LOL, unspun! Just a meditation on Newton's theology, and trying to connect the dots between it and quantum field theory. Of course, it's quite speculative! :^)
I have a working scientist friend who has developed quite an interesting model of consciousness, which he sees as facilitated by energy exchanges with the appropriate fields .... That's pretty speculative, too; but I think he makes a good case. Thanks for writing, Brother A!
Ok, pal. I just read it -- and a finely flowing read it was! (once I got rid of work, the Presidential campaign, IL Senate candidates, North Korean misilles, bills, debating my liberal brother, Saddam's WMD distribution among the ME's, taking the dog out, etc. in my little head).
Well, it all fits so well that I'm prone to say, "Elementary, my dear Newton!" It's very nice to know that the finest known scientist in human history is holding up so well. But you and I know that he cheated -- he allowed himself to be informed in his heart.
As for the quantum/cosmological how to's, well, they seem to fit too, to the degree we can be (un)certain about such things.
Maybe I can jump in on some unsuspecting other's post, a bit later. As for now, I'd just underscore that it is critical to understand that fragile,* complex order must needs be maintained as well as designed. Even more important to understand is the dependency of relationship that Newton and you (did I get that order right? ;-) portray. If something is not connected by "communication" (what a word that is!) to the "other" upon which it depends, it is not alive. And ultimately, the whole stuff of life as we know it -- the whole complexity of voracious dancing Russian dolls of "self" things depending upon "other" things for life -- the cosmos itself is not exempt from this rule.
IOW: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
I also found your bringing up the subject of specificity to be very significant. If you and IN are in the right (and you are) that would mean that God's communication with man is consistently one of specificity and not just some nebulous, conveniently puralistic, make-of-it-what-you-will kind of otherness to usness. And I just inferred another attribute you describe: that God is the initiator; not us. And that has to do with all of His communication with us, all of His shared "knowledge," from the acutely relational, "Biblical knowledge" on outward.
__________________________________________
* "fragile" - Why is it that we humans are so prone to speak of some kind of (disorderly?) development of ordered complexity, yet we are so prone to ignore the obvious 'quality' of fragility?
Pride, ya think?
...and of course about that Other, we then communicate to each other:
"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."