Reuniting Physics and Metaphysics

REUNITING PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS

PHYSICAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE AND METAPHYSICAL WORLD VIEWS
Since the emergence of Relativity Theory it is now clear that there are no absolute frames of reference. Yet people constantly pretend that their own subjective frame of reference is somehow fixed, and absolute. The challenge is to learn flexibility in our choice of referential structures.

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER
Scientific research is now held captive by the military-industrial complex, which dictates its own frames of reference to meet its corporate objectives. Those who would eschew technocracy must devise new referential frameworks to fit differing conceptual idea.

A SOUL DESTROYING WORLD VIEW
Work, warfare and international trade do not constitute a sufficient lifestyle package to sustain our species for much longer. Even if the biosphere survives the relentless assault of unfettered economic growth, this degrading obsession with mechanistic values leads to spiritual emptiness, economic servitude and government by organized crime.

BREAKING THE SPELL OF MATTER
The Geoperipheral Universe has much to offer in breaking the spell of matter since it treats the arrangement of matter in the macrocosm as subject to human design, within limits. This shocking claim does not seem so outrageous if human beings and their symbolising activities are regarded as an intrinsic part of the universe, in fact the most complex phenomena in the known universe.

The major benefits of deliberately and purposefully inverting the model of the Earth we choose to live in, from a ball in space into a hole in matter, are as follows:

1) Human beings regain the belief that they are part of the known universe as an ecosystem, the governor itself in fact) and not terrified impotent voyeurs having no power to interact with the cosmos.

2 ) The Earth's surface is the single most important part of the Cosmos to us Earthlings. Our new frame of reference should recognise this. NASA, space-ship pilots and rocketry-obsessed engineers should stick with Newton.

3) If there is Anybody Else Out There, they themselves can perform the same conformal inversion in their cosmological world-view. While their planetary surface features would be different from ours, it is interesting to note that the centre of their cosmos will be similar to ours (the macro-world into which the Universe's matter is mostly receding), and the central point (heaven) will be identical for all possible planetary-peripheral frames of reference.

4) Religious cosmologies were rejected by materialists because they depended on accepting the existence of a central place above them and of a qualitatively different level of reality, known as heaven, paradise, the happy hunting ground etc. There was no possible location for such places if the Earth was portrayed as a sphere in infinite space. In the inside-out universe model the singularity at the centre once again focuses human attention on a transcendent and mysterious place.

5) Purpose is relative and subjective. It is something that human beings create, it is not something we have "revealed" to us or "discover". Most secular humanists have such negative feelings about religion that they have an irrational fear and hatred of teleological reasoning. However it takes a great deal of self deception to even imagine a cosmos without purpose, let alone live in one. And in a relativistic universe we should feel free to choose a frame of reference which will suit our spiritual needs.

6) The dramatic impact that would follow the widely publicised realisation that human beings can, by an act of collective will, turn their universe inside-out, would be so great that many other ideas that depend on relativistic thinking which have for almost a hundred years been restricted to discussion by cloistered intellectuals, could be accepted for discussion and adoption by the general public.

Dysfunctional and absolutist ideas and moral attitudes that have been drilled into school children for almost two hundred years could then be properly and publicly exposed. I refer to the various blood-thirsty versions of the resentment-based belief in equality and levelling in general, which leads to mindless hatred of all hierarchical organisation; the stressful primacy of the recently invented individual with a mind of his or her own; socialist and capitalist beliefs about the absolute importance of work, money, and physical health and low priority of play, status and mental peace; the absolute value of political independence and nationalism regardless of good or bad government; and the overemphasis on passive feeling and sensation at the expensive of active reason and imagination.

7)The freedom to shift frames of reference by freeing oneself both from the absolute frame of an authoritarian deity and the absolute frame of an objective universe is essentially a magical view of the inter-relationships between the self or ego and the other or alter.

The Post-modern Cosmology represents a paradigm shift in perception from scientific "objectivity", which is no longer a tenable position, towards a more interactive and participatory relationship between ego and alter without flipping back to the previous religious "revelatory" position. In the former the alter is distorted and separated from human control through reductionism and the unacknowledged and unconscious selection of frames of reference to suit the needs of industrial civilisation, and the ego is distorted through claims of objectivity whilst being biased by unconscious belief in materialism and economic determinism. There is no inter-action between ego and alter. The ego is bribed by fame and fortune and the alter is exploited for economic gain. Feedback is entirely economic and the preservation of both the social and cultural infrastructure and fragile biological ecosystems is subsidiary.

In "revelatory" cosmology the ego is completely suppressed and the alter becomes divine and absolute like a strict parent or dictator. Again there is no real interaction between ego and alter. The ego becomes deformed and irresponsible and even malevolent, and the alter, rigid and remote. There is no accurate feedback just censorship and sacrificial appeasement.

Buddhism and Taoism represent exceptions to this view and are closer to the magical view, especially the latter. The magical view of overall inter-connectedness and the interaction of ego and alter at the highest level emphasises the importance of symbols. This leads to the realisation that words and numbers form "spells" or subjective reality systems which we can conjure up and use to communicate with, and in which we live.

The magician's role in society as performer gratifies his or her ego so there is less likelihood of them making security and control of materials their main aim in life. This is much more likely to happen
to priests and scientists.

Another advantage of the magical view of the cosmos is the tradition of the alchemical quest to realise the androgyne, or perfect male/female sexual-intellectual union. Both priests and scientists are drawn to their intellectual cosmologies as an escape from the female principle which both terrifies them and is idolised by them. The female is seen by them only as a feared mother figure or desired sexual object.

8) In my attempt to create a proper post-modern cosmology, frames of reference were consciously chosen for each level in the cosmology so that the phenomena at that level of complexity can be understood and acted towards with purpose and with concern for the levels above and below.

The geoperipheral universe is the physical base or "ground" for a cosmology which is my attempt at a synthesis of current human knowledge based on emerging and converging "spheres" which, through positive and negative feedback, act as "figure and ground" to the spheres below and above them in terms of complexity.

Thus the sub-material world of particles etc is the ground for the physical world. This is in turn the ground for the biosphere which is the ground for the organic behavioural ecosystem which is the ground of the complex roles in the interlocking vertebrate social systems which provide the ground for the overall human symbolic communication system or "nousphere".

What is this latter the ground for? In order to avoid trapping myself in a "closed system" I allow for some sort of metaphysical transcendence, perhaps some form of dematerialisation and ascension into the central singularity or heaven. This appears from my reading of anthropology and history to have been an almost universal human aspiration until modern times.

This has the advantage of combining both Eastern religions (which emphasize levitation) and Western religions (which emphasize ascension) for the means of combined physical and metaphysical transcendence. For materialists physical transcendence is displaced into an obsessional desire for conquest and expansionism implemented through sending space ships to colonise the universe.

Note. My use of the concept of "figure and ground" owes a great deal to Marshall McCluhan's historical analysis of the development of the peculiar idea of figures without ground in Western Civilization. See pages 1-128 in Laws of Media: The New Science, by M and E McLuhan (1988).

9) My cosmology is thoroughly post modern in that I have never claimed that it is an objective assemblage of phenomena and their various dynamics which have been "discovered" by observation. Moreover it is most unlikely to be adopted for its "usefulness" to the thoroughly modern military-industrial complex. It is a synthetic symbolic creation and is therefore a cultural phenomenon itself, located in history and limited by the extent of my own awareness of the relevant human knowledge at this present time and in this present place. Like all human creations it is ultimately subjective, being both anthropocentric and ethnocentric and bearing the marks of the personality of its creator. Claims of freedom from such biases are only made for divine creations and "objective" scientific theories.

The modern scientific world view is little more than mechanistic physics together with a chaotic, unconnected collection of specialist knowledge only linked together through their utilitarian
connections to the funding organisations. There is in fact no modern cosmology, only astrophysics.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION
AND THE WEB IS THE PLACE FOR IT!

WHAT SHALL WE DO TO BE SAVED?
Once the geoperipheral model of the physical universe is recognised as a perfectly valid model within the constraints of the known laws of physics, then its "usefulness" for providing the ground or base for a truly new post modern cosmology, which includes biological, behavioural, social and cultural phenomena, can be discussed.

This web-site can provide the opportunity for such an exciting discussion which is unlikely to take place in either a state-funded academic institution, or a god-centred ecclesiastical environment.

What a beautiful load of pure grad-A crap! Truly inspiring that should we all free ourselves from the oppressive chains of consensus reality we could realise that up can be down and down, up just so long as we don't spill our beer while doing it. Regardless of whether we recognise the earth as a ball in space or space in a ball, those who are destroying it continue to destroy it in full knowledge of the consequences. It's no secret that the world is being destroyed out from under (or above) us. Perhaps there will be something left after the humans are gone.
Reverend Puz Fundles - This dreary planet of the apes. - on Fri Jun 18 09:43:09 NZST 1999.

Agreed, Ryan. I think that NZ is attempting to unite many different viewpoints into one paradigm here. Am I correct?
Sir Real - Midwest US - on Tue Feb 23 18:00:47 NZDT 1999.

Some suggested reads: "The Tao of Physics" and "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra
Ryan Haeseley - North American Midwest - on Tue Feb 23 10:28:00 NZDT 1999.

Dear James, I have consulted my learned colleague Dayfdd and he believes the equation you want looks like this: If R = the radius or hyper-radius & n the no. of dimensions, V = pi * 2^(n-1) * R^n/n; n > 1 (for n = 1 V = R)........... The maths is a bit complex, however. If he can get the time he will answer in full. The * sign is just a simple multiplication, while the ^ refers to "to the power of" . Proving it would be hard but it works for n = 2 or 3 and they're the only dimensions we can see without dislocating our brains...I hope the notation comes out when translated onto the website...Wizard
WIZARD OF NZ - Christchurch - on .

I know this might not be apparent to the article, but i'm interested it 4th and above dimensions. Do you know what the general equation for the hyper volume of a hypersphere in n-dimensions? If not can you please point me in the right direction i.e. web address or email address of someone who can help.
James Foster - Durham, England - on .

Dear Arch-Wizard, just read the Reuniting Physics with Metaphysics, and thought it was totally on the ball. What's to "debate" about it? I am planning to link you to my home page, and Dafydd, as well, but I am waiting for a sort of "synchronicity". To tell the truth (it's hard for me to do otherwise - I always start laughing) I read Barbarian's letter, and I am intrigued. You said "The Ascension link is very important." Well certainly, but, what is this in reference to? Do you have a page about Ascension? I'm hunting through your site, looking for a direct reference to Ascension. (Actually, I thought Phys/Met-Phys covered that pretty well, and coincides beautifully - and articulates it better than what I or Barbarian might have said. I was always good at conceptual theories, never at applied ones. I think I was holding out for MORE. The school regurgitation systems just never suited me.) I guess the question I would really ask, O dear Arch-Wizard, is what particular essays you've written that you think I ought to take a gander at. As a female, American Wizard, I am toiling almost night and day, though I probably dress a lot more comfortably than you, ha ha. The Burden of Appearance is not laid upon me, as it is upon you. Say, are you a Genesis/Phil Collins fan? I think he's a first-rate fourth ray astral wizard who did a bang-up job in the 80's, and I think he got the word out, but then he got a conscience, and his career turned geriatric almost overnight. For whatever it's worth. Say "halloo!" Peace! Galadriel/Lela
Leopard Queen (Mrs. Barbarian) - tropical at this time of year - on Fri Jun 5 18:50:32 NZST 1998.

Howdy self proclaimed wizard of NZ. Gosh golly gee wiz what a refreshing view of the world you have. It takes courage to speak out against established ways of thinking so I commend you for that. My own world view probably started out from a mechanistic/reductionist view point as my academic background was heavily based on that. Over the years as I gravitated towards looking at the world from a sociological perspective and I came to realise, or more specifically, as this information was divulged to me that knowledge is socially constructed, and knowledge derived from 'scientific methods', was not as 'objective' as I was first led to believe. To conduct research you usually have to obtain grants form industry or government institutions on the requirement that you conduct your research in their particular field of concern and obtain the appropriate satisfactory end results which (if you wish to get paid and given more grants) economically benefit that organisation the most, or further its aims in some way. Generalising a bit but you get the gist of what of what Imp trying to say. There is a good book called 'The politics of Objectivity' which maybe you could have a look at? Granted, looking at the world from a 'scientific' or reductionist perspective is just one way of looking at the world, but I still consider it a powerful way of looking at something, but probably has no more or less, validity than the beliefs of Zulu tribe witch doctors. Nature in all its complexity is a testament to that, as scientific enquiry seeks to understand it terms of causal relationships but is continually thwarted. I think you subscribe, more or less, to a holistic view of things where the whole is more than the sum of its parts and so called 'expert knowledge' should not be considered the be all and end all on any one particular subject. As Einstein said 'everything is relative'. I suppose the only entity which knows what the truth is, is god? Yeah so I suppose science can be used to validate itself through its own methods and build upon the knowledge which has preceded it. Alternatively, there is saying that goes 'a completely open mind is of no use', something like that anyway, stop laughing) Meaning that to make judgements you need to base those judgements on something i.e. a completely open mind is a completely empty mind devoid of knowledge. Ok crapped on enough, Bye for now. P.S. Is that really you in the Wizard getup? *laughs* P.P.S. Hope this is some how relevant to your site. Bye
The Wizard of OZ *grins* - Melbourne - on Fri Apr 24 20:58:37 NZST 1998.

Howdy self proclaimed wizard of NZ. Gosh golly gee wiz what a refreshing view of the world you have. It takes courage to speak out against established ways of thinking so I commend you for that. My own world view probably started out from a mechanistic/reductionist view point as my academic background was heavily based on that. Over the years as I gravitated towards looking at the world from a sociological perspective and I came to realise, or more specifically, as this information was divulged to me that knowledge is socially constructed, and knowledge derived from 'scientific methods', was not as 'objective' as I was first led to believe. To conduct research you usually have to obtain grants form industry or government institutions on the requirement that you conduct your research in their particular field of concern and obtain the appropriate satisfactory end results which (if you wish to get paid and given more grants) economically benefit that organisation the most, or further its aims in some way. Generalising a bit but you get the gist of what of what Im trying to say. There is a good book called 'The politics of Objectivity' which maybe you could have a look at? Granted, looking at the world from a 'scientific' or reductionist perspective is just one way of looking at the world, but I still consider it a powerful way of looking at something, but probably has no more or less, validity than the beliefs of zulu tribe witch doctors. Nature in all its complexity is a testament to that, as scientific enquiry seeks to understand it terms of causal relationships but is continually thwarted. I think you subscribe, more or less, to a holistic view of things where the whole is more than the sum of its parts and so called 'expert knowledge' should not be considered the be all and end all on any one particular subject. As Einstein said 'everything is relative'. I suppose the only entity which knows what the truth is, is god? Yeah so I suppose science can be used to validate itself through its own methods and build upon the knowledge which has preceded it. Alternatively, there is saying that goes 'a completely open mind is of no use', something like that anyway, stop laughing) Meaning that to make judgements you need to base those judgements on something i.e. a completely open mind is a completely empty mind devoid of knowledge. Ok crapped on enough, Bye for now. P.S. Is that really you in the Wizard getup? *laughs* P.P.S. Hope this is some how relevant to your site. Bye
The Wizard of OZ *grins* - Melbourne - on Fri Apr 24 20:58:10 NZST 1998.

Just some brief comments about McCluhan's paper which I recently got hold of : I find his description of 4D space as "acoustic" space and 3D Euclidian space as "visual" space quite interesting. I had always visualised 4D space with the 3D component reduced to a plane, thereby allowing the 4th dimension to be seen as a "pseudo-3D" extension. McCluhan's work takes a totally different approach. It will take father reading to digest these new ideas ( to me ) further.
Richard Swan - on Mon Dec 29 13:35:17 NZDT 1997.

Having made my differences of opinion clear at the outset, I must say I find this inverted form of looking a : "Life, the Universe and Everything" is quite a refreshing change from the usually accepted paradigm. This inverted or conformal paradigm has much is common with the Eastern notion of discovering the "Universe within". In common with the Inside-Out model of the Universe, this paper is quite unique in showing both sides of reality, the subjective Inner and objective Outer. The Inner and Outer are complementary aspects of the One Reality. Any other comments or ideas ? It seems like I'm the only one here )=:
Richard J Swan - Wellington Region - on Mon Dec 8 22:49:53 NZDT 1997.

I would just like to point out that the term "hole in matter" is certainly misleading and was only used to enable readers to be able to grasp that the new universe is an inversion of the traditional Newtonian view of the Earth as a sphere of matter moving through space.. The fallacious mechanistic view that the universe is like a clockwork machine with balls moving in space is still being taught in schools and the Arts Departments in universities. The trouble is not just with the meaning implied in the word "matter" but ALSO in the extremely dangerous hidden assumptions implicit in the use of the word "space". I recommend a reading of the first few chapters of 'The Laws of Media' by E and M Mcluhan for an interesting historical survey of how the concept of "space" arose in Ancient Greece, and the harmful consequences for metaphysics.
Wizard of NZ - Christchurch - on Thu Nov 27 11:59:42 NZDT 1997.

I'd just like to say that the Inverted World View has everything to do with inverting space, and does not actually "create a hole in matter". I'm also of the opinion that revelatory knowledge could be gained in meditative states, and may contain elements not always perceptible to the conscious (normal waking consciousness) mind. It depends on how revelatory is defined. I think revelatory has been too narrowly defined in this article. Revelatory knowledge when seen in this light could open the gates to Universal knowledge, as it operates at a level where the rational mind is bypassed. Apart from these minor criticisms or differences of opinion as the case may may, I find this an interesting and challenging article. Any other comments ?
Richard J Swan - Greater Wellington Region - on Tue Nov 25 14:54:55 NZDT 1997.