Parallelism and Relativity
Abstract
A parallel of elementary concepts but non-mathematically obtainable contrasts is described as entailed to all aspects of nature ubiquitously if conceptual pluralisms/dualisms are logically reduced to monisms. In order for active perceptual/conceptual science pursuit to exist with a valid and coherent meaning, conceptually organizable, but non-parametric sameness/equality of some sort must be attachable to all facets of all perspectives. Examples in lingual form are provided that employ the words “standard” and conceptual comparisons are established with modern life and physical sciences. A suitably corresponding new model, philosophical perspective and sample physics experiment/interpretation is proposed.
Discussion
Dualism verses Monism
It is generally agreed that a universal perspective does not exist (Nietzsche). As the scientist tries to construct , from witness, unified principles from a sea of particulars (Quine), his pursuit descends on problems of perspective . Accordingly, from a scientific perspective, truth not only needs to be extracted from theories of causation and consequences, is not obvious to the common sense as nature does not present to witness sufficient evidence for explanation; truth must also, yet at initial reflections cannot, speak of science itself, if a defined set of “scientifically relevant” communicatable self knowledge has no members.
The concepts of a universal perspective or a unified world theory imply a monism. Logically, if a universal perspective does not exist, if perspective exists at all, a pluralism is suggested. Currently, the physical sciences appear at a great and dividing controversary with respect to notions of singularity/pluraity, monism and dualism. In order to construe a unifying concept to nature, one construes a conceptual monism. Theoretically, though, definitions and concepts are extended to describe “out of this world” components of a universal theory, i.e. space time constructions derived from Einstein are divided into topics of special relativity and general relativity, time space theory predicts distinct areas of the universe inhabited by life. Yet, a theme in all of these scientific creations always parallel human perception of the world , and creativity. They are self subscribing, based upon their content for validity as nature itself also subscribes to itself in this same manner. Existence granted, such theories become valid contestants for universal theory especially when they become predictive. In content they essentially ascribe to dualisms of equals and opposites, and in referring to divides, and assemblies with an “out of the world component” (places that exist without mass, gravity, or spaces that are not renderable with Euclidean plane geometry) always refer monistically to a whole as a fact entailed by the effort to establish concept. The dualistic notion of two (or more ) spaces to the universe automatically entails a contradiction) - “I can think of the world as two spaces though I am in one space”. Granted that an avoidance of a needed self-reference and reordering has not necessarily occurred for reasons of objectivity, as a non objective incoherency as an avoided result is the only product yet accomplished. The lack of a creative conceptualization that can relate self perspective, awareness and consciousness, to the external is not only relegated back and forth from the physical and biological sciences suggests a “pushy” denial of the problem (that also leaves a similar trail in the creation of , and especially modern interpretations of physical notions of force).
Of the associated concepts and emanated ideas of oscillation, electron-proton, gravity-antigravity, matter-antimatter etc… in alternative to concepts of parallel worlds, a parallelism of the world to the self is not advanced beyond a very unspoken of intuitive notion of “of it-selfness” ; and forceful assertions of the scientist.
Despite the great existing variations in human existence and experience, concepts universally remain entangled with notions of a universal language such as that of mathematics. Manifest, emerging, emanating, evolving, attracted to and attached to this problem are theories , definitions in theories, of entities, and further concepts oriented towards the external and yet frustratingly confined by the demand to employ a universally accepted language of mathematics. Modern physics might be envisioned as a well nourished theoretical corpse constructed of prosthetics, orthopedic tractions, special contraptions, sprain therapeutics and genetic lesion analysis -all mechanically elucidatable with mathematics and easily capable to extend beyond ordinary comprehensions as easily as one may conceive of any suitable number at of any alogarythumically defined set that can be conceived of as a plausible subset of the infinite, necessarily with symmetry, and are conceptually dividable to create heterogeneities in reflection of the initial enigmas, failed resolutions concerning the self and perceived nature . Theoretical systems of defined heterogeneous parallels that are maintained under one (monisitic) roof have escaped from the confines of reasonable conceptions-mathematical languages cannot accommodate parallel uniques. For instance the set of integers is unique, each member is unique but also indivisible. One is parallel to one, two is parallel to two, the set of integers though is not parallel to itself, it is equal to itself. Mathematical definition of a world of particulars, in a world of particulars , becomes useless, though still employed inappropriately in the same conceptual setting with the same aggressive fundamental initiatives that rely on mathematical languages, constants, insist in definition on description by assumption of more than one perspective simultaneously and are absent as evidenced by a limited and inconsistent depth of comprehension, of an understanding related to any known perspective.
.
George Berkeley :Mind and Matter
George Berkeley of the 1600’s construed, from a separate line of reasoning, notions that related language to utility only rather than language as a system of communication whose purpose is the exchange of information. He rejected notions of pure abstraction to be incoherent, referring to utility and meaning with respect to action. A color, red for instance, cannot be considered as a concept, as a concept neither red nor color can be conceived of without referreing to specific instances. He ascribed the existence of materials, matter to facts of witness dependency and referred to the existence of an ultimate witness in the name of a timeless perceiving god. Though Berkeley’s philosophy was religiously oriented his notions are resolvable into the present topic of science theory and the self. Berkeley’s logically argued that witness was a mandatory prerequisite for existence. If his assertion for an all perceiving god is substituted, with respect to his same logic, with a ubiquity of witness in all aspects of nature and as the means of all transmissions and as the elemental defining character of time, an elemental and homogeneous monism to describe nature can be postulated. For example, constructions of time can account for materials, mass, energy, the existence of solid objects as well as for both the corporal/tangible and acorporal/nontangible facets of existence and the universe. A parallel exists between Berkeley’s philosophy, failed modern self conceptualizations and dependence on mathematics as an objective means in scientific pursuits, and incoherent abstraction in modern scientific interpretations of nature, i.e. abstractions that can correlate experimentally with life experience verses those that are strictly endogenous to life experience and conceptualization of the natural world. Substitution of god in Berkeley’s writings with a new ordering of the same definitions and concepts that modernly originate experimentally, are not directly endogenous to life experience/perception and that reflect failed scientific conceptualization of the corporal verses the acorporal, places a potential universal monistic interpretation, with partly mathematically defined and part linguistically descriptive equal and distinct parallels, within intellectual grasp.
In adjunct to the presentation of a philosophical theme, it is appropriate to note, as an aid to gain perspective and orientation for comprehension, a parallel between Berkeley’s referral to a denigrating aspect of scholarship to the human soul and intellect and modern scientific endeavors. Consider the word “standard”. Not to exclude from analogy in the vocabulary related to scientific projects, the “standard” applications of “standards”, “standardly” reduces variation and diversity in communications and theory presentations, oppresses creativity with respect to the assumption of new perspectives and interpretations of life experience and hence the diversity of the intellectual life. As an analogy to currently applied experimental definitions, and typical of scientific trends, within these three applications of the word “standard”, the first two relate to the association between behavior and definition respectively, and the third to a consequence of definition and behavior extracted from definition-i.e. are the result of a self subscribing “standardardized” world(containing the adjective “standard” at all perspectives ) that is twice self subscribing as it is also “standardly” oppressing and empirically as verifiable as the suspected speed of light is empirically reproducible as a natural constant and elected as a “standard” for length and distance. A “standard” concept with respect to a perspective of man with respect to nature is altogether absent but internally incorporated as a tumorous mechanical assembly of language constructions in which exists a common element that is exemplified with the agent word “standard”. A abstracted cure, upon evidence of a tumor entails the search for the “standard”(common) elements to tumors, which, in this case, is also a function of the initial vocabulary and conceptions. Human denigration is apparent in the consequential subscription to the carcinogen/mutagen “standard”. Whichever standard elements may exist, other than, if it does not assume itself less than a universal indivisible/basic element indivisible, it speaks of itself truthfully- i.e. “I am “standard” or ”I am time”, regardless of which, “standard” or “time”, is present as a fundamental agent. If all representations are intuitively similarly perceived, In addition, for the purposes of illustrating the existence of only a single and unique possible correct total perspective and that one does exists as common intuition suggests, the validity of a model does not predicate that any one representation, whether it resembles the other or not, or is defined by all the same terms, can represent an interpretation that is not mutually exclusive to that of any other model, as there can be only a unique monism or a dualism/pluralism. The present interpretation is suggested to bare no resemblance with current notions regardless of the overlap (even one to one correspondence and equal application/meaning) of terminology.
In the treatment of the described definition derived tumor, if the excision of “standard” can be accomplished, all remaining statements(cells) with “standard” excised will result as lacking (“standard”)/ (familiar communications) ,in fact, would be incapable of coherent communications with respect to any theorized or previously existing (e.g. “standard”) (scientific entity)/(known common observational monism) in the absence of it’s prior abstracted “standard”. It is a premise of this communication that scientifically (e.g. mathematical) coherent standards do not exist, and that their recorded presence and behavior, is a behavioral phenomenon that is associated with a pathological state. A substitution of “time”, for “standard” is suitable as prequisite for a natural state as it is naturally common to all elements of perception and science-is non-excisible. Nothing in the world can be conceived of that is absent of “time” or can escape definition with respect to it. In this case “time” becomes a “standard”. The word “standard” itself becomes a toxin that is assumed to have been elevated to, or is approaching a ubiquitous state, from coincidences in empirical observation and referral relating some facet of observation as both adjective and nomative - i.e., belongs to the same set ”standard” =[“Standard”], contains itself and is self subscribing. The standard set “time” has no adjective/descriptive potential. A model that can account for time, granted the existence of time, cannot subscribe to itself, as its’ existence is given as premise. It is from like premises and assumptions of this latter kind only ,verses those that include abstracted self-supporting, supporting components, that can have coherency as a whole.
Time as a Sole Component of the World
As a theoretical proposition , with both a logical, intuitive, but avoidance promoting affect, the universe in definition is restricted to tangible frames of reference-i.e. existing and verifiable locations. As an example, Schroedinger’s particle in a box cannot be visualized or assumed by abstraction to traverse from one location to another without traversing a single intermediate location residing in the in-between. A self proclaimed won, advancely run race could have no better a proponent or serve as a better example of self subscription. In this respect the Ancient Greek god Promethus was bound to a block and his liver occasionally prodded for test for the accumulation of toxins” as a result of his offense of stealing from Olympus the components of “shame” and “morality” that he delivered to humanity to improve it’s viability and subsistence. No other device might be conceived of that might both appear to set an example for a common good and at the same time treacherously deceive regarding the actual state and progress of a subject, as that which originates exogenously is ubiquitously pathogenic.
It is both logical and reasonable to propose alternatively that in transmission/communications all properties of location have no externally coherent components and are innately exemplary of (each unique and infinite in number) location itself, interchangeable with location in meaning with respect to whatever means of naming location are given. Thus if one begins his inquiry with, for example, a scientist speaking on a telephone, one may conclude that neither a single part of the apparatus of communication, not excluding the symmetrical bonding arrangement of carbon used for transceivers, or the scientist has an vaguest notion, or existing catagory in either it’s “awareness” or cataloguing for content related to position, a consistent description of position.. All of his constructions-i.e. notions of the physical location on a physical map of the party at the other end of his conversation, are second sense constructions related to relation and self-relation that is internally related from experience in a manner involving sensual and visual representation that are themselves independent of direction or geometrical factors, are temporal constructions in which absolute notions of physical orientation with respect to external perspectives, external witnesses are strictly exemplary of ubiquitously existing uniqueness of perceived objects. Notions of location are probably interchangeable with notions of uniqueness -and so forth, in the example of a telephone conversation, for all internal neurological processes. If meaning with respect to position does not exist , theoretical constructions that relate processes to location from external observation cannot only have no meaning, bear in feature no difference from the mechanical communication of telephone converstion and are futile as neither the study object nor it’s internal components bear any positional relation with respect to the location of the observer or itself. To refer to an inherent illusion, a deceiving “nature” a curious scientist and his interrogated subject might conceivably be interchanged with, in analogy with a torturous interrogation by a spy of a victum whom does not possess on his person the desired information. Actions of torture, repelled by humanists, are not recognized as also a consequence of contemporary scientific pursuits nor are human denigrations associated with current practices of science. Humanists in fact, are known to seek scientific solutions or alternate scientific solutions, based on the same failed conceptions, to the problems of humanity. In these cases where intention and observation, immediate consequence, bear no relation to total consequences and deception is more certain, a more obvious distinction can be found by analogy between the ideas of parallelism and independence verses simultaneity and the cancerous dualisms discussed. In analogy a set of non parallel lines can potentially either be defined as or measured as parallel, but “time” as a “parallely” and independently existing agent at each and any frame of reference, without the means of forming contrasts and differences, can never be found as “aparallel”. “Time” as topic/subject, is immune to change that delineates motion, in this case potential deviation to or from parallelism.
Relativity and Simultaneity
Simultaneity, the study of coincidences, as the foundation for theories of relativity is based on an abstractual cross examination and projected model assembled from more than that which can be directly known in the first perspective-it subsequently emerges into a monism-pluralism that mathematically generates untestable values, for not the least, but elapsed time as a parameter with the velocity of light held as a natural constant at all points of reference. In special relativity simultaneity assumes a coherent parametric assignment of relative position/velocity, and in its’ generating theory, general relativity, simultaneity subsequently descends in definition to notions altogether absent of location content. Given,as a premise in relativity theory is not time, but time and location/distance. It is proposed that parameters of time and distance , combined together, are incoherent, yet ironically, with respect to the interchangeability of location and location parameters to describe location, are similarly interchangeable as are coordinate dependant and absolutely unique location particulars. Thus, in the assumption of the existence of a unique universal monism, for distinct theoretical considerations, the existence of any class with more than a single unique member is precluded in the same manner that the set of integers can be considered equal to itself, and composed of a number of classes equal to the number of (indivisible) integers, one class per integer.
To account for solid materials with a monism of time, they can be defined with respect to time as simply having emerged with a greater density to cause the perception of solidness. The existence of force, energy, can be viewed as a consequence of identity/uniqueness. If all things are distinct form one another, one unique physical thing must be separable from another by means of a force: That physical entities are capable of reduction, they must repel one another to be considered distinct or be the same-i.e. unreduceable- limited at the level of the non reduceable uniqueness must either result in a uniquely existing singularity or unequal, self avoiding, unique pluralities-i.e. singularities. Motion can also be conceived of by the same means -i.e. time as the propagation of distance by virtue of a force of self avoidance and empirically evidenced by the “standard”/common experience of space. (both a tumorous body and a healthy body “standardly” occupy space –“nonstandard” space” (the former) occupied by “standards”, “standard” space occupied by “time” rather than “standard” (as a “standard”). “Time” asserted as a “standard” is coherent, speaks honestly of itself, does not entail a coherent hidden meaning that can potentially be constructed, has no elemental coherent adjective applications (i.e. time machine, time space, and time clock, etc are incoherent and descriptively redundant in this context ) .
What can validly be construed of nature and the world.? Nothing unless, new dimensions, tangential to pursuits are conceived – i.e.-a new conceptualization of objects, the material- verses the immaterial; can a perpetually paradoxical dualism can be discarded for a monism in science? Unobvious and necessarily tangential to direct perceptual constructions, a monism that speaks of itself truthfully in all instances and avoids paradoxes that subscribe to the scientifically uncharacterizable/unknowable is needed. Such a monism must by definition be immiscible with mathematical analysis and further division, yet be descriptive, and capable of referring both to witnessable experience and to potential empirical measurement associated with mathematical elaboration. Parallel time, though suggesting a potential for the same false comparisons by ratio, is both a common element to points of perspective as well as a measureable entity for mathematical analysis that employs parallel topics. For instance a species, human beings, though not comparable this way with respect to point of reference are potentially treatable as a group with a common origin-i.e. parallel to one another and as a whole parallel to common empirical topics. .. Also suggested is that coincidence-simultaneity, especially in witness cases referring from a human life/scientific witness as perspective, refer ubiquitously to a set of self belonging self subscribing notions that are “standardized” and “standard” ridden”. It is potentially inferred from this logic that the entire problem, it’s persistence in history, might result from an theoretical assumption of, or witness of simultaneity between parallel but coinciding events; is deeply embedded evolutionarily in language, in science interpretation and perceived meaning, is rooted in an exact corresponding parallel ordering of notion , and lingual and visual representation.(maybe birthing the ideas of simultaneity and relativity). Problem solving that relates to those data that are competent a parallel entities (i.e families etc) rather than problem solving with intrafamily “mathematical adherences” is logically entailed to oppose denigrating behavioral tendencies-to reinforce directions for positive change. New orientations, mostly self-being centered are not only self-oriented but applicable generally to the whole species, any member of the species . In this respect, with respect to the potential for cancerous deceptions from habit, Martinex-Conde (13,1,15) report that learning can be strictly physiological, autonomically acquired at a very primary stage and composed of multiple elements normally construed to be assembled together at stages secondary to immediate witness by second reflections.
A logical consequence of this proposal is that in order for active perceptual/conceptual science pursuit to exist with a valid and coherent meaning, as conceptually organizable and valid, a non parametric sameness/equality of some sort must be attached to the facets of all perspectives. A singular verses plural equality, synonym verses mathematical equality is logically entailed. Time, potentially interchangeable with other meanings and parameters, is proposed for this role
Science, Relativity, Singularities and Pluralities
The drawing in Figure 1) depicts potential, scientifically employed, perceptions involving light and sound as non random in nature 1b) and theoretical constructions derived from perception as non random 1c), 1a) and 1d) depict a resultant random synergism for nature. Shaded incoherent regions are proposed to coincide with dualistic interpretations. It is considered important to note that with respect to a random monism of time, experimental as well theoretical relativity can only draw parallels. In the measurement of the velocity of light for instance, dualisms of relative time (observer and observed) might be made logically coherent if constructions of space are considered to be a similar resultant random synergism of light (transverse) and sound (longitudional). A non random ratio’s might be obtained from total randomness in the measurement of the velocity of light if distances, and displacement volumes are employed (expressed as either time, volume or distance) and construed as a parallel to the observers own displacement (displacement energy, time, volume etc.).who is himself construed singly as the human species, as an entity constructed of parallels and relations to common empirical factors. Thus one point of reference and it’s particulars are considered. With regards to displacement energy, it is not direct volume or energetic/caliormetric considerations that are entailed, but factors of surfaces-i.e.- the length of the DNA of a single human is theorized to be greater than the distance of the earth to the sun. Facets cannot be applied that exceed or ignore human actions(communication, observation, observation and measurement, the perception an science of light as a self parallel –i.e. exceed in referral or abstraction/generalization the human species and the activity of scientific measurement, pursuit of science,- i.e. this case creation energy and energy of metabolism. Resultant ratios from this exercise, related to historical evolution and incremental change, can be considered to have a conceptual meaning and value this can be constructively employed to cope verses factual meaning that reduces to dimensions of force to that can be applied aggressively . For example, the current value of 3 x 10^8 m/s is based on assumptions related to the origin of the light traced, distances and volumes, change with time, however if it is considered that all light potentially observed by humans has, as it only possible relevance the physics and biology of human beings (their evolution as a function of (light energy)/(sound energy)/(displacement energy), is relevant only to the perceptual facets of members of the human species, and ultimately relevant only with respect to sensory perception which is also construable as a construction of time). Actual values for the origin of the light, parameters related to location become inconsequential and a new meaning and relevance is given in terms of a parallel relationship, species commonality with respect to language, empirically and perceptually shared experience, means of biological and cognitive function etc-i.e . universal commonalities of any human observer and a parallel nature of all of these facets to the life time and physical properties of observed light (energy) sources.
Figure 1
An actual CONTAINER of non random coherent components-vectors of light and sound are
non random at each perspective (total boundary), but random (Fig 2d) if incoherency is lost to
a synergism (inner circle). In figure 1a) A boundary delineated by an outlying dark region
(hatched areas) of non existing coherency, with non random components, comprises a non
randomly perceived, but conceptually random coherent total (open area in center of figure). Hatched areas are in all cases areas of incoherency.
1a)
1b) CONTAINER of non random coherent components alone, perceived, though to be, coherent
1c) A container perceived as but falsely construed (hatched area) as a coherent non random total alone
1d) A RANDOM , coherent, of itself, self contained, conceptual product synergy of 1b) and 1c)
in which non randomness is still perceived at all perspectives
Figure 2) 3-D plot -A potential parallel (i.e.-independent of point of perspective) shape for space as a function of incremental change (∆c and ∆v)
[R,θ,Ф]=
X=2cos(θ) +sin(θ)
Y=2cos(θ)
R=(X^2+Y^2)^.5
0<θ<~10^17
∆ (E/m)=∆V^2/2 +∆C^2
∆C= cos (θ)
∆V=sin (θ)
If an origin of energy from light (C0 and V0=0) is assumed then :
∆d(E/m)dt=d(E/m)//dt-D(E/m)0/dt= ∆V
[R,θ,Ф]=
A second learning dependant upon, yet after the fact requires a deeper introspection prior to beginning new applications, to know absolute guidelines, rather than the application of those that are correspondingly freely willed from logically invalid and assumed lingual freedoms.
References
1)Adams, R.M ed Berkeley, George Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, 1979 Hackett Publishing Co. Inc.
2)Berkeley, George A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Hackett Publishing Co. Inc. 1982
3)Coleman, P. Nature 446, Frontier at Your Fingertips: Between the nano- and micrometre scales, the collective behaviour of matter can give rise to startling emergent properties that hint at the nexus between biology and physics, 379 (22 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446379a; Published online 21 March 2007
4) Einstein, T.L. Survey of Self Avoiding Random Surfaces on Cubic Lattices: Issues, Controversies, and Results IMA Volumes IN Mathematics and its Applications Springer-Verlag KG 1992
5)Einstein, Albert Physics and Reality Journal of the Franklin Institute 221:3 359-382 March 1986 Tilton, H.B., Smarandache, F. ed. Today'sTake On Einsteins' Relativity Proceedings Of The
Conference At Pima Community College East Campus Feb 18 2005 Pima College Press
6)Fogelin, Robert, 2001, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Berkeley and The Principles of Human Knowledge (Routledge, 2001)
7)Goldenfeld, N., 1 and Woese, C., Biology's Next Revolution: The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself., Nature 445, 369 (25 January 2007) | doi:10.1038/445369a; Published online 24 January 2007
8)”AUTHOR” Form Generates Form: Time as a Second Order Rate Constant From Indecision Between Heisenberg Uncertainty and Einstein Legality 2007 (in review Ludas Vitalis)
9)”AUTHOR” Uniqueness and Self Belonging in Nature 2007 (in review Ludas Vitalis)
10)”AUTHOR”. Force Space/Extension: Ethics and Existence 2007(in review Ludas Vitalis)
11)Knight, D. Kinds of Minds: Do differences in history, culture and education influence whether scientists focus on pieces and particulars, or make broad connections?, Nature 447, 149 (10 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/447149a; Published online 9 May 2007
12)Lam, Vincent (2007) The singular nature of space-time. In [2006] Philosophy of Science Assoc. 20th
13)Macknik SL, Martinez-Conde S, Consciousness: Neurophysiology of visual awareness, New Encyclopaedia of Neuroscience, Ed. Larry R. Squire, Elsevier, Oxford; (In Press).
14)Martinez-Conde S, Macknik SL (2007), Mind Tricks- Cognitive Scientists take a lesson from MagiciansNature; 448, 414
15)Martinez-Conde S (2007) Mind Matters, . Blindsight: When the brain sees what you do not the Scientific American blog on science and mind
16)Peccianti,M ,Dyadyusha A, Kaczmarek M., Assanto, G. Turnable Refraction and Reflection of Self
Confined Light Beams Nature Physics 2:737-742 November 2006 (Letters)
17) Putnam, Hillary Collapse of the Fact Value Dichotomy and Other Essays 2002 Harvard University Press
18)Quine, w. v. o., Indeterminacy of Translation Again, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 84, No. 1, Jan. 1987
19)Quine, w. v. o. , From a Logical Point of View Harvard University Press, 1953
20)Russell, Bertrand, My Philosophical Development, 1959, Simon and Schuster NYC.
21)Russell, Bertrand, Whitehead, Alfred North, Principia Mathematica , second edition Cambridge University Press 1962
22)Russell, Bertrand , The Problems of Philosophy, 1997, Oxford university Press
23)Slipher The radial velocity of the Andromeda Nebula 1912 Observatory Bulletin, pp.2.56- 2.57
de Sitter, W., On Distance, Magnitude, and Related Quantities in an Expanding Universe (1934) Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, Vol. 7, p.205
24)Tipton, Ian C. Berkeley: The Philosophy of Immaterialism , 1974 London: Methuen
25)Velmans, Max (2007) Reflexive Monism.(in press)