16 September, 2018

Jim Al-Khalili and the "Two-Slit" experiment

Al-Khalili has learned nothing on the Copenhagen Interpretation of The Double Slit Experiments

In a recent lecture (see the YouTube clip below), Jim Al-Khalili repeats the usual Copenhagen Interpretation of the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, and his arguments have not changed one iota.

The video is captioned: "If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you.." 

Well Jim! Have you seen our video?

Many years ago I listened to an In Our Time radio programme presented by Melvin Bragg, in which a gaggle of prestigious supporters of the Copenhagen Interpretation of that same experiment, put forward an identical account. But, neither version could transcend the contradictory accounts of particles "sometimes acting like Particles, but at other times acting like Waves".

Ever since Zeno's Paradoxes in Ancient Greece, applications of Formal Logic to certain puzzling scenarios would always end in such contradictory endpoints - entirely inexplicable in Formal Logical terms.

The problems were not trivial!

They were caused by a founding principle of both Mathematics and Formal Logic termed Plurality.

And, the reason that this crucial flaw was never addressed was because the Greeks purposely limited their intellectual disciplines to concepts and things that did not change - they remained the same qualitatively.

And, perhaps surprisingly, it proved to be an extremely empowering stance to take! For, assuming, or even ensuring, such stability in situations, certainly made them predictable.

First, this was the essential Foundation Stone of Mathematics - and legitimately established a whole new and extendable discipline, absolutely-valid for things that remained the same qualitatively: it enabled an effective Discipline of Forms and their Quantities.

But, its powerful methods of Extension and Proof, persuaded the Greeks to carry them over to a system of reasoning, later termed Formal Logic: so the new discipline could only be applied to concepts that did not change.

The logical contradiction of the Double Slit can be traced back to Ancient Greek Philosophy

This same supposition was also embedded in the initial approach to Science too.

In fact, NO real attention was given to this important disability, for about 2,300 years, when Hegel finally realised that Qualitative Changes were just NOT addressable within Formal Logic as-it-then-was, and he determined to unearth as many of these Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts as he could, in order to find out their disabling bases.

He was successful in a whole number of cases, where he found that both concepts in such a Dichotomous Pair arose from the same-inadequate-premises, which would have to be changed to turn the usual non-transcend-able impasse, into a transcend-able Logical Fork.

Now, following this initial success, a great deal more has followed, enabling a major transformation of Formal Reasoning to include the tempo, processes and even the causes of truly qualitative changes.

Yet merely the application of Hegel's initial discoveries, to the Double Slit Experiments, would be sufficient to address every single anomaly of that confusing evidence. For, the mistaken premises can be both incorrect or actually missing: and the inclusion of a currently undetectable Substrate within those experiments did indeed physically explain everything!

Michelson-Morley disproved Luminiferous Aether

Now, of course, no such Substrate has ever been found, and the Michelson-Morley Experiments had seemingly banished and then denounced that assumed-to-be-present Ether, as non-existent. But, that did not banish any currently undetectable Substrate that was, nevertheless, both affected-by-and affecting-of interloping entities.

Every single anomaly was easily explained by assuming auch an intermediary.

But it had to be established that such a Universal, yet-undetectable, Substrate could both exist, and, deliver physical explanations of everything involved. It was initially undertaken to establish, theoretically, just such a Substrate - composed entirely of various mutually-orbiting pairs of Leptons, with diametrically opposite properties.

The first of these was a stable version of the Positronium, which was re-labelled as a Neutritron. This was a remarkable entity, neutral in every way, which could exist in three different modes and associations, and also be dissociated back into its separate components - one Electron and one Positron.

A very loosely-associated medium, termed a 'Paving', was possible, which could propagate Electromagnetic Energy at the Speed of Light, but could also be dissociated into its individual Neutritrons - identical to Photons, which could behave like a random Gas, or be driven into energetic Streams and even into Vortices.

A Substrate of particle-pairs like the Positronium, could be an invisible medium for EM radiation

Now, every kind of Substrate Unit was, because of their mutually-orbiting nature, also capable of carrying quanta of electromagnetic Energy via the promotion of that orbit: and could deliver such quanta by the demotion of their orbits.

And, elsewhere, it has been possible to explain the quantized orbits of Electrons within Atoms, by the dissociation of the Paving, and driving of Neutritrons into accompanying Streams and Vortices, which because of the constant return of the driving electrons, can find stable orbits wherein the net transfer of energy between electron orbit and maintained vortices arrives at a balance via stable maintained radii.

I could go on, but my sole purpose here is to counterpose the above Physics to what Al' Khalili peddles.

What do you think?

11 September, 2018

Science without Mathematics?

Explantion versus Description

People often think of Science and Maths as synonymous, but it wasn't always this way.

Let us define early Science in simple terms, from its foundation-period when substances and their properties began to be defined. Certain properties appeared to be intrinsic to a particular substance, while others seemed to be more universal - being appropriate to a variety of otherwise seemingly unrelated substances.

And, in addition, certain different things seemed to affect one another in various ways, so attempts were made to explain what happened in such interactions, usually in terms of the known properties of the participants.

Indeed the idea of Cause-and-Effect became what was sought in such interactions.

Also, the same substance, such as Water, can clearly exist in various different modes: the commonest on Earth being as a Liquid, but in extremely cold conditions, it could freeze into a Solid- called Ice. Whereas, in very warm conditions it could apparently disappear, and if concentrated heat was applied to a container of water, it would very clearly turn into a transparent Gas, via boiling.

Clearly, explanations were sought, but initially finding and expressing such things were often extremely difficult, and sometimes even impossible, at least until more was revealed about the substances being considered. The biggest gains were made by those who sought practically-useful-outcomes from their investigations: not so much asking "Why?", but as to "How?" things behaved as they did.

Mankind's remarkable Hands-and-Brains enabled them to undertake things all other animals could never even try. And, from Man's Hunter/Gatherer period these simple beginnings of "Science" were crucial. Even their ancestors had begun to "knap" Flint in a series of new ways (or Cultures) to gradually perfect the development of Spear and arrow-heads to allow hunting-at-a-distance, and Fire was also conquered, at first as found blazes due to lightning, but then made by frictional means. By only some tens of thousands of years ago, Mankind had invented Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, to use his scientific findings to totally transform its Means of Life.

All this included literally NO Mathematics, but nevertheless caused the Neolithic Revolution, with a technology based upon, and made possible by the single crucial material knapped Flint - indeed the term Neolithic indicated the New Stone Age!

Yet, it had been made possible by a new way of doing things, which we call Science, BUT, already answering "Why?" was not yet always effectively possible, the pragmatic, "If it works, it is right!" dominated the only kind of Science really possible, and even with the Greek Intellectual Revolution of 2,500 years ago, this technological-bent would continue to play a major role, especially as the key first step was in the development of a simplifying, idealising coherent and developable discipline they called Mathematics.

For, this allowed the inclusion of measureable quantities, and the revealing of relations between such measurements, which could be effectively handled by Mathematical forms.

BUT, and this is important, it did not address the question, "Why was this so?" For, the answer, "Because it obeys this Equation!" is Idealist: it is a Description and not an Explanation!

Now, people still asked "Why?" and even came up with explanatory answers, but the Absolute Truth was always unobtainable: nevertheless, parts or aspects of the Truth - termed Objective Content was usually available, AND was the only route towards Absolute Truth.

So, in spite of its inadequacies this route was indeed Science, and could be regularly improved. In contrast, the Equations extracted from measured data were then totally fixed, and this prevented their correction and improvement: they were already perfect forms!

The simplification, idealisation and the fitting up of Perfect Mathematical Forms to that data made them descriptions of a related but Different World - the World of Perfect Forms alone, which is the true-and-only realm of Mathematics- properly termed Ideality! And also, therefore, subject to the Principle of Plurality, which the World we call Reality certainly is NOT!

The role of elegance (aesthetics?) skews Mathematics again

Think of the pragmatic advantages of the Equation, though.

  • It is permanently fixed: but only as long as the conditions which delivered it are never changed.
  • It fits perfectly into Technology, but NOT into Science.

It defines a useable step upon a narrow path, but says absolutely nothing about the rich, surrounding Landscape.

Science insists upon establishing everything into its natural Landscape: and in so doing explains why.

10 September, 2018

Issue 61: The Implicate Order

This series of papers attempts to draw a definitive line between the philosophical stance of physicist David Bohm, The Implicate Order, and his rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, on the one hand, and the seemingly-convergent Idealist philosophy of Errol Harris on the other, and to do so from an emerging Marxist standpoint in that crucial area.

The connections between these two thinkers were brought to my attention by my namesake James Schofield, and his thesis on the “Dialectical Holism” of the latter. His PhD deals with some interesting Physics and this introduced me to concepts such as Ontic Structural Realism, and set me thinking about Bohm seriously again. So thanks, James!

It is, and has been, very important because of the total lack of a Marxist critique of Copenhagen, via a clearly explained and explanatory superior alternative stance in Sub Atomic Physics. Indeed, this key absence has been so important that is has even frequently disabled the Marxist stance too, even politically!

For, these seemingly obscure questions always were of paramount importance from the time of Karl Marx’s split from Hegelian Idealism. For, without the conquest of Science by this new Materialist stance, it would be crucially disabled in everything else that it dealt with. Marx knew it, and intended to deal with it, but he was a philosopher and an academic historian, by training, and ill-equipped to tackle such a wide-ranging discipline as Science-in-general.

In addition, his historical studies with the new standpoint immediately required the conquest of Economics, as the touchstone for the tumultuous, indeed, revolutionary changes that were so important in the developments of Human Societies throughout History. His initial task, therefore, just had to be a very different treatment of Capitalist Economics, and the change turned out to present him with an enormous undertaking, recasting the whole of that subject from an entirely different and wholly new basis. This took him the rest of his life, and Science in general was never addressed by Marx.

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism by Lenin

The dangers of this crucial omission were realised by V. I. Lenin, when key members of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party had begun to show great interest in the positivist Physics of Henri Poincaré and Ernst Mach, which was understandable because of this evident hole in the Marxist stance.

Lenin knew, immediately, that this was serious, and he immediately set about a refutation of the Positivists in his book Materialism and Empirio Criticism - which successfully pulled Lunacharsky and others back into the fold, philosophically! But, he too was no physicist, so the hole was still not filled, and hasn’t been ever since.

Clearly, to this Physicist and Marxist that vital task is the most important in contemporary Philosophy; and this is already well underway. But the long standing historical omission of this undertaking could not but encourage committed Marxists to seek a world-class physicist who strongly rejected the Copenhagen stance, and the increasingly dominant candidate was David Bohm.

Indeed, in my youth I too sought answers with Bohm’s alternatives, but the problems in Science were extremely well entrenched and surprisingly old.

In spite of Bohm’s Materialism, there was with him, as with all scientists, a very long-standing Idealism, imported via Mathematics, and a Plurality via Abstraction - yet also and surprisingly Holism via Explanation, all amalgamated via the crucial glue of Pragmatism. This uneasy mix actually underpinned the whole of Science, and Pragmatism alone allowed a switching between different areas of study, where different assumptions “could work”.

And, of course the co-existence of these directly contradictory stances was not realised by those involved: they considered a “seemingly-contradictory-appearance” as being due to as yet not-fully-understood-areas, which would, later, be removed by new Knowledge.

But, that would never be the case, whilever this unaware amalgam prevailed.

And, the differences between Einstein and the Copenhageners, and between Bohm and the rest were all due to this congenitally-contradictory, assumed Amalgam as Basis.

So clearly, Bohm has to be dealt with, as vitally as Lenin had to deal with the Positivists, but this time fundamentally.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order by Bohm

07 September, 2018

Stately Homes II

Are they used socially in the best possible way?

After the success of What to do with Stately Homes?, I thought I better address the subject further.

Currently, quite small, individual families own these exceptionally lavish country houses, purely because they were left them by their parents. And, though some still have extensive "grounds", and even surrounding tenant farms, still owned by the occupants of The Big House, it is no longer the norm.

Now, most of these have permanently lost their Latifundia, and now seek to survive on inherited wealth, increasingly supplemented by the "House" earning-its-living, by hosting other peoples' weddings "in-temporary-opulence", or, maybe, grouse-shooting weekends, or even by paying-visitors getting guided tours around "maintained parts" of edifice and grounds.

It all began to decline, when the 1945 Labour Government decided to intervene by charging Death Duties upon inherited wealth. The owners began to sell off their tenant farms, and sack many of their servants. And, was it the Marquis of Bath, who turned part of his estate into a drive-through Lion Park? While another titled aristocrat assembled a Grand Collection of Valuable Automobiles to persuade paying-visitors to come to see them.

The Prize to be maintained, by all these means, was the Lavish Stately Home! But, even when most of the rooms were turned into storerooms for discarded furniture, the prized State Rooms were maintained "in the manner to which the Family had become accustomed". Indeed, some of these actually often house a family of 3, living like Kings in a few opulent rooms.

Where did their wealth come from?

But, surely, we also have to ask how were they ever even afforded, historically? The trouble is, "How far back do we want to go?"

Let us first take current ownerships. 

They are inherited from parents or other close relatives. But, clearly, the sizes of the owning-and-residing family, and the vastness of the stately home don't match!

We are informed that the size, historically, had to be large, to also house the considerable number of servants, looking after the family: but, that doesn't seem likely to be many - until that is you include the regular and large numbers of visiting families, who also stayed and needed both accommodation and servants too. Also, the hobbies and interests of the families involved often required large amounts of space, and involved many necessary serving workers, and, of course, stables for horses and kennels for the hunting dog packs. Indeed, some Stately Homes had to be big enough for Royalty, and their vast retinues to be housed when they visited too!

But, we are wrongly taking these Estates as given!

How did they actually originate?

They were initially the estates of the local Feudal Barons, achieved by force, but increasingly over the centuries confiscated and gifted-to-supporters by Royalty (who it seemed "owned everything").

What a disgusting legacy!

No wonder that Labour Government acted to dismantle such anachronisms.

Nobody should live like that, OR have the exceptional wealth to afford it: for none of it was ever earned. 

It was stolen in one form or another.

The task commenced in 1945 must be completed! Such resources must be socially available for the benefit of the whole population, and not some privileged recipients of inherited (and unearned) wealth.

Inequality in the UK

The inequalities of this distorted society, leave millions without the possibility of affording homes of their own, and a National Health Service and Elderly Care Service, both without the accommodation, physical resources, and funding that they so urgently require.

And, with increasing longevity, and ever increasing demands for supporting services, these vast edifices should be put into serving the elderly population, and People Services in general.

And, of course the demands for more affordable Housing, could also be helped by using associated Estates for building Council Houses in solubrious surroundings, with adequate Parks and Required Services.

Enough of this disgusting inequality!

Put such resources into what the People need.

04 September, 2018

"Closer to Truth"?

Desperate avalanche from the Right Masquerading as Seeking Truth

A large series of hour-long contributions, attempting to swing a bewildered people behind the old "solutions" under their Closer to Truth label, is everywhere on the usual Social Media sites.

I usually just ignore them, but when they imply that their overall stance is open and objective, by "considering" such a radical topic as Emergence, and then assembling a varied group of short interviews "from both sides" of the discussions upon this crucial topic, I just have to demur!

For, that isn't true!

The energetic proposers of Emergence as the true means whereby Creative and Innovative Development takes place, is principally by the Hegelians and the Marxists, but they don't get the chance to insert a single word in this "debate".

For, it is actually a carefully selected roster of usually pretty conservative academics, mostly opposers or distorters of that idea. And, NONE who deliver it as part of their developed philosophic stance.

As it is carefully and selectively erected, it is all the easier to demolish it! But, such a deceitful way of presenting it, cannot be tolerated by those who have long strived to understand its significance by swimming against the general consensus, in order to finally break through the containing enclosure of fabrications currently damagingly-restricting literally all serious intellectual disciplines upon this topic.

This contribution, in Season 3, Episode 10, of Closer to Truth, conforms exactly to my criticism: it cannot be a "debate", if both sides are not given an equal chance to put forward their main arguments.

"Closer to Truth" on Emergence

Of all the contributors, only one, Nobel Prize winner, Robert Laughlin, was able to state his supporting position upon Emergences, and he is NOT part of the coherent body of opinions on the matter, who are well to the left of Laughlin.

[Read A Different Universe by Robert B. Laughlin to get his full position]

Indeed, I am probably in the best position to comment, as I am the author of The Theory of Emergences (2010), along with many other serious and related contributions - all available for free thanks to SHAPE Journal.

The total absence of even a mention of the generally-assumed Principle of Plurality, also allows a discussion totally ignoring the "elephant in the room": for Plurality asserts that all Natural Laws are eternal, and cannot be influenced at all by any containing context. It therefore guarantees that when many are acting simultaneously, they merely sum, and hence can only produce complication, rather than-mutually affecting-one-another to deliver something entirely new.

And, when considering Systems of processes, Plurality again allows only complication and never ever real Emergences!

To totally omit even a mention, demonstrates a prior-and-blinkered agenda, just as the omission of the consistent Emergentists also does the same! Even the evident responding energies of the interviewer, betray where he stands, and picking Peter Atkins as a supporter of Reductionism was certainly not choosing a common stance upon that position. His views would generally be regarded as extreme (which the interviewer described as radical).

Emergence arose out of Hegel's criticism of Formal Logic, as illegitimately totally excluding any real Qualitative Change, and his added insistence that it was the essential component of Development.

So, when Hegel's Dialectics was transferred wholesale to a Materialist stance, such ideas led directly to attempts to explain the appearance of the totally New in Development, via a holist rather than a pluralist approach, and ultimately arrived at the Theory of Emergences, of which there was absolutely no mention in this programme, supposedly seriously addressing Emergences.

Finally, I cannot leave it there!

The study of Emergences can never be undertaken via Formal Logic, because it addresses precisely what Logic excludes.

Some types of Emergence happen all the time, as in the miraculous births of human babies, while others are one-off events that change everything, covering the Origin of Life, and the origin of Consciousness too.

Emergences are nearly always tumultuous events involving multiple Crises, but are also the only means by which the wholly New can successfully emerge.

In the Theory of Emergences, a seemingly permanent Stability starts to totter in a series of Crises, which then turn into a wholesale Collapse, plummeting down to a seemingly inevitable Nadir of Dissolutions, but then remarkably reversing into a halting, but wholly creative series of processes, culminating in a wholly new Level Stability.

The Theory of Emergences

And, such a trajectory makes the prediction of its outcome directly from its precursors, totally impossible.

Did anything of this come up in the delivered Episode 10?

Of course not!

25 August, 2018

Levels and Hierarchies

Marxist Theory on the Nature of Emergent Transitions

No-one can seriously doubt that Discrete Levels do indeed occur within Reality.

But, the Principle of Plurality (and along with it the idea of Reductionism), assume Causality to be both universally applicable and transparently evident. And, in addition, any produced Levels are transformed into merely situations of complexity-and-convenience, rather than marking where wholly creative, multi-factor and revolutionary conversions have taken place!

For, in alternatively doing the latter, it would have totally prohibited any strictly straight-forward, and always fully-revealable, sequence of causes, as being the means by which they came to fruition.

This tenet is absolutely critical!

For, such a transition, termed an Emergence, can never be directly or fully predicted from its immediate precursors, because it then will have been a never-occurred-before transition: it will have produced the wholly new.

And as I was able to establish some time ago, within complex systems of multiple, purely-chemical reactions, in my Theory of Truly Natural Selection, an extension of something similar to Darwin's ideas, but concerning non-living processes, something of what happens in these Emergences could, at least partially, have been revealed. For, in that work, something of the holist concept of mutually-affecting processes, was clearly illustrated, including the significance of both competing and co-operating processes, in the ultimate achievements of balances-with-dominances, also delivering persisting Stabilities, and even explaining the possibility of flips between exactly opposite outcomes.

So, even in such simplified cases, some idea of both the resilience of achieved Stabilities, and the true vastness of their possible crises and dissolutions, plus even the consequent re-establishment of new Stabilities - upon entirely different and wholly new bases.

A mix of pluralist eternal entities cannot really compare with a mutually-affecting mix of holist entities in the vastness of its possibilities!

Clearly, none of this is ever possible within a Pluralist conception of Reality, for from that logical viewpoint, all things are fixed and totally independent of one another. Indeed, such mixes can only ever be seen as complex aggregations of fixed entities or even immutable Laws, and hence, natural creative innovation becomes a mere complexity of pre-existing forms.

Only the Holist Stance can deliver real Emergences!

And, a successful Emergence will always deliver a wholly new, previously-unpredictable Level.

And, without a true philosophically holist grounding, such as from The Buddha's or Hegel's damning critique of Pluralist Formal Logic, the necessary approach to "Complexity" will be very different indeed.

For, without it, the rich and turbulent trajectory of an actual Emergence will never even be imagined.

Let me relate a series of findings from my Theory of Emergences, which will give some idea of what is involved.

Fire tornado

Stability & Emergence

  • Reality always involves multiple factors.

  • These factors act simultaneously, but in different directions.

  • Chaos seems likely, but instead Turbulence is produced.

  • Usually, this finally settles into a balance of opposites.

  • And, also, displays a resultant overall dominant stable effect.

  • We can call this state Stability, and it can persist for a very long time.

  • But, though it can appear permanent, it never is!

  • At some point, the involved factors will change in some way.

  • The effect will be to cause a Crisis in the Stability.

  • Usually it will be resolved by a re-establishment of balance.

  • But, a series of such Crises can follow, with a final Collapse.

  • The stability is finally totally dissociated, heading for Chaos.

  • It descends first to a Nadir of Dissolution.

  • But then, as initially, it begins to form relations into systems.

  • These generally fail, one after the other, until one persists.

  • And further such systems are achieved, and a new balance.

  • The cycle is complete a new and different stability now exists.

This level-change is a complex process, and appears incomprehensible without a holist approach to Reality. And, as described above, it is the most general description - extracted from such occurrences at many vastly different Levels of reality - where they will appear extremely different in detail, while oft-conforming to the above-described trajectory.

For example, the first analysed versions were extracted from Michelet's History of the French Revolution, by Karl Marx. Here the contending forces acting were people representing the warring Classes of that prior State-in-Revolution!

So, its embodiment at all possible Levels, down to the Sub-Atomic, as well as up to Social Revolutions, will, of course, reveal enormous differences in Content, while displaying a similar overall trajectory!

It has been applied to Capitalist Economics in Marx's Das Kapital, and to Social Revolution in the Russian Revolution, but its application generally to the vital area of Science has yet to be undertaken comprehensively, as Marx himself had always intended.

And, this undertaking is not a mere further task for Marxists, it is absolutely crucial!

As a physicist, myself, I can see that not only does Science really need Dialectical Materialism, but Marxism crucially needs that extension to Science.

With 60 years in Revolutionary Politics, always also seeking the wherewithal to defeat the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in physics, I never received what I required to attempt it.

It simply wasn't there!

But, it is now. 

The revolution starts here...

Do you want to participate?

16 August, 2018


When nothing much is happening?

When postulating all Stabilities as temporary, and all real Qualitative change as emergent, to a lesser or greater extent, as I most certainly do, then the undoubted objective of obtaining Equilibrium in experiments, before ever taking any measurements, must surely require clarification!

First, what is going on in such situations, that initially prevents that Equilibrium, and what is happening in the Nirvana of it finally-being-achieved?

The scenario described is both that in the school chemistry lab, and that confronting all early scientists.

First, whatever were our prior actions, and about which reliable results are required, and having done everything that was necessary, nevertheless, any immediately taken measurements would still be totally useless!


The reason is that they would be different, not only to everyone else doing the same experiment, but even your own re-measurements taken immediately after the first!

You have to wait. 

Because the thing you are trying to measure is clearly made up of many parts which can have individual properties of their own. So, all your initial problems are because what is sought, isn't everywhere fully there yet!

In fact, it will only be there when all the unavoidable changes caused by our actions have communicated themselves throughout what it is that we are measuring - so that the many different parts settle down to a similar state, and that is not only never immediately achieved, it is also NEVER finally achieved either.
So, even after an initial thorough stirring-or-shaking, and a further wait, a single measurement can never be trusted as accurately describing the entity as a whole.

So, many re-measurements will be essential!

And, they will be similar, but not identical.

So, what is going on, and how do we finally get our required result?

All of these experiences demonstrate that our studied thing is NOT a single totally-homogeneous-entity: it is a collection of entities in close proximities to one another. And, we want them to "become-the-same", and they do gradually approach a common state. But, their modus operandi isn't simple: they are all vibrating, and affect one another, and only very slowly, does a sharing of what we are trying to measure, gradually approach what we might call Equilibrium!

So, we take a number of measurements - at the right time, and take the average of them all! 

Indeed, if all the parts, making up our overall entity, were separated, then they would all have different values for what we want. Indeed, we will ONLY get a single answer when they are all in causal-contact and have maximally shared the thing being measured,

It can only be a measurement of them all together.

The measurement achieved can even be something which is meaningless when applied to any single part in isolation, it can only be of the aggregation of all of them together: it will be of something like Temperature or Pressure!

Such measurements occur at a given Level.

So, if we go down to a lower level, they will vanish as such, so the causal descent through many such levels leaves behind prior quantitative measurements, and look, instead, into new ones. Yet, each level delivers a similar situation - always presenting something with key entities composed of lesser components.

And totally unfettered nature is even worse!

Indeed, to have any hope of extracting anything at all, we have to impose an Artificial Stability upon a situation, as well as carrying out all the above methods to get anything useable at all! We remove as many affecting factors as possible, and hold others constant, in order to be able to target a single and extractable relation. This is the same in practically all experiments.

We have to do this because Reality is Holist- a multi-factor World, with everything potentially affecting everything else. That is why nature evolves- producing the wholly New, like Life and even Consciousness.

Yet, we "hold it still"! We stop any natural change occurring. We never study the real Holist World, because we don't know how to!

We not only impose Stability, before we investigate, but actually believe that this reveals the Essences of Reality!

But, it doesn't!

So, to justify this fiction, we sanctify the Principle of Plurality, which has all active components independent of one another, and hence simply summing in various mixes to produce all the many different phenomena. And, this Pluralist Science aims only to reveal "Eternal Natural Laws",which alone are considered to deliver that Fictional World - fictional because Formal Relations, as such, can deliver absolutely nothing in the concrete world, for they are only abstractions of really-existing influences and effects.

And, real entities with their properties and influences must be the actual causes behind such purely formal descriptions.

Now, this aberrant path does not lead into mistaken subsequent actions, because the exact conditions achieved for extractionare always replicated for use! So, Technology is well served, while Explanatory Science is certainly not!

So is that elusive Equilibrium sought to reveal the defining Stability of Reality?


Indeed, though Natural Stabilities are very common, they actually hide the complex of mutually-affecting causal factors that always can find a temporary, if long-lasting, Stability in a balance of those contrasting and even opposing elements.

And, to Understand, rather than merely Describe and even Use, Explanatory Scientists, as distinct from Applying Technologists, must seek out the Causes for all the Qualities evident in our remarkably rich World - and they are NOT revealed in formal descriptions of Stabilities whether Natural or Arranged-For (in experiments and technology).

Special Issue 60: A New Basis

The End of Copenhagen & A Wholly New Basis

The current major crisis in Sub Atomic Physics is actually the clearest evidence of a much larger, and, therefore, more general set of definitely terminal dead-ends, in literally all intellectual disciplines, and primarily resident in both the philosophic and scientific underpinnings of them all.

Indeed, an apt metaphor, for the current state of Understanding, has to be that it is like a finally totally stunted-and-dying Bush, with every single, finally- produced twig permanently terminated by a seemingly totally, non-transcend-able impasse.

Apt because it is now an entity with absolutely nowhere to go, with literally everyone switching from twig to twig looking for a way out, but always finding none!

So, both the depth of the crises involved, and the fact that the producing-situation has been in place for some 2,500 years, without any significant improvement across the vast majority of the human population, also attests to the difficulties involved in making any sort of necessary and transforming change, which could even begin to address the almost endless impasses now terminating ALL attempts at real understanding.

It doesn’t mean, of course, that there are none. Just none on this bush (in this situation): the problems were set- in-place much too long ago, on a long-passed initial twig, which has now become the supporting trunk of the resulting thicket of dead-ends!

Yet, such a devastating opening to this paper was, I’m afraid, absolutely essential, for what is required is no mere Change-of-Course, but a truly Revolutionary Transfer to an entirely different tree, currently depended-upon by no-one, but nevertheless in sight, and available, if the leap across can be effected.

Don’t get me wrong! There will be some branches, upon the dying bush, that could be effectively transferred by grafting it onto the new Stock, but all their terminations will have to be savagely pruned, and the saveable graft properly cleaved-in and wedded to the new vigorous stock.

So, let us systematically reveal the diseases involved in arriving at this dire state, which were, surprisingly, initially significant advantages, but which gradually became liabilities, as the overall entity grew significantly in size and scope.

Indeed, all of them will be shown to have the same sort of disadvantages, actually never having the more-general- applicability, with which we mistakenly endowed them, and hence becoming increasingly debilitating features.

It has been a difficult trajectory, and really nothing like our usual assumption of a simple aggregation of ever more “understanding”, ultimately destined to explain absolutely everything.

For, definitely no-such-mechanism even existed prior to the first appearance of Mankind. Thinking, as such, was a human social invention, initially pragmatically assembled, via various arrived-at-means that “seemed to work”, but were always, at best, only pragmatic solutions, in particular contexts, and never ever general truths. Indeed, they couldn’t possibly be anything else!

In the several million years of the hominid line, and, of that, the only 200,000 years of Homo sapiens (humans), Philosophical thinking only really started around 2,500 years ago. And, for almost all of that prior history the Pragmatist tenet - “If it works, it is right!” was all we had.

So, the following series of papers has had to attempt to describe that trajectory of development in a very different way - NOT as some systematic erection, but instead as a series of always insufficient attempts, all of which, at crucial points, had to drastically rebuild its foundations in order to proceed further. As V, Gordon Childe always insisted - Man makes himself!

The “available alternative bush” mentioned earlier has to deal with dynamic reality, based upon Hegel’s Dialectics, but radically altered from a system which was limited to Human Thinking, to one transferred wholesale to a materialist basis, and hence applicable to all of concrete Reality too.

The project will reveal its efficacy (and its inadequacies) in its application to Sub Atomic Physics.

14 August, 2018

The Alliance of Toffs with Yobs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the former leader of Ukip, has been criticised for inviting far-right "activist" Tommy Robinson to the Palace of Westminster.

What fuels the rise of the far-right?

And where does it lead?

Listening to the Radio, or watching TV News, may indicate what is happening currently, in the still extant aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - and by far and away the biggest since the Great Depression of the 1930s, yet no real reasons are ever given, or likely outcomes revealed.

Yet, the best indicators are very clearly available in History!

But, you have to focus on the final, dissociating crises of played-out, dying systems, as the once seemingly unassailable Ruling Classes desperately and violently struggled then, as they do now, to survive.

They were then, and are now, a tiny minority of the World's population, but they had then, and have now, both the power and the money to "run-the-show" their way. But, as that show begins to fall-apart beneath their well-shod feet, so the old performances now increasingly cease to enwrap their audiences. New ways and new alliances become imperative!

And, even the scarcely-effective organisations of the Working Class have to be emasculated and their leaders besmirched with invented lies!

Do you doubt this scenario?

Look around you!

As the Roman Empire began to crumble, the rich retired into well-defended and well-equipped Latifundia - walled enclaves, mirrored today by gated communities.

And, alliances with backward, prejudiced communities were, and still are, both fostered and financed to supply the paraphernalia, slogans, and easily-identified "targets" to be blamed for their difficulties!

What was the general solution for most Ruling Classes in the 1930s?

It was Fascism and War!

Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan and many other Ruling Classes not only established Fascism at home, but extended it vastly by conquest, in a truly World War!

Can you foresee a possible World War 3?

The inappropriate issues focussed upon by the Media (owned, of course, by the Ruling Class) must be cast aside!

The problem is Capitalism - an economic system which is dying - and the solution is Socialism!

We have to understand what is happening, and who are enemies are: the Rich are the instigators, but we must be ready for the Yobs, who they will recruit to attempt to destroy us! If they march in our streets, as they did in Cable Street in London in the 1930s, they must be defeated NOW as we defeated them then!

Tories OUT!

Socialism IN!

Organise at every level for the coming struggle! Be like the heroic Grenfell survivors - Organise and Fight Back!

Synchronicity? Google yourself a doppelgänger!

The 'real' James Schofield?

This is a little strange...

It seems I have a namesake. 

James Schofield is fairly common name. But Dr. James Schofield from New Zealand not only writes about philosophy and physics, but dialectics and holism too! I google these subjects often, and believe me, there isn't that much of interest out there, so this is a real surprise.

I don't really do coincidences. Maybe, just as I found James googling myself, so might James have found me and my work, some years ago, influencing his own research perhaps? 

I have no evidence for this particular theory, but maybe one day James will google himself again and find this post. If you are reading this James, please get in touch! No grudges! I'm reading your thesis now and it is fascinating, I think we have more in common than a name.

James Schofield.

A James Schofield that isn't me!

13 August, 2018

What to do with Stately Homes?

How can these 'country houses' be made to serve the People?

Currently, the media are overflowing with programmes on the buying and selling of antiques, which always seem to centre around the magnificent palaces of the very rich - either as venues for "Valuation Extravaganzas", or as valuable sources for Antique Dealers, turning unwanted heirlooms into cash, by returning them to those who can both appreciate and afford them!

"Because", we are informed, "these Stately Homes cost absolute fortunes to maintain", you know, "so the hard-pressed owners have grave difficulties in trying to keep their palaces in the state to which they have become accustomed!"

They even have to open their House and Estate to the paying public on special days to help to maintain their required standards.

And, the diverse sub plots, woven into these various celebrations of Grandeur, are purposely included to entrance and con the watchers and the visitors.

"This is what success can deliver for you!"

I lived for a decade within yards of a busy auctioneers, and quickly learned how they fitted in to an overall scheme. On the one hand, they were to extract unrealised treasures from their uninformed owners, at the lowest possible prices, while on the other, the object was to achieve the highest possible prices from those who could afford them, to further boost one "stately" home or another.

These programmes are among the commonest on TV, and even infer that you might be able to even do better than the emerging celebrities, who all seem to appear on a whole range of different offerings, but with the very same purposes.

It has become like the football pools of the past, when it is added to all the above, and to the increasing number of Betting Companies selling their wares over the Internet, the impression is projected that, "the next big winner could be you!"

I'm afraid not.


Its all a necessary myth, so that you come to admire rather than loath the super rich.

But, what a colossal waste!

Such 20, 50 or even 100 room palaces sitting close to so many villages, could become The Property of The People, and be used as Schools, Hospitals, parts of a University, Clinics, Old Peoples' Retirement Homes, Social Centres, Research Centres, and all the rest.

And the Estate Grounds instead of serving a tiny already over-privileged family, could be Public or Country Parks and Sports Venues, or whatever the People need!

05 August, 2018

Philosophy Reviews and Criticism

SHAPE Reviews - taking on today's biggest philosophical and political thinkers... oh and Zizek too ;)

Propagating Space

How can a void have a structure? Maybe it isn't empty...

How can space be totally empty?

The inclusion of a Universal Substrate filling all-of-space immediately removes the obvious advantages of such being totally empty, but, it also does this simultaneously with the provision of a concrete means for propagations across "the supposed void" - causally explained, at long last.

Such contradictions occur regularly in Science, and, indeed, necessarily so in a sincere quest to understand Reality. And, they occur crucially, and most obviously, for the reasons that Hegel revealed some 200 years ago. Such Dichotomous Pairs of Contradictory Ideas occur because our initial definitions are always unavoidably inadequate in some way - the most likely being due to the omission of some essential premise, or alternatively some error in an included premise. [And, for this reason, the usual general assumptions of Plurality have been jettisoned here in favour of the more accurate stance of Holism]

But also, it is becoming clear, that the assumption of an Empty Universe greatly simplified our conceptions of what could possibly happen there.

For, as soon as there is NO Empty Space, disruptions or replacements locally of that now essential underlying Substrate, can, and apparently will, disrupt, deflect or even prohibit "straight-line" propagations.

And yet, all such contradictions are explained by Hegel's discrediting of Formal Reasoning, due to its pluralist stance, which explains everything in terms of fixed properties and Laws - so the possibility of something possessing alternative and even contradictory modes is totally prohibited by that stance.

But, as we have seen in the Theory of the Universal Substrate, subsets of its producing Units can exist in various alternative arrangements with very different properties: our flawed, initial conceptions may contain sufficient Objective Content to be eminently useful in given circumstances, but will always, in the end, prove to be insufficient!

The initial problem is therefore,

"How can conceived-to-be straight-line propagation occur, with something in the way?"

Now, answering this problem in terms of point sources and a necessary straight line route to a point recipient is impossible! But, that is a formally simplified version of a real occurrence.

The likelihood is that a host of propagations will be initiated from many different positions, so some will avoid the obstructions and the effect upon the odd diversions, by the rest, will not be considered to affect it thereafter.

But, remember, these Substrate Pavings can be temporarily dissociated into showers of individuals units, which form, temporarily-at-least, directed flows, which, as soon as they can, will be absorbed back into paving-based propagations thereafter.

Perhaps this is similar to turbulence in a gas? https://gdtl.osu.edu

It would seem necessary to have a propagated signal briefly transforming itself into a mode which collectively maintains a direction through such disturbances. You can see why Photons are possible, BUT are only one of several modes!

ASIDE: Watching a lecture by Erik Verlinde, the complexities of his purely Formal means of dealing with all the phenomena at the Sub Atomic Level was evidently unavoidable due to the pluralist and idealist stance involved.

Every mode change in my way of dealing with things, unavoidably involved yet another formal method, in his way of thinking. But, what he was doing was NOT Physics, it was Mathematics, and they are NOT the same thing at all!

To promote purely formal descriptions into causes is Idealism: it makes simplified abstractions, fitted-up-to by purely formal relations, as the causes of Reality. Such theorists are seduced by the almost limitless extent of Pure Forms in Ideality, so they easily forget that Forms are never causes, always consequences.

And, of course, the original power of such forms, enabling the construction of a consistent and developable discipline, Mathematics, only works within Stabilities: any situation involving developmental changes cannot be encapsulated by such methods.

Indeed, rather than a pluralist conception, which can only ever deliver complication, there is the holist alternative, which can, and indeed must, deliver the intrinsic developments that quite evidently have led time-after-time to the entirely new emerging! Can Lego-like plurality deliver Life and Human Consciousness? Of course it can't!

Out of Hegel's insistence that true qualitative change simply must be included in all reasoning, arose the possibility of it also including the natural development of Reality. And, with the wholesale transfer of his Dialectics to a materialist basis by Marx, the possibility of Science extending its reach beyond the sole study of Stabilities, finally became possible. Indeed, Darwin's revolutionary revelation of Evolution in Living Things naturally meant that there must have been major developments in what had given rise to Life - the material World itself evolves. Can Mathematics deal with that?


01 August, 2018

A Muse upon Halton Arp's Intrinsic Redshift

Halton Arp

Halton Arp was a brilliant Astronomer, whose observations increasingly challenged the consensus theories in Cosmology. But, he more or less stood alone, and the bans on his continuing to have access to the world's greatest telescopes, and the difficulty in getting his interpretations of published observations themselves being accepted for publication, has severely constrained the propagation of those conclusions. And, as the means to obtain the best data are now almost totally restricted to multi-million dollar devices such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Large Hadron Collider, such exclusions are ever easier to institute.

The defence of past positions becomes ever easier, and genuine counter-proposals are easily shut out by peer review, and don't get effectively aired.

Now, neither I, nor anyone else, is in a position to gainsay or agree with Arp, for that would certainly at least involve a directed observational undertaking to prove or disprove his conclusions. But, Arp has found such undertakings impossible to arrange, as have many others! Yet, if only some of Arp's conclusions are true, they would be revolutionary.

Arp made his name with his bestseller - Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1966), which led to him noticing a whole series of cases, which seemed to suggest intimate associations between mature galaxies, and what seemed to be "nearby pairs of dwarf galaxies" in which their redshifts in their spectra made nonsense of such an association.  For, they alone placed the pairs of galaxies at a vastly different distances from the observer than the supposed "Parent Galaxy" - but only if the usual cause of red shifting was the correct one, due entirely to the speed of movement away from us.

Arp could suggest an alternative cause, which he termed the Intrinsic Redshift, which was not only due to the age of the dwarf galaxies or quasars, but also varied in a quantized way, with time and distance from their birthplaces! His evidence, as he has presented it, is persuading, mainly because of the seeming associations with a "parent Galaxy". For, these pairs appeared to be equidistant on either side of the Parent, and always positioned upon its minor axis!

Having noticed this many times, Arp began to purposely seek them out, and remarkably found more than single pairs involved. In fact, further pairs on the same minor axes were found, and their Red Shifts decreased with distance from the parent - NOT continuously, but in a quantised pattern. Clearly though, directed searches for certain configurations among billions of Galaxies, might turn out to present a "selected-out false generality".

But clearly, if the correct scheme was devised and undertaken, such remarkable chance conformities would be easily revealed!

Of course, if Arp were right, the whole of the current Cosmological Theory, including the Big Bang and the age of the universe, would be undermined, and new answers required literally everywhere. And Arp was aware of these difficulties, and attempted his own alternatives to the usual Big Bang scenario. Yet, literally thousands of reputations and multitudinous published papers have been produced, all over the World, by prestigious and eminent scientists. Many would have a great deal to lose if he were right!

Now, the writer of this paper, a physicist, also has an axe to grind, concerned with the necessary presence throughout the Universe of a totally undetectable Substrate, which is both affecting-of, and affected-by entities and processes taking place within it.

This too seems a very way-out suggestion, except that unlike James Clerk Maxwell's description of the then universally believed-in Ether, the undetectable units of such a substrate have been theoretically devised involving only known Elementary Particles, and with only this single inclusion, every single one of the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments have been physically explained. In addition, both the Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy through so-called "Empty Space" as also been cracked, as have the physical extension of active fields in the same situations.

Now this research is still ongoing, but it too affects everything currently supposed to occur in Empty Space, due to the densities of the Universal Substrate in different circumstances, as they also do Arp's theories. And another potential resonance occurs with the Origin of Matter, in both the new theories it comes from the pre-existing Substrate.

Clearly, both theories might be buried by the necessary research, but if they are wrong, so be it!

However, there is obviously a great deal wrong with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, as well as the consequent theories of the Cosmos, and such research might well rid us of those too!

25 July, 2018

Reviews of popular science writing...

Anil Ananthaswamy’s reportage of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory:
a critique by Jim Schofield.

Click reviews above for more.

Idealist Physics: How on earth do they get away with it?

The only valid criticism about the way Physics is currently conducted is undoubtedly philosophical.

But surely, Physics is a Science, dealing with the Real World, and therefore must be materialist... so, how can this "science" fulfil its everyday concrete functions, yet, nevertheless, continue to be essentially Idealist, in both its Theories and even in its Practice?

Well, for the bulk of its development during the Industrial Revolution that was indeed true. But, there has never been a wholly consistent, overall stance in Human Thinking. For initially, such a process, as could be termed Reasoning, didn't even exist for the vast majority of humankind's existence upon this planet: and we must never forget that Man evolved from his Ape ancestry, bringing with them their means of surviving first! For Pragmatism, and its sole tenet - "If it works, it is right!" ruled OK entirely alone, for the vast majority of that History.

So, when new things were discovered, or even contrived to work, it was by a trial-and-error method rather than being conceived of cognitively.

Absolutely NO overall set of conceptions was already in place, to receive such revelations into a meaningful structure of ideas: they were NOT explained, but merely "remembered" - often with the help of rituals and chants to guarantee no drifting away from the "magical route to success"! We must never impose upon our ancestors, the results of many thousands of years of Social Development, which were wholly absent in Early Man.

Now, most certainly, as such proliferated, there would be differences between the attitudes of those who found and used such new means. compared with those who never did.

So, whatever-could-be was compartmentalised for particular kinds of people, those that did that sort of thing. Certainly, NO overall stance covering everything was initially developed.

The Neolithic Revolution transformed the means of life of the majority of people, who now lived together with others in settled communities, rather than the prior, ever-wandering, small-family-groups, that were unavoidable with the Hunter/Gatherer way of Life. And, that transformation proliferated new areas of expertise, especially as instead of struggling just to survive, increased time to do other things within a community, allowed new specialised livelihoods and specialist knowledge to grow - but all in compartmentalised groups.

The Greek Intellectual Revolution, some 2,500 years ago, gave birth to attempts to co-ordinate all Knowledge.

But, nevertheless, in quick succession Idealism and Materialism presented totally incompatible possibilities. and though a special kind of Simplification and Abstraction emerged in Euclidian Geometry, though it enabled the development of consistent disciplines like Mathematics and then Formal Reasoning, they were all based upon an enabling imposition of the Principle of Plurality, which focussed upon Stability as the only route to Truth!

And, when an early version of Science was added by Aristotle, a remarkable amalgam of contradictory stances emerged "legitimised" by "If it works, it is right!", and an increasingly compartmentalised aggregation of Knowledge.

Indeed, the Amalgam wasn't only Idealism and Materialism, but included both explanations and descriptions brought about by Formal Reasoning and justified by Plurality, and, of course, Pragmatism. And, whenever a non-transcend-able-impasse was encountered, (indeed, where Dialectics should intervene) the simplest "solution" was just to set up a new "Specialism" or even "Subject", there-and-then, and merely ensure that such impasses were avoided by only seeking solutions withinthe newly-defined-area.

The strategy could never be a real solution, however, because, the general pluralist prohibition of any kind of Qualitative Change, naturally totally excluded the very things which could explain the impasses, and all necessary cross-discipline explanations were accordingly simply excluded.

So, with a total ban upon width-type explanations, the ancient depth-first and reductionist methods were all that remained.

And, when these too began to also cause problems, Explanation as the primary theoretical means within Physics, was also dropped, leaving only the fitting-up of known perfect forms to experimental data.

And, when these too came to a dead-end, the only recourse was to extend the aegis of Mathematics dramatically via adding to the usual 3 dimensions, and bringing in New Rules such as Symmetry to provide "new reasons"!

Now, I could track this decline in detail: after all I am a physicist, but the retreat was just too great. I'm certain there will be those who will make that descent, if only to prove me wrong, so I will leave that disappointment in their hands.

Of course, even such a criticism as this contribution involves is nowhere near enough! The demand must be for a clear alternative path, and that is now well underway. But, of course, it will not be the same path treated differently. It will have to be made to diverge long ago, probably sometime in the 19th century. And, many of the paths taken then, both theoretically and experimentally will NOT be taken this time around.

But, clearly, the environment will be the same, and literally everybody will still be involved in the old stance, and the old routes, so finding experimentalists to take on the validating of the new routes will NOT be easy. And, finding theorists to take on aspects of the new direction will also be very difficult.

But, without the last ten years of research, it would be impossible!

Significant work has been done, and surely out there, there must be someone like the young Jim Schofield, who can't stomach the drivel that they now call Sub Atomic Physics, and who sincerely seeks a much better explanation than is currently available.

Walk this way!

18 July, 2018

SHAPE Reviews

Click the button above to read more reviews of science and philosophy books and videos

Feynman's Idealism

His magnificent voyages of discovery are most certainly not-of-this-world

On noticing on YouTube, a video of a Feynman Lecture, which he had given many years ago at Cambridge University, I eagerly called it up, to see what he had to say. For, though a physicist myself, I had missed his contributions when he originally did them, as I had long ago abandoned Physics, due to the (in my view) inexcusable retreat embodied in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and had consequently turned, exclusively, to other areas of study.

Finally, some 10 years ago, I returned to Physics with new philosophic insight, with the steadfast intention to demolish the Copenhagen Stance and deliver a cogent alternative.

Nevertheless, Feynman has a great reputation, and I anticipated some "Words of Wisdom", at the very least, from the great man, so I began to watch his Lecture. But, to say I was disappointed, would be a truly great understatement: I was aghast!

It was clear that Feynman was a total idealist - believing that his mathematical encapsulations were indeed the true essences of real world phenomena. And, also that the pluralist formalism of mathematics, along with all its premises and rules, were the only way to study Sub Atomic Physics.

Indeed, he embraced multi-dimensional geometry, not only as a formal aid to dealing with multiple variables, but also as a perfectly acceptable formal framework for what was going on in the real World.

All the sound criticisms of Mathematics and Formal Logic, gradually achieved from Zeno to Hegel, and thereafter to the Dialectical Materialism of Marx, were clearly well outside of where Feynman had chosen to dwell. And, the mismatch between always simplified-and-idealised Mathematics, and a creatively-developing World, was simply "not his concern" - as also was not the main Foundation Stone of his Formalist Philosophy - Plurality!

Now, I am very clear why Feynman and the vast majority of physicists chose that route: I know because I was also enamoured in exactly the same way, when I first came across the rational power of idealised Mathematics in substantial extension of the "Truths of Mathematics" via geometrical methods. So, I became a convinced, and ultimately an extremely-able, Mathematician, until I expected it to deal with more than just Idealised Forms! For then, not only did it fail, but actually also severely misled the serious seeker for the Explanatory Truth of Concrete Reality.

It was, I discovered (by actually doing Mathematical Research) the key to an infinite World of Pure Forms alone, and absolutely nothing else - which I thereafter dubbed Ideality.

But that stance has a much greater set of supporters than just mathematicians, because the Rules of Formal Logic were originally imported directly from Mathematics, by the Ancient Greeks, following the resounding successes of Theorems and Proofs, in extending and establishing an apparently consistent and developable overall discipline, presumably transferable to all other intellectual disciplines too. So, all the significant rules-of-use of Formal Logic came directly from Mathematics, and BOTH are consequently wholly pluralist, which means they are only concerned with qualitatively unchanging elements and processes.

They worship Stability!

And they see only quantitative changes.

And, when what they require isn't naturally available, they have to construct it, and denounce all diversions from that Stability as contradictory and therefore WRONG!

Interestingly, the mathematicians' other allies turn out to have always been essential to the discipline of Physics: they are the Experimental Physicists and the Technologists - for their job has always been to provide the ideal and maintained circumstances for experiments to be always successfully conducted, and predictably completed, and also, therefore, for the so-extracted Laws to also always be in the right environments to be successfully used.

These two groups spend their lives delivering Stable Environments, in which relations between variables will indeed conform to Ideal Laws, and hence, if the exact same situations are delivered for use, also guarantee success in that theatre too.

But, these practitioners never take Reality-as-is, as their objective: it is always only their starting-point, and out-of-it, by exclusions and steadfast controls, they have to produce artificial environments with usually only a single factor still functioning. Now, it is at such points that the Principle of Plurality comes in, for such a construction delivers only an idealised situation. And, that false and engineered-for set-up CANNOT exist in Reality-as-is, BUT does indeed occur in these Perfect Stabilities, and all the rules defined in that Principle will hold only in such constructed domains, but nowhere else.

There is, therefore, a realm where such a discipline works, but it isn't Reality: it is the World of Pure-Form-alone termed Ideality, imposed upon Reality, which therefore delivers, at best, only a distorted reflection of Reality-as-is.

Feynman's world is, indeed, both rich and extensive, but it is, at the same time, both restricted-to significantly less, while also, extended-to greatly more than Reality.

Its considerable extent, and its eminently-useable pluralist reasoning, make it considerably attractive: but its prohibition of all qualitative change, means it can NEVER form the basis for actually understanding Reality!

There are two immediately evident ways of reasoning, quite apart from Rules and Method.

The first, always accompanies writing, for it is primarily directed by the current point being made: and, consequently, its extensions, as-you-write, will always be add-ons to your current point. I call it pen-in-hand-thinking.

But, the second is when you are sitting-and-thinking about as yet unresolved problems, for - you search absolutely everywhere for some way out, and find similarities and resonances all over the place. It is always during this mode, when possible solutions are actually arrived at: I call this head-up-thinking, and it is very different from the pen-in-hand alternative. Indeed, it is both explorative and adventurous and generates its own sub-problems as it goes.

I mention these two, because the former dominates, and you can see why: it starts from a seemingly universal set of premises and method, involving a supposed "legitimate" system of manipulations.

And, this is not only the case in Mathematics, but in Formal Reasoning too - the pieces in both games are unchanging, yet like Chess there seem to be an infinite number of moves, as well as terminators such as Contradiction, that play a similar role to Checkmate!