Yes. The immaterial can’t exchange energy with the material unless they speak each other’s language, but if they can, then there is no distinct category of immaterial at play in the first place. — PoeticUniverse

The suggestion was to define the nature of your God in its substance. Is it physical, spiritual or conceptual? Or non physical something like space? I am not sure what exchanging energies mean. Could you please elaborate on that, if relevant. Thanks.

We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work. — Derrick Huestis

Sure, one can own any idea one wants. It is the freedom of one's imagination and thought. But it is one thing to own the blank concepts, and totally different thing altogether actually to draw some imaginative conclusions from them when there are no logical or tangible connections.

(yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). — Derrick Huestis

It is not that I don't like "infinite", but I just cannot find anything which is infinite in the real world. :)
So when someone says "infinity" or "eternity", I just wonder what it is denoting. Is it poetry? Or is it some rhetoric? But I usually understand it as verbal expressions for the emotions of a long and unmeasurable length of time for the subject who used the words.

As said earlier, destruction shouldn't be regarded always as bad. Because before you build or create something, you might need to destroy what has been the past, and the presence, in order to clear and make space to build or create the new afresh.

I am not sure if randomly promoting the quantum fields to the Fundamental Existence has any meaning when the OP has been trying to prove God. — Corvus

Not "randomly" promoting.

Quantum Field Theory is the most successful, accurate, and important Theory in the history of science, giving us the Standard Model and a myriad of devices that work.

The quantum fields accord with Derrick’s points in his OP, and further inform us in physical actuality of labels and associations that have been also used for ‘God’.

Since the quantum fields are already fundamental, the hypothesis for ‘God’ would want to attend to that.

Non-existence can't exist

-so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time

-something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time

-things are separated by things which are not of the same type, so the only thing that could separate existence itself would be nonexistence which cannot exist, thus there must be one undivided existence

-this undivided existence must carry all the attributes labeled above. These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent.

-add to this the fact that it must encompass all time: eternal, and you get all the labels attributed to God

-thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint. — "Derrick

The suggestion was to define the nature of your God in its substance. Is it physical, spiritual or conceptual? Or non physical something like space? I am not sure what exchanging energies mean. Could you please elaborate on that, if relevant. Thanks. — Corvus

"Exchanging energies" means to be able to interact with the material. If something 'mysterious' is inert or of a distinct and separate category, then it's as if it isn't even there. If not, then it's material, too, since it can interact.

So, no 'intangible', 'non-physical', etc., affecting us and we back. 'Supernatural' would thus seem to be out and not there, or if it is then never the twain shall meet.

There's no 'space' as nonphysical. The quantum fields exhaust reality. "All is field", as Einstein claimed. There is also no space as something separate from the fields that is just there to hold the fields.

Not "randomly" promoting.

Quantum Field Theory is the most successful, accurate, and important Theory in the history of science, giving us the Standard Model and a myriad of devices that work.

The quantum fields accord with Derrick’s points in his OP, and further inform us in physical actuality of labels and associations that have been also used for ‘God’. — PoeticUniverse

The OP was not trying to prove God using quantum physics.  If you read the OP again, it starts with Non Existence and its meaninglessness.  The OP is based on philosophy of logic, not quantum physics.  Then OP talks about space, and its properties before going into God and proof.

I think trying to trust everything qp says blindly feels irrational.  It can fall into the trap of trusting anything a famous person said, scientist said or science said.  The tendency itself can degrade into some sort of pagan religion.

Since the quantum fields are already fundamental, the hypothesis for ‘God’ would want to attend to that. — PoeticUniverse

I am not sure if that statement is correct. What do you mean by "fundamental"? In what sense? What is non fundamental?

"Exchanging energies" means to be able to interact with the material. If something 'mysterious' is inert or of a distinct and separate category, then it's as if it isn't even there. If not, then it's material, too, since it can interact.

So, no 'intangible', 'non-physical', etc., affecting us and we back. 'Supernatural' would thus seem to be out and not there, or if it is then never the twain shall meet.

There's no 'space' as nonphysical. The quantum fields exhaust reality. "All is field", as Einstein claimed. There is also no space as something separate from the fields that is just there to hold the fields. — PoeticUniverse

Again, exchanging energies between matters sounds vague and ambiguous. It doesn't sound like a philosophical, logical or scientific statement at all.

I could have understood better if it said "communicating", "having conversation", "engaging" or "making use of". But then these are terms for actions or events between some beings with linguistic abilities or at least the animals with emotional and intelligent communication capabilities.

I have re-read above post a few times just trying to grasp what it actually means, but you have lost me. Exchanging energies between immaterial and material subjects sounds and all the rest of it, just don't make sense because it is abstract and empty in the content, and is hard to imagine what it could actually be in real life. Do you have any real life examples for these events?

science said — Corvus

Not just "said", as religion does, but shown and used and known.

Whatever accords to the OP, especially the happy case of a real physical example, is a candidate for 'God'. The OP starts with 'nonexistence' not being possible and thus the Base and Only Existence having to mandatory and continuous, without even any little spacers of 'nonexistence' with it.

Quantum fields are such, as fundamental, with no deeper parts, and omnipresent, as everywhere, with all the omnipotence they can have, as power to form the elementary particles, and omniscient, in the way of what all can become from it.

An example of what is not fundamental would be such as a proton, for it has quark constituents that have to be prior. What is fundamental, then, is of an even more lightness of being, such as fields.

No one knows if there is 'God' or what its nature would be if there is 'God', such as Personhood.

Do you have any real life examples for these events? — Corvus

The closest I can think of that is of our real life is Descartes' declared separate and distinct categories of the mental and the physical. This fell apart because then the mental and the physical would not be able to interact.

Further, there is no 'metaphysical' being true by just saying the word. So, it's not like we can have an option to say if 'God' is 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' or 'intangible', and such. We have to see what comes out of any analysis we can do to approach it to make it have to be so.

Derricks' truth and proof of Existence not being optional really already suffices, but for us being curious as to its method, and quantum fields answers this.

We apparently don't have all the Omnis to the extent wished for in a 'Person God with Mind', but this may not be what Reality is bound to, plus how could any mind be fundamental, much less a really extensive one.

I suggested a Deity Scientist rather than a personal-god Theity Magician, but we can only meet a Deity's doings at the Big Bang, which we are not yet able to do, but, again, with Existence being a must, there is not really any more to it that it has to answer to.

Quantum fields are such, as fundamental, with no deeper parts, and omnipresent, as everywhere, with all the omnipotence they can have, as power to form the elementary particles, and omniscient, in the way of what all can become from it.

An example of what is not fundamental would be such as a proton, for it has quark constituents that have to be prior. What is fundamental, then, is of an even more lightness of being, such as fields.

No one knows if there is 'God' or what its nature would be if there is 'God', such as Personhood. — PoeticUniverse

It sounds too imaginative and naive judgement to conclude that quantum field is God for all the reasons listed up there. It would be a good idea to go back to Kant and then Kierkegaard if one wants to find God, rather than futilely trying to prove God using the quantum field.

The closest I can think of that is of our real life is Descartes' declared separate and distinct categories of the mental and the physical. This fell apart because then the mental and the physical would not be able to interact. — PoeticUniverse

Descartes' dualism is only significant in the history of philosophy, and no one really takes seriously his theory of the immaterial substance soul these days. It was more for his methodical doubt which gets mentioned for the revolutionary way of philosophizing at the time in the historical point of view, rather than his dualism.

It sounds too imaginative and naive judgement to conclude that quantum field is God for all the reasons listed up there. — Corvus

Well, QFT doesn't prove 'God' as a Person with Mind but rather replaces and gets rids of that type of 'God' idea to leave us with just a Ground of Determination (G.O.D.) type basis. Even the Deity 'God' becomes unnecessary as redundant.

QFT needs to be expanded to include quantum gravity and dark matter (unless neutrinos are already it) and then it will become the Complete Theory of Everything rather than very nearly.

no one really takes seriously his theory of the immaterial substance soul these days. — Corvus

Well, many religious 'God' followers believe in the 'immaterial soul' and the rest of the 'supernatural' in the way of having hopes and wishes. It's a whole nother story of why they want it.

We apparently don't have all the Omnis to the extent wished for in a 'Person God with Mind' — PoeticUniverse

I've been thinking about this one, I'm not in a place to be too verbose in my response but I'll throw out a few possible arguments in promotion of the idea of a mind:

1. I've presented the case for creativity--omnificence--this acts like the god-function which "picks itself up by the bootstraps." Although logic leads us to this all-powerful existence, it doesn't mean anything exists other than itself of course, so creativity would get it there (hence, the universe). But creativity isn't the same thing as randomness, creativity is patterned and randomness is not. Imagine a universe created without patterns...needless to say, everything is patterned, hence creativity, and creativity is only known to be generated by something which has some kind of forethought...

2. Consciousness as a higher-level of existence. If consciousness a higher level of existence or being then, for example, a rock, it would be odd to say infinite existence is more like a rock and less like us who are superior to it. It would also imply we are superior to infinite existence because we have consciousness, and the inferior thing (infinite existence with no consciousness) some how generated the superior thing.

3. Love as a metaphysical power. I've done enough charity to know that love is a powerful thing. Quick example: last time I was in Tijuana a 17yo who has been resistant to going to drug rehab did so because it was what I wanted and he's known me for 5 years and knows I care about him deeply. The bond of love allows me to have a direct influence on his life. It would be odd to say omnipotence excludes this power when it is supposedly all-powerful, but if it does include the power of love then we must draw one of two conclusions: Things with no mind or consciousness can love, or infinite existence has a consciousness.

Well, QFT doesn't prove 'God' as a Person with Mind but rather replaces and gets rids of that type of 'God' idea to leave us with just a Ground of Determination (G.O.D.) type basis. Even the Deity 'God' becomes unnecessary as redundant.

QFT needs to be expanded to include quantum gravity and dark matter (unless neutrinos are already it) and then it will become the Complete Theory of Everything rather than very nearly. — PoeticUniverse

God as a personal being who is believed to be caring and salvaging the world would be beneficial for the followers and believers for giving the possible psychological comforts in their daily lives and hope for the possible immortality after death.

It is doubtful if quantum field as a replacement for God could serve any purpose at all.

Well, many religious 'God' followers believe in the 'immaterial soul' and the rest of the 'supernatural' in the way of having hopes and wishes. It's a whole nother story of why they want it. — PoeticUniverse

Replacing the quantum field as God on one hand, and then bringing up immaterial souls exchanging energies with the physical bodies on the other sounded inconsistent.

But it is one thing to own the blank concepts, and totally different thing altogether actually to draw some imaginative conclusions from them when there are no logical or tangible connections. — Corvus

You say I draw illogical conclusions without tearing apart any of my logic. You are quite the sophist, like I said you argue with emotion.

It is not that I don't like "infinite", but I just cannot find anything which is infinite in the real world. :) — Corvus

Perhaps you forgot you were finite? Hence, we are forced to use our imagination which you so despise, yet even then we can't truly "find" infinite because our minds themselves are also finite. Based on your current arguments, I get the feeling you might be a flat earther because you've never seen the roundness of the Earth anywhere you've gone...

God as a personal being who is believed to be caring and salvaging the world would be beneficial for the followers and believers for giving the possible psychological comforts in their daily lives and hope for the possible immortality after death. — Corvus

Yes, the belief provides comfort.

It is doubtful if quantum field as a replacement for God could serve any purpose at all. — Corvus

It's doubtful that an Eternal Fundamental Existence with no beginning and thus no input could have any purpose. The only trait is that it cannot not be; that is the complete message: being is a must.

a few possible arguments in promotion of the idea of a mind:

1. I've presented the case for creativity… — Derrick Huestis

Look into fine tuning.

2. Consciousness as a higher-level of existence. — Derrick Huestis

In our universe, the lesser ever leads to the greater.

Intermission: one of my videos:

In our universe, the lesser ever leads to the greater. — PoeticUniverse

Not exactly. The energy released by the sun is many times less then the energy of the big bang, but as that energy dissipates smaller creations can come to be, all the way down to us weak humans. Basically, we needed the energy of the universe to lessen to come into being. As power goes down, creativity rises.

You say I draw illogical conclusions without tearing apart any of my logic. You are quite the sophist, like I said you argue with emotion. — Derrick Huestis

By definition sophist is the one who brings out his fabricated theories with loose logic and jumpy conclusions.  Sophist also tries to influence others to follow his dogmatic assertions for his financial motives such as writing books or just to boost his own ego by trying to convince others with his made up stories as if it is a newly discovered truth.

I am just a reader who has never made a single penny from my studies and readings all my life, and never intending to make a single penny from it or writing books or anything like that.

I am just a student of philosophy and literature learning by readings purely motivated by a love of wisdom.  The only thing I have done was having read your stories about the nonexistence and God, found the problems with your logic, and just pointed out some problems in the logic and asked a few questions about them by replying to your points.

Now anyone with a common sense can say about this situation, and will see the truth. Who sounded like a sophistic poster, and who is a Socratic student in this thread?

Perhaps you forgot you were finite? Hence, we are forced to use our imagination which you so despise, yet even then we can't truly "find" infinite because our minds themselves are also finite. Based on your current arguments, I get the feeling you might be a flat earther because you've never seen the roundness of the Earth anywhere you've gone... — Derrick Huestis

No one really witnesses and experiences roundness of the earth directly.  Their daily life sensing of the earth is the flatness of the land.  It is the scientific education and learned observations, which gives the knowledge of the theory that the earth is round. Asserting as if one's sense of the earth must be round in one's daily life, and suggesting others for being flat-earther for no evidence or ground does sound pretentious.

It's doubtful that an Eternal Fundamental Existence with no beginning and thus no input could have any purpose. The only trait is that it cannot not be; that is the complete message: being is a must. — PoeticUniverse

All beings is contingent. They may exist now, but they might not exist tomorrow, or any moment. That is what existence means.

All beings is contingent. They may exist now, but they might not exist tomorrow, or any moment. That is what existence means. — Corvus

Perhaps a certain arrangement of atoms, yes, but the underlying matter, no, and the underlying space, also no. The sophist doesn't believe in an absolute truth, it is subjective, up to the individual. For this I criticize you. You keep making claims you uphold, but no supporting logic, and you don't directly attack the logic others present, but say "I do not see." There is a lot you can criticize in this way, you can go back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and reject that we know about anything more than our mind. Ultimately, this discussion has many built in assumptions, and relies upon those to build up new ideas. One of those assumptions is that our process of scientific discovery is true. This also entails mathematics, physics, etc. To reject these fields of study is an argument for elsewhere, but yes, if you can undermine them as you seek to do you would undermine a portion of my argument.

Not exactly. The energy released by the sun is many times less then the energy of the big bang, but as that energy dissipates smaller creations can come to be, all the way down to us weak humans. Basically, we needed the energy of the universe to lessen to come into being. As power goes down, creativity rises. — Derrick Huestis

The sun's energy is as a thousand atomic bombs going off every second, a mere pittance compared to the Big Bang. It's just the Bang made the sun to be possible. Our sun is a third generation metal-rich star, which is also what we needed, plus our planet being in the Goldilocks zone with other right conditions such as having a moon (else the Earth would wobble like a top, its surface areas ever going in and out of zones too freezing and too hot, alternating).

Glad you're still looking into the logic! There's no greater philosophical quest.

Glad you're still looking into the logic! There's no greater philosophical quest. — PoeticUniverse

Logic is in short supply, and only getting worse. Perhaps a detour, but I can't help but think the universe is like a giant processor, performing infinite calculations and ensuring everything follows the laws (mathematical calculations) to the T. But, who wrote the code?

But, who wrote the code? — Derrick Huestis

We are back to the Great Scientist Programmer Deity, although many believers don't want a 'God' like that, plus what is He doing sitting around there all fully formed as the First.

I was an information engineer computer programmer at IBM for 31 years creating software in support of the logic design. I've been retired for 20 years now.



An Unnatural Universe? Fine Tuning?

Physicists note that the universe seems unnatural, in that 6-7 base parameters had to be just what they are, to the nth degree.

Some of the parameters can be understood:

From Victor Stenger:

For fine-tuning, only ‘dimensionless’ numbers that do not depend on the system of units are meaningful. The Fine Structure ‘Constant, ‘a’, is not even a constant. There can still be long-lived stars if we vary the parameters and certainly the universe is not fine-tuned for this characteristic. The 7.65 million electron-volts needed for Carbon to form actually hinges on the radioactive state of a carbon nucleus formed out of three helium nuclei, which has over a 20% range to work with without being too high. The vacuum energy of the universe is not fine-tuned, for the large value of N1 is simply an artifact of the use of small masses in making the comparison. The Expansion Rate of the Universe in not fine-tuned since the universe appeared from an earlier state of zero energy; thus, energy conservation would require the exact expansion rate that is observed. Same for the Mass Density of the Universe.

Plus see:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/05/the-universe-itself-may-be-unnatural/?sh=763422766c9d:

https://futurism.com/is-the-universe-unnatural

Has the multiverse finally become necessary?

The quantum fields can still be the All; they are there before and after Big Bangs; they are always there.

Perhaps a certain arrangement of atoms, yes, but the underlying matter, no, and the underlying space, also no. The sophist doesn't believe in an absolute truth, it is subjective, up to the individual. For this I criticize you. You keep making claims you uphold, but no supporting logic, and you don't directly attack the logic others present, but say "I do not see." There is a lot you can criticize in this way, you can go back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and reject that we know about anything more than our mind. — Derrick Huestis

I have been pointing out the problems in your logic, and also asking you to clarify the ambiguous  and vague concepts such as underlying matter and underlying space in your posts.  There are different type of space concepts.  I am still not sure what exact your definition of underlying space and also underlying matter are.

As I have said in the previous post, I have not been asserting any theories or principles of my own, so why do I need my own logic, and how could I be a sophist without claiming anything at all?  It is you who are claiming that the underlying matter and underlying space is the evidence of existence of God, and replacement of God.

My point was that it needs more concrete and solid clarification for your assertion of replacing God with some unknown nature of underlying matter and underlying space.

Ultimately, this discussion has many built in assumptions, and relies upon those to build up new ideas. One of those assumptions is that our process of scientific discovery is true. This also entails mathematics, physics, etc. To reject these fields of study is an argument for elsewhere, but yes, if you can undermine them as you seek to do you would undermine a portion of my argument. — Derrick Huestis

This type of reductionist claims had been long before in history, and usually they only get mentioned as the historical significance by the contemporary readers and academics in these days.

If you recall the ancient pre-Socratic Greeks, they have tried to see the world as one underlying element, like Water by Thales, Air by Anaximander, Fire by Heraclitus, Numbers by Pythagoras, and Atom by Democritus. Yes atom by Democritus !!

It just sounds so similar to hear your assertion of underlying quantum field or space, for the evidence of God, and the ancient Greek philosophers fundamental element for the world.

The only difference is that they were in 500 BC, and your claim is in 2021 AD making roughly 2500 years apart. But the Greeks already had their rich mythic Gods needing no proofs, and looking far more sophisticated world / God view than the 2021 version.

On the 'lucky' fine-tuning and also the possible 'multiverse'…

THE MEADOWS OF HEAVEN

We of the highest consciousness ever known
And the most versatile form that’s been grown
Reside as consequent beings in this Earthly realm,
Possibly the most fortuitous creatures
That the universe has ever wrought.

Indeed,
We are this universe come to life—
Necessarily from a long line
Of ‘fortunate accidents’.

It had to be this way, for any universe
In which we could emerge
Would have to be appropriate for us
Or we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.

Looking back,
We already know ahead of time
That we will discover
The many ‘happenings’
That made us possible.

All this we know and expect
Because we are here.

Perhaps in some other ‘wheres’,
Junkyard universes litter the omniscape,
For they flunked, failed, and miscarried—
A quadrillion trillion universes broken down
For every one that worked to any extent at all.

In some of these forlorn universes,
Perhaps the material was inert
And so it just sat there, doing nothing, forever.

In others, maybe gravity was insufficient
Or had no natural place to collect particles
And so they thinned out endlessly,
Spreading coldly toward infinity.

In yet others again,
Even those in the same ballpark as ours,
Perhaps the portions weren’t quite right.
Although they may have formed a few elements,
They went no further than that for a zillion years.

It could also be that all the possibilities-probabilities
That are of so many imbalances must ever trace back
To the Perfect Imbalance of matter and antimatter,
This no longer seen as improbable.

In our universe, the dark chest of wonders
Of Possibility and Probability opened up
In just the just right way:

Naked quarks spewed forth,
Among other things,
And boiled and brewed
In one of the steamiest broths
Ever cooked up.

They somehow simmered and combined
Into the ordinary matter
Of protons and neutrons.

Then quite independently,
By some unknown means,
Dark matter-energy arose as well,
In just the right mix, and, luckily, too,
Some very long filaments,
Called cosmic strings,

Formed and survived long enough
To be useful as collection agents,
Which were merely imperfections,
As in an unevenly freezing pond—
A kind of a cooling flaw.

None of these happenings were connected,
Except by Potential’s destiny,
So, ‘fortunately’,
The cosmic strings attracted,
By their gravity,
Both dark and ordinary matter,
Which in turn
Attracted even more of the same.

These pearls of embryonic galaxies arose
And were strung along these cosmic necklaces,
As can still be noted today.

So it was
That some almost incidental irregularities,
Frozen out as cosmic anchors,
Were latched onto by matter, both light and dark,
The proportionate portions of which were favorable,
The dark matter dwarfing our ordinary matter
For some reason of a happy ‘circumstance’.

‘Fortuitously’, as well,
Anti-matter, if there ever was any,
Did not fully cancel out the uncle-matter.

The universe could not foresee any of this
In and of itself’s fundamental substance(s),
For if it could have
Then we’d only have the larger problem
Of how the foreseer could have been foreseen,
Ad infinitum…

So it could have been like the ‘trying out’
Of all possibilities in superposition…
A brute force happening
Of every path gone down.

We know much of the rest of the story
Of how the stars and their supernovae
Created the light and heavy elements,
Which combined into molecules,
Which ‘auspiciously’
Became able to replicate themselves, as DNA,
And progress to make cells, tissues, and life.

And then there was the luck of oxygen,
A mere waste product of photosynthesis
By bacteria, and later, plants,
That could fill the lungs
As well as build an ozone layer of protection
From the harmful rays of outer space.

Luck on top of luck, good fortune,
And then prosperity…
‘Stumbled along’ the right path.

Of course all this took many billions of years—
And it is of course this long ‘yardstick’
That baffles the mind and sticks in the throat,
But demonstrates the long time lag needed
To produce even the tiniest of advances.

It bears some of the hallmarks
Of ‘randomness’ at work,
Although quite probable
If Potential had it all ‘worked out’.

Dinosaurs roamed the Earth
For over two hundred million years—
Imagine the length of that time.

They were supreme and invincible—
The kings of all the Earth ‘forever’,
On land, sea, and even in the air—
Heading towards forevermore and beyond,

But…
Dame Fortune once again intervened
When the asteroids or some such catastrophe
Finished off the dinosaurs,
As well as 90% of the existing species.

This ‘random’ event left a vacuum
In which newer species could thrive.

Proto-man gave way to near-man
And thence to us, eventually,
When two ‘monkey’ chromosomes fused together,
Making ‘us’ incompatible with the chimps
And so our ancestors then
Truly descended from the trees!

‘You’ were once a lucky shrew, darting all about,
But then attached to a favorable evolutionary line…
Every single one of your forbears on both sides
Being attractive enough to locate a loving mate,
And they fortunately had the good health to celebrate!

We came to need no specialized niches,
Since we could adapt to any terrain,
Having brains that could learn much more
After birth than instinct could bestow before.

Our higher consciousness
Was the crowning glory—
We had won the human race—
The be all and end all; the grand prize
Of the universal lottery.

So there is nothing more,
Aside from our own progress
To be and learn.

This is it!
That’s all there is.

DNA remembers every step of our evolution—
And you can see this in ‘fast’ motion
When embryos form simply in the liquid womb,
Replicate, and then grow cells
That diversify into a human being
After going through some nonhuman stages.

The human embryo actually forms
Three different types of kidneys,
One after the other,
The first two discarded
(Resembling those of jawless fish
And reptiles, respectively)
Before our final kidney appears.

There is also a fetal coat of hair
That then greatly diminishes.

Thus four billion years compresses into
The nine months of pregnancy.

So then hail and good fortune,
Fine fellows and ladies,
And welcome all of you
To the Meadows of Heaven—
The highest point of all being,
Although we are surely
Still in our infancy.

The path “chosen” by Potential ends here,
With our consciousness.

There were many pockets of universes,
And it is was this very one
That could sing our verses.

The further design
And the role of mankind
Is now in our hands.

We were borne here upon the shoulders
Of so many who have long since come and gone,
All of them advancing the cause,
Over eons of wiles—so here we are.

Fare thee always well, fine friends,
For we are some of
The luckiest sons and daughters of being
In a rare medium well done.

Celebrate; live; be,
For everyone dies,
But not everyone lives.