How is this to be done?

By reversing the direction of physical reasoning: The observable phenomena, which – according to usual conviction – represent the starting point of the description of nature, will be the endpoint, and that which is considered the ultimate goal of physical knowledge – the law which includes everything that exists – will be the starting point. This is possible, because the ontological and logical conditions of the primal scenario, from which everything existing follows, are of such simplicity that the law that belongs to this scenario follows conclusively from these very conditions.

If the description of nature originates, as has been the case in the historical development of physics, from experiences that come from observations of objects in our environment, then at first the elements of the description seem obvious. What could be clearer than the concept force, or the concept work, defined as path integral of force, or the concept energy, defined as ability of an object to perform work?

As the development of physics demonstrates, however, these matters of course turn out to be illusions. By leaving the mesocosm the vividness of the anthropomorphic notions fades away more and more, until at last only mathematical definitions and measurement regulations remain. At the same time, any demand for an interpretation beyond this restriction disappears. The conceptual network which originated from objective experiences and was designed for understanding nature degenerates to a mere adjunct of mathematics.

The consequence is that the interpretation of physical theories finishes up in a blind alley, from which there is – as was shown in the First Part – only one escape: the status as basic concepts must be withdrawn from some of the notions that stem from the world of things, and other concepts must take their place.

However the retreat into mathematics is problematic not only for this reason, but mainly because – as will turn out in the following – it is ultimately the difference between a mathematical object and an actually existing object which permits to answer the two questions: Why is there anything at all and not just nothing?" and "What is that which exists", and which enables us to determine this Simplest and most General from which being evolves and which the description of physical being can be derived from.

More concrete, the program of the Second Part reads as follows:

At first, the scenario is determined that represents the Primal Ground of Reality and of its description.

From this scenario follows the fundamental equation, where the denotation "fundamental" is tantamount to the postulate that everything which is derivable at all can be derived from it.

From this purely philosophically motivated and substantiated initial equation, a very short path leads to special relativity as well as to Newton's and Einstein's gravity. The according structural concept, however, changes completely in all three cases.

In an analogous way – and just as directly – the same equation is also the basis for the definition of the electromagnetic interaction.

On this basis, a simple atomic model can be created which, as far as it is carried out here, is identical with the quantum mechanical model.

Also with the electromagnetic interaction, a fundamental change of the concept of the underlying structure takes place.

Conventionally spoken, one could call the method a geometrization of physics. However it is far more: physical concepts and relations are not just geometrized – they are newly substantiated: the concepts are reduced to one single concept, and the relations are reduced to one single relation.

I will perform the reconstruction not systematically but in all cases far enough that the connections to the respective theories – in the form as they are currently understood – as well as the differences can be seen clearly.