80/20 Version

Welcome to the first “80/20 version” of a book ever written! Since most people are busy and do not want to take the time to read a full-length book, this is a condensed version of God’s Rainbow Connection: Fractal Code and Resurrection that contains about 20 printed pages of content and a list of approximately 300 references. It is based on the Pareto principle or 80/20 rule, which means that while it is less than 20% the length of a typical 300 page book (it actually is around 7%), it should have close to 80% of the value of the final version. This is especially true if someone is willing to follow all of the references which link to external webpages and video clips.

If you want to quickly get a sense of what the book is about, it is recommended that you first go to the book section of the About page and read the few paragraphs there. In addition, there is a summary of the book which is much shorter than this webpage.

Contents:

Introduction

The story of the book I am writing began when I got tired of the commercialism surrounding Christmas over ten years ago and wondered if there was more to Christianity then what I had learned growing up as a Baptist missionary kid in the Congo and the Philippines. When I started researching the various modern traditions connected with the holiday season, I came across information on atheist websites which also talked about the amount of wasted matter, energy, and space in the universe as well as how evolution can be explained completely by chance. I had seen some of their arguments before, but I realized I had not really thought about objections to Christianity very much.

I decided I needed to become neutral (or agnostic) and do more studying in order to figure out if it was reasonable to believe in God in the first place, even though it made me feel like I had lost my best friend. At the time I was not familiar with a quote frequently attributed to Werner Heisenberg, a scientist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg may (or may not) have said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”(1)

Despite any uncertainty surrounding the precise source of the quote, as I kept gulping knowledge I found out more and more about the fine-tuning of the universe. The most amazing example I learned of was the cosmological constant,(2) a force associated with dark energy and the increasing expansion of space which appears to be tuned to the astronomically small number of 10−120. This is equivalent to the size of half a grain of sand compared to the rest of the universe.(3) If this constant were a tiny bit stronger or weaker, all of the matter would have apparently rapidly expanded or collapsed shortly after the Big Bang, making life impossible. Several other finely-tuned constants(4) plus signs that the formation of the moon (important to the development of life on earth) was an extremely rare event(5) made it even more difficult to believe everything in the universe was a waste or the result of random accidents. On the other hand, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and most of the ideas offered by the Intelligent Design movement seemed to be an incomplete “God of the gaps” story, so I kept studying.

A Comparison of Origin of Life Theories

The Bible and Fractals

One website discussing evidence for God from science also talked about how Passover reveals Jesus,(6) which surprised me because I thought it was a Jewish festival. So I learned how Jesus died at the exact time the lamb was killed according to the Bible’s instructions written around a thousand years earlier as well as how Passover and the rest of the Holy Days(7) foreshadow seven literal spiritual days of Yeshua (Jesus’ name in Hebrew which means “God’s salvation”). The sequence of the biblical Holy Days made more sense to me than modern traditions, and as I continued to study the Hebrew roots of Christianity I noticed other patterns of creation, separation, and restoration in the Torah (or instruction) seemed similar. This included the seven universal “days” of creation described in the beginning of the book of Genesis that are most commonly understood as representing ages or long periods of time.(8)(9) So I lined up the patterns in a table along with seven colors of light from the rainbow, the sign (or code) of the covenant promised to Noah and all living creatures by God. When I started showing it to a few people, one minister said the complex version of the table was the best one page summary of the Bible he had seen.

As I was putting the table together I realized it was fractal, where each part has the same character as the whole but repeats at different scales. I already knew a little bit about self-similar fractal patterns and how they are found in math and nature, like tree trunks continually splitting into smaller and smaller branches, twigs, stems, and then smaller and smaller veins in leaves. Or rivers growing bigger and bigger through a system of streams and tributaries.(10) More research uncovered there were fractals hidden everywhere in the biological language of life too, from how DNA is physically folded into three-dimensional globs of globules,(11) to how parts of the genome are encoded,(12)(13) and to how networks of cells signal and synchronize together.(14)(15)(16)

I also discovered a few Jewish(17)(18) and Christian(19)(20)(21) people were seeing other examples of fractal text in the book of books called the Bible that explains how to operate in a fifth dimension of good and evil,(22) so I was not alone. Most importantly, I realized Yeshua was talking about God being fractal when He said, “I am the vine, you are the branches” almost two thousand years before the word was coined. It made sense a fractal God would be the best explanation for the emergence(23)(24)(25)(26) of a universe full of fractal patterns, including the famous Mandelbrot set which is composed of smaller connected fractals called Julia sets and is known as the “thumbprint of God.” Interestingly, although the Mandelbrot Set is an infinitely complex two-dimensional slice of even higher-dimensional mathematics, it can be described with a simple formula (or code).

Mandelbrot Set Zooms Showing Quasi Self-Similarity

Information Theory, Biology, and Philosophy

Once I was aware there were multiple kinds of fractal patterns in the Bible, I decided to write a book to share this knowledge with other people. As I did even more research, I came across information theory and its relationship with codes (which are systems of rules connecting symbols and meaning that allow something to represent something else)(27) and consciousness. This turned out to be the last gulp of science for me before the bottom of the glass in the quote attributed to Heisenberg, and it made me happy because it confirmed a belief in God is rational.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”— Norbert Wiener, MIT Mathematician and father of cybernetics

For instance, according to an engineer, business consultant, and bestselling author named Perry Marshall—who is popularizing ideas from a German information theorist named Werner Gitt(28)(29) and symbiotically integrating(30) them with the latest discoveries in systems biology—all codes humans know the origin of (i.e., almost all of them) have come from a mind. No one has ever found an example of a digital code that has been verified to come from a purely material source, although Perry Marshall has created a prize potentially worth 10 million dollars to search for an exception.(31)(32) Until someone does, it is reasonable and logical to infer a 100 percent connection between consciousness and the emergence of the genetic code in DNA (where for example a sequence of three adenine or “A” nucleobases symbolically represent the amino acid lysine),(33)(34) which at this point is of unknown origin.

“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”— Hubert Yockey, Physicist and information theorist

This type of logic is known as inductive reasoning(35)(36) and is often used in philosophical statements like the premise “all humans are mortal” (even if it only ends up being one part of a larger deductive syllogism).(37) It is also used to derive scientific phenomena like Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation from experimental observations.(38) In short, the science of information theory and what linguists refer to as the “Einstein gulf”(39)(40)(41)(42)(43) plus the encoding/decoding table of the genetic code shows God almost certainly exists unless proven otherwise.(44)(45)(46)(47)

“The Atheist’s Riddle: ‘Show me a language that does not come from a mind.’ It’s so simple any child can understand, but so complex no atheist can solve.”— Perry Marshall

However, instead of God using Intelligent Design to directly create every plant and animal six thousand years ago or relying only on random accidents to improve living things, science has recently demonstrated the cells themselves are actively trying to adapt and are creating,(48)(49) borrowing,(50) and merging(51) new biological information into their DNA. This conscious emergence of information by organisms seems to be much more interesting than the extreme positions many creationists and atheists take.(52)(53)

As a result, a new origin of life theory based on cellular agency(54)(55)(56)(57) called “Conscious Emergence” is proposed in the book. It is a type of evolutionary creationism(58) similar to the ideas promoted by Francis Collins and the BioLogos Foundation.(59) Conscious Emergence includes concepts like Natural Genetic Engineering (NGE)(60) by James Shapiro and biological relativity(61) plus harnessed stochasticity(62)(63) by Denis Noble. It also includes convergent evolution(64) as championed by Simon Conway Morris (where contrary to the butterfly effect,(65) the same basic forms keep showing up again and again in a kind of a repeatable “flies to the butter” attractor effect).(66) Most of this research has already been collectively described by others as the “third way of evolution”(67)(68)(69) or “Evolution 2.0”(70)(71) and is becoming part of an extended evolutionary synthesis.(72)(73) It is additional evidence that we live in a participatory universe with an information-theoretic origin as proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler,(74) on top of the following scientific discoveries:

  • quantum delayed-choice experiments(75)(76)(77)
  • cosmic microwave background anomalies(78)(79)
  • problems with cosmic inflation(80)
  • critical point scale symmetries (which are fractal)(81)
  • quantum-critical biochemistry(82)(83)
  • quantum tunneling in DNA repair(84)(85)
  • patterns of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record(86) and their similarity with the history of innovations in timekeeping (i.e., occasional large leaps in accuracy followed by long periods of gradual improvements)(87)

Note: Conscious Emergence is a metalinguistic (meaning “beyond language”) theory of life’s origin that takes existing ideas in evolution like randomness, self-replication, and selection and combines them with additional principles based on recent discoveries by scientists. Some of these are the seeming appearance of retrocausality in quantum mechanics(88)(89) and interesting developments in holographic physics.(90)(91)(92)(93)

There are also indications of cellular agency due to Lamarkian soft inheritance via epigenetic code,(94)(95) multilevel/group selection,(96)(97) the creation of brand new orphan/ORFan genes,(98)(99) genetic redundancy (where biological functions are buffered by multiple genes),(100)(101) and error correction of DNA. It turns out the “arrival of the fittest”(102) also depends on better fixes—as demonstrated by the increasing complexity of highly genetically conserved DNA repair systems(103) which reduce replication errors in humans to less than one in a billion.(104)

Please see the “A Comparison of Origin of Life Theories” table located earlier in this webpage for more information.

Of course, rather than living organisms just acting as observers of Wheeler’s “it from bit,”(105)(106) there appears to be a fractal Author composed of many authors drafting and then lovingly editing and correcting gaps in the story via “code from wit”. In other words, instead of a universe from nothing(107) or from an old man with a beard in the sky,(108) there is a Superpersonal Consciousness(109)(110) entangled with each person as they consciously choose to help order, goodness, and life emerge or allow themselves to slide into chaos, evil, and death. These indications of “creatio ex informatio”(111) in a distributed “panexintheistic” (meaning both “all because of God” and “all then God”) process theology(112)(113) led me to study a broad spectrum of scientific fields and philosophy from the perspective of information theory. Especially key were insights about information,(114) its value(115) plus role in the solution to David Hume’s is–ought problem,(116) and a two-stage model of free will(117)(118) by Robert Doyle, who describes himself as the “Information Philosopher.”

The research confirmed that while the universe has a material component, it also contains meaning symbolically encoded in information. In addition, instead of a statement by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins about how “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,”(119) there are also error-correcting systems which use code and logic to detect mistakes and repair information that has become corrupted by noise. This helped inspire me to develop a new holistic explanation of the mind–body problem containing a recursive or fractal type of “information about information” known as code. It appears to resolve the problem of interactionism (or what connects mind and body together),(120)(121) which has existed since René Descartes’s formulation of dualism nearly four hundred years ago.(122)

History of the Mind-Body Problem

Information Trimonism: A Fractal Trinity

Similar to how Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and the discovery of quantum mechanics extended classical physics, “Information Trimonism” extends the ideas of many philosophers, as shown in the diagram above. It is based on the observation that “organizational” codes with symbols containing meaning such as those found in DNA are always present along with physical atoms (or body) as well as mental consciousness (or mind) in living beings. Information Trimonism links these three aspects of information with fractals (see a diagram on the Summary webpage for more details), the semiotic triangle(123)(124)(125) of language,(126) and the theological doctrine of God as a Trinity(127)(128) in a way that can be considered aesthetically pleasing.(129) In addition, these aspects (described as “substance attributes” by Baruch Spinoza)(130)(131) of physical extension, the newly identified “organizational communication”, and mental thought echo the subjects of grammar, rhetoric, and logic in the liberal arts plus the data, information, and knowledge hierarchy of information science.

“The whole of philosophy in this way resembles a circle of circles. The Idea appears in each single circle, but, at the same time, the whole Idea is constituted by the system of these peculiar phases, and each is a necessary member of the organisation.”— G. W. F. Hegel in his Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817)(132)
(Incidentally, a modern Information Trimonism-based interpretation of this quote would be: “Instead of turtles all the way down,(133) it is information all the way around.”)(134)

Information Trimonism can be thought of as a fractal twist of the linguistic turn in philosophy (which was originally developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein and others)(135) that is based on information theory with code acting as a container or language conduit.(136) Or Information Trimonism can alternatively be seen as a version of Karl Popper’s three worlds(137) involving self-similar patterns of syntax, semantics, and a type of pragmatics emphasizing the differing emotions generated by the context of a message. This means it weaves together a holarchy(138) of objective reality, “collective” codes, and the subjective feelings which an individual creates relative to their beliefs about the other two.

Information Trimonism also adds a middle layer of code or mental representation(139) comparable to a hidden layer of nodes in an artificial neural network(140) to the thesis of multiple realizability originally formulated by Hilary Putnam.(141) This architecture allows the same mental state to theoretically have different physical implementations,(142) as long as the code is adjusted to compensate. It also helps to bridge “Leibniz’s gap”(143) that exists between physical mechanisms and mental perceptions. The fractal nature of Information Trimonism additionally supports one of Putnam’s arguments for semantic externalism,(144) where he points out a linguistic community is necessary in order to help a person make meaning.

Information Trimonism may provide clues as to why we have subjective experiences known as qualia. Incidentally, this question of why cognition is accompanied by experience has recently been reformulated as the “hard problem of consciousness” by philosopher David Chalmers.(145)(146) The nature of qualia has also been discussed in a “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” paper(147) by Thomas Nagel (who has additionally written about natural teleology)(148) as well as the knowledge argument or “Mary’s room” thought experiment(149) by Frank Jackson. Even if Information Trimonism is unable to offer any insights into subjective experiences, it can be combined with ideas like the Integrated Information Theory (IIT)(150) of consciousness proposed by Giulio Tononi, the CIP Framework(151) by Federico Faggin, Value Realism(152) by David Rousseau, and the Somatic Marker Hypothesis(153) by Antonio Damasio that suggests emotions guide behavior.

The interdependent relationships between the aspects of Information Trimonism:

  • body = code + mind (from quantum delayed-choice experiments)
  • code = mind + body (from knowledge of how humans formulate languages)
  • mind = body + code (from scientific observations of living creatures)

Information Trimonism can also be the basis for brand new observations. One example of the three aspects of Information Trimonism that may be familiar to people involves a social construct known as money.(154) At the physical level, a coin objectively has a third side known as the edge which is normally overlooked but connects heads and tails similar to how biological codes sit between mind and body. A coin also carries stamped codes containing information important to a collective group of people, and it actually has three separate conceptual values. These range from a mentally subjective market value (which can vary greatly from the encoded legal value if the coin is rare) to the intrinsic or melt value of the physical metal.

Interestingly, someone starting with little or no money who is informed they are now “worth a million dollars” will almost certainly react differently than a person who originally had a billion dollars—even though both of them currently have exactly the same amount of money. This resembles what occurs when fans of opposing sports teams have very different subjective feelings after a scoring play (like a goal in soccer), although they both collectively agree about the meaning encoded by the sport’s rules into the objective event of a ball crossing a line. Information Trimonism can be applied to other far-ranging examples such as the model of events, beliefs, and emotions in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), the science of music, and even the mathematical theory of all communication created in the 1940s by Claude Shannon.

Information Trimonism and Communication

From Turing Machines to Holographic Minds?

Like the philosophical theory of machine-state functionalism(155) by Hilary Putnam, the three aspects of Information Trimonism can be superficially compared to the elements associated with a Turing machine. This idealized model of all computation consists of a physical read/write head with storage tape, an instruction table containing code, and a state register that tracks the current step of a calculation in a quasi-mindlike fashion. The comparison can then be recursively applied to just the code because variable assignment statements, function pointer dereferencing (which allows computer code to be dynamically linked), and self-modifying reflective metaprogramming in some modern programming languages outwardly follow the same three-fold pattern of increasing virtualization. This triple progression can also be seen in the instantiated objects, interfaces (which encode information about code), and abstract classes of object-oriented programming. It additionally applies to the physical, logical, and high-level conceptual models used when planning enterprise information systems architecture.

However, as the philosopher John Searle has argued when discussing whether artificial intelligence (AI) is conscious, a computer simulation of a fire does not burn things like an actual fire.(156) This is similar to how there is no symbol grounding or understanding of the meaning of the language being processed in his Chinese room thought experiment.(157) (Although a case could be made that the Chinese symbols may be grounded with very different meaning in Searle’s mind by his understanding of their relationship to the program’s instructions.) So the overall comparison with computers breaks down at the conscious level, because only the external human circuit designers, coders, and application users currently appear to be mentally “a-ware” of the meaning of the results generated by the layers of hardware and software. As mentioned earlier, the existence of this consciousness or qualia in humans and other organisms is a fundamentally hard problem to explain and it seems to be based on more than just processing raw data with algorithms.(158)

Problems related to consciousness in philosophy:

Name Question Solution
Mind–body What is the connection? Code in fractal patterns
Symbol grounding How is meaning understood? Maybe holographic?
Hard problem (qualia) Why is there feeling? Maybe fundamental?

Instead, the biological computation(159)(160) and embodied cognition(161) associated with consciousness might be something like a holographic(162)(163) version of Plato’s Cave(164)(165) involving a “code field” which is conceived as being analogous to a five-dimensional light field.(166) Each part of the underlying physical architecture that potentially gives rise to this hypothetical code field could contain fractal and possibly ergodic (a technical term for irregular regularity or statistically similar)(167) patterns of information about the whole.(168)(169)(170)(171)

The “surface” of these patterns of “information in formation” would appear to be random like the speckle patterns in holographic film,(172) the messages transmitted by certain error-correcting codes,(173) streams of bits in stochastic computing,(174)(175) and even weights between layers of nodes in AI.(176)(177) Incidentally, these four examples show there are random things that do not appear to be complicated even though they are a result of purposeful design, which is the complete opposite of Richard Dawkins’s claim about life being “complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

However, the “cross section” of this information would appear to have interference fringes that are arranged in nested hyperbolic lines of flux like the geometric model of holography,(178) creating the logical equivalent of a flat map with virtual symbols which seem to pop up into three-dimensional space.(179) The shape of these symbols and therefore their relative linguistic meaning could shift depending on the perspective or mental interpretation they are observed with,(180)(181) while a deeper sense of self would still remain stable.(182)

Spacetime tells matter [Mind tells information] how to move; matter tells spacetime [information tells mind] how to curve.”— A quote by theoretical physicist John Wheeler summarizing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity that has been modified so it applies to consciousness

This might be due to a conjunction of quantum(183)(184)(185)(186)(187) and classical error correction(188)(189)(190) providing feedback similar to a centrifugal governor(191) or windmill fantail.(192) (Incidentally, even though these two example control systems are not digital, they contain parts which mechanically represent something else and help generate an emergent non-physical control law described mathematically by a transfer function.)(193) In addition, the code field would be arranged in a way that allows the complex holographic logic in the brain(194)(195)(196)(197)(198) emerging from this theoretical matrix of information to have some kind of cybernetic(199) control over itself and the ability to choose how to adapt(200)(201) and modify its underlying physical structure.(202)(203) In other words, it would be a mind capable of self-organization.(204)

Holographic encoding between mind and body

Helping to Resurrect the Watchmaker Analogy

Taking my new philosophical model of Information Trimonism and using what I had learned about information theory, I realized any statement claiming only material things exist also carries symbolically encoded meaning. This results in a “materialist’s paradox” similar to Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem(205) in mathematics that is related to the symbol grounding problem,(206) even if someone is eventually able to prove a digital code can originate naturally. In addition, the non-physical meaning of the statement causes different subjective feelings (pro or con) in other people’s minds about what is being claimed depending on their current worldview, showing pure materialism to be false on multiple levels. To put it another way, while a person is not entitled to create their own private version of what a statement means, they are completely free to have their own individual feelings about the collectively agreed upon meaning. So matter matters, but code and emotions do too when it comes to information.

I also realized improving an improvement of William Paley’s watchmaker analogy (which actually dates back more than two thousand years to the time of Cicero)(207) by Perry Marshall would make it a valid teleological(208) argument after all, at least until someone finds a natural digital code. Perry Marshall has made an important breakthrough by being the first person to identify that the element common to both watches and life is language.(209)(210) He has additionally pointed out the DNA repair systems found in the cells of living organisms are not random but purposeful,(211)(212) countering criticisms by David Hume and others.(213) However, instead of making an appeal to the existence of an external blueprint or idea which precedes the building of a watch and can not be proven, what needs to be taken into account is simply the objective encoding of information occurring inside of the watch plus the presence of error-correcting mechanisms.

“What’s not random is the cell’s response to the threat. Damage is random. Repair is not.”— Perry Marshall

For example, a watch measures physical movement via a controller (214) and encodes the discrete pulses on an indicator(215) such as a clock face or digital display for humans to read, in a much lesser version of how a cell uses language with symbols and meaning which has to be translated.(216)(217) So the information has actually been staring us in the face all along in watches, although people have only been aware of its presence in biology since Francis Crick proposed the existence of protein-coding sequences in DNA(218)(219) that can be detected through Fourier analysis.(220) This ability to create and/or utilize information (which symbolically represents something else) shows measuring instruments like timepieces as well as living organisms are not just collections of mechanical parts arranged in patterns that can subjectively appear to some people like William Dembski to have specified complexity.(221)

In fact, the difference between information containing encoded “symbolic meaning” which causes(222) top-down(223)(224) real effects(225)(226) and objects that only have complicated physical features is analogous to the way an image and a randomly scrambled version of itself have completely different Fourier transforms (although the histograms measuring their pixel brightness will be exactly the same).(227) This is because in general, the magnitude part of an image’s Fourier transform will have a central blur with lines radiating out from it and/or a circular halo surrounding it, while a transform obtained from scrambled pixels will look darker and grayer but still be random like the static “snow” on a television set.(228) A typical Fourier transform of a non-random image can be seen above in the “Holographic Encoding Between Mind and Body” diagram.

“There cannot be a language more universal and more simple, more free from errors and from obscurities, that is to say more worthy to express the invariable relations of natural things.”— Joseph Fourier on mathematics in his book The Analytical Theory of Heat (1878)

There is a reason why these patterns of rays and cloudy arcs emerge in the Fourier transform of most images. Since a two-dimensional picture of something like a railroad track receding into the distance is affected by the requirements of railway engineering as well as the rules of three-dimensional perspective, the spatial arrangement of certain pixels is not entirely random and this gets represented in the Fourier transform. Along the same lines, it is possible to use the Fourier transform to prove an electronic clock signal with regular square wave pulses is not random because it results in frequency components that appear to make a wave of waves.(229) In contrast, the transform of a completely random white noise signal (which looks like an irregular zig-zag)(230) will just create another irregular zig-zag.

The existence of hidden, underlying relationships between the various parts of images and signals that have non-random Fourier transforms helps to explain why information can also cause powerful feelings. An example of this would be a person who looks at their watch and realizes that the relationship between the hands and the numbers they are pointing to means they are running late to an event they want to be on time for, resulting in them becoming upset. This is in contrast to someone seeing a device displaying a bunch of random shapes or dots that have no relationship to anything, which typically will not generate much of an emotional response because they have no meaning to humans—even if they look complex.

In addition to encoding information, watches have a built-in feedback mechanism (which is a harmonic oscillator that keeps vibrating at a resonant frequency)(231) to correct errors so time can be represented with a code more accurately. Cells in living organisms also require error correction since they constantly need to fix their genetic information because of damage from random events and diseases. This allows them to stay alive and keep on performing important functions such as locally reducing entropy (disorder or uncertainty)(232)(233) and replicating their DNA.(234) Even artificial life simulations running genetic algorithms make use of error-correcting systems, but they are hidden throughout the computers in stock parts like high-end memory modules, hard drive reliability software, and redundant logic gates and never seem to be accounted for by researchers.

A Comparison of Systems with Error Correction

DNA Repair and a Logical Loop of Feedback

The various DNA repair systems found in cells apparently form a vital and interdependent relationship with the encoded instructions they not only rely on but also protect. This creates an emergent low-level “logical loop” of feedback which provides the stability necessary for the development of life. Other people have come to the same conclusion about the ability of biological systems to correct genetic errors as well,(235) based on research started in the 1970s due to the inherent instability of DNA molecules. The still ongoing research has revealed the existence of multiple repair mechanisms and recently won a Nobel Prize.(236)(237)(238) Since RNA is less stable than DNA,(239) even if the RNA world hypothesis of life’s origin is possible (and it may not be),(240) some kind of error correction has always been necessary.

Requirements of the logical loop of feedback:

  • Parts need code to carry and represent logic
  • Code needs logic to control and replicate parts
  • Logic needs parts to correct and repair code

This means that not only does evolution depend on the self-replication of cellular parts,(241)(242)(243) which depends on code,(244)(245)(246) but it also depends on non-random error correction(247)(248)(249) and principles (e.g., logical comparisons like XOR)(250) much deeper than the presence of complicated physical features proposed by some people like Michael Behe to have irreducible complexity.(251)(252) If anything in biology is irreducibly complex, it is actually the threefold relationship between the mechanical parts, the code with symbolic meaning, and the logic embedded in the error-correcting enzymes that appear to have all worked together in a feedback loop from the very beginning to make life possible. These are known scientifically as the proteome, genome, and regulome.

A comparison of terms from Intelligent Design (ID) and Conscious Emergence (CE):

Old ID terms describing complicated physical features (subjective) New CE terms describing symbolically encoded information (objective)
Specified complexity “Symbolic meaning”
Irreducible complexity “Logical loop”

This hypothesis is falsifiable (and therefore is scientific)(253) if someone can find a living organism which does not have any coded information or DNA repair systems, or is still able to evolve after one or both of them have been completely removed in the laboratory.(254)(255) Until then, DNA repair systems as well as the proofreading and editing of incorrectly charged transfer RNAs(256)(257)(258) in the biological translation process are further evidence that life is not a series of random accidents and the purely materialistic just-so stories told by some scientists are not true.(259)(260)(261)(262) (This is on top of the fact that evolution happens faster than what would be expected from chance alone.)(263)(264)(265) Continuing to tell these incorrect stories now is comparable to attempting to peddle a perpetual motion machine after a hidden energy source (or error correction in this case) has been revealed.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ [feedback loop with parts, code, and logic] existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down [be revealed to only be part of a larger system].”— A quote by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species (1859) that has been modified to reflect the recent scientific discovery of DNA repair systems

The stories have unfortunately blocked or at least slowed down a lot of scientific progress in evolutionary biology until recently, when studies such as the still ongoing ENCODE project(266) proved most of the so-called “junk DNA”(267)(268)(269)(270) is actually functional and regulates the protein-coding genes. This helps explain why genome size is not correlated with the complexity of an organism, known as the C-value enigma.(271) Incidentally, this also means that the genomes of different species are kind of like different versions of a Rubik’s Cube solution guide, where the majority of information is about when biological systems should make a move or correction rather than a description of the move itself. In other words, junk DNA (now often called non-coding DNA) is similar to the bulk of the instructions written in regular English text with images showing how the Rubik’s Cube should look at each stage, while rare protein-coding genes are equivalent to the occasional sequence of moves compactly encoded in Singmaster notation.(272)

Not only do the biological systems regulated by this non-coding DNA handle many types of errors in cells, but they are unexpectedly flexible—sometimes literally. For example, DNA base pairs have the ability to dissipate electromagnetic radiation(273) as well as flip and skew their orientation to absorb physical damage.(274) As far as the genetic code, several studies indicate it is optimized or fine-tuned on the order of one in a million in terms of error minimization,(275)(276)(277)(278)(279) although others suggest this redundancy is balanced with adaptability and the ability to carry parallel codes.(280)(281)(282)

“Much more than even physics, control is a mathematically oriented science. Control principles are always expressed in mathematical form and are potentially applicable to any concrete situation.”— Rudolf E. Kálmán, inventor of a filter or algorithm used widely in control engineering

Networks of neurons in the brain also use a “principle of error minimization” in the form of feedback loops(283) to make decisions in what is known as predictive coding,(284)(285) active inference, or free energy minimization.(286) This is actually a principle of least action(287) introduced by neuroscientist Karl Friston(288) that uses Bayesian inference and resembles Kalman filtering in engineering(289) as well as backpropagation in artificial neural networks. However, intelligence additionally seems to involve a “principle of choice maximization”.(290) This means it may be possible to quantify the real effects or causal efficacy of biological information(291) and therefore its value by determining its efficiency at locally reducing entropy and minimizing errors while simultaneously maximizing choices.

In general, biological information relies on control nodes acting non-randomly in systems such as gene regulatory networks.(292)(293)(294) So instead of only being subject to the laws of physics, life is also governed by layers of non-physical mathematical control laws. Multiple aspects of this error correction can be described with theorems(295)(296) by cyberneticians like W. Ross Ashby,(297) including the human desire to be ethical(298) and do the right thing even at a personal cost because it maximizes the ability of other people to make choices. These control principles appear to indirectly connect the physical, mental, and spiritual realms(299) of life like a “Biological Jacob’s Ladder”,(300)(301) as seen in the diagram below. This is similar to second-order cybernetics,(302) the practopoietic theory(303)(304) of system organization by Danko Nikolić, and even the idea of a level-crossing strange loop(305) by Douglas Hofstadter.

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. . . . I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”— Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who based the source of morality on reason

The Biological Jacob’s Ladder links the three traditional branches of philosophical inquiry, which have been divided since the time of Plato into natural science, logic, and ethics.(306) This breakthrough is similar to the Grand Unified Theory (GUT)(307) in particle physics and seems to be an intermediate step toward a holistic version of a Theory of Everything (TOE)(308) known as a General Systems Theory (GST)(309)(310) in Systems Philosophy.(311)

The Biological Jacob’s Ladder is also fractal in the sense that it applies to entire human societies in addition to each individual. For example, scientists can use logic to help develop cures for diseases caused by physical damage to DNA like cancer, while spiritual leaders can use ethics(312) to create a just(313) community where as many people as possible are able to access these life-saving medical treatments. Perry Marshall calls this type of progress “Evolution Omega” instead of “Evolution Alpha” (which is simply another name for his cellular agency-based Evolution 2.0).(314) It is similar to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s biblically-inspired vision of all creation being pulled towards a state of divine unification called the Omega Point.(315)(316)
A "Biological Jacob's Ladder" of Information Feedback Loops

The Bible and Information Theory

The Bible makes sense from an information theory perspective, which provides a logical connection between natural theology(317) and Christianity.(318) God is trying to minimize the grave consequences of non-existence (or death) due to self-inflicted data corruption (or sin).(319) He does this by offering an invaluable(320) moral error-correcting code(321) in multiple formats which operates at the highest level of consciousness and life. So on top of intentionally repetitive fractal written instructions, God sent a living version of the holographic Message(322)(323)(324) in the physical form of Jesus(325) who said, “if you love Me, keep My commandments” (which symbolize if someone is a good person) as well as “love one another as I have loved you.” However, religious leaders did not understand and decided to destroy the Message instead of delivering it. After a timeout of three days, this error was corrected because God retransmitted the Message by raising Yeshua from the dead, demonstrating His recovery system works and proving His Word is true.

“ ‘It means,’ said Aslan, ‘that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know.’ ”— From C.S. Lewis’s book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950)(326)

Despite doubts about miracles by David Hume,(327)(328) this did not have to violate any of the laws of nature, just like the error-correcting systems found in biology and telecommunications which can physically restore information by using code and logic. In fact, the way parts of the physical world can be purposefully corrected with code is a window to a much deeper Truth. One way to visualize this is with a hologram of a statue of Jesus. If the top part of the hologram where the head appears to be is cut off and hidden (a metaphor for crucifying the real Jesus), it is still possible to tilt the remaining broken “body of Christ” piece and see the head,(329) although it will be a bit fuzzier.(330) It is also possible to re-create the top part of the hologram using mathematical algorithms.(331) The body can then be observed in the top part, similar to how Yeshua said, “anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else.”— C.S. Lewis in his essay “Is Theology Poetry?” from the book The Weight of Glory (1949)

In addition to acting as a sign,(332) Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection also functioned as a controlled burn(333) against sin and behaved like an antifuse,(334)(335) creating a way for humans made in the image of God to have life more abundantly.(336) Later, God amplified the recovered Message at Pentecost after encoding it into a virtual format (sort of similar to a spiritual email)(337) that could be downloaded and integrated into people’s lives more easily.

Sadly, other religious leaders interfered again with the transmission of the Message by adding noise to the signal in the form of inaccurate translations in the Bible such as “hell” instead of the original Hebrew word “sheol”(338) as well as modern traditions like a now hyper-commercialized Christmas.(339) Fortunately, because the written word of God is fractal and redundant, a lot of people including myself have still learned information about Yeshua during the holidays of Easter and Christmas—even though they are only partially based on God’s appointed Holy Days which more and more Christians are beginning to become aware of and observe. It appears the ultimate error-correcting Message is in the process of being completely restored a second time in order to connect those who choose to love God and each other,(340)(341) and I hope the book I am writing helps to explain some of what God is doing.

“So is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”— Isaiah 55:11

The Biblical Holy Days are Similar to a Digital Fountain Code
^^^ Click here to go to the top of the page ^^^

References

  1. Wikiquote contributors. “Werner Heisenberg – Wikiquote.” [Misattributed section] en.wikiquote.org
  2. MrEpistemologist1’s channel. “(The Cosmological Constant) Leonard Susskind – YouTube.” [2:50 min long video with host Sir Martin Rees, from a TV series episode called What We Still Don’t Know: “Are We Real?”] www.youtube.com
  3. Santi Tafarella. “The Grain of Sand Argument for God’s Existence.” santitafarella.wordpress.com
  4. Richard Deem. “The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning.” www.godandscience.org
  5. Wikipedia contributors. “Rare Earth hypothesis – Wikipedia.” [A large moon section] en.wikipedia.org
  6. Richard Deem. “How the Passover Reveals Jesus Christ.” www.godandscience.org
  7. John Parsons. “A Concise Overview of the Seven Feasts of Israel.” www.hebrew4christians.com
  8. Wikipedia contributors. “Allegorical interpretations of Genesis – Wikipedia.” [Contemporary Christian considerations section] en.wikipedia.org
  9. Wikipedia contributors. “Framework interpretation (Genesis) – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  10. Wikipedia contributors. “Fractal – Wikipedia.” [Natural phenomena with fractal features section] en.wikipedia.org
  11. Ed Yong. “What is the difference between the human genome and a pair of headphones? – Not Exactly Rocket Science : Not Exactly Rocket Science.” blogs.discovermagazine.com
  12. Perry Marshall. “The Mathematics of DNA.” evo2.org
  13. Andras Pellionisz. “News Bulletin of International HoloGenomics Society.” [Links to an 8:58 min long video titled “Dr. Andras Pellionisz explains the ‘fractal genome’ ”] www.junkdna.com
  14. David Pincus. “Fractal Brains: Fractal Thoughts | Psychology Today.” www.psychologytoday.com
  15. Wai H. Tsang’s channel. “Fractal Brain Theory Book Advert HD – YouTube.” [1:59 min long video] www.youtube.com
  16. Omega Institute for Holistic Studies’ channel. “Bruce H. Lipton: When You Understand a Cell, You Understand Humans – YouTube.” [3:14 min long video] www.youtube.com
  17. Yitzhaq Hayut-man. “The Fractal Pattern of the Torah Bible.” israelseen.com
  18. Natan Slifkin. “Rationalist Judaism: Patterns in the Torah.” www.rationalistjudaism.com
  19. Michael Bull. “Welcome | Bible Matrix.” www.biblematrix.com.au
  20. The Bible Project’s channel. “How to Read the Bible: Plot – YouTube.” [5:12 min long video] www.youtube.com
  21. The Bible Project’s channel. “How to Read the Bible: Design Patterns – YouTube.” [6:06 min long video. Note that the patterns of water are the same as the ones in my fractal periodic table of the Bible] www.youtube.com
  22. Alexander Poltorak. “Sanctuary in Five Dimensions | Torah and Science.” www.quantumtorah.com
  23. Wikipedia contributors. “Complex system – Wikipedia.” [Emergence section] en.wikipedia.org
  24. Closer To Truth’s channel. “David Chalmers – Why is Emergence Significant? – YouTube.” [12:42 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from the beginning to 5:45 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  25. Closer To Truth’s channel. “Philip Clayton – How Can Emergence Explain Reality? – YouTube.” [13:25 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from 2:53 to 8:37 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  26. Why Are We Here? documentary with Ard Louis and David Malone. “George Ellis: Strong and Weak Emergence on Vimeo.” [4:51 min long video] vimeo.com
  27. Perry Marshall. “Communication 101: Information Theory Made REALLY SIMPLE.” evo2.org
  28. Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung (CLV). “Am Anfang war die Information … – englisch.” [The English version of Werner Gitt’s In the Beginning was Information book with a free PDF download (click the “Kostenloser Download” link to the right), see pp. 79-82 for a synopsis. Incidentally, another person who wrote even earlier about the connection between code and mind was the organic chemist A. E. Wilder-Smith] clv.de
  29. JesusLostChildren777’s channel. “How Information refute naturalism,Part 2 – YouTube.” [16:51 min long video from a talk by Werner Gitt called “In the Beginning was Information.” See from 10:18 to 13:22 for his definition of information although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  30. Perry Marshall. “A New Theory of Evolution.” [Note that a comparison is made between random mutations and noise, which degrades or destroys a signal. The page also contains two video clips which are relevant] evo2.org
  31. Evolution 2.0 Prize by Perry Marshall. “Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD | HeroX.” [Note that $100,000 will be paid “for the initial discovery of such a code” and only “if the newly discovered process is defensibly patentable” will the full prize amount be paid. Incidentally, there was a similar $1 Million (U.S.) Origin-of-Life Prize offered from 1999 to 2018 by the Gene Emergence Project, led by David Abel, which went unclaimed] www.herox.com
  32. Perry Marshall. “Entries for the ‘Chemicals to Code’ Technology Prize.” evo2.org
  33. Wikipedia contributors. “Genetic code – Wikipedia.” [Codons section] en.wikipedia.org
  34. Wikipedia contributors. “DNA codon table – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  35. Wikipedia contributors. “Inductive reasoning – Wikipedia.” [Comparison with deductive reasoning section] en.wikipedia.org
  36. Stephen Meyer’s channel. “Stephen Meyer: Charles Darwin’s Methods, Different Conclusion – YouTube.” [6:53 min long video. Note the statement from Henry Quastler that “the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Incidentally, “inference to the best explanation” is also known as abductive reasoning] www.youtube.com
  37. Wikipedia contributors. “Syllogism – Wikipedia.” [Basic structure section] en.wikipedia.org
  38. Wikipedia contributors. “General Scholium – Wikipedia.” [Scientific method argument section] en.wikipedia.org
  39. John R. Baumgardner and Jeremy D. Lyon. “A Linguistic Argument for God’s Existence.” [PDF from Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 58, No. 4 (2015): pp. 771–786. Note the Einstein gulf discussed in section III.3 separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions] www.etsjets.org
  40. Perry Marshall. “The Atheist’s Riddle, Part 2: Two Kinds of Things & The Infinite Chasm.” evo2.org
  41. Perry Marshall. “TalkOrigins’ Misrepresentations of Werner Gitt and Information Theory.” [Note the importance of “how precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning” versus just “how accurately can the symbols of communication be transmitted?”] evo2.org
  42. Wikipedia contributors. “Philosophy of information – Wikipedia.” [Shannon and Weaver section] en.wikipedia.org
  43. The Institute of Art and Ideas’ channel. “What Exists is Not Only Physical | George Ellis – YouTube.” [1:57 min long clip from a video called “Understanding Conciousness | Full Debate | Rupert Sheldrake, George Ellis, Amie Thomasson”] www.youtube.com
  44. Perry Marshall. “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists.” [Incidentally, the argument is based on logical inference like in science rather than a rigorous mathematical proof. It also links to an hour and 56 sec long “Origin of Life” video] evo2.org
  45. Perry Marshall. “Origin of Life Video.” [An hour and 56 sec long video on the “Origin of Life: New Discoveries About DNA, God and Evolution”] evo2.org
  46. The Veritas Forum’s channel. “Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? – YouTube.” [5:07 min long video from a talk by John Lennox called “Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational?” Incidentally, the name of the Nobel Prize winner who is mentioned is Roger Wolcott Sperry] www.youtube.com
  47. Closer To Truth’s channel. “Philip Clayton – How Should We Think About God’s Existence? – YouTube.” [7:19 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from 5:34 to the end. Incidentally, the existence of codes which connect symbols and meaning as well as the logic used in error-correcting systems both seem to be “intimations of transcendence”] www.youtube.com
  48. Perry Marshall. “Random Mutations? Cut To The Chase” [Note that it is mathematically impossible to prove a sequence of data is random] evo2.org
  49. Perry Marshall. “Are the mutations that drive evolution random?” evo2.org
  50. Perry Marshall. “Evolution: The Untold Story, Part 1.” evo2.org
  51. Perry Marshall. “The Exquisite Merger-Acquisitions of Mother Nature.” [Includes a 5:11 min long video with the same title] evo2.org
  52. Perry Marshall. “Darwinists Underestimate Nature. Creationists Underestimate God.” evo2.org
  53. Bite-sized Philosophy’s channel. “Jordan Peterson – Atheist Scientists vs Christian Fundamentalists – YouTube.” [10:14 min long video, see from 6:02 to the end although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  54. Seymour Garte. “Intrinsic Biochemical Intelligence | The Book of Works.” thebookofworks.com
  55. Perry Marshall. “Witness Bacteria Evolve in Real Time.” [Includes a 1:54 min long video titled “The Evolution of Bacteria on a ‘Mega-Plate’ Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)”] evo2.org
  56. Perry Marshall. “Bacteria evolve over a weekend.” [Includes a 1:03 min long video with the same title] evo2.org
  57. Perry Marshall. “Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart.” [Includes a 18:11 min long video of a TED-Ed talk titled “How bacteria ‘talk’ – Bonnie Bassler”] evo2.org
  58. Wikipedia contributors. “Evolutionary creation – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  59. Wikipedia contributors. “The Language of God – Wikipedia.” [BioLogos section] en.wikipedia.org
  60. Wikipedia contributors. “Natural genetic engineering – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  61. Wikipedia contributors. “Denis Noble – Wikipedia.” [Principles of Systems Biology section, see principle four (there is no privileged level of causality)] en.wikipedia.org
  62. Raymond Noble and Denis Noble. “Was the Watchmaker Blind? Or Was She One-Eyed?” www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  63. JT898’s channel. “Richard Colling – Random Designer: Created From Chaos, To Connect With the Creator – Part 6 – YouTube.” [9:39 min long video, see from 4:40 to the end although the entire video is relevant. Incidentally, random design is another name for what Denis Noble calls harnessed stochasticity] www.youtube.com
  64. Wikipedia contributors. “Convergent evolution – Wikipedia.” [Overview section] en.wikipedia.org
  65. Wikipedia contributors. “Chaos theory – Wikipedia.” [Sensitivity to initial conditions section] en.wikipedia.org
  66. Wikipedia contributors. “Attractor – Wikipedia.” [Strange attractor section] en.wikipedia.org
  67. James A. Shapiro, Denis Noble, and Raju Pookottil. “Home | The Third Way of Evolution.” www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
  68. Wikipedia contributors. “Teleological argument – Wikipedia.” [“Third way” proposal section] en.wikipedia.org
  69. James A. Shapiro. “Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate.” [A Third Way] bostonreview.net
  70. Perry Marshall. “Evolution 2.0” evo2.org
  71. Perry Marshall. “Evolution 2.0 on CBS 6, Richmond Virginia station WTVR.” [A 5:29 min long video] evo2.org
  72. EES contributors. “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program.” extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com
  73. Wikipedia contributors. “Extended evolutionary synthesis – Wikipedia.” [Recent history section] en.wikipedia.org
  74. Wikipedia contributors. “John Archibald Wheeler – Wikipedia.” [Participatory Anthropic Principle section] en.wikipedia.org
  75. Matthew Francis. “Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time | Ars Technica.” [Note that the delayed-choice entanglement swapping gives rise to the seeming appearance of quantum retrocausality] arstechnica.com
  76. George Musser. “Time Entanglement Raises Quantum Mysteries | Quanta Magazine.” [Note the experiment conceived by Robert Spekkens, where the choice of measurement seems to retroactively decide which bit the photon appears to hold] www.quantamagazine.org
  77. Wikipedia contributors. “Delayed choice quantum eraser – Wikipedia.” [Notes section, see note two from Brian Greene regarding retrocausality which explains how the experiment shows a second measurement constrains what can be said about an initial measurement] en.wikipedia.org
  78. University of Southampton. “Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe.” phys.org
  79. Wikipedia contributors. “Axis of evil (cosmology) – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  80. Wikipedia contributors. “Inflation (cosmology) – Wikipedia.” [Criticisms section. Note that “the invoked inflaton field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable.” This is an attempt by members of the scientific community to uphold the Copernican principle (which is humans on the Earth are not privileged observers of the universe) that is actually worse than the addition of epicycles to describe elliptical orbits in the ancient Ptolemaic model of the universe] en.wikipedia.org
  81. Natalie Wolchover. “Using the ‘Bootstrap,’ Physicists Uncover Geometry of Theory Space | Quanta Magazine.” www.quantamagazine.org
  82. The Physics arXiv Blog contributors. “The Origin of Life And The Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality – The Physics arXiv Blog – Medium.” medium.com
  83. Wikipedia contributors. “Quantum biology – Wikipedia.” [Enzymatic activity (quantum biochemistry) section] en.wikipedia.org
  84. Frank Trixler. “Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life.” [5. QUANTUM TUNNELLING IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY section. Note that “the key factor which enables DNA repair is electron tunnelling”] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  85. Wikipedia contributors. “Quantum biology – Wikipedia.” [DNA mutation section] en.wikipedia.org
  86. Wikipedia contributors. “Rate of evolution – Wikipedia.” [Fossil record section] en.wikipedia.org
  87. Wikipedia contributors. “Timeline of time measurement technology – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  88. Wikipedia contributors. “Retrocausality – Wikipedia.” [Quantum physics section. Note that consistent with the no communication theorem, it is not possible to transmit retrocausal signals. However, this does not rule out the retrocausal collapse of a wavefunction, including one which is universal (basically a universe in a state of quantum superposition that can also be described as a virtual multiverse)] en.wikipedia.org
  89. Closer To Truth – Physics of the Observer’s channel. “Paul Davies – What are Observers? – YouTube.” [11:58 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from 6:29 to the end although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  90. Brian Koberlein. “New Evidence for the Strange Idea that the Universe Is a Hologram.” nautil.us
  91. Vienna University of Technology. “Is the universe a hologram?” [Note that “the holographic principle can also be realized in flat spaces. It is evidence for the validity of this correspondence in our universe”] phys.org
  92. Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology. “New math bridges holography and twistor theory.” phys.org
  93. Wikipedia contributors. “Holographic principle – Wikipedia.” [High-level summary section] en.wikipedia.org
  94. Seymour Garte. “Darmarckian Evolution | The Book of Works.” thebookofworks.com
  95. Wikipedia contributors. “Lamarckism – Wikipedia.” [Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance section] en.wikipedia.org
  96. William M. Muir and David Sloan Wilson. “When the Strong Outbreed the Weak: An Interview with William Muir – The Evolution Institute.” evolution-institute.org
  97. Wikipedia contributors. “Unit of selection – Wikipedia.” [Group section] en.wikipedia.org
  98. Emily Singer. “How New Genes Arise from Scratch | Quanta Magazine.” www.quantamagazine.org
  99. Wikipedia contributors. “Orphan gene – Wikipedia.” [Where do orphan genes come from? section] en.wikipedia.org
  100. Denis Noble. “Differential and integral views of genetics in computational systems biology | Interface Focus.” [Note Figure 3, which models a genetic buffering mechanism of the sinus node pacemaker of the heart] royalsocietypublishing.org
  101. Wikipedia contributors. “Genetic redundancy – Wikipedia.” [Note that “the very existence of genetic buffering, and the functional redundancies required for it, presents a paradox in light of the evolutionary concepts”] en.wikipedia.org
  102. Wikipedia contributors. “Evolutionary developmental biology – Wikipedia.” [The origins of novelty section. Note the “surprising and, perhaps, counterintuitive (from a neo-Darwinian viewpoint) results of recent research” as well as “novelty may arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation”] en.wikipedia.org
  103. Wikipedia contributors. “DNA repair – Wikipedia.” [Evolution section] en.wikipedia.org
  104. Wikipedia contributors. “DNA replication – Wikipedia.” [DNA polymerase section] en.wikipedia.org
  105. Rachel Thomas. “It from bit? | plus.maths.org.” plus.maths.org
  106. Wikipedia contributors. “Digital physics – Wikipedia.” [Wheeler’s “it from bit” section] en.wikipedia.org
  107. Wikipedia contributors. “A Universe from Nothing – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  108. Wikipedia contributors. “God the Father – Wikipedia.” [In Western art section] en.wikipedia.org
  109. Wikipedia contributors. “Anima mundi – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  110. Wikipedia contributors. “Cosmic Consciousness – Wikipedia.” [Similar concepts section] en.wikipedia.org
  111. Emerging Technology from the arXiv contributors. “Physicists Convert Information Into Energy – MIT Technology Review.” www.technologyreview.com
  112. Wikipedia contributors. “Process theology – Wikipedia.” [God and the World relationship section] en.wikipedia.org
  113. Wikipedia contributors. “Supernatural – Wikipedia.” [Process theology section] en.wikipedia.org
  114. Robert Doyle. “Information.” www.informationphilosopher.com
  115. Robert Doyle. “Value.” www.informationphilosopher.com
  116. Wikipedia contributors. “Is–ought problem – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  117. Robert Doyle. “The Cogito Model.” www.informationphilosopher.com
  118. Robert Doyle. “Martin Heisenberg.” www.informationphilosopher.com
  119. Wikiquote contributors. “Richard Dawkins – Wikiquote.” [River out of Eden (1995) section] en.wikiquote.org
  120. Wikipedia contributors. “Mind–body problem – Wikipedia.” [Interactionism section] en.wikipedia.org
  121. Wikipedia contributors. “Interactionism (philosophy of mind) – Wikipedia.” [Problem of causal interaction section] en.wikipedia.org
  122. Wikipedia contributors. “René Descartes – Wikipedia.” [Dualism section] en.wikipedia.org
  123. Wikipedia contributors. “Triangle of reference – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  124. Wikipedia contributors. “Semiotics – Wikipedia.” [Charles Sanders Peirce section. Note the triadic relationship of object, sign, and interpretant. Incidentally, there is an interesting quote by John Locke earlier on the webpage that explains how science may be divided into three parts] en.wikipedia.org
  125. Wikipedia contributors. “Charles Sanders Peirce – Wikipedia.” [Semiotic elements section] en.wikipedia.org
  126. Wikipedia contributors. “Language – Wikipedia.” [Structure section] en.wikipedia.org
  127. Evolution 2.0’s channel. “Information, Communication, and the Trinitarian Concept of God – YouTube.” [5:21 min long video of Perry Marshall. Note the observation that communication is a reflection of the Trinity] www.youtube.com
  128. Perry Marshall. “Information Theory and the Trinity.” evo2.org
  129. Wikipedia contributors. “Aesthetics – Wikipedia.” [Aesthetics and science section] en.wikipedia.org
  130. Wikipedia contributors. “Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza – Wikipedia.” [Attributes section] en.wikipedia.org
  131. Wikipedia contributors. “Ethics (Spinoza book) – Wikipedia.” [Structure of reality section] en.wikipedia.org
  132. Wikipedia contributors. “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences – Wikipedia.” [Structure section] en.wikipedia.org
  133. Wikipedia contributors. “Turtles all the way down – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  134. Wikipedia contributors. “Self-reference – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  135. Wikipedia contributors. “Linguistic turn – Wikipedia.” [Russell and Wittgenstein section] en.wikipedia.org
  136. Wikipedia contributors. “Conduit metaphor – Wikipedia.” [Major framework section] en.wikipedia.org
  137. Wikipedia contributors. “Karl Popper – Wikipedia.” [Popper’s three worlds section] en.wikipedia.org
  138. Wikipedia contributors. “Holarchy – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  139. Wikipedia contributors. “Mental representation – Wikipedia.” [Representational theories of mind section] en.wikipedia.org
  140. Wikipedia contributors. “Artificial neural network – Wikipedia.” [Gallery section] en.wikipedia.org
  141. Wikipedia contributors. “Hilary Putnam – Wikipedia.” [Multiple realizability section] en.wikipedia.org
  142. Wikipedia contributors. “Digital infinity – Wikipedia.” [The computational theory of mind section. Especially note the quote at the end by Steven Pinker] en.wikipedia.org
  143. Wikipedia contributors. “Leibniz’s gap – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  144. Wikipedia contributors. “Semantic externalism – Wikipedia.” [Arguments for externalism section] en.wikipedia.org
  145. Wikipedia contributors. “Hard problem of consciousness – Wikipedia.” [Chalmers’ formulation section] en.wikipedia.org
  146. Closer To Truth’s channel. “David Chalmers – Why is Consciousness so Mysterious? – YouTube.” [11:57 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from 5:38 to 9:50 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  147. Wikipedia contributors. “Thomas Nagel – Wikipedia.” [What is it like to be a something section] en.wikipedia.org
  148. Wikipedia contributors. “Thomas Nagel – Wikipedia.” [Natural selection and consciousness section] en.wikipedia.org
  149. Wikipedia contributors. “Knowledge argument – Wikipedia.” [Thought experiment section] en.wikipedia.org
  150. Wikipedia contributors. “Integrated information theory – Wikipedia.” [Relationship to the “hard problem of consciousness” section] en.wikipedia.org
  151. The Mindscience of Reality Symposium. “Federico Faggin – The Mindscience of reality.” [Incidentally, CIP stands for the cognitive, information, and physical spaces explained in the presentation abstract] mindscience.unipi.it
  152. Wikipedia contributors. “Systems philosophy – Wikipedia.” [Rousseau and value realism section] en.wikipedia.org
  153. Wikipedia contributors. “Somatic marker hypothesis – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  154. khanacademymedicine’s channel. “Social constructionism | Society and Culture | MCAT | Khan Academy – YouTube.” [2:45 min long video] www.youtube.com
  155. Wikipedia contributors. “Functionalism (philosophy of mind) – Wikipedia.” [Machine-state functionalism section] en.wikipedia.org
  156. Wikipedia contributors. “John Searle – Wikipedia.” [Artificial intelligence section] en.wikipedia.org
  157. Wikipedia contributors. “Symbol grounding problem – Wikipedia.” [Searle’s Chinese room argument section] en.wikipedia.org
  158. Wikipedia contributors. “Hubert Dreyfus – Wikipedia.” [Dreyfus’ criticism of AI section] en.wikipedia.org
  159. Wikipedia contributors. “Wetware computer – Wikipedia.” [The cell as a model of wetware section] en.wikipedia.org
  160. cosmiccontinuum’s channel. “Secrets Of The Human Cell – Part 3 – YouTube.” [9:45 min long video, from a talk by Bruce Lipton called “As Above, So Below: An Introduction To Fractal Evolution”] www.youtube.com
  161. Wikipedia contributors. “Embodied cognition – Wikipedia.” [Philosophical background section] en.wikipedia.org
  162. Wikipedia contributors. “Holography – Wikipedia.” [How it works section] en.wikipedia.org
  163. Physics Girl’s channel. “How 3D holograms work – YouTube.” [4:18 min long video] www.youtube.com
  164. Wikipedia contributors. “Allegory of the Cave – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  165. TED’s channel. “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth – YouTube.” [17:00 min long video, see from 7:08 to 14:13 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  166. Wikipedia contributors. “Light field – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  167. Wikipedia contributors. “Ergodic process – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  168. HyperPhysics by Carl R. (Rod) Nave. “Holography.” [“When a piece is the whole” section] 230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu
  169. Wikipedia contributors. “Implicate and explicate order – Wikipedia.” [Holograms and implicate order section] en.wikipedia.org
  170. ThinkingAllowedTV’s channel. “Michael Talbot: Synchronicity and the Holographic Universe — Thinking Allowed w/ Jeffrey Mishlove – YouTube.” [11:19 min long video, see from the beginning to 3:37 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  171. LitiHolo’s channel. “Introduction To Holography – 1972 – YouTube.” [16:29 min long video. See from 0:38 to 1:38 to watch what happens when a piece is cut out of a hologram, although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  172. Wikipedia contributors. “Holography – Wikipedia.” [Process section. Note the image of “a small part of an unbleached transmission hologram viewed through a microscope” showing that “the holographic information is recorded by the speckle pattern”] en.wikipedia.org
  173. Wikipedia contributors. “Turbo code – Wikipedia.” [Performance section] en.wikipedia.org
  174. Armin Alaghi and John P. Hayes. “Computing With Random Pulses Promises to Simplify Circuitry and Save Power – IEEE Spectrum.” [Note that the human nervous system transfers information by means of sequences of neural impulses that strongly resemble stochastic bitstreams] spectrum.ieee.org
  175. Wikipedia contributors. “Stochastic computing – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  176. Carlos E. Perez. “Deep Learning Machines are Holographic Memories – Intuition Machine – Medium.” [Note that “the memory capacity of a neural network seems to be highest the closer to random the weights are” and “fine tuning happens at the top.”] medium.com
  177. Carlos E. Perez. “Deep Learning: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Randomness.” medium.com
  178. SPIE Digital Library. “Basic Principles and Applications of Holography.” [Chapter 10 of Tung H. Jeong and Lake Forest College’s book Fundamentals of Photonics (2008): pp. 381–417 in PDF format (click the “Download PDF” link to the right). See Figure 10-6 and Figure 10-7 in the “Applications of the Model” section] www.spiedigitallibrary.org
  179. personificationofme’s channel. “mind-blowing Seattle 3D holographic map – YouTube.” [51 sec long video] www.youtube.com
  180. Love Hate on Vimeo.” [14 sec long video of a hanging sculpture that spells two different words depending on the viewing angle] vimeo.com
  181. Art Insider’s channel. “Two-In-One Wire Sculptures Are Totally Mind-Bending – YouTube.” [57 sec long video of French artist Matthieu Robert-Ortis’s sculptures that show a different image depending on what angle you look at them] www.youtube.com
  182. Closer To Truth – Physics of the Observer’s channel. “Paul Davies – What are Observers? – YouTube.” [11:58 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from the beginning to 3:38 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  183. Natalie Wolchover. “How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code | Quanta Magazine.” www.quantamagazine.org
  184. Fernando Pastawski. “Putting back the pieces of a broken hologram | Quantum Frontiers.” quantumfrontiers.com
  185. Beni Yoshida. “Quantum gravity from quantum error-correcting codes? | Quantum Frontiers.” quantumfrontiers.com
  186. S. James Gates Jr. “Symbols of Power: Adinkras and the Nature of Reality | The On Being Project.” [See the “From theoretical physics to codes” section near the bottom of the page] onbeing.org
  187. HiddenHalo’s channel. “James Gates Shocks Neil DeGrasse Tyson We Live In A Computer Simulation – YouTube.” [4:54 min long video from the “2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything” at the American Museum of Natural History] www.youtube.com
  188. Wikipedia contributors. “Coding theory – Wikipedia.” [Neural coding section] en.wikipedia.org
  189. Ames Laboratory. “Researchers discover skyrmions can split like biological cells” [Note that “skyrmions can annihilate imperfections in the lattice pattern by self-splitting (similar to cell reproduction), a kind of self-healing process that has never been described before”] phys.org
  190. Khan Academy Labs’ channel. “Error correction | Journey into information theory | Computer Science | Khan Academy – YouTube.” [5:24 min long video] www.youtube.com
  191. Wikipedia contributors. “Centrifugal governor – Wikipedia.” [Natural selection section. Note the quote by Alfred Russel Wallace about governors as a metaphor for the evolutionary principle. Incidentally, the scientific method itself is also a feedback loop] en.wikipedia.org
  192. Wikipedia contributors. “Windmill fantail – Wikipedia.” [Incidentally, the “Xzibit Yo Dawg” meme can be used to describe this as “Yo dawg, I herd you like windmills, so I put a windmill on yo windmill so you can have it not mill in the wind while you mill.”] en.wikipedia.org
  193. Wikipedia contributors. “Control theory – Wikipedia.” [Closed-loop transfer function section] en.wikipedia.org
  194. University of California – Berkeley. “Editing brain activity with holography: Using optogenetics and holographic projection, scientists aim to implant perceptions in brain — ScienceDaily.” www.sciencedaily.com
  195. Wikipedia contributors. “Holonomic brain theory – Wikipedia.” [Origins and development section] en.wikipedia.org
  196. Wikipedia contributors. “Holographic associative memory – Wikipedia.” [Note that while this may not be how the brain actually works, in the case of visual perception “humans can effortlessly change the focus from object to object without requiring relearning. HAM provides a computational model which can mimic this ability”] en.wikipedia.org
  197. ThinkingAllowedTV’s channel. “Karl Pribram: The Holographic Brain (excerpt) – A Thinking Allowed DVD with Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove – YouTube.” [5:44 min long video] www.youtube.com
  198. ThinkingAllowedTV’s channel. “Michael Talbot: Synchronicity and the Holographic Universe — Thinking Allowed w/ Jeffrey Mishlove – YouTube.” [11:19 min long video, see from 3:38 to the end although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  199. Wikipedia contributors. “Cybernetics – Wikipedia.” [In biology section] en.wikipedia.org
  200. Wikipedia contributors. “Adaptive system – Wikipedia.” [Benefit of self-adjusting systems section] en.wikipedia.org
  201. Wikipedia contributors. “Edge of chaos – Wikipedia.” [Adaptation section] en.wikipedia.org
  202. Wikipedia contributors. “Activity-dependent plasticity – Wikipedia.” [Role in learning section] en.wikipedia.org
  203. TEDx Talks’ channel. “After watching this, your brain will not be the same | Lara Boyd | TEDxVancouver – YouTube.” [14:24 min long video, see from 1:41 to 6:02 about neuroplasticity] www.youtube.com
  204. Wikipedia contributors. “Self-organization – Wikipedia.” [Cybernetics section] en.wikipedia.org
  205. Perry Marshall. “Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century.” evo2.org
  206. Wikipedia contributors. “Symbol grounding problem – Wikipedia.” [Grounding process section] en.wikipedia.org
  207. Wikipedia contributors. “Watchmaker analogy – Wikipedia.” [William Paley section] en.wikipedia.org
  208. Wikipedia contributors. “Teleology – Wikipedia.” [Science section] en.wikipedia.org
  209. Perry Marshall. “Language and Design: Product of a Mental Process.” [See the two sections about Paley’s Design Argument near the bottom of the page] evo2.org
  210. Ann Gauger. “A Watch on a Heath — But What a Watch! | Evolution News.” evolutionnews.org
  211. Perry Marshall. “Memo To PZ Myers: Damage is Random. Repair is Not.” evo2.org
  212. Perry Marshall. “Telorexia – Blind to Purpose in Nature.” evo2.org
  213. Wikipedia contributors. “Watchmaker analogy – Wikipedia.” [Criticism section] en.wikipedia.org
  214. Wikipedia contributors. “Clock – Wikipedia.” [Controller section] en.wikipedia.org
  215. Wikipedia contributors. “Clock – Wikipedia.” [Indicator section] en.wikipedia.org
  216. Wikipedia contributors. “Translation (biology) – Wikipedia.” [Basic mechanisms section] en.wikipedia.org
  217. ndsuvirtualcell’s channel. “Translation – YouTube.” [3:32 min long video] www.youtube.com
  218. Wikipedia contributors. “Sequence hypothesis – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  219. IDquest’s channel. “DNA 101 How It Works and Why It’s Astounding – YouTube.” [4:21 min long video with Stephen Meyer, see from the beginning to 2:30 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  220. Wikipedia contributors. “3-Base Periodicity Property – Wikipedia.” [History section] en.wikipedia.org
  221. Wikipedia contributors. “Specified complexity – Wikipedia.” [Criticism section] en.wikipedia.org
  222. Wikipedia contributors. “Causality – Wikipedia.” [Metaphysics section. Note that “causality can be used as a prior foundation from which to construct notions of time and space”] en.wikipedia.org
  223. Adam Frank. “How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR.” www.npr.org
  224. Closer To Truth’s channel. “Philip Clayton – How Can Emergence Explain Reality? – YouTube.” [13:25 min long video with host Robert Lawrence Kuhn, see from 8:38 to the end although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  225. Perry Marshall. “Atheists: Is Information Real?” evo2.org
  226. Stephen Meyer’s channel. “Dr. Stephen Meyer: What Kind of Information Does DNA Contain? – YouTube.” [4:36 min long video. Note that the information in DNA is meaningful or functional] www.youtube.com
  227. Girish Mallya. “Girish Mallya’s answer to What the difference between the Fourier Transform of an image and an image histogram? – Quora.” www.quora.com
  228. Wikipedia contributors. “Noise (video) – Wikipedia.” [Note the image showing “noise in a CRT television”] en.wikipedia.org
  229. Tendero’s answer. “Why Fourier series and transform of a square wave are different? – Signal Processing Stack Exchange.” dsp.stackexchange.com
  230. Wikipedia contributors. “White noise – Wikipedia.” [Note the image showing “the waveform of a Gaussian white noise signal plotted on a graph”] en.wikipedia.org
  231. Wikipedia contributors. “Clock – Wikipedia.” [Oscillator section] en.wikipedia.org
  232. Wikipedia contributors. “Entropy and life – Wikipedia.” [Negative entropy section] en.wikipedia.org
  233. Wikipedia contributors. “What Is Life? – Wikipedia.” [Schrödinger’s “paradox” section] en.wikipedia.org
  234. TheArchangel911’s channel. “Jordan Peterson shows you a video of DNA fixing itself – YouTube.” [8:31 min long video, see from 2:15 to 3:17 although the entire video is relevant. Incidentally, the embedded TEDx animation by Drew Berry does not actually show any of the error correction in the DNA replication process, despite the title] www.youtube.com
  235. Hugh Henry and Daniel Dyke. “Nobel-Winning DNA Research Challenges Evolutionary Theory.” www.reasons.org
  236. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 – Press release – NobelPrize.org.” www.nobelprize.org
  237. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 – Prize announcement – NobelPrize.org.” [Includes a 33:15 min long video of the announcement as well as a 9:26 min long video of an interview regarding the prize] www.nobelprize.org
  238. Vanderbilt University. “New class of DNA repair enzyme discovered — ScienceDaily.” www.sciencedaily.com
  239. Wikipedia contributors. “RNA world – Wikipedia.” [RNA in information storage section] en.wikipedia.org
  240. Seymour Garte. “RNA and the Origin of Life | The Book of Works.” [Note that “there is still no known mechanism for RNA to self-replicate”] thebookofworks.com
  241. Seymour Garte. “Replication (Part 2) | The Book of Works.” [Note the paradox that “accurate replication is required for evolution, and evolution is required for accurate replication”] thebookofworks.com
  242. Seymour Garte. “Replication and Evolution | The Book of Works.” [Note that “a smoothly continuous evolutionary path to high replication fidelity is impossible.” However, another blog post about the results of the replication fidelity paper (see https://thebookofworks.com/2020/11/17/my-latest-research-on-origin-of-life/) says that “contrary to expectation, cell populations with very low (even zero) replication fidelity can survive and evolve, although barely” and “with no replication fidelity at all, the minimum value of survival probability to avoid extinction is 95%.” Overall the paper “strongly suggests that early life could not have evolved without some dramatic jumps in the levels of both survival probability and the accuracy of cellular self-replication,” which indicates that the gradual random accidents of neo-Darwinism are not the only principle involved in the origin of life] thebookofworks.com
  243. Wikipedia contributors. “Self-replication – Wikipedia.” [Mechanical self-replication section] en.wikipedia.org
  244. Perry Marshall. “Frequently Asked Questions.” [Why couldn’t DNA have evolved question] evo2.org
  245. Wikipedia contributors. “Self-replication – Wikipedia.” [Theory section. Note that an exception to “a coded representation of the replicator” has not yet been found] en.wikipedia.org
  246. Wikipedia contributors. “Karl Popper – Wikipedia.” [Origin and evolution of life section. Note the quotes near the middle of the section regarding DNA and the origin of life which talk about the genetic code and “a disturbing riddle” plus “a really baffling circle”] en.wikipedia.org
  247. Wikipedia contributors. “DNA repair – Wikipedia.” [Mechanisms section] en.wikipedia.org
  248. Wikipedia contributors. “Hypercycle (chemistry) – Wikipedia.” [Error threshold problem section. Incidentally, the hypercycle is a purely theoretical formulation. In fact, the introductory paragraphs of the Wikipedia article explain it is “an abstract model of organization of self-replicating molecules connected in a cyclic, autocatalytic manner” and “we still lack the experimental demonstration of hypercycles”] en.wikipedia.org
  249. Wikipedia contributors. “Error threshold (evolution) – Wikipedia.” [Eigen’s Paradox section. Note that the proposed stochastic corrector model is non-random (as reflected in its name). In addition, even though the size of a relaxed error threshold is larger, life must still become governed by non-random logical principles almost immediately. The relaxed error threshold also has to be big enough to allow the encoding of the replication and translation processes on which the rudimentary error correction enzymes depend] en.wikipedia.org
  250. Wikipedia contributors. “Exclusive or – Wikipedia.” [Truth table section] en.wikipedia.org
  251. Wikipedia contributors. “Irreducible complexity – Wikipedia.” [Response of the scientific community section] en.wikipedia.org
  252. Wikipedia contributors. “Watchmaker analogy – Wikipedia.” [Contemporary usage section] en.wikipedia.org
  253. Wikipedia contributors. “Falsifiability – Wikipedia.” [The problem of induction section] en.wikipedia.org
  254. Clyde A. Hutchison III et al [including J. Craig Venter]. “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome | Science.” [Note that as shown in Fig. 6, despite shrinking it to 473 minimal genes (with an encoded size of 531 kilobase pairs), 41% are still required for reading and expressing genome information while 7% are still required for the preservation of genome information] science.sciencemag.org
  255. Wikipedia contributors. “Mycoplasma laboratorium – Wikipedia.” [JCVI-syn3.0 section] en.wikipedia.org
  256. Seymour Garte. “My Favorite Enzyme Part 3 (Final) | The Book of Works.” [Note that “we have no idea what came before and how the present universal system evolved, since it’s this system that is the biochemical key to evolution.” Incidentally, there seems to be a connection between the physical shape of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase editing sites and the charged tRNAs containing anticodons, which means it might be possible to analyse them and derive the origin of the genetic code] thebookofworks.com
  257. JM Berg, JL Tymoczko, L. Stryer. “Biochemistry. 5th edition.” [29.2.3. Proofreading by Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases Increases the Fidelity of Protein Synthesis section] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  258. Wikipedia contributors. “Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase – Wikipedia.” [Mechanism section] en.wikipedia.org
  259. Perry Marshall. “ ‘Not only has Dawkins ruined science. He’s ruined atheism too.’ ” evo2.org
  260. Perry Marshall. “Yes, Richard Dawkins is Obsolete.” evo2.org
  261. Perry Marshall. “Jerry Coyne Evades Evolution 2.0.” evo2.org
  262. Stephen Meyer’s channel. “Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins’s ‘Mount Improbable’ Illustration – YouTube.” [4:57 min long video. Incidentally, in order to metaphorically climb up the backside of “Mount Improbable,” the gradually sloping trail of small steps actually requires constant fixing or error correction because it is in the process of crumbling due to the inherent instability of DNA molecules] www.youtube.com
  263. Perry Marshall. “Evolution Fist Fight at the Wistar Institute.” [Note the page also contains a 36:51 min long video of a talk titled “British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism”] evo2.org
  264. Perry Marshall. “Royal Society’s ‘New Trends in Biological Evolution’ – A Bloodless Revolution.” [Note the “real-time plasticity of plants” and how “plants in low-light environments produce offspring with large, light-sensitive leaves, but identical plants in high-light environments birth offspring with small leaves”] evo2.org
  265. Discovery Science’s channel. “Information Enigma: Where does information come from? – YouTube.” [20:59 min long video featuring Dr. Stephen Meyer, and molecular biologist Douglas Axe. See from 5:38 to 16:35 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  266. Wikipedia contributors. “ENCODE – Wikipedia.” [Production Phase Results section] en.wikipedia.org
  267. Andrew Moore. “That ‘Junk’ DNA … Is Full of Information! – Advanced Science News.” [Note the “genomic code”—a structural code that defines the shape and compaction of DNA. It is embodied in the high-GC tracts of the genome and overlaps protein coding sequences] www.advancedsciencenews.com
  268. Perry Marshall. “The 80/20 of ‘Junk DNA’.” evo2.org
  269. Perry Marshall. “Testable Hypothesis for Intelligent Design, Pt 2.” [Note that most of the predictions about “Junk DNA” being functional have come true] evo2.org
  270. Wikipedia contributors. “Non-coding DNA – Wikipedia.” [Junk DNA section] en.wikipedia.org
  271. Wikipedia contributors. “C-value – Wikipedia.” [Variation among species section] en.wikipedia.org
  272. Wikipedia contributors. “Rubik’s Cube – Wikipedia.” [Move notation section] en.wikipedia.org
  273. Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “Base-pairing protects DNA from UV damage.” phys.org
  274. Marla Vacek Broadfoot. “DNA’s Dynamic Nature Well-Suited for Blueprint of Life | Duke Today.” today.duke.edu
  275. Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst. “The Genetic Code Is One in a Million.” [PDF from Journal of Molecular Evolution Vol. 47 (1998): pp. 238-248] www.webpages.uidaho.edu
  276. Brian Hayes. “Ode to the Code.” [PDF from American Scientist Vol. 92, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 2004): pp. 494-498] bit-player.org
  277. Victor A. Gusev and Dirk Schulze-Makuch. “Genetic code: Lucky chance or fundamental law of nature?” [PDF from Physics of Life Reviews Vol. 1 (2004): pp. 202–229] www.webpages.uidaho.edu
  278. Keith McPherson. “Error Control Coding in Biology Implies Design, Part 2 (of 5).” www.reasons.org
  279. Fazale Rana. “FYI: I.D. IN DNA Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code.” www.reasons.org
  280. Stephanie Seiler. “Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News.” www.washington.edu
  281. Shalev Itzkovitz and Uri Alon. “The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences.” [PDF from Genome Research Vol. 17 (2007): pp. 405–412] genome.cshlp.org
  282. TheWordisalive’s channel. “DNA The Genetic Code Error Minimization Parallel Codes.” [10:00 min long video from a talk by Fazale Rana called “The Cell’s Design: How Biochemistry Reveals the Work of a Creator.” See from 6:57 to 8:46 although the entire video is relevant] www.metacafe.com
  283. Wikipedia contributors. “Perceptual control theory – Wikipedia.” [Neuroscience section. Note the suggestion of a reorganizing process “reducing outputs that cause error and increasing those that reduce error”] en.wikipedia.org
  284. Duke Today Staff. “Brain’s Visual Circuits do Error Correction on the Fly | Duke Today.” today.duke.edu
  285. Wikipedia contributors. “Predictive coding – Wikipedia.” [Active inference section] en.wikipedia.org
  286. Wikipedia contributors. “Free energy principle – Wikipedia.” [Background section] en.wikipedia.org
  287. Wikipedia contributors. “Principle of least action – Wikipedia.” [Maupertuis section] en.wikipedia.org
  288. Shaun Raviv. “The Genius Neuroscientist Who Might Hold the Key to True AI | WIRED.” www.wired.com
  289. Wikipedia contributors. “Bayesian approaches to brain function – Wikipedia.” [Predictive coding section. Note the Free energy section directly below as well] en.wikipedia.org
  290. Don Monroe. “Physics – Focus: Model Suggests Link between Intelligence and Entropy.” physics.aps.org
  291. Sara Imari Walker and Paul C. W. Davies. “The algorithmic origins of life | Journal of The Royal Society Interface.” royalsocietypublishing.org
  292. Sara Imari Walker, Hyunju Kim, and Paul C. W. Davies. “The informational architecture of the cell | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.” [Note the quantification and comparison of effective information (how much the causal mechanisms of a network reduce the uncertainty about the possible prior states) and integrated information (how much the “the whole is more than the sum of its parts,” which is random)] royalsocietypublishing.org
  293. Wikipedia contributors. “Gene regulatory network – Wikipedia.” [Structure and evolution section] en.wikipedia.org
  294. John Ankerberg Show’s channel. “What are gene regulatory networks, and why are they a problem for Darwin’s theory? – YouTube.” [4:24 min long clip from the series “The Case for Intelligent Design” with Dr. Stephen Meyer. Incidentally, gene regulatory networks can change, but not randomly] www.youtube.com
  295. Wikipedia contributors. “Good regulator – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  296. Wikipedia contributors. “Variety (cybernetics) – Wikipedia.” [Law of requisite variety section] en.wikipedia.org
  297. Wikipedia contributors. “W. Ross Ashby – Wikipedia.” [Variety section] en.wikipedia.org
  298. Wikipedia contributors. “Ethical regulator – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  299. tmcleanful’s channel. “Jordan Peterson pulls Christianity out of Sam Harris’ reductionist hat – YouTube.” [13:26 min long video, see from 4:34 to 10:01 although the entire video is relevant] www.youtube.com
  300. Alexander Poltorak. “Meaning of Life as Taught by Bayesian Angels | Torah and Science.” www.quantumtorah.com
  301. Wikipedia contributors. “Jacob’s Ladder – Wikipedia.” [Christianity section] en.wikipedia.org
  302. Wikipedia contributors. “Second-order cybernetics – Wikipedia.” [Relationship to “first order” cybernetics section] en.wikipedia.org
  303. Danko Nikolić. “Practopoietic cycle (loop) of causation.” www.danko-nikolic.com
  304. Wikipedia contributors. “Adaptive system – Wikipedia.” [Practopoiesis section] en.wikipedia.org
  305. Wikipedia contributors. “Strange loop – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  306. Wikipedia contributors. “Philosophy – Wikipedia.” [Origins and evolution section] en.wikipedia.org
  307. Wikipedia contributors. “Grand Unified Theory – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  308. Wikipedia contributors. “Theory of everything – Wikipedia.” [Modern physics section. Although a TOE in physics would only describe particles and fields, Stephen Hawking has said, “it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” Incidentally, it may be impossible to ever unify the hyperbolic mathematics of relativistic physics with the Fourier transform-based math of quantum mechanics. This is similar to how the hyperbolic geometric model of holography breaks down at a limit for “thin” holograms and Fourier transform-based wavefront computations have to be used instead] en.wikipedia.org
  309. Wikipedia contributors. “Systems theory – Wikipedia.” [General systems research and systems inquiry section] en.wikipedia.org
  310. Wikipedia contributors. “Tektology – Wikipedia.” [Overview section] en.wikipedia.org
  311. Wikipedia contributors. “Systems philosophy – Wikipedia.” [The founding of systems philosophy section] en.wikipedia.org
  312. Wikipedia contributors. “Golden Rule – Wikipedia.” [Religious context section] en.wikipedia.org
  313. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics’ channel. “Neil Turok Public Lecture: The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – YouTube.” [1 hour, 35 min, and 13 sec long video, see from 27:01 to 30:28 for a discussion of logic-based mathematical proof and its connection with justice, although the entire video is interesting. For example, from 18:09 to 22:06 is an explanation of the use of Fourier analysis to find a pattern hidden in the Cosmic Microwave Background known as the CMB power spectrum] www.youtube.com
  314. Perry Marshall. “Why Christians have Failed to Reckon with Good and Evil.” [See the information about terminology just below the video and above the transcribed text] evo2.org
  315. Wikipedia contributors. “Omega Point – Wikipedia.” [Evolution section] en.wikipedia.org
  316. Wikipedia contributors. “Cosmic Christ – Wikipedia.” [Modern ecotheology section] en.wikipedia.org
  317. Wikipedia contributors. “Natural theology – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  318. Wikipedia contributors. “Theological critical realism – Wikipedia.” [Note the aim of showing that “the language of science and Christian theology are similar, forming a starting point for a dialogue between the two”] en.wikipedia.org
  319. Bible Gateway. “Psalm 82 NIV – A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the – Bible Gateway.” [Incidentally, Jesus quotes part of verse 6 (“I said, ‘You are gods’ ”) in John 10:34. However, he does not quote verse 7 (“But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler”) or previous verses that explain why God renders judgment among the gods] www.biblegateway.com
  320. Bible Gateway. “Psalm 19 NIV – Psalm 19 – For the director of music. A – Bible Gateway.” [Note verse 10 says the decrees of the Lord “are more precious than gold” and “are sweeter than honey”] www.biblegateway.com
  321. Wikipedia contributors. “2 Timothy 3 – Wikipedia.” [Verse 16 section, which explains the meaning of “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”] en.wikipedia.org
  322. Steven Lehar. “An Intuitive Explanation of Fourier Theory.” [PDF of viperold.york.ac.uk/…/fourier.html webpage (2010): pp. 1–9. See “The Optical Fourier Transform” section on page 5 and 6. Note that a Fourier transform can be used to describe what happens when a lens projects an image so information from every point is distributed over an entire screen, similar to a hologram. At the same time, parallel rays from the entire input image are focused onto a single central point on the screen, known as the DC component or term. This can be seen as a metaphor of the spiritual relationship between believers and Jesus] apps.usd.edu
  323. WikiArt contributors. “Calvary – Octavio Ocampo – WikiArt.org.” www.wikiart.org
  324. Wikipedia contributors. “Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  325. The Bible Project’s channel. “How to Read the Bible: Biblical Story – YouTube.” [5:37 min long video] www.youtube.com
  326. Wikipedia contributors. “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe – Wikipedia.” [Religious themes section] en.wikipedia.org
  327. Wikipedia contributors. “David Hume – Wikipedia.” [Problem of miracles section] en.wikipedia.org
  328. The Veritas Forum’s channel. “Do the Laws of Nature Preclude the Possibility of Miracles? – YouTube.” [6:25 min long video from a talk by John Lennox called “Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational?” See from the beginning to 4:48] www.youtube.com
  329. LitiHolo’s channel. “What happens when you cut a hologram in half? – YouTube.” [1:38 min long video. Incidentally, it is possible to pretend that the dice on the left with one dot is the head of the statue of Yeshua, while the rest of the dice represent the body of Christ part] www.youtube.com
  330. Wikipedia contributors. “Holography – Wikipedia.” [Fidelity of the reconstructed beam section] en.wikipedia.org
  331. Wikipedia contributors. “Computer-generated holography – Wikipedia.” [Wavefront computation section] en.wikipedia.org
  332. Wikipedia contributors. “Jonah – Wikipedia.” [In the New Testament section] en.wikipedia.org
  333. Wikipedia contributors. “Controlled burn – Wikipedia.” [Back burning section] en.wikipedia.org
  334. Wikipedia contributors. “Antifuse – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  335. The Bible Project’s channel. “Holiness – YouTube.” [6:34 min long video] www.youtube.com
  336. Wikipedia contributors. “Abundant life – Wikipedia.” [Teachings section] en.wikipedia.org
  337. Wikipedia contributors. “Holy Spirit – Wikipedia.” [Christianity section] en.wikipedia.org
  338. Wikipedia contributors. “Sheol – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  339. Wikipedia contributors. “Christmas – Wikipedia.” [History section] en.wikipedia.org
  340. Wikipedia contributors. “Allegory of the long spoons – Wikipedia.” en.wikipedia.org
  341. Wikipedia contributors. “Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) – Wikipedia.” [Deification section] en.wikipedia.org