The Phenomenological Ontological Description or the Constructive Epistemological Explanations of the Real Spatio-temporal Material Beings in 4-d Existential Reality? Metaphysical Idealism or Biopsychosocial (BPS) Realism?
Angular distance δ between two stars observed by O, absolute or relative? (Image failed to upload)
The continuous silent battle for media recognition between practitioners and academicians rages on. Posturing by physicians, psychologists, lawyers and engineers vs. professors, mathematicians, physicists and philosophers looks like the outdated claims of realism exclusivity by Husserl’s phenomenology of experienced objective reality vs. equivalent idealism claims by Hilbert’s or Mach’s metaphysical logic about their subjective symbolic representations thereof. What is ultimately more important, immanent practical or transcendental speculative solutions to guide us today or tomorrow respectively? We think both are just two sides of the same coin and must be considered as such as the proposed dynamic operational algorithm integrates both the cooperative inputs of the hands-on lab/clinic practitioners and the arm chair academician brain storms evolve into the future in behalf of both the individual and the human species at large. For those of us who have embraced the arguments of quantum theory as an ideal glue to bind the phenomenological with the metaphysical as a way to bring into focus the noumenal structure/function of reality from the invisible extrasensory possibility domain to the credible probable domain, we are still reckoning with the important counterintuitive nature this binding glue carries. This is especially so when we realize quantum theory’s need to harmonize with general relativity theory which puts the human observer at center stage as should be. But we continue to critically examine why our human species may have no choices but to open new paths as we walk through future unknown fields like the Spanish philosopher Unamuno warned the inquisitive mind: “..caminantes no hay camino, se hace camino al andar..” Finding the way across the unknown maze is made easier if we admit, albeit tentatively, what appears self evident; we are witnessing a neo-Copernican revolution with the self-conscious human at the center of the universe with a slow but unrelenting determination to both describe and explain his origins and destiny regardless of his own obvious sense-phenomenal and brain combinatorial limitations in resolving the structure/function features of the diametrically opposite transfinities of the subplanckian and cosmological manifolds. All of this thanks to the information explosion brought about by computerized technology. For the existential realist mathematical possibilities in abstracto cannot precede physical probabilities, just like planning the new next step cannot precede dealing with the new consequences of the step into new territory yet unmapped; you may praise the abstract Lord but meanwhile pass the real ammunition.
The diagram above would give the reader the impression that, along the lines of the classical idealism of Hilbert, Mach and others, universal reality can be exclusively reduced to constructive symbolic metaphysical logic symbolisms of purely arithmetical relations that under arbitrary coordinate transformations could be relied upon as the exclusive objective fact of our evolving multiverse. But intuitively we know better that there will be differences in the measurement of the angle between the two stars depending on the subjective experience of the observer as it supervenes on the otherwise invariant relationship of the real time observer and the stars. This falsifiable experience incorporates Husserl’s phenomenalism and Einstein’s general relativity into the algorithm mix. Who should we trust the idealist version or the realist version of existential 4-d reality? The hands-on experimentalist or the armed chair academician? We argue below that both models are incomplete and objective understanding of human existence requires the synthetic a posteriori synthesis of both, so long as self evident causality principles controls the interpretation. We further speculate how this synthesis is not the final model fitting the human species mesoscopic reality in that it leaves out falsifiable and relevant experiences that resist language description or measurement, existing outside the human threshold for sense-phenomenal or brain combinatorial resolution. But the search continues and we have published a tentative, albeit speculative model of recursive information transfer between our premotor neocortex and the n-1 d spatiotemporal coordinates of an unidentified transfinity source.*
For starters, we all realize that there is more content to quotidian, real time existence than sense phenomenal Husserlian reality directly reveals and consequently objective reality cannot be properly studied directly except through the use of appropriate symbols to represent those relevant extrasensory features that are also part and parcel of the experiential present. But, as it happens, the quantum algorithm package also carries along extra classical ‘non-locality’, arbitrary atomic orbital restrictions like the Leibnitz-Pauli Exclusion Principle, not to mention quantum causality and other non-classical physics relationships between the observation/measurement and the reality witnessed. What cannot be ontologically described as a real space time material being must be epistemologically analyzed and completed by metaphysical symbolic logic construction. As we have repeated so many times, reality is inherently subjective because it is ultimately experienced in the human brain. Consequently appearances based on sense qualities are existentially relevant and an exclusively Newtonian equivalent construction of objective reality in pure analytical geometry symbols is thereby incomplete. We often forget that space and time do not have an independent reality but are necessary constructions of the mind to assign an collectively agreed-upon tempo-spatial location for objects and events in the Leibnitzean sense. Contrary to the idealism school view, for the newborn to survive to reproductive age s(he) must adapt first to his environmental circumstance by responding with either immediate reflex or delayed conscious adaptive neuromuscular activity choices as required by metaphysical logic constructs, in that order, i.e., the phenomenological precedes the symbolically inferred as the initiator of the species adaptive responses. One does not construct an objective environment, at any scale, with precise mathematical symbolic coordinates in anticipation of real time users’ preferences. It’s the other way around where real spatio temporal points reality initiate and guide the symbolic construction of geometrical coordinates. This is not to say that this initial experience expressed in pure symbolic language may thereafter serve as a guide to plan the anticipated future development of a known area. Needless to say we are, in the classical idealistic tradition, formally extrapolating to the very first man in existence acting on strictly inherited sources of information as may still happen in underdeveloped nations. In more developed scenarios it is fair to say that the idealized metaphysical logic model that in principle provides for all known scenarios now constitutes ‘proto-factual evidence’ to guide and evaluate the worth of new measurements or observations made in the new unknown environment. This way new explanations and subsequent generalizations provide for the evolving new horizons iff the symbolic structure correlates directly with experience.
Contrary to the idealism tradition we believe that the Kantian a priori forms encompassing the totality of our quotidian conscious experiences in our particular ecological niche, e.g., our evolving intuitions about the time and place we cohabit with others, will unavoidably precede any synthetic a posteriori arithmetical model to represent the objective 4-d continuum world construction we aim at when planning for future developments. It’s like ideally designing a dynamic jacket fitting all conceivable sizes, shapes, color and preferences as opposed to, once we have experienced the nature of such variations and then using those experiences as a basis on which to design the ‘one size fits all’ type of solution. Like solving a problem before you know what the problem is, maybe it does not even exist as a reasonable probability. What it means is that we should not ‘substantivate’ the required conditions for sense-phenomenal measurements or observations of objects or events to take place. This habit is the major source of categorical confusion between the physical reality of the ideally constructed map and the experienced territory as we so often witness in discussions of complex reality among otherwise privileged minds. Ergo physically empty space-time vacuum is not a territory we can substantivate a priori even by liberating the constraints imposed by numerical metric structures on experienced real time 4-d space time by continuous one-to-one abstract coordinate transformations divorced from existential spacio-temporal reality. If the reader keeps reminding himself that the cognitive capacity of our human species for understanding the meaning of an objective existential reality as a goal exists in a very limited brain capacity for sense-phenomenal and combinatorial resolution, then it should be expected that reality is subjective, emotionally ego centered and existentially guided by reflex intuitions, all of which points to the seeming paradox of a hopefully invariant objective goal being relative to the position in 4-d space time of the individualized observer . This means that relativity is part of the human equation and its influence cannot be effectively and totally neutralized in most humans by the invariance of natural laws and measurable quantities achieved by the mathematical transformations.
The unavoidable co-existence of the phenomenological with the epistemological, as we preach in the BPS model, has to harmonize with experiential causality. Adjectives, verbs and adverbial attributions cannot cause and precede the object or event they are describing in 4-d existence or anywhere in transfinite space-time unless you want to argue that the Einstenian E=MC2 equivalence is a convenient license to consider energy as immaterial and thus implying/marketing the counter-intuitive existential conclusion/notion that you can get something from nothing. There is nothing wrong with the idealized a priori notions of appearances because material beings in measurable or observed motions need physical boundaries with dimensional coordinates, whether seen or unseen. Consequently we need to characterize that invisible variable container with the x,y,z,t 4-d spatiotemporal dimensions containing mass/energy particles traveling specified linear/curved measurable finite distances in an imposed direction by gravitational forces of attraction present. The mathematical symbols ‘describing’ the differential-topological relations of material beings in space time, i.e., the logical space of symbolic arithmetical relations, the structure/function of an invisible mass, charge, field strength, etc., all of which constitute the required, albeit evolving and tentative, conditions to explain the preceding new experience. The epistemontological hybrid of the BPS model correlates the symbolic structure with experiential reality.
How else can we measure anything moving in any direction without boundaries, experienced or invented? Hilbert and Mach exclusive emphasis on abstract idealism and the opposite physical realism were two extremes that IMHO limited the possibilities of cognitive evolution by denying the possibility of exploring the possibility of n-1d transfinite sources of reciprocal information to explain the self evident order that seems to defy our physical laws of nature, as explained elsewhere in the BPS model of brain dynamics.* If you neglect the existential 4-d territory experience and rely exclusively on the corresponding abstract mapping you will be surprised how the individualized set of real-time circumstantial experiences of the observer will deviate from the theoretical predictions of the mathematical model when navigating in uncharted territories. Expressing it more formally it means that the metric and causal structure of the 4-d real world territory is dynamically evolving before the map catches on, world lines of material points are not rigid straight lines where the inertial, causal and metric structure of the ideal world are impervious to environmental changes, including the position of the theoretical extended human observer. Enter general relativity relevance and the need to harmonize it with quantum probabilities.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. In Deltona, Florida 11/27/2012