For an example of the physics 'underlying reality':

take a look at all the papers and follow the references. The theoretical trail 
leads to Prigogine and his far from equilibrium physics but based on a 
structured noise model of entropy. In time the model goes as far back as 
Heraclitus. Yes...the ancient greeks have been here already..situation normal!

My model for phenomenality fits the entire class of physics of which Chaill's 
work is an example (all based on noise). Note that ontological and process 
physics start to look like each other (merge) at the deep layers. As you travel 
the route of knowledge to greater spatiotemporal scales ontological 
descriptions become more useful and the noise based process descriptions less.

BUT note their status: BOTH sides of the knowledge model are metaphysics. 
_About_ the physics. The inaccessible noise that makes it all we cannot ever 
directly access or fully know: there's your 'physics'. Everything we do is 
'about' that, but not _actually_ it. Even if we accidentally perfectly modelled 
it, we still haven't 'seen it' and we will always be able to configure doubt. 
(Hume has a say here!).

However, we can 'know it' to an arbitrarily accurate level by doing science 
under the auspices of the two-sided knowledge framework. Somewhat ironic, 
really. All physicists, in being made of the universe they describe .ie. made 
of the physics of the universe, can only ever do METAphysics. Models of 
actuality. Humility needed. Hubris? Ascriptions? Leave at the door please...  

The payback from a dose of humility? We get to explain phenomenality and open 
the door on the other 50% of decriptive physics (or, as I said...simply 
recognise that we are already doing it.....horse has already bolted)

Also note that you will find Cahill essentially marginalised as simply an 
alternative that predicts all the same stuff that existing physics predicts. 
Poor Prof Cahill. He doesn't realise that the key to his model is that it can 
_explain_ (in the formal sense of the word) phenomenality (and all other 
natural  processes) , whereas  ontological physics can't. It describes. Very 
usefully but only that. 

Prof Cahill thinks it's "in place of" when it is actually a complementary side 
to a more complete explanatory framework. He thinks he is in conflict with 
existing science when he and existing science are not talking about the same 
thing! This is actually a cultural/political prediction of my model.

Those poor blighters on the side of 'underlying physics' will always be 
perceived as 'also rans' until everyone realises that they are on the other 
side of phenomenality, not even tallking about the same theorem set.

Also note that it is the task of process physics to not only explain 
phenomenality itself, but to provide the framework which explains how the 
natural world's behaviour is amenable to mathematical generalisations (by 
collapsing the real world into behaviour providing a virtual calculus of the 
context, so that abstract maths of non-existent domains becomes a useful 
approximate description). herein lies the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of 
methematics. Not unreasonable after all!

Note also that the whole ontological QM/RELATIVITY mismatch issue becomes a 
waste of time under the two sided model. The link between them won't be found 
in traditional ontological physics except in some amazing and impractical 
descriptive mathematical nightmare that will describe be completely devoid of 
explanatory WHY.  The reality underneath makes the issue simply become 
non-existent. As Cahill seems to have done to some extent.

I commend the two sided model for epistemology to you all for 
consideration....let it sink in a bit.... imagine your phenomenality as a 
mirror. Underlying physics literally (and I mean literally) constructs, in 
real-time, a mirror with the image already in it. If you do normal ontological 
science you are describing the behaviour of the image in the mirror. When you 
do process based science you are looking at how the mirror is made. Both 
descriptions automatically result from the existence of the mirror. The 
complete picture is not present unless you addrress both points of view.

The historical mistake made here is also plain and comes from KANT. Kant said 
there are phenomena (appearances) and noumena (underlying nature of reality). 
KANT said you cant ever know the noumena. <not quite right....!> 
DESCARTES went out of his way to invent a mind-stuff to explain 
phemomenality...NOT NEEDED.

In this way the underlying nature of reality was discarded into the weeds of 
'metaphysics'..... which is where it would remain until now. 

When you make the phenomena out of the noumena _literally, physically_  you 
simply don't need any mind-stuff. KANT was partly right in that there is a form 
of unknowlability and partly wrong in that a kind of knowability arises when 
the phenomena are made out of the noumena. I can see him in his grave... DOH! A 
victim of an assumption.

I need a real challenge to this model. Saying 'according to philosophical Xism 
you are wrong or 'I think this or I think that' won't cut it. My model makes 
empirical predictions of brain matter: shape, position, orientation of neurons, 
glia (astrocytes)  and the types/densities of ion channel layouts thereon 
(soma). I seem to be finding what I expect. I can predict the nature of the 
morphological differences between peripheral/sensory neurons and 
central/phenomenal neurons, for example.

So if you have any alternatives...please provide the plan for empirical 
verification of your model. Without particle accelerators if possible!

When I got to the end of my proposal I looked for a fundamental property of the 
natural word to characterise what was going on. A property of the natural world 
that necessitated/enabled phenomenality. As usual (especially in the maths) it 
is an implicit law. I don't know if it's real, but I can donate it to the list 
for consideration and it's really really simple to the point of being 
dumb-sounding. It was all that was left. I've never actually written it down 
before as it seemed a little trite.... anyway here goes....

"It is a fundamental property of the natural world that at all scales, in all 
cirumstances, that phenomenality is simply the perspective view of the rest of 
the universe from the position of being that portion of the universe under 

I think that about does it. It means that as soon as you situate, you have a 
perspective view. Thats all it is. Proto-Phenomenality thus pervades the 
universe. The whole question then changes to one of visibility! Think. Is the 
existence of an electron 'about' anything? NO. It's an electron. Whatever 
process the universe provides to generate and sustain and electron is not 
'about' anything, it is the process itself. You can then look at the whole of 
the natural world and do the same thought experiment. You then look at brain 
material. It is DEFINITELY 'like something' to 'be' that. There IS a 
perspective view. You then investigate how that may be. You then begin to 
understand how brain matter can do that. That's what I did.
Maybe you folks can dream up a better version of the fundamental theorem. 
That's the essence of whats left to play with, however....as far as I can tell.

In parting for the moment: A final extract from one of my papers:

"The multiple levels of irony in this situation are truly remarkable. As an 
author the whole idea of being in the position of delivering such a message is 
bizarre enough. It would be a great relief for this particular messenger to be 
‘shot’ in a very compelling scientific fashion with supporting evidence. The 
message itself is almost like some sort of cartoon: that fifty percent of an 
entire macro-discipline is missing? How can that be? On balance, however, this 
is not as disconcerting as being made aware of unjustified quasi-religious or 
perhaps teleological behaviour possibly responsible for delays in scientific 
advances. That to address the issue merely takes an attitudinal shift is 
additional irony. But the final insult is that the change is merely to do what 
science arguably should have been doing in the first place: being scientific 
about itself!"

Think about it. Some poor fellow eventually had to come out of the woodwork 
with a story like this. I never planned it to be me. But...well.....life's 
funny, eh?

Knock yourselves out tearing it to bits or get with the program. It's all 
yours. Let the games begin!


colin hales

Reply via email to