Journey through thought
The only trip that really matters is the one into the Unknown
Christophe Real, Who I am ?
I first loved mathematics and physics and became a mathematician. I elaborated afterwards a theory of the mind, based on identifications only. These identifications were used to reconstruct syllogisms but also linguistic phenomena, scientific thinking, Freudian unconscious. After that I met Upanishadic philosophy, and used these identifications to ask the question: what is imaginary and what is real?
I’m now more inclined towards physics, emergent gravity, strings, quantum information and quantum gravity. Well, I’m not sure, so let’s see what’s happen next.
Logic of identifications
We present here our theory of general logic based on identifications only. This is a theory which describes all what the mind can do using just one fundamental postulate: the mind is only able to identify structures from one (already known) context to another (new) context. From this one postulate, we can analyze mathematics, physics, language, meaning and so on.
We have taken from psychoanalysis the results they have about what’s in a baby’s mind. This is important for us because we could describe the baby’s mind (the baby’s “unconscious”) in terms of identifications, and we relate these identifications to phenomenas which appear later in sciences or language.
The great advantage is that our postulate of identifications asserts nothing more than the duality of the mind, and also that all what the mind can construct is imaginary (based on saying that identifiable structures are identified, and nothing more). This is in perfect agreement with oriental philosophies because it implies that the realm of the mind is imaginary, while the real world is beyond the mind.
Mathematics can be defined as a science of calculation, the formalism itself being a logical calculation, which by definition unfolds along a temporal line devoid of contradictions. It is true, but a calculation cannot invent itself so what part of thought have invented the calculation and the formalism, and consequently their constant extensions which are simply called the progress of mathematics. Our postulate is that it would be the unconscious itself, neither temporal nor contradictory, that would be responsible of the progress of mathematics, or that would conceive the proofs within the existing formalism. In other words, mathematical intuition would be the unconscious.
What happens then when we take a fundamental theorem of mathematics to try to put it in its simple tautological form? We do not see the fully realized tautology appear, but rather the work of the unconscious as pure identifications. We are thus witnessing a system of correspondences, the very last of which, from the calculation to the real, is what founds mathematics as a science beyond a pure imaginary activity. To do this, one must explain that mathematics can only be a writing that reproduces an experiment on paper.
Inertia, force, fields, quantum and relativistic physics, quantum field theory and today quantum cosmology and gravity, physics offers epistemology an extremely rich and exciting subject of investigation. From concepts of symmetry to supersymmetry and string theory, how are each of these theories structured and how do they participate to the architecture of the whole?
In what way is the physicist himself integrated as an object into the theories he constructs? Is he integrated in his real, symbolic or imaginary part? Can we find in physics itself the principles that would justify the universality of these laws? What does the physics of the confines of the universe, the infinitely small, and the infinitely large teach us about our human condition, our conceptions of being and existing? But conversely, can we find in physics the whole map of the unconscious as given by psychoanalysis?
In short, what can we learn from the exercise of going from physics to our map of the unconscious and vice versa ?
A study of the laws of thought, which we will seek if possible to bring back to a single elementary operation. Under these conditions, all human activities would be analogous, or even identifiable with each other. This single operation could only be an operation of identification, an analogy becoming so precise that it would be nothing but the recognition of the same only differently declined. Metonymy, for example, would be to the original object what the partial object is to the total object. The sail for the boat, the iron for the sword. It is the Kleinian pair partial object-total object that is declined in different situations but always identical to itself.
Under these conditions, thought itself would be the very reason of unification, of knowledge, as we say unification of all interactions in Physics. Beyond the true and the false, declining the same as its only rule, thought naturally concludes that if Zhuangzi dreamed of the butterfly, the butterfly also could only dream of Zhuangzi.
From numbers and the four elementary operations to differential, integral and matrix calculations, from the first principles of classical physics to the recent theories of quantum gravity. Some difficult areas can be explained in a simple, concrete and natural way. Some areas considered elementary deserve a difficult analysis. Understanding and seeing rather than calculating. On the other hand, mechanical calculation can only be acquired by labor and repetition. At the level where mathematics approaches an art of reasoning, it is necessary to conceive of formal code as a language, and the work of the mathematician-physicist as that of a translator from one language to another, from intuition to the code and from the code to intuition.
The author is only proposing leads, asking questions. The reader, for his part, finds answers for himself, in a sense it is up to the reader to make the book his own. Because this trip, if I have traveled for myself and in detail, I can give the others only a vague taste, possibly through some practical indications, general directions, points of fall, elements that seemed to me salient.
What I say about thinking is that after having studied scientific discovery on the one hand and development in psychoanalysis on the other, first independently and then jointly, I came to the conviction that it was one and the same thing. And also that to think, it was first and foremost to recognize identical in the most varied objects.
If then thought allows us to understand the world, perhaps we must admit that it is the real itself that provides these identical. On the side of the origin of the thought, and on the side of the very first experiences of the infant. Which gives this strong enough feeling that the scientific description of the world only describes our own imaginary, which then leaves us to think that in our imagination, reality is instilled by some way from the point of departure.