Statement of Purpose - Roy Michael Moore -

My purpose for applying to graduate school is to allow me to gain entrance to the academic community and to learn how to publish papers on various philosophical issues, mostly related to the philosophy of science.  My love of philosophy started very early in my childhood and has continued throughout my life.  As a child, I read all of the science and science fiction that I could find and tried to see as large a perspective as I could muster.  When I gained my formal education more than 25 years ago, I spent a great deal of time studying science and specifically the philosophy of science.  I always wanted to understand the largest overview that was possible.    I have earned my living the last 25 years by using Boolean logic to solve large, complex computer problems, mostly by being able to visualize a complete overview of any computer system in my mind (hardware and software), and using that model to predict and solve failures in the "real" system.  This was the only way I could see to remain an independent thinker and to make a living out of philosophy, or at least a sub branch of philosophy called logic.  My children are now raised and I want to use the rest of my life to pursue my love of philosophy.

My formal academic education indicates I was a top student in every area.  After finishing my stint in the Marine Corp, I began at Amarillo College.  In the first course I took, Freshman English, I went from a D student to a B student in a single summer semester.  My teacher later used me as an example of how far a student could go, if motivated.  By the first year at Amarillo College, I had accumulated 46 semester hours, making only A's after that first B.  I then realized that I had too many credits to continue at AC, so I transferred to Texas Tech.  I completed my Bachelors Degree in two more years of work, even though I was working up to 40 hours a week at three different jobs the last eighteen months (you can see my grades dropped!).  I studied philosophy the entire time at Texas Tech and one of my jobs was grading papers in the Philosophy Department, even though I had never taken the courses myself.  After leaving Texas Tech, I later learned about the new microcomputers and decided to use the last year of my GI Bill to take electronics and learn those systems, which are purely logical devices.  I was very good from the start and soon was teaching my teachers, when it came to computers.  I finished the two year course in one year, taking the first year in the morning, the second year in the afternoon and then doing the equivalent of graduate work in computer programming by designing operating systems and data bases during my evening hours.  My average was over 100 in many courses and I literally had a perfect record at that institution.  I think my understanding of logical systems, in particular computer systems, is as good as any person on the planet.   If chosen to attend your university, I will promise to be an exemplary student and to make myself useful to all. 

Even though I have studied the philosophy of space and time for my entire life, I never thought that I had anything important to say.  I now think that I can add to the present conversations involving the philosophy of space and time, especially in cosmology, and I would like to gain access to this process.   While studying the philosophy of space and time at Texas Tech University, I stumbled upon what appeared to be a simple solution to the many complex views of space and time.  In the early '70s I had only philosophical arguments.  There was no evidence to support my model and I wasn't interested in starting an argument.  I needed to get a job to support my family and the answers seemed so obvious to me that I felt someone would soon see the same thing.   So I put the problem in the back of my mind until the Hubble Space Telescope began to bring in evidence in the '90s that I had predicted in the '70s.  The results of those observations and new evidence in other areas led me to develop the gravionic model of physical systems, which resolves most known problems in science including the relativity/quantum rift.

The best thoughts in the world, if contained within a single mind, are of no good to society, and could easily be lost forever.  For any thought to have true value, it must be circulated within the appropriate "communities" so those peers can judge and criticize.  In that respect, I would like to learn to publish many of my original ideas in the proper papers and in the proper ways.  I have lived outside the academic community for many years and thus, in some ways, represent a "virgin" viewpoint.  I have many original ideas and believe that I can offer a new perspective to many philosophical arguments old and new, yet I understand little about the social and political processes that work in any academic community. My "workshop" has always been some lonely trail, with water and rocks and plants and animals "teaching" me about themselves.   The only way I know to resolve this problem is to remove myself from nature and immerse myself in an academic community, so that I can learn the skills necessary to communicate with the rest of humanity.  As bad as I hate to leave nature, I now feel I have a responsibility to humanity to share what I have learned.

I am an older student (53) and thus I feel I have several advantages and several disadvantages over the average applicant.  I have had a very difficult period this last year with the death of my only son, and I have had no time nor desire to study for, or take the GRE or GMAT.  Issues of philosophy are all I can think of and I don't feel these tests are appropriate for someone my age, whose education was obtained many years ago.  These tests are designed to separate various students near the same age and going through the same process, by testing their ability to retain knowledge.  But the essence of philosophy is not about obtaining knowledge, although that is important.  The essence is more of gaining wisdom from that knowledge.  I did take the MCAT in my third year, and although I don't remember my scores, I know they were higher than the average score accepted into medical school that year.  I would submit that my excellent academic background, my years of practical experience including a year in Viet Nam, my years of logical computer work (including the design and implementation of data bases, operating systems, computer languages, and application software), and my imagination offer a combination that will excel at any university.  I've already proven that I love philosophy enough to think about it for decades, a statement few of your other prospects can make.

Another reason I don't think any test can determine who might become the best philosopher is because I think many of the "rules" of science are wrong.  All of science and all of mankind's knowledge are actually models of reality that are constructed to help us better understand the world around us.  Even our very thoughts must, in some way, be models of reality, not the reality that they model.  Thus all knowledge is based on models that we make, both in our minds and on "paper."  If I am proposing a new model of scientific systems, then answers that might be wrong under the present model of science might be right under a new model.  Any answer that I give drives me to a predicament.  Do I answer the question with the truth, under the new model, or with the "truth" under the current model that is accepted?  As an example, what if a question asked, "Is entropy increasing?"   I would have to answer, "No," because entropy is not increasing.   Each universe is philosophically moving towards order under the gravionic model.  Any universe, when viewed from the appropriate viewpoint, clearly shows that all physical systems within that universe are making more order, by making more connections of gravity as time passes.  I believe that I can prove these statements with physical evidence and philosophical arguments, once given a full and fair hearing over an extended period of time.

I realize that I offer a difficult path for any university that might accept me.  On the one hand, any university that brings a unified model of reality to science must be considered among the top universities.  On the other hand, any person that claims to have a new model of science must be considered suspect, in the least.  The problem lies greatly in the fact that any unified model of science must effect every area of science and science has become so specialized that no one person can keep tract of all the different areas (Look at the specializations just within Philosophy).  Who can be the judge?  As an "outsider," I have had the luxury of studying everything "from afar," while always trying to see a unified model.  So, instead of having one or two people try to "grade" the gravionic model, I would prefer to work with the entire scientific community of the university in an effort to try to meet any and all challenges to its usefulness, the true measure of any new model of science.  I would also like to work within the mathematics community to develop the supporting mathematics I have envisioned for the gravionic model.

The final disadvantage I feel I have is the fact that I have no professors to write me a reference.  When I attended Texas Tech, I sat in on numerous classes of different professors of Philosophy, but only one professor knew of my love.  I have tried to find him for several years, but apparently he moved to South America.  The people at Texas Tech have been unwilling to help me (they claim they no longer "do" the philosophy of space and time) and being out of academia for so many years has left me with no one to offer a reference.  Therefore, I must use the few friends that have known of my work and can speak with objectivity of my abilities.

As far as my goals, I have many things that I would like to accomplish.  Academically, my work has great influence on every aspect of science.  As an example, the gravionic model shows that every chemical reaction is first and foremost a gravitational event.  Since I know of no chemist that ever considers the gravity of his reactions, I think it is something that must be addressed if mankind is to truly understand the world around us and to ever control the connections of gravity. I would like to be able to argue within this, and other communities of the necessity of understanding the role of gravity in all real events and physical systems.  Examples can be given in all areas of scientific endeavor and most importantly in medical care.  So I see myself working within the academic community for the rest of my life to challenge the minds of all present by trying to help them better understand the relationship of the connections of gravity to all real events.  What I love is helping people be the most they can be.  A lot of people currently in science could be better at what they do, if only they better understood their assumptions and the rules by which nature must abide. 

The gravionic model has shown me that even the "every day man" can understand and think about great things.  The gravionic model, when understood completely, is very exciting and can be used to motivate people to learn more about the complex world around us.  Thus I hope to initiate a new age of philosophers, comprised not only of those people who care to obtain degrees in this important subject, but hopefully generate a new love of philosophy resting in the common man.  I want to include children as young as six in a philosopher's club that helps guide them in moral and philosophical thought.  In some ways, the most important thing a society can do is to support and protect their philosophers.  Our society has seemed to lose its respect for the role of philosophy and I think the infinite cosmos model and the gravionic model of physical systems can be used to re-ignite the fire within the population for the study of philosophy. I think this would be good for philosophy and our society.

My desire is that I be judged by the philosophical papers that I have already written.  Most of these papers are several years old and represent my past work.  Once accepted to an academic community, I would expand many of these papers and write several new ones.  Papers currently on my web site at www.micromike.com include The Philosophy of Space and Time which details the philosophical limitations of nature and then proposes the gravionic model of physical systems (GMOPS) as a model which would correct the imperfections that exist in the pre-gravionic model of science.  This paper also asserts the contention that E=gmc² is the proper equation for defining the energy and limits of any real physical system.   Some Philosophical Observations on Cosmology (SPOC) investigates the philosophical problems inherent in a single big bang model.  This paper proposes the infinite cosmos model and shows that big bang events (BBEs) occur when black holes become too large to contain the energy held within.  Dear Das Gupta is a paper that uses the G forces contained within a racecar to argue that all real events are gravitational events.  The Philosophy of Animal Slaughter takes a lighthearted look at the value to our society of eating animals.  The Music of the Heavens suggests a new and primitive relationship between particle physics and music.   A short Aside on Evolution defines the difference between the principles of evolution and the mechanisms of evolution.  Then a comparison is made between the evolution of life on Mars and on Earth.  Frame Dragging is a short paper that discusses the prospect that nature "drags her feet."  From C to C² is the first chapter of a book designed to answer all of the questions asked in "A Brief History of Time."   The Asteroid Capture Project proposes that we learn to capture wayward asteroids in high Earth orbit so that they can be mined for resources while providing a new destination in space to encourage mankind's rise to the stars.  A Critical Review of the Treiman Report examines the logical problems associated with meteorite identification "rules," and points out the logical imperfections in Dr. Treiman's report that the Frass Meteorite is not real.  And finally, Lights of Thought is the first paper to propose that all thoughts are gravitational structures and events.   

I am currently working on several other projects including The Evolution of the Biologic Computer that details the mechanisms of several of life's computing systems. The LogSpaceShip project is dedicated to reinventing the microprocessor by using philosophical rules and the experiences of nature, rather than just commercial viability as a driving force.  The recent death of my only son has led me to a book, "Who Killed Aaron Moore? - A Philosopher's Look at the Death of a Son."  I'm also very interested in space travel and I have decided the only way that I will ever get to space is to develop a gravionic concentrator myself.  I now think I know the missing "link," if only the mathematicians would help me.   Most of my life, I have had an intense desire to finish Bach's "Art of the Fugue."  I don't know if I am any closer to this goal, but I haven't given up hope yet.  And finally, I have been working to remodel all of electronics under the gravionic model, and have suggested a gravitational timing mechanism for the soon to be upgraded VLA telescope, even though I doubt they have listened.  All of these projects need input from others for me to make more progress. 

 A version of this document may be found online at www.micromike.com/stmtprps.htm where all the links are active. www.micromike.com/gradmenu.html will take you to the graduate application menu of my site.  Thank you for your consideration.

µmike