16 August, 2018

Equilibrium





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!

Why?

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?

NO!

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.

No.

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?

No.

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!

Genetic Code Development in Hominids



The Ed Green lecture is in the second half of the video above, if you want to see it.


In this excellent recent lecture upon early pre-humans and Neanderthals, Richard “Ed” Green delivered a fascinating description of what is now possible from “decoding” the found Genomes of now extinct near- humans, and comparing them with both living and long deceased Humans.

I cannot do justice to his remarkable revelations amd conclusions, but they are all available on YouTube, and should be obtained directly, and in full, from the producing source. And, though Green does not make the same conclusions as myself, there is little doubt that what he derives from the now available evidence, takes him a long way from the prevailing Pluralist philosophical stance, and much closer to the alternative Holist stance.

For, I can draw, and indeed have-drawn, conclusions which, I believe, are extractable from Green and his many colleagues’ work, when early humans are compared with other animals, in terms of their then unavoidable “Means-of-Life! Green arrives at remarkable results for the natures of the Genome in all the early Humans and near humans investigated. They are considerably different from what happens in herd animals and also sedentary groups of animals, for they seem to bear the genetic stamp of being isolated Hunter/Gatherers, which, necessarily, imposed upon them a lifestyle of constantly- wandering small family groups, and even spread them, even at that early stage over extensive areas of the Planet.

And, such a lifestyle meant that to reproduce they would have to come across other, maybe very different family groups, from which partners were found and new mixes produced to then continue the incessant wandering.

The evidence available to Green, indicates the “localisation” of genetically different groups - not only Neanderthals, but others in both different parts of Asia and in Southern Africa, and interbreeding causing present day Genomes of particular humans to include a mosaic of features from “ostensibly-different” hominids - yet, still producing viable humans as a result!

Clearly, in spite of long periods of time, and extensive spatial separations, these populations are more like country or regional differences of today, for they all remained humans, according to all agreed definitions, and they would certainly have continued to have the same conditions and consequent lifestyles too.

Finally, if a holist stance is taken as the basis for all analyses in such developments, the emergence of the wholly new - the change to a new species, would have to involve a major crisis, which dissociated the prior Stability, and from its dissolution a new stability - a new species could result.

For, with such a stance Evolution CANNOT be incrementally achieved: the changes that occur without such an Emergence are NOT qualitative, but merely quantitative, the species has new varieties within it, but its essential nature is unchanged.

In other words, the lifestyle tended to isolate families over extensive areas. But the necessity of Reproduction also required access to others, probably forming still- separated, but communicating overall groups, which later came across one another (probably in the form of individual wandering families).

So, though such “local groups” might become extinct, something of their Genome would be preserved within surviving individuals long separated from that group by joining a still wandering group and contributing, genetically, to some its offspring.

This short paper appears in the new issue of SHAPE Journal on Evolution


Issue 60: Evolution





Here we return, at long last, to the theme of Evolution. How might our recent insights into the notion of Holist Science affect our study of biological change?

This is certainly not a full-and-final definition of an Alternative Approach to the Study and Explanation of Evolution. But, it is something of a well-informed muse upon how that might be addressed - contributed by a philosopher who has specialised in just such an approach in Sub Atomic Physics, primarily in opposing, and finally disproving the current consensus stance of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

It resolutely rejects the universally-supported Pluralist Stance, which underpins not only Mathematics and the Sciences, but crucially Formal Logic too. And, the reason for its failures is that it focuses exclusively upon Stability, not only as the underlying basis, but as the only means to expose and allow the extraction of Reality’s supposed “Eternal Natural Laws”.

It thus necessarily excludes all Qualitative Change in all its analyses, and uses only Quantitative Change - thus substituting Amount for Quality, and Complexity for Emergence!

It has, of course, proved to be invaluable in dealing with situations within such Stability, but useless in coping with Qualitative Development such as Evolution.

It is also significant that the Holist alternative to Plurality was, and is still, a widespread philosophical standpoint, particularly in Asia, and among Buddhists, for it was first extensively described and used by the Buddha in his many Suttas. But the modern version arose out of Hegel’s criticisms of Formal Logic, and was developed as a system by Karl Marx in his Dialectical Materialism.

This short collection of papers is an initial argument for the holist stance to be applied to Evolution, as it was originally defined by Marx in his analyses of the development of Human Social Systems, and their transformations in Social Revolutions. And, also as demonstrated by this writer via the application of his Theory of Emergences, in his works on Philosophy, Mathematics, Science and Formal Logic

16 July, 2018

SHAPE videos


Visit our YouTube channel to see documentaries and animations made by SHAPE Journal.

Time


“Time is invention and nothing else.” Henri Bergson
Time is not a ticking clock. It is the measure of qualitative change. 

The Time Machine (1960)

A recent BBC Horizon programme, which purports to be a serious, if popularising regular Science event, took an odd and askance view of Time, even including Time Machines and the possibility of building one. But, in the part of the programme I was able to catch, only one scientist, Lee Smolin, addressed Real Time.

For, Time is what separates incremental, quantitative science, from developing, indeed, evolutionary science: The Science of Qualitative and Revolutionary-Creative Changes. The rest talked at length about "Time" as it occurs in Formal Equations, in other words, NOT time in the Real Concrete World, but "Time" as it exists in Ideality, (along with the "Dimensions of Space", which in Ideality can be as many as you like) within the world of Pure Forms alone- the realm of Mathematics, a totally pluralist world, which can only be made to approximate to Reality in very carefully filtered-and-constrained Stabilities. For, Reality-as-is is most definitely holistic and NOT pluralistic.

Now, one of the features of the Pluralist Stance, apart from its tenet of a World composed only of eternal Natural Laws, and hence wholly excluding any possibility of Qualitative Change, or any means of explaining real development, has therefore, to be the surprising inclusion of Time at all (apart, that is, as relegated to a purely quanitative variable - as with everything else in that realm). Indeed, even when Time is included in Equations, it is only as just such a variable: "Time simply passes, proceeds incrementally, as do all other variables along with it!".

Hence, such time doesn't change qualitatively, into something else: it is more like an alternative "ruler" of merely quantitative changes in something else! Like the dimensions of Space, that of Time is similar, merely an overall context - an independant stage upon which everything happens.

Yet, Qualitative Changes do indeed happen to other variables, and the precise times when they occur are important. Indeed, using a particular quantitative variable to signal exactly when a qualitative change is due to happen (from prior experience), became a regular totally non-causal pragmatic frig within all scientific reasoning.

Absolutely NO explanation would be involved, just a pragmatic if-then insertion to a wholly new situation where the change was already ready and waiting to be involved. Indeed, sometimes a whole set of techniques can be recorded exclusively using such flips and no explanations whatsoever, in producing a required result: it is termed Technology! And, as one of my disciplines is Computing, (particularly Computers-in-Control), I am well aware of its value in Computer Programming too.

But, Time has, in all of these situations, been totally dredged of all its qualities, which are necessarily-intrinsic to literally all Qualitative Changes, but never revealed. We see Time as merely an accumulating number - an abstraction - much more easily handled, than its necessary role in many qualitative changes.

Let us take a crucial one - Birth!

In every single second, literally millions of new living entities are born.

The time since their conception is, for each type of entity relatively fixed, but it cannot be wholly embodied in a ticking clock. Indeed, what must be going on, has to be a complex, multi-interacting set of processes of development that can only deliver its result, when all of those finally deliver-together a viable entity, which is then born!





What results is an integrated and persisting, self-maintaining system, in which vast numbers of contributing components, are now integrated and co-operating parts.

With human beings, we may give the period of pregnancy a quantitative-length of 9 months, with the Birth happening at the end of such a period, but what has had to actually occur, in turning a single fertilised egg into a new human being, is the caused development of an amazing system: that 9 months is only an overall measure in time of that miraculous, time-involved, real process!

Time is not just a significant quantitative measure of time-elapsed, but what is involved in every contributing process, and affecting inter-relationship in allowing all of that system to deliver appropriately. And, the final Time will be intimately determined by the conditions involved: the overall time will vary dependant upon different conditions. And sometimes those conditions are not fulfilled, and the whole process is aborted automatically.

The arguments involved here may seem somewhat laboured, but the intention is to bury the myth that Time is a mere incremental measure, and consider it as intrinsic in all holistic systems of processes delivering qualitative change.

The above ideas can only mean something significantly new within a Holist stance, rather than the usual pluralist stance, and the clearest example of the differences are delivered in the events involved in major significant qualitative changes - that is within Emergent Episodes, when systems of interacting processes actively and causally precipitate the final flip into a new mode.






And, widening the study drastically over longer time periods, and significantly different Levels of Reality bring both the Origin of Life, and its subsequent Evolution, and even Social Revolutions into consideration too. At such scales Qualitative Changes are the only significant ones, and alone enable Real Explanations for what is going on.

Perhaps the most revealing and crucial System of such processes, is that revealed by this theorist, in his description of what he termed Truly Natural Selection, as it pertained to the evolution of non-living processes in the necessary precursor developments to the amazing Origin of Life itself.
Indeed, it was only in addressing this essential Phase that he, himself, finally realised the only way that usually separate-and-transitory chemical processes could finally become both continuing and integrating factors, and, without which, Life could never have emerged!

NOTE: Inspect any diagram of Metabolic Pathways to see just how amazing that chemical system had to become before Life could become possible.


All the metabolic pathways which happen inside every living cell



12 June, 2018

True Emergence




Dialectics not Mathematics


In a recent YouTube video out of California, the Quantum Loop Gravity tendency in Modern Physics claims its own Theory of Emergence, in a slick, but totally uninformative video presented by a pretty girl. As the author of the 2010 The Theory of Emergence, and also a physicist myself, I am of course, bound to comment.



You can watch it here, if you must!


I will not go through the details of that video, for they are both insulting to their overtly intended audience - "the layman", and packed-full of unestablished assumptions - all restricted to a multi-dimensional Mathematics, and "caused" or "selected-from Random Chaos by a Universal Consciousness"(?). 

Good Lord.

Frankly, this is not worthy of a detailed criticism, but it does use the same rhetorical methods as Trump uses in the political sphere, which indicates the methods to be used to convince the uninformed, without ever actually informing them!

But, its claim to a "theory of emergence" must be torpedoed by someone, such as myself, who has been involved, all his adult life, in revealing the damaging errors both in Formal Reasoning, Politics and even Science, due almost-wholly to the inadequacies of Mathematics in explaining Reality. Indeed, to even limit it, temporally, in that way, reduces its major significance over the last 2,500 years.

Ever since the creation of Mathematics by the Ancient Greeks, its enabling distortions in representing Reality, not only greatly expanded its pragmatic use, but also revealed a means of relating individual "discoveries" into an extendable and consistent intellectual discipline. And, these were very quickly carried over into Reasoning to produce Formal Logic. And later, became similarly built-into the new discipline of Science.

Yet, almost immediately, after the initial gains were achieved, the Greek, Zeno of Elea, had revealed major errors in Reasoning, when addressing Movement, in his work on Paradoxes. And, these were never properly addressed, for over two millennia, until Hegel, the German idealist Philosopher stumbled upon the major flaw - Formal Logic did NOT ever address Qualitative Change!




Indeed, to construct the founding discipline of Mathematics to actually work, all Qualitative Changes were prohibited, and, in addition, all Forms were changed into only perfect versions. Mathematics was never a description of Reality-as-is!

And, in its changed state, it had been made to conform to The Principle of Plurality - where those assumed features were mandatory: they alone, in fact, gave Mathematics its consistency and extendibility! But, in carrying over the properties of Mathematics into defining Formal Logic, they also implanted these same restrictions into it too. And, later the same disabling features were delivered to Science as well, as Formal Logic was the required reasoning tool.

Consequently, Science could only make any progress at all if the situations to be investigated were constrained to only deliver such features. It would only work within Stable Situations.

It was The Science of Stability!

Now, let's be crystal clear: "What is an Emergence?"






In my book, as the author of The Theory of Emergence, it is when something qualitatively different emerges out of a seemingly persisting stable situation, changing things permanently. But, for all those who depend upon Mathematics as the unifying "consistent" basis of their studies and determinations, such Qualitative Changes are summarily banned! Their pluralist basis (Mathematics) always requires Stable situations: so what must they mean by their claims to deliver Emergences?

Well, in spite of deliberate obfuscation, the designers and deliverers of this video use the oldest trick in the book. They first allow such a mess of complication, that almost any outcome seems to be possible, and they put down what selects from this enormous menu of possibilities, to a "Universal Consciousness" (which they insist is not God), but a product of the overall entire-causing-system, that can then choose the actual outcome.

Now, what is my alternative?

All pluralistic Laws, as dealt with as above, have limits to their applicability. We call them Singularities, and if delivered of the appropriate values of the involved parameters. which take the situation to those terminations, then the equations give meaningless results - like infinity for example.

Clearly, to a Holist, such as myself, the domain of applicability of their strictly-pluralist-equation has been exceeded, so it no longer describes the situation. The boundaries of the required Stability have been exceeded, and the Stability dissociated!

Close to that boundary, in non linear cases, the limited region of Mathematical Chaos, can be encountered, but not for long, for the situation quickly descends into what seems to be Total Chaos..... but, then coalesces into a new relation in a different Stability.

And, "How does that occur?", you will quite rightly ask!

It occurs because in Reality-as-is, there are many simultaneous relations all-acting together, but they DO NOT just sum, as the pluralists insist - but both affect and change one another, some co-operating, while some are opposing.

Indeed, for a time these always changing mutual modifications do deliver something like "chaos" - but only until they form a new self-maintaining system, when seemingly damaging changes in one, are compensated for by consequent opposing changes in another.

Indeed, Hegel's simplification of this was his Interpenetration of Opposites, the simplest examples of which are the Dichotomous Pairs, discovered by Zeno, and explained in terms of mistaken or absent premises, by Hegel.





In place of the idealistic and pluralist conception of an Emergence, may I offer The Trajectory of an Emergence, shown above. It is clearly no magical conversion, but a complex transition, involving a dynamic change between two Stabilities.       
    

Special Issue: Iteration





This special issue explores the idea of iteration in Mathematics and Philosophy. 

In Mathematics it is a way of trying to find answers through repetition, but it certainly isn’t the usual way of using equations. Originally an invention of pragmatic engineers it then became an extension of Mathematics, giving birth to all manner of wonderous inventions, from fractals to Chaos Theory. It is a fascinating area for sure, but it isn’t what the mathematicians like to pretend it is.

Iteration is a descrete way of approaching the continuous - and a static way of dealing with movement and change. It embodies all the chaos, paradoxes and infinite blow-ups you’d expect from such internal contradiction.

The papers in this short collection are presented in a different way from the usual updates. For it is such a difficult, and yet crucial, area that “the latest” seems both too esoteric and too abstract, and its relevance not immediately apparent.

It certainly wasn’t obvious to me! It has taken about 30 years for me to finally begin to understand iteration’s importance, in providing a very different approach to both Reasoning and Science. So, clearly, delivering the latest developments, without some idea of how it was finally achieved, would also leave most areas unexplained and unaquainted readers cold. So, this collection spans, one way or another, all the significant steps in that ascending trajectory.

First of all, these papers are not part of a complete and final narrative. They, instead, each and every one, come out of an only partly referred-to past, which had certainly left the necessary traces-and-questions in my head, but not yet upon the written page. Nevertheless, the fact that each poses as yet unanswered questions, does ultimately connect up with later papers, and, as it does so, begins to light-up a wholly new path towards Truth, inaccessible from the usual approaches.

As a whole, it brings together the inadequacies of disciplines that cannot deal with real Qualitative Change, such as Mathematics, with the finding of evidence for possible solutions actually within the very tricks and extensions that infer something beyond those steadfast limits, and which become attempts to solve the inherent problems of that discipline’s usual and in fact essential approach.

Indeed, as Hegel had always insisted, progress only resides in what appear to be untenable contradictions.

Read more

11 June, 2018

No Future


Abandoned mall in the USA


No Future Under Capitalism

....for Anyone


The Economic System of Capitalism must have a Market for what it produces. So, primarily, that means people to buy its products.

But, just as important in determining its imperatives, is how it works economically, based upon both the Financial Requirements side and on the Necessary Results side: it must attract the necessary investment to finance both the Means of Production, their regular updating to stay competitive, and have enough overall Profits to pay the required Dividends to its Investors.

But, it must also have Labour to carry out its productive operations: and that must be as cheap as possible.

Now, the main problem since its inception has never changed!

Most of the customers (ultimately) will also be those producing the products. It, therefore, presents the major unavoidable contradiction in Capitalism. For, keeping wages as low as possible, while having enough customers with money to buy the products are, ultimately, diametrically opposed requirements.

Do you require a proof?

For, the whole 300 years of its History, Capitalism has hit this contradiction every few years, when it inevitably suffers a Recession, Depression or even a Slump - and when it does large numbers of workers are sacked, and find new jobs almost impossible to find.

The corner was often turned by taking on the unemployed at much lower wages, so a new balance could be achieved, and these would be at different companies to those from which they had been sacked. Indeed, these "Down-Turns" were frequent enough, for an ever present Pool of the Unemployed to be regularly used in this way!

Now, a purely single area Capitalism, could never grow enough for the new Employing Class and their investors, so they extended their reach to ever new areas, both in their own Country, and then abroad. And, as those exterior countries had been conquered by the so-called Metropolitan Capitalist Hubs, both cheap raw materials and low-wage workers could be easily maintained there.


Abandoned mall in China

This is the Imperialist Development of Capitalism, as very successfully employed by England (and later by the following United Kingdom).

And, interestingly, this was significantly modified by the United States of America, by constantly extending its boundaries to the West and South, disposing of the indigenous populations, as it did so, and distributing of the taken land cheaply to the torrent of poor workers from the East of the USA, and to similar immigrant people from Europe.

But, in addition, both of these nations largely solved their most pressing problem, by resorting to wholesale slavery, to provide "owned labour" both in America in their Southern States, and by Britain in its Caribbean Colonies.

Of course, such "solutions" were always only temporary! For the imperatives of the system, necessarily re-asserted themselves all the time. And, with the end of Imperialism after the Second World War, those means were also curtailed - to be replaced by the installing-and-supporting of corrupt regimes in the ex-colonies to act as well-paid intermediaries.

Indeed, for both the colonial owners and the USA there was also the threat of Socialism, following the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, and the forced "socialisation" of Eastern Europe. For then, America, in particular, embarked upon an almost constant set of wars to prevent any further extensions, and set up militarily-supported Capitalist alternatives instead.

But, the underlying drive of Capitalism always-and-inevitably re-asserts itself, and whatever modifications are instituted, nothing can replace the need for Profit!

Equally the essential contradictions can also never be resolved within Capitalism: for even in War, the usually resorted to "final solution", the soldiers required are once again the ordinary Working People - and to fight they have to be armed!

It was just such "people-in-arms" that carried through the Russian Revolution.

Think about it! 

Why were Nuclear weapons invented?


The promise of war without soldiers

Why are wealthy Americans armed to the teeth, and increasingly live in effectively "gated communities"?

Why must there always be an Enemy, threatening the status quo?

Why has America got by far the mightiest Military in the World?

Who is really threatening America?

It is you!

What the capitalist rulers fear most is the mass of ordinary workers finally rebelling!

So, how about a future without Capitalism?


Abandoned mall in Austin Texas has been transformed into a community college

Re-using dying malls