*Relativity and Reality


To what does relativity relate? Before there can be relation there must be 
presence, and before a presence can relate to another presence, there must 
be a capacity for detection of some kind. Even collision of bodies should 
not be taken for granted in physics. It is a testament to our imagination 
that we can conceive of a universe that happens without any participants - 
with only there and then, but no here and now to put them in their place. 
What is required instead is an imagination of empathy, to trace the origins 
of our own consciousness not to the dots and dashes of information 
gathering instruments developed for our bodies to use, but to our own 
native information gathering capacities. Whether photons are really things 
or not, no model of the universe can be complete without fully explaining 
the relationship of photons to the phenomenon that we see as light. 
Whatever it is that we see cannot be excluded from any complete description 
of the universe.

An early 
the MSR Theory of Everything suggests an equivalence of perception and 
relativity. Without getting too deep into the subject, it can be said that 
any discussion of relativity entails the use of a reference point, a so 
called ‘inertial frame’ within which phenomena tend to cohere together and 
share a common velocity. Even in a speeding train, the coffee in the cup 
can remain fairly settled on the tray in front of us. So long as the 
velocity of the train is maintained, we can’t tell by looking at the cup 
whether the train is stationary, or moving, or moving on top of another 
train which is moving even faster. Without this kind of orienting framing 
principle, there would be no ‘thing’ to relate to any other thing; no place 
to move toward or away from. Relativity requires an anchor, and for reasons 
which I will get into soon, the anchor of quantitative properties cannot 
itself be quantitative but must instead be perceptual in nature. General 
Relativity relies on Proprietary Relativity, aka, private perception. This 
should not be taken as an endorsement of anthropocentric idealism, or 
deism, or any other effort to fictionalize physical realism, but is instead 
a suggestion of pansensitivity with sense as both the universal law and the 
local participant.

Relativity is anchored not only the law of inertia, but the consequences of 
it in sequestering physical tendencies into semantically stable ‘places’ 
which relate *to* each other, and *through* each other. This should be 
understood as a kind of sensitivity or awareness on the grandest, most 
public scale. It implies a translucence of mass and momentum in which the 
grandeur of events is implicitly and palpably present.

Relativity refers to the underlying nature of place and pace as it is 
defined by matter and energy. Matter and energy create the spacetime 
context by their relation with each other. The title *General Relativity*, 
just as words in the English language, infers a generalized or universal 
quality of relating which is dynamic. It’s not a static property of general 
related-ness, but rather it is an active responsiveness of all phenomena in 
relation to each other. The -ivity suffix of relativity treats relation as 
a verb, not a noun. What we observe is that in measurements where distance 
and time are precisely recorded, the classically held immutables of space 
and time actually bend and warp to reflect the presence of mass, gravity, 
and velocity.

I think that this is what shocked the world about Einstein’s vision. He 
conceived that the metric itself, the abstract ‘rigid body’ of measurement 
which comprised the firmament of classical mechanics…that infinite set of 
Cartesian coordinates actually warped its contours around things, not the 
other way around. The plenum of space and time is only a measure of 
variations in scale and frequency among repeating effects that were 
happening to objects. The universe was not something happening in an empty 
box, it was boxing itself from the inside out.

Special Relativity showed that the relativity of uniform motion observed by 
Galileo and the classical notion of invariant time had to be extended to 
accommodate the absoluteness of the speed of light. Einstein’s four 
dimensional space-time ‘mollusk’ describes what is understood to be an 
invariant space-time interval. Why is the speed of light absolute though? 
What mechanically makes time dilate or length contract?

If my view is on the right track, the reason why the speed of light is 
absolute is because light is not a thing, it is the sensitivity of matter 
across its own created distance. The reason that Relativity works is 
because the universe makes sense of itself, and is ignorant of itself on 
every level. This is what relativity and perception are all about. It is 
interesting that the deepest truths of Einstein and the deepest truths of 
Quantum Mechanics both have to do explicitly with measurement. Einstein’s 
Relativities challenge common-sense notions of the separateness of space, 
time, matter, and energy, and of the nature of velocity while QM deals in 
probabilities and uncertainties associated with measurement of 
complementary variables (like position and momentum). We are talking about 
the limits of measure in both cases, and transcending immeasurable 
conditions with new strategies of measurement.

To say that Relativity makes sense is accurate because we have an idea of 
what it means for things to make sense already. Knowledge is a validation 
of our public facing senses with private sense making, or vice versa. We 
model the movements of massive bodies in accord with Einstein’s curved 
space equations, but Einstein did not believe that space was literally 
curved, or that space was a *thing* at all. Curved space is a metaphor. 
What is curving is the statistical results of experiments where the 
behavior of matter in one frame is measured against the behavior of matter 
in another. This is the bare-metal reality of our observations. Physicists 
use instruments made of matter to cause and measure changes in matter. 
Through those measurements, we have inferred entities such as “energy", 
“gravity", “forces", and “fields", but we have only matter to tell us about 
them. *Our perception relies on matter’s relation to matter, it’s 
relativity, to perceive conditions in remote inertial frames*.

This is not an endorsement of naive realism. Certainly it is useful to 
model energy as a separate entity from the matter which collects and 
projects it, however it remains impossible to inspect energy in public, 
without the aid of a material instrument such as our body, and a mode of 
perception to detect it and render it locally in some aesthetic modality. 
Perception is in one sense a mirror image of relativity, in that relativity 
is an impersonal view of public perspective and perception is a personal 
view of private relations. In another sense, perception is merely the 
private version relativity. The same principle which allows the coffee to 
stay in the cup on the train can be understood to be literally the same 
inertial principle which maintains the worldly realism of our experience. 
Inertia is the indifference of sense, the comfortable ranges and tropes 
which contrast with novelty and disturbance.

By turning General Relativity around so that it can becomes Proprietary 
Relativity, a whole new way of making sense and measuring the immeasurable 
can be glimpsed. While it has always been implicit in the inertial frames 
and ‘observers’ of physics, the framing itself has never been examined 
properly, as far as I know. We take our own personal orientation for 
granted most of the time, (especially when we are overseeing an abstract 
equation or model of everythingness), but *to model everythingness 
absolutely faithfully, we would need to include this very strange, but very 
ordinary state of affairs that we know as ‘being here’, or ‘our presence’; 

It has been the hypothesis of MSR that as far as physics is concerned 
(which can only tolerate a very dim and narrow view of consciousness right 
now), the function of consciousness should be approached first as the 
minimum ingredient to provide the possibility of privacy, relativity, and 
inertia. A vector of orientation and perspective. This is the unspoken 
assumption of any observer or inertial frame, that somehow there has arisen 
a capacity to discern a here from a there, or a now from a then. MSR tries 
to explain the difference between (here, now) and (not-here, not-now) in 
terms of public and private ‘verses’. These verses are aesthetic contexts 
which provide mutual contrast for each other. It is the unfortunate 
complexity of the human experience, with its massively redundant population 
of historically recorded lifetimes, bodies, and bodies within bodies within 
bodies (organs, cells, molecules), which obscures the purity and simplicity 
of the private-public relation. It is not a dualistic relation however, it 
is a reflexive or Ouroboran relation. The private feelings and experiences 
of one inertial frame are the public bodies and energies of another, 
sufficiently alien frame.

Having a body which is subject to conditions on the molecular, cellular, 
and somatic levels of public interaction gives us cause to think that these 
interactions are producing ‘us’, whereas my conjecture is that our bodies 
reflect the totality of our lives (and the lives of our entire species, of 
all life, and all phenomena dating back to before the dawn of life) from a 
particularly truncated and relativistic perspective. The body is a human 
life looking at itself askance through the narrow slit of its own 
relativistically disintegrated presence.

This essential ingredient is the necessary piece to the puzzle. It allows 
us to recognize that this universe not only one of theres and thens, but of 
here and now. Einstein famously said that he did not understand now, and 
that makes sense since his is the perspective most grounded in the ‘other’ 
- in spacetime. Sense is not an abstract scalar quantity, property, or 
configuration, but it is the concretely real capacity to feel, sense, or 
detect, even though it is both non-local and non-non-local. It is not a 
field or an energy, an ether, an elan vital, or any other substantialized 
presence. That would be redundant, since sense is presence already.

Just as Einstein relocated the universal process to electrodynamics rather 
than Newtonian mechanics, MSR relocates the electrodynamic process itself 
to a sensorydynamic milieu, a milieu which is absolute, and which presents 
uniqueness and originality as its product. In short, Multisense Realism 
posits an equivalence between locality and perception, and between 
perspective and equivalence/non-equivalence itself. Sense is how things 
seem to be, and seeming it turns out, can only be more fundamental than 

The notion of inertia is expanded under MSR, so that it implies a tangible 
experience of expectation and continuity. Inertia is the sensory capacity 
of context and framing. This is the stuff of worldly realism. An 
accumulation of qualitative semi-signs and partial presentations which is 
beneath the formalism of literal semiotic signals. These fundamental 
references cannot arise purely from bottom up mathematical relations, but 
rather are recovered or discovered from the totality as a whole. This 
concept has been developed before many times, (e.g. Bohm’s Implicate Order, 
Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance, Indra’s Net, etc) but generally with a 
holographic flavor of non-locality. Things simply have a way of coming 
around again and again. With the MSR concept of perceptual inertia, 
perception events are carved out of the monad of eternity. Personal 
perceptions are fundamentally voids, bubbles within the singularity which 
make it seem like a multiplicity from inside the bubble. Indeed, the bubble 
itself is the quality of seeming divided or disconnected, a finite flavor 
of here and now which is suspended in a frozen diaspora of theres and 
thens. “Laws" are the constraints which are experienced in one inertial 
frame because it is nested within an event which has already happened. A 
smaller now cannot escape from the experience which birthed it, in which 
the former becomes eternal and the latter becomes the instantaneous. 
Relativity, gravity, inertia, and perception are all different aspects of 
the same law-giving realism. Ratios borne of qualitative experience, and 
reborn through experience which has been condensed - quantitatively 


* Neuroscience: Do you agree with Sam Harris’ view that we do not have free 
will when it comes to our 

  If Sam Harris is right, then ‘agreeing’ with ‘him’ is an illusion. The 
rest of the neuroscientific community ‘thinks’ whatever its collective 
neurological and evolved biological biases cause it to ‘think’. Sam Harris’ 
view is not really a view, so much as an involuntary spasm of unconscious 
statistical imperatives turning over in the dark. Without free will, all 
agreement or disagreement can only be the same automatic reflex. Without 
free will, your opinion is not yours. You are a passive observer to your 
own opinions, and so must the neuroscientific community be as well.

The “free decision" is merely the best calculation made by the brain with 
the given data. As Mr. Harris indicates it has already been shown 
empirically in the lab that the brain decides before the consciousness is 
aware of the decision. So that which we call a decision in the conscious 
sense of it is no different than what we call a feeling in the physical 
sense of it. By the time I feel my fingers touch the keys as I type the 
feeling has indeed already happened and my brain is simply detecting it and 
then presenting it to consciousness so feeling is the conscious experience 
of something my brain is processing through no will of my own just as my 
decisions are the experience of calculations my brain made through no will 
of my own.

The appearance of ‘readiness potentials’ prior to the report of readiness 
by a subject doesn’t mean what Harris thinks. Even Libet himself later made 
that clear that his work specifically did not show that free will didn’t 

The fact that a neurological signal can be detected before the various 
parts of us (the self who makes the decision, the self who knows they make 
the decision, the self who reports that they make the decision) can arrive 
at a consensus does not mean that the initial impulse doesn’t correspond to 
conscious experience. There is also the matter of focusing on repetitive, 
reflex actions which minimize free will and maximize predictive 
expectation. These kinds of experiments are like proving that chefs lack 
imagination by studying the fry cooks at McDonalds.

Since physics and neuroscience has no theory at all as to the origin or 
utility of consciousness, we cannot give inanimate instruments the benefit 
of the doubt when it comes to our subjectivity. Because we are a single 
zygote which has reproduced itself, in some sense, every cell in our body 
is ‘us’ just as much as any organ or process in our body. We are complex, 
but not in the way that a machine is complex. We are not assembled from 
specialized parts, we are a single whole, divided into relative 
specialization. Just because every part of us doesn’t know what every other 
part of us is doing at all times, doesn’t mean that it isn’t all ‘us’ doing 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to