20 July, 2021

The Limits of Philosophy?





I have been a dedicated Marxist for most of my adult life, philosophically and politically, I think Karl Marx has come closer than anyone to Understanding something intrinisc and profound about Reality - and, though I still and justifiably celebrate the great achievements of Marx - they cannot yet but still also reflect the unavoidable weaknesses, always involved within the very first conception in any field. It would be a miracle if any such were ever initially and immediately wholly correct.

Though colossal in their scope, and sound in their premises, Marx’s contributions to Philosophy were then, and still are now, insufficient to be an all-embracing and wholly adequate Philosophy of Reality-as-is! For, they were based majorly upon the so far known and studied History of Mankind, and of course, it simply couldn’t have been based upon anything else, for only that History had sufficient extension to cover its many radical twists and turns!

And also, because only that History covered enough ground to reveal most of the necessary Actual Development, Changes and Anomalies, to alone be capable of highlighting both the usually slow tempos involved, while at particular irresolveable Crises, also clearly revealing the rapid Revolutionary Changes, unavoidable at such an incomparably faster rate - compared with the more pedestrian ones occurring the rest of the time.

It has taken 170 years since Marx’s initial revealing contribution, to totally reveal without any significant developments beyond those original bounds set by History itself alone.

And, these achievements have also NOT yet been extended, to any other important Disciplines in the same-and-necessary way as Marx has applied it to History and Economics.






My ongoing project in this journal, is to try and finish Marx’s work and apply his materialist philosophy to the Sciences. It is a big job.

Intellectual Disciplines in General, not only each have their own Independent Philosophies, but, in addition, ALL contain separate subsections each, in turn, with their own separately defined Philosophies. Mankind has regularly found it impossible to reveal a Single All-embracing Philosophy that might cover absolutely Everything! There are now literally thousands of Specialisms, each with their own defined Philosophy, to match the unavoidable splits in original single philosophies, demanded by failures in prior attempts at explaining the evident insurmountable anomalies!

What, of course, they always reflect, are the illegitimate Pluralist, and therefore necessarily artificially limited, supposed contexts! And, of course, despite Marxism’s extended range: its initial Form, too, would prove to be inadequate, as yet, in some important areas!

The whole means of explaining things needs a Comprehensive Review - starting with the more blatant and misleading assumptions of its supposed Logic! And, in Science, the whole basis, originally laid down in the Ancient Greek Intellectual Revolution - which lets face it was an extremely long time ago - needs upturning to the alternative Holistic Stance (though incomparably more developed and generally applicable than the original version of The Buddha!) For, the rejection of Plurality, must do a great deal more than only reject the Fixity of Natural Laws!

It must also reveal just how the changes happen naturally, primarily when distorted by the imposed simplifications of the assumed Context - to instead bring in Reality- as-is, achieved via multiple simultaneous and differing contributions - all having very different effects.

Now, stated just like that, merely seems to infer an impossible-to-solve constantly varying task. But that turns out to NOT be the case at all!

For, the contributions are all of different weights, thereby making the lesser ones swamped by the most dominant ones: and only becoming relevant as the balance of contributions changes significantly. Yet, the usual Mathematical Logic treatment of such switch-overs (with “if / then” type clauses, and consequent flips to a new state) were, and still are, never explanatory at all - merely signalling WHEN but never WHY, and delivering absolutely nothing beyond the purely Quantitative- triggered flip, and NO mecessary information about the current underlying and multiple changes to, in any way, reveal what happens next, and with what currently hidden consequences.

The causes for the current and following trajectories of changes are NEVER revealed!

But, in fact, there must be multiple simultaneous and affecting contrinutions constantly moving towards the next viewable change, but we have, at that point, no way of ever knowing anything about such events - before they accually occur!

Clearly, you either dramatically restrict, and then maintain Contexts, to allow them to be predictable, pluralistically, or alternatively you could “Give up Now, you’ll never do it!”




But, Reality-as-is, left to itself, can, and indeed will, in its own time, deliver the real result of everything acting together, though with no restrictions at all of the context, the actual variation of everything involved, though they will all happen, at the right time, but that will be unknown, outside of the experiencing context itself!

And, exactly when changes occur, would not be known before they do!

Yet experiencing such overall events will still give an approximate suggestion of what will happen the next time it is run naturally!

But, of course, such “suck-it-and-see” methods, would never suffice in Productions for Sale!

However, the very most basic, and most general, of effects, could perhaps be predicted, but only if the causing Systems Relations, themselves were known, and included!

And, as has been established in recent papers in this series, these Systems Effects can surprisingly turn out to be very important indeed!

One recent development, which might signal a way forward, is due to physicist Eric Lerner. Equations- deriving directly from experimentally obtained data in the usual ways, has been abandoned, for cruder, but much more reliable “inter-variable” relationships, obtained over a very wide variety of detailed circumstances, which can be far more effectively relied upon, compared to the usual substitutions between fitted-up general Formulae, taken direct from Mathematics itself, which had been established there solely as a means of relating Pure and Unchanging Forms.


This paper is part of a series called Down the Infinite Rabbit Hole of Holist Complexity  - you can read the rest in the latest issue of SHAPE Journal (74)




Issue 74: The Infinite Rabbit Hole!




...

This edition continues philosopher Jim Schofield's recent attempts to define what a Holist approach to Science should be. This time around, the focus is on why it hasn't really been attempted before, and why, when we do try holistic methods in Science, we usually fall back on tried-and-tested Pluralist forms of research. 

The problem is complexity. The Natural World is incredibly dense, interconnected and with many hidden levels and systems processes. The straight-jacket of the Pluralist Scientific Method is the only way we have historically managed to control situations sufficiently to try and analyse and understand them. The problem is, that this gives us a very distorted, simplifed and ossified picture of what we're examining. We remove many hidden factors which might turn out to be be vital, and even more crucially, we remove the possibility for natural Qualitative Change to take place.

Art Director’s note: 

For this issue we have chosen the dark, dense paintings and sculptures of Anselm Kiefer for the illustration. We are always looking for abstract art which invokes change in some way, and the complexity of evolving reaity. With a keen interest in mathematics and science as well as mythology, Kiefer’s work deals with concepts such as the passage of time, cosmogney, chaos and death. His most recent exhibition Supertrings, Runes, the Norns, Gordian Knot, is influenced directly by studies such as String Theory - but not without a pleasing degree of skepticism. Of the work he says: 

“These advanced mathematicians are attempting to find a theory of everything, but each time they open a door, many other doors reveal themselves. It is all abstract mathematics, of course, so nothing is really yet proved. The more I read about it, the more I think they will never find the answer.” 

There is certainly abstraction and form in Kiefer’s work, but also a very messy materiality. He is interested in and influenced by science, but unlike many mathematicians and artists alike, he is not seduced by beauty, simplicity and perfection. He knows that this would be Idealism, and the Real world is much more labyrinthine and impenetrable than we like to think.

12 July, 2021

Weak Theory



The Weakness of Pragmatically Derived Theory



Since "time immemorial", Mankind has seen Theory as facilitating the effective Pragmatic Use of all that is discovered about Reality! After all, primitive Man would insist, "What else are such ideas for?"

But, of course, there are other reasons for Theories, but none of these were even concretely considered in the earliest of epochs of Mankind, where the more intangible questions were always allocated to Supernatural Causes. And, even the simplest relations between elements of Natural Phenomena, were only relateable, in any useful way, by always deliberately holding situations as still as possible, for absolutely anything, to be extractible at all! And, the definer of required situations was embodied in the usual tenet:

"If it works, it is right!"

So, the initial Pragmatically useful investigations, all concentrated upon the "already dead" or tightly, artificially controlled situations - otherwise NO relations were obtainable. But, crucially, there was NEVER a single such "Stability", encapsulating absolutely ALL such situations: indeed, almost every imposed Stability was different - depending upon what had to be revealed! So, all but the very simplest undertakings, were unavoidably composed of many, very different required Stabilities, determined by the series of separate steps necessary, to finally end up with the required product, via a whole series of different processes - each confined within its own ideal and maintained circumstances.

Now, this meant that literally nothing was ever attempted within naturally-occurring Reality-as-is, because totally different conditions would be essential for every single step in any intended production. Hence, the accumulated Knowledge was involving many different contexts - each using very different extracted Laws. So, nothing was actually revealed about Reality-as-is,  and as that was the only situation naturally Common to all relations actually occurring-together there, and NOT the separate ones, each of which are only true within their own special artificial context thereafter could, and always were, actually be algebraically related to one another to thereby Construct a supposedly "Valid Science"! So, as NO SUCH Science could be constructed by such means, we simply must give what we do actually construct a different name: we call it Technology!

Indeed, the construction of ANY Discipline by such a means, using the Rationality of Mathematics to do so, is always wholly and misleadingly illegitimate. For, Mathematics, as it was originally devised and developed by the Ancient Greeks, is only true in totally Pluralistic Situations, wherein all relations are Forever Fixed.

For, though that is always true within Mathematics, it is NOT so within Concrete Reality-as-is - for that does not just complicate things, but, in contrast, actually Evolves them: and consequently the Wholly New can-and-does occur, and it can never be predicted before that first occurrence.

So, the then universal use of Mathematical Rationality, in any area of Explanation, and in any area, where things can naturally develop into the Wholly New, and with the objective of extending Understanding, is woefully mistaken!

And the Problem is most certainly due to Principle of Plurality.





For, in about the 5th century BC, two directly opposing Tenets of Reasoning were devised in different parts of the then civilised World! Each one aimed at producing a different Rationality to allow features of a given Part of Reality to be soundly related to one another via Thought alone! But, the basic assumptions upon which they were based were diametrically Opposite to each other, and, if used effectively would lead to very different conclusions. They were, of course, based upon very different, if totally valid, aspects of Reality-as-is: but were each considered to be universally applicable to absolutely Everything!

Of course, they had to be based upon profound extractions from Reality, and sadly, Reality actually conforms in different circumstances to TWO Diametrically Opposite Principles, which are found to act only in very different circumstances.

The Principle of Plurality was discovered by the Greeks within Mathematics, and wholly developed only within that context where two things were wholly legitimately established for Mathematics.

First, was the realisation that Simplified Relational Abstractions - relating wholly non-concrete, but nevertheless wholly valid relations, between such Abstractions. Indeed, it was the realisation of these special kinds of Abstraction that initially enabled the Rational Construction of Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter Mathematics as a whole. And this was because these Abstractions limited the Rationality involved to always valid Totally Fixed Relations, and therefore also its consequent laws.

While the other approach developed in India by The Buddha, involved deriving The Principle of Holism, which, on the contrary, involved most elements being capable of constantly available variation (both quantitative and qualitative), and hence having literally NO Forever Fixed properties and consequent Laws!

The Buddha's sound basis was, of course, the observable Living World all around him. 

Now, you might think that the direction determined by The Buddha, would be the best option: but, in the short term, it certainly wasn't! For, a qualitatively-varying and developing World, is certainly closer to the General Truth of All of Reality, than the West's primary philosophical choice of assuming a Wholly Pluralist World: but actually that choice gave them a handle - it had also given them effective Technology, within multiple easily-controllable Contexts, while The Buddha's Holistic alternative, though it gave them Everything at Once - was far too complex to effectively control or use, while maintaining its essential Nature, and they didn't develop beyond mere Pragmatism, for millennia.

What was clearly needed to develop the absolutely-necessary Holist Stance, was the creation and then development of a Purely Holist Science, which has not only failed to appear in The Orient, but is also almost universally absent in the West too.





There was a window for such a Discipline to occur - out of the Dialectics of the Idealist Philosopher GWF Hegel, especially as his best follower, Karl Marx, began to apply a thorough-going-and-creative detailed Holist approach to the Developments in Social History, and particularly to The Capitalist Economics of his day. But, the crucial development of also applying a similar approach to The Sciences was NOT undertaken: for though the Tempos of Man-Made History were graspable by the then available Human Thinking, those of most aspects of Physical Reality were not.

Of course, even within Marx's lifetime, Charles Darwin did begin to tackle the question of The Origin of Species, with a distinctive measure of success, but all the rest of Science required a similar holistic treatment, and that was still not yet forthcoming!

The writer of this paper (as well as many others, published over the last period in SHAPE Journal and on this blog), is both a fully-qualified Physicist and Mathematician, yet increasingly he is a trenchant critic of much of Modern Sub Atomic Physics, as well as pretty well all of Current Cosmology. He has spent well over a decade criticising the current, linked approaches in both of these areas, and has, only then, undertaken the task of beginning to establish a consistently Holist approach in these areas, and is now literally developing Holist Science from scratch.

Many diverse contributions have been written, and many more are actually currently in process of being produced, and already planned, at least in outline! This current paper, along with a small number of others, is being produced as an informing Introduction to the whole undertaking, and will, hopefully, set readers in such a position as to contemplate the size and content of perhaps the most important questions for Science at this present time!

24 June, 2021

The Misguided Basics of Rationality in both the Sciences & Reasoning



Sabine Hossenfelder and how Physics relies on Beauty!


As I have long argued, in prior publications, the principle flaw in the Sciences resides within Physics, as is most certainly revealed in the total subservience of its Theories to Mathematics. The origins of this problem lie in the crucial achievements of the Ancient Greeks, in their brilliant Intellectual Revolution (circa the 5th century BC), and also via their invention of a wholly new kind of Abstraction - both possible and, indeed, necessary in involving Relations to rationally develop the first-ever consistent, coherent and comprehensive Discipline, in history.

For, it was, indeed, an epoch-changing invention, because it delivered the first ever Complete Rationality - enabling the sound establishment, first, of Euclidian Geometry, and, thereafter, of the whole of Mathematics in general! But, this was wholly legitimately achieved ONLY because mathematical relations were always & forever FIXED: they absolutely never changed qualitatively into something else! This kind of messiness was against the rules!

So, what was achieved was only a Purely Mathematical Rationality, which was fairly quickly achieved and extensively and correctly used to ultimately build the Whole Discipline. But, it was only-ever-true for Mathematics, but NOT for either the Sciences or more General Reasoning - for in all of those important Disciplines, as in Life itself - things have Actually Evolved: they had to be changed qualitatively. and hence purely Mathematical Reasoning could NOT ever be legitimately related in that way.

Nevertheless, The Greeks, justifiably enamoured with their New Rationality, illegitimately applied it other Disciplines. And, that was soon literally extended universally throughout Mankind. Indeed, its basic Defining Principles, particularly those within Geometry-and-Symmetry, were re-classified as Beauty, and applied to absolutely Everything as Everywhere-applicable Principles!

Now, I have just finished watching a YouTube Video by the scientist, Sabine Hossenfelder, who was severely criticising the preponderance of Beauty, when used in judging the values of new Theories in Physics: her criticisms were wholly valid, BUT of Mathematical Rationality, and NOT of Beauty!




Indeed, the mistake of the Greeks was never realised, and Mathematics has wrongly and damagingly become a veritable-yet-wholly incorrect Ground in All Rationality. And, this is now so embedded in these Disciplines, that no-one can conceive of their Discipline without it!

For example, in Sciences like Physics, All Investigative Experiments, and All Productive Processes are ALWAYS and necessarily carried out in rigidly Pluralist (i.e. conforming to mathematical rationality) situations, absolutely essential to make their "Laws" work at all! Indeed, by such means Physics, in those areas, has ceased to exist as such, and has been pragmatically replaced by its older relation, namely Technology, and has been theoretically converted to Idealism!

And, "to compound the felony", it is ONLY those illegitimate Pluralist Equations that are exclusively and illegitimately used within "so-called Theory": thus making the consequent construction of an overall Discipline via substitutions between those Equations totally illegitimate, for all those Pluralist Equations are, each and every one, about Different Situations! Indeed, it is now very clear that to resolve this problem permanently, it will undoubtedly require the extensive establishment of a completely-New and Entirely Holist Approach to the Sciences, and, of course, particularly in the most formally-distorted of the Sciences: namely in Physics.

This is already underway in SHAPE Journal, but, as the size of the task is ever more clearly indicated, just how far Physics, in particular, its straying into pure Plurality, has become ever more evident! So, the solution will involve something very different to the artificially achieved and wholly Pluralist constraints upon both Experiments, Productions - and especially on Theory! Instead, a wholly new form of the subject simply MUST be revealed, to effectively deal with Reality-as-is, for the first time: otherwise, there can be no consistent, coherent and comprehensive system - on which to inter-relate the Holistic Real World versions of the Laws, and hence, be capable of producing a real Science!

22 June, 2021

Process, Context and Recursion II


Pas de Deux (1968) Norman McLaren


BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND MOVEMENT AND CHANGE


Carrying on from the prior papers in this series, I will further establish the System Nature of a Holistic Science, as applied to the Study of Creative Dance Performance and Choreography. The last 30 years of Research in this area, has also, surprisingly, enabled me to make this contribution, both there, and for Holistic Science in General!

I, of course, did the majority of this work in tandem with another researcher, the excellent Dr. Jacqueline Smith-Autard (Jackie), perhaps the leading expert in such studies in the World. She was the dance education specialist in the relationship, so please forgive my total concentration upon the Philosophical, Scientific and Computing questions involved, based upon a long professional life in these areas, mostly in Higher Education. 

Crucially, this research into Dance, and the difficulties of analysing movement using video, led me to fully appreciate the philosophical importance of Zeno of Elea, beyond his paradoxes of movement (the dialectic of continuity and discreetness) and to the importance of the Whole and the Part - and a fundamental critique of all Reductionism. 

I terminated, the immediately prior paper undoubtedly somewhat prematurely, in the midst of beginning to establish a wholly new Holistic Approach to the Sciences, certainly only now made possible by the extensive work with Jackie in Dance Research. But also, very clearly, this was too important a contribution to be tacked on to the end of what was really only a Basic Introduction, to a turn to a major new topic, so it was clear that a dedicated separate paper would be necessary to initiate such a Major Undertaking!

But, I feel that I must also make clear, that I had spent many years aiding researchers with computer solutions, in a whole wide range of Disciplines, from Physics and Engineering to Biology, before I was enchanted by Jackie's unique requirements for Dance. My own original areas, from where I started these kinds of interdisciplinary studies, were in my original specialisms of Physics and Mathematics, terminating finally in Higher Education in a major change to both Developing Operating Systems, and ultimately Directing Computer Services in two Colleges - latterly one that was part of London University (Goldsmiths).




In an earlier Higher Education post, I had established a unique Supporting Service for Researchers across many different Disciplines in a Scottish University, and had soon been forced to go well beyond the Total Plurality of my core Subjects, in order to solve a whole new range of problems that they were encountering. The complete abandonment of actually Explaining Qualitative Changes, which dominated literally all Current Research, forced me to daily address the often terminating anomalies within most Disciplines, and attempt a consequent General Turn to Holism!

And, as I was finally realising, towards the end of that prior paper, the Determining Systemic Nature of Holism, would have to be comprehensively established as an essential prerequisite to any attempt at a Real Developable Analysis of Change, which undoubtedly require an Epoch-Making shift in literally all current research methods. The usually assumed Total Independence of Single Natural Laws, was clearly untrue, and the usual way of eliminating those effects - by severely restricting the Scope of Investigative Experiments, merely threw all these crucial effects away, which involved the assuming of greatly more complex situations, that could be achieved by the mere summation of Eternally Fixed Laws.

They never can!

And, in addition, the Pluralists believed that the Laws found by their methods were exactly the same when multiples of such Laws were acting simultaneously.

That also isn't true!

Simultaneously-acting Laws always adjust one another to greater or lesser degrees, in ways that wholly Pluralist Methods will never Reveal. So these Holistic mechanisms have to be clearly revealed: thereafter determining exactly HOW production should be both implemented and controlled.

Or, alternatively, were there any naturally-occurring Stabilities, very different to those that occur in manmade Pluralistic Experiments, that actually are part of literally all Holistic Situations, and could be effectively and soundly used, as part of a more complex on-going System? The answer turned out to be "Yes!".

But, it was discovered by the historian Karl Marx, in a very different area, well-hidden within the Key Explosive and Emergent Happenings within every successful Social Revolution. For, such cataclysmic Events were considered "un-analysable", until Marx revealed that they were perhaps the only periods of substantial change, anywhere in Reality-as-is, that took place at a tempo that Humans could possibly apprehend and understand - primarily because, there alone, the Processes of History were entirely brought about by the actions of Human Beings themselves! Marx was not able to explain the apparent Stability of those slower processes of History, which for very long periods appeared to be steadfastly Stable and Unchanging. But, within a Revolution, the Maintainers of Stability totally collapse, and concerted actions by motivated groups of ordinary people, COULD bring about Significant Systemic Change!




However, in passing, such Events also revealed the seemingly permanent Stabilities all around, which resolutely maintain the Status Quo, for often vast periods of time, but, in fact, though strongly maintained as such, were happening in a Holist World, and could therefore, in the end, certainly be terminated.

These long-existing, self-maintaining Interludes, were clearly what we are looking for, being wholly naturally established and then maintained, but, nevertheless, only as Temporary Stabilities, possibly delivering Real interludes of Stability, via which a means of Holistic Rationality could be temporarily established and used, and naturally demolished when no longer applicable.

Clearly, for this to be the case, the composition, and self-maintenance of these Temporary Stabilities must be explained! Indeed, something both flexible and persistent must, on the one hand, be capable of mostly re-establishing the prior Stability, in a wide variety of possible undermining disturbances: AND also eminently capable of re-establishing conformability, to a new stability of outcomes.

Now this is by no means easy: but the best clue to a solution seems to reside in Diametrically Opposite Processes, which Zeno (of old) certainly noticed, and the idealist philosopher Hegel, organised into a varying system, in which these could deliver one outcome, or its direct opposite, and could, it has more recently been revealed (in my Substrate Theory of Physics, for example), give absolutely NO OUTCOME at all, as they exactly cancel each other out!

And, it has become clear, that in the sequences of consequently-enabled processes, they could, indeed, be terminated prematurely by such exact and final cancellations.

Yet, we are still a very long way from explaining the long-persistence of many such Temporary Stabilities, routinely mistaken for permanent or eternal features! We must also reveal their unusual-but-necessary compositions.

And, a possible solution to this might be if the Total Contents of a Temporary Stability was perhaps composed of multiple Balanced Stable collections of paired opposing processes, which, with a relatively minor damage could recover any undermining, by eliciting opposing changes in one area, to effectively Cancel-Out any damages inflicted in another: though both of which were somehow initiated from the very same external incursion, but in bringing about thereby opposing, balancing effects.

Now, as far as I have been able to discover, literally NO theoretical or experimental work has been undertaken in this vital area.

Something must be first causing such balances, and then, at least most of the time, maintaining them. What Stabilities there are, cannot have been already, and permanently resolved by magic, but somehow form into a naturally-arrived-at balance, and the consequent maintenance of a situation, instead of a never-ending constant slide towards Chaos!

Now, what has emerged, which could throw some light upon this problem, is the "calming nature" of constantly-repeating Cycles of Processes - which seem to be abundant literally Everywhere - and at all levels of Reality. 





And another similarly acting process, seems to be a consequence of multiple, simultaneous and different active processes, which seem to selectively change the overall composition into a more permanent mix over time. Possible causes such as Selective Elimination seem to be possible, but have nowhere been experimentally established.

And perhaps the usual reasoning, discounting such possibilities, is based upon a belief in Forever Fixed Natural Law, on the one hand, BUT, contrastingly, Evolutionary Change on the other!

Now, in a recently recorded coversation with Gareth Samuel, Eric Lerner explained the natural processes of a regularly concentrating Plasma Stream, in terms of an analogy with Road Traffic. In his case, he was explaining the sudden appearance of heat, by comparing a prior self-organised, one-way traffic flow, within a multi-lane road, to an unorganised mix of traffic going in all different directions, on a single-lane road, causing multiple collisions, and hence changing KE into an increase in heat! And, of course, both modes were natural, but caused by changing concentrating circumstances.

So, I am inclined to believe, that the processes I am considering could be analogous, and could in a similar way self-organise into optimum flows dynamically, for most of the time, only to be transformed then, by a rare change in the prevalent conditions.

18 June, 2021

Special Issue 73: The Holistic Engines


Read Special Issue 73


This is the third edition in a new series on Holist Science, and how it must differ from Pluralist methodologies, if it is to truly revolutionise the discipline, and move it past its many current impasses. 

The Holistic Engines examines how change happens in natural situations - how Science fails to grasp dynamic causalities at multiple levels of Reality, and how it must now embrace a new augmented Dialectical Materialism, if it is going to begin to deal with Reality outside of its complete formalisation in Mathematics and Technology.

Art Director's note:

The importance of Abstraction to Holism and Dialectics, has been reflected visually, in the series thus far, through the use of Russian Constructivism as illustration, and the development of those ideas in proto graphic design and art from the Bauhaus.

However, what is missing from this influential Abstract art, is similar to what is missing from the Pluralist Abstraction that Schofield criticises in his Philosophy of Science. Both of these forms of Abstraction lack any real dynamic content, or the ability to represent change and evolution as we see it occuring in the Natural World. For this reason these Abstractions, while sometimes revealing, and formally very satifying, can sometimes seem lifeless and cold, or overly simplifying.

For this issue, which looks specifically at how Holistic Dialectics could address the real engines of change, we have looked to another, more dynamic form of Abstraction, and a key precursor to Constructivism, for many of the illustrations: Russian Futurism. Unlike Italian Futurism, which was closely related to Fascism at the time, the Russian version was primarily influeced by Cubism, and many of these Futurists went on to become part of the Bolshevik Revolutionary movement.


14 June, 2021

Speculation!




Speculation

via

The Historical Development of Thinking in Mankind

involving Accurate Observation, Prediction, and finally Understanding


It is, at the very least, a veritable tragedy, that this absolutely vital trajectory in Human Thinking, has as its current culmination, after many millennia of Development, ended up within, perhaps, its most significant area of achievement, to ultimately be satisfied-theoretically only with... 

mere Speculation!

For, let us be absolutely clear, Mankind, when it emerged initially, had NO Language, and certainly no Logical Thinking as we now consider it. Human Thinking is entirely Man-made, and has developed along with Mankind's changing abilities and understanding: so it could only, at any time, reflect their current state of development! It is, most certainly, far from perfect, and must NEVER be assumed to be universally capable of formulating Absolute Truth.

For, what we now have, is this treasured currently final achievement: and we must be clear as to what makes it considered to be so special. It is considered to be the highest-possible Product of Pure Thought alone, in interpreting the Real World, without, in consequence, being able to both theoretically accurately Explain, and then further Predict what will happen next.

Of course, there will doubtless be a unified Chorus of Dissent, at this damning characterisation, but it is nontheless True!

For NO such wholly theoretically-arrived-at Predictions were involved in the usually accepted characterisation: they actually depend primarily solely upon Direct Observations as such, very carefully arranged-for, and NOT as Direct Predictions from Theory alone!

[For that could be Real Science and without such concrete proof the theoretical ideas are certainly not established]

So, to make such an amalgam work, the "theoreticians" follow up such hopefully-confirming observations, by the absolutely necessary inclusion of either New Free Parameters (and even concepts) or indeed both, which are so designed as to look like Theoretical Reflections of Reality, instead of Pragmatic, cleverly-invented tricks and workarounds!

And, yet another, illegitimate Rational System (when applied directly to Reality), is that of Mathematics, which is only ever brought in, by matching measured Data into General Mathematical Forms, having only unknown constants, and evaluating these via Simultameous Equations from that Data! That is how legitimate Data "becomes" a Mathematical Equation, which is THEN taken as The Law delivered by that Data.

It isn't! It is instead, merely the adjustment of valid Data into a Forever Fixed mathematical relation, turning the specificity of individually-measured Data into a Forever to-be-obeyed, purely Mathematical Law.

It can, and indeed is, then fed into the Amalgam, as a "Confirming Proof", that the overall system is both sound and sufficient! And, used, thereafter, to supposedly deliver "absolutely all possible" valid cases under that "Natural Law".

It isn't Correct!

For, I have been an exceptionally-able mathematician, literally all my Life, and have undertaken both significant research within that area - working with other world class mathematicians (in particular upon a modified Van Der Pol Equation, as an approximate model for a beating Human Heart), and have also written extensively upon the Philosophy of Mathematics.

I know exactly what Mathematics is, AND what it isn't!

Mathematics is an entirely Pluralist Discipline, dealing ONLY in Forever Fixed Laws, and hence incapable of accurately reflecting a Developing Holistic World, which actually EVOLVES!

The absolute clincher in proving these ideas, has to be Cosmology: because the essential Scientific means of confirming Theory is totally unavailable in Cosmology. Predictions are not products of Theory, but entirely delivered by fixed mathematical forms fitted up to past observations, which is certainly NOT Theory. For Theory would have to also Explain Why things happen as they do, and not just replicate what has happened before, at some point.

The Key is revealed when something New occurs! If the "theory" cannot deliver that new occurence, it isn't a Theory! It cannot deal with Qualitative Change in an Explanatory way.

Indeed, all Qualitative Changes, in all real Developments, are omitted in such "Laws", for they are then as they must be, merely Pluralist Laws. And, such a System will always be totally incapable of explaining the Evolution of Reality - from the Everyday, to the Cosmic!

And such Thinking, though it purports to be Theory: is, in fact, mere Speculation (pretending to be Theory).

Now, you might well wonder why, such a slip is so consistently made!

The reason is successful Technology, which (most of the time) doesn't have to know Why? but only How?

So the Engineer, within his carefully contrived-and-maintained wholly Pluralist Situations, can legitimately depend upon the relevant Formulae to deliver exactly what will happen. But, of course, that isn't Science, which has also to know Why?

If this short essay does not convince you of the truth of these ideas, may I recommend a thorough study of Current Cosmology, with its Big Bang Theory, its Inflationary Period, followed by its ever Increasing Expansion of the Universe, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, and even Multiverses! Do you think that they have all been Proven? Certainly not!




There are alternatives, however!

In 1970 Hannes Alfvén was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics with his Theory of Plasmas (Electricity and Magnetism in all possible Spaces)!

For, it has since been extended into an alternative Theory of the Development of the Universe - based for the first time upon Plasma Theories, which have turned out to be likewise applicable in experiments in Laboratories upon Earth, yet acting in exactly the same way in the Cosmos.

They are Scale Invariable!

11 June, 2021

Process, Context & Recursion I




Recent contributions within the Electric Universe Group, regarding Markland and Birkeland Effects in Spatial Electricity and Magnetism, are certainly posing important questions concerning the "Supposed Diametrical Opposites" clearly involved at crucial turning points in the Development of the subsequent System.

For, these new questions strike at the very heart of the Standard Universal Pluralist Approach - still wholly dominant in literally all of the Methodologies throughout the full set of the Sciences. The Wholly Static Conditions always thereby imposed upon all Investigative Experiments, currently undertaken, in order to reveal, supposedly, the Forever Fixed Natural Laws involved, NEVER address the real interactions between them in our Actually Fully Holistic World.

Indeed, the Dialectics of Hegel, and even Marx, treat the evidently existing Opposites, as merely capable of completely cancelling each other out. Whereas, the new evidence says that they don't! They not only continue to exist, but actually to co-exist, in wholly new-and-varying joint Forms - especially within Electricity and Magnetism!

Clearly, after two and a half millennia of subscription to Plurality, scientists are mostly at a loss to cope with these crucial new interactions. And, it also, most certainly, doesn't help, that in Cosmology, the almost total lack of appropriate Experiments (or even the necessary conditions to arrange for them), as well as the fact that even the best-informed Oppositionists, being almost entirely from within a Technologist Community (EU), who unavoidably carry over into their criticisms of Mainstream Scientists, their own primarily Pragmatist Stance, which though opposed to the position of the Wholly-Theoretical Mainstream Scientists, nevertheless, still maintain the very same dedication to Pluralist Laws and Equations.

The problems are not only incredibly difficult to solve, but actually Totally Impossible to implement, without a Root & Branch Rejection of Plurality by both sides of the current split in Physics.

And, to Compound the Felony, the only current strand in Philosophy that attempts to reject Plurality for Holism (namely the Marxists), have never managed to extend things, comprehensively, into any of the Sciences - which is vital for, the absolutely Primary Task, in equipping all of the Sciences, with an essentially exclusively Holist Approach.

But, for that to be the case, that mammoth Undertaking certainly must be urgently addressed! And, to do this, we now know exactly where to begin! The only quesation has to be HOW?






For, in spite of the major contribution by Karl Marx to Capitalist Economics - as it then took him the rest of his life, to lay a sound and comprehensive basis in that Discipline, it hasn't, yet, even begun to be addressed in Science, and, instead, has, most devastatingly, veered well off-track into the Key maximally-flawed area of Modern Physics! So, let us briefly re-iterate the key and profound difference between Plurality and Holism in all of the Sciences.

It has two major aspects.

The first, is that with multiple, different and simultaneous factors, both active-and-mutually-affecting of one another, they are always unavoidably-involved in Reality-as-is: and thus will also, be generally, and both-ways recursive with everything-else involved, and, therefore, repeatedly, and significantly, modifying all involved components!

Yet, on the contrary, Plurality wrongly assumes that these are all Fixed Eternal Laws, and fundamentally independent of one another - ONLY merely-summing, and never modifying qualitatively and recursively with any of the others.

Now, even this major simplification would NOT be discernable in Reality-as-is, so scientists also artificially severely-reduced the factors present in Investigative Experiments, in order to ideally involve only, at best, a single factor, which would perform exactly the same, as when acting with others, but which here is eminently discernable for use in all possible diverse circumstances (when only comsidering that single factor)! And also, of course, unmodified by any other also present factors.

Second, the use of such Pluralist Laws necessarily separated the full set of required technological processes, into many wholly individual processes - each one allowing only the use of a single Pluralist Law, within the necessarily provided perfect environment for that Law to act (and no others), to perform each single step in the ultimately necessary individual laws, along with their required outputs.

But, this amounted to a strictly man-made, wholly artificial technological route to a finally required result!

AND, it DID NOT reflect exactly what happens in Reality-as-is.

So, to deal with such things theoretically: that is to actually advance Human Knowledge and Understanding, so that, exactly as had happened with Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter with Mathematics-in-general, the involved Discipline could then be cerebrally constructed, and also allow sound theoretically-achieved predictions, not merely pragmatically, but intrinsically, hopefully by some similarly Rational System of established facts and their Laws. BUT, that couldn't happen with the Real Laws for they were unavailable - totally ensured by the only methods currently available to Mankind!

They had only the old pragmatic means, along with the non mutually-relatable individual Pluralist Laws - and that simply wouldn't do!

Nevertheless, they did also have a truly valid Rational System - that of Mathematics.

So they cheated!

Even though the Pluralist Laws were valid only in particular tailored situations, the scientists derived mathematical versions of those Laws from measured Data!

And then related them rationally(?) to one another, though, of course, wholly illegitimately from those Equations delivered entirely from the wholly incompatible Laws. They merely assumed that they could do this; but they most certainly couldn't!

Don't get me wrong! Mathematics is a wholly valid Rational Discipline, and crucial to Mankind in dealing with Form... But, its uses to relate Scientific Laws, as revealed artificially in Science, is wholly illegitimate! To really do that, those involved must first understand, in detail, exactly what the actual HOLIST Nature of Reality-as-is consists of: and that has NOT yet even begun within most Sciences!

And, of course, the most crucial area resides in the mutual modifying affects of scientific Laws upon one another, which are ususually qualitative and distorting, whereas the usual assumption is that they are Fixed, and indeed Eternal, and usually only Sum and Complicate, rather than Qualitatively Transform one another.

Now, the possibility of arriving at "What Really Happens" has, because of Holism, always been a major problem, for every even small change in the Conditions of an Event, will always qualitatively modify what ensues. So, investigators always worked very hard to prevent such changes, for only then would the results always be predictable!

Mankind had successfully developed Pluralist Science! And for the most part, Pluralist Science was successful. 





But, in fact, there were many ways of assuming Natural Situations... And they all gave different results!

The Natural Way:

Non-scientists could only take Reality as its occurring naturally, so every way would be different, as various involved laws varied! So, an avaerage was the best that could be achhived - requiring several repeated measurements. But, of course, none of the individual measurements, or even the Average of them all delivered a real Law. Yet in everyday processes, and even in school experiments: this was the method used.

The Technological Way:

In Industry, the Natural Way certainly wasn't good enough, so there the Situation was controlled as rigidly as possible, by keeping containing conditions as constant as possible: and purifying the active components as much as possible!

The Scientific Way:

This takes the Technological Way as it Data and Primary Laws as means, but Theoretically it uses Mathematical Rationality to build further extensions into the Science's Discipline.

The Holist Way:

Now, Holism is still in its infancy, as regards Science-in-general, but has been extensively used in developing a Critique of Capitalist Economics, along with echoes in History and Biology, by Marx primarily, and by others less comprehensively!

But, the multi-millennia-long sojourn of Plurality within the Sciences, has in time, strongly enabled an effective Technology, while doing literally nothing for effecting also an Explanatory Science. For though that was sufficient to lead to a veritable explosion in Effective Technological Development, it also led all the Sciences ever deeper into the mire, explanation-wise - so that, by now, many demanding areas within literally all the Sciences are slipping into irretrievable purely speculative chaos, which will only get worse unless-and-until an effective Holistic and Explanatory Approach is extensively both instituted and developed, to finally allow the construction of real Explanatory Theories to be established.

But that, of course, is much easier said than done, for the old trick used within Plurality of establishing totally unchanging areas in which to both reveal and develop Laws, turns out to be either impossible or wholly self-defeating within Holism. The use of those Maintained Stabilities (that were once assumed to be permanent) is now impossible!

But, as it happens, (wholly Temporary) Stabilities DO indeed occur, in our Holistic World, but, in time, they will always collapse unto what are termed Emergences. In spite of their non-permanent nature, these stable interludes alone make possible the crucial introductions of various important Macro Forms of Organisation, above and significantly affecting all the possible single Processes of Plurality, actually contained within them.

For, individual Processes do NOT act alone, and, therefore, are NEVER sufficient to solely determine outcomes!

First they always are acting multiply together with others, both simultaneously and over time! And, as such, they require multiple, different and necessary resources, yet consequently produce multiple identical outcomes for each kind of process!

And they will always be accompanied by other different processes, with their resource requirements and consequent outputs!

And, these will often be essential to a particular concurrent process - both delivering its necessary resources, and requiring their ultimately produced outcomes!

Very clearly, you will NEVER be able to predict overall outcomes purely in terms of single well-defined processes. The overall Nexus of everything involved must profitably and continullay mesh!

And apart from internally produced resources, within the overall System, there will be necessarily-maintained inflows from outwith that overall System: and their relative abundances would enable one or two to effective dominate, via the abundance of their outcomes. With the usual kind of mix, with many difference processes, and measures of outcomes would quickly reveal which process was the most abundant and hence Dominant overall!

NOTE:

This reflects exactly what occurs in most inadequate School Experiments, supposedly effectively Pluralist!
Clearly, this account is far from complete and will be continued in a following paper!

03 June, 2021

Frege, Dummett and Plurality



Origins of the Current Crisis in Philosophy


In a recent proffering on Youtube, Michael Dummett explained both the current contributions, as well as the final failures of Gottlob Frege, concerning the Philosophy of Mathematics - but, as it turned out, he was also, in fact, actually revealing the widespread mistakes, as well as the many general inadequacies, throughout all past and present Philosophers (including himself), concerning that important area of Theory.

For Frege, along with all the rest of his co-thinkers, made (and still make) Logic - some kind of crucial "Absolute", coming both uniquely and only from Man, rather than being a failed attempt, by Man, to reveal an objective set of the real changing relations, within all of Reality-as-is! But, he is, most certainly, not alone, Mankind in general has believed this for the last two and a half thousand years - indeed, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC.

And, they made it seem to be the case, by devising a wholly new kind of Relation, which, for the first time ever, devised relations between certain Abstractions, rather than between existing objects, and which therefore could, within those special circumstances, and types of Abstraction, be wholly Constant. But, they were NOT abstractions like the names of concretely-existing things, they were instead ONLY of one special type of relation occurring between particular kinds of Abstractions!

As this is a subtle and even surprising kind of relation, I feel that I must give some original examples, used by the Greeks, in constructing Euclidian Geometry.

The first was The Point!

Now, this abstraction was composed of a totally disembodied Position. It had absolutely zero extension in the Real World, delivering only a Position, and nothing else, but as such DID indeed have relations with other such Abstractions

- such as The Line!

Now, this was defined by two Points and delivered a Direction. It, too, had NO extension in Space, but could genuinely be related to other such Abstractions, thereby beginning to define both a Direction - and ultimately Mathematics!

Next came The Plane - and then, an extended series of others, that because of the unique disembodied relations to others of the same kind, could indeed, deliver a consistent set of extractions from Reality, which could not only be useful, but, because of their nature, deliver a Fixed System of such relations.





They had invented a Pluralist System! Now, this could seem to be a useless, if consistent System, but it turned out to be very close indeed to what Mankind had found to be the easiest way, to not only make sense of a version of Reality-as-is, but also to actually make things too.

The only way to do anything with situations in the Real World, was, first, to hold them resolutely still - as in all technology and the Scientific Method itself. This necessarily involved keeping all used situations as simple and unchanging as possible, so they were already attempting to approach the perfection of what was to become necessary for Mathematics to be legitimately applied to it.

So, the new intellectual gains made by the Greeks, coupled with the well-established Pragmatism given by "If it works, it is right!", definitively defined the Technological Ideal for getting reality to behave as desired, and indeed as required!

Now, also, these procedures fitted in well with giving sizes to the actual processes occurring in Reality, because all the measurements, with regard to some kind of Scale, was as important in trying to explain phenomena causally.

And, long before Quantitative Laws were crucial in identifying under exactly what circumstances significant Qualitative Changes occurred, and thereby suggesting Causes! They could be loosely correlated to such changes in Qualities, even if the reasons extracted were NOT Quantitative Laws, but Additional Qualitative Explanations.

Thus, Separate Explanatory Reasons necessarily grew up alongside Quantitative Laws, which though they related to Quantitative values, NEVER actually explained Why Qualitative Changes occurred, but only When!

Indeed, no strictly Quantitative Law could EVER explain any Qualitative Change. They may be associated, but NEVER causally!

However - as they say - "The tail can wag the dog!". and it did so technologically, leaving the explanations as to Why, NEVER addressed.

So Technology developed apace, leaving Explanations increasingly unaddressed.

Indeed, any remaining causal Explanations were relegated to be an accompanying narrative ONLY.

So, these two approaches almost became Different Disciplines - named Technology and Science!

Therefore, the Technology was more about Delivery. While the Science was increasingly Speculative, rather than Explanatory.

And, the surprising thing was that these two cores were increasingly made subordinate to any Mathematical Relations that had been fitted-up to measured data sets, acquired by these two sets of Experts, who had somehow to work together.

But, in watching a recent historical account on YouTube, put together by Gareth Samual (See the Pattern), where his stepping stones to a Theory of the Ether were always the Equations resulting from the various theoretical investigations - always "validated" only by successful predicted use. But, literally NONE of them were correct, and Samuel explained that effective predictions could be achieved with formulae, in which as many as 20 different constants had been included, yet they had NO real physical determinators within Concrete Reality, and were merely only "adjusted-to-fit"!

Also in Drummett's extended piece upon Frege, he frequently referred to Logic as both Absolute-and-Given, which, most certainly it isn't!

So, the question arises, "Exactly where was that System of Reasoning originally established absolutely" - which without any doubt, was supposedly achieved in the Greek Intellectual Revolution, of the 5th Century BC, where it defined the elements of Euclidian Geometry as:

Absolute Relational Abstractions

which it was intended only to apply to these very unusual types of relational entities, which are certainly NOT the case generally in All Reasoning, and most certainly NOT the only ones used in what he calls Logic!





 

 

29 April, 2021

Real Abstraction: Why Art and Science Must Work Together!



Can Abstract Art help Science?

Yet, in spite of the well established Pluralist Aberrations, True Abstraction is still the ideal to be followed: but exactly “What that is?”, requires, for us, a necessary detour into the very best of 20th century Modern Art! 

You might think that the damage done by Pluralist Abstraction, was sufficient to permanently condemn literally ALL Abstraction as damagingly misleading: but that would be wrong too! Indeed, it must be clear by now that the Real Holist World and its multi-level Development, is such as to far outstrip currently Dominant forms of Abstraction. But, nevertheless, Mankind has not only survived, but has indeed developed prodigiously, so that many of their attempts at Abstractions must have had at least some crucial Objective Content - indeed sufficient to get us to this point at all! But philosophically, and from the Understanding of Reality-as-is requirement - NOT YET GOOD ENOUGH! 

But, something of what is required does actually occur, but not in Science and primarily, and largely unconsciously, it has appeared best in the Arts!


The question is how can we reconcile these very different types of Abstraction? 

This short excerpt was taken from the latest issue of SHAPE Journal entitled Holist Science II (73) - it can be found on page 15 in the paper called The Trajectory of Real Development I




28 April, 2021

Issue 73 of SHAPE Journal: Holist Science II

 



Understanding Reality


We attempt to understand our world in order to get the very best from it: but, it is certainly a breathtakingly difficult-to-understand world we find ourselves in. It is currently determinable only by two seemingly diametrically-opposite, yet generally-available overall systems of analysis, that directly appear to often effectively cancel each-other-out, and therefore consequently majorly undermine, both the possibility of understanding its underlying, driving trajectory - or even, alternatively, not being able to predict from any overall, perceived process, exactly what would happen next. So that, all attempts at revealing any particularly long-term set of objectives, at all regularly, appear to be always doomed to failure!

Yet, nevertheless, all short-term-and-local Realities do appear to follow some seemingly Fixed Natural Laws, but only if, along with such necessary time-and-locality constraints, so that we are constantly seeking out only Fixed Laws to enable such plans - until they, as is usually the case, finally fail.

Now, these two possible Stances were both established, at almost the very same time, some 2,500 years ago, but each of them, happening in very different areas of the World.

One of them, insisted that the Natural Laws were both Eternal and separable, but, as they were often acting simultaneously along with many others, one of the contributions was then usually largely Dominant, so that its outcomes would totally swamp all others, in their overall direct joint sum!

While, the alternative stance, instead, considered that the norm for all simultaneous contributions, was one of a constant variance of all acting Laws, so that outcomes were always changing, and all predictions just had to include an extended range of possible outcomes, with, in addition, a constant readiness to switch to an alternative, if a Key Indicator so suggested a sufficient change to merit the switch.

Certain extremes of these two, were undoubtedly delivered effectively: but, the bulk of cases were always very poorly served indeed!

The former case was later termed Plurality, and was attempted to be brought strictly to heel, by rigid and long-lasting controls upon idealised situations: but these still proved impossible, unless the number of active factors within a situation were significantly limited, which enabled a kind of Stability to be much more easily achieved-and-maintained.

Now, this was justified by the rapid and successful developments during the Greek Intellectual Revolution of that time, which ALSO kept the idea of all Natural Laws being Forever Fixed, but, as their contributions, to the overall sum, did vary in magnitude - that was the supposed to be the sole reason for the different outcomes, The Laws were still always Fixed, but their overall sum wasn’t.

That did not suit the alternative Stance, as its supporters insisted that the individual Laws themselves Varied Constantly to some degree. So that was seen as the reason for varying overall outcomes, as well as being the reason. for the Variety and Beauty of the Natural World, and, particularly, those involving all Living Things, which could never be seen as being due to Eternally Fixed Laws.

This view was later termed Holism.

But, of course, neither case delivered The Full Truth of Reality!

The problem was that simultaneously-acting Laws often affected one another, and changed their Effects. So, things were constantly in a moment-by-moment, consequent on-going, melee of multiple Changes in ALL contributions! This, initially, seemed to undermine all attempts to predict overall outcomes.

But that too could, and often was, also negated, by the fact of Temporary Stabilities, caused by the forms of the interactions going on within such multiple simultaneous sets of processes! For, though some of these, in turn, were caused by the Effects due to Diametric Opposites - but only ever within on-going, multiply-repeated processes.

For Cyclically-repeated processes involving such opposites, selectively eliminated all extraneous materials, so that ultimately, Pure, constantly repeating cycles were the main outcomes. And, these could balance with their equally Pure oppopsites to cancel-out. And, what also frequently “steadied-the-boat”, was the fact that in diverse bundles of such sets, including such Pure Processes, where stabilised sets simply repeated, whilever there were Correcting Processes for every change in an existing process, occurring within another of the same set.

So, constant repeating of effectively unchanging Cycles of the same contents, due to the above effects, necessarily delivered many Temporary Stabilities, as long as those conditions remained! For, in such constantly repeating Cycles of those processes, all Non-Opposite Processess would be effectively eliminated, leaving only the Balanced Opposite processes determining the consequent Stability.

When these did change, entirely-locally, they were termed Emergences: and when they changed much more generally, over wider, extensive Systems, they were sometimes called Revolutions!

Clearly Pluralist Science and Holistic Science are very different views of the same world!

NOTE:

It is clear, to this researcher, that, though the above does correctly show the effects of constantly repeating Cycles of processes, and, in so doing, selectively-eliminating chance ingredients, and even processes, to ultimately arrive at a constantly-repeating, overwhelmingly dominant unity of the same sort of processes - the actual mechanisms involved do not, at this stage, entirely satisfy!

And, in watching one of Gareth Samuel’s “See the Pattern” videos, about the processes taking place in the Sun, it became clear that he too was arriving at seemingly dominant sets of processes, that had been similarly refined into constantly repeating systems, that must have emerged from initially complex sets, that only gradually arrived at what he concluded were the final regular forms: so, it seemed likely, that these could have been arrived at in the same way as the processes I was considering.

In addition, it was clear that, in spite of their seemingly constant arrived-at state, they also were never permanent: so the ultimate transformations to other steady states might also reflect such changes elsewhere too.

What is usually generally called Science is actually no such thing: we might more accurately term it Technology, for as a wholly pluralist undertaking, it is not even derived from any dependable form of Science, which would have to be, to some degree, Holistic in its philosophical Stance, to be able to deal with Reality-as-is!

But, because that cannot be distilled into a collection of Pluralist Fixed Laws, the practitioners involved, by taking the route of greatly modified and controlled situations, did manage to effectively enable a Pluralist version, always limited to only very highly constrained situations - but sufficient to also deliver a wholly achievable, and increasingly broad and useable Technology.
But, of course, the required extension into a generally applicable Science, within which it was intended to reside a comprehensive and Explanatory Means, was always impossible! Indeed, researches have proved conclusively that a Science, based upon Plurality, can’t help us understand the natural world, even though a functioning Technology certainly gives us vast control over our environments - and has effectively transformed the world to suit our means of understanding it.

The revelation of these crucial flaws, were revealed very soon after the Greek Intellectual Revolution, by Zeno of Elea, who was able to demonstrate the failures of Pluralist Science in his work called Paradoxes, in which he was able to reveal irresolvable Contradictions in Movement, using the Rationality discovered legitimately in Mathematics, but then wholly illegally applied in both General Reasoning and the Sciences, and from which, they had done it, in spite of Zeno’s valid revelations.

In fact it wasn’t until the early 19th century, that Hegel took Zeno’s work and applied it more broadly to logical Opposites, that the truth was finally generally revealed, by Hegel’s follower, historian and philosopher Karl Marx, who began the mammoth task of applying those dialectical ideas, first to History in General, and then to a major Critique of Capitalist Economics! But, nevertheless, since Marx’s death in the 1880s, no-one has attempted the task of applying Marx’s Comprehensive Method to any of the Sciences, so that in spite of Lenin’s warning, in his book Materialism and Emporio Criticism, the most important areas have still NOT received the necessary treatment, resulting in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and a similarly disabled Cosmology!
 
And, in fact, Modern Holistic Theory, which has been wholly a product of the 21st Century, has not been applied to anything comprehensively, though many individual papers have already been published here in SHAPE Journal - and in the near future the writer of this paper is nearing the completion of an alternative to Copenhagen. While a short pamphlet upon Holistic Science is also completed, and will be published, in print, this Spring. There is still much to do.


24 March, 2021

Holistic Theory and Practice: Cosmology

 



The Real Tester for the Holist Approach in Science is surely Cosmology!

For, such is essentially only an "observation-only" sub-discipline, wholly without the absolutely necessary confirmatory contributions of Experimental Interventions, to verify-or-deny any Purely Speculatively-arrived at Theories, that investigators in the field are surely initially-restricted to. Unless, that is, there are confirmatory experiments, that would be possible in the Laboratory on Earth, and in the always-required controlled conditions, and hence could confirm relations revealed, which would also be applicable within Cosmology too.

Now, so-called Empty Space and Laboratory situations delivered, of course, the major differences in Ground, between those two very diverse environments involved. For, if Space really were totally empty, normal situations upon Earth, most certainly, were NOT! So, experimenters often established their experiments within totally evacuated environments, by both establishing and maintaining a vacuum, in which to carry out their experiments. And, for a while, that seemed to suffice.

Until, that is, James Clerk Maxwell embarked upon his major study of Electromagnetism, when he needed a defined Spatial Medium to help him adequately address his Subject: for without it he would be unable to complete his decided-upon task: it certainly wasn't a set of Properties of Nothing, and literally all useful prior contributions required such a Medium!

So, Maxwell decided to first model an invisible Substrate, entirely via what effects it definitely had upon all Events occurring within it. And then, he used his new definition of "The Aether" to attempt to solve his outstanding problems in Electromagnetism.

For many decades, this seemed to work, and much sound work was completed in this area. But, then the Michelson-Morely Experiment seemed to prove that no such Universal Substrate existed in Space - yet Maxwell's discoveries, predicated upon such a Medium, nevertheless carried on being used, BUT now in supposedly Totally Empty Space!

Needless-to-say, Physics then began to fall-apart as a solely Causally-Explicable Discipline, and fitted-up more and more Mathematical Formulae, which increasingly replaced Causal Theories as "supposed explanations"! Indeed, Henri Poincaré and Ernst Mach, with their Positivist Approach, which they called Empirio Criticism, then suggested that only an amalgam of Explanations AND Mathematical Formulae could deliver, theoretically, the objective Real Physical World.

And, by the time of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, the wholly mathematical Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory replaced all Explanation at the Sub Atomic Level!

But, this Descent had been inevitable: for, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution in the 5th century BC, and the establishment of the very first Rationally-Consistent Intellectual Discipline of Mathematics, with such evident theoretical power, within that discipline, it was exactly what could possibly revolutionise both General Reasoning and the Sciences, so it was wholly illegitimately transferred-over to both of these areas too!

Why was it illegitimate?

It was totally Pluralistic: so all its Laws were Eternally FIXED (as they were legitimately in Mathematics)! But, they are NOT so Fixed in either Everyday Logic or in The Sciences, as they are not fixed in nature.

And such was a major restriction on the ability of all these Important Disciplines to cope with Reality and its evidently self-moving Actual Development.






Yet, at almost the same time as the Greek Intellectual Revolution, in India, The Buddha was formulating Mankind's initial effort at describing and using Holism, which also, and crucially, began to address Qualitative Changes, which were wholly inexplicable within the Pluralist Approach.

Indeed, though The Buddha, and his followers could never complete what was necessary to equip Holism to also address all the issues across all Disciplines, it did significantly position Qualitative Change as the engine for all Real Development of the wholly New, and, it is not surprising that the best of his followers were acclaimed for their evident Wisdom: the Loka Sutta is a case in point, of the alternative reasoning of the Buddhists!

NOTE:

Now. it is clear that Mankind did not come Ready-made into existence, but evolved out of its animal prehistory, finally into a Thinking Species: and, as such, we had to Change Qualitatively, but NEVER directly, to ever better conceptions of their World. But, the climb could not be cumulative! Conceptions were never wholly correct, but always a mixture of better-and-useable ideas, along with others that were wholly wrong. And, to make matters worse, the flaws in the mostly correct ideas, contradicted the as yet unrealised features, in the rest, and worked against a speedy extension.

And also, both the prestige and the power resided unavoidably with the Pluralists, because of their extensive successes in mastering the world with Technology, and its valuable products: it predictably, via western Empires eventually ruled the World, until Holism re-established itself in a surprisingly Political garb - initially in the writings and actions of the historian Karl Marx. who began to establish a profound analysis of Economics in his lifes work, Das Kapital!

But while he certainly pointed the way towards a modern and scientific Holism, the absolutely crucial comprehensive application to The Sciences was never undertaken.....

...until NOW!

Elsewhere, this philosopher has completed a major holistic critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, but the time has come to also address the mess that is present day Cosmology.

There is NO available Technology in Cosmology, especially as the whole of recent excursions into Space have been totally dominated by Pluralist "scientists" and technologists: absolutely no departures from the Fixed Laws of the Pluralist Approach have been allowed in their investigations of the cosmos.

So, when added to the above-described inabilities of Cosmology to even establish anything Explicable about our Universe, the clearly evident failures of present day version of it, cannot be hidden behind successful Technology: but they certainly try to do that!

From the Big Bang and constantly the Expanding Universe, to Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes, it is clear that Pluralist Speculation had nothing-of-value to contribute from that actually-existing Universe, to contradict the Pure Speculations, without any confirming-or-denying evidence from a properly investigated Reality, as they are unavailable to earthbound and pluralist-constrained thinking of the so-called "scientists" involved.

Until Modern Holist Thinking tackles these areas of study, as is becoming increasingly available on SHAPE Journal, Cosmology can never break out of its current manacles. And even Modern Physics as it is developed and taught currently, is incapable of having anything but an increasingly confusing and misleading approach to Reality-as-is!

The contradiction, on Earth, between Pluralist and Holist Approaches to Real Science, will be the initial battleground!

The fight has begun with the latest Special Issue of SHAPE Journal, dedicated (along with many other contributions in previous issues), to explaining the recent 21st century contributions to Modern Holist Science.





And a short introductory pamphlet, covering the same ground, will also be published in print, and available via SHAPE in coming weeks.

The current research is still at an early stage, but will carry on for the foreseeable future, as this undertaking is only one of the many offerings regularly available on SHAPE - with of course, many political contributions, and topics such as the Covid 19 Pandemic, and the now substantial Economic Crisis worldwide too.