One of the important aspects of this work is that it relies heavily on your acceptance of degrees of magnification when looking at anything. While this is true for science and we accept certain degrees of magnification as acceptable for discussing things like health or injuries, the same liberty is seldom granted to any discussion of any topic outside of science.

Scientists have become preachers of science and the followers have become bullies. Science has been fortunate to find the easily-articulated definitions of physical phenomenon and has had years of concerted effort to refine it and produce the current body of knowledge. The entire time that this has happened, it has suffered the wrath of religious persecution as it sought to undermine religious doctrines.

But again this is simply because science accepts degrees of magnification when performing its analysis. Religion has but one magnification level: God. Science has millions of them. And they all serve a purpose.

For example, when we look at a person, we see a person. This includes their clothes, their hair, their skin, their eyes, their limbs, etc. We can increase the magnification and look at their bodies which still gives us limbs, eyes, lips, etc. Further increasing the magnification we get to understand things that aren’t readily available to our most basic senses. Organs, blood, tissues, etc. are all at an acceptable consensus magnification of analysis. Even further, we can break down these structures into cells which break down into molecules and molecules into atoms. From atoms, we have subatomic particles like protons and neutrons and through mostly mathematics, we can describe the pieces of those particles in quantum theory. Even though quantum theory seems to evade the rigors of science, for the most part, we use this theory to study the most basic aspects of physical existence.

Science and the people who use science to better our lives should be credited with the amazing work they have done. I do not wish to talk bad about science or its enthusiasts. It hasn’t always been like this, however. Science had a bad wrap for a long time before it became useful. People were considered heretics if they believed in science and religious zealots happily persecuted them.

That’s because science chose to invalidate the claims made by religion and religion chose not to grow or develop. Religion became set in writing and then prohibited any modification. Science, once written down, became dynamic and defined a way for it to grow and develop and become more and more useful. It accepted that things would change and provided a path to do this.

And while inevitably, religion has had to change over time, the rules it set up, in the beginning, made any changes invalid and threatened its continued development. Now religion seems archaic and inapplicable and claims that it would take an act of God to redefine the texts that religions use as reference.

Science, however, has grown and scientific followers have a similar zealousness for science that religious people had for religion when it was the best framework. We now see scientific persecution of religion and anything non-science as the zealots of science become the bullies today.

There has been a concerted effort to “scientifically” describe behavior in groups and we know this as sociology. Though some scientists feel that sociology fails the rigors of scientific principles, I contend it is only by degrees of magnification that it fails. Psychology is another attempt to describe something outside of physical existence in terms that we use to qualify physical existence. To give psychology or sociology or even spirituality an equal footing with science would be scientific heresy, but perhaps it is just a different degree of magnification that we are still trying to quantize.

We expect the physical world to act in certain ways that we can clearly define. When it doesn’t we refine the rules of physical existence to incorporate the new ways that we were able to repeatably observe. This is the scientific method which technically should be considered the physical method. The physical or scientific method represents a brilliant and highly articulated series of observations and analyses that can be used to accurately predict the interaction and results of the interaction between two physical things. But for all of its work, science still cannot predict human behavior accurately. This is because the nature of living things is an intersection of the physical world and something else that science has no tools to measure. Religion has attempted to describe this “something else” but fails to provide compelling evidence that it should be trusted.

This doesn’t make “religion” or “something else” any less valid, it just means that every attempt to use science to measure this “something else” will fail in varying degrees. These degrees become levels of magnification. This allows science to describe the probable behavior of a group of people more accurately than it can an individual. To look at a group of people exposed to some threat, you can kind of accurately predict what a large portion of the group will do using past studies and examples in much the same way that science works. This is probably why the soft sciences have been given the pass to pretend to be scientific in nature when anything else is considered a “pseudo-science” or “religious” as pejorative.

What you need to accept before reading any of my work on this topic is that I am not claiming to be able to accurately reproduce any part of my theory in a scientific form. This is not pseudo-science because I do not accept that physical rules and laws apply to non-physical things. You will never be able to accurately describe behavior and therefore any attempts to do so in scientific terms will fail. I am okay with that.

Furthermore, unlike religious texts, I am not suggesting that my theory is the way that things are. It’s not. What my theory provides is a framework that can be useful for understanding why and how people react to each other in certain situations. The reality of life is that it is much more complex than my framework can account for and should you decide to implement this in your life, you have to be able to accept that not everything or everyone will fit neatly into this model. At which point, it is your model and you should change it accordingly. This is a tool that you can customize to benefit you. It is not a rigid structure that must be adhered to, but rather it is a framework that hopefully provides insight.

I believe that a religious person, a scientific person, and just about everyone can use this model to plot a path to more happiness in their lives. Some of the terms I use may have echoes in religious texts and scientific texts, but those associations are for reference only. Use them if they help you relate to the concepts, discard them if they don’t.

My eventual goal is to create a new paradigm that people can develop to more accurately and more enjoyably get to a point in their lives where they are centered in love. I hope that this framework is developed and shared and that it becomes useful in general. I offer this to the world and hope that it is not taken advantage of or modified to act as a weapon or a tool to hurt others. I would appreciate any feedback on this framework and would happily make changes if you have compelling explanations for how this model could be more accurate or more useful.