Analytical Examination of an Ongoing, Mesoscopic Existential Reality.

The Variable Contingent and the Invariant Absolute Components in Perspective.

Introduction.

“The simplest and most general statement of the identity theory of truth is that when a truth-bearer (e.g., a proposition) *is true*, there is a truthmaker (e.g., a fact) with which it is identical and the truth of the former *consists in* its identity with the latter. The theory is best understood as a reaction to the correspondence theory, according to which the relation of truth-bearer to truthmaker is correspondence. A correspondence theory is vulnerable to the nagging suspicion that if the best we can do is make statements that merely correspond to the truth, then we inevitably fail to capture the reality they are about and thus fall short of the truth we aim at. An identity theory is designed to overcome this suspicion.” Candlish, Stewart and Damnjanovic, Nic, “The Identity Theory of Truth”, *The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy *(Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/truth-identity/ .

The discussion that will henceforth follow is premised on the controversial proposition about how –not why- our original human knowledge about the structure and function of all objects and events we experience must have probably started to begin with. First with their sensory observation -within sense-phenomenal resolution threshold- and then followed by language descriptive reports –however primitive but with a continuously evolving syntax semantic structure- as we mature. These evolve as contrived metaphysical representational explanations -using more sophisticated accounts expressed in their symbolic and/or sentential equivalents- as an expression of certainty about their physical presence/occurrence. Their certainty became only a derived mathematical logic probability calculus. The more convincing metaphysical explanatory accounts were those that were the result of consistent and verifiable consequences of probable causally efficient physical unit particles. These posited ‘observables’ remain beyond human sensory threshold resolution in both the micro infinitesimal or the macro infinite cosmological extremes. The resulting causal model-poems had to be subject to future experimental verification as exemplified by confirmations of the predictions anticipated by their formulation. If no experiment could conceivable decide between posited models candidates, however sophisticated and elegant, they remained speculative conjectures until proven otherwise. Can a unit-dimensional physical particle such as a putative 3-d cube, change in absolute terms, or only in contingent terms, i.e., depending on their particle interactions (e.g., aggregation of more unit particles) with their relevant changing space-time environmental circumstantial reality? We will argue that, within the contextual framework of an evolving quotidian, mesoscopic existential reality, *both* the particle aggregates and the space time environment can change simultaneously regardless of our ability to monitor the changes. Is reality then contingent or absolute? Are we as a human species forever denied the epistemological cognitive certainty of the Kantian ‘Ding an sich’ and will accordingly remain forever imprisoned within the confines of our limited phenomenological world of superficial ontological appearances? Equally relevant, is the answer to the question, what model poem should we empirically adopt to continue improving on the quality of our lives and our environment, the ontological perspective of physical materialism or the epistemological perspective of metaphysical logic of the mathematical or theosophy variety?

We will continue elaborating on previously published accounts on the advantages of a ‘not so new’ ‘epistemontological’ hybrid unit whole reality that dynamically incorporates the best of the abstract metaphysical a-priori effort and the confirmed empirical a-posteriori experimental results as an evolving synthesis of ongoing reality. This model poem content would hopefully allow, as argued, for a unique human species strategic compensation for its relatively poor adaptive biological survival resources –compared to other subhuman species- and a view of reality as a dynamically unfolding restructuring of the human species functional brain architecture capacity to develop its full cognitive potential. In the process a road map emerges as a goal to guide and prepare for future life-threatening contingencies while continuing to develop the wondrous civilization it has heretofore witnessed. This way, the abstract, metaphysical logic speculations/conjectures about the future become a probable *journey* compass needle to guide us through the complexities of the immanent ** now** and into the transcendental

**for the human species across future generations. For life is a journey not a fixed destination.**

*tomorrow*

Within the context of the above mentioned premises of an anthropic, mesoscopic biopsychosocial (BPS) model of brain dynamics proposition -as a point of departure- we proceed to briefly reconcile the physical description with the metaphysical explanation, the invariants with the observable or ‘hidden variable’, the observable ‘seen’ with the probable ‘unseen’. Among the sensory observables we witness the first person self and other, the third person accounts and, of course, the explicit or inferred ‘motion’ of objects and/or events, whether caused by visible rigid bodies or massive but invisible falling macro objects under gravitational acceleration pull.

Sense-phenomenal accounts of physical reality are not necessarily what physical appearances descriptions reveal and often it is more convincing to adopt the metaphysical explanation provided instead. To illustrate, unless we dig deeper into our analysis, the earth looks flat like an Euclidian 2-d x-y plane and the skies seems to the rational intellect as the non-Euclidian Minkowsky 4-d x-y-z sphere, center of the spirally changing universe in space-time. Which model is the absolute truth about our existential reality? Is changing reality absolute or contingent? We argue, with others, that it is *both* and, what is worse, barring a human chromosome mutation event, we may never know the absolute truth. But, stay tuned for more multidisciplinary arguments…

The seemingly spontaneous cosmological, macro ontological order observed by the primitive human sensory brain slowly became the micro epistemological probable order, from the Greek Gods, the Euclidean 1-d line, 2-d plane, 3-d volume, 4-d space time, 9-d non-Euclidean compactified space time, and a full cycle back to the organized JudeoChrIslamic theologies or their equivalent theosophical Gods of the physical materialists, Scientologists and other secular cults. Which one will exclusively attain absolute truth status? We believe and argue that none probably will unless we inclusively integrate the probable aspects of all into a new Epistemontological unit whole centered on a basic inescapable biopsychosocial BPS subconscious effort shared by all living species and elevated to a free will conscious status made possible by the uniquely human introspective ability of the human brain dynamic activity supported by a language based coordination of the emotional human survival reflex and rational adaptive responses.

Argumentation.

It is not surprising for curious human observers who historically have always been impressed by all varieties of embodied motions by objects or events, linear, circular or otherwise, to often wonder about the driving force causally responsible for the experienced observable linear displacements along what looked like the Euclidian 1-d line, 2-d xy plane flat earth surface or the non Euclidean 3-d xyz volumes of curved trajectories across the firmament as time elapsed. It was natural that the easier to understand, abstract mathematical representations were favored. Their favorites and their use, would have no immediate impact on the observable sensory reality as day-night and seasonal cycles repeated. The more these sensory observables changed the more they apparently remained the same, They became embodied in our brain memory as their corresponding neuronal network representations. The same argument applies when bipedestrian life made possible observing the volumetric skies above the horizon. But then, even these same heretofore ‘reliable’ observables may swiftly change as experienced by subsequent generations as a function of environmental circumstantial idiosyncrasies. We may properly ask, what is consistently reliable and absolute and what is contingent for the putative ‘invisible observables’, those indiscernible entities of the infinite macro cosmological manifold? How do we get at least an explanatory handle on the ‘non-local’, sense phenomenal physical order ontology and the metaphysical logic epistemology in an ever expanding universe? What about the ‘local’ mesoscopic ontology and the metaphysical logic epistemology in the ever receding infinities of the macro cosmological order, not to mention also micro sub-Planckian manifold invisibilities?

Epistemologically, getting an explanatory handle on the ‘local’ micro manifold invisibilities has always been a necessary human species priority because it directly impacts the very biological survival potential of the human narrator of this life and consciousness drama, now standing erect on the neo-Copernican platform stage at the center of creation, to explain in the present –first person mode- where we are going in the foreseeable future based on the past brain memories of where we came from. The model poems propositions have ranged from the physical materialist’s ‘how’ to the metaphysical ‘why’ theosophies and in between. But again, the model-poem explanatory content should not change the existential reality facts surrounding the intended living beneficiaries species, especially the exclusively human narrator of this complex conundrum. As expected from a real-time human narrator, the accounts communicated necessarily reflect an individualized frame of reference that subconsciously or with conscious deliberation, markets a subjective cosmogony point of view where the objectivity, ethics and morality of the narrator are put to a test. We may distinguish three radical extreme exclusivists cults, the physical materialist phenomenologist, the metaphysical logic axiomatic theoretician and the metaphysical theosophy preachers among other varieties. Fortunately, another emerging variation are the moderate existential realists that synthesize the best physical ontological phenomenology observables with the best metaphysical logic epistemology of the axiomatic and theosophy groups that are consistent with the biopsychosocial (BPS) species survival imperative in a real time mesoscopic existential reality, i.e., the ‘epistemontology’ synthesis of human brain dynamics activity that we call the evolving ‘mind’.

.It is fair to say that the BPS model poem has assumed the stance that, barring a human genetic (with transcription potential) mutation, absolute truth knowledge is beyond the cognitive capacity of any species we know about. But, the structure/functional brain limitations of the human species has not been an impediment for it to effectively and successfully compensate for the species relative limitations in adaptive resource strategies –compared to other species- to survive on the earth environmental ecosystem. Considering our species inaccessibility to the absolute truth, the mesoscopic empirical worth requires, as a viable alternative, the adoption of conventionalisms to avoid working with receding unreachable infinities and avoiding experimentally un-testable propositions. Exceptions are allowed when the latter ‘un-testables’ have consistently become instruments of biological survival value to its practitioners in the various Biblical theologies or their equivalent scientology cult practices in churches, synagogues, mosques or equivalent secular assemblies for prayer. Among the most important conventionalisms are the laws of nature as exemplified by quantum mechanics along with conservation laws (of matter, energy, momentum), gravity, etc. Needless to say that this moderate, realistic approach is consistent with the Kantian vision of existential reality as detailed in his original nominal “Critique of Pure Reason” and his later more mature “Critique of Applied Reason”..

It is important to understand that the BPS model compatibility with theosophies with experimentally un-testable predicates and rituals is the undeniable convenience of behavioral practices that promote healthy, happy and convivial cooperative community or tribal living in the defense of life, based on emotional faith alone, as witnessed for the great majority of believers with no titles, training, interest or genetic/acquired endowment but are nonetheless still good, moral and ethical law abiding citizens. Just as true is that the minority of participants endowed with the inherited or acquired intellectual resources to improve on the imperfect environment they found when born, are encouraged to become familiar with the relevant conceptualizations underlying the various specialized disciplines entering into their consideration -such as brain dynamics- for opinion judgments. All of this in furtherance of the tenets of the evolving model that critically discriminates between the universal absolute generalities to pursue in our living journey to become and the contingent, individualized/biased particularity that we transiently embody.

I would agree with much of what the referenced competing models, claiming exclusivity, are saying except for a few admittedly controversial issues. One such is my own proposition about the cogeneration of an ‘inner language’ and thought from an inherited primitive language machinery (see Chomsky) slated to evolve as determined by ones’ individualized environmental circumstances. These imperfect judgments are further influenced and expressed as a function of your adopted language syntax structure. I published in detail this analysis as a tentative conclusion because there is no alternative -known to me- to explain Peugeot’s results on toddlers’ distinction between self and others. This result, takes me to the next conclusion we may disagree on the putative existence of an ‘intelligent design’ based exclusively on referenced observables like strictly experimental (f-MRI, etc.) and metaphysical logic calculus of probabilities. In summary, there is an unfathomable absolute and an evolving but discoverable road map guide of contingent truth in our ongoing mesoscopic existential reality journey through life….today and tomorrow, trans generationally. It is called biological life and its expression of activity is called consciousness.

*** The early Gods of Greeks phenomenology.

** **

**The 1-d line (x) and 2-d (x, y) flat plane surface aspects of ongoing quotidian life.** The first 4 Books of Euclid’s Elements deals exclusively with straight and circular lines and reign supreme until the 19^{th}. Century. The conceptualization of a straight line as a definite length segment between two points that can otherwise extend indefinitely is of no surprise because of the then empirical concern about distance to carry goods and services by providers with an undeveloped road infrastructure leading to what appeared to the senses, an infinite flat earth surface. Likewise an infinite number of a-dimensional points can fit in a line. But already the rudiments of a surface are beginning to become relevant. They already consider a triangular surface being formed when any two intersecting lines (a, b) of equal length are separated by same angle (alpha), the lines joining their ends (c) are of equal length and all such triangles can be superimposed on each other. Motions of vehicles along these individual triangular plane surfaces can be estimated when joined together in a mosaic. Equally confusing should have been for empiricists to witness a train’s rails joining at a distance and a metaphysicist to argue that if any straight line intersects two or more straight lines at the same angle, the lines cannot join at a distance because they are parallel and extend that way into infinity. Which assertion is always correct and true? By the same token, any number of parallel lines intersecting other parallel lines become the opposite equal length sides of parallelogram where the distance between a pair of such parallel lines is a constant.

It should be noticed how elementary straight lines lead slowly into cyclic recurrent phenomenological observations of curvilinear motion paths that do not extend into infinity and may form 2-d planar orbits such as the repeating cycles of day-night, seasonal variations and others to be expected within the then Ptolemaic geocentric earth model. The 2-d planar x, y surface now transforms into an equally planar 2-d pi r^{2} of a circular circumferential motion with an equidistant point center like in some planetary orbits. This conceptualization will later evolve into the still primitive abstraction of conservation of states, matter, energy or an inertial rest or linear motion momentum observed when a moving object displays a centrifugal escape tangential to its circular path. All of this within the non evolved model of a 2-d planar (x, y) aspects of a geocentric earth surface.

But the real earth surface has a depth dimension to reckon with, the forerunner of tridimensional 3-d (x, y, z) volumetric ‘solid geometry’ including primitive spatial considerations. By now it is clear that when two flat planar surfaces intersect then they do so either in a straight line of a given dimensional extension or an infinite extension plus a linear direction in the same or opposite orientation. The simplest planar surface of defined extension is the triangle of sides a, b, c. If they share a common side a’, b’, c’ the have a restricted rotation along that common axis if they intend to expand on their sharing flat planar surface. More significant was the realization that any straight lines intersecting another z line at right angles (perpendicular), forming flat 2-d (x, y) planes x, y x, z and y, z. These considerations on line dimensional extension, and direction on any and all of the x, y, z planes will later evolve into vector calculus and the 9-d and more spatial conceptualizations of the 19^{th} Century.

**The 3-d volume aspects (x, y, z).**

The Euclidian 2-d Plane Geometry was launched into a 3-d Solid Geometry focus through the mediation of a 2-d Projective Geometry. The etymology of the word ‘geometry’ implies the metric considerations of the solid body earth and its dimensional extension and position coordinates at a given moment as d’ Alembert published as early as the mid 18^{th } Century. Fourier provided the earliest serious consideration of 3-d solid bodies within the context of spatial volumes. He defined the straight line, the plane and the sphere. The practical, empirical descriptions of physicality and the theoretical metaphysical explanations began drifting apart, each one claiming exclusivity and enjoying a protagonist self indulgence in their search for an evanescent absolute certainty truth where there is only room for contingent truths about a continuously evolving super complexity. That was the beginnings of the still surviving epistemological gap between the empirical a posteriori facts based on reliable observable consequences and a priori metaphysical logic knowledge –often contrived into fitting convenient model poems-, especially those that still provide institutional research grants or accolades for some insecure investigator. As repeatedly expressed, the best synthetic a priori abstractions, when based on the best fitting analytical a posteriori falsifiable and consistent observables, remains the best alternative for truth content. This Kantian approach is especially valuable when it allows for ethical and moral considerations to enter the arguments on the best existential reality prescription for biopsychosocial BPS equilibrium.

As it turns out Euclid’s 2-d x, y plane geometry, as extended by projective geometry, is only a special case of a more encompassing 3-d x, y, z spherical geometry as elaborated by Gauss, Lobachevski and others in differential geometry terms. This view considers geometry as the relationship between rigid bodies and the media separating them inside a spherical space which is now considered as all points equidistant from the same center point. A line is formed by the projection connecting two such center points when two spheres intersect. A 2-d x, y plane is formed by all spatial points shared in common if the two spheres circumferences share equal diameters passing through same center of each circle. The parallel lines of plane geometry now become the meridians of latitude in a sphere allowing for recurrent cycles of horizontally moving points in relation to the center in one direction of the circumference and then -half way- in the opposite direction along the meridian circumference of latitude. It should be noticed that each meridian of latitude circle has a center through which its diameter extends and connects the circumference twice in opposite directions. All of the diameters individually constitute a meridian of latitude horizontal plane from top to bottom of the sphere. If we now select the longest vertical diameter line perpendicular to the longest horizontal diameter and passing through the same center of the sphere, a meridian of longitude will connect the circumference above and below forming the two north-south (n, s) poles of the sphere. This n, s diameter line becomes the axis of horizontal rotation. The largest horizontal circumference now becomes the equator of the sphere. This perspective view makes it possible to assign convenient coordinates of location to any point on any rigid body inside a putative spherical universe (assumed with n-1 transfinite boundaries to conveniently avoid expanding/receding infinities n), the earth included. Needless to say that this abstract metaphysical geometrical conceptualization of a spherical earth and universe is rooted on preceding centuries of observations, measurements, confirmed predictions and conjectures by a few scientists and philosophers. It made possible the subsequent important developments, among them the important Gauss/Riemannian spherical geometry cosmology still holding its worth.

Euclid’s 2-d x, y flat plane geometry was so influential, pervasive and persuasive that even the genius of Gauss had to imagine a 3-d x, y, z world could only be metaphysically put together as a combination of three such 2-d x, y Euclidian planes and formulated as points on a spatial surface thus: *x*(*u*,*v*), *y*(*u*,*v*), and *z*(*u*,*v*) where the *u* and *v represent the equivalent x, y *coordinates in each of the three intersecting planes at right angles (perpendicular) to each other at straight lines x, y, and z.. For each individual flat plane the distance between any two points u, v on the flat surface (*u* + *du*, *v* + *dv*) on the plane –when the 3 intersecting lines pass in either direction through a common point of origin O and extend a defined distance du, dv into the plane- is given by the Pythagoras’ theorem:

*ds*^{2} = *E*(*u*,*v*)*du*^{2} + 2*F*(*u*,*v*)*dudv* + *G*(*u*,*v*)*dv*^{2} where *E*, *F*, and *G* are determined by the functions *x*, *y*, and *z* and satisfy *EG* − *F*^{2} & gt; 0 What this is suggesting is that, as Klein points out, dimensionless points, 1-d straight lines, 2-d x, y flat planes –or their equivalent curved lines or curved surfaces-, constitute a 3-d projective spherical geometry of space lending itself to their corresponding, convenient, projective mathematical symbolic representations and transformations that could be mapped one into the other generating in the process **different** symbolic representations of the **same** invariant phenomenological rigid body reality at a given moment’s observation or measurement. This reasoning implies that phenomenological descriptions of macro physical observables are now provided a new rationally derived new scope/perspective and probable explanation of their micro metaphysical structure/function of their invariant particulate rigid body unit dimension constituents. This way the ‘hidden variables’ can be subject of analytical dissections, such as the precise coordinates of a point location in the spatial 3-d volume of space inside the invisible earth interior, the invisible macro cosmos and the equivalent precision inside the invisible subatomic realm. All of this intellectual metaphysical logic activity would not affect the rigid body phenomenological truth content during an observation or measurement because the results are entirely determined by observations/measurements or confirmed speculative predictions about observables on the surface of a putative spherical 3-d volume whether an invisible micro subatomic particle, a mesoscopic macromolecule, a macroscopic pyramid in Mexico or at the invisible confines of a bound macro cosmological universe. The fact that their corresponding spherical curvature is consistently formulated as the reciprocal of the square of their radii does not in any possible way alter the structure/functional profile of the underlying rigid body, as some aspiring materialist mathematical theorists would have us believe to exclude theosophical considerations. As long as the distance between point A and point B is d units, so are their mapping projections on any other surface, flat or curved. The curved surface of a cylinder of diameter d cannot be distinguished from the equivalent surface of a sphere of equal diameter d, i.e., they are isometric. If both rigid bodies are beyond sense-phenomenological resolution at the micro Planckian or macro cosmological manifolds I can still make rational predictions of subsequent probable observable or measurable behaviors of all known geometrical rigid bodies sharing that same dimensional curvature. Experimental confirmations of predictable subsequent behavior will, by a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ logic, identify the probable geometry without altering the rigid body geometry. The emerging metaphysical logic model poem is continuously subject to increase sophistication as more penetrating insights are provided by an exploding information technology. To briefly illustrate, notice how the fallibility of instrumental measurements such as radii, diameters, curvatures could be operationally cancelled out if instead we consider their mutually dependent ratio of measured variation such as, how is the varying radius r of a sphere’s meridian of latitude dependent on the simultaneous variation of its corresponding circumference. The possible resolution error of measurements cancels out when mathematically expressed as a ratio of the same measurements. This way, e.g., the longest vertical straight line diameter of a sphere passing through its center and at right angles (perpendicular) to the equivalent longest horizontal straight line passing through center, constitutes the axis of horizontal West-East-West cyclic rotation of a rigid body in space and identifies the North-South (NS) pole of intersection or the vertical line with the spherical surface plane. Likewise the longest horizontal line perpendicular to the axis of rotation and passing through the sphere center intersects the sphere surface at two opposite points and determines the largest meridian of latitude termed the ‘equator’. It divides the spherical surface into two identical ‘hemispheres’.

The epistemological contributions of Gauss and Riemann have resulted in the planning and executions of precise manned landings on the moon surface and unmanned drone landings on Mars. Mining metals from meteors and avoiding their damaging earth surface impacts, etc. is in the offing. This wondrous technological ‘magic’ is not exclusively possible because of the genial mathematical logic calculus of participating scientists and philosophers or the equally genial design by the ‘hands on’ laboratory practitioners, but by their joint cooperative effort integrating the recorded physical ontological measurements and probable metaphysical models as a hybrid Epistemontological unit whole. As to what activity preceded the other is an ‘chicken-egg causality argument’ undeserving of our distraction now. Considering the fact that the properties of spherical space, like distances between points, curvatures, etc. seem independent of the coordinate system used to explain them, it was fair game for a creative mathematical genius to equate the different formulations applicable to the same properties and see what new correlations come forth and thereby having geometry liberate itself from the shackle restrictions of an Euclidian based 2-d flat plane or similarly derived 3-d projective geometry. Enter non Euclidian spherical geometry into the epistemological cognitive domain of discourse. This made possible for Weyl in mid 20^{th} century to define two or more parallel curved vector lines as they progress along the curvature to join another point along its path, what is called a ‘geodesic’ when it determines the shortest curved length between its two end points that is perpendicular to a line passing through the center of the sphere and independent of the various vector representations that explain such curved arcs of circles, part of the spherical surface boundary. Now the mathematical theorist is at large to make various symbolic mathematical logic poems for the experimentalist to adopt the best fitting formalism on the basis of its intelligibility, ease of comprehension, testable and with predictive potential.

The evolution of these complex epistemological conceptualizations made it possible to realize, early on, how their mathematical logic abstract representations were closely related to the subject’s brain dynamics’ phenomenological ontology. Repeated audiovisual brain stimulations influenced cognitive behavior which made clear that, in addition to inherited, reflex unconscious motor adaptive responses there also coexisted correlated acquired/learned, behavioral, subconscious, adaptive motor responses. The observed, consistent responses to environmental stimulation is constructed from preceding experiences, both ongoing and past memories that required having been coded into neuronal network language. From this encoded brain representations the brain was able to translate it into another language code, such as a-dimensional points, 1-d lines, 2-d planes, 3-d volumes, 4-d Minkowsky space time, 9-d constructions and n-1 d model poems with the help of compactifications and other convenient short cuts. It was clear that the classic Kantian synthetic a-priori model as such contained acquired/learned elements before the analytical a-posteriori sub model can be put together. This meant that a clear distinction between the inherited unconscious, the inherited/learned sub conscious and the uniquely human, free willed conscious and their corresponding brain architectural structure loci had to be reckoned with. Riemann’s undeniable penetrating mathematical logic impacts on technological development are still such that many of the best mathematical logic apologists for the ‘axiomatic’ approach to reality argumentation are wrongly convinced that the epistemological mind precedes the ontological brain, such as the modern Leibniz monads apologists and their theosophy equivalents …., of course, until they realize that the first inexperienced human mind had to be embodied in a physical brain to develop language conceptualizations of their new ongoing biopsychosocial experiences to stay alive, healthy and cooperatively convivial enough to survive against odds and continue to build our complex civilization. Today, it is not difficult, after so many abstract models’ predictions have been confirmed by modern technology, that our own planet is not a flat planar surface that likely extends to infinity like our limited sensory data still suggests and was developed by Euclid. Today, contrary to what our sensory experience suggests, we’d rather choose the non Euclidean spherical geometry model for the earth surface. Which one is true now and always? It made sense to reconcile the sensory 2-d flat surface with the abstract 3-d spherical surface as one unit reality model. This was done by the projective geometry model that eventually lead to the derived construction of the 9-d basic and more compactified models, including the variations on ‘string theory’. Unfortunately, the resulting project had far too many assumptions that wouldn’t be testable in the laboratory. As discussed above, a 3-d spherical geometry model evolved with both inconsistent elements from Euclidian and non Euclidian sources. It would be wise to admit that our view of the geometrical structure depends on our well established limitations of our brain sensory and combinatorial resolution capacities to either measure/observe or conceptualize the rigid body motions in a spherical volumetric space that evolving non-Euclidian models convincingly suggest? The search for a fool proof absolute model is a journey into the future as we adapt to the constantly evolving contingencies we meet as we make free choices of the simplest, expedient and more understandable model that makes our species survive in our real 3-d existential reality as it evolves into the uncertainties of a changing and potentially damaging biosphere environment as articulated and communicated to our fellow men/women in our vital ecosystem as time passes. The epistemological insights we have gained due to modern technology investigations of brain dynamics makes it easier to understand why we had to construct space-time as Euclidean with all of the constraints it entails, as envisioned by Poincare and analyzed by this author elsewhere. As we gain more experimental insight into the very probable spherical geometry universe evolving with time reconcile what now appears as irreconcilable, relativity and quantum mechanics. We are still developing such model by testing the limited number of geometries that may qualify based on the consistency and falsifiable stability of the observables on which they rest. With the incorporation of evolution and space time, the resulting 4-d x, y, z, t Minkowsky and subsequent models of 9-d n-1 mesoscopic existential reality makes the probable explanations more credible, especially to younger generations impacted by the current information explosion. After all, all models of human existential reality in all disciplines are convenient interpretations with a common denominator ‘a strategy for human biopsychosocial (BPS) survival’. Within a neuro-philosophical context of brain dynamic activity in search for ultimate first causes of self and the other objects and events, all things considered, we ultimately have to settle for approximations and necessary but insufficient and incomplete pragmatic conveniences. This is especially true when we have to reckon with the imponderables we cannot have control of that potentially threaten our very existence, we are talking about the very laws of nature that no empirical or metaphysical logic model can get an effective handle on to control, revise, modify or significantly influence locally and never non locally. Theories rewriting or reinterpreting the laws of nature come and go as technology gets more sophisticated. But nature’s explanatory laws are not eternal truths but behavior remains essentially outside our control to change. The best we can do is anticipate and avoid their negative impacts. Metaphysical logic models, however incomplete and ephemeral, when objectively communicated, makes possible any knowledge of the external world. The contingent truth mode of Kantian analytic a posteriori indeterminism contradicts Kant’s own version of synthetic a priori cognition which assumes no learned/acquired content because of it’s a priori status. This contradiction, when applied to a non Euclidian spherical geometry model for rigid body mechanics, was the reason for a famous controversy between Bertrand Russell and Poincare that ran through their entire productive lives. The confusion comes about, in my view, when we do not distinguish the unconscious innate reflex adaptive response from the subconscious innate + learned/acquired which is also a reflex adaptive response. In real-time experience the learned/acquired experiences during early childhood become de facto innate-like subsequently when adaptively responding to related environmental stimuli. For Bertrand Russell, subconsciously adopting a Euclidian frame of reference, a knowledge about points, lines, planes are a priori, un learned concepts, for Poincare their cognition was preceded by their learned/acquired equivalent sensory experience. When you extrapolate this argument to a putative first human being born you realize that specific metaphysical conceptualizations of e.g., a line a, b does not have an independent existence from a co-related specific sensory object or event such as specific ‘physical solid line’ a, b that made the conceptual representation possible. In my model the latter version is more credible. One should always be prepared to credibly justify a judgment instead of making pronouncements about their magic emergence from nowhere, another version of an unjustifiable ‘creationism’ with no experimental verification possible. If possible, one should be able to map every point, line, plane or volume –point for point correspondence- and posit the probable testable mathematical logic formulations that apply and let whichever of the probable mathematical models survive the progressive evolution into fitness. The unavoidable certainty need of our current species to attain certainty, notwithstanding the certainty of their ineffable presence, mandates the logical invocation of the existence on an intelligent design somewhere in transfinite n-1 d space-time. Even in the event one is not able to obtain a one to one corresponding mapping one can intuitively devise a strategy for probable localization coordinates in n-1 transfinite space time. The possibility of measuring location coordinates in a spherical universe requires the ability to measure/estimate the distance between any two points directly on a spherical geometry space. We briefly discussed above the importance of ‘distance’ as a minimum linear/curved measurable trajectory between two points a, b. called a ‘geodesic’ allowing one to measure positions coordinates in spherical space time and determine forces f acting on rigid body masses m when their uniform velocity v =d/t is acted on by an externally applied force f and accelerated according to the formulation f= m x a =m x d v/t. all of which made it possible to get a handle on the kinetics of rigid bodies at rest or when acted on by applied forces that changed their velocity rate in space, their acceleration a according to f=ma. We all have recently witnessed the unrelenting pace of technological sophistication relating theoretical physics to practical problem-solving issues in spatial geometry applying to the guidance controls of manned and un-manned trips across space. Theoretical geometry doesn’t always yield explicit and close correlations with changing environmental realities yet it provides many unexpected surprises embodied in its complex formulations it they are testable in practice and their predictions become corroborated or at least probable under circumstances yet to materialize but calculated to emerge in the future.

These metaphysical logic considerations lead to the seminal work on the 4-d Minkowsky (x, y, z, t) explanation of observable temporal changes that made possible the credible ‘orthogonalization’ of a 4-d space time that eventually brought in the 9-d consideration of a curved spherical surface and volumetric spherical space time geometry and the compactified 9-d + provision to explain the observable ontological and the inferred metaphysical elements based on ‘hidden variables’ arguments. The basic arguments are all discussed in some detail in other volumes of this book. But there lies ahead the real challenge to reconcile the relativistic with quantum mechanical observables via Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation (TIQM) and super symmetry spin super partners SUNY interpretations. Further research is needed on the role that the posited baryonic dark matter receptor located in a RNA/DNA brain transcriptionable codon may have on explaining the required connections between unidentified transfinite coordinates location of cosmic radiation sources influencing the human brain’s neocortical phase space in the decision-making process. We have taken the first step in suggesting a mechanism involving axion/neutrino particles (?) in quantum gravity monopoles. Stay tuned, more to come.

Summary and Conclusions.

From the arguments that preceded it would seem as if existential reality is akin to experiencing an endless recurrence of never ending day-night and annual seasonal cycles as we journey along a boundless 2-dimensional x, y flat planar surface on earth in contrast to the equally boundless, 3-dimensional x, y, z volumetric infinity where reflecting celestial, color hues of light perform a complex but harmonious interactive dance against a fixed starry darkness, a background humans have no control of and whose orderly behavior hardly qualifies as spontaneously driven, in apparent defiance of all physical laws of nature such as thermodynamic entropy. An awesome non random display of order and beauty indeed, as if informed and driven by a preceding functional architecture design plan with a purpose. But there remain some unexplained aspects that demand much further elaboration such as the testable description of the mechanisms of attaining an introspective self consciousness state.

I would agree with much of what competing models claiming exclusivity are saying except for a few admittedly controversial issues like my proposition about the cogeneration of an ‘inner language’ and thought; it starts by the activation of an inherited primitive language machinery (see Chomsky) slated to continuously evolve -influenced under your individualized environmental circumstances- and be expressed as a function of your adopted language syntax structure. I published in detail this analysis as a tentative conclusion because there is no alternative -known to me- to explain Peugeot’s results on toddlers’ distinction between self and others. This result, takes me to the next conclusion we may disagree on, the putative existence of an ‘intelligent design’ based exclusively on observables like strictly experimental (f-MRI, etc.) and metaphysical logic calculus of probabilities. In summary, there is an unfathomable absolute and an evolving but discoverable road map guide of contingent truth in our ongoing mesoscopic existential reality journey through life….today and tomorrow, trans generationally. It is called biological life and its expression of activity is called consciousness.

We have stressed above on the importance of language communications that share common syntax structure by agreeing on definitions of terms used in the information exchange. Some investigators have defended the notion that “….Truth should be what we desire to know. If we each desire to know the truth then we should be able to agree on definitions and, when we agree on definitions, then we are traveling on a narrower path…… ” I have modified that assertion by making sure that not only agreement on definitions but also define/identify the frame of reference or perspective being considered in the definition. If we are talking about the immediate, empirical perspective the argument focus is analytically very different because if the focus is transcendental, conceptual, then it is not focused on a synthesis of existential reality strategies (‘truths’) to survive in a real world. Instead it is more like a speculative analytical differential searching for first causes. The immediate mode is essentially an integral synthesis whereas the transcendental is a differential analysis of the phenomenological reality that we all experience. Both are intimately related but have different immediate goals before synthesized together as a hybrid unit whole. This new synthesis is hopefully deductively confirmed with predictive value because it incorporates the calculus of probabilities and Bayesian logic within the general scope of an evolving transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM). However, some investigators continue to conceptualize a Mind-Body duality as if they were correlated but independent entities as evidenced from a quote:

“But I suspect that you are questioning how truth can have a physical location in the scheme of the universe. Truth is produced by humans so to speak. We determine what it is and when it was and any and all things about truth are produced by human minds because truth is a distinction produced by the human mind. (animals as well but why complicate the discussion). True and false are considered opposites. In the quantum world of electrons, the spin of the photons emitted by the electron can be opposite as well..….you can choose attachments and then select a 9-d (nine dimensional) electron. In this model of how an electron might look inside a molecular dimer in a microtubule in a neuron, inside a brain cell, becomes the basis for three conscious realms that are conscious because they are entangled with the light in the tunnel which are photons of opposite spin. with the nine dimensional electron having three conscious realms, which each have a different perspective of the light in the tunnel or what is truth. The behavior that the electron engages in, emitting, absorption, entanglement, as it attempts to reconcile opposite information received from the two opposing molecules in the dimer and that behavior is reproduced by the two halves of the brain. The little electron in the dimer checks for truth by what is called super-radiant emission or cooperative emission which is a contribution from each molecule in the dimer. When we cooperate we become efficient and therefore cooperation is necessary for survival.

That truth checking behavior can be repeated by the brain but only if one desires to know truth. The whole body works together efficiently by seeking truth which is knowledge of opposites which is path of efficiency which is path life progresses along. Then as our minds evolved we learned to be deceitful and lie to ourselves first and then to others. Now the internal dialogue has been commandeered by the imagination and truth is given little thrift unless one is in court and swearing to tell the truth, like as if they were going to start now?” See Goldminer, Mind-Body Society and scientific evidence to support it called the Minnesota Experiment from the sixties or seventies. “They squeezed some helium or some such and got 1/3 electron bubbles on the other end.”, he said.

It may be noticed that much of the confusion in these exchanges are linguistically based, sometimes deliberately so, in pursuit of ego centered goals. I simplify my life and, until otherwise proven, I assume that ‘mind’ explains/describes the functional activity of a physical brain structure. It is a linguistically contrived way to describe the brain’s various adaptive responses to environmental stimulation, body proper and external. That is the main reason why one needs to assume the pivotal importance of language in our view of sensory reality as experienced by otherwise normal, healthy individuals. The Achilles tendon of any theory of consciousness is the necessity of having an internal language able to distinguish ‘self’ from ‘others’. I struggled to provide justifiable analytical arguments about ‘self consciousness’ based on objective measurables’ studies but failed and finally had to settle for the contrived convenience. No one has challenged the premise, since its publication, that both language and thought are simultaneously co-generated. This way one is constantly engaged in language structured ‘chats’ (however primitive) with oneself (inner language) during the analysis of any familiar or new stimulus during the process of decision-making. This is a crucial aspect of inter human species communication. I am sure one may have noticed how often colleagues may not even realize they agree with you, that in criticizing you they are defending your position! All seems rooted on a careless choice of a language semantic structure to report his ‘objection’. Others, of course, do it with Machiavelic sophistry tools to advance their entrenched beliefs (framework of reference), what Nietsche described as an advancing ‘nihilistic tide’. We all choose our existentialist slogans and quote from historical heroes that conform to your biased view…….until proven otherwise. So, if it works (consequences) and is justifiably understood, it’s good enough. That is the slogan. The heroes go from Ockham, Leibniz, Kant, Dirac, Einstein, and many others living in our ‘real’ mesoscopic world. In case anyone forgot what I mean by “it works”, I will repeat my ‘leit motif’, if the consequences are to keep your species alive, healthy, happy and cooperatively convivial now, tomorrow and ‘per secula seculorum’ that’s it! Please excuse the BPS commercial! 🙂

Other dissenters of my BPS model argue, quote: “You appear to be saying that truth is a relationship between the propositions of languages (and their symbols) and reality. A relationship is not nothing. If you are correct, then truth is certainly not nothing at all. But without language or symbols concepts would still exist and so would the reality to which concepts refer. If we did not have language the concepts we express in language, including mathematics, would still exist and so would truth still exist. Truth is not nothing at all and truth would still exist if there were no languages, human or otherwise, to express it.” See Richard May, Prometheus Society.

The phenomenal reality would always exist regardless of our awareness of its presence. Once our sensory organs detect its presence or, in the alternative, from the resulting sense-phenomenal causal effects observed, we can intuit its probable presence, then we are ready to elaborate an adequate symbolic/sentential representation of the interaction of unit size particles or their aggregates with each other and the environment. This brain effort or mind activity we call the ‘concept’. The conceptual epistemological effort to communicate this activity to another human being includes the symbols, logic sentences, code, and syntax structure of narrative, audiovisual cues, body language, etc. In other words, any phenomenal object/event that a human observer can capture directly (description) or indirectly (explanation) and incorporate in his/her conceptual model would be tested according to its predictive value when put to a test. It incorporates the local macro ontologies (descriptions) and non local micro/cosmological epistemologies (explanations). IMHO, neither exclusive approach suffices and we have to consider both as a unit structural/functional hybrid wholeness. Hope this clarifies a little my point.

Having read about the framework of reference of a materialist physicist judging reality, we find examples of the opposite metaphysical theological framework of reference persuasion defending Leibniz Monads. See Dr. Roger Clough, Leibniz Institute. My reply to that other view claiming exclusive status follows:

Regarding the evolutionary progression of Leibniz cosmogony across centuries, there is no doubt about the genial foresight of the ‘Leibniz equivalence proposition’. It is not an exaggeration to even claim it was the forerunner of today’s ‘Gauge transformations’ that permeates all speculations and conjectures about the ever evolving mesoscopic existential reality. These transformations make it possible to relate the two or more metric fields especially in particle physics, where they have provided a powerful means of constructing reliable and consistent theories of interaction fields. The problem comes up when the resulting elegance of such elaborate structural/functional mathematical representational creatures of neocortical brain activity do in fact represent the same physical situation, so that the transformation is a bonafide ‘gauge transformation’ where the observable descriptions or the logically inferred explanations of the invariant physical substrate is real, regardless of its observable invisibility? Could there be different physical realities, as posited by so many model poems such as ‘multiverses’?. Do we need 2 different general equations, one for each micro (sub-atomic) and macro (universal) n-1 transfinity? If Leibniz proposition, as modified, were to ultimately prevail, it would require a reconciliation of relativity with quantum mechanics even on a probability calculus basis. Unfortunately, our well known species limitations in the sensory and combinatorial brain resolution capacities makes us focus on that activity that, albeit constantly evolving, we can get a handle on analytically and critically, The best combination of verifiable, consistent sense phenomenology as the invariant element plus the best corresponding mathematical logic formulation in representation of both the observable descriptions and the logically inferred explanations. This way, a model poem of a mesoscopic, evolving existential reality that keeps us biopsicosocially viable and able to describe and explain in the most simple way the reality of quotidian existence in harmony with our phenomenal physical nature as described by natural laws would be our choice. This would make room for the physical ‘seen’ and the metaphysical ‘unseen’. If there is an impossibility to incorporate both aspects in one general, universal epistemontological unit hybrid explanation, unable ever to be reconciled under a super symmetry, such as the ‘string(s)’ theories, then. To conclude, Leibniz genial foresight of a pure gauge transformation has convincingly evolved into a physical issue that cannot be resolved exclusively by physical materialistic or metaphysical considerations in isolation. However in our mesoscopic existential reality it becomes a physical issue to be settled by physical considerations until otherwise proven otherwise.

Thus, would it be truthful to say that, when we truly think there is no ontological divide between what we think and verifiable reality, then epistemological distorsions disappear? Quare.

In Deltona, Florida this wintry midnight of December 4, 2013 where the beginning of Advent and Hanukah strangely coincide.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.

..