A Model for Creation: Part II Paul Bernard White1 March 5, 2019 (Updated: March 13, 2019)2 Abstract In Part I [1] we developed a model, called system P, for constructing the physical universe. In the present paper (Part II) we explore the hypothesis that something exists prior to the physical universe; i.e. we suppose that there exists a sequence of projections (and levels) that is prior to the sequence that constructs the physical universe itself. To avoid an infinite regress, this prior sequence must be finite, meaning that the whole chain of creative projections must begin at some primal level which is itself uncreated. So, from this primal level emanates a primal sequence of projections, which yields a first-created system; by definition, there is no creation prior to this first system. Proceeding from this basis, we use the template of our previous work in constructing entities in the physical universe to outline the construction of entities in this first-created system. Next, we seek an interpretation of this first system and its entities. Since our "primal level" is an uncreated state of being from which all creation springs, it draws obvious allusions to the concept of "God". So at this point the model bumps head-on into theology, and we are forced to ask: Is there some metaphysicallyor theologically-related work that can help us to interpret this first-created system and its entities? Indeed, such a work, and consequent interpretations, will be put forth --from which much more then follows. Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2 2 System C.........................................................................................................................3 2.1 The six postulates.....................................................................................................3 2.2 Construction of system C.........................................................................................4 2.2.1 Secondary, and primary-nonvectorial projections in system C........................7 2.3 Interpretation of system C........................................................................................7 2.3.1 A brief history of ACIM..................................................................................8 2.3.2 Creation in ACIM.............................................................................................9 2.3.3 Inheritance and nesting of self/identity/mind in ACIM's metaphysics...........11 2.3.4 Our inherited ability to create.........................................................................14 2.3.5 The axiom of equality.....................................................................................16 2.3.6 Ideas/thoughts obey the nesting rule..............................................................17 1 pbwx@att.net / ORCID: 0000-0002-2681-3670 (BSc Physics) 2 There may be a newer/updated version of this paper at: http://www.paulbwhite.org/papers/ 1 2.3.7 World P is a branch off of the projection sequence for world C....................18 3 Our place with respect to the physical universe (and other bubble worlds): Scope/nesting inversion...............................................................................................19 4 Our other forms of creation........................................................................................27 5 Analogy with computing.............................................................................................29 6 Threads, context, and context switching in the present model................................30 6.1 Thread trees............................................................................................................32 7 Our minds are operant observers at level 0 of system/world P (the physical universe)........................................................................................................................36 8 Form and content.........................................................................................................37 9 The world of our current experience is a miscreation..............................................39 10 Aspects of creation and miscreation.........................................................................43 10.1 Conjoining true and false premises......................................................................43 10.2 Creation, miscreation, and reality........................................................................44 10.3 Dichotomies: Useful and unuseful.......................................................................49 10.4 Thread tree showing the miscreative part of our minds.......................................50 11 The creation and miscreation of meaning................................................................52 11.1 False premises yield a false self identity --the ego............................................56 12 Communication..........................................................................................................58 13 The separation --and return...................................................................................58 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................58 References...................................................................................................................58 1 Introduction Does the physical universe constitute all of existence? If so, then, assuming the basic correctness of the model developed in Part I [1], level 0 of system P (losp) would be the very first level of existence; i.e. there would be no level prior to it. That is, losp would not be projected from any prior level, since there would be no prior level. Losp itself would be the one and only uncreated level. If we think of existence at losp as an entity, i.e. the "entity at level 0 of system P", or elosp, then we would say that elosp is the uncreated source of all creation. And so, whatever "God" might be, we would have to say that elosp = God. There is, however, no compelling reason to assume that existence consists only of the physical universe, and thus no reason to assume the primacy of either losp or elosp. That is, for the sake of generality at least, we must suppose that losp is itself the product of projection from a prior level. Of course, that prior level could itself be projected from a more prior level, which might also be projected from an even more prior level; and so on. So, in general, we should suppose that losp is the result of a sequence of prior projections. To avoid an infinite regress, however, we must assume that this sequence is finite. Thus the chain of prior projections must have a beginning; i.e. there must exist a first, uncreated level of existence for which there is no prior level --a level that has true primacy. 2 Creation would then emanate from this primal level via the usual method: a sequence of projections. Such a primordial sequence of projections would yield the very first Created system, the model for which we will thus refer to as system C, and the world which results from it as world C. The primal level itself can then be called "level 0 of system C", and abbreviated as Losc (always capitalized to indicate its primacy). Again, if we think of existence at this level as constituting an entity, then we can speak of the "entity at level 0 of system C", or Elosc. Since Losc is the primary level of existence, and Elosc is the uncreated source of all creation, then, whatever God might be, we would have to say that Elosc = God. Some questions that immediately arise are: (1) How does creation proceed in system C, and what objects/entities are produced by it? (2) In what ways are systems C and P similar, or different? (3) How long is the chain of projections from Losc to losp, i.e. where and how does system P "attach to", or branch off of, system C? (4) Since we have reached the level of "God" in our explication of existence, can the metaphysics of any existing theologically-related work help us to answer these questions? 2 System C As indicated above, we assume that the basic paradigm for creation in system C is the same as that in system P. In fact, given their order of priority, we can assume that the creation paradigm for system P (e.g., in the form of its six postulates) was actually inherited from system C. Thus the six postulates of system P, and everything directly derived from them, apply also in system C. In what follows, we will briefly run through the basic creation process in system C, emphasizing similarities with system P. It will be shown that this process yields entities at each level which are analogs of their counterparts in world P. To help interpret system C, we will draw from metaphysical and theological aspects of the work known as A Course in Miracles (ACIM). With the help of ACIM we will also be able to identify important differences between worlds C and P. 2.1 The six postulates The six postulates for system P may be easily restated for system C, by simply replacing references to "the physical universe" with "world C". However, it will be useful to restate the postulates here in a more general way, so that they will apply to the creation of any world. We can then refer to these generically as "the six postulates", or individually as postulate 1, postulate 2, etc. Here are the six postulates: 1. For the creation of a world (e.g. worlds P and C), the basic information element is a type of projection --more specifically, a projection from a prior level. 2. The basic information structure is a sequence of such projections. 3 3. Each such projection is a one-dimensional vector, constituting a different, but related, one-dimensional space. (The basic relations between these projections/vectors are stated in the next postulate.) 4. Prior things (e.g. levels, projections, and constructions from them) are independent of subsequent things; and, conversely, subsequent things are dependent on prior things. (The terms prior, subsequent, dependent, and independent denote here logical/ontological relations. See e.g. [2].) 5. Within the infrastructure of levels and primary projections (or "nodes and lines/edges") that is constructed via postulates 1 and 2, secondary projections may be propagated in all directions (forward, backward, and lateral/intralevel). 6. A projection of any type, to a given level, involves the input/communication of energy onto that level, which constitutes an object/entity at that level. As with system P, postulates 1, 2, and 3, taken together, establish the primary-forwardvectorial (or, equivalently, primary-vectorial) type of projection. Postulate 5, and the possible omission of postulate 3, establish all other types. Clearly, then, the development of system C will closely parallel that of system P, and so the latter will be used as a template to quickly speed through the basic construction process of the former, as follows. 2.2 Construction of system C Following from our development of system P, we say that a (primary-forward-vectorial, or primary-vectorial) projection from level 0 of system C (Losc), denoted as c0, generates a new state, which we call level 1 (of system C). Likewise, a projection from level 1, denoted as c1, generates another new state, which we call level 2. And a projection from level 2, denoted as c2, yields level 3; and so on. In general, then, the projection ck represents a kind of displacement from level k that generates level k + 1, for k = 0, 1, 2, ...; so, relatively speaking, level k is prior, and level k + 1 is subsequent. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, which is identical to Fig. 1 of Part I, except that the p's have been replaced with c's, and only levels 0 through 3 are shown (which is all that we will need). The sequences to the right of each level show the projections that are needed to construct that level (and those below it), which are also the projections that are in effect/operant at that level. Thus, the sequence (c0, c1, c2) constructs levels 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 1. Since level 0 (Losc) is our starting point for constructing system C, then it is a nonconstructed element of that system3, whereas the subsequent projections and levels (c0, level 1, c1, level 2, etc. --i.e. anything above level 0 in Fig. 1) are constructed elements of system C. And, as with losp for system P, Losc is both the origin and boundary of that system. The scope, inheritance, and nesting rules apply in system C, just as in system P. 3 And since, by definition, there are no projections, levels, or systems prior to Losc, then Losc and Elosc are simply unconstructed. 4 Fig. 1 Construction of levels 1 through 3 of system C via the (primary-vectorial) projection sequence (c0, c1, c2). The sequences to the right of each level show the projections that are needed to construct that level (and those below it), which are also the projections that are in effect/operant at that level. Similar to system P, we expect that c1 will see c0 as a three-dimensional space, yielding (at level 2 and above) what may be called the "ordinary space of system C", denoted by S01c 3 (which is thus the counterpart of S01p 3 in system P). And c0 will see c1 as one dimensional, yielding what may be called the "time" dimension for system C --denoted by S10c 1 . So, as in system P for p0 and p1, the independence and dependence relations (as per postulate 4) between c0 and c1 yield a (3 + 1) dimensionality of ordinary space and time at level 2 and above in system C. Of course, the ordinary space and time of system C are prior to, and thus independent of, their counterparts in system P. In the case of time, for example, such independence, together with the nesting rule, implies that the duration of, say, a million years of system-P time may be encapsulated within a mere instant of system-C time. As in system P (and in accordance with postulate 6), we assume that energy is required to generate c0, which thus pumps an energy E1c into level 1. Likewise, the projection c1 injects an energy E2c into level 2; and the projection c2 inputs an energy E3c into level 3. Thus, the energy at level 1 and above of system C is nonzero. And, as in system P, time does not exist in system C at levels 0 and 1, but is always nonzero at higher levels. Thus, at level 2 and above, where the projections c0 and c1 are both operant, the product of energy and time --or action --is always nonzero, yielding a quantum of action for system C, which we denote as hc (which is distinct from its well-known counterpart, h, in the physical universe, or system/world P). This action quantum means that the energy E2c is partitioned into a multiplicity of objects/entities at level 2; and ditto for E3c at level 3. The presence of time at level 2 and above means that the production of the quantities E2c and E3c may be (and we assume is) time-dependent and time-limited, thereby yielding a finite number of entities at those levels. The absence of hc at level 1 of system C, on the other hand, means that the energy E1c cannot be partitioned into smaller bits, thereby yielding a single, continuous entity at that level. Moreover, the absence of time at level 1 means that the c0 process which pumps energy into that level is independent of time, and so, from the perspective of level 2 and 5 c 1 c 0 c 2 0 1 2 3 (c 0 ) (c 0 , c 1 ) (c 0 , c 1 , c 2 ) ( ) above, the energy E1c is always increasing. This single entity at level 1 of system C, whose energy is always increasing, is thus the counterpart of dark energy in system P. So, as with the p0 process in system P, the c0 process yields a continual, uniform expansion per unit volume of S01c 3 (the ordinary space of system C); i.e. it yields a cosmological constant for system/world C. Entities at level 2 and above will see themselves as embedded within this ubiquitous, ever-expanding space, and embedded/nested within the single entity at level 1 (just as entities/objects at level 2 and above of system P see themselves as embedded within dark energy --the single entity at level 1 of system P). And, by the nesting rule, the single entity at level 1 will be embedded/nested within Elosc at level 0. Furthermore, an inflation event like the one that we described for world P, may also have occurred in the construction of world C --with the advent of c1. We may abbreviate "level 1 of system C" as lisc, where we pronounce the number '1' as the letter 'i'; and so the single "entity at level 1 of system C" may be denoted by the proper noun Elisc. Likewise, "level 2 of system C" may be abbreviated as lusc, since the 2 can be rotated to look like the letter 'u'; and so "entit(y/ies) at level 2 of system C" may be abbreviated as elusc --which, as indicated, may be singular ("an elusc") or plural ("the elusc"). Finally, we may abbreviate "level 3 of system C" as lesc, since the 3 can be rotated to look like the letter 'E' (or, even better, its Greek counterpart, epsilon, ε); and so "entit(y/ies) at level 3 of system C" may be abbreviated as elesc. Fig. 2 shows these entities at their respective levels; comparing it with Fig. 5 of Part I, we see that: Elisc at level 1 is (as already stated) the counterpart of dark energy in system P, the elusc at level 2 are counterparts of the electrons, and the elesc at level 3 are counterparts of the protons. Furthermore, just as all electrons are identical, we might expect that all of the elusc are identical; likewise for the protons and the elesc. Since all of these entities (Elisc, elusc, elesc) are created by primary projections, we may refer to them (and Elosc, too) as the primary entities of system/world P. Fig. 2 The primary entities of system/world C, consisting of: Elosc (a single entity at level 0); Elisc (a single entity at level 1); the elusc (multiple entities at level 2); and the elesc (multiple entities at level 3). Fig. 3 shows the sets of projections and conjunctions that are in effect at each level, where y (at level 3) stands for each of c0, c1, and c1c0. In system P, we said that such a set is a kind of genome for an object/entity/particle at that level. Likewise, by comparing 6 c 1 c 0 c 2 0 1 2 3 Elisc elusc elesc Elosc Figs. 2 and 3, we say for system C that: { } is the genome for Elosc (the single entity at level 0); {c0} is the genome for Elisc (the single entity at level 1); {c0, c1, c1c0} is the genome for the elusc (the multiple entities at level 2); and {c0, c1, c1c0, c2, c2y} is the genome for the elesc (the multiple entities at level 3). Fig. 3 The projections, and conjunctions of projections, that are in effect at levels 0 through 3 of system C. The y in c2y (at level 3) stands for each of c0, c1, and c1c0 . In system P, we associated known charges with the projections and conjunctions. In system C, the only "charge" that we have supposed to exist is energy, which we have associated most fundamentally with c0, or the c0 process. In the absence of more detailed knowledge of its entities and their properties, that is as much as we can say here in terms of the "charges" (if any) that may exist in world C. 2.2.1 Secondary, and primary-nonvectorial projections in system C As stated above, the projections c0, c1, and c2 that we have discussed so far are of the primary-vectorial type, which are in the forward direction and construct the infrastructure of world C (including its ordinary space and time), and produce the primary entities Elisc, elusc, and elesc. But, as in system P, and as indicated by postulate 5, we expect that secondary projections also play a role in system C. That is, we expect the entities of world C to utilize the infrastructure of levels and primary-vectorial projections as channels (or "nodes and edges") by which to communicate via secondary projections (backward, forward, lateral/intralevel). Likewise, we will be open to the idea that primary-nonvectorial projections might play a role, producing output that has a nongeometric, purely-logical character. 2.3 Interpretation of system C The metaphysicallyand theologically-related work that is most useful for interpreting system C is A Course in Miracles (ACIM)4. Before presenting the basic metaphysics of ACIM, a brief history of how it came about is in order. 4 ACIM is mainly a psychological work, but contains underlying --and rather cryptic --threads of metaphysics and theology. 7 c 1 c 0 c 2 0 1 2 3 { } {c 0 } {c 0 , c 1 , c 1 c 0 } {c 0 , c 1 , c 1 c 0 , c 2 , c 2 y} 2.3.1 A brief history of ACIM One evening in October of 1965, Dr. Helen Schucman, a psychologist at ColumbiaPresbyterian Medical Center in New York City [3, pp. 77-9], experienced what she described as an inner voice or "dictation", which began by saying, "This is a course in miracles, please take notes." [3, pp. 179-82] Somewhat distressed by this, she telephoned her Medical-Center colleague, Dr. William Thetford, also a psychologist (and Director of the Clinical Psychology Department) [4, p. 331], [5]. He advised her to write down what the voice was saying and bring the notes to work the next day where they would both evaluate them [3, p. 180], [4, p. 80]. Astonished by the content of these first notes, the two of them began a long collaboration in which Schucman would write down the notes from the voice in shorthand, and at some later time read them off to Thetford, who would type them onto paper [4, p. 80], [6, p. 1]. It was apparent to Schucman (the "scribe") that the inner voice was that of the historical Jesus [3, p. 179]. The result of this collaboration, after seven years, was what they called the "Urtext" of A Course in Miracles, consisting of three volumes: the Text, the Workbook for Students, and the Manual for Teachers [6, p. 3]. This material was then edited by Schucman and Thetford to produce a manuscript, a copy of which (in 1972) was sent to Hugh Lynn Cayce (son of Edgar Cayce); as such, this version of ACIM was dubbed the "Hugh Lynn [Cayce] version", commonly abbreviated as either HLV or HLC [3, p. 114], [7]. In 1973, Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, another psychologist, came on the scene and, after reading the HLV manuscript, suggested that further editing was needed to prepare the work for actual publication [3, p. 347], [4, p. 102]. The result of this editing process was what became the First Edition of A Course in Miracles, published in 1976 [3, pp. 355, 487], [7]. Second and Third Editions were subsequently published in 1992 and 2007 [8]. In the year 2000, copies of the HLV and the Text volume of the Urtext (previously unavailable to the public) were leaked onto the Internet.5 By comparing these with the published editions, it became apparent that much editing had been performed on the Text volume of ACIM; however, the Workbook and Manual volumes may have come through the editing process intact, or virtually intact [7]. I won't get into the discussion about which version of ACIM is "best"; I will simply say that the Urtext version of the Text volume is more suitable for our present purposes, which are mainly metaphysical (in contrast to the purpose of ACIM, which, as already alluded to, is mainly psychological).6 In what follows, I will be quoting passages from, and using the pagination of, the following (freely downloadable) version of the Urtext: [10]. I will also be quoting passages from the Workbook for Students and the Manual for Teachers that are found in the following (freely downloadable) version of ACIM: [11]. Passages from the Urtext will be cited as "Urtext" and page number; passages from the Workbook for Students will 5 In 2003, these and other early ACIM materials were determined by a U.S. Federal Court to be in the public domain [9]. 6 Historical versions of ACIM, as well as much information about them, can be found at http://www.miraclesinactionpress.com/dthomp74/2008/TOOLBOX/Original%20Versions/OVTOP.htm 8 be cited as "W-" and section number; and passages from the Manual for Teachers will be cited as "M-" and section number. Note also that, for passages excerpted from the ACIM Urtext, I am using italics --instead of the original capitalization --for emphasis. In addition, unless otherwise noted or evident from the particular context, the terms "you", "we", "I", "me", "my", etc., in ACIM passages refer not to the physical bodies that we currently inhabit, but to our souls and minds. 2.3.2 Creation in ACIM Consider the following passages from ACIM: 1. Projection is a fundamental law ... which always operates. It is the law by which you ... were created. (Urtext, p. 174) 2. God created you as part of Him. (Urtext, p. 146) From these two passages we may conclude that projection is the fundamental method of creation; it is the method by which God created us (i.e. our souls). Passage 1, it may be noted, is basically an affirmation of postulate 1. Now consider the following additional passages from ACIM: 3. Projection...is a fundamental attribute of God, which he also gave to his Son. In the creation, God projected his creative ability out of Himself toward the souls which He created, ... (Urtext, p. 601) 4. God has but one Son... (Urtext, p. 209) 5. Christ is the Son of God, who lives in his Creator ... (Urtext, p. 230) 6. Every child of God [i.e. soul] is one in Christ, for his being is in Christ, as Christ's is in God. (Urtext, p. 250) 7. God...encompasses all Being... (Urtext, p. 120) Passage 3 affirms, again, the fundamental role of "projection" in creation; and indicates the creation/existence of a "Son" (singular) and "souls" (plural). Passage 4 affirms that the Son is a single entity, to which passage 5 attaches the name "Christ". Passage 5 also indicates that this single entity --the one Son, or Christ --exists within God. Passage 6 then indicates the basic relationship between the children of God (souls), the one Son (Christ), and the Creator (God): the souls are embedded/nested within Christ, who is nested within God. Similarly, in system C we found that the elusc (entities at level 2) are nested within Elisc (the single entity at level 1), which in turn is embedded/nested within Elosc (at level 0). This suggests the following identifications: Elosc = God (as was also deduced earlier from basic considerations). 9 Elisc = the one Son of God, or Christ. elusc = the many children of God, or souls. Or, stated another way: In system C, the first projection, c0, creates the one Son, Christ (at level 1); and the second projection, c1, creates the many souls, or children of God (at level 2); thus the sequence of projections (c0, c1) is needed to create Christ and the many souls. So a helpful mnemonic is that you and I, and all of our peers --that is "us" (i.e. our souls) --are the elusc. It would be simplest if we could just assume that the sequence ends with c1 at level 2, yielding the elusc (i.e. us) as the last entities created by primary projection in system C. However, the following passage suggests that the sequence may continue for at least c2, yielding entities at level 3 --the elesc: 8. You were created above the angels... (Urtext, p. 24) Now, in systems P and C, because of the way the levels are numbered, we have used the term "above" to mean "subsequent to". Thus, we say, for example, that "level 3 is above level 2". In ACIM, however, the term "above", following the more traditional connotation in theology, means "prior to". Thus, in this sense, Christ is above our souls, and God is above Christ. So, for passage 8 to say that we "were created above the angels", means, in terms of system C, that the we were created prior to the angels; or equivalently, the angels were created subsequent to us. This suggests that the angels are entities at level 3, i.e. the elesc; that is: elesc = angels. Fig. 4 updates Fig. 2, showing the above identifications at their respective levels. To keep things simple, however, we will pretty much ignore level 3 and its entities, the elesc/angels. Fig. 4 Identification of the entities of Fig. 2. Elosc, the single entity at level 0 is identified as God; Elisc, the single entity at level 1, is identified as the one Son of God, or Christ; the elusc, the many entities at level 2, are identified as the many children of God, or souls, i.e. ourselves, or us; and the elesc, the many entities at level 3, are identified as the many angels. 10 c 1 c 0 c 2 0 1 2 3 Elisc/Christ elusc/souls elesc/angels Elosc/God 2.3.3 Inheritance and nesting of self/identity/mind in ACIM's metaphysics Just as ACIM helps us to interpret system C, so, conversely, system C should explain/generate the metaphysics of ACIM. As such, we should expect aspects of system C (and system P) to manifest in ACIM's metaphysics --in particular, nesting and inheritance. Indeed, we have already encountered clear evidence of nesting in ACIM (see passages 5, 6, and 7 above), of which passage 6 gives perhaps the prime example --where such nesting is explained, in terms of system C, by God's priority to Christ, and Christ's priority to the elusc/souls. The following passages (along with passage 3 above) reveal the inheritance rule at work in ACIM: ...God shares His Self with Christ. (Urtext, p. 313) Christ ... is the Self that God created as His only Son. (Urtext, p. 571) the Self which is God's only Son, [was created in] the likeness of ... [God]. (W-322.1) Christ ... is [God's] Son, and my true Self as well. (W-237.2.) Christ is the Self the Sonship shares, as God shares His Self with Christ. (Urtext, p. 313) I have no self except the Christ in me. ...who is Christ except [God's] Son as [God] created Him? ...what am I except the Christ in me? (W-354) Christ ... [is] my Identity ... [and] my Self. (W-353.1) The Son of God is my Identity. (W-252) the Son of God ... Who is our own Identity. (W-269.2) the Word, the Name which God has given you; the one Identity which all things share... (W-184.10) The Name of God is my inheritance. (W-184) I am in the likeness of my Creator. (W-84.2) all [God's] attributes abide in me... (W-326) God, who encompasses all Being, nevertheless created separate beings who have everything individually... (Urtext, p. 120) It should be noted that God has begotten only one Son. ...all of the souls that God created are His Sons... (Urtext, p. 65) In summary, these passages mean the following: Christ inherited his Identity/Self (e.g. attributes, characteristics, qualities, nature) from God; and, in turn, we (the many Sons, or souls) inherited the same from Christ. The result is that Christ is a being/entity in the likeness of God, and we are beings/entities in the likeness of Christ (and thus, also, in the likeness of God). As with nesting, system C explains this chain of inheritance as resulting 11 from the order of (ontological) priority: Elosc/God, Elisc/Christ, elusc/souls. Although the last ACIM passage above might seem self-contradictory at first glance, our previous results allow the following consistent interpretation: The first projection (or, if you will, generation), c0, creates a single entity (at level 1) --the so-called "one Son", or Christ. The second projection/generation, c1, then creates many "souls" (at level 2), who each inherited the complete nature/likeness/attributes of the "one Son" --and so, in this sense, can themselves be called "Sons" of God. In other words, we might say that Christ (at level 1) is the prototype Son, whose identity/self is inherited completely by each of the many elusc/souls (at level 2), thereby yielding many "Sons". It follows that we, the elusc, all share the same identity/self, which we inherited from Elisc/Christ, who inherited it from Elosc/God: your identity is shared... (Urtext, p. 205) your identity ... is shared. (Urtext, p. 300) we [are] One in shared Identity... (W-283.2) Each of the next three passages reflects both nesting and inheritance in ACIM: God created you as part of Him. That is both where you are and what you are. ... everything was created by [God] and in [God]. (Urtext, p. 146) God is everywhere, and His Son is in Him with everything. (Urtext, p. 283) God is all in all ... (Urtext, p. 166) The following passages reveal that perhaps the best single concept for describing the nature of God, Christ, and ourselves (the elusc/souls) is mind --which, as we might expect by now, obeys the scope, nesting, and inheritance rules: the Christ Mind is yours. (Urtext, p. 108) Christ ... abides within the Mind that is His Source [i.e. God]. (W-pII.6) There is only One Mind. (Urtext, p. 50) we are of one Mind, and that Mind is ours. (Urtext, p. 169) [God's] Mind created all that is, ... (W-263.1) ...I was created in [God's] Mind... (W-326) I am ... in the Mind of God. (W-119.3) you are ... in the Mind of God... (Urtext, p. 272) you dwell in the Mind of God ... (Urtext, p. 224) you cannot be anywhere except in the Mind of God. (Urtext, p.213) 12 your mind is part of God's. (W-36.1) My mind is part of God's. (W-35) life is of the mind and in the Mind. (Urtext, p. 152) you are a mind, in Mind and purely mind... (W-158.1) So, we (the elusc/souls) are minds within Elisc/Christ, who is a mind within Elosc/God, who is also a mind (further instances of the nesting rule). Or, alternatively: We, the elusc, inherited our minds from Christ, who inherited his mind from God (further instances of the inheritance rule); and so we inherited the mind of God. Thus: You think with the Mind of God. (W-45.2) it is [God's] Mind with which you think. (W-92.3) God is the Mind with which I think. (W-59.5). What do minds do? They create ideas and thoughts: Ideas are of the mind. (Urtext, p. 490) A thought is in the mind. (W-167.3) And: Every mind must project, because that is how it lives... (Urtext, p. 174) projection is a law of mind. (Urtext, p. 252) So that, since Projection is a fundamental law ... by which you ... were created. (Urtext, p. 174), then it follows that: God created His Sons by [projecting] His Thought... (Urtext, p. 146) The Thought of God created you [via projection]. (W-165.2) Creation is the sum of all God's [projected] Thoughts... (W-pII.11.1) creation ... [is a projected] Idea of God... (Urtext, p. 376) Thus, Elosc/God created world C and its entities (including our selves/souls) by projecting ideas/thoughts from (actually, within) his mind; which suggests that mind is the basic agent of creation. Indeed: only mind can create at all... (Urtext, p. 597) mind creates all things that are, ... (W-167.6) 13 2.3.4 Our inherited ability to create The following passages reveal that we (the elusc, i.e. our souls/minds) inherited the ability to create from Elosc/God: Everything [God] created is given all His power because it is part of Him and shares His Being with Him. (Urtext, p. 176) The soul, because of its own likeness to its Creator, is creative. No child of God is capable of losing this ability, because it is inherent in what he is. (Urtext, p. 601) You were created through [God's] laws ... and the manner of your creation [by which you inherited the likeness of God] established you as creators. (Urtext, p. 219) ...I am an Effect of God, and so I have the power to create like [God]. (W-326) the Sons of God...were created as creators. (Urtext, p. 145) ...God Himself created you as a creator. (Urtext, p. 155) God created you to create. (Urtext, p. 146) your function...is creation... (Urtext, p. 251) God gave you the function to create in eternity. (Urtext, p. 204) How do we create?: Projection...is a fundamental attribute of God, which he also gave to his Son. In the creation, God projected his creative ability out of Himself toward the souls which He created, and also imbued them with the same [ability] to create... (Urtext, p. 601) Projection is a fundamental law ... which always operates. It is the law by which you create and were created. (Urtext, p. 174) ...I am an Effect of God, and so I have the power to create like [God]. (W-326) In other words, we create by the same method that God used to create us (and world C in general), i.e. by projecting ideas and thoughts --which makes sense, since we inherited our ability to create from Elosc/God. Now the question is, what do we create? We have already established that, and how, projection can create worlds; thus: Your mind is capable of creating worlds... (Urtext, p. 222) You, too, have a Kingdom which your Soul has created. (Urtext, p. 108) 14 And: The world ...was...projected from your mind... (Urtext, p. 245) The world ... [is] nothing but your own projection... (Urtext, p. 274) the world is one of [projected] ideas... (Urtext, p. 124) There is no world apart from your ideas ... you maintain the world within your mind in thought. (W-132.10) you made the world you see... (Urtext, p. 413) The world you see ... is of your own making... (W-14.1) [Your] ... mind ... made this world... (Urtext, p. 341) I have invented the world I see. (W-32) So, in general, each of the elusc (i.e. each of our souls/minds) is "capable of creating worlds" (note the plurality of "worlds"). And, in particular, the "world" in the last seven passages refers to the world of our current experience, which includes the physical universe. So we made the physical universe, world P, by projecting it from our minds. Of course, much resistance may be expected, at least initially, to the notion that we (i.e. our minds) are capable of having anything to do with the creation of a world such as the physical universe. The first step in getting past this is to dis-equate our minds with our brains, and to dis-equate our selves with the physical bodies that we are currently associated with. Brains and bodies are very limited in their abilities, and certainly not capable of creating the physical universe (indeed, they are products of the physical universe). Our minds, on the other hand, were inherited from the mind of Elosc/God, and so (within their nested scopes) have the same creative power as God: The mind is a very powerful creator, ... (Urtext, p. 59) The creative power of both God and His Creations is limitless, but it is not in reciprocal relationship. ...in Creation you are not in a reciprocal relation to God, because He created you, but you did not create Him. We have already stated that only in this respect your creative power differs from His. Even in this world there is a parallel. Parents give birth to children, but children do not give birth to parents. They do, however, give birth to their children, and thus give birth as their parents do. (Urtext, pp. 158-59) The part of the last passage that says "in Creation you are not in a reciprocal relation to God, because He created you, but you did not create Him" has to do with the priority, and thus scope, of God's creation in relation to our creations. That is, our creations are subsequent and thus nested within the scope of God's creation (world C). It follows that worlds which we, the elusc, have a hand in creating (such as world P, the physical universe) are logically nested within world C, and so these worlds may be called bubble worlds. It also follows that, given the logical nesting of our creations, it is outside the scope of our creative abilities to change God's creation (more will be said about that in a 15 later section). Now consider the following passage: The Kingdom is the result of premises, as much as this world is. (Urtext, p. 177) In this passage, "The Kingdom" refers to the world created by the original projections from God, which in terms of the present model is the world generated by system C, or world C; and "this world" refers to the world of our current experience, which includes the physical universe, or the world generated by system P, or world P. In light of the above results, the passage tells us that ideas/thoughts which are held by the creator of a world become premises (and, if you will, parameters) which shape the nature of that world, and that this was indeed the case in the construction of worlds C and P. Among the most fundamental of these premises would be the six postulates themselves, which, due to their overarching scope, could only have come from the mind of Elosc/God. So, when we henceforth speak of "God's premises", we include among them the six postulates, as well as other ideas/thoughts that have their source in the mind of Elosc/God. In system C, therefore, the initial projection, c0 , is a one-dimensional vector which carries ideas/thoughts from its source --Elosc/God --into the created Kingdom, or world C. Due to the scope rule pertaining to c0 , these ideas are in effect/operant at level 1 and above in world C, and thus act --in a Platonic way --as ubiquitous premises/parameters within the ordinary space of that world (i.e. within S01c 3 ). Likewise, for system P, the initial projection, p0 , carries ideas/thoughts that are in the mind of the elusc/creator into the construction of the physical world, which, due to the scope rule, act as premises and parameters that are in effect --also in a Platonic way --everywhere within the ordinary space of that world (i.e. within S01p 3 ). Such ideas/premises/parameters thus provide a mechanism for the "fine tuning" of worlds. And, it may be noted, the use of the word "premises" in this passage, as well as the nature of their scopes just given, together with the datum that mind is the agent of creation, support our earlier notion (from section 6 of Part I) that the construction of a world is a type of logical derivation. An example of one of God's premises --besides the six postulates --follows below. 2.3.5 The axiom of equality As stated earlier, it is expected that all of the elusc are identical --i.e. that they (or we, our souls, the many Sons) all have exactly the same inherent nature, attributes, properties, and abilities. This is affirmed by ACIM in the following passages: They [the many Sons] are all the same ...and equal... (Urtext, p. 273) all of God's Sons are of equal value, and their equality is their Oneness. (Urtext, p. 235) 16 There is no difference among the Sons of God. (Urtext, p. 492) God is not partial. ...all of his gifts are given freely to everyone alike. (Urtext, p. 37) My [Jesus'] will cannot overcome yours, because yours is as powerful as mine. If it were not so, the Sons of God would be unequal.7 (Urtext, p. 186) The mind that was in me [Jesus] is in you, for God creates with perfect fairness. (Urtext, p. 136) My [Jesus'] mind will always be like yours, because we were created as equals. (Urtext, p. 127) awe is not appropriate in connection with me [Jesus], because of our inherent equality. (Urtext, p. 69) Thus, God's founding premises constructed a world ("the Kingdom", to use ACIM's term; world C, to use our term) in which his many Sons (the elusc) were created "with perfect fairness", and therefore are all equal, the same, identical. We will refer to this as God's axiom of equality.8 2.3.6 Ideas/thoughts obey the nesting rule Since ideas/thoughts are constructed by a mind-source, then that source is prior to those ideas/thoughts; and, conversely, the constructed ideas/thoughts are subsequent. Thus, by the nesting rule (or, if you will, the nesting law), we expect ideas/thoughts (or any grouping of them, comprising a thought system) to be nested, embedded, encapsulated, or contained within their mind-source. Indeed: ideas leave not their source. Such is creation's law... (Urtext, p. 491) ideas leave not their source... (W-132.10) ideas leave not their source. (W-156.1) thoughts do not leave their source. (W-45.2) No thought...can leave the thinker's mind... (Urtext, p. 424) 7 Note that, in ACIM, Jesus is our peer. That is, like us, he is a soul, or one of the many "Sons" (who, at one time, was also associated with a human body here on earth). Thus, in terms of the present model, Jesus (or, rather, his soul) is one of the many elusc --i.e., he is an entity at level 2 of system C. And so it follows that Jesus is not the single entity at level 1 of system C, i.e. Elisc/Christ (although, like us, Jesus did inherit the complete nature of Christ). 8 Note that the "axiom" of equality can possibly be derived from an argument similar to the one we used (in Part I) to derive, e.g., the isotropy and homogeneity of the ordinary 3-dimensional space of a world. That is, differences among the elusc/souls would have to be conferred directly by Elosc/God; but, since God is independent of the elusc, then he must manifest uniformly to all of them, and so the attributes that they inherit from God must be distributed uniformly to each of them. 17 no thought system transcends its source. (Urtext, p. 233) Ideas do not leave the mind which thought them in order to have separate being. (Urtext, p. 132) Of course, this raises the following question: If ideas/thoughts never leave their mindsource, then how do minds communicate with each other? The answer to this question will be developed in section 12, where we discuss communication in general. 2.3.7 World P is a branch off of the projection sequence for world C Where is world P located in relation to world C? Since C is prior, and P is subsequent, then it follows from the nesting rule that (the scope of) world P is contained within (the scope of) world C. Thus, as already stated above, world P (the physical universe) is a kind of bubble world/universe that is logically within world C. Furthermore, because the sequence (p0, p1, p2, p3) that constructs world P consists of primary (not secondary) projections, then those projections do not propagate along the existing lines or channels of the sequence (c0, c1, c2) that constructs world C; rather, the sequence for world P forms new lines/channels, which we may thus think of as branching off of the sequence for world C (such "branching" will be further explained later on). Where along the sequence for world C does this branching take place? Since we "made" the physical world, and we are the elusc (entities at level 2), then it is appropriate to locate this branching at level 2 of world C, as illustrated in Fig. 5. This suggests that level 0 of system P (i.e. losp) is the same as, or coincides with, level 2 of system C (lusc); that is, losp = lusc. Which raises the next question: With respect to ourselves, the elusc, where is the physical universe? Fig. 5 System P is shown here as a branch off of level 2 of system C, which is justified by the findings that we are the elusc (entities at level 2 of system C), and we "made" the physical world. In general, the relation between a creator and his creation is that the former is prior, 18 c 1 c 0 c 2 0 1 2 3 p 0 1 2 Elisc elusc elesc Elosc p 1 p 2 p 3 3 4 dark energy electrons protons / neutrons dark matter? and the latter is subsequent. Thus, by the nesting rule, a creation must be embedded, contained, or nested within its creator. Indeed, we found that God's creations --world C and its entities, spaces, etc. --are wholly nested within Elosc/God, as is further supported by the passage: God...encompasses all Being... (Urtext, p. 120) This applies likewise to our own creations: Your creations ... [are] in you, as you ... [are] in God. (Urtext, p. 159) Thus, if we made the physical world (as previously-cited ACIM passages claim), then we are prior to that world, and it is subsequent; so, by the nesting rule, the physical world should be wholly contained within us. However, our present experience appears to contradict this: we, the elusc (or at least the seven billion of us souls here on earth), seem to be contained within the physical universe (not the other way around) --and thus the physical world seems to be mostly outside of us (not wholly inside us). In other words: If we made the physical world, then how did we get inside of it?; or, conversely, how did the universe get outside of us? This problem regarding our place with respect to the physical universe --i.e., whether it is within us, or we are within it, or somehow both --will be resolved in the next section. 3 Our place with respect to the physical universe (and other bubble worlds): Scope/nesting inversion Repeating the problem noted above: The creation of world C obeys the nesting rule (i.e. world C is wholly contained within its creator, God), whereas our creation of world P seems to violate the nesting rule (i.e. world P is not wholly contained within us; rather, we seem to be contained within it). The following passages give clues to resolving this seeming inconsistency: the truth is very simple; all power is of God. (Urtext, p. 230) the power to create is of God. (Urtext, p. 133) of yourselves you can do nothing. (Urtext, p. 192) you [the many souls/Sons] are co-creators with [God]... (Urtext. p. 159) you are co-creator with God... (Urtext, p. 210) ...[God] has made you co-creator of the universe along with Him. (Urtext, p. 544) Thus, whereas God can create by himself, we cannot create anything by ourselves; rather, we co-create with God. And so we co-created world P with God. Which raises the question: What is our role in such co-creation, and what is God's role? 19 From the passages Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore one which always operates. It is the law by which you create... Every mind must project... (Urtext, p. 174) The mind is a very powerful creator, and it never loses its creative force. It never sleeps. Every instant it is creating, and always as you will. (Urtext, p. 59) what you project is up to you, but it is not up to you whether to project, for projection is a law of mind. (Urtext, p. 252) we conclude: • We, the elusc/souls, choose/select/determine the ideas/thoughts that are held in our minds; that is, we choose the ideational content of our minds, which corresponds to what we desire (i.e. "always as you will"). We have total control in this regard. (Our selection of ideational content may be referred to as the ideation action.) • The (ideational) content of our minds is always, automatically, being projected. (The projection of our mental content may be referred to as the projection action.) • That the projection action is automatic, and therefore beyond our control, suggests that its cause/source is independent of, and thus prior to, our minds. That the projection action is "fundamental" implies that its source must be Elosc/God at level 0. Thus, our role in co-creation is to select the content and desired output (i.e. what is to be projected), and God's role is to perform the actual projections. In this sense, God, or God's mind, acts as a kind of projection engine or function, if you will, which is always operating --always projecting the ideational content of our minds, and thereby always producing the output that we want (again, "always as you will"). It follows that the ideas/content that an elusc/soul provides to the co-creation process may be thought of as arguments to God's projection function. A different choice of ideas/arguments constitutes a different invocation of God's projection function, which produces a different output. As such, the elusc who supplies the content/arguments that spawn, e.g., a new bubble world may be called the invoker of that world. In the creation of world C, therefore, God performed both the ideation and projection actions himself. In the creation of bubble worlds (such as world P, the physical universe), however, we perform the ideation action, and God performs the projection action. In other words, whereas God is the sole creator of world C (which includes the creation of our souls), we are co-creators (with God) of bubble worlds within world C. Indeed, it can be argued that this division of labor, so to speak, between God and the elusc, in creating bubble worlds, is necessary. That is, due to God's overarching scope, any world that he creates directly must encompass all of creation; which likely means that God by himself can create only one world --what we call world C. So, to have 20 bubble worlds, which are encompassed by world C, requires the existence and participation of subsequent entities/minds that are within world C; i.e., the dependence of bubble worlds on our existence and participation makes them subsequent to --and thus nested within --world C. It follows that God depends on us, the elusc, to extend creation within world C: You who belong in God have the ... function of extending His [creation]... (Urtext, p. 184) God and the Souls He created are symbiotically related. They are completely dependent on each other. The creation of the Soul itself [by God] has already been perfectly accomplished, but the creation by Souls has not. God created Souls so He could depend on them [to extend creation within world C]... (Urtext, p. 48) God is as dependent on you as you are on Him, because his autonomy encompasses yours, and is therefore incomplete without it. (Urtext, p. 232) In other words, God and the many souls he created are completely dependent on each other, but in different ways, as follows: (a) We, the elusc/souls, are existentially dependent on Elosc/God, but God is not existentially dependent on us (i.e., God created us; we did not create him). (b) To extend creation within world C, our existence and participation (e.g. our selection/input of ideational content) are absolutely necessary; so God completely depends on us in those regards. In creating a bubble world, therefore, we (the elusc/souls) provide the content of our minds as input (the ideation action), and God performs the actual projection (the projection action). The content that we provide, in the form of ideas/arguments, determines the premises/parameters (fine-tuning or otherwise) for the newly-generated world, which in turn determine the properties of that world, i.e. the specific output. Thus, differences between bubble worlds are solely attributable to differences in the ideational content or arguments that we, the elusc, supply to the process. It is in this sense that some of the ACIM passages above --e.g. "you made the world you see", "The world you see...is of your own making", "I have invented the world I see" --have their meaning. Recall now that primary projections can be vectorial or nonvectorial, the former yielding logical and geometric output, and the latter yielding a purely-logical output. Since we, the elusc/souls, are in charge of determining the output of our creations, then presumably the specification of whether the primary projection of our mental content is to be vectorial or nonvectorial is part of the arguments that we provide to God's projection function. Consequently, by supplying different arguments, we can choose whether to co-create a geometric bubble world (such as world P, the physical universe) or a nongeometric, purely-logical bubble "world", akin to, or the same as, a derivation in the system of natural deduction (ND). With the above results in mind, we can now address the main issue of this section: How is it that we find ourselves inside of a bubble world that we made, when the 21 scope/nesting rules seem to imply that such a world should be within us? The short answer is that we made only the ideational content, not the projections themselves; i.e., the content that we made is indeed contained within our minds ("ideas leave not their source"), but the projection sequence itself is not, as we now elaborate. Since the actual production of a projection sequence is performed by the mind of God, and given that God's mind is prior to the elusc invoker, then that sequence is also prior to the invoker; and so the invoker is subsequent to it. By the nesting rule, therefore, the invoking elusc will be internal to, or encapsulated within, the bubble world that is generated by that sequence. Thus, e.g., for the case of world P, upon completion of the projection action (by Elosc/God) --which generates the sequence (p0, p1, p2, p3) --the invoker will find himself within world P. However, since an elusc/soul controls the content of his own mind, then he is free to change/edit that content at will. So, if an elusc chooses to edit from his mind the content that invoked a given bubble world, and replace it with a different content, then the new ideational content will be projected, with the result that that elusc will no longer be within that world. Thus, the invoker of a bubble world (e.g. the physical world, world P) is not stuck in that world, but is able to exit it, as affirmed by the following passages: You are [not bound] to the world you made. (Urtext, p. 430) the world you made ... has [no] power to [contain] its maker. (Urtext, p. 430) In this sense, the invoker of a bubble world is just a subscriber to that world, and is free to unsubscribe at will. As I have described, the invoker of a bubble world first develops and selects a set of ideas/thoughts (constituting a thought system), which is then carried along with the projection sequence into the newly generated world, thereby acting as premises for, and otherwise "fine tuning", that world. Consequently, upon execution of the projection action (by the mind of God), the invoking elusc/soul will find himself nested within the very bubble world that he invoked and fine tuned. Thus, even though the fine-tuning ideas/thoughts/premises of the bubble world are within the mind of its invoker, he will see them manifesting outside him (as seemingly global premises) when he invokes/enters that world: you see only ... [your] thoughts projected outward. (W-8.1) Your picture of the world can only mirror what is within. (W-73.5) Ideas leave not their source, and their effects but seem to be apart from them. Ideas are of the mind. What is projected out, and seems to be external to the mind, is not outside at all, but an effect of what is in, and has not left its source. (Urtext, p. 489; underline mine) In other words, this "effect" seems to invert the scopes of the invoker and his own ideas/thoughts; that is, the ideas are actually nested within the invoker's mind or scope --but after the projection action, he seems to be nested within (or subsumed under) their 22 scope. We may therefore refer to this effect as a scope inversion --or, alternatively, a nesting inversion. A scope/nesting inversion thus elevates ideas/thoughts within the invoker's mind to the status of premises, or even axioms, which the invoker can then seem to be subject to, even dependent on. (Indeed, the invoker's experience in the generated world is dependent on these ideas/premises.) As indicated above, such scope/nesting inversion is due to the projection action being performed by the mind of Elosc/God, which is prior to the mind of the invoking elusc/soul and his selected set of ideas/thoughts. The axiom of equality implies that anything created/generated with/by the mind of God must be equally shared among all of the elusc/souls; for, to be otherwise would render souls unequal, thereby contradicting that axiom. So, since everything we create is actually co-created with God: The creations of every Son of God are yours, because every creation belongs to everyone, being created for the Sonship as a whole. (Urtext, p. 177) Consequently, once a bubble world has been invoked and produced (using the mind of God), the invoking soul himself has no special status, relation, or privilege with respect to that world; and so it follows that a bubble world is equally accessible (by subscription) to any/all of the elusc/souls. In other words, any soul can enter/join any bubble world simply by subscribing to (at least some of) its projection sequence (thereby yielding a scope inversion); and, conversely, an elusc/soul can exit a bubble world by unsubscribing to that sequence. In this way, individual souls can enter and exit bubble worlds at will. The invoker of a bubble world is thus merely the first subscriber to that world, and it is not really important who that invoker is; indeed, he may choose to exit that world, while others remain subscribed to it. Of course, all of this applies to the geometric bubble world of our current experience --the physical world, or world P: its invoker became the first subscriber ; then other souls (e.g. yours and mine) entered/joined this world by later subscription, and may choose to exit it by unsubscribing. The plurality in the passage "Your mind is capable of creating worlds" indicates that elusc/souls can invoke any number of bubble worlds within world C, of either the geometric or nongeometric type, with each having different ideational content, and thus different premises/parameters/properties. It follows that the physical universe may be just one of many possible geometric bubble worlds, with spaces generated by relations between the primary-vectorial projections of its sequence (as described in most detail in Part I), and with a particular set of ideas/premises to fine tune it according to the will/purpose of the invoker. From all indications, it seems that one of the invoker's main purposes for making the physical universe was to produce a world that could support the formation of biological life, as we know it. Since an elusc/soul is free to choose the content of his own mind, then he may choose to not be subscribed to any geometric bubble world, in which case we will say that (geometrically speaking) the elusc remains plainly within world C; i.e. the ordinary space that the elusc experiences or "sees" will be that of world C. In contrast, when an elusc is 23 subscribed to a geometric bubble world (such as the physical universe) the elusc will see things/events as happening within the ordinary space of that bubble world (which comports with our current experience, in which we see events happening within world P, the physical world, but not within world C). At the invocation of a geometric bubble world, and with the advent of the second projection in the sequence, time comes into being and the clock of that world starts ticking from t = 0 seconds (as described in Part I, for p1 in world P). Joining/entering souls, we may suppose, then subscribe to that clock at its present value, as seen from within that world. Consequently, a soul entering the physical universe today would be subscribing to its current clock value of around t = 13.8 billion years --thus making the process of subscribing to a geometric bubble world analogous to a magazine subscription, for which the issues that you receive begin with the current one. In summary, the construction of a bubble world is a collaborative co-creation between an elusc/soul and Elosc/God. The elusc's contribution to the process is to develop and select the ideas that will invoke and fine tune the world with premises/parameters (and thus properties) according to his purpose; God's contribution is to actually generate the projection sequence. Both contributions (the elusc's and God's) are necessary to create a bubble world; neither by itself is sufficient. Thus, the creation of a bubble world is dependent on both God and the invoking elusc; conversely, since the elusc is not bound to that world, then he is actually independent of it. So the only world that an elusc is actually "bound" to, or dependent upon, is world C; i.e. world C is the only world that an elusc/soul cannot unsubscribe from. That a soul can be inside a bubble world that it is (ontologically and existentially) independent of is the result of a scope/nesting inversion, which itself is an effect caused by the fact that Elosc/God, who performs the projection action, is prior to the invoker/subscriber; and so the nesting rule places the elusc within the world that he invoked or subscribed to. But, as described above, the elusc's basic independence from the bubble world means that he can unsubscribe from it at will. Once the invoking elusc chooses the ideational content, the design of a bubble world is "in the can", so to speak, and will then be projected/executed by the mind of God. The differences between bubble worlds are thus down to the different choices of ideas/content that are specified by the invoking elusc. Recall now that, in creating world C, Elosc/God performs both the ideation and projection actions by himself; i.e., he does not depend on a prior entity to perform the needed primary-vectorial projection action (by definition, there is no prior entity). Therefore no scope/nesting inversion takes place, and God does not find himself nested/contained within his creation, world C; rather, being subsequent to God, world C is wholly encapsulated within him. This suggests that God himself cannot manifest as a personal entity within world C; rather, he can only manifest uniformly, ubiquitously, universally, and abstractly throughout it: [God's communication/interaction with his creation] is perfectly abstract, 24 in that its quality is universal in application, ... (Urtext, p. 120) This is of a piece with our earlier result that God cannot create bubble worlds by himself, since any world created solely by God must, with respect to the realm of creation, have overarching/universal scope, and thus will be equivalent to world C itself. Similarly, if an elusc/soul could construct a bubble world (such as the physical universe) by himself (i.e., performing both the ideation and projection actions, with a prior entity, God, playing no part), then no scope/nesting inversion would take place, and so that soul could not manifest as a personal entity within that bubble world. So the fact that the projection action is actually executed by the mind of God, and is thus prior to the subscribing souls, creates a kind of loophole --or wormhole even --by which souls can enter into, and participate in, their bubble worlds in a personal way (i.e. as personal entities, as we find ourselves to be right now in the physical universe, world P). In the particular case of world P, the above allusion to a "wormhole" refers to our subscription to at least some of the projection sequence (p0, p1, p2, p3) by which we gain access to the spaces of that world --since the first projection in that sequence, p0, being one-dimensional, would then become a sort of wormhole or tunnel through which a soul moves from being plainly within world C, to being within world P, or vice versa. Of course, the image of a soul passing through a "tunnel" on moving from/to the physical world is well known in accounts of near-death and other transcendent experiences. Since an elusc/soul is free to subscribe, or not subscribe, to any bubble world, then we will assume that an elusc is also free to choose how much of a bubble world he subscribes to --with the one requirement that, to enter/join a bubble world, one must at least subscribe to the first projection in its sequence; which, for world P, is p0. But, of course, by only subscribing to p0, an elusc would then have a "view" of world P from the combined perspectives of level 1 and level 0, from which viewpoints p0 would be onedimensional. We might then say that such an elusc has entered only so far as (or has halted himself within) the "entry tunnel" to world P. However, if the elusc also chooses to subscribe to the projection p1, then his view of world P will include the perspective of level 2, in which case p0 will be (from the perspective of p1) three dimensional (as previously described); and so the elusc's view or experience would include the ordinary, three-dimensional space of world P ( S01p 3 ). Furthermore, as we found in Part I for particles at level 2 and above (e.g. electrons and baryons), such an elusc would see itself as nested/embedded within that ordinary space. Thus, if an elusc/soul in world P (the physical universe) wishes to associate with a human body (which is composed of electrons and baryons), then that soul presumably must subscribe to at least the projections p0 and p1, by which it will see itself as nested within the ordinary space of that world (which comports with our present, human experience). In this sense, a soul that has chosen to associate with a human body will have a perspective of world P that is native to level 2, since that is the first level at which both p0 and p1 are operant. Given the control that we have over the content of our minds, we will assume that an 25 elusc/soul can also selectively subscribe to the ideational content or premises of world P (or any bubble world, for that matter). The more of these ideas of world P that one subscribes to, the more fully one experiences that world as designed by its invoking elusc. Note, however, that, even though a soul may be in world P, and as much as he may subscribe to the premises of that world, a soul is never of that world. Souls are of world C alone (the world in which they were created by Elosc/God). Thus, while a soul may be able to experience aspects of world P in a personal and sensorial kind of way (depending on how much he has subscribed to it), that soul is never actually subject to the particular premises or "laws" of world P (e.g. the laws of physics). So, for example, souls that have subscribed to world P are not subject to the forces of world P; which implies e.g. that they are unaffected by gravity and electromagnetism, and can thus travel right through walls or other physical "barriers", etc. Nonetheless, as alluded to above, the soul's experience of a world does depend on the ideas that he has subscribed to; e.g., an elusc that has associated with (or, if you will, subscribed to) a human body may then see himself as being subject to physical forces (although, in actuality, he is not). So, to answer the original inquiry regarding our place with respect to a bubble world such as the physical universe --i.e., whether it is within us, or we are within it; or somehow both --we must break down the creation process into its component parts and apply the scope and nesting rules to each of those parts: 1. Elosc/God created us, the elusc/souls, at level 2 of system C. God is thus prior, and we are subsequent; so, by the nesting rule, we are contained within God. 2. An elusc determines the ideational content of his mind --what may also be called the state of his mind. The soul/mind is prior, and the state of his mind is subsequent; so, by the nesting rule, the state of his mind is contained within his mind/soul (and leaves not its source). 3. Elosc/God projects the state of our minds. Thus, the component of the co-creative process that we create --i.e. the set of ideas that determine the particular parameters/properties of a bubble world --is indeed contained within the minds of the invoking/subscribing elusc (and leaves not its source). But, upon projection of those ideas by Elosc/God, scope inversion then places the invoker/subscribers within that bubble world, for as long as they each (individually) choose to remain subscribed to it. If a given invoker/subscriber (elusc/soul/mind) chooses to unsubscribe from the projections and ideas upon which the bubble world is constructed (or not to subscribe to them in the first place), then neither is that set of ideas within his mind, nor is he within that world. 26 4 Our other forms of creation With respect to our own creations, we have focused so far on the construction of geometric bubble worlds, which are the product of primary-vectorial projection of content from our minds. The following passages imply, however, that this particular type must constitute only a tiny fraction of the projections from our minds: Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore one which always operates. It is the law by which you create... Every mind must project... (Urtext, p. 174) The mind ... never loses its creative force. It never sleeps. Every instant it is creating, ... (Urtext, p. 59) In other words, given that ideas are always being projected from our minds, it follows that the primary-vectorial type must comprise only a small fraction of these projections --otherwise our minds would be creating new, geometric bubble universes (structurally similar to world P) every instant, which obviously is not the case. Consequently, the overwhelming majority of projections from our minds must be of either the primarynonvectorial type or the secondary types. What do these projections of our mental content produce? We stated earlier that primary-nonvectorial projections are the result of constructing primary projections without the use of postulate 3 (or perhaps just modifying postulate 3, by eliminating the requirement that the projections be vectors); and that, being that they are of the primary type, such projections create new infrastructure (of levels and the connections between them). However, since they are nonvectorial, these projections do not yield the geometry that their vectorial counterparts do; rather, the outputs of primarynonvectorial projections have a nongeometric, purely-logical character. Indeed, as argued in section 6 of Part I, a sequence of primary-nonvectorial projections may be equivalent to a sequence of steps in a logical derivation in ND. All of this leads us to posit that the primary-nonvectorial projection of our mental content produces the steps of our purely-logical reasoning; i.e., it is the basic means or process by which our minds produce ordinary reasoning --- "ordinary" in the sense of being much more commonplace than, and lacking the geometric output/overhead of, primary-vectorial projection. As for the secondary projections, we have already found (in our development of system P) that they do not produce new infrastructure; rather, they utilize the existing infrastructure (of primary projections and levels) as communication channels (i.e. "edges and nodes"), thereby providing a means by the which entities of a system can interact with each other. Thus, secondary projections (in the backward, forward, and lateral directions, as appropriate) produce inter-entity communication/interaction. Given their commonplaceness, we may also think of the secondary projection types as being "ordinary". Of course, it follows from our earlier results that, in whatever way(s) ideas are 27 projected from our minds (i.e., via primary-vectorial, primary-nonvectorial, or secondary projection), it is always us, the elusc/souls, who supply the content, and Elosc/God who performs the actual projection action. Thus, all of our creations (whether they be geometric worlds, ordinary reasoning, or inter-entity communication) are actually cocreations with God. And so, again, we can think of God's basic role in such co-creation as a function, which takes the content of our minds as arguments, and projects it. A different choice of ideas/arguments constitutes a different invocation of God's projection function, which produces a different output. Moreover, as stated earlier, since "what [we] project is up to [us]", and since, via primary projection, we are capable of co-creating either geometric worlds, or the nongeometric steps of ordinary reasoning, then the primary projection type --vectorial or nonvectorial --must be specified by an argument that we (the elusc) supply to Elosc/God's projection function. In other words, it is our choice of whether the primary projection of our mental content is vectorial or nonvectorial, and thus whether it produces, respectively, a geometric world or ordinary, purely-logical reasoning. Although our examples above involving primary projection tended to focus on the vectorial case (e.g. world P, the physical universe), let us now state explicitly that, except for geometrical differences between the two primary projection types, all of the results that we derived above apply also to the nonvectorial case. And so it follows that: • We, the elusc/souls, can subscribe to primary-nonvectorial projections, and we can unsubscribe from them. When subscribed, the experience of scope/nesting inversion will occur, whereby the ideas/contents of our minds are elevated to the status of premises under which we find ourselves to be subsumed, and within which we are nested/embedded. Indeed, we interpret that, for the primarynonvectorial projection of our mental content, the phenomenon of scope/nesting inversion is the means by which, in our ordinary reasoning, simple ideas/propositions become raised to the status of premises in our minds. • Since "The creations of every Son of God are yours, because every creation belongs to everyone, being created for the Sonship as a whole", then, once a sequence of primary-nonvectorial projections has been invoked by a given elusc, and produced (by the mind of God), it becomes equally accessible to all. Thus, any elusc/soul can enter/join any such sequence simply by subscribing to it; and, conversely, can exit it by unsubscribing. In this way, individual souls can enter and exit such sequences at will. The invoker of such a sequence is thus merely the first subscriber to it, and it is not really important who that invoker is; indeed, he may choose to exit it, while others remain subscribed to it. • As in the vectorial case, and as already described above, the infrastructure of projections and levels (or "edges and nodes") that is created by a sequence of one or more primary-nonvectorial projections can be used as channels upon which secondary projections may be propagated, and thus can be used for the purpose of inter-entity (e.g. elusc-to-elusc) communication and interaction. The number of communication channels that can be created in this way is unlimited: 28 Communication is not limited to the small range of channels the world recognizes. (M-25.2.) Indeed, the communication between Jesus and Helen Schucman that resulted in the scribing of A Course in Miracles might very well have been mediated over such a channel. Since our ordinary, nonvectorial, purely-logical thoughts are evidently much more numerous than our thoughts that produce geometric worlds/universes, then we will assume that nonvectorial is the default primary projection type. Thus, the default primary projection of content from our minds consists of a single projection of the nonvectorial type, which produces a single step of ordinary, purely-logical reasoning. In summary, the ideas/contents of our minds may be projected in different ways, yielding different outputs: (1) Primary-vectorial projections produce new infrastructure, which generates geometric bubble worlds/universes, such as world P; (2) primarynonvectorial projections produce new infrastructure and pure reasoning; (3) secondary projections are about using the existing infrastructure (of primary-vectorial and primarynonvectorial projections) as channels by which entities can communicate/interact with each other. Since we are obviously not producing new geometrical worlds every instant, then it is clear that the latter two types constitute the vast majority of our mental activities, i.e. they and their outputs constitute our ordinary mental processes and activities. Thus, we can more fully answer our earlier question --what do we create? --as follows: Utilizing the different types of projection, our minds can create geometric bubble worlds/universes, communication/interaction with other entities, and the steps of purely logical reasoning. 5 Analogy with computing As indicated above, we may liken God's co-creative role to a kind of always-operating engine or function, which takes our ideas/thoughts as arguments and projects them. This function is necessary for co-creation because, while the ideational content of our minds is within our own scope to choose, the actual projection of that content is a fundamental process that is within the scope of Elosc/God alone. In this sense, our invocation --or, if you will, calling --of the projection function is analogous to a system call in computing, in which a program or process invokes the operating system kernel to perform an operation that is beyond the process' own scope (e.g. an input/output operation, memory or disk read/write, interprocess communication, or the spawning of a new thread within the process). This computing analogy may be summarized as follows: • Elosc/God is analogous to the operating system kernel. • The many elusc/souls (and/or their minds) --which were spawned by, and are "running" under, Elosc/God --are analogous to the many programs/processes 29 that are spawned by, and run under, the kernel. • The projection invocation --performed by an elusc/soul --is analogous to a system call. • The ideas/thoughts that an elusc supplies when invoking the projection function/action from Elosc/God are analogous to the arguments that a program/process supplies when making a system call to the kernel. The analogy can be extended further: • If Elosc/God is the operating system kernel, and an elusc/soul is a process running under that kernel, then the generation of a new sequence of primary projections (vectorial or nonvectorial), containing content from the elusc's mind, can be likened to the spawning of a new thread (of execution) within the process. It follows, then, that an elusc's subscription to, or unsubscription from, a given primary sequence or "thread" (i.e. a bubble world) is analogous to a context switch. So, for example, an elusc's unsubscription from world/thread A, followed by subscription to world/thread B, involves changing/switching the state of his mind from context A to context B. In this sense, we (the elusc/souls) make system calls to Elosc/God, who (if so requested) returns an answer in the form of a new primary sequence or thread, whose particular premises/parameters or "context" is determined by the arguments that we supplied: the Son of God ... calls upon his [creator]. ...[who] gives answer... (W-183.11) Since multiple elusc can subscribe to, join, and participate in the same primary sequence, then such a sequence is also analogous to a discussion thread (a.k.a. topic thread) in an Internet forum or newsgroup. Prompted by this computing analogy, it will be useful to adopt the terms "thread", "context", and "context switch" into the present model, with meanings described below. 6 Threads, context, and context switching in the present model A "thread of execution" (in computing) is a sequence of memory cells together with their content (which constitute instructions and/or data). Likewise, a discussion thread (in an Internet forum) is a sequence of postings, with content. Similarly, we will use the term thread in the present model to denote "a sequence of (one or more) primary projections, together with their ideational content". The same symbols that we have been using to represent regular projections and sequences will also be used to represent threads; thus, for example, (c0, c1, c2) represents both the projection sequence for constructing system/world C, and the thread for that world, which may therefore be called "thread C", or just "C". And likewise for system/world P, whose projection sequence (p0, p1, p2, p3) 30 also represents the thread for that system, and may be called "thread P", or just "P". And so on. While the full thread for constructing world C is (c0, c1, c2), the thread for creating Elisc (at level 1) is (c0), the thread for creating the elusc (at level 2) is (c0, c1), and the thread for the elesc (at level 3) is (c0, c1, c2). These threads, or subthreads, may be denoted more compactly as C0 , C1 , and C2 , respectively. In addition, (c1), (c2), and (c1, c2) are also different subthreads of system/world C. Likewise, the full thread for system P is (p0, p1, p2, p3), and the threads/subthreads for creating the different levels and primary entities of that world are (p0), (p0, p1), (p0, p1, p2), and (p0, p1, p2, p3), which may also be denoted respectively as P0 , P1 , P2 , and P3 . Other subthreads of system P are (p1, p2), (p1, p2, p3), etc. Similarly, for a nonvectorial/nongeometric system U, whose full sequence/thread is (u0, u1, ..., um), the subthreads for creating its different levels/entities are (u0), (u0, u1), ..., and (u0, u1, ..., um), which may be denoted respectively as U0 , U1 , ..., and Um; with some other subthreads of system U being (u1, u2), (u1, ..., um), (u2, ..., um), etc. Since world P is subsequent to world C, then the construction of C followed by the construction of P may be represented by combining the threads for these worlds in proper order, thereby producing the longer thread (c0, c1, c2)-(p0, p1, p2, p3), which may be abbreviated as C2-P3 . But if, as claimed earlier, it was an elusc --at level 2 of world C, whose thread is (c0, c1) --who invoked world P, then it would be more accurate to represent the creation of the elusc/invoker, followed by his invocation/creation of world P, with the thread (c0, c1)-(p0, p1, p2, p3), or C1-P3 . Indeed, this is the situation that is depicted in Fig. 5 above. If, however, we were to suppose (more generally) that some nonvectorial thread, Um , is situated between C1 and P3 , we would represent this as the thread (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, ..., um)-(p0, p1, p2, p3), or C1-Um-P3 . The main point here is that, what may be called simple threads, such as C, P, and U, or their subthreads, can be "attached" or "grafted" together to form longer threads, which may therefore be called compound threads, or thread chains. We note also that C1 , Um , P3 , C1-Um , and Um-P3 are subthreads of C1-Um-P3 . The context at some level in a thread is the set of all projections and ideational content (ideas/premises) that is in effect/operant at that level --which, due to the scope rule, is all those things that are prior to that level. It follows that each level in a thread has a different context, so a change of level or "location" within a thread (via the process of subscribing to, or unsubscribing from, subthreads) involves a change of context, or a context switch. Thus, for example, an elusc who is at first subscribed up to the end of the thread (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, u3), and then further subscribes to the thread (p0, p1) --level 2 of system P --has performed a context switch to the end of the thread (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, u3)- (p0, p1), at which point all of the component projections in that thread, and their content, are operant. And, conversely, an elusc who is subscribed to the thread (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, u3)- (p0, p1), and then unsubscribes from (p0, p1), has performed a context switch to (the end of) the thread (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, u3), at which point the component projections of the thread (p0, p1), and their content contributions, are no longer operant for that elusc; in other 31 words, the elusc has exited thread/world P, and no longer experiences it, unless and until he resubscribes to it. 6.1 Thread trees Thread C is the original, fundamental thread --created by Elosc/God alone. All other threads are co-created by God and the elusc (and possibly the elesc --but we won't get into that here). Their dependence on the elusc makes such co-created threads subsequent to thread C, and thus ontologically nested within system/world C. As described above, each of the elusc/souls (that is, each of us) is able (with God's cocreative assistance, via his projection function) to invoke/spawn new threads, vectorial or nonvectorial. In addition, since these threads are not exclusive to anyone, and no one is bound to them, then every elusc is able to subscribe to, and unsubscribe from, any cocreated thread, no matter who invoked it; thus, every such thread is equally accessible and equally shared by every elusc who chooses to subscribe to it. When an elusc spawns a new thread, or joins an existing thread, this can be pictured as attaching/grafting the thread onto his current thread (the thread to which the elusc is currently subscribed). In this way, each elusc builds his own personal (probably unique) thread chains. Thus, while the seven billion of us elusc/souls that are currently associated with human bodies here on earth are all subscribed to the thread (p0, p1), each of us has likely attached that thread at a different place in his own thread chain. For example, let us assume that we are all currently subscribed to a thread chain that looks something like (c0, c1)-(u0, u1, ..., uk)-(p0, p1), which implies that we are all subscribed up to level 2 of thread P. Although the (c0, c1) and (p0, p1) parts of the chain are the same, the (u0, u1, ..., uk) thread would likely be different/unique for each of us; i.e. the value of k may be different, and the components/steps of thread U --u0, u1, etc. --would generally represent projections of different ideas, and thus have different content, thereby yielding a different context for each of us. As indicated above, a different context yields a different output or experience, just as different threads of execution (in computing), with their different contexts, yield different outputs (and thus different experiences for the user). Each of us has likely subscribed to, and unsubscribed from, many other threads before subscribing to thread P, and will continue to do so once we have unsubscribed from that thread. Indeed, even while we are subscribed to thread P, we are constantly subscribing to, and unsubscribing from, nonvectorial/nongeometric threads, as part of our ordinary reasoning/thought processes. This and other information (such as whether the content of the next step in a derivation is an inference from prior content/context, or if it contains a supposition/hypothesis) cannot be depicted well with (linear) thread chains; rather, we will need to use tree structures to convey such information, as described below. When spawning the next step in a thread, if the content ideas are simply inferences from prior ideas, then we will consider that step to be a continuation of the current thread, and so we might call it an inline step. If, however, the next step contains a nonprior idea, then that step is, in effect, a hypothesis or supposition; likewise, if the next 32 step differs in (primary) projection type from the prior step (changing from vectorial to nonvectorial, or vice versa), then we will also consider that step to be a supposition/hypothesis. Such suppositional steps will be treated as branches off of the current thread.9 A combination of inline and branching steps will produce what may be called a thread tree, perhaps something like that shown below in Fig. 6 below. So, for example, since (p0, p1, p2, p3) is vectorial, then it is shown in Fig. 6 as a branch off of its nonvectorial parent thread, B = (b0, b1, ..., b10). And the fact that the nonvectorial thread D = (d0, d1) is shown as a branch off of the (also nonvectorial) thread B implies that the first projection, d0, of D contains a supposition. (Note that, with the exception of (p0, p1, p2, p3), all of the branches off of thread B in Fig. 6 have been made up, in order to give this thread tree some semblance of the complexity that they likely can have.) So, while all of the elusc are identical (by the axiom of equality), our thread trees and their various contexts, and the paths that we "travel" along those trees (via subscribing and unsubscribing), are likely unique to each of us, corresponding to unique histories and experiences for each of us. Although each of our thread trees is unique, for simplicity let us assume that we all have the same, "generic" thread tree, illustrated in Fig. 6. Construction of the thread tree in Fig. 6 starts on the left with the creation (by Elosc/God alone) of thread C = (c0, c1, c2), which results in the creation of the elusc/souls at level 2 of that thread (the level at which c1 comes into effect). By the scope and inheritance rules, we (the elusc) inherit all of God's ideas/thoughts/premises into our minds, all of which (we assume) are then projected via the nonvectorial thread A = (a0); which makes a0 the first projection of content from our minds (corresponding to our very first thought). The content of a0 is thus the set of all of God's ideas/premises. With our (probably automatic) subscription to thread (a0), a scope inversion occurs, whereby all of God's ideas/thoughts are elevated to the status of premises in our own minds. At this stage, not only are we (the elusc) identical as created, but all of the ideas and premises in our minds are also identical (and thus the states of our minds are identical). 9 This is similar to the step of "subproof introduction" in natural deduction (ND), which begins with a hypothesis/supposition, and is typically signified (in Fitch-style derivations) with an offset vertical line. See [12, pp. 3, 19], [13], [14, pp. 52-55]. 33 Thread A is followed by thread B = (b0, b1, ..., bm), at each step of which the content is some conjunction/subset of ideas inferred from prior ideas, and inferred from the plenum of God's ideas at thread A (as indicated by the fact that the steps of thread B are inline with each other, and inline with thread A). Each such conjunction/subset constitutes (let us say) an aspect of God, or God's mind, or God's thoughts; as such, the ideational content at each step along thread B constitutes an aspect of God's mind or thoughts. So a certain subset of God's thoughts is projected with the step b0, another with step b1, and so on. Each such subset that we select and project at a given step constitutes a focusing or emphasis on that set of ideas, and that focus/emphasis itself becomes part of the content/context. Scope inversion occurs at each step that we are subscribed to, whereby the content/context is elevated to the status of premises in our minds, changing the environment under which we find ourselves subsumed, and thereby changing what we experience. So each new projection/step along thread B is a new co-creation, which 34 Fig. 6 Example thread tree for an elusc/soul. Although each of our thread trees is unique (and likely much more complex than what is shown here), for simplicity let us assume that we all have this same, generic thread tree. Thread A branches off of level 2 of thread C; thread B follows inline from thread A; there are three (made up) branches (D, E, and G) off of thread B before the branch/thread that creates system/world P. Geometrically, we are currently subscribed to level 2 of thread P (i.e., the projection p1), and so we are experiencing the time and (ordinary) space dimensions of that world, the physical universe. Since subscribing to level 2 of system P, however, our nonvectorial/nongeometrical thinking and projecting has continued, thereby subscribing our minds (purely-logically) to level n + 1 of thread Q (i.e., the projection q n). The branches X and Y represent hypothetical threads that we might subscribe to once we unsubscribe from thread P. However, the left-to-right direction in this thread tree does not necessarily constitute a forward progression in system-C time; i.e., since one can unsubscribe from projections/threads, then it is possible that branch P was created or subscribed to after branches X and Y (in system-C time). ---(a0)-(b0, b1, b2)-(b3, b4)-(b5, b6, b7)-(b8, b9, b10)-(b11, b12, b13)-(b14, b15)-(b16, ..., bm) --- (d 0 , d 1 ) --- (p 0 , p 1 , p 2 , p 3 ) --- (e 0 , e 1 , e 2 ) --- (g 0 , g 1 , g 2 ) --- (x 0 , x 1 , x 2 ) --- (y 0 , y 1 ) Geometrically, we are here. (c 0 , c 1 , c 2 ) Nongeometrically, we are here. --- (r 0 , r 1 ) - - - (q 0 , q 1 , q 2 , ... , q n ) generates a new context/environment that we experience. Since the sum of all God's Thoughts [is] ... in number infinite... (W-pII.11.1), then the number of subsets/conjunctions of God's thoughts (and the number of aspects of God) is also infinite, and so the number of our possible co-creations (and thus contexts/environments that we can experience) is infinite: Creation is the sum of all God's Thoughts, in number infinite, and everywhere without all limit. (W-pII.11.1) As mentioned, the content of the (inline) steps of thread B are conjunctions of ideas/thoughts that are already available in our mind at prior steps/levels, including thread A (and are thus, by the scope rule, assertable at all subsequent levels; or, in terms of natural deduction, they are assertable at all subsequent levels by the inference rules called "conjunction elimination" and "conjunction introduction"). Threads D = (d0, d1), E = (e0, e1, e2), G = (g0, g1, g2), P = (p0, p1, p2, p3), etc., on the other hand, are branches off of thread B, which signifies a change in projection type and/or that the content of their first projections --d0, e0, g0, p0, etc., respectively --contains at least one non-prior idea, i.e. a hypothesis or supposition. For example, let us assume that we are at level 3 of thread B, and that the next step in the derivation contains the supposition/hypothesis φd. We thus represent this step as a branch off of thread B, thereby forming the first step, d0, of thread D. If, via the steps of thread D, we derive the result ψd, we can then discharge the hypothesis φd (by unsubscribing from thread D, and perhaps also by backward projection) and assert/project the conditional φd → ψd with the next step, b3, of thread B. Then, by simple inference from prior ideas (which now includes the previously-derived conditional φd → ψd), we continue the inline construction of thread B with the step b4; which is then followed by the supposition φe, yielding step e0 of thread E, from which is derived the result ψe (at step e2), from which the conditional φe → ψe may be projected with the next step, b5, of thread B. Likewise, if the first projections of the threads G and P contain hypotheses φg and φp, respectively, from which are derived the results/conclusions ψg and ψp, then the respective conditionals φg → ψg and φp → ψp can be projected/asserted with the next steps (b8 and b11, respectively) of thread B. And similarly for other branching threads. As mentioned earlier, when we are not subscribed to any vectorial/geometric bubble worlds (such as E, P, or Y, in Fig. 6), then, geometrically speaking, we are still plainly in world C; that is, our experiences, and the events that we see, take place within the ordinary space and time of world C, i.e. S01c 3 and S10c 1 . If, however, we subscribe to a geometric bubble world, then the geometry/space that we experience, and in which events occur, changes to that of the bubble world. So, for example, when we are subscribed to level 2 of thread P (as we are right now), we see events and experiences as happening in the ordinary space and time of that world, i.e. S01p 3 and S10p 1 . As depicted in Fig. 6, once we subscribed to level 2 of thread P, our ordinary reasoning processes continued, thereby producing the nonvectorial thread Q = (q0, q1, ..., qn). So, in terms of our ordinary (nonvectorial/nongeometric) thought processes, we may 35 consider ourselves to be currently subscribed to level n + 1 of thread Q (which, geometrically speaking, is equivalent to level 2 of thread P). The branch R = (r0, r1) corresponds to a hypothesis φr, which, upon deriving a conclusion ψr (at the step r1), may be discharged, allowing the conditional φr → ψr to be asserted at level 3 of thread Q. Note that an alternative way of describing our current subscription to level n + 1 of thread Q is by saying that we are subscribed to the end of the thread chain (c0, c1)-(a0)-(b0, b1, ..., b10)-(p0, p1)-(q0, q1, ..., qn), or C1-A0-B1 0-P1-Qn . Starting with level 2 of thread C, the many levels of our thread trees (as exemplified in Fig. 6) constitute different levels of our minds. And the levels, threads, and subthreads of the tree constitute different regions/parts of our minds or being: Your creations are ... part of your own being, ... (Urtext, p. 177) Since Elosc/God is the co-creator of all of this, and it is all embedded/nested within his mind, then these threads/parts of our minds also constitute threads/thoughts in God's mind: You think with the Mind of God. ... Nor do the thoughts you think with the Mind of God leave your mind, because thoughts do not leave their source. Therefore, your thoughts are in the Mind of God, as you are. They are in your mind as well, where He is. As you are part of His Mind, so are your thoughts part of His Mind. (W-45.2) 7 Our minds are operant observers at level 0 of system/world P (the physical universe) As described above, the minds of the elusc/souls (i.e. our minds) first come into being and effect at level 2 of system C, which is thus the first or native level of our minds. Subsequent levels of our minds are then constructed in discrete steps by the projection of mental content, and/or by subscribing to existing steps --a process that yields sequences of projections and levels (i.e. threads and thread trees) as the basic parts/structures of our minds. As shown in Fig. 6 above, the minds of us elusc/souls here on earth are subscribed geometrically up to level 2 of thread P, and nongeometrically up to level n + 1 of thread Q. Due to the scope rule, however, our minds are actually operant at all levels of our thread trees, beginning with our native level; and so, for instance, our minds are operant at level 0 of system P (losp), and are thus observers at that level. Since losp is the origin and boundary of system P, then it follows that the state of our minds may constitute boundary conditions on system/world P (the physical universe). Now recall (from Part I) that anything at losp is independent of (system-P) time, and instantaneously operant throughout the ordinary space of world P. Thus the boundary 36 conditions, set by our minds operating at losp, act instantaneously and independently of time throughout the physical universe, presumably affecting phenomena and events within it. In short, as observers at losp, our minds are capable of playing the central role in the system-P meaning circuit (see section 5 of Part I). Recalling the results of section 4.11 of Part I, it is thus proposed that our minds (as observers at losp) play a central role in constructing the properties of position, velocity/momentum, and spin for object/particles of the physical world. Moreover, the state of our minds constitutes boundary conditions which act throughout that world (instantaneously and independently of time) to construct particular values for those properties.10 These results would seem to explain how our observing minds "enter the loop" in determining the outcomes of so-called "quantum measurement experiments" (e.g. the double-slit experiment). Furthermore, that the setting of boundary conditions, via the state of our minds, is independent of time, might explain the aspect of "delayedchoice" experiments in which choices made at a given time seem to affect what happened in the "past" [15]. That is, the actions and effects of our minds (in setting boundary conditions) at losp are independent of system-P time, and are thus independent of temporal ordering (i.e. past, present, and future) in system/world P (the physical universe). As previously alluded to, however, our minds (and their effects) are not to be confused or equated with our human brains (and their effects). This follows simply from their different scopes: our brains, being artifacts of the physical universe, have a limited scope within that world; our minds, on the other hand, are prior to the universe, and thereby have universal scope (e.g., our minds span the ordinary space and time of world P). Consequently, it is not our brains, nor the state of our brains, that are able to play the central role in constructing the properties of objects/particles (and their values) in world P, the physical universe; rather, it is our minds at level 0 that can play this role. Recall from section 5 of Part I, however, that (like all objects/particles of system P) the protons, neutrons, and electrons which compose our brains refer back to level 0 to construct meaning. Thus, while our brains, and the particles that compose them, are not the central part of the system-P meaning circuit, they are nevertheless observers "in the loop" of that circuit. 8 Form and content The output that is common or generic to a given projection type, and thus independent of added content, may be called the form of the output. Each projection type yields different forms. For example, a generic sequence of primary-vectorial projections yields what might be called "the form a geometric world", which consists of several levels, an ordinary three-dimensional space (native to level 2), a quantum of action (also native to 10 Since our minds also set the original parameters (fine-tuning or otherwise) for constructing world P, then our states of mind actually constitute both initial and boundary conditions on world P (the physical universe) as a whole, and on events/phenomena within it. 37 level 2), a single entity at level 1, and a multiplicity of entities at level 2 and above. Every geometric world has this same general form. The addition of premises/content to the form then yields (as a kind of substitution instance) a particular world, such as C or P, with particular entities at each level; where, for example, in system C the entities are beings (Elisc, elusc, elesc), and in system P the entities are particles (dark energy11, leptons, baryons, and dark matter). Likewise, given that primary-nonvectorial projections produce our steps of ordinary, purely-logical reasoning, then we interpret that the output that is common to this projection type includes what are known as logical forms. A single projection or step yields the form of a single proposition or supposition, and a sequence of such projections/steps may yield an argument form. For example, as alluded to earlier, when a primary-nonvectorial projection of non-prior content is followed by exit from that projection (or followed, perhaps, by backward projection), it may produce the logical form known as conditional proof (a.k.a. conditional introduction) --and thus, when coupled with modus ponens, may yield the inference form known as conditional elimination. The addition of premises/content to a given form then yields (as a substitution instance) a particular proposition, hypothesis/supposition, conditional, argument, etc. Similarly, in light of earlier results, we interpret that (in general) the secondary projections yield forms of inter-entity communication/interaction, and that the addition of content instantiates such forms into particular messages. For example, as developed in Part I, backward projection followed by secondary-forward projection is a form of interentity interaction/communication which, when instantiated with the content/parameters of system P, yields the electromagnetic and strong interactions. Since, as described above, the different kinds of form that can be produced are basically a consequence of the different projection types (in conjunction with the postulates), and since God always performs the projection action, then we can say that God is the actual producer of all form. In the creation of world C, therefore, God produces the form and supplies the content; whereas, for our co-creations with God, God creates the form, and we (the elusc) supply the content (i.e., a separation of form and content). The content notwithstanding, God's projection function "always operates", and so all mental activity (i.e. thinking) produces form at some level (i.e., either at existing levels, as in secondary projection, or at newly-created levels, as in primary projection): Projection is a fundamental law of the mind, and therefore one which always operates. It is the law by which you create... Every mind must project... (Urtext, p. 174) The truth is that there are no "idle thoughts". All thinking produces form at some level. (Urtext, p. 60; underline mine) The form that is produced in a thought process becomes the structure or frame upon 11 As alluded to in Part I, dark energy can be thought of as a single, continuous "particle" that spans all of space. 38 which the content is attached or exhibited: the form is ... a means for content. (Urtext, p. 465) 9 The world of our current experience is a miscreation When we look at each other in this world we see a multitude of differences and inequalities --in terms of appearance, talents, intelligence, capabilities, wealth, health, status, power, etc. Such differences, if thought to be reflective of our true selves, clearly contradict God's axiom of equality, and are therefore absurd and false. But the world's absurdities and contradictions do not stop there. In general, this world exhibits a myriad of opposites: true/false; positive/negative (e.g. +/electric and baryon charge); action/reaction; for/against; friend/foe; good/evil; innocence/guilt; love/hate; life/death; rich/poor; health/sickness; construction/destruction; creation/annihilation; order/disorder; offense/defense; winners/losers; victory/defeat; peace/war; haves/have nots; intelligent/unintelligent; privileged/unprivileged; abundance/scarcity; and so on. Indeed, opposites seem to be at the very core of what this world is all about, resulting in many paradoxes and absurdities --such as life depending on death, peace depending on war, etc. Although we may have become accustomed to thinking of opposites as "normal", here is what ACIM says about them: The truth is simple; it is one, without an opposite. (Urtext, p. 484) Truth cannot have an opposite. (W-152.3) truth...has no opposite and cannot change. (Urtext, p. 567) nothing but the truth exists...because what is not true cannot exist... (Urtext, p. 80) There is no opposite... There is no contradiction to the truth. (W-138.4) opposites do not exist. (Urtext, p. 236) an opposite to God does not exist. (W-167.1) What is opposed to God does not exist... (W-137) God and His Son ... have no opposite... (Urtext, p. 295) Creation knows no opposite. But here [in the present world] is opposition part of being "real". (W-138.2) From these passages we may define God's axiom of unity, as follows: The truth is one, without an opposite; opposites do not exist. So the world of our present experience, brimming with inequalities and opposites, stands in contradiction to God's axioms of equality and unity. Or, as ACIM puts it: 39 [This world is] a battleground, where contradiction reigns and opposites make endless war. (M-27.2) this world is the opposite of Heaven, having been made to be its opposite. And everything here takes a direction exactly opposite to what is true. (Urtext, p. 332) earth...is Heaven's opposite in every way. (W-131.7) what...must be the truth...clearly contradicts the world. (W-132.7) Not one thing in this world is true. (W-240) this strange world you made ... is false. (Urtext, p. 269) By these passages and the axiom of unity, therefore, the present world (including the physical universe itself) is a false world. Moreover, since "creation knows no opposite", and yet the present world is rife with opposites, then that world cannot be a true creation, and must therefore be a false creation, or miscreation. What is the cause of this false, miscreated world? To answer this, we first recall that the construction of a world is a type of logical derivation. Second, we note that, if one's logic is valid (i.e. truth-preserving), then a false conclusion or output implies that one or more of the premises is false. Third, we take the following passage from ACIM, [Your] logic is as impeccable as that of [God]... (Urtext, p. 133), to imply that the logic by which we construct worlds is indeed valid. We conclude, therefore, that the present world is false because one or more of its founding ideas/thoughts/premises is false. Of course, as described above, we (the elusc/souls) are the authors of (or, at least, subscribers to) those premises. So, to borrow from Shakespeare, the error is not in our stars, but in our own minds. all thoughts have power. They will either make a false world or lead me to the real one. ... the world I see arises from my thinking errors ... My thoughts cannot be neither true nor false. They must be one or the other. What I see shows me which they are. (W-54.1. (16)) What I see is the projection of my own errors of thought. (W-51.1) There is little doubt that the mind can miscreate. (Urtext, p. 596) Furthermore, since ideas/thoughts never leave their source, then the false idea(s) that miscreated the present world, with its endless absurdities, must still reside in the minds of its subscribers. According to ACIM, a single motive lies at the root of all of our false ideas and miscreations: the desire for specialness, in relation to other souls. Such relative specialness is a condition in which one's self/soul is better than, or superior to, other selves/souls. Because it contradicts God's axiom of equality, however, this kind of specialness is impossible. It can be desired, imagined and pursued, but never realized --

and so it may also be called false specialness. In the words of ACIM: specialness...takes many forms, but always clashes with the reality of God's creation... (Urtext, p. 449) what is specialness but an attack upon the Will of God? (Urtext, p. 451) what is One can have no specialness. (Urtext, p. 492) The last passage indicates that "specialness" also contradicts the axiom of unity, as will soon be elaborated. To be sure, we (the many elusc/souls) are all absolutely special, in the sense that we are creations of God, and have inherited all of his attributes, including the ability to create worlds. But the key aspect of this type of specialness, which we may refer to as absolute or true specialness, is that, in accordance with the axiom of equality, none of us is more special than anyone else; that is, we all inherited exactly the same attributes from God, in exactly equal amounts. So none of us is better than, or less than, anyone else. [true] specialness does not stem from exclusion, but from inclusion. All [souls] are [absolutely] special. (Urtext, p. 26) Absolute specialness is something we already have, so there is no need to desire, seek or pursue it. Relative specialness, on the other hand, is something we don't have, and so it became an object of desire and pursuit. From now on, the term "specialness" will mean relative specialness, unless otherwise noted. According to ACIM, we (that is, each of us, individually) first tried, and failed, to obtain specialness by seeking special favor from God: you asked for special favor, and God did not give it. (Urtext, p. 261) God gives no special favors... (M-25.2) God ... knows no special love... ...no-one is special [in the relative sense]. (Urtext, p. 312) That is, given our perfect equality, it is impossible for God to favor or love any one of us more than another; for, to give special favor, God would be contradicting his own axiom of equality. Our failure to obtain specialness directly from God, however, did not deter us from desiring it: You wanted specialness to be the truth. (Urtext, p. 460) So we pursued it by other means --in essence, by simply making it up in our minds: Forgive [God] the specialness He could not give and yet you made instead. (Urtext, p. 454) Our method for mentally fabricating specialness involves comparing ourselves with others and deeming them to be inferior in some way --which, of course, makes us superior, and thus relatively special. As ACIM puts it: 41 Specialness always makes comparisons. It is established by a lack seen in another, and maintained by searching for and keeping clear in sight all lacks it can perceive. This does it seek, and this it looks upon. ... Against the littleness you see in [another] you stand as tall and stately, clean and honest, pure and unsullied by comparison with what you see. (Urtext, p. 451) specialness not only sets apart, but serves as grounds from which attack on those who seem "beneath" the special one is "natural" and "just." (Urtext, p. 450) Thus, for a mind to think of its self/soul as special relative to another, it must perceive the other as something less than special, thereby spawning oppositions such as "I am superior, the other is inferior", "I am good, the other is not good", "I am good, the other is evil!", etc. So the will to specialness, in addition to violating the axiom of equality, engenders the idea of, and belief in, opposites --and thus also violates the axiom of unity. The idea of opposites, held in a mind, then becomes a founding premise for any world that is constructed by that mind --entering that world with the first projection in the sequence (p0 , in the case of the physical world) and, by the scope rule, staying in effect for all subsequent projections, thereby operating ubiquitously throughout it as a sort of (negative) Platonic Idea; in other words, the idea of opposites becomes axiomatic for that world. Since opposites are operant in the physical universe itself, we conclude that it is the product of an elusc/soul who invoked a primary-vectorial projection sequence/thread while engaged in the will to specialness. Other souls (after the invoker) then enter this bubble world by subscribing to (at least some of) its projection sequence and premises (including the idea of opposites), and its clock value --and exit it by unsubscribing. This means that, to enter the physical world (and, moreover, to become associated with a physical body), even someone like Jesus (i.e. his mind) may have needed to subscribe to its premise of opposites. According to ACIM, however, Jesus is a completely True Witness for God. (Urtext, p. 17), by which we infer that he did/does not believe in any false ideas, such as specialness or opposites. This suggests that subscription to a bubble world and its premises may not necessarily require belief in those premises; so, again, it may be similar to a magazine subscription. That is, one may subscribe to a magazine/journal without actually believing any of its content (e.g. an economist who is a staunch free-market capitalist may subscribe to a Marxist magazine for purely instructive/research purposes). In general, then, we suppose that a given subscriber's level of belief in the ideas/premises of a bubble world may be somewhere on a scale between no belief and strong belief. A larger excerpt than the last one above, ...I [Jesus] am the only completely True Witness for God. [italics mine], 42 implies that, while Jesus' belief in the false premises of this world is/was exactly zero, for the other souls currently here on earth the level of belief is greater than zero; that is, in entering the physical world, we not only subscribed to false premises, but to some extent we believed them. And for the invoker of a false world, we may suppose that the level of belief in the false premises (and their corresponding world) was rather strong, since: What you project you believe. (Urtext, p. 148) All creation rests on belief... (Urtext, p. 41) 10 Aspects of creation and miscreation Just as a false premise constructs a false world, so also true premises construct a true world (again, this is due to the logical validity --i.e. truth-preservation --of the process). Thus, the fundamental difference between a created (i.e. truly created, or sound) world and a miscreated (i.e. falsely created) world is that all of the founding ideas/premises are true in the former, whereas at least one premise is false in the latter.12 Therefore, only one false idea/thought/premise is needed to initiate a sequence of miscreation: the chain of miscreation...can arise out of even the simplest mis-thought. (Urtext, p. 72) ACIM generally reserves the words "create" and "creation" for reference to true creation only, and uses the words "make" and "making" in reference to false creation (miscreation). Thus, world C was created by God, and the physical universe (world P) was made by us, the elusc. In some contexts, however, the words "create" and "creation" are used in a generic sense, and may thus refer to either true creation or false creation (as may also be the case in this paper); an example of this is a passage recently quoted above: "All creation rests on belief...", which applies to both true creation and miscreation. In addition, to capture the generic sense of the terms "create" and "creation", I often simply use the neutral terms "construct" and "construction". As already noted above, the plurality of the passage "Your mind is capable of creating worlds" indicates that each of us elusc is capable of constructing many (probably an unlimited number of) bubble worlds; and we now know that these worlds can be either true or false. The physical world, which we are currently experiencing, is just one such world (of the false/miscreated variety), invoked by one elusc, and subsequently subscribed to by many others. 10.1 Conjoining true and false premises It follows from above that the ideational content of a miscreation may consist of a 12 In logical terms, therefore, a world is true if the conjunction of its founding premises is true; and false if that conjunction is false, i.e. if one or more of the premises/conjuncts is false. 43 conjunction of false and true ideas/thoughts/premises; and so a miscreation may contain aspects of it that are true, and are therefore creations. For example, in the making of world P, while the idea of opposites is false, the actual projection of it, which is performed by the mind of God, is true. Miscreation is still a genuine creative act in terms of the underlying impulse [i.e. projection], but not in terms of the content of the creation. (Urtext, p. 62) And since, e.g., the ordinary three-dimensional space of world P derives from p0, p1, and the postulates (all of which, by themselves, are arguably true), then we could say that that space is a true aspect of world P. Thus, in this sense, the construction of world P is part creation and part miscreation. However, the conjunction of creation and miscreation makes the resulting system as a whole a miscreation --just as in logic, where the conjunction of any number of true premises with just one false premise yields a false/inconsistent/miscreated system. 10.2 Creation, miscreation, and reality Consider the following passages: what is real except the Creations of God and those which are created like His? (Urtext, p. 190) only what God creates, or what [a mind] creates with the same will, has any real existence. (Urtext, p. 80) nothing but the truth exists...because what is not true cannot exist... (Urtext, p. 80) Anything that God creates is as true as He is. (Urtext, p. 146) what is true is everything that God created. (Urtext, p. 120) the laws of God ... are true. (Urtext, p. 165) God made no contradictions. (W-131.7) only [what] is true ... is real. (Urtext, p. 155) Thus, God creates only truth, and only truth is real. So reality must be true, and based on truth alone. This implies that God's premises are all true; i.e. God never indulges in false ideas/thoughts/premises. It follows that God only creates, and never miscreates. Likewise, if all of our ideas/thoughts/premises are consistent with God's (i.e. if we are of the "same will" as God), then, and only then, do we (truly) create --and those creations, too, are true and real (since then, in accord with the first passage above, our creations "are created like His"): [God's] ideas alone establish truth. (W-325.2) 44 Your creations are the logical outcome of [God's] premises. His thinking has established them for you. (Urtext, p. 177) The Son's creations are like [God's]. ... His union with [the mind of God] is the source of his creating. Apart from this, he has no power to create... (Urtext, p. 413) the mind as God created it is capable of creating reality. (Urtext, p. 134) That is, God's thinking (and projecting) has established his true thoughts as operant and accessible everywhere in world C; and we use those ideas/thoughts as premises to logically derive our own real/true creations. Since, it may be recalled, God's thoughts are "in number infinite", then the range of our true creations is also infinite in number. Given that reality is based on truth alone, and that miscreation stems from the holding (and projecting) of one or more false ideas, then it follows that: miscreation is not real... (Urtext, p. 63) the miscreations of the mind do not really exist. (Urtext, p. 597) miscreation ... does not exist at all at the level of true Creation. (Urtext, p. 42) no miscreation exists. (Urtext, p. 85) Thus, for example, world P, the physical universe, is not real, since it is based on at least one idea --e.g. the premise of opposites --that is false: a world in opposition to God's Will ... cannot have reality, because it never was created. (W-200.7) [You made] a world of total unreality ... in which everything is backward and upside down... (Urtext, p. 356) this world is not real... (W-53.2) this world is a hallucination ... you made it up... (Urtext, p. 408) the world you see has nothing to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it does not exist. (W-14) the world does not exist. (W-132.8) This world is but [a] dream... (Urtext, p. 526) Nevertheless, we believe that our miscreations are real and true: miscreation ... is always invested with reality. (Urtext, p. 64) miscreation is necessarily believed in by its own creator... (Urtext, p. 42) All beliefs are real to the believer. (Urtext, p. 96) 45 when you believe something you have made it true for you. (Urtext, p. 170) All things I think I see reflect ideas. ... What I see reflects a process in my mind, which starts with my idea of what I want. From there, the mind makes up an image of the thing the mind desires, judges valuable, and therefore seeks to find. These images are then projected outward, looked upon, esteemed as real and guarded as one's own. From insane wishes comes an insane world. From judgment comes a world condemned. (W-325) Such misbelief is likely assisted by the fact that, because the process is valid (i.e. truthpreserving), then belief in a premise (i.e. antecedent) entails belief in its consequents. Due to their lack of reality, however, and as indicated by the above passages, miscreations of our minds (such as world P, the physical universe) are mere fantasies, illusions, dreams --made by us in order to fulfill our wish for specialness. Furthermore, the "dream" reference in one of the passages above implies that, when involved in false ideation, with consequent miscreation (and scope inversion), the state of our minds is likened to a state of sleep: [God's] ideas reflect the truth, and mine apart from [God's] but make up dreams. (W-325.2) The special ones are all asleep...lost in dreams of specialness. (Urtext, p. 455) you have put yourself to sleep, and dreamed a dream... (Urtext, p. 518) you dream a dream...[whose] content is not true. (Urtext, p. 518) In ACIM, (true) creation is sometimes referred to as "extension", since it extends the truth and reality of God and his co-creators: Creation is the means for God's extension. (Urtext, p. 447) ...God has created by extension. (Urtext, p. 223) God created His Sons by extending His Thought and retaining the extensions of His Thought in His Mind. (Urtext, p. 146) ...God's creative Thought proceeds from Him to you ... [and] so must your creative thought proceed from you to your creations. In this way only can all creative power extend outward. God's accomplishments are not yours. But yours are like His. ... You have the power to add to the Kingdom... (Urtext, p. 159) ...God created you by extending himself as you, [and] you can only extend yourself as He did. ... God extends...beyond limits,...and you, who are cocreators with Him, extend His Kingdom forever and beyond limit. (Urtext, p. 159) 46 [True] Projection...is the law of extension. (Urtext, p. 174) Given that (true) creation (now also called extension) requires exclusively true ideas/premises, then it follows that extension requires knowledge of truth: The extension of truth, which is the Law of the Kingdom, rests ... on the knowledge of what truth is. (Urtext, p. 161) And the following passages indicate that the way to possess such knowledge of true premises, and thereby avoid the pitfalls of miscreation, is to involve the mind of Elosc/God not only at the projection stage of the co-creation process, but also at the (earlier) stages when we are developing/selecting the ideas/premises: My real [/true] thoughts are the thoughts I think with God. (W-51.4. (4)) God Himself has established what you can project with perfect safety. (Urtext, p. 156) Your [true] creations are the logical outcome of His premises. His thinking has established them for you. (Urtext, p. 177) it is the agreement of their Thought that makes the Son a co-creator with the Mind Whose Thought created him. (Urtext, p. 473) That is, true co-creation is not a pure division of labor in which we arbitrarily develop the content by ourselves and God merely performs the projection action; rather, it also requires that we co-create the content with God. Such due diligence on our part ensures that all of the content that we input to the creation process is true, which ensures that the output is true and real. Now consider these passages: what God creates is eternal. (Urtext, p. 130) God created only the eternal... (Urtext, p. 235) ...God created only the changeless. (Urtext, p. 151) [God's] Creations are changeless. (Urtext, p. 160) what God has Created...is perfect...[and cannot] be rendered imperfect... (Urtext, p. 601) Reality is changeless. (Urtext, p. 553) Whatever is true & real is eternal, & cannot change or be changed. (Urtext, p. 28) Thus, not only are God's creations true and real, but they are also perfect, eternal and changeless, and can never be rendered otherwise. Likewise, our own (true) creations --being that they are like God's creations, and thus part of reality --are also perfect, eternal and changeless. Given our earlier result that only what God creates, and what we create like him, is real, then it follows that reality is perfect and eternal; and so, as a corollary, 47 whatever manifests as imperfect, perishable, or changeable is not real --i.e. it is an illusion. We therefore conclude again that the physical world --where everything is changeable and perishable --is not real. Furthermore: The [physical] world ... cannot have been created by [God]... God created only the eternal, and everything [in this world] is perishable. (Urtext, p. 235) [this] world could not have been created by [God's] Mind... (Urtext, p. 467) Since our souls were created by Elosc/God (as part of world C), then they too are real, perfect, eternal, and changeless --and cannot be rendered otherwise: God created Souls...perfectly. (Urtext, p. 48) [the Soul] has...been created perfect. (Urtext, p. 601) every Son of God ... is perfect... (Urtext, p. 250) I am as God created me. (Urtext, p. 571) As [God] created me I have remained. (W-326.1) as you were created ... [so] you are. (Urtext, p. 318) As God created you, you must remain unchangeable... (W-152.5) You are and will forever be exactly as you were created. (W-93.7) Whatever is true & real is eternal, & cannot change or be changed. The Soul is therefore unalterable... (Urtext, p. 28) The Soul always remains changeless... (Urtext, p. 29) So, whatever false ideas/thoughts/premises we might hold in our minds, and despite their absurd consequents (such as the making of a false world in which, due to the scopeinversion effect, a myriad of personal afflictions seem to be possible and real), our souls remain eternally perfect, untouched by falsity and illusion: What God creates is safe from all corruption, unchanged and perfect in eternity. (Urtext, p. 466) [God] keeps what he created safe. You cannot touch it with the false ideas you made, because it was created not by you. (Urtext, p. 461) your own perfect immunity...cannot be assailed. (Urtext, p. 142) Thus, while the experiences of a soul do vary, depending on the part of its mind or thread tree (and thus context) that it is subscribed to, the soul itself does not change at all. The penultimate ACIM passage above indicates that the immunity of our souls from the false ideas/constructions of our minds follows directly from the scope rule: God's creation of souls is prior to our minds' own constructions (which are thus subsequent); so, 48 by the scope rule, the soul itself is outside the scope of our constructions, and therefore cannot be changed by them: Everything is limited in some way by the manner of its creation. [Your] Creator...set the limits on [your] ability to miscreate... (Urtext, p. 55) reality [has not] been taken from its throne by your mistakes. (M-18.3) So the scope rule (which stems from postulate 4, and thus from God's premises) is, among other things, a kind of beneficial limitation --or safety feature, if you will --which prevents us from actually harming our own souls, other souls, and God's creation in general. Likewise, our own (true) creations --having been co-created with God, using only true ideas --are also perfect and eternal, and thus outside the scope of our minds to change; and so we cannot even harm them with our miscreations: Everything that was created is ... perfectly safe, because the laws of God protect it... (Urtext, p. 214) God has kept [your own real/true creations] very safe in his knowing while your attention has wandered. (Urtext, p. 118) 10.3 Dichotomies: Useful and unuseful From our conclusion that opposites do not exist (the axiom of unity), together with the passage evil...does not exist. (Urtext, p. 75), it follows that "good and evil" is not a correct/true/real dichotomy of existence. Furthermore, this dichotomy has no positive, instructive value, since its use (I would argue) always includes the meaning: "I am good --others are evil". That is, while ostensibly violating only the axiom of unity, its main purpose is to violate the axiom of equality, and thus to establish specialness. Likewise, "truth and falsity", "creation and miscreation", "reality and illusion", are also not correct/true/real dichotomies of existence, because (a) they constitute opposites, which do not exist, and (b) falsity, miscreation, and illusion themselves do not exist (the latter by definition). However, as their use necessarily violates only the axiom of unity (not the axiom of equality), these three dichotomies can serve a positive, useful, instructive, and thus meaningful purpose --i.e., as a step in the right direction --by helping to disestablish specialness: only two categories are meaningful... And of these two, but one is real. ... The one answer to all illusions is truth. (M-8.6) That is, the two meaningful (i.e. positive, useful, and instructive) categories of existence are (1) truth, reality, creation; and (2) falsity, illusion, miscreation. But only the first of these categories is actually real. 49 10.4 Thread tree showing the miscreative part of our minds Fig. 7 below shows a thread tree that focuses on the part of our minds that is involved in miscreation (and so it has been pruned of the extra --made up --branches, shown in Fig. 6, that are extraneous in that respect). We note that threads C, A, and B are the same as in Fig. 6. We further note that (as in Fig. 6) the steps of threads A and B are all inline, and thus that their content consists of direct inferences from God's ideas/premises --which , as we now know, means that all of the steps of threads A and B contain only true ideas, and no falsities. From our recent developments, we know that thread P is preceded by ordinary, nonvectorial steps of thought that contain the (false) idea of specialness. Since this idea cannot be inferred from God's premises (in fact it directly contradicts his axiom of equality), then the projection of it constitutes a hypothesis (e.g. "suppose specialness is real", and/or "suppose I am special, relative to others"), which we may denote as φ f0, and thus forms a branch off of thread B. The step that introduces the idea of specialness is f0, which is the first projection in the (nonvectorial) sequence/thread F = (f0, f1, ..., fλ, ..., fμ). As determined earlier, from the idea of specialness, one can immediately infer the idea of opposites, which we assume is contained in the next step, f1, of thread F (and denoted as φ f1). Due to the scope and/or inheritance rules, the idea of specialness is operant at level 1 and above of thread F, and on all branches from those levels; the idea of opposites is operant at level 2 and above of thread F. This means that false ideas are operant throughout thread F and its branches, which is why we denote that thread with the letter "F", which stands for "false". In other words, if we subscribe to level 2 of thread F, then the ideas of specialness and opposites are (via scope inversion) raised to the status of premises/axioms in our minds, and all of our steps of thinking/projection after that are permeated with those ideas. To reverse this situation, we would have to completely unsubscribe from thread F, which would put our minds back on thread B, where, as already stated, no false ideas are operant. As we know from logic, once a system is set up with false/contradictory premises, then any number of absurd conclusions/consequents can be validly derived in subsequent steps. Moreover, due to the truth preservation of such a valid process, belief in the (false) premises will entail belief in the false/absurd consequents. So, even though thread F and its branches (e.g. thread P, the physical universe) are false, and thus not real, subscribers to those threads and their false premises will believe that they are real --as affirmed by some ACIM passages above, and by our own, current experience, in which we tend to think of this physical world as a paragon of reality. 50 As shown in Fig. 7, we assume that step f1 is followed by an indefinite number of other inline steps of thinking/reasoning/projecting, until we get to the step fλ, whose ideational content, let us assume, includes all of the ideas/arguments/parameters (finetuning or otherwise) that are needed to construct a bubble world in which biological life is possible. The result is thread P, the branch off of thread F that constructs the geometric, physical universe of our current experience. Upon their subscription to level 2 of thread P, the invoker and subscribers will (via scope inversion) see themselves as being nested/embedded within the ordinary space and time of world P. Their subsequent ordinary thinking/projecting then yields nonvectorial branches off of thread P, such as thread Q. So, given that, for simplicity, we are assuming that all of us elusc have the same thread tree, shown in Fig. 7, then our current logical "location" is at step qn (corresponding to level n + 1) of thread Q. As already indicated, however, we see 51 Fig. 7 The emphasis in this thread tree is on thread F --i.e. (f0, f1, ..., fλ, ..., fμ) --and its branches, and so we have removed branches (shown in Fig. 6) that are extraneous in this respect. The ideas of specialness and opposites become operant in the first steps of thread F, and remain operant for subsequent steps and branches, including thread P and its branches. So, while we are subscribed to thread F or any of its branches, the ideas of specialness and opposites have (due to scope inversion) the status of premises/axioms in our minds, and thereby permeate all aspects of our thinking. This is a problem, because those ideas are inconsistent with reality, i.e. they are false. Consequently, all of our thinking under thread F is "conjoined at the hip", if you will, with these false ideas, and thus all of our thinking is false (as in logic, where a single false premise conjoined with any number of true premises yields a false proposition). When our physical bodies die, upon realizing that, as nonmaterial entities, we are not confined to world P, we may choose to either remain subscribed to that world, or to unsubscribe from it; in the latter case, we would find ourselves at level λ + 1 of thread F (corresponding to the projection fλ). However, at this point we are still under thread F and its false ideas, which thus continue to permeate all of our thinking. To liberate our minds from all false thinking, we must unsubscribe from thread F, which would place us back onto thread B, where no false ideas are operant. From that point forward, we can then carry on with creating, instead of miscreating. ---(a0)-(b0, b1, b2)-(b3, b4)-(b5, b6, b7)-(b8, b9, b10)-(b11, b12, b13)-(b14, b15)-(b16, ..., bm) --- (f 0 , f 1 , . .., f λ , . .., f μ ) Geometrically, we are here. (c 0 , c 1 , c 2 ) Nongeometrically, we are here. --- (r0, r1) - - - ( q 0 , q 1 , q 2 , . .., q n ) ---(p0, p1, p2, p3) ourselves to be geometrically located at level 2 of thread/world P (this is because the nonvectorial, purely-logical steps of thread Q produce no geometric effects). In this thread tree, therefore, level 0 of system P (losp) corresponds logically to level λ + 1 of thread F; whereas, geometrically, losp corresponds to level 2 of system C (as depicted in Fig. 5). An alternative way of describing our logical location within this thread tree is to say that we are subscribed up to the end of the thread chain (c0, c1)-(a0)-(b0, b1, ..., b10)-(f0, f1, ..., fλ)-(p0, p1)-(q0, q1, ..., qn), or C1-A0-B1 0-Fλ-P1-Qn . Geometrically, however, we are only subscribed up to the end of the thread chain (c0, c1)-(a0)-(b0, b1, ..., b10)-(f0, f1, ..., fλ)-(p0, p1), or C1-A0-B1 0-Fλ-P1 . And since the nonvectorial threads/parts between (c0, c1) and (p0, p1) also do not contribute anything to the geometry, then the above thread chain is geometrically equivalent to the thread chain (c0, c1)-(p0, p1), or C1-P1 . 11 The creation and miscreation of meaning We construct the meaning of a string of words (e.g. an English sentence) by (a) applying our learning, beliefs, and experience (including experience with the words and their different arrangements); and (b) applying context. Such learning, beliefs, experience, and context are necessarily prior to the meaning that is constructed from them --that is, they constitute premises that are operant in our minds and available to subsequently construct meanings for words and strings of words. Similarly, in the present model, the construction of meaning seems to follow the same basic paradigm. Recall, for example, that p1 constructs the meaning "p0 is a threedimensional space" by invoking/applying postulate 4, which (being one of God's premises) is prior to both p0 and p1. This suggests the following semantic principle: The meaning of a (created) thing is constructed by referencing, or invoking/applying, things that are prior. Given the scope rule, the prior things (which are referenced/invoked/applied) are operant/available/accessible to play their role in generating the meaning of the subsequent thing.13 In general, then, the meaning of one thing depends on something prior, whose own 13 The semantic principle is, it seems, another corollary of postulate 4; i.e., the meaning of a (created) thing is dependent on something that is prior to that thing. 52 meaning in turn depends on something more prior, and so on. So, ultimately, all meaning depends on the most prior thing; that is, all meaning is constructed by reference to Elosc/God, or by invocation/application of his premises/axioms: there is only one meaning. This Meaning comes from God and is God. (Urtext, p. 162) meaning itself is of God. (Urtext, p. 198) [God is] the Source of meaning. (W-rV.in.12) In other words, God and his premises are the ultimate arbiters of all meaning. Indeed, to expand on the example above, postulate 4 of system P is inherited from (and thus depends on) postulate 4 of system C, which itself comes from God's premises/axioms, whose source is of course Elosc/God himself at level 0 of system C. So it would be correct to say that the meaning "p0 is a three-dimensional space (with respect to p1)" is constructed by applying God's premises, and thus that this meaning comes from God himself. (And likewise for the other spatial modes/meanings of p0, p1, etc. that were described in Part I.) Since the construction of meaning requires an unbroken chain of reference going back to God or his premises, it follows that if/when this chain is broken it is not possible to know the (real/true) meaning of anything: to be without [God] is to be without meaning. (Urtext, p. 324) You cannot see alone. ...nothing you see means anything alone. Seeing with [God] will show you ... all meaning... (Urtext, p. 295) Indeed, the holding of a false idea/premise (e.g. the premise of opposites) in our minds, with its consequent illusions, requires that we do break the semantic chain; for, if the chain were not broken, then the contradiction of our false premise against God's true premises would be obvious, and the falsity could not be maintained: illusions ... will not stand before [the truth]. (Urtext, p. 455) To understand how the semantic chain is broken, recall that every idea/thought in the mind of an elusc/soul is projected, and is thereby (via scope inversion) elevated to the status of a premise which the elusc finds his state of mind to be subsumed under (i.e., nested within the scope of). Such premises then become what may be called local arbiters of meaning; that is, the elusc will apply these local premises to determine the meanings of things (by, e.g., using the premises to logically derive conclusions, and thus interpretations, of/about those things). If the local premises are consistent with God's premises, and are therefore true, then they are the same as, equivalent to, or an extension of, God's (global) premises, and so the semantic chain goes all the way back to God, and thus is not broken. The result of this unbroken semantic chain is true meaning, and so the elusc's true ideas/thoughts/premises produce an extension of truth and reality. If, on the other hand, a local premise is inconsistent with God's premises, i.e. it is 53 false, then belief in it constitutes a denial of truth and reality,14 with effects as follows: All vision starts with the perceiver, who judges what is true and what is false. And what he judges false [i.e. what he denies], he does not see. (Urtext, p. 269) never underestimate the power of denial ... [for] you can give it the power of your mind, whose power is without limit of any kind. If you use it to deny reality, reality is gone for you. ...denying any part of [reality] means you have lost awareness of all of it. (Urtext, p. 172). That is, belief in any false idea/premise banishes truth/reality from our vision and awareness, thereby breaking the semantic chain: When you made what is not true visible, what is true became invisible. (Urtext, p. 254) With the semantic chain broken, the false local premises (forming a false local context) assume the mantle of "ultimate" arbiters of meaning in our minds, and are then used to derive false interpretations/meanings for everything, with the result that: you do not know what anything [truly] means. (Urtext, p. 311). And, as a corollary, because false meaning is the same as no meaning (since nothing false actually exists), then a consequence of believing in, and thus interpreting with, any false idea/premise is that everything constructed in that context is meaningless. For instance, in constructing or subscribing to world P (the physical universe), we typically believe (to one degree or another) in its false founding premises (the ideas of specialness and opposites), which we then use to interpret (i.e. derive the meaning of) that world and everything in it. So it follows that: This world is meaningless... (Urtext, p. 473) The world you made is ... without [true] meaning of any kind. (Urtext, p. 245) how questionable are [the world's] premises, how doubtful its results... Learning that stops with what the world would teach stops short of meaning. (W-184.7) In general, then, due to the process of projection and scope inversion, the ideas that we hold within our minds are elevated to the status of premises/arbiters by which we interpret/construct the meaning of whatever world we are in. As ACIM puts it: The world can give you only what you gave it, for being nothing but your own projection, it has no meaning apart from what you found in it, and placed your faith in. (Urtext, p. 274) Projection makes perception; the world you see is what you gave it, 14 E.g., belief in specialness is a denial of God's axiom of equality, and belief in opposites is a denial of God's axiom of unity. 54 nothing more than that. ... It is the witness to your state of mind, the outside picture of an inward condition. As [you] thinketh, so [do you] perceive. (Urtext, p. 409) perception is a wish fulfilled. (Urtext, p. 489). Thus, if we hold only true ideas/premises in our minds, then we see a world of (true) meaning. On the other hand, if we hold false ideas/premises, then that world has the false "meaning" that we gave it and had faith in (i.e., that we wished for, and believed in). The moral of this story is that our thoughts are not to be taken lightly; for they always produce large-scale effects --either extending truth and reality, or yielding (in the perception of the thinker) whole worlds of falsity and illusion: There is no more self-contradictory concept than that of "idle thoughts." What gives rise to the perception of a whole world can hardly be called idle. Every thought you have contributes to truth or to illusion; either it extends the truth or it multiplies illusions. (W-16.2) The truth is that there are no "idle thoughts". All thinking produces form at some level. (Urtext, p. 60). Fortunately, the previously-quoted passage, reality [has not] been taken from its throne by your mistakes. (M-18.3), and the scope rule itself, tell us that our false thinking has not --and cannot --dethrone God's premises or reality in general: they are still operant throughout all of creation, and it is beyond our scope to affect them in any real way. That is, as indicated above, when we engage in false thinking by holding false ideas in our minds, we merely lose awareness of truth and reality, and (due to scope inversion) become immersed in illusion; but reality itself is unchanged. One might think, however, that the sheer power and ubiquity of God and his real and true premises would crush our opposite, false premises, and thereby force them out of our minds --thus making it impossible to break the semantic chain. But the following passages give some clues as to why this is not so: God's Will does not oppose. It merely is. (W-166.10) Reality opposes nothing. (Urtext, p. 434) ...God Himself would not go against [your will] ... [and] Nothing God created can oppose your will, as nothing God created can [in reality] oppose His. (Urtext, p. 187) In other words, since falsities are not real, then nothing can really oppose God/truth; and, conversely, there is nothing for God to oppose. Thus, God/reality/truth do not oppose or attack anything. So it follows that false ideas will remain in our minds --breaking the semantic chain, and producing false interpretations/meanings for everything --until we ourselves decide to unsubscribe from them. 55 Lastly, let us refer back to Fig. 7, which we have taken to be the simplified, generic thread tree for elusc/souls who engage, or have engaged, in false thinking. In that thread tree, false ideas become operant at level 1 of thread F (i.e. with the advent of the projection f0), and remain operant throughout that thread and its branches (P, Q, etc). Thus, for those elusc who are subscribed to thread F and beyond, false ideas are operant in their minds, and so the semantic chain for them is broken --and, consequently, their minds yield false interpretations/meanings for everything. On the other hand, for elusc who are subscribed only up to, e.g., somewhere in thread B, no false ideas are operant in their minds, and so their semantic chains are not broken; and, consequently, their minds yield only true interpretations/meanings for things. So, for the thread tree in Fig. 7, the advent of thread F is the dividing line between truth and falsity, reality and illusion. That is, as alluded to earlier, thread F (together with its branches) is the part of our minds where falsity and illusion reign. And the part of our minds prior to thread F (such as threads A and B) corresponds to our thoughts that were all co-created with God, and which are therefore perfect, true, and eternal: Under all the senseless thoughts and mad ideas with which you have cluttered up your mind are the thoughts that you thought with God in the beginning. They are there in your mind now, completely unchanged. They will always be in your mind, exactly as they always were. (W-45.7) 11.1 False premises yield a false self identity --the ego We have determined that the false ideas of specialness and opposites, when held in our minds, are (upon projection and scope inversion) promoted to the rank of local premises or axioms under which we are subsumed. These premises are then used to derive other (false) ideas, beliefs, interpretations, conclusions, or meanings for and about everything --including our own selves/souls, other souls, and God. False ideas/beliefs about one's own self constitute a false self identity, which ACIM calls the ego: The ego is ... a confusion in identification... (Urtext, p. 175) The ego is ... a part of your belief about yourselves. (Urtext, p. 117) the ego is an idea... (Urtext, p. 103) [The ego's] existence is dependent on your mind, because it is a belief. (Urtext, p. 175) the mind ... made the ego... (Urtext, p. 104) the ego is part of your mind... (Urtext, p. 246) The ego is the part of the mind which believes in division. (Urtext, p. 133) That is, the ego is the part of our minds that believes in, and is subsumed under, the ideas of specialness and opposites, and thus believes in dividing everything and everyone into categories of opposites (such as special/unspecial, good/evil, etc). Since the ideas of 56 specialness and opposites are only operant in our minds under thread F, then (in terms of our thread trees) the ego is the part of our minds that corresponds to thread F and its branches (P, Q, etc). Given its basis in false ideas, however, it follows that: The ego is a contradiction. (Urtext, p. 99) the ego is ... an illusion... (Urtext, p. 333) The ego ... is nothing more than a delusional system... (Urtext, p. 223) the ego is not you. (W-25.2) the ego is not the [real] self. (Urtext, p. 105) the ego is nothing... (Urtext, p. 227) Because the falsities in our minds are contained under thread F, then we can say that the ego is a creature of that thread and its branches, or that that part of our minds is the realm of the ego. Consequently, upon unsubscribing from thread F (and thus unsubscribing from the ideas of specialness and opposites), we rejoin the part of our minds where only truth is operant, and where the ego does not "exist": there are only two parts of your mind. One is ruled by the ego, and is made up of illusions. The other is ... where truth abides. (W-66.7) While our minds are subscribed to the realm of the ego, however, we will (as concluded above) harbor false ideas/beliefs about ourselves. For example, recall that our true function is to extend creation (by co-creating ideas, thoughts, interactions, communication, meaning, worlds, etc., with God). Under the influence of the ego, however, our true function is dropped from awareness, and the ego's raison d'etre --to pursue, attain, maintain, affirm, and "prove" our specialness --becomes our new "function". We will go into more detail about the nature of the ego in a later section. For now, an important point is that no two egos can ever agree on the meaning of anything: conflicted minds cannot be faithful to one meaning... (Urtext, p. 161) beliefs of the ego cannot be shared... (Urtext, p. 207) That is, each ego is founded on the premise of its own specialness, which is necessarily at the expense of others' specialness; and so, e.g., every ego has a different idea of who the special one is (himself), and who the unspecial ones are (everyone else). With the ego's own specialness established as the basic axiom of its thought system, every subsequent idea, thought, premise that the ego constructs will follow from that axiom and be consistent with it (and be in the service of sustaining it). It is thus impossible for two egos to hold the same set of premises from which they could arrive at the same beliefs, interpretations, or meanings for/about things. For minds to agree on, or share, meaning, and thereby avoid this semantic problem, 57 they must agree on a common set of premises from which common/shared meaning can be derived. But the only premises that fit this description are ones that are consistent with God's premises --e.g. the axioms of equality and unity. For instance, the use of God's premises to interpret "specialness" will yield the absolute sense of that term (as defined earlier), which is a meaning that all of us can share. On the other hand, the use of our own (i.e. the ego's) premises to interpret "specialness" yields the relative sense of that term, which is a meaning that we cannot share (since each ego sees himself as the special one, and others as unspecial). Which brings us full circle: To arrive at true, consistent, common, shared beliefs and meaning, minds must refer questions of meaning back to Elosc/God and his premises, and thus not break the semantic chain. Obviously, an ego will not do this; for then it would be exposed for what it is --an illusion. 12 Communication ...Still to come... 13 The separation --and return ...Still to come... Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following people for enabling the research for this paper to take place: My late mother and father, Margean A. White and Phillip B. White; my brother, Jeffrey C. White; John P. A. Higgins; and the late Louise L. Hay (The Hay Foundation). References [1] P. B. White, "A Model for Creation: Part I" (2019), http://www.paulbwhite.org/papers/A-Model-for-Creation-part-1.pdf [2] J. Van Cleve, "Dependence", in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, R. Audi (ed.), (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 191. [3] K. Wapnick, Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles (Temecula, CA: Foundation for A Course in Miracles; 2nd edition, 1991). [4] C. M. Howe, Never Forget To Laugh: Personal Recollections of Bill Thetford, CoScribe of A Course In Miracles (self published, 2009). 58 [5] J. R. Jesseph, "William Newton Thetford Professional Vita", http://www.miraclestudies.net/BillVita.html (retrieved Oct. 26, 2017). [6] K. Wapnick, "The History of the Manuscripts of A Course in Miracles" (2007), http://www.facimoutreach.org/qa/questions/ACIM_Manuscript_History.pdf (retrieved Oct. 26, 2017). [7] R. Perry, "The Earlier Versions and the Editing of A Course in Miracles" (2004), http://www.circleofa.org/library/acim-history-issues/copyright/earlier-versions/ (retrieved Oct. 26, 2017). [8] A Course In Miracles (Mill Valley, CA: Foundation for Inner Peace; 3rd edition, 2007). [9] FACIM/FIP v. Endeavor, 96 Civ. 4126 (RWS) (S.D. NY 2003). Available at http://www.jcim.net/Copyright/Endeavor_trial_transcripts/03-08697.pdf [10] Urtext of A Course in Miracles (UPE-Ready edition, 2003). According to a note at the beginning of this document, it "was first made publicly available in PDF format at the UPE (Urtext for Planet Earth) website on Nov. 1, 2003, apparently under the direction of Mr. Charles Anderson." Freely downloadable at http://acim.miraclevision.com/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf [11] A Course in Miracles. The Text, Workbook for Students, and Manual for Teachers (The Little Garden website, thelittlegarden.org). Freely downloadable at https://www.thelittlegarden.org/acim.pdf (last retrieved Oct. 27, 2017). [12] F. J. Pelletier, "A Brief History of Natural Deduction", History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (1999). Preprint available at https://sites.ualberta.ca/~francisp/papers/NDHistory.pdf [13] A. Indrzejczak, "Natural Deduction", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/nat-ded/ (retrieved Oct. 23, 2017). [14] J. Nolt, D. Rohatyn, Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic (McGrawHill; 1988). (An excellent introductory book on formal logic.) [15] J. A. Wheeler, "Bits, Quanta, Meaning", in A. Giovanni, F. Mancini, and M. Marinaro (eds.), Problems in Theoretical Physics, pp. 121-141. University of Salerno Press, Salerno (1984).