Newton’s Laws: (1) Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. (2) The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors; in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. (3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

      Narnia is an allegory symbolically representing the deeper meaning that The Creator (as the first cause) has the ability to promise you that if you have faith that the 'good versus bad' dilemma presented by the mere existence of divinity (namely, the dilemma for man is that the Creator appears outside the laws of physics that we rely on to set the objectivity necessary for a deduction of what is good v. bad and right v. wrong, so, the conundrum for us is whether we can accept that divinity can justly coexist with objectivity) can be resolved, in the context that you fulfill justice by living virtuously or you fail by causing others unnecessary pain, then, the allegory reveals you will be rewarded with "x," which in the case of Narnia is power in Narnia, but when understood in the symbolic context of the Bible, "x" is also life after death for man.  I think the most propelling question presented by Narnia is that physics stops allegorically where the Wardrobe's wooden back ends.  People want to deduct from physics that "justice simply is," never mind mercy.  In the movie, the actions of the supernatural characters (Azlan and the Witch) can be interpreted by questioning the application of justice through natural law.  The movie tells us that if you the human have faith that a divine promise exists that virtue will be rewarded with justice and mercy, then the evidence of your virtues will be the proof to objective justice (the rules that make things happen) that you are entitled to a reward from divinity.

Any given rational thinker could argue this is more than just circular reasoning, it is incomplete as the movie ignores the meaning of relativity (that your virtues are also conceivably proven exclusively by physics where physics proves two things: First, one man's justice may not apply to another man because perspective is king (following Einstein's principles of general and special relativity), and Second, how you experience the real world has a logical explanation based purely in biological natural selection).

The main lesson of Narnia is that 'the virtuous human' should dissent from the pure quest for power (e.g., Lucy persuades Mr. Tumnes to dissent) because power's legitimacy is virtue, not absolutism!  The proper place for power and absolutism is with The Creator, the first cause.  Only by accepting The Creator’s supremacy can a person enjoy hope in humanity. It’s a very uplifting message, which the movie demonstrates persuasively, especially through suspense and fantasy as you think about The Creator and law.  If you don't have faith that the 'right v. wrong' dilemma can be resolved with a divine promise that allows you to make an expectation of justice and fulfill it through virtue, then you don't know what to make of the expectations you derive from physics and your imagination, unless you can have faith in the power of objectivity to bring purpose, which presents the following multi-level paradox for the mathematically tooled human trying to illuminate the source of justice: 'Under what authority can justice demand sacrifice from us without first objectively informing us we are taking something unjustly (beyond fair expectation) from something else to which that something rightfully belongs?' Or, why in Narnia does sacrifice prove virtue?  To address this paradox, in the context of this allegory, that something could require objective justice from our lives without defining justice first (completely from the human perspective by trumping relativity), we have to understand our mental source of expectation as the derivative of either divinity or physics.  So, we analyze it both ways. If it were true that sacrifice can justly prove virtue, such that 'proof' itself has meaning (Azlan had to die to fulfill the virtue), and we are presented with the question of whether divinity affects us, then we ask from whom are we taking so much "life" that objective justice has required us to sacrifice some of that unjustly acquired "life" to 'balance' the universe?  In other words, we can ask, 'what entity lives on justice for natural selection like we live on water, whereby that entity's consumption of our virtues brings us justice?' Is it math?  The messiah and Azlan both had to exercise the same virtues by which man would ultimately be judged. You are free to believe natural law as a concept on blind faith, but if it's true, then why does man bow to divinity in the movie and in the Bible? How did divinity get more power than man using the same natural laws of morality as man?  And if the laws are different, does the inquiry end on the statement – ‘might makes right?’  I expect justice but I don't know any better reason to expect it than that the universe would, if the universe has a cognizable self-interest (this is a key point - if everything in the universe follows the path of least resistance (see Newton's first law of motion) we can assume we are more correct in deducting that divinity does not interfere with us because divinity need not interfere with our perpetually least resistant and perpetually predictable path, but, if the universe elaborately avoids paradoxes and creates unnecessary beauty in the universe, then we assume it is more correct that divinity has left us a sign of divinity's existence through the known violation of that first physical law of motion regarding 'simplicity') be fair mathematically. Ultimately it is helpful to analyze this issue in terms of math because math as logic is the lowest common denomination we can conceptualize in describing our expectations and the observations that represent life in evolution.  So, I suggest we can test the paradox by inquiring: As a critical human mind that must evolve toward betterment of the self through natural law, are we forced to choose a way to the conclusion whether divinity exists and can bring us justice? Here are the only two possibilities I can think of: (1) have faith that math represents objective justice through either divinity or physics or both, or (2) deny existence.  Here is the essential contention that gives meaning to my point (1) in the preceding sentence: it's ironic that justice can only exist through certainty, that every moment you experience must have a definite conclusion, and that every moment must coherently fit into the whole universe, but math, which is perhaps the best tool we have for recognizing certainty, tells us that, for example, (a) all things but the Omnipotent must be relative and have limited perspectives, like with velocity and position being exclusionary from Heisenberg’s perspective, (b) particles appear to behave like waves, and waves behave like particles depending on your perspective (duality principle), and (c) in between any given arbitrary point "A" and point "B" there are an infinite amount of points conceptually. The universe is highly uncertain in so many ways, the irony of trying to find justice through math is self-evident when you ask the question whether you can use faith (faith is equivalent to making mathematical assumptions to fill in gaps) to test something “real” (known physics) that you need to be certain of in order to make your desired conclusion (here, that justice exists in the laws of physics).   Now, further illuminating this paradox (whether it is fair that there must be a conclusion and certainty to every moment from every perspective and also coherency between every moment so that you can have justice, but also that the outcome of math depends on man's faith in his assumptions), math allows you to conclude your observations with 'equal' signs, whereas if you deny existence altogether (which is the only other possibility to finding a way to the conclusion of whether objectivity exists and can bring justice) then you simply conclude things by assuming they never were, which is a dead, and unsatisfying end.  In either case, we might conclude that irony shouldn't evidence itself in math if we assume the universe follows the law of motion that things follow the path of least resistance (key point - if we assume irony is unnecessarily complicated, irony suggests divine intervention into physics), so ceteris paribus, regarding life and death for Azlan and Edmund, this 'simplicity' rule could present a paradox unless the goal of the mind is not to follow pure math's demand for 'equals signs', but to follow faith's promise that equality will be judged by the creator of perspective.  A compelling counter-argument is that through natural selection, irony has a niche use - end of story - so it does not violate Newton's simplicity law.  Under this argument, irony is only a byproduct of the simplest path, so you can't use it for purposes of logical deduction to illuminate whether divinity exists.  Through the use of math we can only hope to derive evidence whether divinity has a self-interest to use math and irony together, because, it is only in their joint use that the paradox will dissolve, assuming our mathematical logic correctly allowed us in the first place to deduct that irony and simplicity should be exclusionary.  Therefore, my conclusion is a disjunctive one: (1) if you accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math, then man is compelled to deduct that only the Creator of individual perspectives can be the judge of that perspective, so either The Creator creates justice or there is no justice, or (2) if you accept that only physics can prove math such that even The Creator is bound by natural law, then there is no justice if you also believe that (a) irony and the first law of motion are exclusionary, (b) the universe is uncertain, (c) justice demands objectivity, and (d) it is ironic and paradoxical that there would be a reward for a virtue when the tools necessary to define justice show uncertain gaps in perspective in this world defined by perspective.

Knowing this, then, the goal of man should be to discover that free will allows us to define with certainty the uncertainty in the universe, and therefore lead to objective justice, and at the same time, man fulfills the promise of Christ by showing that our free will is unnecessarily beautiful. Therefore, I can now answer the question I set out at the beginning of the paradox ("Why in Narnia does sacrifice prove virtue? Under what authority can justice demand sacrifice from us without first objectively informing us we are taking something unjustly (beyond fair expectation) from something else to which that something rightfully belongs?"). The answer is that man has an incentive to create beauty to create divinity.  To quote the gospel, Messiah is the truth, the way, and the life.

Let’s go into greater logical detail on two of the key points above:

One

If you accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math, then man is compelled to deduct that only the creator of individual perspectives can be the judge of that perspective, so either divinity creates justice or there is no justice

Logically, if justice resulted, does it mean that justice was done getting there? This is why you need consistency, continual certainty! Even if the world has a probability factor, man needs to conclude that justice is within the spectrum of possibility.

Math shows that perspective is king whether you like it or not, which almost explains death, because if you have no perspective, there is nothing, but we all take it intuitively that the universe goes on without us.  Some pray to The Creator. You can’t stop us, and you wouldn’t want to.  A skeptic would argue that The Creator is just one question’s subject among many physics questions, and so when asked the disjunctive question 1 (above), it addresses whether The Creator gave each individual a perspective (by filling in the gaps in math, that is like filling in the spaces of quantum uncertainty with soul or freedom, which gives meaning to my phrase: accept faith in divinity to fill in the gaps in math).  So if you stray far enough from math you can find yourself talking about a soul and freedom; but what does math and quantum uncertainty have to do with a person’s moral center?

Because human math shows that perspective is king, and if you assume there is no justice if there is no objectivity, then there is no objectivity if the universe has quantum uncertainty, because quantum uncertainty is inherently not objective from our view.  So, assuming quantum uncertainty is a force in the universe, what keeps it in check? Our souls? The Creator?  An argument a person could offer is that The Creator is occupying the space where our souls are, and if we were capable of exercising the dimensional capacity we would have an incentive and desire to occupy the space ourselves. But what if in doing so, we became homogenized? What would that look like on Earth?  Would we lose free will? What if we did, but we didn’t notice? In one example of such an occurrence, the degree of freewill created by quantum uncertainty could be so small, its total obliteration would go unknown to us, and we’d be left to wonder things for no reason at all. Would that really be probable in a universe, that kind of purposelessness?  Ultimately, you can only ask over and over again, is there purpose?… Is there justice?  Would justice need purpose?  Would purpose need justice? Where is mercy? Or ask, can you have 75% justice? Can you have a 10% purpose without a 90% opposite effect? It’s an awkward question to ask this - How much depravity would exist before you’d see the quantum of mercy you’d like to see in the world?

 

Even a 2% purpose to life feels like a reason to go for a walk outside, anybody could say.

If you had only 49% purpose to your actions, would Newton’s third law present a paradox – every reaction (here, purpose) has an equal and opposite reaction (the opposite of purpose, whether it’s death or ‘x’). The ‘paradox’ would be that a 49% purpose is not really a purpose at all without coexistence. (I don’t think so.)  What violates the law that prohibits something from being twice in the same place at once? Is it reproduction? Consumption? Love?  This not a hopeless analogy or an impractical one because we see everywhere in the universe instances where matter’s result requires choice and majorities become too big – world politics… brain hemispheres… particles and waves… an equation with a fuzzy equals sign. 

And 75% justice sounds like contradiction.  If it would mean that by your mere existence you are causing something ‘else’ 25% injustice, which is categorically unfair unless you (a) somehow acquire another 25% justice fairly (presumably by similar or the same means you got your first 75% - like by showing respect for people and property) and the something ‘else’ (or the entire universe) on whom you have caused 25% injustice was in a position to absorb the 25% debt you owe because it deserved 25% injustice, whether because of the injustice it did to you or others, (b) disappearance, (c) completion of self, or (d) need for mercy.  We assume math works in the universe in such a way that when you tug on one end of your moral compass – like increasing your morality rating to 76%, you’ll necessarily go down to 24% in immorality.  Whether there is or isn’t perspective shouldn’t change that conclusion.  If there were no perspective there would be no incentive, and then there could be no equilibrium in the universe if there weren’t incentives that defined the activity which the equilibrium acts upon or is the evidence of…

There probably aren’t two forms of balance in the universe but semantics says balance can suggest a flat-line if you don’t use it in the sense of “equilibrium” rather than “evenness.”  

The only way to bring equality to quantum uncertainty, I can think of, is an outside force that can use the space made fuzzy by the quantum, but that force’s mere existence would render the 'good versus bad' dilemma uncertain enough to lose enough consistency that the moral authority supporting free will comes under attack? Even slight challenges to free will (synonymous with perfect accountability) can dramatically affect moral authority. That’s why Narnia is so comforting when Azlan assures us there are rules. We see that people want friendship and fun, and power justified by virtue. The Edmund character didn’t deserve power until he turned around and chose the right path.  So we see why free will needs to be placed in check. There is a reason for The Creator then. Azlan looks like he offers forgiveness, but you don’t have to read it that way. If the witch didn’t die in the story, what would you expect to happen according to natural law, and why would it have happened?  The movie doesn’t give you any of the witch’s insights to the natural laws she wants to use, so we assume she seeks only power and ownership.  Allegorically, Azlan explicitly shows mercy on Edmund, and suffers himself for it.  Azlan shows faith in justice and love’s immortality when he sacrifices himself for Edmund.  His sacrifice has a spiritual connection to the conclusion that justice exists and as Azlan lives, so too can Edmund. But will Edmund?  How can Edmund’s past be erased with Azlan’s future? That’s the disconnect? I do see the connection that Edmund betrayed and Azlan forgave that betrayal, but that doesn’t cure the disconnect, it only suggests that Azlan was able to even the scales of justice with forgiveness. How does that relate to death if death is not meant to be only symbolic? C.S. Lewis doesn’t rely on the apple of knowledge to prove the point, but the “turkish delight,” which is addiction to power.

I don’t know what else to say about the witch’s intentions. Thank The Creator that’s not the world we live in. Narnia can be a scary place. That’s what Lewis wants you to recognize. Why? So you’ll be good! It is really is the bottom line for beginners to Christ.  One beauty of coming to Christ is that when you’ve arrived, when you rightly ask for something, you receive it.  Everything seems possible, so you could be 100 years old, mangled, bankrupt, and on top-of-the-world.

Divinity creates justice or there is no justice because justice requires equality and perspective can’t handle the job. Statistical uncertainty in the universe, and micro level disjoinder is a serious attack on moral authority. Imagine all the different kinds of people who don’t believe in free will, but believe in their reasons to be angry. These questions are not abstract!!  If you witness even one blatant atrocity in the universe occurring, you have to wonder about the existence of justice, so the fact that Earth has seen such wide-scale horror not only begs the abstract question whether there is justice in the universe, but also the practical question whether we can rationalize its source and stop people right away by using fear to prevent further unnecessary destruction.  And, you better have a paradox in your pocket if you ever have to confront the man who doesn’t believe in free will who believes he is destined to interact with you.  The Chronicles of Narnia offers at least four helpful examples for how to live properly.

If you didn’t ever have a choice to make over what you wanted, at any level, then you wouldn’t exist, I think, because you wouldn’t need a perspective to appreciate anything, whether subtle or general.  A perspective is an inefficient thing to create because it requires you not only to reproduce component parts of the universe, but to occupy a piece of space and thereby exclude the entire rest of the universe from invading you, so the more components parts you have, the more unique is your built-in psychological incentive to be coherently improbable to sharpen your perspective, like physical exercise strengthening your right to exist in the universe to the exclusion of every other object outside your space.

Conclusion to One - Man has an incentive to create divinity because self-interest is inherent in free will and divinity answers questions about the paradox that beauty doesn’t follow the first and third laws of motion. The existence of an incentive assumes a perspective, and that means you avoid the paradox by accepting the ability of perfection to offer both mercy and justice, and to look within yourself for love, and free will fits into that picture because you need it in order to be able to make an offer of anything, and that brings you back to the beginning – The Creator’s creations.

(1)man fulfills the promise of Christ by showing that our free will is unnecessarily beautiful from deviations in probability, and to the extent those deviations cost us justice, we accept mercy, which is pleasing to you if you love Messiah, because Messiah loves mercy, and lives to the ages of the ages, and can therefore give unlimited gifts to counterbalance anyone’s perceived unfairness of sacrifice.   Where laws of motion are broken by sacrifice, The Creator’s reversal of physical law is the movie’s edge.

(2)irony and the first law of motion are exclusionary because irony takes an incongruity in the expected, and things are consequential when the expected meaning has a logical connection with the actual meaning. The law of motion is a rule applied to matter. Is Irony? Or is irony such a top level thought that it has no bearing on the laws of motion? In my analysis I assume they are on the same plane.

Two

In my conclusion that there is no justice if physics is the savior of justice and man is forced to assume there is a reason for uncertainty in the universe but he can’t know it, as if the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle and the question of an infinite number of spaces in between point A and point B were fair. “It’s not fair that no one can know!” argues the purely objective thinker.  But it is fair that you can only have one perspective, so logically, you can’t know if the universe is fixed, and so you’ll feel free will by the sheer nature of perspective.  There are many arguments for why man is drawn to certainty in the universe, and why he values evenness.

So how much does quantum uncertainty affect individual perspective? When you phrase the question this way, you don’t concern yourself with deviations you can’t understand, however small, from equality of experience. Math is all about the equals sign. Without it, how can you have justice? Science in the year 2009 has given us an equals sign with nano-ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

A literalist extremist argument is that a small deviation in certainty and evenness in the universe is all that is necessary to render null all right and wrong.  Everything just is, and justice wouldn’t be any more obvious to us, or any less realizable than in a universe in chaos.  In my perception on Earth, we are far, far from chaos, and we need to worry about taking care of one another, while simultaneously pondering existence, but without neglecting either.  This idea that perspective is king throws chaos in your face.  Every individual has a duty to find truth. 

If you believe the same truth has to apply to you as to everyone, then how do you achieve by yourself a transfer of information and matter necessary to survival of species? How do you stop everything from eventually evening out and flatness resulting? 

The Creator’s promises can bring you back to life, which is what you have to live for.  Allegorically circular, Azlan shows life is found in love’s sacrifice. 

In the bible, Messiah loved, taught, healed, commanded the elements, and created food. The Father sacrificed him, then resurrected him. 

If you could erase history, then you could erase your own immorality, which would be unjust.  But would it be impossible because it would be unjust? If yes, then the fact that you can’t go back in time would suggest divinity’s intervention to avoid the injustice? Our proof on Earth would therefore suggest divine intervention. Special relativity is the holder of time via spacetime and general relativity holds space via spacetime. Relativity is our evidence, but only The Creator can say whether The Creator exists.  Between logic and evidence, if you knew the answers to The Creator’s questions, you’d understand morality.

A person can argue that man’s appreciation of macro object certainty balances out the small quantum fluctuations that make deviance, and the world is balanced and therefore justice rides in the manner in which we define a genuine appreciation and use of spacetime.   People’s smallest problems are what to eat, not whether to manipulate spacetime and dimension to erase history. 

“(2d) it is ironic and paradoxical that there would be a reward for a virtue when the tools necessary to define justice show uncertain gaps in perspective in this world defined by perspective.” Ironic because it is unexpectedly circular that you would need certainty for justice in a world characterized by uncertainty (our logic is born from explaining the uncertainties, the gaps that spark the need to leap in the first place) and although we have an incentive to pursue rewards, we don’t know where to find purpose in the pursuit unless we look to The Creator or physics, but the outcome of each inquiry is uncertain by our limited knowledge.  Paradoxical because if perspective were king, why would math have to exist at all?  How does perspective need math? How does math need perspective? Why is there a balance between perspective and certainty? Where is the dividing line between the justice and goodness relevant to perspective weighed against what is correct and just about certainty.  Is free will just a beautiful abstraction, and that’s the most that can be said about this? – Author’s note: this could be said to pretty much end this whole debate in one sentence.

Power's legitimacy is virtue not absolutism! This is the explanation offered by C.S. Lewis for how objective justice can exist for humans, and I offer, also helps explain how you can have justice coexisting with quantum uncertainty, because virtue needs variety to show itself, so uncertainty is necessary for life and therefore well within the category of what is appropriate for life, but still, where is justice?

You can trust man to judge man in the real world because common sense is all you need to put together rules for civil behavior among people.  But who gets to eat who in the universe? It sounds stupid to think about aliens consuming us, but think about how callous and decisive we were with our own food chain. We really only have one natural law about what you can’t eat.  Other than that, it’s pretty much every man for himself. I wonder what kind of intensity this universe can handle on the macro scales of morality and evil. A parallel:  There must be some limit to how cool you can be as a ‘the Creator, ‘because there can’t be an endless supply of morality and justice and fun to make you awesome !   Can the universe have a maximum fun limit?  That would make the fluctuation scientist who discovered that fact first the ultimate bearer of bad news as he informs his species of his finding. Einstein rationalized Relativity, Newton used the first law to rationalize fixing an evenness to the universe by things avoiding conflict and maintaining stability, and the third law of motion confirms it with evidence when it says that what you make is equal to what you take. Math is evidence. Math is secondary. Morality is secondary too. What’s primary is fact, and what makes everything secondary come about is the question - what encompasses a higher law than just equal transfer of matter and energy and space if you assume morality needs a purpose beyond achieving balance of matter and justice for all ?

Newton’s 2nd Rule suggests a disjoinder between direction and intensity that creates quantum fluctuations because there is no definite place for something to go if you can have a possibility that it can go anywhere and any intensity, or negative intensity, or nowhere.

If you can give space on one end and take time on the other end, that should be evidence that the universe is fixed, because, the ultimate amount of space and time you put in results in one select spacetime.  The counterargument to deducting that the universe is fixed because the ‘give and take’ system only ensures change (it cannot ensure free will) is that your perspective will vary greatly depending on your chosen speed, and because perspective trumps probability, free will exists to the extent of and in the context of that power struggle’s dynamic of all the chemicals in all the possible combinations of speed, spin, concentration, etc.

Two possibilities for conceptualizing this are that the equals sign flows both ways or the homogeneity fluctuations in our string universe flex into locations previously occupied by other strings.  Quantum fluctuations in the string or imbalances in the equations prevent perfect equality. Do we seek perfection, or perspectives? The only practical question that comes out of quantum mechanics discussions is whether the uncertainty and probability inherent in our physical world can be used to affect human perspective.  I would otherwise laugh in disbelief at the ability of something as small as a Higgs boson operating in quantum mechanics to make a difference, but things like the a-bomb and the strength of carbon nanotubes prove that small things are fundamentally strong and pervasively powerful in certain contexts. So, size and power are related, but character is king, one could argue.

All analysis comes back to the relationship between good and bad.  In a world with equality, you can’t preclude the Witch from a life of access to the same rules Edmund benefits from.  If you believe the Witch can become as good as Azlan, then that represents your belief that there is no real division between different types of matter in the universe, or even that different types of matter exist, or belief in the prohibition on transfer of matter.