ABSTRACT:
This is an attempt to reconcile differences between Muller and myself with regard to the reality status of an unstructured or not-yet-observed world. I think that I have done this. It remains to be seen.

<1>
In R9 paragraph [2], Muller asks the crucial question, Does organism experience pre-suppose a mind-independent reality, (MIR)? He draws attention to my phrases (C10):
'the independent external world is a perfect symmetry'
'the unobserved bare universe as a perfect symmetry'
'experience clothes the world with properties identified by the organism'

I must admit that the language I have used here regarding the existence of mind-independent reality is misleading. Let me withdraw the notions of 'independent external world' and 'unobserved bare universe' as unfortunate and awkward in the extreme. I am currently teaching a course on this material and my class has been invaluable in pointing out weaknesses in my presentation. Let me try to correct myself.

<2>
For this discussion, I would like to modify the label MIR (mind independent reality ) to MCR (mind contingent reality). This shift may help to clarify my view. Contingence is a form of dependence, but retains the hint of separateness. I use the notion of potentiality as 'the possibility of becoming actual' or 'realized'.

I. THE POTENTIAL EXTERNAL WORLD AS A PERFECT SYMMETRY

<3>
It may be helpful for me to tell how my use of the notion of a 'perfect invariance symmetry' came about. Being a physicist, I was struck by the correspondence between Bateson's territory (what can potentially be mapped through experience) and 'quantum potentiality', the notion in quantum mechanics of the representation of a quantum system before measurement, as a superposition state of all of the potential results of such measurement. A quantum system before measurement is in a state of potentiality. This state is described in terms of a set of (superposed) potential states that are available for actualization through a quantum observation.

<4>
Let us ask about how physicists, particularly Bohr, the father of the Copenhagen interpretation, might answer the question, Does quantum potentiality have an independent reality? Putting words in Bohr's mouth, he might have said that the quantum system only gains reality when it is observed or 'actualized'. For example, an electron has no continuous existence in-between observation of its location. It 'springs into being' when it is subjected to position measurement by experimental apparatus. This is the basic 'quantum weirdness' phenomenon that so troubles physicists. So, if Bohr were pressed on the point, he might have denied the independent reality of quantum potentiality.

<5>
Notice I have shifted the question of 'mind-independent reality' to the question of 'actuality-independent reality.' There then remains the related question of 'when does potentiality convert to actuality?' Does it occur with organism experience? This is debatable issue among physicists. Some physicists claim that conversion to actuality occurs when a 'meter reading is registered' whether or not any physicist looks at the meter. For them, there is clearly some sort of objective mind-independent---ACTUALITY---reality (MIR). On the other hand, some physicists insist that conversion to actuality requires perception by a mind, so, accepting Bohr's hypothetical denial of the reality of potentiality, there would be no 'actuality-independent reality' nor a 'mind-independent reality'.

<6>
Physicists who believe that there is no actuality- independent reality for quanta in particular, but retain their acceptance of the reality of quantum systems in general, are stuck with the philosophical dilemma of requiring some form of independent reality for quantum systems that are not being observed. It is at this point that I am forced to generalize quantum theory, so that I can deal with the question of the reality of the not-experienced-world. I posit a perfect invariance symmetry as a generalized, global quantum potentiality, one including both particular quanta and quantum systems in general. For me, this generalization solves the puzzle of the not-experienced-world. Philosophically, if everything is considered a (quantum) potentiality, then there is no 'mind-independent reality.' In terms of possible or potential experience, such a perfect symmetry includes all possible properties of an imagined universe.

<7>
Now let's discuss the question of the subjective/objective duality of reality, which can also be called the subjective conceptualization/objective world duality or the inside/outside duality. The question can be put, Is a perfect invariance symmetry (or a generalized quantum potentiality) a subjective, objective or subjective/objective reality? This question can also be put, How can I describe the subjective vs. objective character of a generalized quantum potentiality? If pre-conceived particular quantum systems have been generalized to one global potential quantum system, I have pushed pre-conceived quantum systems to a much more remote realm, beyond atoms, molecules, solids, earth, stars, galaxies, super clusters, etc. In the limit, I reach an asymptote, pushing the objective reality of pre-conception to infinity---to one global potential quantum system. This is my picture of MCR (Mind Contingent Reality). It is infinitely remote, potential, not actual, and left with only one property, that of bare existence.

<8>
The evolution from classical physics through quantum theory to extra-Cartesian physics can be described in terms of the issue of subjective vs. objective reality. Let this evolution be described in terms of 'degrees of reality'.
* First Degree Reality
Classical physics, where things and events have
absolute objective reality.
* Second Degree Reality
Quantum potentiality, where subjective,
yet-to-be-observed quanta await conversion to
objective actuality through quantum measurement.
* Third Degree Reality
Global potentiality, where everthing subjectively
awaits conversion to objective actuality through
organism experience. Organism experience as a process
is then subjective/objective.


II. THE UNOBSERVED BARE UNIVERSE AS A PERFECT SYMMETRY

<9>
To say that this MCR is unobservable is inappropriate in the context, since any observation is possible, even when it is not 'activated', so MCR is not 'unobservable', but rather 'potentially observable'.


III. EXPERIENCE CLOTHES THE WORLD WITH PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED BY THE ORGANISM

<10>
The robotics community tries to make 'smart robots' that interact with their environments by using a technique called Lagrangian reduction or symmetry reduction. This has a direct bearing on the invariance symmetry breaking of organism experience. A mechanical system is desribed in terms of an equation of motion, in this case Lagrange's equation. The general equation uses a general Lagrangian, capable of describing a generalized or 'generic' mechanical system. It has symmetry properties that reflect this generality. It is said to have a 'large' invariance symmetry. Within this generic description, certain systems, like a 'snake board, a skate board with pivoting front and rear wheels that can be propelled by having the skater 'wobble', defy analytic analysis. Only when some constraints, called non-holonomic constraints that modify the Lagrangian, are introduced, can a reduced Lagrangian with reduced symmetrybe defined. Reducing the symmetry ADDS PROPERTIES to the description in the form of terms in the equation. This reduced Lagrangian equation has solutions, allowing a complete description of the motion of the snale board. Smart robots must be able to exhibit this same sort of motion.

<11>
This example from mathematical mechanics illustrates how invariance symmetry reduction (breaking) adds properties to a mechanical description. Generalizing from this mathematical mechanical technique to a full philosophical picture, we find a correspondence with the experience of a living organism. The starting Lagrangian of the generic mechanical system, in a first degree reality context, corresponds to the perfect invariance symmetry of the universe in a third degree reality context. The mathematics is the same, the application is very different.


IV. COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH MULLER

<12>
In [11] and [12], SIDE EFFECTS OF MIR VIEWS, Muller deals with the way out of the end of the MIR view: [11] 'In my opinion, views which include an assumption of mind-
independent reality (MIR) will inevitably lead into a dead-end situation when the question of the relation of mind to brain is addressed. The remedy is, I suggest, a view of zero-reference (TA1[5-7]) or (to use a less 'nihilistic'-sounding term) responsive reality formation (RRF) (TA1,R1[7-8]), according to which structures are created, from no structure, inside undivided mind-nature experience.' [12] 'Experience is always mind-nature experience. There can therefore be no such thing as an unobserved world; the notion is self-contradictory and therefore impossible. If it is employed, for instance in physical theory, it will have to be used (like metaphysics generally) on a 'working' or 'as-if' basis.'

<13>
I agree with Muller that 'There can therefore be no such thing as an unobserved world.' If his implication here is that 'unobserved' means 'unobservABLE'. If this is his sense, then we must agree that this yet-to-be-observed world has no actual content, only potentiality, perhaps similar to an 'empty set or category.' This is MCR in my view, a mere shadow world.

<14>
Let me interpret Muller's phrase, 'in responsive reality formation structures are created, from no structure, inside undivided mind-nature experience,' which he equates with 'zero reference.' I identify perfect symmetry with both 'having no structure' and having 'zero reference.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Identifying information about the commentator:
Joel E Henkel, born 1930, physicist, Ph.D. in nuclear physics.
Unaffiliated proponent of interdisciplinary study of the problem of the physical basis of consciousness. Interested in promoting new interdisciplinary scientific approaches to the problem, such as extra-Cartesian philosophy, nonunitary quantum theory, quantum biology and a generalized information theory of Donald MacKay.]

<jhenkel@juno.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]