Observers with Universal Wormhole Sight and Special Relativity Sight

Observers © 2018 by James Goetz is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Baptist Church Freedom Is like a Box of Chocolates

Baptist Church Freedom is like a box of chocolates.

Yes, I plead guilty to parodying an iconic line from the 1994 movie "Forrest Gump."

Please allow me to explain myself.

Earlier this month, I joined First Baptist Church, Greensboro, an affiliate of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).

I had never before identified as a Baptist, but I joined because I heard many good words and felt many good vibes while visiting the church, and I experienced an epiphany.

I realized that I agree with the core four Baptist freedoms as defined by CBF, that is, Soul Freedom, Bible Freedom, Church Freedom, and Religious Freedom.

(Also, Walter Shurden first defined the four Baptist freedoms in his 1993 book "The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms.")

This post focuses on Church Freedom. For example, the CBF website says:

Church Freedom — We believe in the autonomy of every local church. We believe Baptist churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whomever they perceive as gifted for ministry, and to participate as they deem appropriate in the larger body of Christ. https://cbf.net/who-we-are

In other words, Church Freedom implies congregationalist church government. For example, congregationalist churches possess complete autonomy under the Lord.

Types of congregationalist churches apart from most Baptists include Reformed Congregationalism, Quaker, and many nondenominational churches that sprung up in recent generations.

Alternatively, many other churches possess limited autonomy while their clergy are subject to an organization, such as a presbytery or apostolic government. And many other churches lack the autonomy to choose their clergy while bishops make those choices.

Back to my opening line. "Baptist Church Freedom is like a box of chocolates." My parody of the famous line in "Forrest Gump" by Forrest, "My momma said life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

I thought of this parallel while considering that Baptist churches range from ultraconservative to liberal.

The ultraconservatives include old school (or "old line") Primitive Baptists who have forbidden the inclusion of musical instruments during worship, Bible studies, youth camps, and missionary and charity organizations https://www.progressivepb.org/history.html.

For example, Primitive Baptists forbid any Non-New Testament practice.

Instead, Progressive Primitive Baptists separated from the old school in the early 20th century while they included musical instruments during worship, Bible studies, youth camps, and missionary and charity organizations because the New Testament does not forbid them and their usefulness https://www.progressivepb.org/history.html.

This 20th-century view of the terms "progressive" and "inclusion" typifies 21st-century conservative Baptists.

However, the current use of the terms "progressive" and "inclusion" typically refers to new meanings.

Today, progressive Baptist churches hold to a theology that is either centrist or liberal. And full inclusion refers to permitting women and LGBTQ Christians in all levels of church leadership.

And many progressive Baptist churches include both centrist and liberal members.

This post begins a series on Baptist Freedoms.

Copyright © 2023 James Edward Goetz

My Propositions for Foundations of Modern Physics

Universal Wormhole Observers
—My paradigm of modern physics begins with the theoretical perspective of universal wormhole observers (2016, section 5.1; 2021 sections, 2.6-7).
—Universal wormhole observers detect every object in the universe as if the object were local to the observer, regardless of the location of the observer.
—Universal wormhole observers detect no universal timescale.
—Universal wormhole observers detect the preferred universal chronology and similarly the preferred foliation of spacetime.
—Universal wormhole observers require a solution of general relativity that permits the theoretical construction of wormholes.
—Universal wormhole observers by no means imply the realistic possibility of traversable wormholes.
—The ER=EPR conjecture and the pervasiveness of quantum entanglement in laboratories and outer space support universal wormhole observers, but the observers do not depend on the validity of the conjecture.

Quantum Mechanics
—Quantum logic can explain all quantum phenomena (2021, section 2.5.2).
—The von Neumann uncertainty principle refers to the certainty of any quantum state and the uncertainty for the evolution of any quantum system (Hogan and Lakey 2005, pages 293-295).
—Quantum physics and quantum chemistry indicate indeterminism in the universe.
—Gravity involves quantum.

Sources
—Jeffrey A. Hogan and Joseph D. Lakey, "Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Methods: Adaptive Decompositions, Uncertainty Principles, and Sampling," 2005, https://doi.org/10.1007/b139077
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016. 1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

major revision 12/7/2023

Copyright © 2022-2023 James Edward Goetz

The ArgumentPart 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Parts 1 and 2 set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.

For example, I defined the general concept of a cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.

Now, I clarify that my cosmological argument leans toward the kalam cosmological argument proposed by William Lane Craig.

For instance, The syllogism of Craig's kalam cosmological argument follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: The physical universe began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe had a cause."

My modification follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: Tensed Planck time intervals foremostly began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals had a cause."

And this leads to my Proposition 3:

"Proposition 3: The kalam cosmological syllogism implies that an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals."

Now, I clarify a major caveat of the minor premise.

That is, if eternalism is true, then tensed time intervals do not exist. For example, if eternalism is true, then everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, eternalism implies that everything exists without cause and objective tense.

And that explains why I put together parts 1 and 2 to defend clarified presentism.

The Logical Impossibility for an Infinite Passage of Time
Next, let me illustrate how an infinite passage of time, let alone a past infinite passage of time, is logically impossible.

Consider the future from any starting point in time. The future can endure without end, but the amount of elapsed time intervals will always equal a finite number.

For example, we can say that the future is potentially infinite. However, potential infinity is not a number but a process that never ends. And in the case of elapsed time intervals, potential infinity with a starting point always results in a finite age.

A Universe from So-Called Nothing
Some physicists, such as Lawrence Kraus, propose that the physical universe arose from nothing. However, when we read the fine print of his proposal, we see that he defines that nothingness exhibits instability.

All theoretical physics proposals of a universe from nothing ultimately imply an infinite past of quantum instability. Typical references to quantum instability are quantum foam or spacetime foam. And quantum foam exhibits the passage of time.

The Attributes of God
Next, assuming presentism or some other A-Theory of time, an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed time intervals. The uncaused entity created the first physical universe. We commonly refer to this entity as God or the Supreme Being.

One attribute of God is the ability to originate a physical universe.

I imagine that God started by generating a finely tuned quantum vacuum.

And the quantum vacuum originated with a radius of a mere Planck length (the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance).

And the quantum vacuum started with zero-point energy (the lowest possible amount of energy in a quantum system.)

Then, God heated the Planck length, finely tuned quantum vacuum to the Planck temperature (the highest possible temperature, 10 to the power of 32 degrees Kelvin).

And from there, the universe proceeded to expand according to the big bang theory.

However, I clarify that this ability to generate a finely tuned quantum vacuum and then heat it to the Planck temperature does not logically imply that God can meticulously control the universe after the expansion began.

For example, consider my "Proposition 1: God could possibly create a physical universe out of nothing while that universe is beyond meticulous control."

Also, "God's everlasting force that can create a spacetime universe out of nothing cannot meticulously control the particles of the creation,"

"but synergy between God and created agents can exhibit limited intervention in the creation that is subject to the possibilities of physics."

Further, I hold to open theism. That is, God knows everything about the present, which consists of all future possibilities. And that includes God knowing the best responses to the present and all possible future circumstances.

Everything considered, I propose that God's original attributes are everlasting within logical consistency.

And we can tell people that God loves them with everlasting love despite God's inability to immediately eradicate senseless, horrific evil.

Sources
—William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology," 2009, pages 101-201, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch3
—Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing," 2012.
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified PresentismPart 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

In my previous post, I described my universal wormhole observers. Here, I describe how the observers support clarified presentism.

First, I define presentism. Presentism means that only the present exists while the past and future do not exist.

Second, clarified presentism in my 2021 article means phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future.

Third, all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their location, detect the preferred universal chronology. Therefore, all of them also detect the associated preferred foliation of spacetime.

(Spacetime refers to the four-dimensional geometry that unifies the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time. And an event is a point in spacetime with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.)

The Preferred Universal Chronology
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905 proved the impossibility of classical absolute space and time. For example, special relativity logically implies the relativity of simultaneity, which means that no two events that are distant from each other have the same chronology from every possible reference frame.

For instance, the relativity of simultaneity implies the following scenario:

—Event A and Event B are distant from each other.
—Some distant observers detect that Event A and Event B occur at the same time.
—Other distant observers detect that Event A occurs before Event B.
—Still, other distant observers detect that Event A occurs after Event B.

And the implications of special relativity quickly led to disbelief in the possibility of a preferred reference frame for a universal chronology.

However, universal wormhole observers bridge through all of the distance in the universe. And all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their reference frame, detect the same universal chronology.

Clarified Presentism versus Eternalism
I earlier defined that clarified presentism means that phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future. However, most living philosophers of time hold to eternalism. That is, eternalism means that all phenomena from what we consider the past, present, or future have always existed and will always exist.

(Presentism is a type of A-theory of time while eternalism is related to the B-theory of time.)

Contemporary models of eternalism typically incorporate modern physics while focusing on the relativity of simultaneity. For example, C. Wim Rietdijk in 1966 proposed eternalism based on special relativity and said, "A proof is given that there does not exist an event, that is not already in the past for some possible distant observer at the (our) moment that the latter is 'now' for us."

Rietdijk noted that special relativity implies that all events that are present to humans on Earth are already in the past for some distant observer. And from this, he argues that everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist.

And the argument for eternalism based on special relativity is called the Rietdijk-Putnam argument. (Putnam in 1967 proposed a similar argument.)

However, universal wormhole observers bridge through the relativity of simultaneity and permit a preferred universal chronology, which supports clarified presentism.

In the next post, I will use the points from parts 1 and 2 to set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.

Sources
—Albert Einstein, "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory," translated by Robert W. Lawson, 1920
—C. Wim Rietdijk, "A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity," Philosophy of Science, 1966, volume 33, issue 4, pages 341–344, https://doi.org/10.1086/288106 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/186637
—Hilary Putnam, "Time and Physical Geometry," The Journal of Philosophy, 1967, volume 64, issue 8, 240-247, https://doi.org/10.2307/2024493 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024493
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and ObserversPart 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

I introduced my cosmological argument in my 2021 paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism." Here, I will summarize my argument for a general audience.

I will begin by defining the term cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.

Next, I will divide my summary into three parts. And the first two set the stage for Part 3 which focuses on my definition of God and my argument.

This first part centers on my hypothetical model of universal wormhole observers and its relationship to quantum entanglement. Now, I will describe observers, wormhole theory, and quantum entanglement.

First, Albert Einstein used hypothetical observers to illustrate his introduction to the theory of special relativity. And the observers function as a reference frame for making measurements.

Second, Einstein and Nathan Rosen in 1935 introduced what are called either Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes. For example, some solutions for the theory of general relativity permit the mathematical construction of wormholes, and wormholes connect otherwise distant (causally disconnected) regions of space and time.

Third, quantum entanglement refers to distant particles that act as if entangled (causally connected).

Also, Einstein, Boris Podolski, and Rosen in 1935 analyzed entangled electrons and defined a thought experiment known as the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox or simply the EPR paradox. The trio juxtaposed the following while defining their paradox:

—Special relativity implies no possibility of distant particles interacting with each other.
—Cases of distant electrons exhibit correlating action with no evidence of determinism caused by local variables.

And Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen concluded that relativity never permits exceptions for distant particles to entangle while the authors proposed local hidden-variable theory. That is, undetectable local variables caused the determinism of electrons to appear as if they interact with each other at a distance while they never actually interact at a distance.

Eventually, Einstein made his famous quip about "spooky action at a distance." He said this while colorfully rejecting the possibility of quantum entanglement.

However, the 2022 Noble Prize in Physics went to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their research on entangled photons.

The ER=EPR Conjecture
Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind in 2013 proposed the ER=EPR conjecture. For example, ER refers to Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes) and EPR refers to the EPR paradox. More specifically, the ER=EPR conjecture proposes that each case of quantum entanglement involves a quantum wormhole.

(A quantum wormhole has a radius of 1 Planck length, and a Planck length is the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance and equals 10 to the negative power of 33 meters.)

In my 2021 paper, section 2.6, I referenced fascinating examples that imply the ubiquity of quantum entanglement.

For example, one astrophysics project discovered "30,000 pairs of entangled photons in the Milky Way that were entangled for at least 600 years."

Another project detected two photons that survived entanglement for 8 billion years. And 2,000 light-years separate the photons. (The 2,000 light-years equal 1 quadrillion miles.)

The 8 billion years is older than the Sun. And the 2,000 light-years are "23 times the distance from the Sun to its closest neighboring star," Proxima Centauri.

Also, laboratories routinely generate entangled photons. And they use the established entangled pathways for quantum teleportation.

(Quantum teleportation involves the immediate transfer of quantum information from one location to a distant location.)

In the context of the ER=EPR conjecture, the universal pervasiveness of quantum entanglement implies the pervasiveness of quantum wormholes.

Further, in each case of entanglement, a quantum wormhole connects the otherwise distant particles. Therefore, the entangled particles are distant from each other in the context of space but connected in the context of the quantum wormhole.

Universal Wormhole Observers
I introduced a model of hypothetical universal wormhole observers in my 2016 paper "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times." And I refined the model in 2021 while incorporating the ER=EPR conjecture and the latest research on quantum entanglement.

First, I clarify that the term universal wormhole refers to the universal potential for wormholes and does not imply the realistic possibility of any wormhole that permits particles to travel through it. (A theoretical wormhole that permits one or more particles to travel through it is called traversable wormhole.)

Second, a universal wormhole observer detects everything in the universe with no interval between the observer and the object.

Third, the next post addresses the nature of the past and future in the context of universal wormhole observers.

Sources
—Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review, 1935, volume 47, pages 777-780, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
— Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, "The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity, Physical Review, 1935, volume 48, pages 73-77, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73
—Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind, "Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes," Fortschritte der Physik (Progress of Physics), 2013, volume 61, issue 9, pages 781-811, https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz

My Dyslexia and Scholarly Vision

In the 1990s, I felt invincible and destined to take academia by the storm while developing the world's best theology and science. I developed many great ideas and sent out many proposals for books and articles, but I never successfully published any article or book until the 2010s.

I overestimated my strengths and underestimated my weaknesses. I knew I suffered from mild dyslexia after I benefited from early childhood intervention that enabled me to learn how to read. However, I did not fully understand that I possess a rare combination of superior matrix reasoning and a learning disability that causes low average brain processing speed, as indicated by recent testing.

1. My childhood and adolescence

Around the age of six in the late 1960s, I remember a kind adult woman who lived two houses down the street. She spent special time with me and even helped me to learn how to ride a bicycle without training wheels. Several years later, I felt surprised when my mom told me that our kind neighbor also worked as my dyslexia therapist. For example, I did not understand that I struggled with a learning disability and that she taught me how to develop communication skills.

During primary and secondary school years at the Millburn Township Public Schools in New Jersey, I typically earned grades of Cs, some Bs, and some As in math. I recall the dread of revising papers during secondary school because I always ended up with new typos when I rewrote or retyped a paper. At the time, I did not know I struggled with mild dyslexia while revising papers. I also did not yet imagine the eventual commonplace of personal computers and word processing.

2. Dropping out of college and then earning a Bachelor of Science

I remember feeling insulted when I started at the Community College of Morris in the fall of 1981 because the college placement tests put me in both remedial English and remedial math. I understood my slowness in reading and writing, but I entered college as a math major while I scored a respectable 600 on my college board math SAT. My pride and impatience overwhelmed me. I pushed the college hard enough and started the fall semester taking precalculus instead of the prescribed remedial math. However, I suffered with complex factoring despite excelling in other areas of math. Instead of slowly building up my skills in remedial math, I earned a D in precalculus. Then, I lost patience in calculus 1. For example, I sometimes correctly answered a question while doing all the work in my head but earned few to zero points for a correct answer because I did not show my work. Also, I sometimes showed my work and made a silly error in addition or subtraction that gave me an incorrect answer, but I ended up with more points for an some incorrect answers showing my work compared to a correct answer without showing my work.

Now, I look back and see that I overstressed without a clear perspective while I struggled with a learning disability. I could not emotionally handle the dilemma of my problems with calculus, and I loved the entertainment industry far more than mathematics. I dropped out of my calculus class and switched my major to communications.

I ended up crashing and burning because excessive marijuana smoking and alcohol binges caught up with me. In July 2013, Carrier Clinic admitted me for inpatient hospital care and treated me for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with hallucinations. After the hospitalization, I tried attending college for the 1983 fall semester but dropped out because I could not concentrate. In September 1984, I once more psychologically snapped and went to another inpatient psychiatric hospital for substance abuse and psychotic delusions with hallucinations.

Fortunately, I turned around and started healthy living after a wonderful spiritual conversion. In the fall of 1985, I went back to college. This time I went for a pastoral and biblical studies degree at a college now called the University of Valley Forge. I enjoyed long hours of study and prayer while integrating various concepts of theology and ministry. I still struggled with slow reading comprehension, but I recall numerous compliments about my spirituality and intellect while I discussed the Bible and theology. I graduated with a 3.0 GPA, above average but not great. Nonetheless, I felt destined to solve many theological problems in the church.

3. Life after graduating college

After I graduated, I married my wonderful wife Laurie, and we moved to State College, Pennsylvania. I started to take one course per semester at Penn State University. I began with two undergraduate courses in writing and eventually developed proficiency in word processing. Over the next two years, I enjoyed taking 10 credits of creative nonfiction writing courses at the Penn State Graduate School while pulling a grade point average of 3.7. However, four things frustrated me, that is, (1) many book proposal rejections; (2) persistent confusion with some of the finer points of grammar and the differences among various style guides, for example, AP, APA, MLA, and Chicago; (3) the slowness of my research and writing processes; and (4) my desire to become an expert of my subjects instead of a reporter.

I also enjoyed exploring the subjects of physics, evolution, and the Old Testament with various Penn State researchers. I recall enjoying compliments for my talent and bravado, but I nonetheless struggled with low average short-term memory. In addition, the remnants of dyslexia during major conflict could result in me struggling with short-term memory loss, stuttering, speech blocks, and vertigo.

Furthermore, I eventually developed sleep apnea that lowered my sleep effectiveness to 33 percent. That is, I needed to sleep 24 hours for me to enjoy the benefits of sleeping 8 hours.

Surgical removal of my tonsils and adenoids along with nasal reformation restored my sleep effectiveness, but I nonetheless failed to advance my career and struggled financially while enjoying my amazing family life with my wife and our four children.

After major financial failure of sinking $1,000 to $2,000 a month in debt while working two part-time jobs and bivocational Christian ministry in a university setting which I loved, I moved my family in July 2003 to take a steady job in the cable industry.

I also shifted to much deeper reflection and analysis while I tried to figure out why I failed at my career goals and what I needed to do to succeed. I furthermore began to develop mastery of searching the internet for scholarly resources.

By 2007, I published only two letters to the editor, both at Perspectives of Science and Christian Faith. I also wrote two archived papers in queue for review at Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (PCID), but PCID abruptly ceased to publish journal issues soon after they said someone would review my papers. Then, I decided to develop a portfolio of articles and start my blog TheoPerspectives. In addition, I needed to resign from my Assemblies of God (AG) ministry credentials for me to publicly teach my newly developed biblical perspective of divine judgement because my perspective fell outside of AG norms.

My analytical and communication skills began to blossom after these years of prayer and independent research. By 2010, I developed a book proposal for a biblical theology while Wipf and Stock Publishers accepted it. I completed the book for publication in 2012, that is, "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy."

After that, I built upon some of my ideas from the 1990s and published the following peer-reviewed articles despite no postgraduate college degree:

– "Natural Unity and Paradoxes of Legal Persons," Journal Jurisprudence 21 (2014).
– "Identical Legal Entities and the Trinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism," Journal of Analytic Theology 4 (2016).
– "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science 14:3 (2016).
– "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (2020).

My original scholarly conjectures in these publications include the universal wormhole, semiclassical cosmology, semiclassical theism, semiclassical Christianity, Relative-Social Trinitarianism, the legal theory of identity, and conditional futurism.

I also enjoyed working as a freelance developmental editor for a theology book and then served as the author's field adviser for his Doctor of Ministry dissertation.

In addition, I enjoy membership in the National Coalition of Independent Scholars.

Now, I envision building upon my research and developing three monographs:

– "Logic, Reality, and Science"
– "Semiclassical Theism"
– "Semiclassical Christianity"

I love working toward my vision. However, my problem follows. I research and write as slow as a tortoise. I sometimes quickly shoot out a first draft based on ideas already integrated in my mind. And I sometimes quickly find new things on the internet, but my overall processes of researching, writing, and revising are slow. For example, I need up to one year of full time writing to professionally write each of the above books while I stand nowhere close to the financial security needed for retirement from my day job.

4) Reflections

I feel thankful for the early childhood intervention that trained me to compensate for dyslexia. I learned satisfactory skills in reading and speaking instead of growing up hopelessly illiterate and stuttering.

I also personally understand prejudice against people with learning disorders. I experienced the following scenarios:

– People negatively judged me for my slowness in some things and my reliance on making lists and notes to keep my focus.
– People accused me of deliberately refusing to help them because they do not understand that I excel in some mental tasks and suffer in others. I impressed some people by resolving difficult problems and then they accused me of holding back because I failed to resolve other difficult problems.
– People with opposing views exploited my weakness while talking to me by repetitively interrupting my speech and rapidly switching subjects back-and-forth over an extended period of time. This instigated me into stuttering, speech blocks, or vertigo. I eventually learned to dodge this scenario most of the time while I continue to develop my communication skills, and I suppose some people try to do this to everybody they oppose while it affects dyslexics and stutterers more than others.

I deeply appreciate the wealth of wisdom available on the internet. If I ever feel confused about word usage or grammar, especially changes from the 1970s to today, I find it on the internet. I also appreciate dictionary audio files when I feel unsure about the pronunciation of a word. In addition, a spell and grammar checker helps me greatly, but every recommendation from the checker needs a judgment call from the author to determine the accuracy of recommendation.

I also appreciate that academia and many businesses try to understand the diversity of thought processes among different people. Prejudice against people with learning disorders continues, but research and education help to expose and eventually heal the prejudice.

-end-

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

Originally published at https://www.opednews.com/articles/My-Dyslexia-and-Scholarly-by-James-Goetz-Americans-With-Disabilities-Act_Brain_Diversity_Dyslexia-201108-506.html.