A Miracle Producing Mechanism
Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
Many years ago, I published the article in the ASA journal "The
rationality of metaphysical evidence" 34(1)(1982): 17-23, where I
discussed how the "G-model" could rationality model various
metaphysical Christian concepts. However, it did not include
anything about the General Grand Unification model (GGU-model) and a
specific application of this model to Biblically described
or otherwise accepted miracles. This has now all changed.
I never present GGU-model theological interpretations unless
they are based upon mathematical reasoning. I have placed a
version of a paper on the mathematics achieves that is applied to the following interpretation. (see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math/0412562. The results in this paper have many different applications, not just the one I discuss here.)
Recall, that one basis for the GGU-model are various standard and
nonstandard logic-systems. The intelligent design signature
associated with each such system yields the General Intelligent Design (GID)-model. In Arxiv:math/0412562,the ultralogics employed in Theorem 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 are always considered as representatives for generating logic-systems. Although it was unnecessary to consider the general logic-system processes that lead from the nonstandard logic-systems to the corresponding ultralogics, it is not difficult to express these informal processes formally and consider how they are applied in the nonstandard world.The mixed logic-system can be interpreted as an interface between the preterphysical (i.e. ultranatural) world and a physical universe. Further, it can also be considered as a interface between yet a higher level "supernatural" world as well, a world of which almost nothing can be known using human modes of comprehension.
Although what constitutes the notion of a miracle is probably not strictly definable so as to encompass all such events, it is certainly an alteration in the behavior of a physical-system that is "usually" physical in character and that is not predictable by known and accepted physical laws or verified scientific theories. Application of Theorem 2.1 is one way that such alterations can occur.
This interface via a mixed logic-system rationally takes ultranatural specific information and yields
natural world specific information.
In the book "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Designed," I introduce the notion of the library of (ultimate) ultrawords. Due to recent results, this can be replaced with a library of ultrawords, where each ultraword is not obtained from an artifical separation of a universe into physical-systems. As described there each member of the library is activated in covirtual form. There are various ways to alter the basic activation process. The alterations as given in the book are for participator activities. A new type of ultralogic has been discovered that can also be used to alter a universe and it must be applied only by a higher-intelligence. This is in addition to the continual requirement that the (st G) process be applied.
Each universe is determined by a hyperfinite event sequence d' or E(i). Each member of an event sequence can be considered as a DVD "track" indexed by primitive time or as individual DVDs. The (stG) process has no effect when applied to tracks that are not indexed by a moment in observer (standard) time. Each universe or DVD can also be uniquely identified as a distinct combination of identified components. Since a library represents all possible or allowable alterations in a master universe, then miracle events can occur when specific members of the library are selected for specific purposes.
There are various ways that a higher-intelligence can make such a selection and maintain a rational posture. Within mathematics, selection from a nonempty set is allowed when it is known that there exists a member of the set that satisfies a specific property. For a nonempty finite set and using set theory, it follows that rationally we are allowed to choice each member of the set, at the least, by using its defining property or some other describable property. This process can, in general, be rationally justified (Mendelson, Elliott. (1987), Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, Monterey Ca., p. 63).
As is established in this paper , there are hyperfinite instruction paradigms that generate a universe. Thus the higher-intelligence can rationally choose each member of any such instruction paradigm. Further, we can choose from a finite collection of the finite instruction paradigms used to establish this result. It is mathematically acceptable for us to choose one of these instruction paradigms from any of the other for a specific moment in primitive time. Indeed, we also know the finite content of the one so chosen since these instructions and the corresponding members of a finite development paradigm have been described via rational means. This all extends to the hyperfinite.
This forms a library of "universes," when the other processes described in the above link (i.e. paper) are employed. Hence, the higher-intelligence can choose any member of this library, then any member from the member chosen. These choices are consider as "rational" since they are extensions of the demonstrable rational human process of selection. Recall that the content of any finite developmental and finite instruction paradigm are known by the human designers. Hence, the higher-intelligence that designs the hyperfinite developmental and instruction paradigms, also has complete knowledge of the contents of a universe-wide frozen frame at each primitive time moment. Thus in a manner similar to what must be done for participator alterations and what human beings do on the finite level, the higher-intelligence can choose a specific altered universe where the alteration in the universe's behavior yields an appropriate result.
The universe is generated from the activated members the instruction paradigm I^q. For I^q, there exists a hyperfinite logic-system displayed in the paragraph that begins with "By considering the definition of . . . " in this paper. For each q, there is obviously a set of all such hyperfinite logic-systems. These are those in a library as represented by the set of all DVDs used in the book. In the book, I point out that the selection of a particular "universe" can be automatically done via informational hyperfast subparticles. Can this special selection process be modeled in such a way that only the higher-intelligence can make such a selection? This is where mixed ultralogics can be used.
In Theorem 2.1, the logic-system R itself can be used or a consequence operator C is employed. A miracle is triggered for a specific finite standard time interval. The instructions that determine how a universe develops over this time interval are the a(i) in the ternary relation. The lambda(i) yields a "command" that uses nonstandard members of the hyperlanguage *L. The deduced b(i) are members a finite portion of a different instruction paradigm and this instruction paradigm and the participator altered ones that follow from it yield the continued developed of our physical world. Significantly, the mixed logic-system is a pure nonstandard logic-system and yields, when applied, a signature that is interpreted theologically as that of a higher-intelligence, where this higher-intelligence has characteristics that identifies it as the Biblical God.
The GGU-model when "completely" interpreted
theologically implies that every entity within our universe is
produced, designed, and continually being controlled by a higher-intelligence. From the required pre-design
viewpoint, there exist non-realized event sequences that contain
every possible categorized miracle. In the above mentioned book, I discuss a process
that allows for the automatic selection of appropriate event
sequences due to the required participator alterations, which are
then realized at each appropriate moment of primitive time. From the
theological point of view, realization requires a special input. If
God did not continue to directly make this input, then the physical
universe would not exist. (Remember that this is the maximum
theological interpretation. Associating this realization with
this special requirement is not necessary in the secular interpretation.
Further, you have partial theological interpretations.)
In order to complete the discussed process, clearly, the additional notion of intelligent choice is required. Are there some special requirements - rules - that must be met in order to initiate a true God influenced miraculous event? All that can be known using a GGU-model theological interpretation is that there may be such rules that guide such occurrences and Divine selection, but, except as Scripturally directed, we can have no additional knowledge as to the content of these rules.
This mixed logic-system approach serves another purpose. This approach
yields a more
direct selection of an appropriate instruction paradigm that yields a specific ordered set of events {E}. It overrides any
automatic process. It can be interpreted as meaning that God has, in
a more personal manner, stepped in and has directly made the
selection via this mechanism. This appears to establish formally that acknowledged
miracles, especially as described in the Scriptures, are
intelligently designed by a higher-intelligence via GID. Of course, no such conclusion can be
established using the theory of restricted intelligent design (Dembski-Behe).
Since this is simply a change in the form of selection,
if you do not have some other source of information, such as the
Bible, Holy Ghost verification or maybe the "surprise" notion, then such a
selection need not be categorized as yielding a miracle. As noted above, maybe
this is why such events are so difficult, if not impossible, to
define via a purely secular physics-like definition. I, for one,
will never attempt to make such a complete "secular" definition. I however
"know one when I see or feel one."