Is Human Existential Reality Discovered or Invented? Determined or Consciously Free Willed?

Lux, Veritas et Vitae
Introduction.
Immanuel Kant does not need my defense but many years have passed since he presented solid arguments in defense of the ontological approach of science methodology when he suggested that the familiar 3-d cage life we humans experience in our quotidian existence was an inevitable consequence of the epistemologically derived inverse square law of universal gravitation, in that order..Yet, we read about recent arguments by the likes of Feyerabend (See his “Tyranny of Science”) taking the opposite extreme view that ontological measurements and observations are incomplete and the conclusions derived therefrom not better than self-serving biases projecting a monolithic and unfounded ‘world view’ of reality. On the other extreme we find John D. **Barrow who in 2004 argued that it is the other way around, that it is the ‘ontological fact’ of an inferred three-dimensionality of space, in that order, that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature. We continue to argue that those extreme views are unnecessary if we accept the 4 essential premises of our human species existential reality inside our 4-d Minkowsky spacetime cage: 1) human species self evident sensory and brain combinatorial limitations, 2) reality is in our brains, 3) perceptual attributions of material objects and events do not have an independent reality outside the mass or its motions that makes their description possible, regardless of our inability to always measure its mass (what) or specify its space coordinates (where) at any given time (when). Finally it would seem as if 4) our species, besides its perceptual anatomical limitation to a 4-d space time sensory world, our brain is also constrained to process environmental non linear sensory information input when linearized by sensory receptor activity and language processing.
It is difficult for most readers to understand and appreciate the special gift of the language machinery that makes it possible to articulate and communicate how we can ontologically describe what our external and body proper receptors experience and epistemologically explain the relevant, ever present but invisible objects and events beyond the sensory threshold to be described. Ergo, the need for a hybrid epistemontological biopsychosocial (BPS) model of reality which we argue should be rooted on the quantum theoretical probabilities of their prediction being measured directly or indirectly. To follow, we offer more arguments in defense of this brain dynamics model which still requires a complete harmony between the quantized and the relativistic, seemingly continuous reality. Does that mean we should stop investigating that transfinite invisible source of inspiration/information that makes possible the historical evolutionary and negentropic path of the human race that defies natural laws? We cannot even avoid that genetic drive fueling our species to search for an explanation of its genesis and eschatological destiny.
Arguments.
Most people may have not watched carefully how a spinning top toy rotates clockwise on its vertical axis (poles) when observed moving on a 2-d plane glass surface table. It’s location in space is easily determined from the address of the house where the table is located. As it spin/rotates about its vertical axis we notice that it may also revolve around describing an elliptical path easy to represent on a planar x,y grid diagram on the table surface. But it also shows precession movements about same axis of rotation as it slows down. Since the top is not flat we can conveniently imagine it being spherical and its axis a third dimension ‘z’ perpendicular to the table surface axis before it slowed down and precession started. We can now see from the observation that the solid spinning top is best represented as a hollow volumetric sphere in motion in 3-d space x,y,z. were it not for the pull of gravity that constrains the spinning movement to a 2-d surface, planar or curved if I imagine the table surface as deformed. When the observer looks down (e.g., with a flash light shining down from above the table) he will notice the north polar end of the vertical axis as it spins clockwise in relation to the axis but counterclockwise if the south polar end is now observed from under the transparent table, looking upwards. Which alternative would your ‘absolute’ description favor? If the spherical spinning top were the earth sphere and the flash light were the sun we would have to incline the light 90 degrees from the imaginary vertical axis so that ‘sun will appear’ as if moving east  west. With your left thumb pointing up try rotating it along your curved fingers clockwise. Now incline your thumb ‘axis’ until you reach 90 degrees and think about the new horizontal axis position in respect to the fixed sun above, etc. Continue until you complete 180 degrees when thumb points down; and you will observe the rotation of fingers is now counterclockwise as you look down, same as if you had looked up when viewing from under the table! You intuitively conclude, with Einstein, that the ontological description depends on the ‘relative’ position of the observer in respect to the moving object being described.
Notice also that the analysis depends on the spinning top never slowing down because if it did the original vertical polar axis will incline and precessional movement of the spherical axis will be seen as it rotates on its axis. Now you can predict that if the polar axis inclination were 90 degrees from the vertical (instead of the measured 27 degrees inclination of the earth), then, as your left thumb ‘north polar axis’ approaches east (90 degrees), your hand rotation will see the direct rays from the ‘stationary’ flash light (sun) rising north and setting south! Can we make predictions if we were to observe in nature significant earth changes in that direction, e.g., earth rotation is slowing down and it takes >24 hours to repeat a day-night cycle, earth axis inclination is increasing, sunset is becoming a southern spectacle, etc. Can we now start describing the human species eschatological end of times when rotation will come to a stop as we bake at solar oven temperatures before the sun reaches its peak temperatures, ., etc., etc.? Armageddon?
Furthermore, an observer can at will measure the time it takes for any point ‘a’ (e.g., jet airlines) on the surface of any convenient sphere (e.g., the earth) to complete a full rotation and return to the same location point of observation (e.g., Los Angeles, California). Or assume the jet airlines flying eastward and landing on point ‘b’ (e.g., New York City longitude). It is not surprising how much simpler it would be to, based on those ontological measurements, how one can epistemologically infer that if the spinning top were a spherical object rotating or in precession about its polar axis one could accurately predict, based on this model, the probability of any point on that surface to complete a full cycle in a given time or the probability of point ‘a’ traveling to another point ‘b’ in a given time; providing that the point is moving at uniform velocity (not accelerating). At present that trip eastward from Los Angeles to New York City can be completed in < one hour as predicted when traveling at non-uniform velocities, i.e., accelerating! Likewise, the epistemontological hybrid model based on falsifiable observations conceptualizes reality (sub atomic or cosmological) as being contained/bound inside a Riemann sphere where predictions are made possible by quantum probabilistic considerations. This is true whether the sphere represents the sub-Planckian or the cosmological scale. One thing is clear, the ontological observation was experienced in a 4-d space time manifold assisted by epistemological explanations based on metaphysical logic we conveniently used to represent the invisible but relevant object or event physically experienced directly or objectively/logically so implied. This implied hybrid approach has been the most successful ‘science’ our species has relied on and enjoyed its technological consequences.
Should we then be surprised that, based on previous observations on the flux behavior of 3-d solids under the influence of a gravitational field of measurable strength made possible the reduction of the observation as the result of the operation of an inverse-square law as Kant had suggested? After all nobody has ever witnessed apples falling upwards toward the clouds under the influence of earth gravity pull according to the predictions of the inverse square law. This is not to say that according to that same model the apple could also ascend upwards if all its particles had simultaneously, at one point in time, same spin up configuration, an event of extremely low probability in existential reality. Epistemological models of experienced unfamiliar contingencies, especially when they escape sensory/instrumental detection, are based on analogies from relevant previous related empirical observations. Once this experience is recorded in memory then our intellect can make predictions based on the model, in that order. One can imagine anyone trying to account for almost an infinite number of dimensional observations without having a model that provides a common denominator to all, at the expense of absolute certainty. The uncertainty is unavoidable for the species because of the perceptual/conceptual limitations described. Consequently, we also have to be aware about the added constraints the model may provide, e.g., the extremes of negative and positive infinities in size/dimension, from the receding pre-Planckian sub-atomic to the expanding cosmological dimensions. Enter renormalizations and unreal abstract assumptions to reduce the number of simultaneous variables in operation..
These are the super complex examples of cases where the mathematical logic controls the ontological observation as we see in projective geometry where we must avoid models that approach either zero or infinity values because those values cannot be measured and consequently are meaningless in real time quotidian existence. To illustrate, this may well be the case when we realize that, e.g., two 3-d spheres of radius ‘r’ each having a surface area = 4πr ² where the strength of the gravitational fields pull between their two bodies when separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN−1. As Kant suggested, this is consequent to the presence of a gravitational force acting as predicted by the inverse-square law and by the concept of flux relating the proportional relationship of flux density and the strength of the gravitational field. If N = 3, then 3-dimensional solid objects have surface areas proportional to the square of their size, i.e., a sphere of radius r has area of 4πr ². The important theoretical anticipation comes when considering any space of N dimensions separating any two bodies ‘a’,’b’, sub-atomic or cosmological, the strength of the gravitational pull between the two bodies separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN−1. Consider the magic scenario when N=1 unit dimension and ‘r’=0 or when dealing with negative dimensions and their square roots that give rise to imaginary numbers!
As some HiQers sometimes believe, space time is not distorted because of gravitational attraction by a massive body because space time is massless. Instead, the curved distorsion imposed on a plane surface is just a representation of the coordinate system grid lines predicted to be followed by an independent massive object moving along those lines when under the influence of the gravity pull. The alert reader should have noticed how the existential sensory discovery of ‘change’ as being essentially experienced as linear-forward and the discovery of how this ‘change’ varies depending on the relative positions of the observer and the changing object/event precedes the conceptualization of time as linear-forward and how relativity rules explains the trajectory of objects in space motion. Time, unlike empirical ‘change’, is not an independent variable advancing at a fixed rate in all reference frames as demonstrated by the measured "time dilation" observed when measured time (not change) slowed down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame as explained in the theory of "special relativity". With the invention of ‘time’ as a fourth dimension to be incorporated into our planar or spherical Euclidean space perspective of an universe with a three dimensions coordinate system, it was now possible to thereby create a single manifold that makes it possible to understand the complex workings of existential reality at the mesoscopic, supergalactic and subatomic levels of organization. Welcome ‘spacetime’ invention. I am only asking for the same consideration when reviewing my conceptualization of reciprocal, transcendental information transfer between transfinity and premotor human neocortical phase space.
Fortunately for the environment, our human species are passive actors/witnesses before the grandeur of the supergalactic/cosmological level where we have invented the concept of a single abstract universe or manifold consisting of observable "events" (what) whose location (where) is described by some type of coordinate system as it happens (when) without being able to control or influence as yet its course of events. In the cosmological domain there are no objects small enough to suffer physical modifications (shape, size, color, etc.) or in any other way be subject to our human manipulations to alter their evolutionary progression, only abstract dimensionless or massless singularity points that some feverish minds also invent to react with discovered objective reality….and sometimes get away with it!
Thus we invent the latitude and longitude abstractions for location, time to describe the perceptual changes observed in the ever present events until we run into logical cul de sacs, especially when, in pursuing our zeal to unify different systems, we find restrictions in the use of common dimensions, e.g., relativity and quantum coordinate dimensions. But dimensions should not be understood as physical attributes of space but just as components of the coordinate grid system when undergoing coordinate transformations. As it may turn out to be, if we are successful in unifying general relativity with quantum theory by considering all of existential reality, of any measurable dimension or not, as contained inside bound hollow spheres of varying radius, e.g., a Riemannian sphere, will arguably dispense of any renormalization or compactifying effort as argued elsewhere. As it stands, dimensions beyond the real time 4-d mesoscopic coordinate space or ‘superspace’ would only appear to make a difference at the subatomic level if the reconciliation effort is successful and quantum gravity is accepted. This effort in formulating a credible theory exhibiting supersymmetry is mind boggling and requires harmonizing the ‘bosonic’ 4-d degrees of freedom in real numbers with the fermionic ‘anticommuting imaginary dimensions’ (Grassmann numbers) and its multiple degrees of freedom. The long range predictions of this particular mathematical model will provide the best veritable science fiction script…if nothing else!
Yet, this far-fetched hybrid epistemontological supermodel, contrary to extreme materialism and/or theology equivalents (e.g., ‘cults’) cannot be ever convincing to the vast majority of individuals populating our special planet earth because the human species is known to be genetically driven to unconsciously protect and sustain a biological integrity, memory driven to subconsciously experience and prefer psychic well being and happiness by triggering an armamentarium of neuro-hormonal tools that renders them, in addition, capable of sharing in social conviviality, depending on their individualized biopsychosocial (BPS) past experiences and circumstances which determines which element is in control of their overt behavior, exclusive self indulgence, exclusive altruism or a healthy balance of healthy, ethical/moral and convivial personality in equilibrium with ongoin, real time existential reality (BPS equilibrium). Recorded history testifies to the truth of such types at all times.
But this BPS equation of brain dynamics would be incomplete if we were to negate the self-evident existential curiosity we humans experience about our species genesis and eschatological destiny which we are able to report thanks to the uniquely human ability for introspective self search and the expression of the results via the also unique ‘inner’ or verbally reported language machinery. This is the realm of consciousness as another dimension beyond the mesoscopic 4-d, quotidian existential reality into the unknown supercomplexity of an invisible transfinity beyond the scope of scientific ontological and brain metaphysical logic resolution for certainty. So we write poetry and formulate convenient theologies that satisfy all unavoidable believer, from the extremes of materialism to the extremes of mysticism and organized religions in between. We have no other choices because of the anatomico-physiological, ecological and cosmological circumstances that condition and modify our behavior.
Prudence and wisdom tells us that there is not in existence for believers a charted path to walk with certainty, that we individually have to make the path as we walk hopefully with the benefit of a biopsychosocial equilibrium as defined, like the famous Spanisher philosopher said “Caminantes, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar” which I would complete by warning about the roughness and obstacles to be found during the walk, “Hacia las estrellas por asperos senderos” or in Latin “Ad Astra per Asperas”. Emmanuel Kant exemplifies this strategy walking along a path criticizing an exclusive pure reason protocol to avoid the temptations of the extreme materialistic believers (some scientists and philosophers) and the temptations of the extreme mystic believers (cults, etc.). The choice of an organized JudeoChrIslamic theology represents that hybrid strategy of survival. Why do we have to choose between the monolithic extremes of a materialist J.D. Barrow or a mystic Feyerabend and his “Tyranny of Science” distorsions?
Observables-based science methodology and metaphysical logic-based epistemology are and will be incomplete as long as there is not a human genetic mutation or a perceptual/ontological reality can exist and be conceptually/epistemologically described or explained in the absence of a human brain.
Summary and Conclusions.
Neither can an exclusively objective scientific materialism methodology nor an exclusively subjective theological cult can ever formulate a monolithic and unified world view. Neither ideology can articulate the ultimate and absolute structural or functional features of that totality which exists within the reach of sensory or metaphysical detection. If we had have the magic fortune of simultaneously monitoring the atomic clocks on board of the fast speeding Space Shuttle and the synchronized inertial clocks at the slower moving earth bound space station we would have noticed how the latter clocks ran faster on solid earth than those in the accelerating space shuttle! How is that ‘time-dilation’ fact be described and/or explained on the exclusive basis of a scientific observation? Can we dispense of metaphysical explanations based on quantum probabilities and relativity? Not yet. Was that observation an absolute truth? No, because it depends on the objects/events being observed and their respective reference frames. Time will probably show that as the ongoing effort continues on ways to reconcile quantum theory and general relativity dimensional details we will need to expand our poetry to include in a special way additional dreamed dimensions unrelated to either space or time as we have experienced it, a new superspace to accommodate quantum gravity!
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Deltona, Florida August 15/2012.

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net/
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s