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find it reproduced in an (purposedly) uncompleted text listed under a "taste of this book" high up in the list on the (no longer updated but stable page) at the Internet http://www.yoga6d.com/prices.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.