By Robert Duncan-Enzmann

Dr. Enzmann and Michelle Snyder

Writing in the first-person pen of Dr. Enzmann is always thought-provoking. Here I share some notes on cosmology from a document in the Archive. He writes:

“I have over the decades developed an approach to mechanics. I claim little if any credit whatsoever for any of the basic ideas and therefore try to list them and the originators below. I will claim some credit, and it must be shared with J. M. M. Enzmann Muckenhoupt, mathematician par excellent.

The only excuse for this theory of Cosmology is that it is consistent. Complete it is not, which according to Gödel’s Proof, no description of the cosmos by creature or mechanism within and of the substance of the cosmos can describe it both self-consistently and completely.

My father Dr. Ernst von Enzmann and Kurt Gödel were classmates in Vienna; both later fled to America. I begin by referencing, thanking, and praising Halton Arp, and like to think his excellent observations as in Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and Seeing Red, both on the shelf before me, impelled me as Tycho Brahe’s observations impelled Kepler. Halton Arp and I were classmates at Harvard right after WW II. We attended classes taught by astronomer Bart Bok and physicist Birch Arp who did not relish partial differentials. Birch, realizing that a number in the class were like-minded, said, “I’ll teach you what you may need.”

From that beginning came many manuscripts, outlines, conversations, and papers which now are part of the Enzmann Archive, and from which we at FREA publish excerpts in the Quarterly, ENDEAVOR. The following is part of many manuscripts and outlines on the subject of Christian cosmology, some of which are an ongoing conversation with the Reverend, Dr. Rick Funk, who met Doc E at Kwajalein. Any cosmology is based in part on the current knowledge of astronomy, natural sciences, and physics, which are also vast subjects in the Archive.

Prime Systems

Blue-green Algae is a Prime System. A prime organic or inorganic system is defined as one being able to couple itself to the inanimate universe and survive without input from another system, finding 100% of energies and substances it needs to both survive and reproduce itself. Currently, the only prime systems known are organic. Inorganic ‘machines’ capable of this are imagined, but none as yet has been known to have been built.

Surprisingly, DNA-paramecium > DNA-plant > DNA-amphibian > DNA-reptile > DNA-human. This indicates that mankind is one of the simplest animate structures. Currently all others, animate or inanimate are but Sub-Systems.

Ref.: Science. 10 Oct.2008, Tullis Onstot. Princeton

The writer is well-versed in genetics, paleontology, and evolution in which the Darwinian theory of random mutation and selective survival attempt to explain everything. It does nothing of the sort. Random mutation is far too slow. The quantity of errors that creep in is far too large. Consistency and error correction are somehow referred to as an ‘ultimate consistency’. Perhaps over time, numbers of these efferents will be discovered: magnetic granules in birds and the monarch butterfly, sky polarization seen by bees, otoliths of our inner ears.

Then at the cellular level, such structures as yeast cells’ contractile vacuoles expanded into the salt-excreting glands of a seagull which enables it to drink saltwater. True, these mechanisms can be described, but to describe or even imagine the ultimate consistency is impossible.

Where we outline a comparative history of Cosmologies, the capability of any human intelligence, other intelligence, and or combination of these with inorganic machines (computers) – of anything within the universe made of its substance – to describe or even imagine an ultimate and physically consistent substance is impossible.

We reiterate: A self-consistent description must be incomplete. A complete description is doomed to be self-inconsistent. In conclusion, the best that can be done is a self-consistent but incomplete description, which is the essence of this Christian Cosmology.

Unknowable Consistency

Reverend: Why is there anything?

Mathematician: I do not know. I cannot know. Ultimately perfect consistency is totally unknowable. Time is a factor.

As a creature of this world, I have some precepts. Ever so long ago, brought up as a Christian, what I recall pleases me to think that these precepts are coincident with scripture, or at worst don’t clash in any way with scripture. But is it true? Do I deceive myself?

Reverend: Why time?

Mathematician: Because, when not defined, poorly defined, or malfeasantly defined, lies of default or intent appear as truth. No material state, consistency, form of energy, or field can endure forever. No information can be transmitted through an infinite span of time, or distance.

It might be posited that information supported by an infinite pyramid of redundancy could be transmitted across an infinite span of time; however, no life form, and/or creature combined with machines, can construct such an infinite pyramid of the substance of the universe of which he and/or the machines are made. There is therefore a calculable span of time through which the most perfectible message can be sent. It’s determined by the ‘granularity’ of substance and time ‘intervals’ of action/reaction.

Infinite regression is impossible. It follows that there’s an ultimate substance. Currently, a fashionable String theory of Everything fills university and popular bookshelves. What are the strings made of? If they’re made of something, they are not ultimate. The ultimate consistency cannot be described or even imagined by any entity of the observable universe. Why are perfectly elastic increments of æther and QM elastic? If they are elastic there must be a sub-structure; therefore, they are not ultimate.

However, there is some depth at which there is an ultimate consistency. This consistency governs all aspects of the observable, knowable universe.

Visible Consistency

1) Left / Right

2) Front / Back

3) Up / Down

4) Past / Future

5) Motion / Lack of Motion

6) Positive charge / Negative charge

7) Hexagonal Pressure / Pentagonal Tension

Things to Know

1) Unknowable Consistency cannot and will never be described in a self-consistent way, it’s impossible.

2)Ambiguity results when observables are omitted.

3) Impossibility, called singularity, results when unobserved fiction enters a description.

4)We never explain, we can only observe and describe.

5)Gödel’s Proof: A complete description is self-inconsistent; a self-consistent description is incomplete.

6) Causality: Do results have causes?

7) Information Existence Theorem: All things of the universe have life cycles.

8) Immortality/Mortality: all entities of the knowable universe have life cycles.

9) Turing’s Demonstration: Of a donkey starved to death between two bales of hay.

10) Redundancy: You stop that right now; do you hear me – stop!!

11) Free Will is mathematically demonstrable by Information Existence Theorem.

12) Faith is more fundamental than Logic: this is mathematically demonstrable.

13) Good and Evil are absolutes, not relativistic.

14) Darwinian Evolution is invalid.

15) Original Sin is mathematically demonstrable with sin equivalent to error

16) Visible Consistency none can explain.

17) Rejuvenation? Yes, but it’s just one of several life cycle modulations.

I like to describe modulations thermodynamically as illustrated by clocks:

1) Rundown – not wound, starved to death

2) Run out – worn-out, death by old age

3) Run over – steamrolled, killed

4) Worked over – repaired, rejuvenated

5) Runaway – grows legs, wings, a brain of sorts and flies away (but must, in time, forget its origins; there’s no immortality)

7) Recycled – ultimately all coherences return to dust, to aetheric chaos


Can any life be eternal? Can any object endure forever? Forever meaning eternal-duration exclusively of the material substance of the universe and within the universe. No life, no thing, nor other reality can endure forever.

Living things, inanimate things, and other realities change, consume, transform in life cycles one into another; how is this generalized?

It’s best generalized by applying Lorentz’s Chaos Theory to The Theory of Morphological Orders.

Cryonics? Deep-Sleep? Rejuvenate? Genes? Brain Transplant? Are these not on the road-to-human immortality? This is the Mathematician’s Rhetorical Exclamation in which he then addresses:

First and worst stumbling block in this endless immortality talk is Murphy’s Law. In brief: ‘Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.’ Phrased otherwise: ‘If an accident can happen, it will.’ Elaborating on this: A happening may be highly unlikely but given a great length of time happening-of-the-unlikely becomes more and more probable until it’s almost a certainty.

Why? My answer is consistent within itself but incomplete: Gaussian probabilities are based on equal partitioning of essentially forever unknowable increments, perfectly elastic ultimate somethings I call QMs and æther.

As for Murphy’s Law, when studied by mathematicians working for Life Insurance Companies, it’s indicated that if someone had all the genetic and what-not treatments which would make him immortal, his average life span would be well below 10,000 years because of physical accidents: cyclones, an open manhole, eaten by a pet lion kept in a neighbor’s garage, electrocuted by his electric blanket, etc.

Behold, a millimeter-long African Polypedilum fly larva encased in its trehalose, a complex sugar. Replacing water on cell walls and in cell fluids, the fly, during lengthy droughts, does not die. It’s in a glassy state, ready when the drought ends to thrive again on nutritious detritus at the bottom of rain puddles. The discovery opens doors to blood storage and even human hibernation.

Tardigrades and brine shrimp seem to similarly use trehalose to turn themselves into glassy-sugary sleepers. It’s a long shot, but someday humans could theoretically trehalose-freeze-dry themselves to survive millennium-long trips to other stars; theoretically, it’s possible.

But immortality this isn’t.

Ref.: Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences. 1st April 2008. Takashi Okuda

Ref.: Science News. 29 March 2008. Davide Castelvecchi

The Time Existence Theorem states that: Barring all other mishaps, in an infinite universe, a stubborn traveler determined to continue forever will eventually run headlong into another stubborn traveler and both will perish. An unusual exit but given enough time an improbability becomes more and more probable until it is a certainty. Try rolling dice and never coming up with a six.

This cosmology is self-consistent. Ambiguity is avoided by including all observables, singularity is avoided by not including fiction. At the same time, it is realized and admitted that both in scripture and as demonstrable mathematically, a description that’s both complete and self-consistent is impossible and that there is no organic and/or combination of men and machines that can describe or even imagine the Ultimate Consistency.