Skip to content
 

Consciousness – The Argument from Relativity

The real difficulty that arises when we attempt to understand the nature of conscious awareness is not only that, once begun, it must expand into a science of everything, but also that it ultimately must descend to the ground of being itself, the essence of which no language – verbal, mathematical or geometrical – can possibly describe or encompass.
David Chalmers calls this the “impossible problem”.
However, there are significant problems in all and any of the current approaches to a science of mind, and these must be addressed, for if they remain built in to the current accepted matrix of data, then philosophy merely continues to circle about a set of unregarded, apriori and essentially faulty assumptions.
It is, of course, quite possible these assumptions are not unregarded in certain philosophies – that they are biases which fulfill a prior psychological need of the philosopher. When philosophical debate divides into opposing camps, we are not seeing the result of purely rational thinking, but thinking which is biased by predetermining collective psychological factors.
Daniel Dennett’s “challenge” to David Chalmers actually illustrates the precise nature of the problem to be dealt with, for it can be reversed just as easily and with the same justification. The difficulty can then be seen, not as a true philosophical problem, but as a function of bias – a bias underwritten by the objective fallacy which not only plagues modern philosophy, but which is so fundamental to the core ideas of modern physics that its effects are completely invisible. I shall explain, but first, let’s take Dennett and turn him about.
Here is what he said:
“Until Chalmers gives us an independent ground for contemplating the drastic move of adding “experience” to mass, charge, and space-time, his proposal is one that can be put on the back burner, way back.”

Now let’s turn him about:
“Until Chalmers gives us an independent ground for contemplating the drastic move of adding the autonomous reality of mass, charge, and space-time to the obvious and immediate reality of experience, his proposal is one that can be put on the back burner, way back.”

This reversal of his point of view reveals the bias in Dennet’s question, that is, the extraordinary notion that “science” has somehow disposed of the subject/object problem; that it is now, somehow, quite acceptable to believe an independent object exists, while at the same time disregarding the simple fact that an “object” can only and ever be something “experienced”.
The fact that a certain statement can be reversed and yet still argued for, means that beneath it lies a true philosophical problem; a problem which, in this case, is a function of our inability to formulate an expression of the “ground of being”.
Essentially, this inability disposes us towards having to make a choice between one or the other aspects of the dichotomy which follows, but such choices are often made too far beyond the roots of possible knowledge, simply because what is known has not been sufficiently investigated for its aptness to any deeper understanding. The point is simple enough, that is, that our current knowledge of the universe poses significant issues which, if investigated further, might deepen our philosophical position and, that consequently for philosophy, the “uncertainty”, ineffability and paradox which awaits at the “ground of being” lies at a far greater depth than we currently realize.

Over one hundred years ago, the Michelson-Morley experiment overturned our “classical” objectivity, with its proof that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference; that something with an obvious velocity to a fixed observer could and did go past a moving observer at the same speed. How were we to deal with this paradox? The e Lorentz transformation, which had already made possible a mathematical, appreciation of electromagnetic phenomena were also found to be apt this problem, But the Lorentz transformation is nothing more than a Pythagorean equation which transposes a fixed co-ordinate value to that “real world” set of variables which must apply if the fixed value is also to be set as an “absolute”.
Basically, what the Lorentz transformation does is to fix the observer parameter and transfer the variables to the observed phenomena. But, since it is merely a Pythagorean formulae based on the “fixing” of one side of a right angled triangle, by geometrical conversion, the formula also allows us to fix the “absolute” side as a “solid” or “instantaneous” dimensional line, and thus transpose the observed variables as a function of the observer.

If we do this, we find that the only necessary variable produced in the equation is the observers own motion in time, whilst all the paradoxical “relativistic” observer effects such as time dilation, shrinkage and mass increase can now be seen as subjective artifacts of this motion. Time dilation and shrinkage become the subjective perceptual result of any spatial motion. Mass increase is the most interesting however, because its actual observed effects in particle physics allows us the opportunity to show how the same mathematics we use to relate our classical “observer” space to “relativistic space” can be used to remove the logical paradox of its existence.

If we transpose the Lorentz transformation, we end up with a trigonometric formulae based on the angle of the speed vector.
This angle, Q = ARCSIN v/C, where v is the measured or estimated speed of the mass. The Lorentz factor of relativistic mass increase is then given by 1/COS Q.
This is equivalent to the real increase in the kinetic energy of a mass traveling along a spatial vector at 45 deg. to the time vector with an actual velocity V= c times the square root(2/COS Q), its kinetic energy KE=1/2 MV squared, and its transposed equivalent Lorentz mass increase therefore equal to KE/c squared.
In other words, a particle approaching the “infinite velocity” of light does not increase in mass due to some magical relativistic effect, but because its true kinetic energy manifests as apparent mass; the same amount the Lorentz transformation would predict if the actual and measured velocity of the particle were identical.
Velocity is the ratio of distance to time, and, since we find spatial motion has no effect on the measured speed of light, if we rigorously adhere to our classical logic, it is clear we are trying to measure an instantaneous function, where the component producing the observed velocity is motion in time: the observer’s own motion in time.
Saying light has a velocity of 300,000,000 meters per second is merely a translation of our temporal motion along a spatial co-ordinate measured in seconds; one maintaining a constant and conserved 45 deg. relationship to the three co-ordinates of “visible” space.
Any attempt to measure the velocity of light in any frame of reference will result in the same fixed velocity, because it is an artifact of the observer’s own temporal motion. And this motion, regardless of his actual velocity in the “time” dimension, will always produce the same speed for light because a fixed distance in “time” (Side A of the 45 deg right angled triangle) maintains a conserved equivalent distance to “visible” space. (Fixed or “instantaneous” Hypotenuse)
This equivalence does not alter in the slightest the predictions of relativity theory for an observer; merely removes a mistaken subjective function from what is, in fact, a true absolute and re-establishes a stable background to energetic relationships. It also provides a new perspective for our understanding of wave/particle relationships and the discontinuities of Quantum physics.
Our investigation of relativity shows that the observing awareness must act within the same fixed spatial system it observes, i.e. that it is an objective factor, which, in motion along a spatial co-ordinate, not only generates the subjective notion of “time” but also, since it must participate in the physical universe, must also take up “space” within it.

But what we end up with, via Einstein’s 1905 thesis, is instead, the acceptance of a paradox in which all values of mass, time and space are relative to an “absolutized” yet finite value of the speed of light. After Einstein, our rationalization of space and motion became twisted into a “space time continuum” which although mathematically envisionable, remains essentially illogical to the percepts of classical understanding.

Why it was that no-one had posited the opposing “classical” explanation at the time. Surely Einstein and the rest of those early theoretical physicists weren’t so mathematically inept as to not be able to rearrange a formulae and test the variant possibilities this produced? Einstein had been disturbed by the implications of quantum mechanics and was also desperate to create a unified field theory – something which is impossible in Quantum mechanics alone as it cannot relate the “classical” base of relativity and field theory (where infinite functions remain possible) to its essential cosmic view in which such functions cannot exist. Surely someone would have recognized the mathematical relationships.

Possibly the reason why the redeeming argument was not taken up is more simple. For one thing, the problem appealed to abstracting mathematical psyche of people such as Minkowski, who developed the new space/time modeling, but the main reason; the same reason that the investigation of all phenomena, even in the mind sciences, is plagued by the necessity of creating endlessly reductive mechanisms to explain their observed dynamics : Observation is king!
The strength of this psychological “law” was then – and remains – sufficient to enthrone a paradox, where the simple observed fact that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames means that the cosmos must be how it seems – regardless of the affront to classical, rational logic and its understandings.
There is, however, still the question of why scientists such as Einstein did not, simply as a matter of course, further investigate the mathematical implications of the Lorentz transformation; something well within the scope of the average year eleven student. I do not believe that they did not intuit the ramifications, but that the implications for the materialist science of the day were simply so overwhelming that, psychologically, it was virtually impossible not to accept a new, even if paradoxical, notion of physical reality rather than confront a classical, albeit “timeless”, interpretation of the cosmos which would then, by necessity, require interaction with, what would have been to them, a paradoxical and essentially non physical conscious function. This, of course, is how things remain today – even within the mind sciences.

Nevertheless, if we take up the challenge offered by the transposition to the observer of this one variable, i.e. motion along a fixed time line, we find some interesting and, for physics, serious, implications.

(a) First of all, as above, the light speed paradox is resolved. (First implication for physics: a photon is not a moving particle but a fixed energy state linking two points in space.)
(b) What we shall, for the moment, call the “conscious function” which moves in “time” must form what we will call a participatory “gap” or spherical intersection with the dimensions of space. The size of this “gap” will then set an absolute limit to observed space/time/energy interactions. (Second implication for physics: The observed quantification of mass/energy transformations in time is actually an artifact of this observer “gap”.
(c) If we recognize the implication that the underlying dimensional space is “timeless” and hence pleromatic, we can see that within the limits set by the time/space gap of consciousness, all possible energy conditions co-exist. (Third implication for physics: “non local” effects can be seen as the result of this fact, that in a given time limit all experimental outcomes within this limit are possible. This also produces what physics observes as the “wave function” of a particle.)
It is possible to go on and relate virtually all observed particle phenomena to this model and in the process all observed paradoxical dynamics become explainable. But particle physics is tedium ad-nauseum. Let us move on.
In western philosophy, argument over the primacy or illusory reality of the physical world has been going on since before the time of Plato and Aristotle, but in general a materialistic, or at least, “objective as real” philosophy has become the norm within scientific pursuit, while in eastern philosophy it was long held that the self is an aspect of Atman and that the visible or objective world is merely an illusion spun by Maya, the goddess of physical interaction.
During the thousands of years of argument over, and ascendancy of, either of these possible visions of reality, there have always been psycho/mythological reasons to validate each point of view. There has, however, never been a true way to choose for one over the other, except that such choice is essentially natural to the psychology of the individual and the culture in which his psychology is enacted.
This situation changed, however, with our observations of the behaviors of light and those of sub atomic particles.
Just like indeterminacy, the light speed paradox is a simple, observational fact. It cannot be stepped around nor chosen against. It can only be resolved in two ways: Einstein’s way, which forces us to accept a new reality where the paradox is enthroned in a space/time continuum geometrically definable only via mathematics, or, through its resolution via the same simple, objective mathematics, which then forces us to recognize that our relativistic and quantized “reality” is an observational artifact; an artifact of interaction between a “functional awareness” and an absolute, pleromic and timeless cosmos.

So, what are the implications if we were to accept this view of the cosmos? First of all, while we must recognize that our observed reality is actually an artifact, an experiential reality, this in itself in no way effects or changes the apparent physical laws or “truths” discoverable within that reality. What it does do, however, is allow a deeper speculative basis for the reasons why these laws exist and how they arise in their experiential form.

First we have the problem of the arbitrary absolutes: the speed of light, Plancks constant, electron charge, the gravitational constant and a few others, none of whose values are a function of interaction, but, within the observed cosmos, are purely arbitrary. Why are these values what they are? Well… they just are, answers the physicist. So what specificity creates these particular values? We don’t know, answers the physicist.
All the bases for these arbitrary absolutes become visible within the new view.

Secondly, we have the problem of motion, “force” and “field”. Field phenomena are particularly gritty for physics, as they are essentially mechanically unexplainable. Force and motion are interesting however, for whilst both are measurable and mathematically definable, they cannot be conceptually realized within a purely physical system of co-ordinates. We are so familiar with the “experience” of motion and force that we do not even consider their basic physical inexplicability.
In a cosmos generated by the interaction of a moving conscious functionality with a timeless co-ordinate system, force and motion become explicable products of dimensional freedom, and this, of course, leads into to all the questions of mind/matter interaction.

The above is only a minor sampling of the possible implications and the answers which flow from this thesis. The deeper and wider aspects flow into all areas of our experience and knowledge, and whilst the reality it presupposes appears to be esoteric in the extreme, every one of the implications flows only from a purely scientific rationalization of the data. Back to Dennett, where I hope you can now see why it is scientifically valid to turn his position around, to invert his “objective as real” orientation, and in the process expose the “leveled” position of both arguments.

Much of our scientifically created view of the cosmos is not “truth” but a construct of possibility acceptable to the current “consentia academia”. This consensus has, for a long time, been blind to its own philosophic position, ie, one underscored by the “observational fallacy”, where a “third person” or godlike view of the world is taken for granted as a valid means of understanding phenomena.
Such a view allows for the creation of theories such as the “big bang universe” and the positing of such “mathematically possible” phenomena as black holes, and of course, that seemingly never ending host of demon particles quantum physics demands if its explanations are to hold any mathematical water. The problem with such an “objective physical” view of the universe is that it abstracts itself from the very experiential observations upon which it is founded. Consciousness then becomes a deus absconditus, neither required, nor indeed, to be found anywhere.
It then becomes possible to posit the impossible, ie, to attribute to matter all that exists on both sides of the argument, and completely annihilate the very subjective viewpoint upon which its own argument rests.