KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Commentary 34

( ON DESCRIBING REALITY )
by Geoff Haselhurst
23 May 2001, posted 29 May 2001

[ The following is an introduction to a treatise by GH on the "Metaphysic of Space and Motion", a long paper, not posted here but available from the author. Paragraph numbers in <brackets> are added by me. I also include my reply at the end. - HFJM ]

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

<1>
This is a first draft, though it is the result of five years work, and several years of writing! (Because email is large (about 40 pages) I send it to several people at a time, my following introductory comments are largely directed to Dr Muller, but they are important and I should include them somewhere in this work.)

<2>
This Treatise claims to truly describe Reality. An extraordinary claim! that is almost impossible to believe. Yet I am quite certain that you are now reading about what you actually are as a Human in the Universe! I know you shall be skeptical, but I also know this theory's extraordinary logical power combined with a good dose of common sense - that obviously something exists for us to exist in and have thoughts.

<3>
Let us briefly consider this claim to the discovery of Reality for it can be taken in two important ways.

1. Idealistically like Kant, that Space Time and the Causal Motion of Matter in Space are our own mind constructions. Kant still agrees that there is a physical reality, but it is always separate from our ideas of it. Einstein was similar, and mathematically represented matter as a changing (time) spherical field (both force and ellipsoidal shape change) with motion and near other matter in Space. Einstein believed in a rigid fundamental Space (the spherical shape of matter gives space its three dimensions) and that matter was a structure of Space. He was correct other than he used the wrong language (of electromagnetic force fields) rather than spherical standing waves in Space. As this Treatise explains, the Wave-Center obviously creates the point-like / particle effect of matter, and once you understand the theory you will realise that a change in velocity of the Spherical In-Waves, as they interact with other wave structures, causes the acceleration of the particle/wave-center. This, most profoundly, explains Newton's Fundamental Law of Inertia F=m.a and thus explains the 'Necessary Connexion' between 'What Exists' .

<4>
This is the fundamental cause of the force field which misled Einstein. And as you shall see, then solves all his problems, unites relativity with Quantum Theory (obviously explains particle/wave duality), Wolff deduces both QT's de Broglie Wavelength and Einstein's Relativistic Mass increase, both are phenomena of relative MOTION. BOTH deduced from the ONE wave equation - absolutely remarkable to do this if this language were not true. Further, the same logic applied to Cosmology solves ALL their major problems also - absolutely remarkable.

<5>
So firstly, you can read this treatise and determine for yourselves - does this language of Matter existing as Spherical Standing Waves in Space logically deduce what we sense in the motion of matter in the Space around us. I can answer as a Philosopher and Scientist that it explains most things perfectly (but that there are still many things to explain - similar to how I view Darwinian Evolution, but with more precise mathematical logic to support it, and it explains more things with less things).

<6>
But at this stage we are still purely idealistic - both our senses and our logical language exist in the mind. Nonetheless - the discovery of the correct language for describing reality within our mind would be a remarkable and profound human achievement, and would in itself radically change our world view - please think on this.

<7>
Let us turn now to the second very interesting question of Reality

2. Does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space merely exist in our mind, and Reality is something separate that we represent with our mind.

Or

Does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space actually describe what physically exists, not as a representation but as a direct description.

<8>
I am quite certain that Space does actually exist, and is spherically vibrating like I say, and that I exist in this Space as a Structure of many trillions of Wave-Centers all trapped in complex interconnected 'orbits/oscillating wave functions' about one another that have evolved my enormous complexity. This is sensible and logical to me for the following reasons;

<9>
1. We all agree something must exist

2. We all agree that human mind and ideas require human bodies and brains to exist.

3. We all agree there must be some necessary connection between the matter of our brain and body and other matter in the universe (for us to be able to see it, move it around)

4. We all agree that our Representation of Reality is not direct from our senses, but is constructed by the mind (and this is limited to sensing only a tiny fraction of 'What Exists'. So for example we only see a half moon (we are deceived it is still a whole moon) because we only sense a tiny 'visible' frequency of light (resonant coupling) compared with the many other possible frequencies that our technology uses. Thus an Infra-red telescope would still see the whole moon)

<10>
Now I argue that the Wave Structure of matter in Space agrees with all of this. We do represent the world, a red apple is not really a red apple, it is a structure of many trillions of Spherical Standing Waves the size of the universe, whose wave-centers have evolved into this complex structure that has electrons/wave-centers trapped in particular frequency 'orbits' that resonantly couple with electrons in my eye due to oscillating interactions of their In and Out Waves. This particular frequency is represented to my mind as red. I cannot explain this representation, but I can explain the Cause of the Representation. This is important, and I would like you to directly address this point - for me to BE ABLE TO represent this apple, requires points 1 to 3 above - which I explain quite perfectly with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter.

<11>
Thus we see that the Metaphysic of Space and Motion agrees that our mind represents the real world of which we have limited senses. But what I stress, is that neither Space, nor (Wave) Motion are Representations, but are in fact What Exists such that you can exist and have a mind that 'represents' these spherical standing wave motions in Space.

I look forward to your reply and I will continue to think about this and develop these ideas, for it is a most intriguing form of skepticism that the idealist poses. But I believe in the power of truth to explain all things....

<12>
PS

On Mind Independent Reality - Before humans existed, there still existed reality. Thus in this sense, mind independent reality exists. I argue that Space has always existed and been spherically vibrating - this is completely reasonable and logical.

On Mind Independent from Reality - The mind must exist as a structure of Reality (the relative motions of trillions of Wave-centers, both internal and external to the body) thus the mind depends upon reality for its existence

Your comments?

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

Geoff Haselhurst

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

[13]
REPLY

by Herbert FJ Müller

In this reply, I will only answer to your introduction. I have not yet had the time to go through your treatise. But it seems that some of the most central questions, namely your underlying assumptions, appear here. I hope you don't mind if I am somewhat repetitive at times.

As you will no doubt have expected, I have a problem with your endorsement of mind-independently pre-structured reality (MIR, ontology, is-ness) belief. Although <in 9 above> point 1 "We all agree that something must exist" there is no clarification of the meaning of "exist", in <6> you write that "The mind must exist as a structure of reality … thus the mind depends on reality for its existence". And in <7> "2. Does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space merely exist in our mind, and Reality is something separate that we represent with our mind. Or Does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space actually describe what physically exists, not as a representation but as a direct description". Both alternatives you mention in this statement imply MIR-belief. But the premise "we all agree" which you present as justification for MIR is not correct. I vote for a third alternative : that we build reality from scratch inside our ongoing mind-nature experience.

[14]
I do not agree with MIR-belief, because it turns things on their head : reality depends on subjective experience ("the mind") for its existence, and not vice versa. Piaget and others showed that reality is our construction : the self (mind), others, and the world, and particularly also the split between them, are our doing, and as experiencing subjects we are and remain a constituent component of all structures, which means that they are not mind-independent (see also TA17 by E von Glasersfeld). We need structures indeed, but they are not "given" to us in a pre-assembled (ontological) form, which could possibly be re-presented or described, they are built from no given structure (zero-derivation, 0-D). This position does not imply ontological solipsism, since (a) its basis is mind-nature experience as a whole rather than only the subject, and (b) it therefore does not permit (neither MIR- nor subject-) ontology which would be based on the assumption of a primary (ontological) subject-object split.

[15]
Thus in response to "This Treatise claims to truly describe Reality" <2> : you can structure experience (or perhaps if you prefer you "structure reality", though this formulation introduces an ambiguity), but you cannot describe a fictional MIR-nature. Kant <3> went beyond his well known views in his later writings (opus postumum; see TA28 C13), though Einstein remained an ontologist. Working reality and truth result from structure-building within subjective experience; or more specifically, and in answer to your second point in <7> : from investing belief and trust in the "merely" created structures (money is a particularly clear example : man-made, accepted, believed in, and used; it would be difficult to argue that it is not real). That "something must exist" then changes to mean that : we need mental tools for thinking, and to believe in. We should not become passive victims of word-concept-dynamics (see TAs 24 & 32). And further, we like certainty, the absence of doubt, because it makes us feel safe. But doubt should not be abandoned (at least not in principle, though it may be so in practice) : not in favor of internally- nor of supposedly-externally-warranted certainties. Call it creative doubt, perhaps, or conscience; static certainty can be counter-productive.

[16]
Thus when you say that you are describing a mind-independent reality, I would reply that this is the traditional error of static metaphysics. For instance, you would have to explain by what means you propose to describe such a reality which is both fictional and inaccessible to our mind. What you are doing is, rather : work out new procedures for dealing with experience. <12> "Reality existed before humans" - you have to say something like that, if your basis is a static-objective (MIR) frame of thinking. However, this frame is our doing to start with, and uses backward extrapolation, starting from present-experience-structures, first created inside ongoing experience. The past keeps changing like the present and the future : who did what last week, where did what kind of humans come from, and maybe the big bang was not and should be replaced by floating no-bang-11-dimensional-space-membranes (Science 292, p.189-191, 13 April 2001). An accomplished (unchanging) past reality is an aspect of a static-MIR-phantasy.

[17]
All this implies nothing about the usefulness of the theoretical structures, ideas, or language <6> you describe. Whether they are more, or less, helpful than other working-structure proposals, for dealing with physics or with other aspects of experience has to be decided by trying them out. This is of course what happens in practice : when accepted beliefs and other techniques are found to be insufficient or counter-productive, new ones are elaborated. Why else would you want to develop a new metaphysic ? From here follows, among many other things, that the notion of one ultimate static structure is illusory (nor would it actually be desirable, because it would be yet another exclusive truth-claim, aspiring to displace not only other physical theories but most likely also other systems of belief). On the other hand, theory building is compatible with a far-reaching convergence of methods.

[18]
" <8> I am quite certain that Space does actually exist, and is spherically vibrating like I say … " This is fine as your belief, but one can probably also maintain a working belief in vibrating space without making it MIR-absolute. I prefer to think of such structures (or better : of beliefs in existence of such structures) as possible (non-or-pre-Cartesian) mind-nature tools or instruments. This view makes them more flexible. "Space" is then an instrument for dealing with the extension aspect of experience, and the relevant mathematical tools, including (spatial) "dimension", help with that. Animals experience extension too, without having word- or number-concepts of space. Similar considerations apply to "time", to deal with the flow of experience, and "numbers", to deal with iteration. My question here is whether you might see such a functional or working (as opposed to static) notion of time, space, dimensions, and mathematics as desirable - but it would interfere with your idea of space as fundamental. Concepts and ideas in general, as for instance in "idealism" <3,11>, are such mind-nature tools as well.

[19]
"<10> … This particular frequency is represented to my mind as red. I cannot explain this representation, but I can explain the Cause of the Representation. This is important, and I would like you to directly address this point - for me to BE ABLE TO represent this apple, requires points 1 to 3 above - which I explain quite perfectly with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. "

[20]
Subjective experience (SE) differs from objective explanations : SE is not a re-presentation of a pre-existing MIR-apple-structure or of an MIR-frequency. Instead it involves building and using mental entities (including not only spatially formed structures, but also qualia such as color or pain) inside that experience. We (and animals too) experience red also without knowing or speculating about brains, electromagnetic frequencies, or standing waves. The experience comes first, scientific physiological and physical explanations as objective methods come later. The science is a specialization (involving structure formations and uses) within experience, not vice versa, and that is why neither you, nor anyone else, can explain experience, and not only of red. The necessary conditions ("causes") for seeing an apple are many. For instance that it has grown on a tree, that you have your eyes open, that there is some light, that it has not yet been eaten, etc. Also the market forces, which made it come to your table, and (if you like) that God created it plus you, and made you think about standing waves and red apples. The sequence depends on what you take for fundamental. In my opinion, the unformed experience is the first condition.

[21]
The strongest argument for traditional MIR-belief is probably that everyone sees a red apple as a red apple. For concrete objects the experience may support only one or a few structures (in contrast to some more ambiguous social situations, for instance). But (a) this does not eliminate the requirement of 0-D structure-building in individual subjective experience. Also (b) the MIR is not permanent, this red apple was not last year, although others were, and if you eat it now it is no longer, though you can still think about it, and if you took its picture you can continue to look at that. And (c) the apple can be mistaken for another object, and vice versa. Etc. Despite its inherent limitations, MIR is a practical way of talking about object-experiences (which is why you use it), but I suggest that in principle an as-if-MIR-with-0-D provision is still better, because it outlines the conditions of the MIR-assumption.

[22]
Experience does not require MIR (points 1 to 3 in <9>), quite the opposite [14], but physiology and physics do - though as mentioned I suggest that working metaphysics (as-if-MIR) is more helpful here than MIR. (Static MIR may be understood as a special case of as-if-MIR, for the situations where one can get away with it, such as in many exclusively objective studies.) The "as-if" does not make reality unreal but maintains us subjects and our doubt inside the experience. I do not want to suggest that doubt (or skepticism) is particularly pleasant, but, like pain, it is important for survival. If you abolish pain, as during anaesthesia, someone (or something) else has to take charge and responsibility, and the situation is analogous in the case of doubt-free certainty which is supposedly guaranteed by fictitious outside agents. But it is probably more appropriate to compare doubt to conscience. The practical requirement is a seasoned balance between doubts and auxiliary (essentially temporary even if of long duration) certainties.

[23]
"<11> … I believe in the power of truth to explain all things ...." Go forth and develop better tools, and more power to you ! You may come up with some universal instrument, perhaps, which can handle much of physical experience in a contradiction-free way. But as mentioned, I don’t think you will "explain" subjective experience by reduction to something objective. And as for the power of reasoning, let us not forget Paul Feyerabend’s ocean of irrationality (whence 0-D starts, and on which we therefore are, together with, and perched on, our floating islands of rationality). PF was here talking not about Freud's unconscious but about scientific theory.

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

Herbert FJ Muller