|
The Metaparticle Theory has been in the process of development since l978. There have of course been many efforts to "reconcile" physics with metaphysics, and this may be counted among them. But whereas other theorists often saddle themselves with definitions pitting subjective data against the empirical methods of science, we have suggested a way to stay clear of such arguments. This can be done with good reason by separating metaphysics
itself into its "substantive" and "conscient" aspects.
The latter encompasses all that concerns the interplay of consciousness
with realms of thought and systems of belief involving imponderables
in the physical sense. Substantive metaphysics,
on the other hand, is restricted
to the origins, gradations, and structure
of matter as recognized at the
primordial and elementary stages of
subatomic particles. The fact that many such gradations
are presently invisible and inferential does not challenge their reality
-- providing the goal remains always to bring about understanding, in
scientifically evidential terms, of how elementary particles are produced
from an ultimate source that exceeds what we consider to be materiality. Consequently Metaparticles neither confirms nor opposes religions or other metaphysical belief systems, though we do argue against the reality of "nothingness" and the longterm futility of life. It is true that our initial impetus came from highly specific, very condensed data found in writings of unknown origin. But the fact that new, workable models of the electron evolved from such a source does not make us mystics any more than it makes us scientists. We simply thought our results should gain exposure and have tried to do that, despite the fact that as the foremost contributor to metaparticle theory, I possess no scientific credentials. (On the other hand it is clear that had I managed to become a professional in even the outskirts of physics, I would doubtless have had a mobile career. Immediately after putting even a slightly "metaphysical" theory on the Internet I would have been moved to lab assistant.) A very reasonable question that is asked about the theory is this: If you start with an imaginary premise, tailored to fit certain "clues" of uncertain provenance, how can you be confident that your electron model is not fictitious? The answer is because both forms of that model, two-and three-dimensional, fit known facts of electron behavior. And further, our bipolar models fit those facts better than the single-point model science made do with for decades -- despite creating several enigmas over which only quantum mechanics could build a satisfactory bridge.If a new model works, it should no longer be thought
fictitious. Especially not if it supports the reality of the foundational
premise underlying it -- in this case a physically imperceptible "field"
of dynamic energy whose laws dictated the eventual model. A general
principle suggests the forms of specific particles; the particle
models fit the demands of electron behavior. That demonstrable
fact then reflects positively (though not exclusively) upon the foundational
"field", does it not? The process might be described
as reciprocal evidence between causes and results. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
|
