This is an attempt (immodestly so) to put into words
a perception, or a so-called perception, I have of
what I have done in physics; Or more accurately put,
in meta-physics-going-through-physics-into-the-world.
  I have in memory -- right or not -- that Aristotle
apparently said something, in the book (later) named
Meta ta Physica, About -- or After -- the Physics --
that the concern (in metaphysics, as the term became
common in English) is with the world not as much HOW
it is, but THAT it is. -- We are interested in the
world inasmuch as it is, rather than in how it is.
  Let me step out of those words which may or may
not speak to the reader with any surface-sense and
indicate something of the same with simple words.
Why is it that the universe exists at all? What can
be sense about the awesome sense of wholeness, the
sense of life, of consciousness, which is also the
sense of duration, and time, and of creative dance
and movement and motion? What is the most general
feature? -- rather than why some flowers are blue
and others green and yet others red and yellow or
mixtures of these colors or other colors, visible
as less visible in blends.
  So metaphysics is the great question, the great
pondering, the great wonder.
  Now in 2004 I produced a book containing an as
yet perhaps little-noticed proof (let's say proof,
but other words can be used -- such as reasoning,
argument). You will find it reproduced in an
(purposedly) uncompleted text listed under a
"taste of this book" high up in the list on the
(no longer updated but stable page) at the
Internet http://www.yoga6d.com/prices.
  There in, the 2007 text you find there, I
apply the proof as published in the only thick
book about physics that is found by me at the
National Library of Norway, nb.no, with ISBN
82.996977.0.0, author name Stein von Reusch,
since 2004/5, referring to an exam thesis
result (accepted informally by tutor but
formally rejected by the, as I see it,
un-understanding sensors at the University)
going back some months earlier. This proof,
then, I apply, as it obviously should be
applied, to physics; and in particular to that
which is -- in all frank descriptions of modern
physics since it evolved after the time of
young Einstein and long into Cern and Stanford
and Cambridge and string theories and quantum
gravity attempts and what not -- regarded as the
foundational description of the world in general
form and the source of all formal descriptions
later on -- even those that disagree with one
or several aspects of a more superficial feature
of this description -- namely the Theory of
General Relativity by Albert Einstein.
  This innocent little proof shows that the
description given by Einstein of the underlaying
structure of reality makes no sense at all --
exactly at the point where Einstein writes,
in the key delivery of his theory, that he
seeks a 'natural psychological understanding'
and to put it forth as clearly as possible
-- and without any proof of it in itself. It
is to be accepted because it is psychologically
natural. The proof is utterly simple in some
way, and yet it may take a person decades to
understand even but partly, but it goes like
this: the continuity which is assumed to
exist with numbers doesn't work out at all.
This notion has been said by people both
inside and outside mainstream fashion of
science and its various branches. But the
particular form of the proof I deliver is
utterly clean, as clean as soap, and it has
withstood all tests of enquiry and stands
unassailed to-day, in 2009, even though it
has been available on the Internet rather
since I made the book in 2004, and has
in particular been part of the Firth
platform, the folder YOURTEXT there, as
file A.HTM, since March/April 2006.
  This simple proof says that the types of
numbers that Einstein seeks to engage when
he describes the essence of the world --
and, indeed, attempts to move from
metaphysics as the Grand Old Pondering, or
GOP, over the world, into physics as a
numerical discipline, do not coherently
exist in our mind. They are the result of
confused half-thinking. They are not
naturally psychologically present; rather,
they are unnatural in any rational good
state of mind. The sane mind does not
believe in them, for the sane, rational,
good mind has penetrated the elixir of
the proof. The proof asserts that there
is no way to keep in mind the natural
finite numbers on the one hand, and the
notion of continuity and infinity and
infinitesimals (including such idiotic
infinitesimal structures, imagined, as
singularities, by Roger Penrose and
Stephen Hawking in their black holes,
without or with quantum hairs) on the
other hand. There is no fluid motion
of application of the rules of
arithmetic gradually towards the
infinitesimal, and so there is no
continuity of the kind Einstein speak
of as naturally psychologically
existing, and so there is no Theory of
General Relativity, just a bunch of
incoherently grounded equations which
happen to work out some nice tech-events
and some nice observation events in a
bunch of cases. But that is not a theory,
neither as Einstein wants a theory to be,
nor as Popper wants a theory to be, nor
as the ancient thinkers such as Aristotle
wants a theory to be, nor as any person
who has any respect for mind, for
consciousness, as an instrument of
penetration into an understanding of
reality would like a theory to be.
It is not a theory if it is just a
bunch of loose numerical fragments,
even if these fragments gives a lot
of fun and entertaining pieces of
technological and observational events
for a decade or a millenium.
  But my proof shows that Einstein's
theory of General Relativity does not
exist. It is nil. It is nada. And since
this theory is called on as a source of
the types of concepts used, albeit
differently in some regards, and
occasionally in direct opposition,
in the Theory of the Quantum and in
the Theory of Thermodynamics and so
on and on in the rest of physics,
-- so much that without this General
Relativity there is no physics at all,
no string theory, no m-theory, no
quantum gravity, just the incorrect
superficial views of Newton which only
works on clock, buckets of water, and
falling apples (and then only when
measured approximately) -- and so we
are left with metaphysics again. We
have industry, for sure -- atomics,
what not. But industry is not science,
is not theory. Industry is merely what
people do, and even if they do it with
big budgets and plenty of interesting
machines, it is still not a work of the
mind worthy to be called "theory", and
still less "a successful theory".
  So, in simple, beautifully crude and
immodest words, in 2004 I dissolved
physics and nobody has built upon that
dissolution to create an alternative.
Instead, I built the Firth Lisa GJ2
language, the first formal structure
woven in full awareness of the
complications of assuming that numbers
of a finite kind can be considered
clear-cut and separate from continuities,
or as a way to 'measure' points cut into
continuities. In other words, only by
staying near finite numbers as strictly
finite -- banning infinity and banning
continuities from entering anywhere near
the domain in which numbers are engaged
in the mind -- will one have a coherence
of mind which can drink in feeling of the
metaphysics of infinity which underlies
the feeling of the world as a whole, the
feeling of cosmos. And the only formal
structure created with this full
understanding since the proof was
delivered in 2004 is the Lisa GJ2 language.
This means also that, in terms of
consciousness, the world consists of
two things: the world, with its infinities
(in essence), and a formal description, viz.,
the Lisa GJ2 language. Now the world is not
a map of the world. The ocean is not a map
of the ocean. So also are the industries of
the world incorrectly associated with
"scientific theories" such as "physics"
not a map of the world. They are merely
part of a world which is -- apart from the
Lisa GJ2 language -- messed up in thinking
incoherently about infinities. But the Lisa
GJ2 language is map of this world, because
it is not part of that mess, and because it
is a formal structure and a map is a formal
structure and a formal structure is a map
and there is nothing else to map than the
world.
  Metaphysically, then, in the time evolution
since 2004 (the time when science was
dissolved), and consciousness began coming
in, drawn by the coherence of the work of
that proof in humanity, duration -- or
consciousness -- came up with only one
formal structure, viz., the Lisa GJ2 language.
And that was the time ANY formal structure
could come. Anything coming after that is
merely a sub-item of the Lisa GJ2 language,
for the consciousness process engaged by the
insight into infinity of that proof had that
duration period in the virginal, true, strong
sense. What comes later on does not come in
the wake of the necessity of that proof.
What comes later on merely comes in the
aftermath of the one single solid production
in that period, and does not carry any of
the same extent of consciousness as that
formal production. For the insight lives on
and must live on just as the Lisa GJ2
language lives on as its formal flower-
clothing.
  Metaphysics, then, involves a full feeling
of the entire world. To come all the way to
the feeling of what you have around you and
in front of you and what you are as body
and more deeply, as soul and spirit, and
the conscience with God and all such noble
and subtle podnerings, involves having an
apparatus of mind which is able to crystallize
feelings and ways of weighing the world into
something more formal. But that is in some
sense going beyond, or outside of the world;
and that must be founded on an understanding
of the world and its rich complications when
it comes to finiteness and infinity. So in
order to go from metaphysics to the reality
which is more concrete one needs something
utterly coherent. The Lisa GJ2 language
is utterly coherent. It offers that bridge,
and as such, a theory. A theory that can
take any set of numbers of the coherently
thought-about 32-bit finite kind and convert
to any other set of numbers. And that is the
essential transmutation in this world as we
know it. This can explain gravitation, light,
dance, music. And there is no other theory
for it: for there is, in the fullest,
ripest, metaphysical sense, no other extant
theory nor will there ever be.
  As such, then, the Lisa GJ2 language is
the formal way of saying EXACTLY what the
2004 says by means of informal english
words: that the deep motions of the world
are shaped by active subtle shapes which
interact in a network-like way, and which
I there call 'active models' or 'supermodels'
and sometimes, elsewhere, 'supertexts'.
=============================================

License for further distribution of this
document: the http://www.yoga4d.com/cfdl.txt
copyright form.

Aristo Tacoma, May 31th 2009.