Article Type: paper

How Influx into the Natural Shows Itself In Physics: A Hypothesis

In my previous article in this issue, I list three areas in physics which are not yet properly understood. These are (a) quantum gravity, (b) the need for tuning (fine-tuning, or renormalization) of parameters in quantum field theory, and (more generally) (c) the relation between mind and physics. Now I am going to propose a hypothesis for linking together (b) and (c), where influx from mind into physics occurs by local variations in the tuning of parameters that define quantum fields. Such variations could well be the method how influx from spiritual degrees shows itself in physics. This couldbe used to facilitate some of the molecular dynamical processes described by Hingorani (2014) and Smith (previous article).

Read More »

Protein Synthesis and “Fine Tuning” Paradigms for the Discrete Degrees of Divine Influx

Protein synthesis was chosen as a subject for inquiry by the Theistic Science Group in the fall of 2018 at the suggestion of Ian J. Thompson, PhD10. The focus of the of the group from its inception had been the nature of the nexus or interface between the natural and spiritual worlds, as possibly revealed by spiritual correspondences and the workings of Divine influx as explained in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. The biology of protein synthesis was believed to be uniquely suitable for study on the “natural side” of this discussion in virtue of the known science at the molecular, atomic and even quantum levels. It was anticipated that these physical states might be viewed as forms sufficiently sensitive and subtle to receive both “mediate” and “immediate” influx, via “quantum fine tuning,” at the ultimate interface of the spiritual and natural worlds. No less appealing was the idea that protein synthesis, considered from the perspective of spiritual correspondences, might be a window, however tiny, into Divinely generated life forces themselves given the many roles of protein in cell structure and function, as well as protein functions in the extracellular milieu.

Read More »

From Trines to Enneads: Details to Connect with the Sciences

We remember that “Divine is the same in things greatest and least.” Hence the heavens, minds, and nature should themselves have an internal trine, to contribute to their overall function. So now there is the trine of 3 degrees, and an ennead of 9 sub-degrees. (‘ennea’ is Greek for 9).

Read More »

Conservation is Perpetual Creation

When we look at a bird, or anything else in this world, we are seeing something in the spiritual world, and yet clothed with physical material or chemicals. This is what Sir. Hans Sloane learned when he saw a bird in the spiritual world which was virtually identical to a bird in the natural world, perhaps the hummingbird of Jamaica which he called “the most beautiful bird he ever saw.”

Read More »

Where Do We Go From Here? Theistic Science: Science Done Right

Naturalistic scientists tell us, over and over, that nature is from nature. And they’re smart. Their science is really good. They’ve been doing it for 400 years, and it is very powerful. Meanwhile, religiousscientists tell us that either 1) The earth is 7,500 years old, and Creation happened by magic. Once. Or 2) Nature was “designed” by a Creator, with evidence for this in the many irreducibly complex systems we see at work in natural things. The trouble is that Creationism is a hard proposition to support, and “Creation Science” requires some pretty creative reasoning to confirm. Intelligent Design science is good, really good. But given that nature is “designed” these scientists can’t tell us how it is designed. Not even a little bit.“ Evolution science is wrong,” they say, “but we really don’t know how it works either.” So that’s a big let-down. Other scientists hedge. Some talk a good line, but they too often are like fish, swimming up close to that spiritual edge, but then turning away at the last minute, to avoid being labeled “religious.” (That can kill a career in science, you know.) They talk about the “emergence” of complexity in nature, leading all the way to living forms and even consciousness. They talk about the origin of life, and quantum particles that come into and go out of this world—from where? . . . to where? But they won’t mention a Creator, and for those few who are bold enough to do so, they can’t tell us how it works. Not even a little bit. So where do we go from here?

Read More »

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Sir Henry H. Howorth’s work on the Drift Beds, entitled The Glacial Nightmare, is notable for several things. His own comment is marked by that large common sense which Gcethe says is indispensable to a scientist, if he is not to be ranked, by the judgment of a wider range of facts, as the brilliant leader of a false start. It contains a resume,—scholarly, capable and honest, of the gist of observation and deduction made by students of the subject,—a full storehouse of the historical side, and in which, as the author trusts, “justice has been done to some men at least… whose keen eyes and whose sound judgment it has been the fashion to decry.” It is interesting to lovers of Swedenborg, both because of the strong position he takes against the modern forcing of the Glacial theory, and for the finely accurate summary of Swedenborg’s own statement, which is properly credited,—a rare thing, as few of Swedenborg’s outside readers are scrupulous in keeping the scientific decalogue which Howorth says “prescribes, inter alia, that the man who first makes a scientific deduction is entitled to the credit of it .”

Read More »