Slide No. 1:
TITLE: Is Metaphysics the new frontier of 21st century
physics?
IMAGE: No.
Metaphysics was originally concerned with the One or
the Absolute, which was considered as the most
fundamental branch of the visible universe. This
research object made metaphysics to the root of all
sciences for more than two thousand years. In this
lecture I like to show how it can be re-established as a
key discipline of modern physics.
Slide No. 2:
TITLE: Metaphysics – The root of all Sciences
IMAGE: Descartes
The central reason why the One or the Absolute never
became a serious object of scientific inquiry was
certainly its transcendent character. As the One was
explicitly defined in this way, there was, in principle,
no empirical data, which could be connected with it.
It was therefore extremely difficult to prove its
existence. Actually during the last two thousand years
no convincing proof could be developed or
formulated.
It is clear, that many philosophers began to doubt the
existence of this transcendent or invisible field of
reality.
Slide No. 3:
TITLE: Against Metaphysics
IMAGES: Different Letters
1
The culmination point of this historical development
was the Vienna Circle, which came together in Vienna
at the beginning of the 20th century. It was a group of
philosopher, who wanted to establish a scientific
philosophy.
They demanded that in philosophy like in any other
scientific discipline statements about reality should be
provable by experience. A statement which could not
be reduced to such a statement should be considered
as meaningless. A statement should only be
considered as significant, if, and only if it is said how
this statement can be verified. A philosopher, who
made a statement about reality had necessarily to say
what observations would lead him to accept the
statement as being true, or reject it as being false.
Slide No. 4
TITLE: Metaphysics is scientifically impossible
IMAGES: Basic Diagram S/W
As the One or the Absolute transcended all
experiences and observations, this demand could, of
course, not be satisfied. Hence, the philosopher of the
Vienna Circle came to the crushing conclusion, that all
metaphysical statements about the ONE were
completely meaningless.
And in fact: If the One is really transcendent, that
means, it is really invisible, then every step beyond the
visible or observable universe is a step into emptiness.
By going beyond the visible universe we can not point
to any empirical data.
As the result of this quite evident conclusion, most
members of the Vienna Circle demanded that
metaphysics should be eliminated. The British
philosopher A. Ayer became the most known. In 1936
he wrote his very influential book: Language, Truth and
2
Logic, in which he requested his colleagues to let
metaphysics behind.
His view still dominates Western thinking until today.
But inspite of this attitude they were always thinkers,
who were convinced of the importance of metaphysics.
Slide No. 5
TITLE: Meetings in Mercer Street 112
IMAGES: Mercer Street 112
During the winter of 1943–1944, Albert Einstein met
weekly with three other aging geniuses, that was, the
philosopher Bertrand Russell, the mathematician Kurt
Gödel and the physicist Wolfgang Pauli—at his home
in the Mercer Street in Princeton.
All these men had made groundbreaking work in
physics, in philosophy and in mathematics. Although
no one recorded their discussions, it can be taken for
granted, that metaphysics was intensively discussed
by them.
Bertrand Russell
Autobiography.
reported
about
this
in
his
And in fact all these men except Russell were deeply
attached by metaphysics.
Gödel f.e. saw metaphysics as the most fundamental
part of philosophy. This is reported by the
mathematician Hao Wang. Gödel declared Wang that
he like to do for metaphysics as much as Newton did
for physics.
Already in the late 20s Einstein told in a talk with the
physicist Arnold Sommerfeld that all physics is
metaphysics.
3
How deep Einstein was concerned with Metaphysics
and similar issues shows a personal report of the
physicist Wolfgang Panofsky. His father Erwin
Panofsky knew Einstein quite well. Sometimes he was
the chaffeur because neither Einstein nor his father
drove and he did. Sometimes they drove around.
During this short trips Einstein and his father were
intensively talking about ancient mysticism and
whether there was any correspondence between
ancient mysticism and modern science.
And the last men of this fine group the physicist
Wolfgang Pauli was also deeply concerned with this
correspondence. Pauli was portrayed as a brilliant
genius, indeed even as the greatest physicist of his
time. His colleague Max Born compared him with
Einstein and said that in certain respects he has to be
considered even greater than Einstein.
Pauli summarized his interest for the mystic tradition
in the epigram: The even older is always the new. He
imagined in early stages of human knowledge the
presence of a unified and broader world view. As
modern science arose, certain areas have been
differentiated and became increasingly precise, while
other things have fallen away, especially the feeling of
the existence of a transcendent order.
But the discussions of all these men never resulted into
a kind of modern metaphysics. But today metaphysics
moves more and more into the focus of Western
thinking.
This is mainly caused by Catholic Church. It seems,
that the inner circle tries do defend the catholic belief
as the universal truth.
Slide No. 6
TITLE: Fides et Ratio – A call for a modern
Metaphysics?
4
IMAGES: Petersdom
In 1998 Pope John Paul's 13th Encyclical Letter "Fides
et Ratio" was made public. More than a hundred years
after the Encyclical 'Aeterni Patris' of Leo XIII (1879),
'Fides et Ratio' turned once again to the theme of the
relationship between faith and reason.
It was actually adressed to all who were concerned for
the truth. It was really astonishing that this document
did not preclude anything and set even no intellectual
limits. John Paul II did actually not condemn any
philosophical or rational position. Thus it can be seen
as a call for a modern metaphysics.
In paragraph No. 83 the Pope stressed the need for a
metaphysics, which is capable of transcending
empirical data in order to attain something absolute,
ultimate and foundational in its search for this truth.
But he did actually not speak of a metaphysics in the
sense of a specific school or a particular historical
current of thought. He only stated that the very core of
reality is transcending the factual and the empirical
universe. He expressed his conviction, that the human
mind is capable of knowing this transcendent and
metaphysical dimension of reality.
This was even emphasized by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger in the public presentation of this specific
document. And we know just this men is now pope
himself.
This open-minded attitude expressed in the encyclical
Fides et Ratio was certainly the reason, why Italian
newspapers celebrated it as a Magna Charta of
Reason.
But can we really trust the declaration of the Vatican?
5
The Galileo affair is still present in the collective
consciousness of modern science. Would the Catholic
Church accept a metaphysics regardless what it has to
say about the One?
Faith was actually never challenged by metaphysics.
Classical metaphysics was extremely general.
Actually there is no metaphysics, which does satisfy
scientific standards for knowledge in the most
minimal sense. All known metaphysical statements
are extremely unprecise.
But why don’t we have any scientific metaphysics?
Slide No. 7
TITLE: Obstacles towards a Modern Metaphysics
IMAGE: No.
There are several reasons. I have already mentioned
one of these reasons. It is the transcendent nature of
the One. But there are also other reasons.
The most important reason is certainly of religious
nature. The Catholic Church f.e. is still a very powerful
religious force in our contemporary global world.
More than one billion people are calling themselves
catholic. And we can be sure that the Catholic Church
will not support any knowledge, which is
undermining the Catholic faith.
But in this presentation I like to focus only on
philosophical reasons. There are two obstacles. First:
The Mixture of epistemology and ontology and
Second: the inability to deal with metaphysical
properties.
Ontology and Epistemology are the two fundamental
axes of philosophy. You can really assess any position
6
in philosophy by the relationship it proposes between
being and knowing.
But these two fundamental axes are often mixed
together in an unlucky way, not only in philosophy,
but in physics as well. Einstein’s theory of special
relativity is certainly one of the best known cases of
this unlucky mixture, because the observer – the
person, who know - is deeply embedded into the
structure of this theory, but it is quite unclear whether
this mixture of knowing and being is fully justified. In
SR the notion of an inertial observer is introduced, but
this notion could never be explained consistently
within the relativistic context. Einstein tried to get rid
of it, but he failed. Even in his last public lecture given
at the Palmer Physical Laboratory in April 14, 1954, he
still struggled with this notion. He confessed that the
explanation of it by the implementation of Mach’s
principle into his General Theory of Relativity failed.
He declared: “If you give up space, you have an
enormous number of distances, and unhandy
consistency relations.”
In the case of SR the mixture of epistemology and
ontology might be the cause of many doubts against
this theory but with respect to metaphysics this
mixture caused a total doubt: It suggested the almost
unavoidable conclusion, that metaphysics cannot be a
science at all. This conclusion is meanwhile a kind of a
postmodern dogma.
Commonly it is told that metaphysics is the attempt to
gain an absolute knowlegde – and that such an
absolutely true knowledge can never be gained by
science.
That is indeed true: Science can never deliver such an
absolutely certain knowledge, because scientific
knowledge is always uncertain. We can never exclude,
that there will be a little fact in future, which will
7
falsify our view or theory of reality. If absoluteness is
considered in this epistemological way, metaphysics
as science is simply impossible.
But the ontological meaning of absoluteness is quite
different. It means, that there is an ultimate foundation
of the Universe which conditions everything without
being conditioned in any way.
As far as absoluteness is concerned the ontological
meaning may sound very similar like the
epistemological meaning, but they are completely
different.
If we want to conduct metaphysics in a scientific way
we have to relate explicitly to the ontological
meaning.
From the ontological view the idea of an entity which
is absolute, is not a strange, but a quite familiar
concept. It is f.e. very similar to Newtons term of an
absolute space. Newtons absolute space does also
condition the motion of every visible object without
being conditioned by any of all these objects.
If the absoluteness of the One is understood in an
ontological manner, then metaphysics can be identified as a very powerful theoretical approach, because
it deals with a branch of reality, which is by its very
nature the most fundamental branch of the physical
universe.
The most important question of contemporary physics
is indeed: What is fundamental? Today we don’t know
what is really fundamental. We have some feelings,
but we don’t have any serious knowledge. If
metaphysics would be possible as a real physical
discipline it would deliver answers to just this crucial
8
question. It would smooth tremendously our way to a
final theory of the universe.
But to get these answers we have to find out several
things. At first we have to answer the question: If the
One is really existing, how did it condition the
physical universe?
And just this question leads to point No 2: to our
inability to deal with metaphysical properties, from
which is absoluteness merely one.
Slide No. 8
TITLE: Properties of the ONE
IMAGE: Table
There is a specific class of properties, which is usually
related to the One. In the following table you can see
some of them.
In theology all these properties are considered of being
of personal origin. They are the attributes, which are
usually ascribed to GOD, which is considered as a
supreme being. In theology God is seen as the
dominant ruler and creator of the whole universe. The
attribute of invisibility f.e. is the result of an action of
this supreme being. In Latin this action is sometimes
termed as »Deus absconditus« - as the hidden GOD.
But this supreme being can change this state of being
hidden. It can freely decide to intervene the cosmic
process or to manipulate our individual lifes or to plan
the history of mankind. He can do everything what he
likes to do.
But all these properties could equally be interpreted as
the result of an impersonal branch of reality. But as we
9
don’t have any scientific metaphysics we do not know
whether these properties are possibly of impersonal
origin or not. None of all these properties is
scientifically explored. Their physical implications are
still unknown.
Slide No. 9
TITLE: Is a divine Universe different from a nondivine?
IMAGES: Book cover of Richard Dawkins
This is a quite remarkable fact, because one of the
most influential physicist like Newton has explicitly
referred to this field of reality.
Inspite of his distinct metaphysical attitude he did not
make consciously use of these properties. He did not
ask in a systematic way for the physical implications
of just these properties.
All his statements about metaphysics are in a way
occasional. This is even valid for his General Scholium,
which is nothing else than a piece of metaphysics.
In this document Newton interpreted f.e. the physical
terms of absolute space and absolute time explicitly as
consequences of the infinite extension and duration of
God. But nevertheless his General Scholium did not
become the origin of a modern metaphysics, because
he did not recognize clearly, that all these
metaphysical properties do imply an unexpected
explanatory power, if we make consciously use of
them.
It is quite obvious, that a universe with an invisible
foundation has to be organized in a very specific and
unique way. This view is even shared by the strongest
critics of metaphysics like Richard Dawkins.
10
In his provoking book “The God Delusion” he stressed
that the difference between a divine and not-divine
universe could hardly be more fundamental in
principle, even if it is not easy to test in practice.
But no one has investigated this difference in a
systematic way. Dawkins gives a hint why this did not
happen. He is convinced, it would undermine the
seductive dictum that science must be completely
silent about religion’s central existence claim.
But he denies this position. According to him the
presence or absence of such a transcendent foundation
is a scientific question, even it is not in practice – or
not yet – a decided one.
But most scientists are regarding the discipline which
deals with this foundation as being senseless.
Metaphysics is still valued as a highly unscientific
discipline.
I like to show that a research program like starting a
modern metaphysics does not mean to re-establish an
antiquate and bizarre debate, that is entirely restricted
to the field of an esoteric philosophy. Actually
metaphysics can be given a clear scientific shape with
far-reaching physical consequences: One of these
consequences is presented at the end of this lecture.
But in order to develop such a modern metaphysics
we have to make a big turn in our thinking.
Slide No. 10
TITLE: The methodological turn
IMAGES: Two Basic Diagrams S/W
In order to open up the door to a modern metaphysics,
we have to do one important step: We have to accept
11
that the ONE is truly invisible. As long as we don’t do
this step metaphysics is impossible. It will never start.
As long as we believe that the ONE can be seen in
any way, we will never ask how the visible universe
has to be organized in case of such an invisible
foundation.
But to accept the invisibility of the ONE is certainly
the most difficult step towards a modern metaphysics.
If something is really invisible, it cannot be measured
or detected in any way.
It is quite obvious: This impossibility runs directly
counter to the scientific mind, because the scientific
method cannot in principle be applied to the ONE. It is
quite challenging to accept that the most fundamental
entity of physics can never be proven right by
experiment.
Up to this day no physicist and no philosopher has
actually accepted this conclusion.
But just this step, that is, the acceptance of the
invisibility (or transcendence) of the most fundamental level of the universe is the eye of the needle to
a modern metaphysics. This step I am calling the
“methodological turn”, because only by this step we
will turn our metaphysical inquiry to the visibile
universe, which is the only place where the scientific
method can be applied.
If this turn is finally done, everything will change –
not only in the field of philosophy, but in the field of
physics as well. Suddenly metaphysics appears to be
the most promising discipline of modern physics,
because it allows us to look at the universe from the
most highest or deepest level.
12
We can have just that look that Einstein wanted to
have in his whole life. Einstein wanted to know the
thoughts of the Old One, but he never got them.
If the methodological turn is ultimately done, the
question naturally arises: How must the universe be
organized if its foundation is invisible? It is as already
mentioned near at hand, to suppose, that a universe
with an invisible foundation has to be organized in a
very specific and unique way. It is somehow
unavoidable, to get this conclusion. Invisibility
appears simply as a highly restrictive physical
condition. The thought is therefore coming up, that it
really limits the spectrum of possibilities how the
physical Universe can look like in such a way, that
only one structure is likely.
Slide No. 11
TITLE: Focussing on Invisibility
IMAGE: Statue of St.Paul; Basic Diagram S/W
When Albert Einstein developed his theories, he asked
himself whether God had a choice in the creation of
the universe or not. By looking at things from this
metaphysical perspective he tried to find out whether
the Universe had to fulfill certain conditions or not.
He regarded the condition of logical simplicity as the
most promising path to such an understanding – and
may be he was right with that.
The property of invisibility could be the key to this
insight.
Invisibility is actually the most central attribute that is
theologically related to the One. We find it in nearly
all religions. In Christianity it is written in The Epistle
of St. Paul to the Romans. This letter is one of the most
important texts of the Christian Bible, especially of the
New Testament. Its verse 1:20 is directly referred to
this property of invisibility. According to this verse the
13
visible universe is directly
expression of invisibility
interpreted
as
the
And just this property can physically be cracked. The
Invisibility of the ultimate foundation of the universe
can actually be interpreted as the result of a certain
kind of a radical non-dual conception.
Slide No. 12
TITLE: An unsolvable Contradiction?
IMAGE: Basic Diagram S/W
In traditional metaphysics the One was already
defined as an all-embracing essence, in which all
differences of the visible Universe are melted into. This
definition includes implicitly a rational explanation,
why the One is invisible.
In general, an entity can only be seen, if it is
distinguishable towards other entities. If there is no
difference left, then it cannot, in principle, be seen: It is
just invisible.
Although these thoughts may be very general they are
clearly showing: If the invisibility of the One shall be
secured, the visibile universe has to fulfil a very
restrictive condition: All its differences without any
exception have to be solved into the ONE.
Although this idea is very old it was never
investigated in a physical context. At first sight it
becomes quite clear, why such an investigation never
took place. If we look at this idea in its original form,
we are confronted with an unsolvable contradiction,
which is as old as philosophy itself.
If all differences of the universe are solved into the
One, which means, all of them do coincide into the
14
One, then no difference of the Universe itself is left.
Consequently, not only the One is invisible, the
Universe is invisible as well. But the visibility of the
Universe is a fact, which nobody would seriously call
in question. In other words: in its original form this
idea contradicts obviously factual reality.
In order to avoid this contradiction we have to assume
that not all differences of the Universe have to be
solved into the One. But in this moment we are
loosing immediately our argument to explain
invisibility in a rational way, because invisibility
seems to be realized if and only if all differences are
solved.
It is just this strong and self-evident demand that
mediates the impression, that this contradiction cannot
be solved in any way. And this may be the reason,
why this idea of radical non-duality was never used in
a physical context. But this idea can be made fruitful, if
we go much deeper into it.
If we study the history of Western thinking we can
observe that many of the fundamental concepts about
reality which were formulated in the early stages of
our cultural development later turned out to be true.
A typical example is the concept of the atom.
Slide No. 13
TITLE: The Solution
IMAGES: Basic Diagram S/W
Already a century before Aristotle the Greek thinker
Democritus stated: “Sweet exists by convention, bitter
by convention, color by convention; but in reality
atoms and the void alone exist.” Although no means
existed of proving or disproving the correctness of the
idea of atoms Democritus’ concept was remarkably
close to the truth as we know today.
15
But as the history of atomic physics equally shows to
proclaim a concept of being of fundamental
importance does not mean to have a deep and clear
understanding of it.
Atomic physics needed indeed more than two
thousand years until it was known what atoms really
were. It is true, and in the end, the ancient concept of
an atom was proved as being real, but its inner meaning
changed dramatically. An electron f.e. turned out to be
not an ordinary thing moving on ordinary path, as the
physicists commonly expected, but it was completely
different and far more abstract. Physicists had to
accept, that the electron, a central elementary particle
of an atom, is staying in a »cloud« which could only be
described by a complex wave function – the core of
quantum mechanics. But this function allowed them to
compute only the probability of finding an electron in a
particular region around the nucleus at a particular
time. Contrary to classical mechanics, they could not –
in principle - make exact predictions of position and
momentum at the same time. An electron could only be
considered as being located »somewhere« within a
region of space. In quantum mechanics this new kind
of motion was described perfectly. But from the point
of classical physics it was completely unbelievable.
Albert Einstein never accepted this quantum
mechanical picture of the atom. And he held this
opinion his whole life.
If we look at this lesson of history, we can conclude,
that the idea of radical non-duality has to be given a
far more specific form.
And this specification can be given: If we suppose that
only all differences of the most fundamental level of the
visible Universe have to be solved then the
contradiction with factual reality can perhaps be
avoided.
16
If only all differences of a specific level of the universe
are concerned, which is the last one, before reality is
finally turning into something invisible, not only the
idea of radical non-duality is saved, but the
contradiction with factual reality is avoided, too,
because it can be concluded that with regard to this
specific level only a highly selected class of differences
is involved. If this case were given, the overwhelming
number of differences of the Universe would be
probably unaffected.
But what is the most fundamental level of the visible
universe as far as metaphysics is concerned? Which
kind of differences are related to this specific level?
To answer this question we have to make a jump of
500 years backwards…
Slide No. 14
TITLE: A Journey 1437/38
IMAGES: Cusanus, ship & Constantinople
If we go back 500 years into the European past, we
will be in the Renaissance.
The Renaissance was in a way a golden age of Western
culture. At this time the modern spirit was born. It
was a revival of classic, especially of Greek, learning
and thinking, which was lost by Christian faith during
the last thousand years.
In this period there was a man, who tried to reform
theological thinking, especially the thinking about
GOD as the eternal ground of everything. The name of
this man was Nicolaus Cusanus. He lived from 1401
until 1464.
Although he was a high member of the Catholic
Church – he became actually a cardinal –, several
17
times he was suspected of being a herectic. The reason
was his very unusal view of God.
He received this view during a Journey to
Constantinople in 1437. He travelled to this town
with a highly delicate diplomatic mission. He should
bring back Orthodox Church to the pale of the
Catholic church.. He was indeed successful. In the
later councils of Ferrara and Florence 1439 both
Churches were unified again – at least for some years.
On the way back to Venice he made a conceptual
breakthrough in philosophy. He himself wrote, that he
experienced an enlightenment, which allowed him to
get a completely new access to the question of the
nature of god..
Slide No. 15
TITLE: The Coincidence of the Smallest & the Largest
IMAGE: No.
It was the birth time of his unique Doctrine of the
Coincidence of Opposites (or in Latin words:
Coincidentia oppositorum), which he published in his
work De docta ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) in
1440.
He repeatedly stressed, that he had discovered
something which had never been thought before. He
insisted, that not one philosopher before him
recognized the method of thinking embedded in the
coincidentia oppositorum. Cusanus did recognize that
the Minimum and the Maximum had to “coincide” if
one liked to go beyond the visible world and to enter
into the realm of the One. He discovered that only by
this highly specific coincidence the realm of
transcendence could be reached.
Und just this doctrine delivered the important hint
which sort of differences are related to the most
18
fundamental level of the visible universe. It was the
class of the most extreme differences.
It is clear, if only the most extreme differences of the
visible universe have to be turned into coincidences,
then the idea of a radical non-dual conception of the
universe can be formulated in a consistent way. The
class of the most extreme differences is certainly very
exclusive. Therefore it can be concluded that only very
few fundamental differences of the universe are part
of the assumed radical non-dual conception. The
overwhelming number of differences could be
unaffected and could still be there.
By this result the contradiction between the radical
non-duality and the fact of the Universe being there
could be solved. Be related exclusively to the class of
extreme differences the idea of radical non-duality is
much more precise than the historical idea.
The next task that has to be done, was, of course, to
translate Cusanus’ doctrine into workable physical
conditions.
One of these conditions I like to discuss.
Slide No. 16
TITLE: Condition of Conspiray
IMAGES: Basic Diagram S/W & table
Only by looking at the English translation of the Latin
text it can easily be deduced which kind of physical
difference has to coincide in the case of an invisible
foundation. It is in fact the spatial coincidence of the
Smallest and the Largest.
If we study this spatial coincidence in more detail it
reveals how the metaphysical properties of
19
omnipresence and invisibility are physically
»encoded« into the structure of the visible Universe.
To understand this possibility, no difficult theoretical
operations are necessary.
Actually the whole
theoretical package is so simple, that its deep and
fundamental meaning can easily be ignored.
This simplicity is actually one of the most important
points of a modern metaphysics, because most
philosophers and physicists are thinking, that we need
a highly complicated equation, in order to understand
the last secret of the universe.
But just the opposite could be the case. Einstein
obviously knew that. As already mentioned he looked
for just this simplicity. He obviously understood his
condition of logical simplicity as a guiding line to a
deeper understanding of the universe.
If an entity shall be the omnipresent basis of all visible
phenomena it must satisfy two conditions: It must
contain all things of the Universe and it must also be
contained in all these things. If an entity satisfies these
two conditions it would be omnipresent.
And the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest
includes just these two conditions. Of being the
Largest the One can contain all things of the Universe;
of being the Smallest, it can be contained in all these
things as well.
But the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest
includes far more: It also secures, that the One cannot,
in principle, be seen from a point within the physical
Universe, because the relation of the Smallest and the
Largest is the most extreme difference, that a Universe
can have in a spatial dimension.
The Universe cannot, in principle, have a difference
which is spatially more extreme than the relationship
20
between the Smallest and the Largest. This conclusion
becomes quite obvious if we quantify these two terms.
In the table this quantification is shown.
It is clear, that there can be no spatial difference, which
is more extreme. Nothing can be smaller than zero and
nothing can be larger than infinite.
If we solve just this difference by the conceptual
demand of coincidence then our next step will lead us
directly into an invisible realm because no further
difference of the visible Universe is left.
The One is successfully sealed up: It is invisible!
If we put together all these insights connectable with
the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest, then
we can see that it is a highly effective physical
condition: It connects the visible Universe with the One in
such a way, that the One is everywhere in the Universe but
nobody can see it.
This condition I am calling the “condition of
conspiracy”.
It is just this condition that has to be attained in
philosophy in order to open up the door to a scientific
metaphysics as I like to show now. We have looked
for this condition for more than two thousand years in
vain.
This condition may be very simple, but it gives us the
possibility to test the existence of the ONE
experimentally.
Slide No. 17
The first prediction of a Modern Metaphysics
IMAGES: Sattelite “Hipparcos”
21
As the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest is
still related to the visible side of reality, there has to be
a corresponding empirical coincidence in our physical
Universe. In other words: If our universe bases really
upon an invisible or transcendent foundation, then
there must be any kind of coincidence at its outermost
edge.
This prediction, which I am calling »Cusanus’
conjecture«, has never been formulated in this clarity.
It is the first experimental prediction of a Modern
Metaphysics.
But the most important question which arose was:
Could this prediction be confirmed by experimental
data? Could one find an empirical coincidence at the
outermost edgde of our universe?
This question could be answered positively – at least
to some degree.
Experiments have shown that the local inertial frame
is the one with respect to which the frame of the
distant parts of the universe are non-rotating. The
German physicist Friedrich Hund has called this
coincidence “the coincidence of the inertial and the
stellar compass”.
This coincidence was first noticed by Newton. Later it
should lead to the formulation of Mach's Principle.
Nowadays this coincidence is measured to a very high
degree: within the present measurement accuracy the
inertial and the stellar compass do coincide with
0.00025 arcsec/year.
The German theoretical physicist Herbert Pfister, who
has edited (together with J. Barbour) volume No. 6 of
the Einstein Studies: Mach’s principle – From Newton’s
bucket to Quantum Gravity, described this coincidence
even as the greatest wonder.
22
If we look at this empirical coincidence from a purely
spatial point of view, we can see, that the local inertial
frame and the frame of the distant parts of the
universe are spatially related to the very Small and to
the very Large. In other words, this empirical
coincidence is corresponding to a very high degree to
the theoretical coincidence of the Smallest and the
Largest.
It is quite remarkable, that this coincidence is still
unexplained. It is actually an anomaly. We don’t have
any convincing physical explanation for it.
Slide No. 18
TITLE: A Scientific Proof of the Existence of GOD
IMAGE: A Chain of Reasoning
If we take all these pieces together – the piece of
theory and the experimental data -, then we do have
nothing else than a scientific proof of the existence of
GOD.
Mankind has looked for such a proof for more than
two thousands years in vain. All known proofs of the
existence of GOD didn’t satisfy scientific standards.
If the presented proof of the existence of God would
be true it would change our traditional picture of GOD
tremendously.. If Cusanus conjecture were proven
right, then the invisibility of the ultimate foundation
or source of the universe would not be the result of a
supreme being, which is hiding from
us: The
invisibility of the ultimate foundation of the universe
would be a completely natural result of a highly
specific conception. As such it would be invisible
forever.
23
This conclusion would be a great challenge for the
Monotheism because GOD wouldn’t have any
freedom, to give up his invisibility. To relate to
Einstein it can be said that GOD didn’t have any
choice in the creation of the universe.
But there are also important consequences as far as
physics is concerned. One of the most obvious
consequences concerns our cosmological view of the
universe.
Since the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest is
connected with the One, it is also of fundamental
character. That means, that all physical entities which
are connectable with this coincidence are of
fundamental character as well. And we can indeed
connect different physical notions with it.
Slide No. 19
TITLE: The Truth of Euclidean Geometry
IMAGES: Table
If we consider the coincidence of the inertial and the
stellar compass as the empirical counterpart of the
specific coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest
then the term of the inertial frame of reference is
connected with these two spatial notions. Or, in more
general terms, the universe is in a force-free state at
the Smallest and at the Largest.
This connection gives rise to a further connection. We
know, that a force-free state is intimately connected
with the Euclidean geometry. In other words, the
Euclidean geometry is also connected with the
Smallest and the Largest. That means, according to a
Modern Metaphysics the Euclidean geometry is the
most fundamental geometry of our universe, because
it is directly linked with the ONE.
24
All this is shown in the table.
This insight makes understandable why we were so
much accustomed to think Euclidean geometry as
true. Until today we don’t know where this massive
certainty comes from. A modern metaphysics does
explain this almost collective feeling: It unveils its
deep connection with the most fundamental level of
the Universe, that is, with the ONE.
Slide No. 20
TITLE: The One as Cause of Fine-Tuning?
IMAGES: Blockdiagrams & Geometrical Surfaces
To connect Euclidean geometry with the most
fundamental level of the universe allows us a
completely new look at cosmology. One of the main
problems of cosmology was actually the flatness
problem.
The flatness problem is a fine-tuning problem of
cosmology, especially with respect to the Big Bang
model. It arises from the observation that a specific
initial condition of the universe appears to be finetuned to a very special value, and that a small
deviation from this value would have had massive
effects on the nature of the universe at the current
time.
In the case of the flatness problem the special value
concerns the density of matter and energy in the
universe. The current density of the universe is
observed to be very close to the so-called critical
value. This value is defined as  = 1.
Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical
value over cosmic time, the early universe must have
25
had a density even closer to this critical density,
departing from it by one part in 1062.
This leads scientists to question how the initial density
came to be so closely fine-tuned to this critical value,
because in all other cases we wouldn’t see our
universe as it is now. After more than 13 billions of
years of expansion a very small departure of Ω from 1
in the early universe would have been magnified to
create a current density very far from this critical
value.
In the case of an overdensity (Ω > 1) this would lead to
a universe so dense it would cease expanding and
collapse into a Big Crunch in a few years or less; in the
case of an underdensity (Ω < 1) it would expand to fast
to allow f.e. gravity to form complex structures like
galaxies.
As such complex structures are given within our
universe, it is very likely, that it does possess the
critical value. And just this critical value is intimately
related with a special geometry of the universe. In the
case of the critical value the geometry of the universe
has to be an Euclidean one. Therefore this inexplicable
fine-tuning of the universe is called the “flatnessproblem”.
The most commonly-accepted solution of this problem
is the cosmic inflation. It bases on the idea that the
universe went through a brief period of extremely
rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after
the Big Bang. This rapid expansion caused space to
become flatter, forcing omega toward one, no matter
what its initial value was.
The metaphysical solution of this flatness problem
would be quite different. According to a modern
Metaphysics the universe is fundamentally flat: It was
flat in the past, it is flat at the present and it will be flat
26
in future times. There is no change at all, because it is
inseparably connected with the most fundamental
branch of the reality, that is, with the One: It is always
there – and it will aways be there.
Scientists who believe in the doctrine of intelligent
design may conclude that a modern metaphysics
supports this doctrine. But this conclusion is
completely wrong, because a modern metaphysics
makes it impossible to speak about GOD as a creator.
In modern metaphysics GOD is an impersonal branch
of reality. It is the space out of which all things appear
and disappear. There is no being or person connected
with it. It can be compared with the open sky in which
clouds are coming and going.
But this branch is not a neutral field of energy: it can
directly be experienced by human beings as all mystics
have told since more than two thousand years.
Slide No. 21
TITLE: Principle of Radical Non-Duality
IMAGES: Table
If the One is really existing, then the coincidence of the
Smallest and the Largest is only of exemplary
character. If the One is truly the fundamental
foundation of our physical Universe, then there have
to be further coincidences, because for the description
of the physical Universe spatial terms are surely not
enough. Just this mandatory demand is the true
revolutionary moment of a modern metaphysics,
because in modern physics infinite values are often
rejected as unphysical. The term of the velocity is a
typical example.
An infinite velocity is not part of our contemporary
physics. It is rejected by the Special Theory of
Relativity (STR) as unphysical. Instead the finite value
of the speed of light is assumed. The speed of light is
27
regarded as the ultimate speed limit of our Universe.
But if we have trust in the existence of the One, then
we have unavoidably to assert an infinite velocity as
the ultimate limiting speed. As STR does exclude this
possibility, the conclusion of this metaphysical
demand is clear: If our Universe bases really upon the
One, then Einstein’s theory does not provide a
complete picture of the Universe. It must be somehow
incomplete, because the metaphysically demanded
velocity-section between c and  is not taken into
account.
Trusting the beauty and the simplicity of the
metaphysical approach I have searched for this
complete picture. It led me to the discovery of the
archetypal structure of the Mandala.
Slide No. 22
TITLE: Physics of Mandala
IMAGE: Mandala, selected by K.A. Mueller
The archetypal structure of the MANDALA shows as
conceived by me how space and time have to be
structured, if the existence of the One is assumed. In
the two papers Do space and time have an archetypal
Design? and About the Dual Parametrization of c I have
tried to explore the physical consequences of this
metaphysical picture of space and time.
28