evolution to ‘create’ human life could only be described as a monster.
Relativity provides a possible way of reconciling a young earth with an old universe. Special relativity says that time slows down when an object approaches the speed of light. Symbolically, this means behaving in a manner that more closely reflects the righteousness of God. General relativity says that time slows down when an object is within a strong gravitational field. Symbolically, if gravity reflects the attraction of MMNs, then a strong gravitational field would be associated with the presence of God the Spirit. Creating intelligent life upon the earth would require a significant local presence of both of God the Father and God the Spirit. This extensive, localized, divine presence might cause extreme dilation of time on earth, while time would pass far more quickly elsewhere in the universe. There is no way of proving if this is the case, but it is curious that altered time is a common theme in fairy folklore, which presumably describes a much milder form of supernatural intervention within human reality. Summarizing, intelligent life could not have arisen through chance. Therefore, significant supernatural intervention was required. This intervention would have occurred within a universe that was already subject to natural law, which implies that this supernatural intervention could have affected the earth in some sort of relativistic manner. Saying this another way, I suggest that any purely materialistic explanation of the physical universe is incomplete. This does not mean that one has to appeal to divine magic. Instead, one can use the theory of mental symmetry to come up with a more general explanation which extends beyond the natural to include the supernatural and the divine.
Conclusion
This essay has attempted to build connections between the theory of mental symmetry and the theories of physics. One can make the following general conclusions:
1) All scientists use their minds when thinking about physics. This means that theories of physics do not emerge out of thin air but rather will be guided by the thinking of physicists as well as the worldview of the surrounding culture. This is quite apparent when looking at the birth of science and the personal lives of Kepler and Newton.
2) It is important to distinguish between scientific facts and how these facts are interpreted. Scientific facts ultimately come from the behavior of the physical universe, which is independent of culture or personal opinion. But the way that these facts will be interpreted will be heavily influenced by paradigms within Teacher thought and implicit assumptions within Mercy thought.
3) It is also important to distinguish between how science thinks and what science thinks about. There are many similarities between how science thinks and the cognitive principles described by the theory of mental symmetry. But science studies the physical world while being implicitly guided by underlying theories and assumptions. In contrast, mental symmetry explicitly studies underlying theories and assumptions while being constrained by facts about physical reality and the physical brain.
4) The historical stages in the development of physics can be interpreted as different mindsets and forms of religious thought. These two aspects appear to be intertwined, because the historical development of physics has been accompanied by similar transformations in social and religious thought.
5) It appears that one can interpret many of the elementary particles, equations, and interactions of physics from a symbolic perspective. The technical thinking used by physics will naturally regard this kind of analogical analysis with great suspicion. However, if one wishes to come up with an integrated understanding that can replace the overgeneralized pseudo-integration of mysticism, then it appears that this can only be done by using normal thought to look for analogies. And if one endures the mental cringing long enough to continue with this analysis, it appears that these analogies do exist and can be developed to a semi-rigorous level. I do not know how far these analogies extend. However, this essay has attempted to apply this form of reasoning to the major aspects of physics by comparing fundamental concepts of physics with fundamental cognitive principles.
6) Theology is typically viewed as quite different than physics. However, if one interprets physics in a cognitively natural symbolic manner, then it is possible to discuss a significant range of theological concepts from a rational perspective, and the type of theology that emerges is strongly Judeo-Christian.
7) Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty has a cognitive analog. In physics, it divides between macroscopic objects and fundamental forces with their virtual particles. A similar cognitive division can be made between the long-term impact exercised by mental networks of society, religion, and identity, and the short-term expression of human intelligence and social interaction. Over the long term, most human behavior is predictable and deterministic. In the short term, human behavior gives the impression of having significant free will. This division also provides a possible explanation for the theological contrast between divine sovereignty and human free will.
8) Science naturally rejects religious and cultural blind faith because science requires a paradigm in Teacher thought which blind faith does not provide. This essay, combined with the theory of mental symmetry, presents religious and moral thought in the form of a general paradigm. Stated simply, I have attempted to translate Christianity into a language that is comprehensible to scientific thought. I do this ultimately for personal reasons: If the physical world has been transformed by formulating rational Teacher theories of natural processes and then applying these theories through technology, then it is rational to conclude that following a similar path in the subjective should lead to equally impressive personal benefits.