To try to understand how our material universe works is physics, to try to understand why or how it appeared is metaphysics.
But, practically, metaphysics especially allows for grasping at non-material objects or phenomenon, such as consciousness, ethics, etc. and assessing their relations with the physical objects.
Traditional science claims not to make metaphysics. However it does, as any system claiming to explain the world. Its basic metaphysical principle is:
«Matter exists in an absolute way, and only it».
This gratuitous statement forbids any research about consciousness or happiness, and especially about morals and respecting the human being. This is very practical when one wants to destroy beauty and nature, for building highways. This is why the business world supports this science and this «serious» and «rational» rhetoric, which deprives any opposition of the very words to express itself.
This metaphysical statement also deprives traditional science of any mean to explain the existence of the world, for instance what caused the Big bang.
Of course, we shall be cautious, in all this part, never to start from «metaphysical principles» «already known» and stated a priori. We shall start only from logic, which is, as we saw in first part, the way which examined objects are related together.
And we must keep in mind that a metaphysical statement cannot be tested directly, by lack of access to this domain. The only means to know if it is true is to check if its implications into our lives lead to something coherent, useful and complete.
Imaginary numbers are numbers which square would be negative. Such numbers do not exist. However they are noted, they act into equations, under the form of the imaginary number i. And they are very useful into a large variety of mathematical problems, which also have numerous real life uses: imaginary numbers rule everything in technique.
What is interesting to be aware here is that we have build a whole theory which exists and which gives very concrete results, starting from an object, i, a base which does not exist, but about which we do as if it was here. And worse, we without shame took profit of this situation to imagine it the properties which we liked. A real object inevitably imposes to us its properties, qualities or defects. But this imaginary object, on its side, was defenceless, since it does not exist. Then we defined it in the most useful way for our little business.
This mathematical example illustrates our first principle of metaphysics: when an object imposes us its presence and properties, we say that it exists. If not, we say that it does not exist.
However the materialistic prejudice says that abstract objects «do not have the same degree of existence». I say they have. Hence our second metaphysical principle: abstract facts have the same degree of existence than physical facts. The only difference is that they do not appear to our sensory organs.
What I think is the most exact to say, about i, basis of the imaginary numbers, is that it results of a skilful use of a paradox: although it does not exist, it happened that it was very useful to do as if it existed, with a special axiom.
This method is fairly general in mathematics, starting with the well known Sets Theory (chapter I-2), which second and third axioms are here only to solve paradoxes and build a theory which can be used in practice.
Of course, mathematicians do not like to see things presented in this way, since they are engaged in their quest for a perfect system explaining everything in an univocal way. However, demonstrations of the impossibility of such a system were brought several times in the early 20th Century, including the Gödel theorem of incompleteness.
But let us remind that reality never lets itself stop by a paradox. When it meets one of them, it just uses this freedom to do what it wants. This joke is not gratuitous: it means that when a natural law is no longer logically determined (for example when it leads to a logical paradox, or to infinite values) then other usually hidden laws, inhibited, will take the initiative and will determine what will occur. Reality never stops to exist.
This is not only about mathematics: the physics theories all are axiomatic systems, together with all the systems in religion, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, society, politics, economy, industry, games, agriculture... In other words we have to expect to find paradoxes, statements impossible to settle, contradictions, in every aspects of our lives.
But there is nothing intrinsically bad into this situation: we can take profit of a paradox to modify any theory in a way which fits our purposes. This is what I call the creator paradox, or the founder absurdity, a key concept for the continuation.
As a matter of facts, in more of having very useful practical uses, this method also works naturally, into the very way reality creates itself, including the physical reality. It is this way because physics obeys to logical laws, which can be described with an axiomatic system. If this axiomatic system has logical indeterminism, see paradoxes, this however not forbids the physical reality to continue to exist and to function: it reificates one of the two terms of the paradox, or it finds other laws allowing to skirt the problem. A paradox never stopped the world of running.
In conclusion of this chapter, we shall give a definition of the existence of an axiomatic system which will be one of the most significant bases for the continuation:
1) An axiomatic system, whatever it is, exists when this existence does not generate inner logical contradiction (paradox, indecidability...)
2) Any axiomatic system necessarily contains internal contradictions
3) Rules 1 and 2 being contradictory, so that a axiomatic system can exist, it is always necessary (rule 2) to accept some founding contradictions (exceptions to rule 1) and to arbitrarily set a value for them. But once this condition fulfilled, the logical rules must then be strictly respected.
It is to be noted that these three statements themselves comply to the conditions they express!
This definition is equivalent to the first principle of metaphysics of the chapter III-2, in more detailed, for axiomatic systems.
We conclude from this, about the individual logical objects that this axiomatic system contains:
4) In an axiomatic system, an individual object, whatever it is, exists only if this existence does not generate any logical contradiction in its system (paradox, indecidability...) (with of course the exception of the objects involved into the founding paradox of the system. The imaginary number i is an example of object involved in a founding paradox).
If there is a quasi absolute choice of the starting axioms, if we have some choice of values for some statements in order to settle the founding contradictions, we on the other hand do not have any more choice on their logical implications:
5) From a set of axioms and values to founding contradictions, our axiomatic system is completely and rigorously determined, up to an infinite number of logical inferences. We can only explore it, but no more modify it.
So it is now easy to understand how choosing arbitrarily one of the two incalculable values in a contradiction can found something, in «illogical» examples like the Set Theory or the calculation with the i number.
Some will think that the previous logical considerations are of no concern for them, and that the concrete world exists, anyway, since it is material, that we can see it, that we can touch it, and even modify it. To observe, in scientific terms. To live in, in more common terms, but quite as valid and much more pleasant.
If we want to build a really ultimate metaphysical theory, or even a theory on physics, which claims to explain why the world exists, we should not start from something which already exists, otherwise arises immediately the question: and your thingie, there, from which you claim to explain everything, how did it appeared, at the beginning?
We shall imagine something which does not exist. Like with the i of the imaginary calculation. Like that, at least, nobody will ask us how it appeared at the beginning: it quite simply never appeared.
Good, let us start with the nibs©, (nothing in familiar French), they do not exist, they do not have a form, nor a colour, no definition. The only property which we shall recognise to them is that they are made in such a way that they will be perfect to use for our demonstration. We shall have no other basis than this founder paradox!
These nibs have the same existential statute as the i of the imaginary numbers: they do not exist, but doing as if they existed will allow us for very interesting things. In more, as they do not exist, they cannot impose us their properties, qualities or defect, and we can rid them with any arbitrary quantity of properties useful for our purposes.
No nib makes objection; thus let us continue.
Good, we shall take two of them, of nibs. We shall say that these two have a relation X. No mater which relation: that they are equal, or different, that there is one larger than the other, or more dumb, as you like. Hey, but this relation exists, on its side. The mathematicians cannot contradict me: starting from that i which does not exist, we have surprised them red-handed building a whole world of calculations which exist, and which has even very significant technical applications. Yes, i does not exist, but the equality i+i=2i exists, and it is even true.
Right, of course, this relation X exists only as a relation, it does not exist materially, concretely. But this will be enough for us.
We shall say that a small group of nibs and their relations with each other are made in such a way that their descriptions form the axioms of a logical system. Logical deductions starting from the first group of nibs form a second group of it: each nib of the first group generates 2 nibs of a second group. Then according to the same process, both nibs of the second group generate three in a third group of them, then these three generate four in a fourth group, and so on. We could represent this relations of filiation according to a graphic, in a tree structure:
The founder nibs, for example the 3 in the centre, generated a second group, then a third, then a fourth... which are represented as concentric layers, as growth rings in a tree. After a very great number of stages, millions or billions, the individual layers are indistinguishable, and, if we take the precaution of putting the successive layers the ones at the top of the others, the diagram takes the shape of a bowl, where the successive layers are parallel with the edge. With the number of layers, the bowl grows accordingly, by addition of successive layers along the edge. To show this growth, we represented in dotted line a layer to be added after a number of steps approximately 5% larger.
Here is typically a mathematical construction really obscure and devoid of any practical use, you may think. But you may perhaps wonder what are these two long arrows «space» and the short one «time», what does this mean?
It is that, if you take again the first diagram, you notice that the layers follow each other in a given order. For example the layer numbers ending with zero will proceed regularly, whereas the squares become increasingly rare. That can be compared with a «time» which passes, where events occur regularly or according to different intervals. This «flow of time» is done according to the arrow, in the drawing of the bowl. In the same way, within a given layer, the nibs have a relation of more or less vicinity, which allows to say that some are close and other are far, in the meaning for instance of two words being close or distant in the alphabetical order. That can be compared to a «distance». In the two figures, this «distance» was represented along a line, which corresponds to a «space» with one dimension (the curved line where the two large arrows are). We could as well have chosen the properties of the nibs in such a way that this «space» may be with two, even three dimensions, or any other value, but if so, I would be unable to draw the diagram, because it would be in four dimensions. This «space» with three dimensions already curiously resembles ours, and the bowl diagram is commonly used in cosmology: the origin point corresponds to the Big-bang, and the progressive growth in diameter with the expansion of the universe.
Let us explain to the non-mathematician reader that mathematics usually evokes such diagrams with a notion of «space», which match our intuitive notion of space. We even find perfect mathematical counterparts of our space-time. There is thus nothing new in this space of nibs which we propose, except to give it the bowl shape of an universe diagram.
Until now, we only obtained a mathematical analogy of our space-time, curious but without real interest. We can however go a little further in this concept of «space» and «time», if we assume that the nibs possess properties which are transmitted from a layer to the following according to specified rules. For instance, in a layer, the majority of the nibs bear the property 0 (black dot) and some bear the property M (white dot), which is mandatorily transmitted to only one nib in the following layer. But with each new layer, the property is shifted of a constant distance, regarding the previous layer. Moreover, if another nib of the M type is in the vicinity, the reappearance place is moved in such a way that M type nibs flee each other. We are perfectly free to consider things in this way, without supposing that the whole layers pattern is subjected to a time which passes by, since causes of all what occurs in a given layer are entirely contained in the previous layer, and each layer contains the causes of all what occurs in the following layer.
In this figure, the relation of cause and effect works from left to the right, and the idea of «space» is vertical. We see a «particle» (in top on the left) moving quickly downwards. It meets another motionless «particle» (medium on the left). The two «particles» «run up» (or more exactly they repel each other by a «force» which gets stronger when they get closer). The one of the top is stopped, and it communicated all its «speed» to the one of the bottom.
This strangely resembles the following figure, which represents the collision of two electrons in our own physical universe:
This time, it seems that we now created a far more realistic mathematical equivalent of our universe, which too appears following a «big-bang», which consists of a «space» where flows a «time». If we consider only the successive layers of nibs, our «time» was no more that a simple numbering of the layers, following their creation order. But now what occurs in a layer is the direct cause from what will occur in the following one. Each layer determines the following one. And we have particles behaving and phenomenon happening. Exactly as in physics, since all the mechanics science can be reduced to the study of the motion of particles, for which what occurs at a given moment is the direct and only cause of what happens at the following moment. We can thus legitimately speak about a «time», because it obeys the same laws and functions in the same way than our physical time. We shall speak again of this astonishing definition of time in chapter IV-3.
And our mathematical «universe», with its «time», begins with a phase of expansion, contains «particles» which will behave the same way as our material particles. We can complicate the arbitrary properties which we gave to the nibs: it can appear several kinds of «particles», which behaviour will be that of the quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos... And into there, it will also form «gases», «stars», «galaxies», «planets», and, the same causes producing the same effects, we shall also find in there an «evolution», which will also give «living beings» and even the mathematical equivalent of «scientists», who will undoubtedly have very real questions to ask us.
We can legitimately wonder how far can go the comparison between our «physical» universe, «real», «material», and this «universe» of nibs, «abstract», «imaginary», formed only of logical relations between elements, the nibs, which do not exist, but that we rigged with an arbitrary quantity of ad hoc properties.
Anyways, this universe of nibs certainly exists, as a logical system, in the meaning we said that logical systems exist, in the previous chapter III-3. So this way of creating an universe qualifies as a truly explicative metaphysical system.
But does this nib universe exist in the meaning of our concrete daily experience of existence? Of course, we cannot see it, but what about its «inhabitants»? Are they only appearances, figures in a computer, or can they indeed experience like us consciousness and the feeling of reality? The reply of classical science is «no», and anyway it would be naive to just reply «yes» without first assessing the exact meaning of words such as «concrete» or «observable».
Well, then let us see those who use these words, and ask them what they mean with them.
What is meant by existing? What do we want to express when we say that the universe exists, that we exist? The answer, from the most educated scientist to the most naïve man in the street, is always the same: this universe, this matter, we can see them, touch them, handle them. To observe them, specify together the scientistist and the scientist, with a knowing look. It is this that we mean when we say that our universe «exists», that it is «concrete». The universe of the nibs cannot be seen nor touched; it is «abstract», «imaginary».
But what occurs exactly when we touch it with the finger, this matter? When there is a contact between an object and the finger, which is also a material object, also formed with atoms and molecules. Obviously, the atoms of the surface of the finger will come into contact with those of the surface of the object, which will oppose a resistance. This resistance slightly deforms the finger. The sensitive nervous endings detect this deformation, and send a nervous message to the brain: we have the feeling of contact. Good old 19th century physics explanation of our concrete, observable and touchable world.
Well, but on the level of the atoms, what occurs when two atoms get in contact? We can say, while simplifying, that it is the peripheral electrons of each atom which will be touched. And the naïve man next door answers: «of course, the electrons are matter balls which touch together. The contact is explained like that, since it is matter». But now the scientist does not agree any more: What a trick, we brilliantly explain matter with saying that it is made of atoms and electrons, to end lamentably voicing that these electrons are themselves balls of matter! But at the end what is matter? The scientist answers with a gentle voice, with the agreement of the scientistist: «an electron is made of a probability wave and electromagnetic fields. There is no «ball», no solid surface, and even no shape, just a fuzzy probability mist, centred on a point which does not have any special property. The electrons obey the Pauli principle of exclusion which says (while simplifying) that two electrons cannot occupy exactly the same place. So, when two electrons meet, they feel a repelling force (an electric field), and the closer the electrons, the stronger the force. There is nothing which «is touched», only electric fields which vary with the distance, and which are able to push back an electron when it meets another».
Ah, we get some advance. But a probability wave, an electromagnetic field, what it is? Well, a probability, it is a percentage, a number. The probability wave is a percentage which varies according to the place and the time. A probability that the electron appears or not. An electromagnetic field? It is a thing which makes the electrons deviate when they pass inside, according to certain mathematical laws. Sorry, we do not have any other definition! Even in the faculty! Worse, somebody notices that the electromagnetic field is at last nothing else but a mathematical law describing how the electrons are influenced mutually, and how they are themselves built. Exactly as the mathematical law which governed the point of reappearance of the nibs into the following layer. Nothing more.
But modern physics met still worse phenomena: We can make interferences between electrons, as if they were immaterial light. Or the superimpositions of quantum states: an atom being simultaneously in two different places! Or the electrons which are dematerialised, changed into gamma rays, and then rematerialize themselves.
The scientistist and the scientist explain in chorus that as long as we grasp at visions like the matter ball, we can absolutely not understand how the particles actually behave in this kind of experiments. The leading edge of physics (Quantum mechanics, Copenhagen school) says that it is far better to consider waves of probability of presence, fields, and things like that, without attempting to know «what it is», because nobody knows. So, the most advanced physics, called quantum mechanics (Copenhagen School), never found «something» which would ultimately be matter, which would form the electrons, quarks, etc. and which would explain that our world would be «concrete» instead of an «abstract» vector space. The more science digs, the more this vision fades away, and the world of particles (of which we are made) becomes «abstract», consisting solely of mathematical relationships... Even space and time, the foundations of our lives, are merely mathematical constructs...
So what makes that our universe would be «concrete» and the universe of nibs would be «abstract»?
And if we go until the end of this reasoning, with stopping to suppose that matter would be «something», necessary subtle and mysterious, which would magically make that our world would «exist», and not the others? That matter, ultimately, is just as much immaterial as logical laws? Once rid off our usual imputations and false conceptions, we can find nothing which differentiates our material universe from the nibs universe, and which would make it more «concrete» or more «real».
Ok, let us admit that our universe, space and time, may have an ultimately completely «abstract» nature, that it is too an universe of nibs. However the fight is still not yet won. As two primordial questions remain:
1) If matter, and even space and time, have at last a so «abstract» (note 41) nature, how do we have such an intense feeling of «concrete» existence, instead of perceiving it as a kind of fading dream, or not perceiving it at all, like the vector spaces of mathematics or the paradises of the religions?
2) And precisely, if we perceive this one, why do we not perceive the others?
The «abstract» mathematical relation of the principle of exclusion of Pauli, forbids two «abstract» electrons to superimpose together. This makes that particles at the surface of the finger and those of the touched object repel together with a certain force; this force is transmitted to the whole finger tip, and deforms it slightly; this deformation generates neurochemical mechanisms in the cells which purpose is to detect touch; these cells generate a coded message which propagates along a sensory nerve toward the brain, in sensory areas, where it is decoded and identified. From there, according to a process that nowadays science cannot explain, it leads to a consciousness experience: the feeling of contact, when an object is touched with the finger. We wanted to touch it, this matter, and as usual we feel it. It is ultimately absolutely nothing, it is only logical relation, information, mathematical relation, and yet there is a brain, which fate is not better, simple assembly of probability of presence and mathematical fields, but this brain has the consciousness experience of the feeling of contact. And we could make the same reasoning with all the other senses.
So this is the reply to the first question: consciousness, concrete sensations, and the feeling of reality, are a property of the overall organisation of the human body and brain. They arise from this organisation and structure only, and they can work without the need of this «something mysterious and elusive which magically makes things material and real».
In everyday language, we feel that our world is real, concrete, observable and enjoyable, even if it is ultimately only formed of abstract mathematical stuff, because our bodies and brains are formed of the same stuff than this world!
In science language, our world is observable because we have sensory organs placed into it, which have the same constitution than the observed objects. This allows them to interact with these objects, and to transmit information to our consciousness.
In the reverse reasoning, if there was not a material finger connected to this brain by a nerve, we could feel nothing and we could not make any conclusion about the existence or non-existence of our matter! The same goes with all the other spaces in an infinite number predicted by the quantum theories of the Big-bang, the paradises and hells of the religions, and even for our universe of nibs. It is quite useless to try to perceive them with our material sensory organs, since these sensory organs are not in these spaces. So no information can come from these worlds, and thus no sensory experience. But this does absolutely not imply that these universes do not exist: they can exist as mathematical systems.
But what if, in an universe of nibs, the evolution of the content led to the appearance of a structure similar to our brain and bodies? The same causes producing the same effects, or said otherwise, this nibs universe having NOTHING differentiating it from our «material» universe, then a structure comparable to our brain, which would be placed in one of these universes, connected with an equivalent of sensory organs, similar with ours or different, would be EXACTLY AS MUCH CONSCIOUS THAN US, since it is the STRUCTURE WHICH GENERATES THE CONSCIOUSNESS. And it does not matter «of what» this structure is made of: «matter», «abstract» logical relations, «divine energy» or anything else: the result is still the same. Our universe has nothing magical which would make it «exist» or be «material», and not the others. This consciousness would perceive its universe as naturally and spontaneously as we perceive ours, and would experience about it exactly the same feeling of absolute «material» reality than us. But it would be reciprocally completely unable to perceive ours, and it is our world which would in turn look «abstract» (note 41).
Why is it thus? Because everyone, in his own universe, has sensory organs which are structures which exist in a given universe, and which can thus react only to the «matter» (whatever it is) which is contained in their own universe. It works that way for all the sensory organs and the perception of concrete «reality». It is also true for the consciousness, whatever its origin. It still works that way for the scientific measuring instruments, which perceive our universe only because they are also made of particles precisely of that universe. All of them are victim of the same physical bias©. He yes, our sensory organs and our scientific instruments have a physical bias! This makes that physics, which is readily regarded as the most exact and objective of the sciences, is in facts something terribly subjective: the subjectivity of universe! An incredible illusion, the universocentrism©, makes us believe that our universe is the only one to exist! And this simply because we have sensory organs only in this universe! Whereas the others are only simply inaccessible to our perceptions, as is an object located behind the horizon.
This illusion fortunately did not prevented us from making exact physics in our universe, but it masked to the eyes of the materialistic science the fact that can exist other universes ad infinitum, resulting from completely different causes, or even self-existent universes like this example of nibs we studied, emerging from a paradox. There is however some scientific recognition of alternative universes today, for instance about quantum vacuum creating many different universes in other Big Bangs.
However positivism (chapter II-7) still states that these worlds do not exist, since we cannot observe them with our material senses. This statement is the very heart of the error of modern science: to have confused «real» with «materially observable» (or «existing» with «material»). These two concepts happen to coincide only in physics, science of the matter. This is the reason why modern science is really good only in this field, and bad or dumb in any other field.
However all this goes much further than only physics: the implacable dictatorship of the absolute «material reality» simply does not exist.
It is true that to understand that all what we believe is only a kind of illusion, a dream, can be very shocking for some persons. But personally I experienced this as a fantastic freedom, to understand that an infinity of worlds and existence modes can exist without any more depending on the absolute tyranny or the definitive forbidding of an over powerful «matter».
This opens immense possibilities on the meaning of life, which we shall evoke a little further, in the sixth part on society. Because, by losing its absurd absolute existence, the universe gains in significance: this liberation opens fantastic possibilities of life in other worlds. Would not be this which is sighted by the experiencers of NDE or CE3? Is it possible to be definitively happy in other worlds beyond death? At least, we now have a theoretical frame for the rational study of these phenomena, and also for enacting an ethics based on consciousness and its needs. All this will be studied in the fifth, sixth and seventh parts.
In conclusion of the previous chapter, we shall postulate the following points, which will be our assumptions thereafter, and one of the main ideas of this book.
It is to be noted that no postulate can be «demonstrated» in an absolute way, as we would demonstrate a mathematic theorem. However we can choose new postulates which better fit with the known facts. In physics, these new postulates will not change the known results, but we shall see in other domains that they explain much more things than the materialist postulate.
1) Matter and all its behaviours are simply the results of logical and mathematical relations, which interplay is enough to create all the complexity of the material world. They do not have more existence than logical play. It is not necessary to suppose that neither the matter, space, nor time are generated by «something» peculiar which we should not yet have found, and without which the existence would remain a mystery.
This new paradigm is important to keep in mind, as, in all the following, we shall implicitly understand things that way, and we shall speak of real facts such as matter or consciousness as BEING logical relations, to the contrary of the previous parts were we clearly distinguished the material reality from the logical reasoning that our minds create to understand it. Now these logical relations are the very basis of the material reality.
2) Our material universe does not have any particular existential statute; other universes can exist, in the logical and mathematical meaning of this word, as defined in chapter III-3. These universes can have physical laws similar to ours, or different. The possible living structures populating such universes can have sensory organs similar to ours, or different.
3) Any structure similar to the human brain, or at least enjoying the same functions, existing in any universe we can imagine, can support consciousness and the integrity of the consciousness experiences, exactly in the same way that our brain does in our universe. This is true as well within the assumption of material reduction as within the assumption of a soul or immaterial conscious principle which express through this brain.
4) Sensory organs, which are structures existing in a given universe, can perfectly produce sensory experiences, in connection with phenomena of this particular universe, just as they do in our own universe. It results from this that a consciousness connected to a given universe through sensory organs located in this universe, experiences a feeling of concrete reality for this universe, and for this one only. We can thus state that any mathematically existing universe (according to the definition given at the end of chapter III-3) exists also concretely for its possible occupants, in the meaning that we say, in our daily experience, that our universe concretely exists (that we have of it a feeling of concrete existence).
5) Any observer having sensory organs or scientific instruments, which are structures existing in a given universe, can observe this universe and discover its laws, in the meaning these words have in modern physics. He can also live in and enjoy it, in the meaning these words have in our everyday life. On the other hand, any observer having only sensory organs or scientific instruments existing in his own universe, definitively cannot use them to explore other universes. These other universes then appear «abstract» to him, and he cannot draw any conclusion on their existence, their non-existence, their content or their properties. (At least one of my assertions which is confirmed by experience!)
6) In mathematical spaces (Sets Theory, space-like structures of sets of numbers, mathematical games of fractal images, note 21...) starting from an initial «seed» that we are free to choose, all the content is then completely logically determined. Things work in a similar way, in a physical universe, for exactly the same logical reasons: starting from a starting point (singularity of the Big-bang) where take place all the arbitrary choices (position of the first particles, free parameters of the physical laws...) the continuation is then completely determined, step per step (within some limits: quantum indetermination, sensitive dependence on the initial conditions, note 52). Now we shall call a logical self-generation process© this way that reality has to self-generate itself, step per step, according to logical laws, to form a series of elements or content, the history of an universe.
This logical determinism is at the origin of this feeling about which our physical universe exists in a logical and deterministic way, according to what we call the laws of physics, to which it obeys with a very great accuracy and repeatability. It does not make anything it wants. It does not obey our personal desires. We shall state that it is stable and determined. A material object, once created, continues to exist even if we do not think at it, even if it does not have relations with other objects, as long as no internal or external cause comes to modify or destroy it. Physical objects are not like dream objects: we do not see them appear, disappear or change without cause, or depending on our mood. Physical objects obey to conservation principles, such as conservation of energy, of speed, of the baryonic number... which origin is the fact that each step of the self-generation process is logically constrained to reproduce the laws and quantities of the previous step. If they did not, then it would not be a self-generation system, and the physical reality would be undetermined.
This fundamental property of our physical universe is so obvious that nobody had never wondered why it is thus. Neither noticed that we had no explanation of this fact. Here is a possible explanation.
This is how we do metaphysics.
7) More generally, we shall compare the concept of physical existence with that of mathematical existence, seen in chapter III-3: simple logical consequence of a succession of relations and logical implications. We shall also assimilate the type of existence which we shall see in chapter III-8 (psychical universes©) with the same concept of mathematical existence. It is quite simply the way in which reality exists, in as general way as possible. We were thinking at logical systems as existing in the meaning defined in chapter III-3, the mathematical existence, while our universe would have been the only one to exist «concretely». We must now think at our universe as a logical system among many others, no more «concrete» no more «existent» that any other.
8) If we ask the question: «Does this object exist?» we are compelled to ask of what it is a logical consequence, and thus to go up to the axioms and other founding contradictions which generated it (logical relations, Big-bang or other). If we regard these axioms as true, then the object which is a logical consequence of them exists. But we can demonstrate no axiom in an absolute way, and all the more no founding contradiction. Then we can only say that an object exists only in relation with given axioms and founding choices. This is not only an abstruse mathematical concern: even our material perception, our «scientific observation» is marred with this error, with this subjectivity: the observer being the consequence of the same causes as the universe which contains him, he inevitably checks the existence of it, but only of it. And the fact that we can observe the universe we live in, is even not an evidence of its absolute existence! It is for this reason that we can never speak about absolute existence, but only of existence relatively to such or such logical system or Big Bang. At a pinch, to ask if an universe «concretely exists» is equivalent to ask if a consciousness can perceive it, through appropriate sensory organs. This condition is however not required for the mathematical existence.
9) The idea of a founding contradiction may look only like an additional stuff, just to correct some logical inconsistencies. But in fact it is really very important: As no axiom can be based in an absolute way, no logical system can start alone, it stills need an initial cause, which cannot be otherwise than mysterious. The founding contradiction, with starting the self-generation process without any external cause, sets a large freedom for many different universes and realities to exist, and we shall see in chapter IV-9 that it even plays a powerful role in physics.
10) The relative existence is relative to given initial conditions (axioms, Big-bang...) which do not depend on the observer (except if he creates an universe). It is on the other hand false and dishonest to say that the existence is relative to people, moods or opinions. This is alas a mind control method often used in certain cults (which sometimes claim to be New Age), and also in some «debates» about the validity of science.
11) It is finally noticed that the existence and the logical implication are strongly connected. We had seen in chapter I-2 and chapter I-7 that a type or another of logic «emanates» from objects which have such or such properties. So, according to the objects at the origin, we shall rather deal with an Aristotelian «universe» (Sets Theory, spaces of numbers...) or with a more complex logic, as with our probabilistic physical laws, which apply to our physical particles. So the differences between the various universes partly come from the self generation law (mathematical or physical law), and partly on the type of logic proper to the objects which form this universe.
12) So we now have an extremely general description of the concept of existence, with two main modes: the one of the mathematical spaces and the one of the physical universes. We can however envision a third mode of existence: the psychical universes©, and more generally consciousness. We shall discover this third existence mode in chapter III-8, and we shall study it in the fifth part on consciousness. For now we easily guess that such universes are not formed of «matter», but directly of the objects of the consciousness experience: images, sounds, feelings, emotions, thoughts, linked by self generation laws with a type of logic proper to this kind of objects. Dreams are common examples of this third existence mode, and we can see these laws at work in the generation of their scenarios. See chapter xxx.
So this conclusion will thus be taken again more briefly in chapter 43, with the three modes.
What follows must be considered as a thought experiment only. I forbid everybody to actually do it, or promote it.
If other universes exist, in which it is possible to have consciousness experiences, this must be checkable in a way or another, even if at first sight there are no direct means.
The experiment is as follows: In our usual universe, called U, we attach dynamite sticks around the head of a volunteer, and we detonate them, thus very cleanly destroying the material structures of his brain, before they could generate consciousness experiences useless in this experiment. Parallel to that, we prepared another universe U' with the process of nibs. This universe is made in such a way that at a precise moment in its own time, some elements of the universe U' get assembled according to a structure equivalent to the brain and body of the volunteer just before the explosion. Not difficult, and to say it is already almost enough to do it: it is enough to think to nibs which have the adequate properties, and the trick is done.
In your opinion, what will the consciousness of the volunteer experience? After the most restrictive assumption of the material reductionism, such as the scientistists say, the structure of the brain is the necessary and sufficient cause for the consciousness of the volunteer. Since the two structures are identical, and the second appears with the state the first had just before the explosion, then the second will be the cause of a consciousness experience which is the perfect continuation of the one that the first was producing, with all its content: desires, intentions, emotions, recollections... This consciousness (of the volunteer) will experience the brutal disappearance of U to its eyes and perceptions, to suddenly see U' appearing in its place, to then continue its life there, in this new environment which it will henceforth perceive like «real», «concrete», «objective», the only one perceptible, where it will act and lead its life. And U will be only a memory, a dream, a legend, unreal, unperceptible, untestable... by lack of any mean of returning information from the universe U!
Instantaneous teleportation. Waowww!
This reasoning is completely valid within the narrowest framework of nowadays science and the assumption of material reductionism.
I think it is of the utmost importance to understand that the possibility of changing of universe, allows for envisioning a formidable potential in terms of freedom and immortality, in a specially tailored universe which can make our dearest desires true: nicer body, marvellous environment, nice friends, absolute mastery on our existence... So, this research goes much further than the only metaphysics, opening fantastic practical application implying our dearest desires!
However the process described, although the theoretical best, has some practical disadvantages. At first, it would be better to be sure that S' is really awaiting us... which can be proven by no means! And, scientifically, it does not allow for a collective test of the theory. Only the volunteer for such a foolish experiment would see its result, if there is a result. For the others, it would not bring any information; it would just be a suicide, see a murder. It is a though experiment only, the easier to understand academic case for a materialist scientist.
A much gentler process is commonly used in Tibet since centuries. When I found out that others had actually found effective methods many centuries before I myself predict their existence, was undoubtedly a great pleasure for me.
Tibetans do not cause the destruction of the material structure of the subject. They simply noticed that this structure destroys itself alone, after some time. This event, called death, has very numerous philosophical implications on the meaning to give to our lives. One of the best advantages of the Tibetan process is that, as the natural death occurs anyway, there is no risk to try a transfer at that time. We just have to wait enough time, but Tibetans noticed that, while waiting, the material structure of our brain has other very judicious uses, such as accumulating enough moral merit to obtain a really nice universe U’, what we call a paradise.
In spite of the great sobriety in assumptions of Buddhist philosophy, the technical explanation of the Tibetan process relies on the existence of a conscious principle, which can exist and have consciousness experiences with a material support or without this support. Like this, the transfer is simpler, as it is not necessary that the arrival body is rigorously equal to Earth body, and it is enough to project the conscious principle to obtain the transfer. The reasons which led us to also admit this conscious principle will be explained a little further, in the chapter III-8, and in the fifth part on consciousness.
Why to evoke here this Powa which belongs to a peculiar philosophical system, in a reflection which claims to rely on the most general and profound bases we can find? It is that, if we want to obtain a checking or a refutation of the thesis described here, then the simplest way is to ask to the persons who are able to give us a effective demonstration.
As we cannot get information from possible U’ or U’’ universe, the only way to check their existence is with people who would come back from such universes U’ or U’’.
However such a person cannot create in our universe a structure of a brain containing all his memories, even with using a «special machine». This is because this would require again to pass information from U’ to our universe.
The only way for this to happen is that persons have a conscious principle, able of gathering information and transport it from an universe to another, like a shuttle. It is important to note now that this information can be conscious memories, but it may also be only psychological traits.
So a concrete test (We now know that «concrete» means only «in our universe U» and nothing else) would be to confront testimonies of independent witness who may claim to have visited such a paradise or other universe. (They should manage to really meet in this other universe, or at least to visit the same place).
Of course, the good old timer scientist will say that all this is barmy and impossible. But the modern scientist will notice that there exist several categories of «unexplained» phenomena which could be manifestations of such communications between universes, sometimes with convincing results: Reincarnations, OBE, NDE, and CE3.
So, it seems that we have some serious indications that inter-universe interactions can occur, if not in the way we expected. We expected somebody bringing memories of a former life in another universe, we get memories of «other places» picked in special episodes where ordinary law seem not to apply (like gathering memories when the brain has zero activity). This strongly points at a conscious principle able of existing and have consciousness experiences independently of the brain. We shall see its possible nature in the next chapter III-8.
To check such a theory would allow to speak of paradises as of real facts, constraining us to account with them, not as articles of faith or faint hopes to escape an absurd destruction. This would be obviously very useful, allowing us to manage our lives accordingly: to do what is necessary to obtain such a paradise, in place of losing our time gesticulating for material objects that death will force us to abandon in every case, whatever my theory is true or false.
We saw in the previous chapters that a checking of our theories on life in other universes requires experiments involving an immaterial conscious principle. The scientistists and the scientists will pertinently point out that it is really an additional element about which we have now to find a separate new explanation. Hum Hum, let us see if we can do this without adding ad hoc new stuff to our theory.
We saw in the previous chapters that a material universe is able of appearing as «real» to the eyes of its eventual inhabitants, while it is just a play of logical relations, starting from an original «absurd» logical node. Such a logical self-generation process© is then able to develop all the complexity which can be contained in an universe like ours, including a biological evolution, leading to beings with a brain, able to experience consciousness, feel emotions and happiness.
And on this set of logical relations, our consciousness projects our familiar feelings of space and time, and especially this intoxicating feeling of «concrete reality», of «existence», the enchantment of the visible world, which overwhelms us as soon as our consciousness is connected to our sensory organs, the morning at awakening, and leaves its normal state, the dream.
On the other hand, we receive no information, and thus no feelings, of the other sets (other universes). So they look to us «abstract», «dreams», «inexistent». This is because our brain is formed of elements contained into this universe, so it receives informations (feelings) of it, but of this one and not of the others.
Other kinds of physical universes may exist, similar to ours, or generated by logical relations, for instance into some mathematical sets, games, etc. The important point to get here is that all these universes have the same existential statute, whatever their nature or content.
The universes we considered until now were suggestive analogues of our matter and physics. However there is no obligation whatsoever that the elements of the logical self-generation process imitate matter: they can be of any nature, such as numbers, «abstract» objects, situations in the plot of a book, anything.
So nothing forbids to envision universes where the successions of cause and effects and the basic logical relations would relate to elements of the consciousness experience themselves: feelings, knowledge, desires, images, symbols, etc... instead of «electrons», «fields», «photons»... These elements of consciousness exist as much as other «abstract» objects well recognized by classical science, such as numbers and mathematical structures. Thus nothing forbids such an universe to self-generate like the previous, but starting from elements of the consciousness experience, to become organised in a coherent whole, give rise to complexity, to an history... And anyway these elements do not need to exist «physically», for a consciousness living in such a universe to see them as the «concrete reality». Let us call them psychical universes©, to differentiate them from the physical universes like ours. But this distinction is for our sole convenience, such psychical universes are as much self generating logical systems. And their existential statute is the same than any other.
It is to be noted that this expression of «psychical universe» clearly refers to something immaterial, like the dreams or the angel realms, and not to brain phenomena. To clearly distinguish them, I used «psychical» for the immaterial stuff, and «psychological» for the matter based stuff created into the brain. It is to be noted that there is no consensus on the use of these words: numerous persons use «psychical» for the ordinary brain-related consciousness experiences, what I call psychological. In this book I always use «psychical» for the immaterial realm, and always «psychological» for the brain-related experiences.
Of course, with these psychical universes arises the same problem as with the physical universes: a positivist would state their non-existence immediately, since «one cannot observe them». But an observer into such an universe would experience the same feeling of «concrete reality» that we naively call existence. From his own point of view, he exists, and it is us who appear «abstract» to him! The fact that a psychical universe does not contain matter (atoms, particles...) does not change anything, since in any event the matter which we «objectively» perceive in our world is only an appearance, peculiar to our universe, which is of no concern for other universes. If in a psychical universe we have «objects» which exist, they are only images without material components, not formed of atoms or particles, but as «real» for its inhabitants as is our matter for us. People who visited such universes even say that they look «more real» than the physical world! As, of course, we can design such universes which imitate the senses we inherited from our life in our usual material universe: sight, sound, contact, taste, smell… in much better! In more, an universe made of, in a way, only of thought, would be modifiable from our mere desire or will: magic would be common!
The relation between such an universe and the consciousness which lives in it, will inevitably be different. Indeed, in a physical universe, the «material» elements exist apart from the consciousness, and are accessible to it only indirectly, by the sensory organs, or by the muscles. But into a psychical universe, the elements of this universe (emotions, images, desires, «objects», situations...) exist into the consciousness. All the opposite! If such psychical universes are possible, they are, on the contrary of physical universes, subjective and malleable, in relation with the individual consciousness which experiences it. (As in a daydream or in a night dream, where objects more or less obey our desire, whereas a physical universe appears to us «objective» and rigid: what we think of it does not modify it).
The consciousness in a psychical universe does not need sensory organs or muscles to directly perceive and act in there. But what it will perceive will look quite as real, concrete and detailed, as the experience of a physical universe.
If this consciousness knows and controls the situation, then the scene it will perceive will directly obey its will: the «objects» will levitate, appear, disappear, change in shape, as in fairy tales, without the need for limbs or muscles. This consciousness will also be able to perceive directly this universe, without the need for sensory organs. For instance, it will be able to change of place instantly, simply by focusing its attention to another place, and thus realise a teleportation. If this consciousness does not control the situation (i.e. if it is not able to control the chaining of its thoughts or the emergence of its emotions, or if it believes that all what it sees is absolutely real) it will not have any control on the situations which it will perceive, which may become absurd, terrifying, painful. We often experience this in dreams, where a fearful object chases us, and a desired object flees us. If the contact with this psychical universe is not constant, the experience will seem as dream like, elusive.
A psychical universe is also subjected to the law of cause and effect, as a self-generation process. Thus we shall experience a subjective feeling of a flow of time. But a psychical universe does not seem able to contain any system comparable to a physical clock chapter IV-3), so it does not seem possible to precisely measure a duration in it. The time will thus be fuzzy (In the logical meaning of this word, see chapter I-3). The space could be similarly fuzzy (no precise map of the places, instant travels without intermediate journey).
We noticed that a psychical universe can exist only in a consciousness. But a consciousness necessarily has a content: by definition, all what it is conscious of. But we could thus make the equation: psychical universe equals individual consciousness! The most common individual consciousness, ours, that of our boss or our caretaker, are psychical universes at a whole! Simply the content of our individual consciousnesses is almost exclusively devoted to the information brought back by our sensory organs, which makes that we perceive only the external «reality», without any mean to escape from it, other than daydream or night dream (or during peculiar experiences such as sensory isolation, OBE, NDE, etc...). And of course, the different individual consciousnesses do not communicate between each other, as they are different «universes», and they do not have «sensory organs» in other’s consciousness (Except some peculiar experiences, commonly referred as telepathy).
Of course, we usually understand by «universe» something very vast, a space with galaxies, planets, landscapes... but in the case of a «psychical universe-individual consciousness» we must consider something much smaller, since it contains only the elements of which we are conscious. And these elements do not form landscapes in a four dimensional space-time! Therefore, no astounding speculations, we used the word «universe» only to point at a common way of working between the consciousness and the physical world, which are however two very different things. To avoid giving grip to any ambiguity or uncontrolled extrapolations, let us rather say that consciousness is a psychical logical self-generation process, just like the physical universe, but working with the elements of the consciousness experience, instead of elements of physics. And still with all the properties of the logical self-generation processes.
So, and this without anticipating too much on the fifth part on consciousness, here we go with a possible explanation of the nature of the immaterial conscious principle promised in the previous chapter III-7, which can fit into our metaphysical system, without invoking any additional assumption, nor any mysterious ingredient!
Such a conscious principle would have all the properties usually described for the soul of the religions, especially to never stop: this meaning to continue to exist (to have consciousness experiences, in clear to live) even after the destruction (the death) of the physical body hosting it. It could also reincarnate, and, in the extend it can act on the brain bearing it, it is able to transmit memories of past lives, in the same universe, or in other universes. So we can scientifically envision the existence of such phenomena, and, if we observe them, we shall be compelled to accept them as real.
We can even use it to test the existence of other universes, as this seems to be the only mean.
We can go still further: consciousness having obtained a total control of the process would become able to project such universes with so much efficiency that other consciousness could share its vision, and enjoy in it the same situations. In this case, we could speak of psychical universes in plain meaning, which would even offer a form of objectivity (different witnesses describe the same events) of rigidity (it less obeys the individual will) see of persistence (the departure of some consciousness does not halt the experience of the others). It is exactly what is described about the paradises where the Powa can send us, which, according to the texts, are created and maintained by highly evolved beings enjoying a great spiritual mastery. This can also be the case for all the religious paradises, Christian and Muslim for example, which are said to be maintained by God.
Still stronger: we considered the physical universes on a side, and the psychical universes on the other side, while noticing that, in spite of their sometimes opposed properties, they basically obey the same laws. But is this distinction necessary? Could it exist universes which would mix physical elements (space, matter, particles, fields, or any equivalent) AND psychical elements (desires, images, forms, feelings...) psychophysical universes©, which inhabitants would experience a physical world similar to ours, but where all kinds of magic would be possible, as in the most unrestrained fantasies tales?
Wouldn't we observe in our own physical universe some special occasions where mind seems to command to matter, and even to space and time (religious miracles, parapsychological phenomena, UFOs)? Maybe the simple fact that we get conscious of our own physical universe is enough to transform it into a psychical universe, with all its properties? Which fantastic future awaits our world, when we shall understand and master the functioning of our consciousness? Our technology prowess, of which we are so proud today, will then look very vain…
Not to overheat your neurones, I suggest to stop here in this part; starting from the fifth part on consciousness and the relationship between matter and consciousness, we shall try to track all the elements allowing us to know how consciousness and matter are linked, in which category our universe is, and what it is really possible to do with it. Things are going to get hot!
The previous chapter is interesting, as it points at several testable consequences of these otherwise «very abstract» metaphysical reflections. In more, these consequences are not far away or very difficult to find: they are known phenomena, which occur in everyday life. Some of these phenomena have strong scientific evidences of their existence, and anyways scores of persons experienced them (including me). So studying these phenomena becomes the scientific mean of understanding reality, beyond the limitations of physics, into the realms of consciousness, «paradise universes», and a wealth of wonderful applications. But we shall see in the fourth part on physics that this metaphysics is also a good explanation of our physics, especially it explains simply all the «strange» points of quantum mechanics.
The very first consequence of the possibility of a conscious principle, is to allow for a theoretical frame to study several phenomena considered as heretic by classical science, such as parapsychology or UFOs. This theoretical frame was noted as missing by people such as the PEAR laboratory team of the Standford University, and most classical scientists argue that this missing frame was forbidding the «rational study» of these phenomena. We now have such a frame to allow this study. And this already has a consequence: the adjective «antiscientific» now goes to the ones who will still refuse this study.
But, back to the ongoing discussion, the possibility of an immaterial conscious principle provides us with a test about other universes and the whole theory, as only such a conscious principle may be able to go into another universe and back, with its own memories. Without a conscious principle, it seems definitively impossible to transfer the required information to reconstruct a brain with the correct memories (This is true for the inter-universe travel, but also in the case of reincarnation). We shall see these tests in the fifth part on consciousness, and the seventh part on unexplained phenomena. This metaphysical frame also allows for likely and logical explanations of phenomena considered as «irrational».
For now, we saw that several kinds of logical self-generation processes may exist, each one with its own way to interact: mathematical theories, the physical world, computer program, computer simulation, night dreams, the waking state, sleep paralysis, OBE, NDE, instants of superconsciousness, CE3, the Bardo.
So the whole metaphysical theory explained in this third part allows for things such as psychical universes and a conscious principle, which are logical self-generation processes on the elements of the consciousness experience. Interactions of these processes with the logical self-generation process of the physical world may be good explanations of experiences of the NDE or CE3 type. But further, this theory allows for the existence of psychical universes, that we would be able to join after our death.
The different phenomena in this chapter may have each their own causes and modalities of appearance. However they all more of less imply psychophysical interactions, that we could classify into five categories:
1) An ESP (Extrasensorial perception) is when information passes from our physical universe toward a psychical consciousness.
2) Telepathy is an exchange of information between two psychical consciousnesses.
3) Psychokinesis (or telekinesis) is the passage of information from a psychical consciousness toward the physical world (or, said otherwise, when the later is modified).
4) Teleportation would be the exchange of information (or objects) between two physical universes (Or between two far away places of our universe).
So this is not a psychical phenomenon, but it could be provoked by psychical causes. We don’t know such examples, save some very unreliable stories of «contactees». Today physics knows little about teleportation.
5) Transubstantiation would be the transportation of an object (most often a body) from the physical world toward a psychical world (or the reverse). This phenomenon seems to be more or less at work in CE3, and it is mentioned about great meditators of any spiritual path. We shall see this again about CE3 in chapter 68.
It is to be noted that, in order to have the two first types of interaction observable in our physical universe, the third must also take place (The psychical consciousness of the experiencer must modify the brain, to write a memory in). This is happy, as it allows us to use the classical physical «objective» methods, to observe and prove those phenomena.
These phenomena can be considered as evidences of my theory, if we can show that they are not dreams or hallucinations of the physical brain. NDE were subjected to detailed science studies, which last point, the Dutch study, ensured then definitively the statute of a 100% valid and recognized scientific fact, while being materially unexplainable. An experiment on OBE, due to Charles Tart, among many others, showed the existence of an extrasensorial perception into this state. Extrasensorial perception, telepathy and psychokinesis were confirmed by many science works. Especially, the researches of the Pear laboratory in the Princeton University put a final period to the demonstration of the existence of psychokinesis. So, it is today anti-scientific to deny the reality of the three first kinds of interaction. That consciousness experiences, whatever they are, can take place when the brain is stopped, or provoke other physically impossible phenomena, is enough to constrain us to admit that consciousness can work without the brain, according to my theory or to any other. Out with materialism.
We shall study these psychophysical phenomena with more details, in the seventh part.
Thus, not only the epistemological arguments that we evoked result in considering these inner experiences as empirical facts and not as odd or «irrational» stories, but in more we get, with the concepts of psychical universes and conscious principle, a simple and rational theoretical interpretation of all the facts cursed by scientism: reincarnation, OBE, NDE, and even the incredible stories of UFOs, spiritual powers on matter, where the mind seems able to modify the «material reality» itself, as predicted by the assumption of the psychophysical universes. Therefore absolutely nothing opposes now a scientific study of all these phenomena, without prejudices or attempts to reduce them to matter.
Many empirical facts can be explained only if we admit that consciousness can escape matter. That the consciousness can leave its material support cannot be explained by the reductionist assumption of the scientistists, and requires the larger assumption of an immaterial conscious principle. We saw in the previous chapter III-8 how such a conscious principle can be constituted, and how we are anyway compelled to consider its existence within the very framework of our metaphysical theory on the existence of the universe. We cannot naïvely state here that the mass of data which comes from India, Tibet, Occidental occultism or New Age is «true», by lack of sufficient checking. But I make firm on the other hand that if we find only one such fact true, then we are obliged to admit reincarnation, the NDE, the astral voyage and everything; we are compelled to admit the existence of an immaterial conscious principle, as well as the possibility for this principle to reincarnate, and even, with a similar process, to change of planet, and even of universe. This quite simply opens us the possibility of going into a paradise. A certainly formidably more useful discovery than all our technological marvels…
The fact that the conscious principle can survive death, reincarnate or reach paradises, leads to incalculable consequences on our lives, in terms of happiness and evolution. It is thus a criminal censorship to refuse to study (even to hide or discredit) such an enthralling field! Specially, the direction of our lives will necessarily be different, and to ignore it can lead to catastrophic results, such as landing in a hell when we though to have correctly managed our existence.
The existence of a physical or psychical universe seems independent of any personal point of view. However, we can prove the existence of a given universe, only if a conscious principle can incarnate in, and come back.
As to our daily world, we certainly have different ways to perceive it, depending on our personality. However there is nothing forbidding oneself to consider the world the way the others see it. So when we come to hear «each one his truth», then we deliberately enter into the mind control methods, or at least a dreadful reduction of what the world has to offer to us.
On the other hand it is possible to speak about a personal truth when one attempts to build private universes, and we shall however see some true limits to the concept of reality in chapter 49 and especially chapter 50.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.