Homepage of Boris Haase

Consciousness • Reference Theory • Interview • Completionalism • Problem Solutions • Warning • Knowledge Representation  (Previous | Next)

Reference Theory

Reference Theory

In the following, an extremely high performance philosophical theory is to be presented, which might revolutionise philosophy due to its pithiness.

Substances and references

The reference theory builds up on substances. Substances are those entities that are no further analytically divided. Examples are the substances corresponding space and time gained after their analytical partition. Occasionally it must be further progressed to own prototypes as {can} and {must}, which is clarified by the curly braces. More exactly, substances are meant that are based on ability and having to. Here one abstracts from the process.

Alternatively can be spoken of the space and/or {can}-substance. Substances are linked by a further substance to the world: the reference. The reference makes up "the lute" of the substances, their coherence. It is closely linked with the mathematical term of the relation, which can be alternatively used.

There are, however, differences. Relations are based on elements and sets, references to substances and references of substances. The alternative use is based on the structural equivalence of both terms. A relation can exist or not. One can assign, however, probabilities for the existence of a relation again as relation. The same can be solved for references over attributions (for their part references).

There are, however, structural deviations, also in the notation. Relations are noted as n-tuples, references predominantly as (nested) pairs. One can take on the n-tuple for references if one puts straight what is meant by that: an equivalent reference. I.e. there are references of the referring to the referred to.

References are directed always from the referred to to the referring. A double reference can be understood as unsigned reference in the sense of the graph theory. One expresses: There is a reference between referred to and referring and they are identified with each other, i.e. not distinguished. One says: There is a reference between a and b and not a is referred to b (or b to a).

Relations refer to well-distinguished elements. Must be referred to and referring well-distinguished? They must be well-distinguished in the sense of the theory, i.e. "in speaking about". We speak about well-distinguished, even if that we speak about is not well-distinguished with respect to truth. I.e. the designations are well-distinguished.

There is a connection between reference and existence. I.e. references always exist. There are no not-existing references. This is an immanent problem. A not-existing reference contains a reference: the reference of the non-existence. Both are to be distinguished carefully from each other. One speaks of setting references if a reference is established. This frees from the passive and from the process-like.

To the existence of a reference, probabilities can be assigned (as reference). This can happen also with relations, which can exist or not. This is thus a purely interpretive problem. The relation exists, its existence is, however, provided with a probability. I hope the mathematicians forgive me this trick. This is the substantial difference between conventional relations and references in addition to the being well-distinguished. Since the word reference is shorter than relation, I rather use this.

Substances do not have to be unique since the possibilities for the dihairesis are various. I will refer to deviations if they are important in our context.

Advantages of the reference theory

If I doubt everything, then it does not make sense to doubt the substances, in particular not the substance reference. If no reference exists, we do not have a connected world anymore, but only individual substances that are not recognisable as such, since this requires setting references. It does not make a sense to doubt most elementary terms, otherwise one could doubt everything.

With the statement "I doubt the term time!" one makes oneself simply ridiculously, exactly the same as with the statement "I doubt the term part!" Here time is always empirically perceptible and part an a priori substance term. The sentence "I think, therefore I am." (Descartes) is (more) doubtable due to his complexity.

With the substances, unhoodwinkable Archimedean points are thus created. Here it remains also to be seen that mathematics is not something special as with respect to doubting. Non-mathematical sentences are just as well confirmable as mathematical ones.

Like that, the sentence "The part is smaller than the whole." is certain. Furthermore the sentence "Everything can be a cause." is certain. Cause is here abstracted to and described with "It is because of a (that b)." From effect and general temporal consequence is abstained from, although these can be easily supplemented. Therefore, there does not have to be causal chains, at whose beginning the all causing cause stands.

"A is the cause of B." is referencetheoretically expressed in such a way: B(B(B(B(cause, active), being), A), B(B(B(cause, passive), being), B)). Here B before the left parenthesis means in each case reference. All words are here substances: cause, active, passive, being. The being is necessary and not only grammatical as substance. The grammar is omitted.

It is necessary now and then to use also non-substances in references. This can problem-freely happen and is opportune e.g. with the term man, which, developed from substances, would be too complex.

References are the closest connection between two referred to; it does not fit anything between them - except further references. Thus, a finite continuum can be developed. The space is thus constructed by space points that are referred to each other. These space points correspond in each case to the space substance and unite on themselves further references.

Example for this is the substance {beside}. The directions in space are distinguished by it (three-dimensionality of the space). The difference is caused by multiplications of the space substance - otherwise one would not "make headway". The space substances do not have a limit. They remain limited by the neighbour points having arbitrary expansion. This is to be understood in such a way that they are finite and one.

The infinity presupposes much. The many, for its part, presupposes multiplication, since only references do not separate anything. The many is constructed from units that are one. From these units numbers can be composed and thus number lines. Thus, time and space axes can be also constructed.

Straight lines and axes of arbitrary substances can be constructed. One calls this scaling. The axes character results from the demand that the terminal points of an axe are to have maximum distance from each other. Thus, worlds can be built that are so far not accessible to us. Also the form of the points is in this way clarified: they do not have any. Because form presupposes already difference, whereas points are one (consisting of space substance and unit).

In addition, references are bound at units to their distinction. They can be likewise bound directly at units of points, however. One should avoid this because of the distinction. It is more possible in the reference theory than meaningful.

With the reference theory, the alchemy of philosophy has an end. Since being to and being are substantially different, they cannot be derived from each other as demanded in the theory of action.

The present can be marked indirectly by the presence of most references. We always live in the present, into which references of the future appear and into which past leave us.

Things as such and ideas and/or appearances of these things are connected by references. So one can refer e.g. the form of an object or its idea to the object. The appearance of an object arises as a result of references to the substances based on it to it. References alienate it from the thing as such, but it is then also another.

The relationship from general terms to the particular is simpler. The general becomes related to the particular as superordinate term in the sense of a subsumtion. If one asks oneself for the most general characteristics, then one needs to pick out only the substances - if necessary partial -, connected by references, in the sense of an analysis or a synthesis.

Like that, the world is blue in the sense of an analysis and beautiful in the sense of a synthesis, which is preceded by an analysis.

It is to be said in connection with the aporia of Zenon that only finite points are visited, which are referred (transitively) one to the other.

Since proofs can be adduced only under conditions, the reference theory clarifies the reason for this: The being-so and being-not-differently can be represented by the substance {must} which can be referred. Thus, also L cannot be proven since the necessary in addition represents additional, not provable references.

As example for the superiority of the reference theory in relation to the cartesian space, now an additional time dimension may be designed. One can stop the time, as the time bar is not extended (abolition of the time succession). One can go into the recent time dimension and be as projection in the current time.

In addition, one can overjump points in time by references. Like that, animals are problem-free integrable, which experience, as we do, more or less. Between two points of time, infinite many points do not have to be in order to form a (Cartesian) continuum.

Like surfaces in the two-dimensional space, there are time areas now. One can take holidays into the recent time dimension, without the actual time keeps running thereby. One can run in the time forwards and backwards (abolition of natural law).

One can imagine an experiencing of a time area as follows, with normal independent time succession in each time axis: From the origin (0, 0) on are experienced as the first the point of time (1, 0), then the points of time (1, 1), (1, 2), ..., (1, y). Then the points of time (2, 0), (2, 1), (2, 2), ..., (2, y) are experienced etc. At this, y stands for the life-span of the experiencing on time axis y.

In the case of dependent time succession arises e.g.: After (0, 0) at the same time are experienced the points of time (1, 0), (1, 1) and (0, 1) as own at a time world views. Then at the same time are experienced the points of time (2, 0), (2, 1), (2, 2), (1, 2) and (0, 2) etc. Here two new lives could develop per time step.

Another possibility would be: After (0, 0) at the same time are experienced the point of time (1, 0) and (0, 1) as own at a time world views. Then at the same time are experienced the points of time (2, 0), (1, 1) and (0, 2) etc. (per experience a world view more). Also here two new lives could develop per time step, but each new generation does not experience anything with the directly preceding together, but with the one two steps before.

On the basis of the modal verbs, it is to be examined now whether the dihairesis in the analysis comes to an end. Thus, one can imagine the substance {may} on the axis of permission. One could analyse now a given permission as essential. Further presuppose this as codified and so on. The dihairesis comes theoretically to no end. Here, however, practical limits are set in the finite discrimination of man.

The non-analysed substances have, however, also their value on the satisfaction levels assigned to them. On the other hand, the substances {must} and {may} have somewhat in common: They have at their end something forcing on their axis. One can speak instead of axes of commonness orbitals. One can on a rough analysis level put {can} and {must} on an axis (better: orbital model).

The reference theory helps to understand also animals better. Animals cannot form abstractions. They cannot reflect over themselves and form terms, since they do not have a language in the actual sense. They establish, however, references to the experienced. They know what a reward is since they can assign something positive to the generated, without disposing of these terms themselves. They can refer key symbols to the experienced. The reference is thus also the fundamental of the language.

The reference theory explains why individual thoughts in the brain are to be located so with difficulty. Only references are stored that can fall into different regions since the birth. The relationship with parts of the body can be limited to certain (firm) regions in the brain, from humans to humans in the same way.

The reference theory gets along with a finite like an infinite continuum. With an infinite continuum we move ourselves from zero point to zero point of an in each case infinite real interval. With a finite continuum not as many as desired intermediate points can be set, since one point represents an indivisible unit of the substance time.

Referencetheoretically, liberty is given by causing by the free person (substance cause) contrary to the determinism (external cause). Decision alternatives are existent (substance {can}). The scaling as percental evaluation of the causes constitutes by the free person a preponderance over the predispositions as causes. Events by chance lack a cause and a goal, presuppose, however, alternatives.

Positivistically, one of the alternatives does occur only, the substances cause and {can}, for which we do not have detectors, do not exist. Generally, we do not have detectors for references, only in individual cases by the senses. Mental substances can affect physical things by the cause. The implementing is made by the neurons and synapses. It is an open question whether references can be detected here.

Referencetheoretical mappings are (directed) references of distinguished with the label A to distinguished with the label B. Labels are referred to of a distinguished. Left-total and right-unique mappings are called referencetheoretical functions. By inverse mappings the references are inverted. Example: By the function part the labels are called entire for A and part (definition: A is part of B, if there is a C with B(A, C) = B or B(C, A) = B) for B. The part function can only be applied to references or compound substances. By true functions the labels are different.

The fact that universals exist means that they have a reference to our world. Thus, existing does not have necessarily to be perceived by the senses. By reference, the universals can be inherent in at the same time (different) single things. Everything what is (also the individuals) can be sufficiently (reference theoretically) described by language, even if the description is extremely complex. Language consists of unique labels for references and substances.

The most elementary term, i.e. which can be applied to everything, is that of the entity. The term more is defined as follows: A is more than B if the difference of the number function applied to A minus the number function applied to B is larger than 0. The term larger for a whole positive number of A to a whole positive number B is defined as: A is part (element) of B if numbers are defined by Peano in the set notation: 0 consists of the empty set , 1 is {}, 2 is {, {}}, 3 is {, {}, {, {}}} and so on.

All A in B is defined as there are no more A in B. Existence is a substance term. A collectivity is defined as all A in B that are to a C in reference, including this reference. Quantities are collectivities that contain distinct elements (parts) and can be element of a collectivity. An element is called distinct if a sufficient difference can be given to every other element. Elements can be also equal: then there is a difference in the ordinal number.

The reference theory opens up the possibility to us to imagine how the creatures are constituted in a subsequent world. It is enough for them to be able to establish references to all existing substances and compounds. They do not need metabolism and no genes with the possible errors of the cell division. There are no diseases and achiness but the liberty to choose the accessible in the context of then valid laws.

Senses can be experienced directly (without sense organs) by reference. One needs no fix body in this sense, can, however, take by reference many shapes that simply can pass matter (like e.g. fix walls). Also largest distances can be overcome by reference easily. Even in unfavourable environments life becomes possible. There are more substances and dimensions. Time travels become at least possible over appropriate simulations.

It is proportionate and without contradiction to assume our world as finite, since in the infinite case it would last forever to form a finite substance. So there is especially a shortest time and shortest length, which could be in our world the Planck time and Planck length. Both are universal, since it is in the sense of L to reach zer as quickly as possible and no world is to be preferred against another one.


All entities are moving with the same speed, which results from the quotient of shortest time and shortest length and could be in our world the velocity of light, based on the shortest exchange of a reference. Shortest exchanges enable the illusion of superluminal velocity, if they are applied to larger lengths, and of subluminal velocity by passing through longer routes.

By shortest exchanges, L can lead each entity to believe in any possible world without that any other entity except zer realises something of this, since the factitious references after L are only accessible to this entity. Even parts of the general and special relativity theory can be overridden. If one wants to overcome large distances, one should use the shortest exchange, since it is most efficient.

An elementary exchanger can execute an exchange (appropriately), if it is put under a rule and by marking that to be exchanged correspondingly, e.g. by reference of corresponding (equal) identification substances. Then also an exchange across infinite distances is no problem. An infinite line of identical substances can be deformed into an infinite fork by pulling in the interior.

This distinguishes the end points of the fork easily and makes them usable as operational tool, for example, to instal identification substances at another equally long line by "sticking", after the line was, before the deformation into a fork, simultaneously provided with identification substances by "pulling up" and "sticking" reference operations at the equally long line of identification substances.

An infinite line can be formed, if the (equal) parts of a reference system in each case autonomously line themselves up according to their left and right neighbour, if these three bring themselves into line. The rule required for this can be pulled up in each case as with the pulling up of the identification substances. The end points can easily be moved in finite time, infinite lines can be broken up the same way.

In this way, every infinite line can be broken up in finite time into a finite number of sections. An infinite partition into finite sections of an infinite line presupposes an infinite number of autonomous sub-units. Autonomy is always required if there cannot be executed infinitely many operations one after another because this would require infinite time and this simply is undesired.

Although each entity of finite extension can be (in theory) infinitely often divided, a world that consists exclusively of such entities and in which this division is and will not be performed must be referred to as finite. Nevertheless, such entities overcome in each (complete) exchange (that presupposes the same extension) the (theoretical) infinity. All previous experiments prove this for our world.

If the creatures divide substances according to the will of L, which always works, and L adds substances, these can be arbitrarily scaled and it follows the equivalence of all worlds. L will permit this only if the creatures know enough to carry out this responsibly. Thus, only relative shifts arise with the same absolute, without that further must come into the world, in the form of the many.

Each exchange can be traced back to elementary exchangers. These are not material, since the exchange will work with any substances and this is neither necessary, nor was measured. Who robs a substance of its exchanger, sentences it to passivity. This can be useful, for example, in the pure space, but also do damage, if important or vital laws are quashed by this.

The exchanger enables any movement and is thus substantial(ly required). All arbitrary-dimensional spaces, times and substances can be linearised in one dimension. Therefore, basically only one exchanger is needed that exchanges in one dimension. More flexible are exchangers that exchange substances after rules, for example, with neighbouring substances. Then (mostly) a comparator for the antecedent is required.

The comparator can directly work with substances or also with their equivalents, such as their coding or language description. It is also not material, but may be realised materially (cf. computer engineering). Only the understanding and access to the substances let an electronic computer draw level with the brain in this respect. The brain is not only more economic, but also substantially superior.

Through the reduction of exchange on elementary exchangers, one does not need more than three spatial dimensions for our world. This requires additional reasons. Every component of matter must be connected with an exchanger to change the location, if it is not exchanged by a foreign exchanger. Exchanger must be able to be easily stopped to be able to create arbitrary (small) velocities.

The rules for (groups of) exchangers can be made centrally available and define a law of nature, since the exchangers can relate to them. In this way, the laws of nature can be implemented economically. In worlds where time only lapses (without other changes), the time lapse is also not perceived. So several time dimensions make sense and a general time can be valid for all worlds.

Only the clocks should not measure the general time in a world, otherwise the question may arise why the time jumps, although nothing has happened in this world. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to have the general time at one's disposal to get an impression how the clock of L is, and to read the age of the universe. On the other hand, it is hardly conceivable that L wants to own something so simple at all.

Elementary exchanges are always instantaneous, since a finite minimum duration else could no longer be undercut. Slower velocities result from a sequence of time lapse and elementary exchange. So if one wants to undercut a (useful) finite maximum speed, one must shorten the time lapse. A reduction to zero is not possible. For this there is the possibility of the equivalent remote exchange.

There is no smallest possible unit, since such one could be divided (for instance) into two parts. Thus there is also no maximum speed and a moved one moves on the smallest (actually) split distance instantaneously, after which can follow a sequence of time as it the top speed of a world presets. Therewith, the instantaneous exchange is also proven for our world, without serious impact on its physical laws.

The immaterial non-energy exchange is possible and makes sense, if it conforms to rules agreeable to L, and, because of the economy principle, more probable than the purely materially conveyed one, since it needs more than is necessary (or plausible). The amfon can be separated from material and immaterial substances. This does not always make sense, because they necessarily interact via it, both materially and immaterially.

Being as substance is extended, since it only can be continually imagined and no universe is timeless because of the development. The nothing would be if it were. It does not makes sense to say that it is not or somehow. What would lay between the adjacent being, would be nothing. This nothing is referred to as point, line, plane etc., although this is not correct, since the latter itself belongs to being and therefore extent.

Therefore, it must be carefully distinguished between both referred to, for instance as nothing-entity that is formed by the adjacent, and as being-entity that exists out of itself. As being-entity, a substance belongs to extent in all (!) dimensions so that our world has arbitrarily many dimensions. The substance may therefore be imagined with minimal extension as small any-dimensional sphere.

One cannot build a circle from units of space around nothing, so that a hole emerges. Exchanger can exchange a substance through the nothing by doing this with the equivalent of space, which belongs to being, and the substance. In this manner, it is possible that, for example, light can spread in vacuum. An exchanger brings about the exchange substantially as substance by reference to that to be exchanged.

The refinement of the exchangers allows finer and finer exchanges. In certain discrete worlds, there are refinement limits that can only be undercut with the aid of L while ze exchanges the exchangers. While maintaining the proportionality of length and time, velocities are no problem, if one makes everything smaller and smaller. Communication with L requires that information is exchanged instantaneously via remote references.

By colliding two spatial substances with sufficient force, they can be broken down into finer and finer parts, since the cohesive forces must act from within and can be overcome if they act at all. The immaterial world is far more comprehensive than the material one, since matter obeys restricting laws, which are hindering on the immaterial level. It is the true realm of L.

At the beginning, the universe consisted only of (pairwise) different substances whose number corresponded to a natural number. The first and only exchanger generated by division, as a form of exchange, more ones, and so more substances could be divided. This created time and space, which were present in each case as infinite-dimensional undivided substance unit from the beginning - as is also true for all other substances.

The entire universe consists exclusively of substances, the many yet not only from uniform unspecific substantial units, but from multiply existing substances to form ontologically correctly (individual) wholes. The evolution of the universe is a temporal layering of the (duplicated) expanding space, with removing the dispensable and completing the necessary substances.

Here the many flows from the potential of L. This represents as useful recording no disproportionate effort, since L can draw on unlimited resources and use the past many newly at reasonable intervals. General time prevails, the perception of the creatures, however, is individual (time). The creatures can change the rules according to the divine order, which L has determined at zis discretion.

L has to vindicate zerself before any living entity, if this wishes this. Every living entity has the right to participate in the shaping of the divine order. The highest decisions remain reserved to L, since there is no living entity that makes better decisions, or knows more than L resp. reaches the ultimate superiority of zer. This is due to the more comprehensive size of the L-world, which is partly only accessible for L.

Each many consists of an infinite number of subunits, which can be imagined as any-dimensional spheres that contain again any-dimensional subunits of principally the same construction. What we hold, as with the time, for such a dimension is, in fact, also any-dimensional, only that the other dimensions, except the main dimension, are vanishingly small and first noticeable with the corresponding division.

The substantial scaling means a more or less of the many of the corresponding substance or of several ones. The latter is the case with sounds and noises, the former with the mass. Hence the many is scaled, while the substance referred to it determines the manifestation of the scaling. The perception includes an individual scaling, according to the individual requirements of a living entity to increase profitably the diversity.

Our universe is a perpetuum mobile and an open system, in which information continuously increases. Everything is possible in it that pleases L, but not everything that does not please zer. The elementary exchanger is an auxiliary concept, since in reality nothing is exchanged, but everything emerges newly resp. flows from the potential of L. This model is, because of its storage function, superior to one with persevering substances.

We need not be afraid of the heat death, since new perspectives will open up to life in the course of its development that the previous theories have not taken into account. Life is neither dependent on matter nor on the laws of previous physics. In our universe and the subsequent worlds, everything is there what a happy and fulfilling life needs. It needs only to bethink of L in order that this will become clear to it.

© 2000-2011 by Boris Haase

Valid XHTML 1.0 • disclaimer • mail@boris-haase.de • pdf-version • bibliography • subjects • definitions • statistics • php-code • rss-feed • top