Endophysics — Descartes Taken Seriously

  • Otto E. Rössler
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Synergetics book series (SSSYN, volume 63)

Abstract

The world according to Descartes is a prison. A potentially malign dream-giving-instance is playing a seemingly interactive movie to the victim of the dream. Is there an escape button? Descartes himself saw a way — intra-dream consistency. As long as unfalsified it enables the illusion of one’s being even. For there are “hostages” in the dream relative to whom one is exterior and hence infinitely powerful. The risk that one refrains from misusing this power could not have been taken by a malign demiurge. This ethical argument makes rationalism so precious. Can classical rationalism be saved in the face of quantum mechanics? The proposed trick is classical endophysics — to posit two levels of objective reality (exo and endo). The interface (endo-reality) is the formal analogue of the big dream. Five predictions concerning empirical physical reality suggest themselves (stochastic noise, nonlocality, double nonlocality, rotational-frame covariance, nowness tunneling). A refined test of rationalism becomes possible.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Husserl: Cartesian Meditations, An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by D. Cairns, Martin Nijhoff, The Hague 1960 (A French edition appeared in 1929, a German edition in 1949.)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Descartes: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia. Soly, Paris 1641Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Specht: René Descartes. Rowohlt, Reinbek 1966, p. 17, 18Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Lévinas: Le Temps et l’Autre. (Time and the Other Person). Fata Morgana, Montpellier 1979 (first edition 1946), Chap. 1. 3Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Lévinas: Totalité et Infini, Essay sur l’Extériorité. (Totality and Infinity, an Essay on Exteriority). Martin Nijhoff, The Hague 1980Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O.E. Rössler: Interactional bifurcations in human interaction — a formal approach. In Self-Organization and Clinical Psychology. Ed. by W. Tschacher, G. Schiepek and E.J. Brunner, Springer, Berlin 1992, pp. 229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Einstein, Letter to Born, April 29, 1924. In A. Einstein, H. Born, and M. Born, Briefwechsel (Correspondence). Nymphenburger, München 1969Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Heisenberg, Letter to Einstein, June 10, 1927. Quoted in A. Pais: Subtle Is the Lord... ’ — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Clarendon, Oxford 1982, p. 467Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Rozental: The fourties and the fifties. In Niels Bohr — His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues. Ed. by S. Rozental, North Holland, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 149–190; here p. 178Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Third edition, London 1726Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Einstein: Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen. Jahrb. Radioakt. 4, 411–462 (1908)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O.E. Rössler: Four open problems in four dimensions. In A Chaotic Hierarchy. Ed. by G. Baier and M. Klein, World Scentific, Singapore 1991, pp. 365–369Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O.E. Rössler: Endophysics. In Real Brains, Artificial Minds. Ed. by J.L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, North Holland, New York 1987, pp. 25–46. A German translation is to be found in O.E. Rössler: Endophysik — Die Welt des inneren Beobachters. Merve, Berlin 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Boltzmann: Vorlesungen über Gastheorie, Vol. 2. Barth, Leipzig 1898Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.J. Boscovich: De spatio et tempore ut a nobis cognoscuntur (On space and time, as they are recognized by us), 1755. Reprinted in R.J. Boscovich: Theo-ria Philosophiae Naturalis, Supplementum II, Vienna 1758. English translation in R.J. Boscovich: A Theory of Natural Philosophy, Latin/English edition (of the 2nd edition, Venice 1763). Ed. by J.M. Child, Open Court, LaSalle 1922, pp. 404–409. English part reprinted in R.J. Boscovich: A Theory of Natural Philosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge 1966, pp. 203–205Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    O.E. Rössler: Boscovich covariance. In Beyond Belief: Randomness, Prediction and Explanation in Science. Ed. by J.L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991, pp. 69–87. German translation in O.E. Rössler: Endophysik — Die Welt des inneren Beobachters. Merve, Berlin 1992Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Buckingham: On physically similar systems. Phys. Rev. 4, 345–370 (1915)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K.R. Popper: Indeterminism in classical physics and quantum physics I. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 1, 117–133 (1951)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O.E. Rössler: A possible explanation of quantum mechanics (Preprint 1985). In Advances in Information Systems Research. Ed. by G.E. Lasker, T. Koizumi, and J. Pohl, Publ. Int. Inst. Adv. Stud. Systems Res. Cybernetics, Windsor (Ontario) 1991, pp. 581–589Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Nottale: Fractals and the quantum theory of space-time. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 5047–5117 (1989)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O.E. Rössler: Explicit observers. In Optimal Structures in Heterogeneous Reaction Systems. Ed. by P.J. Plath, Springer, Berlin 1989, pp. 123–138. German translation in O.E. Rössler: Endophysik — Die Welt des inneren Beobachters. Merve, Berlin 1992Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O.E. Rössler: Bell’s symmetry (Preprint 1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O.E. Rössler, R. Rössler, and P. Weibel: ‘Absolute’ superfluid nonrotation: Is it observer-frame specific? (Preprint 1991 )Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Gödel: Remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy. In Albert Einste in: Philosopher-Scientist. Ed. by P.A. Schilpp, Open Court, LaSalle 1949, pp. 553–562Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Primas: Umdenken in der Naturwissenschaft (Change of Thinking in Natural Science). Gaia 1, 5–15 (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Kant: Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Meiner, Hamburg 1990, p. 23 (Vorrede zur 2. Aufl. 1787). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. Kemp Smith, (N. Kemp Smith, transl.), St. Martin’s Press, New York 1929, preface to 2nd editionGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. Kant: Opus postumum, Convolutes X and XI. In E. Adickes: Kants Opus postumum. Berlin 1920. Quotations from W. del Negro: Kant, Ausgewählte Schriften. Die Grundlagen des kritischen Denkens. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh 1958, pp. 398, 399Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. Primas: Time-asymmetric phenomena in biology. Complementary exophysical description arising from deterministic quantum endophysics (preprint 1988). Open Systems and Information Dynamics 1, 3–34 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.S. Bell: On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Svozil: On the setting of scales for space and time in arbitrary quantized media (preprint 1983 ). Quoted in K. Svozil: Extrinsic-intrinsic concept and complementarity. This volume.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Finkelstein: Finite physics. In The Universal Turing Machine. Ed. by R. Herken, Kammerer and Unverzagt, Hamburg 1988, pp. 349–376Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Otto E. Rössler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations