The clues point in the direction that we are onto something? Do you agree?

That being said, we do not know that the description given here of the very first events in the universe is correct. It is, of course, conceivable that the order was another, the causal relationships different, etc.

But the description seems internally consistent, has a logical progression and corresponds to what physics tells us. At least to some extent.

If you can accept this, the theory of idealistic emergence is so far without holes and inexplicable leaps.

For example, as mentioned earlier, physicalism has no theory of consciousness, while with us, consciousness is fundamental and the world an emergent notion.

We can also use the same laws and principles to explain absolutely all phenomena, from the very smallest (the idea of the first «point») to the very largest (the end of the universe) – and also across seemingly unrelated categories such as matter, abstractions, personal experiences, social systems, art, language, etc.

Of course, I still need to explain how all that works. I'll talk about it later in the book.

But, so far, the clues all point in the same direction – in my opinion.

« Previous Next »