Note that the Second Law depends upon an opposition of tendencies — toward and away from increasing disorder. It points one way, but if the capacity to restrain this law did not exist the law would be meaningless — because without this restraint nothing would exist. As analyzed in other posts, we can see that such restraint depends upon the expectable specificity of an image. Note also that specificity and finitude are inseparable. In other words, the infinite is thwarted by finite specificity, which as analyzed in other posts, requires an image — with an image therefore being little more than success in the direction of preventing nonexistence.
Hopefully, the reader can now glimpse the astonishing identity between the subjective anticipation through time of an image and a tendency toward sustaining a finite state — in other words, survival. And thus the futility of envisioning matter as having some sort of independence apart from mind. We can conclude that the structure and function of the brain staunchly supports our premise: that perception – more fundamentally the very presence of an image – is the event which by anticipatory faith restrains the effects of the Second Law. Consciousness therefore depends upon God – who, according to the Bible, is reliably “the same yesterday, today and forever.”
For a more complete analysis of the role of faith in science, and its anatomical basis, even in the creation of the Universe, you are invited to read one of my recent books. The easier read, an amplified collection of these blog postings: Consciousness Finally Explained: A Perfect Synthesis of God and Brain, is available through Amazon or the “Home” tab above. The longer book, Journey to the Center of the Brain: Explaining Mind in a Universe of Matter — a more in-depth anatomical study of the brain, explains why neither the brain nor consciousness can be explained apart from infinity or God, biblically defined — is also available through Amazon.
1. Hebrews 13:8.
Comments are closed.