29 May, 2017

Building the Left




Where will we find the resources?

What must be our policies?

Who should we target?


The approaches pursued by the Left for decades have never been effective!

Yet, the circumstances over the last 25 years, and increasingly since the economic collapse of 2008, could not have been more conducive to an informed, vigorous and appropriately-directed push, within the Left, to finally marshal the forces to change things fundamentally.

The Social Democratic "Left" has invariably revealed its total inadequacy to the necessary tasks, and when they get the chance to act, merely line-up with the Right to make the Working Class pay for the current, irreparable mess that is 21st century capitalism. When they get into power, even with a mandate from the Electorate to dump Austerity, they simply betray-and-administer that essentially the-very-same Austerity.

They are totally bankrupt politically - observe France!


"François Hollande's vision of an anti-austerity Europe was just a dream"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/francois-hollande-anti-austerity-europe-dream


What is needed is a real Socialist Agenda - for the End of Capitalism! And, the resources to do it must be the Youth.

But, we must not be diverted into social-adjustments, which do not permanently address the real problems. The issues of Gender, Race, Jobs and Health must be predicated upon the fight to change the Capitalist Economic System.

Capitalism - if essentially left unchanged, can only make the situation worse - observe Trump!




It's got to go - this must be our Prime Objective.

All the many consequent evils of that system must still be pursued, and even more vigorously, BUT with an insistence upon these necessary political objectives.

When seeming allies warn against bringing politics into particular struggles, drive them out: they don't agree that Capitalism is the major engine for all our problems, and any gains they make will be both inadequate and temporary.

We must bang the drum for Real Socialism!

Oppose any inwards-turning or purely local "suggested solutions", whether they concern Racism, Jingoist Nationalism, Gender Equality or even Defence of the NHS. All of these battles will be lost without economic change. All must be centred upon the main thrust of Socialism!

And, the Youth will be the Vanguard.

Recruit them within all activisms as polemicists and partners for the Main Purpose! For example recruit Moslem Youth, Black Youth, Unemployed Youth, Striking Youth, Demonstrating Youth, Student Youth, Homeless Youth, Young Musicians, Young Artists and Youth at Music Festivals.




They must be our forces for change!

But, we must also be serious about Socialism. We must know what we are talking about, and why. We must be Marxist!

We must understand what we are fighting and what we will need to replace it with.

And the time for this type of struggle is NOW.

25 May, 2017

The Fake "Prevent" Initiative




Yesterday (see below), I wrote about the Manchester Bombing in the City in which I was born and brought up, and about the responses literally across the board, commending a "we will not be intimidated" response. Literally everybody interviewed blatantly ignored the real causes in a constantly repeated hymn to so-called British Values and Intransigence.

How dare they include us in their guilt, and their way of coping with it! We didn't cause such an inhuman reaction: they did.

And, when it couldn't be avoided any longer, they finally got around to what was already being done, and could in future be done, to combat the rising tide of militant Islam, among Moslem youth. And, "everyone agreed" it was this Prevent Initiative, only more so, that would do it! What a proof of both blatant lying and implacable incompetence.

As if such a web of their lying words could gain-stay the real causes of such hate, namely intolerance, racism and even imperial invasions, as have been, and are still being carried out by the Western Capitalist Governments across the Middle East and North Africa.

And a whole range of people from Politicians, and Experts-on-Terror, to even "moderate Imams" were paraded out to support this mockery of a policy.

"Prevent!" - such a fake smokescreen merely covers up their real motives -they somehow want a quiet and quiescent Middle East, so they can get their valuable OIL cheaply and in peace.

The only valid policy, is for the Left to recruit moslem youth in large numbers into the anti-capitalist fight across the World.

Workers of all countries must unite against the war mongers and the murderers!

For Socialism and Freedom!

Manchester Bombing: Who is really to blame, and what is the solution?




I have to say I am disgusted with the reaction of the Prime Minister, other political leaders, many celebrities and literally all the media to the bombing in my home city! Bleeding-heart "sympathy" and rigorous seeking for the perpetrators can never be a solution.

After all, these people actually commit suicide to further what they believe in. What could have possibly pushed them into such a final crisis?

There is but one solution: You have to remove that cause. And, not a single contribution, in almost 40 hours of a positive avalanche of "comment", has even mentioned the clearly evident causes.

First Cause: there has been the crucial colonial conquests, interventions and even full-scale invasions in Moslem countries such as Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and even Bosnia Herzegovina, should have made clear that a coherent, and aggressive agenda was being pursued by the West.

Second Cause: it is the major global area for the production of OIL! Colossal supplies of that vital substance still reside under many of those countries leading to resource wars.

Third Cause: global inequality, the regular recessions and failures of capitalism, and now the current-and-still-devastating 2008 event, is causing havoc in Western Capitalist Economies, and so scapegoats-are-required!

And, guess what - Moslems are easily recognised and are pouring into Europe to escape the current wars in their countries.

So, why are these causes not being addressed?

It is because the capitalists cannot change what they are doing. It is imperative for Capitalism-in-Crisis! Absolutely NONE of the supporters of Capitalism can do anything else.

But, the Enemies of Capitalism, and the leaders of Working People everywhere, the Socialists, and, only they, can act! We can give workers of all countries and creeds a much better commitment than that offered by the Extreme Islamists by instead welcoming everyone to:-

Both Live-and-Fight for the overthrow of the True Enemy, and for the establishment of countries that are both for the people, and ruled by the people.

Our success in such an historical imperative is the only way to remove those pernicious causes of terrorism.

21 May, 2017

Latest Wolff


Marxism: A generally applicable philosophy




Greetings, friends, comrades and colleagues.

I have a perhaps surprising message to bring you from my occupation.

For, I came to my present political stance not only from my criticisms of Capitalism, or even from how it treats my profession, with regard to Funding or Training, but primarily from the inadequacies of the current stance in my field of study, Physics.

I am a professional physicist, and the current stance in that subject, trumpeted loud and long, in almost every University worldwide, and pursued vigorously at great expense with things like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland, all the way to the Space Policies of NASA in the USA, which are, without any doubt, the results of a major, doomed-to-failure diversion, due to a badly-flawed stance both philosophically and scientifically.

And, such damaged perspectives and policies are not limited solely to just my profession: the malaise is endemic throughout the whole range of investigative disciplines from Economics to Biology, and Sociology to Chemistry. The philosophical stance, across the board, has backed itself into a whole series of related crises, which cannot be transcended by any of the usually-employed means. Our Culture in such areas is heading for a collapse!

Now, it might be wondered why I am bringing this up here, to an audience with mainly political concerns. "What have the problems in academic research got to do with our general concerns, which actually affect absolutely everybody?", for such seems to be a perfectly justifiable response. Well, they are intrinsically connected. And, the debilitation of these disciplines is a serious problem for everybody, considering what has to be done.

We are in politics to transform Society in fundamental ways, and we will need intellectuals on our side, in the building of the World that we seek.

Now, it is not by chance that the investigative disciplines have been diverted into their present dead-ends. Ever since Hegel's revolution in Philosophy and Marx's conversion of those gains into Materialism, the natural allies of that switch just had to be these intellectuals.

But, though it happened in Economics with Marx's book on Capital, it didn't happen in the other disciplines, and especially in the Sciences. For, the fact that these disciplines were historically totally staffed with people from the privileged classes, made it easy, via the similarly-staffed Universities to maintain the Old Order, and keep any revolutionary developments out! There were occasional exceptions, of course, but they were few and far between, and their privileged audiences were generally not enamoured of what these "mavericks" had to say.

And, in my professional discipline, Physics, the unavoidable crises were the most devastating, and the "solutions" employed, the most debilitating. The prior amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism, which previously underpinned Science, was radically modified by dropping the most important of the three - Materialism!

At the Solvay Conference in 1927, physicists accepted the suggestion of Bohr and Heisenberg to drop Physical Explanations, and rely instead only upon Formal Equations, as the actual drivers of Reality. Clearly, all that remained was Pragmatism and Idealism: the former kept Technology going, but only idealist speculation was left for the development of Theory.

The tales about Multiple Dimensions and Strings of Pure Energy, along with inventions such as Wave/Particle Duality, all fitted up with purely abstract Forms from Mathematics are indeed accurate pillars of the now universally subscribed-to Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Explanations of the prior sort are gone, to be replaced with unfounded Speculations, based upon Formal Equations alone.

Now, "All very interesting!", I here you say, "But, how does it affect our primary concerns?"





Well, it does, because the Philosophy that is the foundation of the serious critique of Capitalism, namely Marxism, has finally not only completed Marx's intention by recently delivering The Theory of Emergences, but, in addition has also torpedoed, once and for all, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. The shackles limiting Physics have finally been cast off. And, not only Physics, but all the other disciplines can henceforward develop as real reflections of the Reality they study, for the cornerstone of all the sciences, Physics, has been liberated!

These, and many other, contributions have been being published, monthly, on the Internet in the SHAPE Journal over the last 8 years, amounting to over 700 papers in 100 Issues






18 May, 2017

Issue 49: The Tree Metaphor - Modelling Human Knowledge






This issue looks at various analogies for the evolution of human knowledge, and how they might reveal where we have gone wrong.

Can we establish a sound metaphor for how we usually establish Human Knowledge - a Model or Pattern for how we do it now, and maybe how we should do it in the future?

The purpose of such an idea is that it delivers an overt Model for how we have done it, heretofore, which, at the same time, gives us a basic framework, to enable us to both criticise and improve upon it, independently of the content that we pack into it. Put in another way, we are attempting to make clear the philosophical bases for this vital process, which are, usually, not only implicit and undeclared, but also rarely even questioned.

17 May, 2017

David Malone & Chaos Theory


Revisiting David Malone's High Anxieties documentary from 2008 (you can watch it below), he seems, at first, to blame the collapses in social situations to ordinary people's own-and-increasing lack of confidence - their damning negativity, but, he then moved on to explaining that negativity upon to the discovery and vocabulary of The Mathematics of Chaos. 





He also recognised a generally-adopted Prejudice-of-Safety, which he put down to the prior widespread belief in Stability, as the absolutely necessary norm for Reality - for it, alone, seemed to allow the delivery of both reliable Predictions, and effective human Control of natural phenomena, via a mechanistic Newtonian-Laplacian kind of causality (taken from Mathematics).

But, clearly, the main assumption in such a stance, was the idealist-belief that what happened in the Real World was wholly determined by wholly-separable and eternal Formal Laws.

Remarkably, in the documentary, dominated by images of the debris of crumbling, abandoned factories in what had once been flourishing, industrial cities like Detroit, Malone sticks to his "revelation" that absolutely nothing is exempt from the ultimate inherent Chaos latent in literally everything that exists.

It is easy to see why some people, including Malone, are so pessimistic.

The only possible conclusion seemed to be, "Give up now, you'll never do it!", for you can't do a thing about it!


Detroit

Malone, and seemingly his version of the rest of humanity, are all locked into a philosophical Dead End, totally ill-equipped to deal with such cataclysmic events. There is not the wherewithal, in their assumed stances, to suggest anything that could possibly be done about these unavoidable calamities: "they are inbuilt into all aspects of Reality!"

But, of course, he is wrong!

The universal stance, which he tried-and-failed to accurately describe (and blame?) is not the only possible position to take philosophically. If you study Philosophy, with a view to equipping yourself to actually get closer to understanding things, you can trace its development from the Pragmatism of early Homo Sapiens with, "If it works, it is right!", down through the Idealism of the Ancient Greeks, as shown in both Euclidian Geometry and Formal Logic, and then to the beginnings of Materialism with Aristotle.

All of which, surprisingly, then co-existed with prior stances for literally millennia, which were due to the universally-subscribed-to Principle of Plurality that crucially made all causative factors separable-from-each-other, so that they could (though only very occasionally) be extracted as eternal Laws.

But, even, at the very outset of this adopted amalgam, the Greek Zeno of Elea did discover-and-reveal (in his famous Paradoxes) important contradictions, due entirely to this messy-and-incorrect mix-of-stances, but, even he had no idea what to do about it. Indeed, it wasn't properly addressed for a further 2,300 years. And, long before that turning point was finally reached, Mankind had found a pragmatically-effective way of "making-it-all-work-out", by imposing a version of Plurality upon defined and controlled areas of Reality, which they had constructed deliberately to reveal, as clearly as possible, a single, targeted, causative factor.

Now, this turned out to be a major breakthrough, because it enabled the reliable use of what could then be extracted, as long as the situation-for-use exactly replicated the prior situation-of-extraction!

Indeed, without further developments, this important change enabled the whole Industrial Revolution via sequences of processes, each one delivering only a single causative factor, so that after sufficient of these stages, the required, "predictable outcome" was finally achieved.

And, it was this that enabled the mounting growth and dominance of factory-based Capitalist Economics!


Abandoned factories in Detroit

Now, Malone seems to be totally unaware of this trajectory, and instead, can only mistakenly-identify its definite undermining via "discoveries in Mathematics". But, all his conclusions are only true, if all the underlying conceptions and consequent resultant Laws are assumed as being absolutely true.

And, that they most certainly are not!

The amalgam of Idealism and Materialism, made "possible" by Plurality, and the flaws of this illegitimate amalgam, got around by the regular use of Pragmatism, was bound to generate multiple contradictions.

The resultant Dead End was true only if such a mixed stance really did reflect Reality.

And. the initial proofs that this certainly wasn't the case were delivered by Hegel around 200 years ago, when, on the basis of the very different Principle of Holism - "Everything affects everything else!", was able to show that Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts were inevitable with the current mistaken pluralist stance, and even showed how such impasses could be transcended by the seeking-out, finding and correcting of the underlying premises that had led inevitably to these dead-stops in Reasoning.

It was, of course, his assumption of Holism that alone gave him a handle upon the real situation of Reality, and which led to the addressing of qualitative changes - impossible with the pluralistic fixed-and-separable Natural Laws.

A very different stance was established, which had complex mixes of causal factors, which didn't merely "sum-unchanged" in varying amounts, but, instead, actually modified one another, until some sort of balance was obtained, which invariably consisted of the dominance of one of them, within a balance of the rest!

Such a situation, which mostly only changed as a variability, around a single dominant relation, was defined as a Stability, which had the appearance of being both predictable and permanent.

BUT, in fact, the actually simultaneously-acting multiple factors could not be extracted as they really were.

And the one-factor-at-a-time method that had been developed, always gave different factors to the ones actually acting together in unfettered Reality-as-is.

So, the sequence of processes, one for each factor, though they produced an end product which could be predicted, NEVER delivered what unfettered Reality-as-is would deliver naturally.

And, most important of all, the times when the Stability in the Real world situation was finally undermined by small but crucial qualitative-changing of the contributory factors, for then, things changed in a major qualitative way, which could never be delivered by the pluralist methods described.

Hegel realised that a situation under study in the real world, without both the simplifications and idealisations into separate processes, would instead by a varying nexus of factors, emerge often with two exactly opposite possible dominances, and which of these predominated depended upon the changing mix of contributory factors.

His studies of such situations, which he termed Dialectics, could identify these opposites and consider what might occur due to the particular changes involved.

He termed his method the Interpenetration of Opposites.

But, of course, there was an important handicap! Hegel was an idealist, so he was speaking only of Thoughts, whereas these alternatives were much more generally true. Indeed, as I have slipped into describing them above, as of Physical processes too.

So, to do more than be a criticism of Formal Logic, Hegel's Dialectics had to be transferred wholesale to a Materialist stance - a task begun by Karl Marx.




Thus, the whole analysis of the situation which Malone was attempting to deliver, in High Anxieties, was like asking a non-scientist to explain Quantum Physics. Neither he nor his supposed audience would have ever been equipped with what is necessary to address such questions, and, of course, social positions with a whole array of political beliefs as well!

07 May, 2017

What is missing in Žižek’s Marxism?





When attempting to deal with someone like Žižek, you are constantly trying to cope with, both a way of thinking, and a whole consequent vocabulary, that are saturated, nay determined, by his still-idealist premises. He claims, of course, to be a Dialectical Materialist - a Marxist, but that is evidently just the coat-and-hat that he feels it necessary and comfortable to wear.

And, it is made even more difficult, when there are parts of his stance that you not only agree with, but would have to defend alongside him, against the massive consensus, which takes a very different position upon these shared premises.

The most evident shared premise is, of course, Dialectics. But, much more basic than that, is the shared subscription to the Principle of Holism, rather than the consensus belief in the exact-opposite - the Principle of Plurality.

The trouble is that Marxism, or more correctly Dialectical Materialism, was not totally and finally defined by Marx, for he had a Social Revolution to prepare-and-organize for, and much still had to be done to maximise the reach and power of this revolutionary attempt, to ultimately unify both Philosophy and Science, into a single coherent, comprehensive and consistent stance.

For, in spite of Michelet’s brilliant History of the French Revolution, the task not only required the full participation in such an epochal Event, but also the professional Knowledge and Understanding of a scientist, to be able to move towards a generalised, indeed, a true comprehensive stance.

And, the main trouble is with crude, basic Holism!

For Holism and Plurality are a Dichotomous Pair of alternative concepts - indeed, the extremes generated as the result of incomplete premises as Hegel himself had crystallised in his Dialectics - the more real-and-active alternative to Formal Logic, in dealing with Abstractions. Indeed, “Ultimate Holism” as embodied in “Everything affects everything else”, is true, but totally unusable, in almost all circumstances: for absolutely Nothing is fixed, and in its most basic application - absolutely everything changes along with everything else, all the time.

How could any sort of Reasoning be possible on that basis? And the answer is, “None!”.

The possibilities of a kind of Reasoning were, however definitely achievable with the opposite concept of Plurality. But, Plurality - as it is usually defined, is yet another crude concept, for it assumed that all elements to be used, in any way, MUST be fixed: so that they don’t change at all!

The cornerstones of Plurality are the ideal-fixed-forms of Mathematics, and the eternal Natural Laws of Physics. So, as long as these incorrect assumptions are made, some progress in dealing with complex mixes seem possible.

And, it certainly was in Mathematics, for a great deal of purely formal complication was, indeed, possible: a whole world of Pure Mathematics could be built.

But, it wasn’t our World!

Major “engineering” was necessary to make our real world fit-in with Plurality. In what became known as Science, literally nothing was possible, historically, until Mankind learned how to control, modify, and maintain limited situations to approximate to a pluralist state , but only for a given sought-for relation.

And, that wasn’t all! The Greeks not only gave us Pure Mathematics, but also Formal Logic - again made possible by making Statements fixed and unchangeable too!

Now, any thinking about these crucial areas had to be by Reasoning, and so it too was severely hog-tied by Plurality.

As before, it worked in “maintained circumstances”, where things were constant, but failed miserably, when things naturally changed into something else.

Now, the reader can imagine that these ideas could be pursued comprehensively, and we could and indeed would go a very long way, if I was to carry on with it.

But, this isn’t a treatise upon Epistemology, but merely “The trouble with Žižek”, and that is difficult enough!

Clearly, for him, and everyone else, crude Holism is a major problem, and his total solution, as you might expect, is Hegelian Dialectics. But, in dealing with quantum physicists, he cannot oppose them, as he should, with ‘The Full Monty’, so he uses a combined approach with Engels’ Dialectics of Nature methods of revealing resonances between Dialectics and unavoidable opposites in the Copenhagenists’ researches and theories: the “look we are the same” technique, while, at the same time accepting their idealist retreat from Materialism!

He can do it because that is his real position too - retreating from materialism into idealism at every turn!

Not himself being a real scientist, he cannot intervene, as a Dialectical Scientist would, by resorting to concrete Reality. He cannot do that because his Holism is of the crude type. He hasn’t had to, as a true Dialectical Materialist scientist would have to do, develop holism into a new Level involving long standing Stabilities, involving multiple processes, systems of processes and self-maintaining super systems that can then act, as if they are independent of context for long periods, but ultimately are, at first, just sorely-threatened, and then defeated by Crises, with an ultimate inevitable Collapse towards Chaos.

In other words, he should have further developed Dialectical materialism, first to explain why Stabilities occur, and then, how the major transformers of such seemingly permanent states - major changes usually termed Emergences, or in Social Organisation - termed Revolutions, can transform things radically!

How can I say this?

It is because I personally have done just that, via my:-

Truly Natural Selection
The Theory of Emergences
The Physical Theory of the Double Slit
The Theory of a Universal, yet undetectable, Substrate and my demolition of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory via A Physical Explanation of Quantized Orbits
An Explanation of Energy Propagation though “Empty Space”
An Explanation of so-called Quantum Entanglement and Pair Creation and Pair Dissociation

That is what a real dialectical materialist scientist can do!


This paper is from our latest special issue of the Journal



George Galloway standing in my old home town (West Gorton)


12 April, 2017

The Grounds for a Žižek Critique




Slavoj Žižek is a world-renowned, self-proclaimed Marxist, and has produced an extensive body of work, with which he has built a world-wide set of supporters for his version of Marxism. But, as a Marxist myself, and also a fully qualified physicist, I had something of a shock when I read the chapter in his book Less Than Nothing, which he entitles The Ontology of Quantum Physics.

I had previously read his Chapter - called The Limits of Hegel, from the very same book: and though by no means in full agreement with him, did recognise his brilliant use there of Hegelian Dialectics.

He was certainly worth a read!

But, when it came to my specialism - Sub Atomic Physics, it was evident that we, immediately, parted company in a truly major way.

Žižek is no sort of Scientist!

And, that didn’t just undermine his ideas upon that subject: it undermined his purported Materialism too.

Looking back to his work on Hegel, it became clear that he certainly wasn’t as critical of Hegel as Marx had been. He hadn’t switched to a consistent Materialist stance! He was still a kind of Idealist - subscribing to Hegel’s Dialectic, but certainly NOT to Marx’s intended objective of unifying Philosophy with Science. He, like Marx before him, just didn’t know enough about Science. And, crucially he, also did NOT understand Materialism.


Niels Bohr

When the physicists Bohr and Heisenberg established the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, they were reacting to the contradictions, within their subject, due to a majorly flawed philosophical stance, by undertaking a major retrenchment - abandoning holist explanatory theories for pluralist formal equations only. They were abandoning Materialism for an amalgam of Idealism plus Pragmatism!

But, as a non scientist, Žižek didn’t even notice what that involved. He could “integrate” their ideas with his own contributions, particularly what he had taken on from Lacan.

I had to undertake a root-and-branch critique of Žižek’s position.

Žižek does not, and indeed cannot, equip the Working Class for their coming fight to overthrow Capitalism. That is a job for Marxists who are completing Marx’s objective of unifying Philosophy and Science, and providing the theoretical means to achieve that goal. But, Žižek’s version of that objective is, “If you can’t beat them, then join them!” - the opposite of Marx’s objective.

The contributions in this section are, therefore, a small set of preparatory papers giving some idea of the Ground that is, and will be, necessary.

Fuller, more-comprehensive theories are available, if required via SHAPE Journal, but if the reader is already fully prepared, reading these few grounding notes, will not be necessary.


This paper can be found in the latest issue of Shape


 

New Special Issue: The Ontology of Quantum Physics





Our 50th special edition comprises a thorough critique of Slavoj Žižek’s The Ontology of Quantum Physics from his book Less Than Nothing, including an appendix of supplementary papers, with the intention of informing the reader of the philosophical bases for this approach.

Ever since Lenin’s damning critique of the Empirio Criticism Stance of scientists Poincaré & Mach, early in the 20th century, there has been a crucial, and ever more urgent need, to “complete the job”, by tackling the mess that was, and still is, the consensus Philosophy of Physics, which for centuries has been a contradictory amalgam of Materialism, Idealism and Pragmatism.

The writing was already on the wall, even in Lenin’s time, following the discovery of the Quantum - a descrete, particle-like alternative to the prior conception of propagating electromagnetic Radiation as an extended wave - in a then still undetected Substrate or Medium, which was termed the Aether.

The decline in the Marxist tradition due to the victory of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, and the lack of any significant developments elsewhere, either theoretically or organisationally, was mirrored by a steady decline in what was termed “Theory” in Sub Atomic Physics, as the mounting contradictions in the “New Stance, “ led to increasing amounts of Pure Mathematics, propped up by unfounded speculations - from Superposition, Quantum Entanglement, and Physical Singularities, to String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, Super Symmetry and even Multiverses!

Surprisingly, increasing numbers of self-professed Marxists lined up to even embrace the New Physics, and even to claim that it was “Dialectical”!

Clearly, the long awaited tackling of Science by Marxists, would also be the only means of its own salvation!

In Cambridge University, self-professed “Marxists” like Gliniecki, along with many others in the United Kingdom, were now extolling the virtues of Copenhagen, and even the “Marxist” Žižek has written a Chapter entitled The Ontology of Quantum Physics in his recent book - taking a similar line.

But, enough is enough!

This fake Marxist must be exposed for what he is, as part of the major task of defeating the Idealist Copenhagen Interpretation, which is now vital. It must be taken on, and completed NOW!

And, after many years addressing this very task, this Marxist, who is also a physicist by profession and experience, as well as a published philosopher, will now commence the final assault by demolishing Žižek.

10 April, 2017

Wilczek's Supersymmetry



The Ultimate Abstraction of Abstractions


Having been somewhat misled by Frank Wilczek's Origins Lecture at ASU a couple of months ago - entitled "The Materiality of the Vacuum", into thinking that I had found a like-minded critic of Quantum Physics, as I too stress the reality of some kind of Universal Substrate, I soon found that I couldn't have been more wrong!

For, in his Lecture at The Royal Institution in London, Wilczek's actual stance could not have been made more clear - he sees Pure Mathematical Form alone, as being the sole determinator of Reality. And, in this Lecture, he reveals, very clearly indeed, what he occupies himself with to the exclusion of all else.

Indeed, in spite of his admissions elsewhere that Natural Law may once have been very different, he doesn't hide his total subscription to the Principle of Plurality (which, most certainly, contradicts that belief), and, nevertheless, makes it the absolute centre of his work! And, he puts it all in a way that any mathematician would immediately recognise and agree with.

He calls it Symmetry, but defines it in a very special way that legitimises, not only the established Standard Experimental Method in Science, involving its rigorous "farming-and-control" of conditions, so that only a single component cause is purposely sought and displayed as clearly as possible - thus enabling its easy extraction, AND, consequently, the also-unavoidable processes of transformation and simplification, as well as those involved in idealisation, which he excuses on the ground that they do NOT transform the underlying eternal Natural Law.

Now, such a position can only be true, if and only if, the World is pluralistic, for only then will any extracted Laws be totally eternal and fixed.

But, if, on the contrary, the World is actually holistic, then "Everything affects everything else", and all the inflicted transformations upon a situation DO indeed change things significantly!

So, what is Wilczek really working upon if it isn't Reality-as-is? It can only be the parallel, reflected World of Pure Forms alone, which we call Ideality - the formal, purely-descriptive realm of Mathematics.

Indeed, in his very clear exposition, at the Royal Institution, he even uses the very processes which I criticise, namely Simplification and Idealisation as his approach's primary virtues. For, within his chosen realm, Ideality, they are indeed true: but, of course, it isn't Reality, for it contains not only absolutely NO concrete entities - it is Pattern alone, but also a vast extension of formally legitimate patterns and dimensions - impossible in concrete Reality.




What is involved here is the re-institution of the seeking of so-called Absolute Essences, which alone determine Everything. It is out-and-out Idealism.

But, it isn't always immediately evident what he is doing, for he describes it somewhat differently. He emphasises Beauty and Symmetry as Reality's deepest "forming" principles. "If it is beautiful, it must be true!"

And, his legitimisation of what he reveals is based upon the concept of "Transformation without Intrinsic Change", and this is crucial!

For, in mathematical transformations within Ideality, there are indeed such things, and Wilczek promotes them to the very highest levels of profundity: they become (for him) the causal engines of Reality. His simplified, abstracted and idealised forms are what makes Reality what it is... He has abandoned Materialist Science for a totally idealistic stance.

It is no wonder that the kit he depends upon for process-able data is the gigantic Large Hadron Collider, regularly powered-ever-higher to colossal energies, as the only source of potentially new events to take his theories further into the highest possible level of Idealisation - namely Super Symmetry!

I was mislead by his concept of the Materiality of the Vacuum, in which he scarcely mentioned his idea of the composition of his Substrate, for that, mentioned only very briefly elsewhere, turned out to be the Gluons for which he received his Nobel Prize in 2004.

His audience at the Royal Institution, were dead silent (apart from laughing at his jokes) for the whole lecture! It wasn't just abstract: it was multiple abstractions of prior abstractions - he had lost the majority of his audience in Ideality in the Infinity of its formal relations.

22 March, 2017

Maths-first Science? II




Not Mathematical Form But Physical Content

Now, with diametrically opposed premises and physical contributing entities, delivering the Copenhageners' formulae, by a non-Copenhagen means, will not be straight forward.

Instead of the Wave/Particle Duality and Uncertainty Principle, this alternative will be primarily physical, and will produce the supposedly anomalous behaviours by interactions between Particles and an affective and responsive Universal Substrate, which will indeed produce wave-like disturbances, and recursive effects upon the causing Particles, depending upon interactions with crucial physical conditions.

The Key phenomena for us, as they are also currently for the Copenhageners too, will be the series of Double Slit Experiments. But, the processing will NOT resort to the idealist Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory at any point in either the explanations or the predictions.

Now, the key departure from Classical Physics in the Copenhagen stance is in having "The Particle" as an inexplicably transformative entity, ranging from something like a classical Particle, to alternatively behaving according to wave-like properties. BUT, and this is very important, there aren't any actual Waves.

For, the trick used by the Copenhageners, is that Wave Equations are used to give only Probabilities that the "Particle" is currently in a given position. Indeed, the Wave Equation will deliver probabilities for every single position (literally off to infinity), though, of course, these will be prohibitively low for more distant positions.

It is NOT a physically valid use of such an equation, which was established for delivering disturbances over an extensive range of an existing and affected medium.






And, given these Copenhagen equations, it is impossible to derive from them some conception of a physically existing situation, and, even more inadmissible, is the conception of the Collapse of the Wave Function, which occurs when the ONLY entity involved, reverts to being something like a classical Particle once more.

Their key entity is a magically transforming "beastie" that can switch from acting like a descrete particle to delivering a seemingly "wave determined" performance and vice versa.

How on earth, you might well ask, could, and indeed did, the scientists involved arrive at such an amazing and impossible concoction?

These two questions deserve full answers!

The only way the wave-like behaviours could possibly match measured Reality, would be because some form of real waves are involved. But, the scientists taking this position insist that there is no medium, so that is not possible in the classical sense.

But, the second part of that key question, as to why they did devise this concoction, was because their faith in Formal Equations surmounts any purely physical conceptions. They believe that forms can be found to fit everything that exists, AND, crucially, and idealistically, that these forms actually drive Reality. They have embraced Idealism, and abandoned explanatory Materialism!

So, how would a materialist explain their success (for their amazing amalgam does predict sufficiently well for things to be achieved)? Now, to answer that important question properly, would involve a clear understanding of what Mathematics actually is, and how it relates to concretely-existing Reality.

This work is already available from the writer of this paper, but cannot be inserted-in-full here. But, it can be more briefly explained in terms of Description versus Explanation.





Historically, Mankind had noticed recurring patterns or Forms, long before he had any idea at all as to why they occurred. Indeed, the first serious and extensive intellectual discipline, Mathematics, was an entirely descriptive undertaking. And, its power, in allowing predictions, resided in the universal occurrence of various describable patterns. The very same pattern could occur in very diverse circumstances, and for very different reasons. In other words, describing how something behaved or appeared in a given pattern, could never, YES NEVER, explain exactly why it took that pattern in those precise circumstances.

To do that you had to be schooled in a very different discipline, namely Science. To claim to explain phenomena, purely on the basis of their evident Forms, is an Idealist position, whereas actually explaining situations, in terms of entities and their properties, is a Materialist position.

Clearly, there is a causal relation between forms and nature, but it is only one-way. Forms do not determine Nature, but Nature does determine Forms.

So, our objective is possible, even though the vastly different premises involved are likely to confuse the unwary! We must proceed from a sound materialist base to explain why the Copenhagenists idealist formulae can match Reality, even though they cannot produce the Reality in themselves!

Let us, therefore, establish our materialist basis despite, as yet, not being in a position to prove all that we assume.

To justify this claim, I am pressed to remind readers of the example of James Clerk Maxwell, who, despite not knowing the nature of his assumed universal medium - The Ether, still managed, via his devised model - based upon significant objective evidence, to develop his world famous, and still used, conceptions and equations of Electromagnetism.





Though Absolute Truth is never available to us, the increase in Objective Content, parts or aspects of that truth, are indeed both possible and successfully useable in both Theory and in Practice.

The key assumption is, like Maxwell's, the existence of an existing, but currently-undetectable, Universal Substrate, and based, once again like Maxwell's, upon extensive knowledge such as Energy Propagation, Electrical and Magnetic fields, Pair annihilations and Productions, and the ubiquitous Action-at-a-distance (as with Gravity).

Now, clearly, the pseudo-science of Copenhagen-type Wave Equations is here replaced in these premises by actually-caused and recursively-causing Waves in this Substrate. Without any other assumptions at all, absolutely ALL, yes every single one, of the anomalies, occurring in the Double Slit Experiments, were removed immediately, by this premise alone!

The main exemplar explanation involved a moving charged particle (for example) causing a disturbance in the Substrate, which was propagated in all directions, including towards the Slits, at the Speed of Light (much faster than that of the causing Particle). These disturbances would reach BOTH of the slits and pass through, so that after diffraction at those slits, would cause the propagations to cross one another, and set up an interference pattern in the space beyond.

So, when the Particle itself arrives, it will pass through either one of the slits but then encounter its self-caused interference pattern, and be deflected or not, depending upon its passage through the pattern.

Consequently, the final striking, on the detection screen, would be determined by its passage through, and, over a series of such Particles, they would build up the observed pattern on the detection screen.

Now, we must remember that the disturbance was caused by a single tiny particle, so, it would not be strongly maintained, and the insertion of any measuring device in the area beyond the slits would cause many, and much stronger, disturbances, which would totally dissociate the interference pattern, and allow any following particles to pass through in the classical way, and give a very different pattern on the screen.

So, instead of the idealist Collapse of the Wave Function, we have, instead, the collapse of the interference pattern in the Substrate, for good materialist reasons.





Now, my objective is clear: with thorough-going theories for the propagations in the suggested Substrate, for the diffraction at the Slits, and for the kind of "interference pattern" within that Substrate, we will have alternatives to use overall to predict the Pattern on the screen, and we, like the Copenhagenists will use overall methods to do this. But, this time real particles will be considered, travelling all possible paths, to deliver a predicted pattern on the screen.

The particles will NOT be switching between an implicit Wave and Particle nature, they will be causing Substrate effects, and being caused by Substrate effects (also affected by the Slits) to traverse various possible paths from straight through to various degrees of deflection.

But, straight forward classical Wave Theory will not be sufficient. The Substrate will NOT be a classical continuous, elastically-connected Medium!

It will, however, be sufficiently similar, for the Classical Theory to approximate to what happens. But, other demanding criteria have required a very different nature to this Substrate. To deliver all the other requirements (as briefly mentioned earlier), the substrate has to deliver Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy in Quanta! And, this demands a Substrate composed of Units, with similar properties to a Hydrogen Atom (say): that is particles composed of two, mutually-orbiting sub-particles, with internal, promoteable and demote-able orbits. And, to compound the felony, these particles would also have to be undetectable in every possible way.

Immediately, such a substrate will NOT be like an elastic medium, where the composing units bodily oscillate to hold energy, and behaving naturally due to elastic connections, pass it on. The energy will, instead, be held internally as in atoms, and propagation will involve promotion to a higher orbit via externally supplied energy, immediately followed by the demotion of that orbit, to give up the energy to the nearest adjacent substrate unit.

Now, that requires something else too... It cannot be a gas - it just wouldn't work!

It would have to be in some very closely, if loosely, linked association, with adjacent units of the substrate.

And, the units undetectability infers that they are completely neutral, and hence the usual means of Substrate association would not be available.

Now, finally, we just had to suggest a unit for this Substrate, but, once more, referring to James Clerk Maxwell's model of the Ether, it isn't necessary to get it absolutely right. What has to be achieved, though, is a particle that theoretically-at-least, could indeed deliver the required properties of the resulting Substrate.

So, this theorist devised an Empty Photon - a mutually orbiting pair consisting of one electron and one positron. And as these were of opposite charge, and opposite matter type, yet identical in size, they would differ from a Hydrogen atom, in that the two subunits would symmetrically orbit one another, in a shared orbit.





And, as they would occupy exactly opposite sides, this would make certain properties available.

The charged sub-particles would both be as far away from each other as possible, yet each one would be right at the edges of the joint unit.

Also being neutral identical units such as these could approach one another very closely indeed! Close enough, in fact, the sub-particles within adjacent units to briefly affect one another. And as both would be orbiting, the effect when extremely close would be a sinusoidally varying attraction/repulsion cycle.

If undisturbed the two substrate units would remain close together oscillating towards and way-from each other, and remaining within a tiny separating gap.

A loose, but binding association could form undisturbed units into what I call a Paving!

But, in addition, and significantly, any energetic passage through such a Paving, will, at least, temporarily dissociate the Paving back into separate joint-units, and will, in addition, cause vortices of those separated units to be formed around, and be left behind such a vigorous interloper.

Interestingly, any constantly repeating motion, like an orbit, will be continually re-encountering its own vortices, allowing further energy transfers in both directions between orbit and vortices, which will naturally settle into a stable balance, when the two speeds are harmonically related.

This has made it possible to explain quantized orbits in atoms, entirely without any recourse to Copenhagen premises whatsoever!

So, having established something of the suggested Universal Substrate, and some of its already known features, it may now be possible to identify what must be done in a non-Copenhagen way, but without some of the past contradictory assumptions, to map onto a non Copenhagen way of "explaining" Copenhagen theories and equations.

14 March, 2017

Interference and Interaction in a Neutritron Substrate





Let us consider both the Interference within a Neutritron Substrate, and, thereafter, the effects of such a Substrate, both a normal undisturbed one, and one involving an interference situation, upon any interloping, charged particles, for example.

The interference in a Neutritron Substrate will be very different from that in a classical medium: for here, the individual units do not usually move about: they stay in relatively fixed positions with respect to one another, and do not pass on propagated energy as a transferable oscillation of strongly (elastically) connected and already-oscillating, whole substrate units, but, on the contrary, as transfers of internally-contained quanta of energy, between adjacent closely positioned and relatively loosely-connected substrate units.

Indeed, a propagation is extremely rapid, traversing, sometimes enormous sequences of stationary units, in a bucket brigade fashion, "like a veritable hot potato being immediately got rid of, as soon as it is received, by each temporary holder in a line of tender-handed people".

Though the quanta are held (briefly) in a promoted internal orbit, there is nothing to keep it there, and it is immediately off-loaded to the next immediately adjacent and as yet un-promoted next-unit-in-line.

BUT, and it is a big but, "What determines the direction of transfer, for every substrate unit will be surrounded by many others?"

It has to be the incoming direction of transfer from the previous unit! Somehow, this must direct the then transfer to only the adjacent unit on the exact opposite side from that of the incoming direction.

In other words the direction of transfer will be retained throughout a series of transitions. Something of that prior direction must influence the immediately subsequent direction.

Let us say that a small movement of the unit itself must be involved in the transfer, which moves it towards only one adjacent unit, so that is the direction of subsequent transfer: it moves to the closest adjacent unit, and in turn, gives it a small kick as it transfers the quantum. And, this in turn-after-turn, moves the receiving unit closer to the next unit in line, which will then be the natural receiver.

But, where do all these kicks com from?





In fact, its only one kick, passed on from unit to unit, literally forever - like the transferred impulse in a Newton's Cradle, but with no losses. And, for this to be the case, all that will be required is an initial directional impulse along with the initial transfer of a quantum into the Substrate.

Now, switching from propagation of pure energy to the effect upon the Substrate by an interloping particle, such as an electron. It will merely plough through and, depending on its speed will leave a narrow or wider path of units dissociated from their weak connections to the Paving, left behind separately. Yet, these tracks don't last long, as they very soon naturally re-associate.

And, such a path-through will be pretty straight.

But, things will be very different if the traversed Substrate contains a maintained interference pattern within it, due to colliding propagations (as in the Double Slit case). For, we know exactly what happens there, and, as it is surprising, indeed classically inexplicable by the usual means, we must explain it.

Clearly, depending upon its path through the pattern, the interloping particle will be affected in a range of ways, extending from "Not-at-all" to "Significantly, left or right", with all possible gradations in between included too. What occurs can only mean that the interference pattern is affecting the particle in different ways depending upon its path.

The Copenhagenists have the Wave/Particle-unified-entity interfering with itself, but that is idealist nonsense. The particle is being affected by the actual changes in the physical substrate caused by the interference of the two waves emanating from the apparatus's two Slits.






The question, of course, is, "How?"

Now, this isn't another example of normal classical Wave Theory!

How could the Substrate units be so changed by the process of interference to selectively affect the traversing particle in such an organised range of ways?

It can only be in the orientations of the units' internal orbits!

So, instead of the amplitudes of sinusoidal oscillations either adding up (in two ways) or totally cancelling out, we must here have a "similar pattern of interactions, but with the orientations of the internal orbits of the substrate units involved.

And, thereafter, when the interloper passes through, it will be let through when the orientations are effectively a random mix along that path, but, alternatively they can all be aligned, and deliver a summing series of deflections to the traversing particle, which moves it out of that channel, and into the ajoining channel.

Juicy! Innit?

New Special Issue: At The Bottom!





This new edition presents a collection of papers on our various explorations of the bottomost levels of reality, and why we have got it so wrong.

Immediately I am forced to ask, “Why is it that the clear idealism of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory has now ruled the roost for a full 90 years?” And secondly to wonder “Why haven’t we, as Marxists, as materialist philosophers, defeated this position long ago?”

Are we to really believe that Yves Couder’s brilliant experiments alone were sufficent to finally turn a corner and allow us to carry this through to completion?

I have been a supporter of the Marxist stance since I, as a young man studying Physics at Leeds University in the 1950s, became profoundly disillusioned with my chosen subject. It was my intuitive opposition which led me to Lenin’s powerful book Materialism and Empirio Criticsism in 1959 and to joining the Communist Party. Yet sadly, as I was still an immature youth and was never equipped by my colleagues and comrades to tackle these difficult problems, only very slowly did I realise that the primary objective of Marx in abandoning Hegelian Idealism for what he termed Dialectical Materialism, was clearly to directly unify with the best practitioners and theorists of Science - and even to this day, this has never been achieved.

In fact, Lenin’s great book, written well over 100 years ago, was the last significant contribution in that absolutely crucial area. Yet, the very tendency in Physics, then led by Henri Poincare and Ernst Mach, against whom he was arguing, was the very same tendency that developed into Bohr and Heisenberg’s final irrevocable retreat into Idealism.

Why on earth wasn’t the job done before now?

11 March, 2017

Maths-first Science? I





Use before understanding!

Introduction

Currently, Physics is seemingly embroiled in an irresolvable crisis, and to understand how it arrived at this desperate juncture, it is necessary to go back to its historical sources, and understand its initial and continuing motivations, and, even more importantly, its intellectual origins too.

From Man's hunter/gatherer origins he had effectively conquered the known World with his dexterity and intelligence, coupled with a single practical tenet, namely, "If it works, it is right", or, in a word - Pragmatism! Remarkably, with experience, intelligence and some basic arithmetic, Mankind had created Agriculture, Irrigation and even metal-working, and also, for its ever increasing trade, built roads, canals, and even sea-going ships, to supply their fast-growing cities.

Even Pyramids of colossal size, were constructed, as well as temples and palaces, and then giant empires were built across many countries. At a certain juncture in this trajectory, and focussed in the City States of Ancient Greece, Mankind began to create an intellectual aspect in its cultural life, going beyond, but still built upon, that same Pragmatism. 





And the first developable intellectual discpline which was realised was Mathematics, or to bemore precise, that foundation stone of Mathematics, termed Geometry.

Observing both nature and his own works, Man discerned certain patterns, which recurred over and over again, and via "drawing" them in the sand, or on paper, he idealised them into Pure Forms, which could then be studied, as such!

Remarkably, these idealised extractions could, in themselves, be studied and indeed sequentially related to one another, so that a new, extended intellectual discipline was created of seemingly endless range and complexity.

It was a remarkable creation, for it certainly did not exist, as such, in Reality, but did, at least partially, reflect aspects of Reality, though ONLY in a descriptively formal and idealised way. And, crucially, it could also be used effectively, if approximately, to predict certain kinds of outcomes!

Such successes caused it to colour our thinking in general! It was the immutability of the ideal forms that seemed to enable the proliferation of both its processes and its regular extensions. So, when the same approach was applied to Reasoning - involing the implications of statements, it led to Formal Logic, as another seemingly infinitely extensible intellectual discipline. An idealised and manipulate-able parallel world, of useable reflections, had been shown to be possible, and began to grow at markable rate.

What had been involved, in these developments, was a brilliant extension of that process, which Mankind had been doing for millennia - a process which became known as Abstraction.






It extracted something from Reality, which could be, thereafter, effectively be used in Thinking, even though no individual abstraction was ever a fully comprehensive account. What it did contain, however, was often extremely useful: for it invariably had a significant measure of what is termed Objective Content.
The consequences, when the very same methods were applied in the observation of Reality, were, therefore, pre-determined. Abstractions, once again, extracted something of value, but in the form of unchanging entities and their fixed inter-relations or Laws: what was extracted and used were seen as fixedobjects with eternal Natural Laws ONLY affecting them - and, in the usually fairly stable unchanging circumstances, these were real reflections, and could be used effectively.

Of course, to begin with, such naturally stable situations were limited to things like the Observation of the Heavens, but slowly, Mankind learned how to control or "farm" local domains of Reality, into simplified and artificially maintained, stable situations that could indeed be processed effectively.

Science too was therefore inevitably built upon the same foundations. Indeed, the most profound, but unstated common premise involved-throughout, was the now standard idea of unchanging essences, and this later became known as the Principle of Plurality!




Early Methods

Now, early science, could not penetrate Reality very deeply: indeed, most observations and even measurements were superficial: they could not analyse Reality, but took it as it presented itself, and at best, when it was varying, Man could find ways of holding it still, and so making dependable measurements of that.

So, apart from dimensions and maybe weight, no underlying causes could be revealed. Gradually, though, overall conceptions began to be imagined such as Temperature, Pressure and Energy, but these were not seen as properties of individual constituent parts, but of the complex thing as-a-whole. In other words, early Science was, generally, entirely of this overall nature. And, even when it began to be realised that there, indeed, were constituent units making up a whole, it still wasn't possible to measure all the individual parts, and sum their effects.

Only overall, resultant values were measurable.

Now, as better means of penetrating things more deeply became available, various methods of relating these overall measurables to the constituent parts were developed, as were means of relating what could be determined from constituent parts to things measured overall.

A parallel suite of techniques to indiviual part measurements was developed to relate the two. It took the general title of Statistics, along with a means of top-down interpretations were part of the system, termed Probabilities.

Now, this short excursion was necessary, as it was an alternative to the a more general method of analysis, involving layer-below-layer, increasingly-detailed analytic revelatons, until some ultimate fundamental causing entities were finally reached.





That approach, termed Reductionism, soon dominated, though it was never carried through completely: instead it was just conceptually-assumed, to underpin all partial investigations. And, the same approach took all found relations, as direct consequences of Laws at a lower level, and so on level-below-level, until at the bottommost, fundamental level, there would be the final eternal Natural Laws generating all of Reality via a hierarchy of consequent levels.

So, wherever possible, this would be implemented, at least partially, and when it wasn't, the reliable Statistics and Probabilities were resorted to instead!


The Final Crisis

Now, though usually ignored as being merely due to current ignorance, there were many intractable anomalies in the results obtained, due to the various differing and even contradictory premises and philosophical stances, that had been adopted by different groups of scientists doing different things.

But, the consequent, overall amalgam survived by a division of the participants involved, into different specialisms, who did their bit, within their particular stances, and passed over their results to other specialists, to be used as they saw fit!






Addressing the Massive Conceptual Crisis in Physics

Now, this admittedly cursory introduction has been necessary, in order to tackle the significant retreat adopted in Sub Atomic Physics in response to the perplexing discovery of the Quantum, on the one hand, and the increasingly unavoidable anomalies and contradictions on the other.

In fact, the most basic definitions seemed to be being totally undermined, as Particles seemed to, sometimes, act like Waves, while Waves, occasionally, appeared to behave like descrete Particles.

So, the tendency that depended upon, and trusted most, the embodiment of discovered relations into Formal Equations, knew that they, as always, would be able to mirror all phenomena in such Forms, and denounced Explanatory Physics, at least, at the Sub Atomic Level, as mere self-kid.

Reality was said to be determined by formal equations (Natural Laws), and they would be found in this area too.

So, the reason for this writer's preamble will now become clear!

Bohr and Heisenberg, along with many others, gradually achieved their formal claims, by using Probabilities and Wave Equations in a physically unjustifiable ways. There is a name for such tricks in Mathematics: it is termed a frig!

There was NO underlying physical explanation for what they achieved, but, the ancient and still existing "If it works, it is right!" justification was used to finally dispense with all explanations other than "Obeys this equation!"

The new stance was termed The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its increasingly-emerging clear inadequacies had to be papered-over with an increasing number of speculative inventions, and further abstract extensions in Pure Mathematics.
Now, some physicists still refused to submit, including Einstein, but neither side had the faintest idea what in physical theory itself, had been the problem.

For, the problem was most certainly the Pragmatism-driven amalgam of contradictory premises, upon which Classical Science, Formal Logic and even Mathematics had all been built.

But, the key pragmatic botch-up was certainly in Sub Atomic Physics, where Materialism, Idealism and Pragmatism had been patched together upon the same premise of Plurality, with "If it works, it is right!" Indeed, it could only exist by repeated separations into distinct "specialisms", with defined and limited spans - all created at the precise points where blatant contradictions became unavoidable. But, of course, they were avoidable - by setting fixed boundaries exactly where the anomalies presented themselves, and "agreeing to differ" with co-operating colleagues in adjacent specialisms.






Indeed, throughout the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of the consequent form of Capitalist Economics in the 19th Century, Science had merely become the "Richest Mine" of new discoveries for Technology's proliferating and profitable applications. There were "sound financial reasons" for the necessary blinkers!

So, try as they might, the Classical lobby could not defeat the Copenhageners.

They were simply too philosophically ill-equipped to do anything about it. David Bohm, and later the neo-Bohmians, tried with their suggestion of an accompanying Pilot Wave to every elementary Particle, but nothing theoretically was achieved.

The problems went far deeper, and unless they were made clearly evident and tackled head-on, absolutely no progress would be made.

Yet, 200 years before, the German idealist philosopher, Friedrich Hegel, had, in his Thinking about Thought research, begun to tackle the iniquities of pluralist Formal Logic, based, initially, upon the Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts that had, 2,300 years earlier, led the Greek, Zeno of Elea, to formulate his famous Paradoxes - based upon the alternatives of Continuity and Descreteness.

Hegel unearthed multiple Dichotomous Pairs, which always brought Formal Reasoning to a dead halt - to a logical impasse, which could never, rationally, be transcended, but were always pragmatically "got around" by suck-it-and-see try-outs of each alternative to see which allowed a transition to further reasoning beyond the impasse. Absolutely no explanation of why that worked was ever revealed: it was a purely pragmatic (if it works, it is right) get-around!

But, Hegel found a solution: he unearthed the differing premises of each of the Dichotomous Pairs, and by correcting what was amiss or inserting what was missing, he healed the wound and restored a continuing Logic, at that point at least!

He also, as a holist (the direct opposite of Plurality) opened up the Dichotomy into a range of possibilities, both ends of which could dominate in differing circumstances, and even flip from one to the other, dynamically, at crucial overall transitions in complex situations. He developed the Interpentration of Opposites method of seeing complex situations from BOTH opposite points of view, and so began to get some sort of grasp upon Qualitative Change, which Formal Logic could never deal with.





But, Hegel was an Idealist: all things considered were only objects of Thought, while most answers could only be found in concrete Reality - that is by materialist scientists!

This was realised among Hegel's followers - The Young Hegelians, including both Feuerbach and Karl Marx, and they switched over to becoming materialists, while retaining Hegel's brilliant discoveries termed Dialectics.

In fact, Marx began to construct what he termed Dialectical Materialism, to distinguish it from the so-called Mechanical Materialist mish-mash of the current scientists. His objective was to create a Union of Science and Philosophy upon his new stance.

But, in spite of his wonderful contributions in History, Politics and Economics, he didn't ever get around to that crucial central task. His Mathematical Manuscripts revealed his efforts to get to grips with the other side, but as a mathematician and physicist, myself, it is clear that he didn't manage it.

It was simply too much to ask of a single individual, no matter how dedicated he was.

So now, we have another slant upon the current Crisis in Physics, as well as a direction of necessary research, but as both Marx and Lenin proved, it would require investigators who were professional mathematicians and scientists, who had also been won to Marxism, and, crucially, fully understood its philosophy and methodology.

Now, when put like that, it seems the required investigator has to be myself, but, committing to doing it is much easier said than done, for though I called myself a Marxist when aged just 19, it has taken me over 50 years of high-level research in my primary professions, namely Mathematics, Physics and Computing, with a career finally ending up as a professor in a world class University, before I finally believed I could do it.





In fact, I have already developed a non-Copenhagen Theory for the Double Slit Experiments, produced a definition of a Universal Substrate that can poropagate Electromagnetic Radiation in quanta, and deliver both Electrical and Magnetic fields subtended around initiating charged objects. I have also explained quantized electron orbits within atoms, without resorting to the Copenhagen stance, and am currently tackling Quantum Entanglement!

The reason it took so long was that I didn't really understand Dialectical Materialism, until I was forced back into studying both Hegel and Marx by demanding research into the Analysis of creative Human Movement in Dance. Not only did that research reap valuable rewards in those studies, but helped myself and my co-researcher win A British Interactive Video Award for excellence.

So, finally, after a long and necessary justification, I can, at last, begin to address the only research that would be considered valid by the Copehagen opposition [for they are convinced that their philosophic stance is totally adequate, no matter what I say].

But, arriving at their frigged formulae via a totally antagonistic set of premises and explanations, may just do the trick!
To be continued in Part II...