27 April, 2019

10 Years of SHAPE Journal

Substrate Theory of Physics

Coming May and June - two new Special Issues of SHAPE Journal

a definitive guide to Jim Schofield's Substrate Theory of Physic

To mark 10 years of the journal, SHAPE will be publishing two Special Issues on Substrate Theory, a definitive collection of papers on this new model of physics.

Also in the pipeline for this summer is a new documentary film on Revolution!

Watch this SHAPE.

26 April, 2019

Copenhagen is Wrong!

The house of cards that is Quantum Theory is really starting to fall...

And now Lee Smolin is on-side.

In a recent Perimeter Institute Lecture, Smolin delivered the trenchant view that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is in fact wrong, and I agree with him!

However, while his Realist arguments were indeed correct, and Copenhagen Theory is totally Idealist: that, I'm afraid that will never be enough.

For, in spite of Hegel's profound and transforming criticisms of the Plurality of both Formal Logic and its use in Science, almost 200 years later his improvements have still rarely been applied to either. The Copenhagenists will never relinquish their theory, for they don't even know why it arose, due to profound errors in its premises, and also because in all the circumstances in which they use it - it certainly does work - pragmatically! But, even then, it also never explains why.

For Explanation, as the primary purpose of Physics, has now been totally abandoned. Instead, this so-called Theory gives the right quantitative answers, in highly-constrained circumstances only. And, in doing that, it is entirely consistent with what Modern Physics has now become - an extension of Mathematics.

For, henceforth, it can never explain why things happen the way that they do, but can only "match" how it works purely pragmatically. It is content to be only technologically-useful, amd hence explains absolutely nothing!

Now, of course, its supporters would all totally disagree with this, because of the pseudo-philosophical inventions that the originators inserted, in order to make it look like an "Explanatory Theory" - namely, via their cobbled together Equation, which imports illegitimate probabilities into a basic Wave Equation. And then replaces all Particles, at what they term "The Quantum Level", with Wave/Particle Duality - delivering the alternatives of using the wave-like Equation, until the entity suddenly became, once more, a descrete Particle, and they could term the transition "The Collapse of the Wave Equation", when it resumed its Particle Form.

It is, of course, NO kind of Legitimate Scientific Theory: it is a clever fix to get around contradictory behaviours, that their prior premises just could not cope with. And, that was indeed the case: the prior theories just didn't work at these levels: they were inadequate, it is true!

But, literally all the theories in the past were also inadequate, but were re-investigated to review the premises assumed, and usually, they, in the end, would finally arrive at something better! By the early 20th Century, however, a whole series of dramatic and debilitating results had begun to be revealed that undermined the prior assumptions.

The Michelson/Morley Experiment had dismissed the existence of the Aether as filling all of Empty Space with a Universal Substrate.

And, Henri Poincaré and Ernst Mach, finding ever more physical premises that seemed to be wrong, proposed Empirio Criticism, a form of Positivism, as an Amalgam of Explanations and Mathematical Equations, which together, they believed, could deliver what was needed.

The Piste was set: and it was all downhill from there to finally dumping Explanations altogether!

For, nobody demurred at the conclusions from the Michelson/Morley Experiment, so Wave-like phenomena, at the Sub Atomic Level, could no longer be ascribed to that now dispensed-with medium: instead, somehow, such effects had to be embedded into what Particles actually were themselves!

The key experiments were those involving Double Slits, which became the touchstones for many of the new discoveries. But, the Wave/Particle tricks which were instituted to explain the many anomalies, are very easily removed by assuming an undetectable Universal Substrate in those experiments, and Substrate Theory immediately dispensed-with every single one of them.

Now, though obviously insufficient by itself, this theoretical exercize could not be ignored! For, it demonstrated that classical Waves were somehow involved: the Wave/Particle Duality invention was a frig! And distinct Waves and Particles were, somehow, still intrinsically involved.

Two parallel lines of theoretical research were undertaken.

The First was to investigate the possibility of such an Undetectable Universal Substrate - composed entirely of pairs of mutually-orbiting Leptons of diametrically opposite properties - thus delivering the required passive-undetectability, while at the same time allowing that Substrate to be affected-by those interlopers, while also delivering the subsequent affecting-of those very same entities, in differing, later circumstances.

It must be stressed that the objective here was a theory-first investigation: just as James Clerk Maxwell had used in his Analogistic Model of the Aether, which was the Basis for his still universally renowned Electromagnetic Equations!

[Indeed, there is the very sound point also, that theory-first investigations actually avoid the inevitable pluralistic aberrations of all data-first investigations, using the now Standard Scientific Experimental Method of directly constrained and maintained contexts]

And, as Frank Wilczec has recently insisted upon with "The Materiality of the Vacuum", the above theoretical Analogistic Model is not without foundation, even if his composition of that "undetectable Universal Substrate" differs from that used here.

James Clerk Maxwell's Analogistic Model, has long gone, BUT its use was justified by its delivery of the Electromagnetic Equations!

Now, the Second line of theoretical research was somewhat akin to Maxwell's - by assuming such a substrate with the New Model's composition, could all the anomalies that precipitated Copenhagen be physically explained instead?

Now to achieve this objective, the initial simple definition in terms of Electron/Positron, mutually orbiting pairs, had to be extended to also involving Units composed of Taus and Muons, and even Neutrinos, but a rich and successful Substrate of Leptons was devised, and the inventions of Copenhagen physically replaced!

BUT, of course, this is just like Maxwell's Aether Model, the detailed content of the Analogistic Model of the Universal Substrate will, indeed, be wholly replaced too!

This researcher, like Maxwell, knows very well that all our theories are never the Absolute Truth, but at best, contain sufficient Objective Content to deliver more than what they replace.

Criticisms of the New Model are not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary. Yet, criticisms that exist only in order to re-establish Copenhagen are most certainly NOT! Copenhagen is a dead-end, and new ideas and models are now required to replace it and push Physics into new territory.

Implicit in the new approach was a root and branch critique of the premises, and even basic amalgamated philosophical stances, underlying modern physics. Succintly, Copenhagen is Pluralist, while Reality is Holist!

And Science should be materialist, while Copenhagen is certainly idealist!

By all means improve upon the New Physics, but leave Copenhagen where it derserves to be - Dead and Buried!


For more on burying the Copenhagen Interpretation, please read the Special Issues of SHAPE Journal above, and look out for our forthcoming 10 Year Anniversary Issues on Substrate Theory.

24 April, 2019

Current Praxis: The huge gap between theory and practice

Theory and Practice: To Serve and to Organise

As a long-time active Socialist, and latterly Marxist Theorist, I am acutely aware of the gap between my extensive efforts on the web, and its almost total lack of connection with the on-the-street organisations of the disadvantaged - and this is clearly a general problem.

Now David Harvey, surely not only the leading Marxist theorist living today, but one whose Internet offerings have become extremely widely-read - BUT, he is nevertheless concerned about his lack of connections with organisers on-the-street, and has put up two interviews with Chris Caruso, in his excellent Anti-Capitalist Chronicles (out of Democracy at Work), which excellently addresses these precise questions.

As everyone can see, naturally emerging protest demonstrations and even loose organisations are arising with crucial agendas all the time - the most important one currently being the Yellow Jacket Movement in France.

But too many of such occurrences don't last: single issues, no matter how important, cannot survive if they don't link up with others to enrich the content, capabilities, understanding and fraternal, social strength of their efforts.

The interviews carried out by David Harvey are crucial, and one, which is about this problem, and the linking of internet-based propagation and help, for the exciting developments in the streets and localities, is included here to introduce them to you.

Perhaps we can help too - either here on SHAPE, or by delivering your questions and concerns to places like the Anti-Capitalist Chronicles.

Contact us privately via email:

or leave a comment under this post.

14 April, 2019

Special Issue 64: The Limits of Mathematics

This edition deals with the various limitations of Mathematics from a variety of different scientific and philosophic angles, and features a fantastic guest paper by Abdul Malek, a Theoretical Physicist and Dialectician from Montreal, Canada.

It has taken me many decades to realise quite how limited Mathematics really is. I have the advantage of having been a gifted mathematician long before I switched to Physics. I made that significant change because Mathematics is a purely descriptive abstract discipline, of a very special type, and I wanted to really understand things rather than merely describe them in abstract form.

Unfortunately, as we shall see, Physics has become little more than an extension of Idealist Mathematics. Physics was converted into a Pluralist Science of Stabilities: and one driven idealistically by Purely Formal Laws.

No wonder it is in an untranscendable terminal impass as a Science! Indeed, we can legitimately go a great deal further, and insist that it no longer investigates Reality-as-is, but instead can only deliver a distorted formal reflection of that World: it is an investigation of Ideality - the infinite World of Pure Forms alone: the Abstract Realm of Mathematics.

In short, Physics can only be saved via a wholesale rethinking of Mathematics and how we use it.


13 April, 2019

Frank Wilczek and the Universal Substrate

Artwork from Michael C Coldwell's Alternating Current series

Coming May and June - two new Special Issues of SHAPE Journal
a definitive guide to Jim Schofield's Substrate Theory of Physics

In an Origins Project lecture, at Arizona State University, Frank Wilczek gave a contribution upon the Materiality of Space (see below for video).

What was remarkable was that much of what he had to say resonated, very markedly indeed, with my own ideas based upon the concept of an undetectable Universal Substrate (the hidden materiality of the vacuum) but, nevertheless, coming from a very different place; namely the more usually accepted consensus positions of today's Sub Atomic Physics.

Indeed, the last paper I wrote was also concerning Wilczek's work, and his supportive ambitions for the Large Hadron Collider in 2010, which I'm afraid I dismissed as a total myth.

However, this lecture has dramatically altered my assessment of him, as both a scientist and indeed, a philosopher. By alternate, indeed diametrically different means, he has arrived at very similar conclusions, to those I postulate, and this delivers a very different slant upon valid pathways towards the Truth that we, as physicists, always seek!

Indeed, the situation delivered far more than that: for he was introduced-by, and afterwards disagreed-with Lawrence Krause, who seemingly from the same theoretical stance as Wilczek, also demonstrated how that seemingly identical basis, was indeed diametrically opposite in various extremely important premises.

For Wilczek is a physicist: while Krause is, at heart, a mathematician!

And, as it became clear, Wilczek and myself, though arriving at very similar positions on Empty Space (he even mentions the word "substrate"), were nevertheless getting there, on the one hand, due to conforming to the same basic premises, still managed to do it, in spite of using very different means and sources for our theories. And, the subsequent presence and disagreements of Krause, also confirmed that his differences, in spite of working in the very same areas as Wilczek, put him in a very different position indeed.

Krauss is an idealist, whereas Wilczek is actually a materialist.

Now, by far the more important revelation for me was the possibility of arriving at similar conclusions from very different experimental evidence and theoretical bases. It clearly confirmed both for myself, and for him, that we, as scientists, did not either seek or expect to find Absolute Truth, but, on the contrary, what I term Objective Content - that is aspects or parts of that never-to-be-reached Absolute Truth, but which supply the best view of Reality we currently have: and which would always be open to improvement by new Objective Content, if it proved to be closer to that unobtainable objective.

In addition, Wilczek made absolutely clear what were legitimate theories in such Objective Content, citing, as I often do, James Clerk Maxwell's Aether - a fictional Analogistic Model composed of Vortices and Electrical Particles, from which he directly derived his Electromagnetic Equations - forms with enough Object Content that we still successfully use them today.

And, this also says something quite profound, and generally not understood, about how equations are derived.

For, most equations are what I term Pluralistic Equations, derived initially from intensely pluralistically-farmed experiments, and thereafter wedded to Pure Equations from Mathematics by adjusting the Equation's constants to make them fit. And, that is very different indeed from Maxwell's Holistic derivation of an equation direct from a Physical Explanatory Theory.

Indeed, elsewhere, and at another time, working with the mathematician Jagan Gomatam, I was able to use equations he had developed directly from theory to do with the beating of the Human Heart, which in contrast to equations as a consequence of experimental data, actually were able to demonstrate both Fibrillations and Heart Attacks.

But, how many modern day physicists do things that way round, and thereby actually knowing why it gets closer to the Truth?

Now, Wilczek certainly doesn't define Empty Space as I do - filled with an undetectable Universal Substrate of Leptons. But, he does insist that Empty Space is filled with something material.

His current model uses Quantum Fluctuations, but both theories are identical functionally in how they explain both Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations: and crucially Wilczek clearly admits to having the same stance upon the necessity of such currently-valid Analogistic Models!

Now, as to where Wilczek and this theorist differ, it is certainly in exactly what materiality, which actually fills the vacuum, and is both affected-by what is happening to it, and consequently what those effects upon it do to things contained within it. With literally only directly undetectable Quantum Fluctuations, we can commend any attempt for The Theory to directly determine any subsequently arrived at formulae, but at the same time, it is almost impossible to theorise as to what that form is likely to be.

While, in contrast, with this theorist's known Universal Substrate Units, both aspects can be adequately and correctly carried through to completion - that is for the full-detail, Analogistic Model (á la Maxwell) from which to generate the necessary Equations, as Maxwell did from his Model of the Aether.

There is much more in Wilczek's lecture than I have dealt with here. Some of his philosophical points are particularly powerful...

Clearly, the replacement of Quantum Fluctuations, and, of course, my Analogistic Model of the Universal Substrate, has yet to be achieved.

But the stance is right!

11 April, 2019

A Mirror of Reality

Reflection photograph by Michael C Coldwell
Reflection photograph by Michael C Coldwell

A Mirror of Reality at the Quantum Level?

Throughout the history of science, the attempts at explaining things correctly have been unavoidably stymied by who, and indeed what, we, the human interpreters, actually have access to, and how we interpret that knowledge.

For example, there isn't, nor could there be, any intrinsic human capability for addressing such questions - for Mankind was, initially at least, merely a clever ape, which for over 97% of its existence, as Homo sapiens, never got beyond the purely pragmatic tenet of "If it works, it is right!", as their only "intellectual" tool. Indeed, all of Mankind's congenital capabilities were selected-for only by Evolution, and, therefore, determined solely by Darwinian Natural Selection, involving just those capabilities enabling the species' overall survival and effective reproduction. Everything else has been only very recently attained - entirely socially - which only began within that last 3% of Mankind's total existence, and which could never be based upon the Full and Real determining Truth of the situation, as it wasn't then, and still isn't now available!

How on earth could this species of ape actually access such things? They only, and very-slowly, invented just a subset of the necessary words, and even that only over the last 1% of their existence, and as the History of Human Thinking, since then, has shown, every single gain has been, at its very best, approximate, and certainly never wholly sufficient. Nevertheless, though the bulk of their socially-created-language has always been exclusively descriptive, attempts at Explanation have been gradually improving, especially since the advent of Science.

But, the engine of Explanation has, unavoidably, always been Description. They could only start with Analogy!

For, though it does NOT deliver why things behave the way that they do: it does deliver how things behave, and in very different contexts that can at least begin to move the task towards common or similar causes.

Even thereafter, they could only proceed with natural and evidently-connected sequences of events. But, the actual reasons, or causes, for those connections were not usually evident.

So, in the early stages, such conceived-of causes were initially invented! And, it was only with the advent of a scientific search for actual, physical causes, that the process could be improved beyond the supernatural and the purely speculative.

Now, this contribution is evidently NOT an adequate treatise upon such questions, though they have been, and will continue to be, addressed fully elsewhere.

But, the above few points were clearly going to be indispensable here, if only to demolish the myth, that we already have all we need to Understand Reality: we are still a long, long way from that!

After all, it took almost 2,300 years for the more significant of the errors initiated by the Ancient Greeks, to at last be addressed by the German Philosopher Hegel. And, we still have, a further 200 years later, to comprehensively extend those crucial contributions to materialist Science - for they were in Hegel's hands entirely idealist!

So, in this paper, I will limit my objectives to a celebration, as well as a critique, of a certain PBS Space Time release on YouTube, which, I believe, shows where we are at in Modern Sub Atomic Physics at the present time!

Its topic is Virtual Particles.

And, it is remarkable how both that idea, and the alternative one that I have been pursuing (an undetectable Universal Substrate), perhaps surprisingly, actually appear to resonate-analogistically with each other, as attempted explanations of Reality at The Quantum Level!

First, the presenter tells of phantom particles appearing and disappearing in Space "literally in-and-out of nowhere"- the famous cases of Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations, involving one Electron and one Positron, present, perhaps, the best examples.

Now, elsewhere, similar virtual matter and antimatter pairs are also said to be created out of nothing, by "cheating the Universe", achieved by borrowing sufficient energy to do this, and paying it back by their almost immediate annihilation! And the Source for the energy required?

"It is the invisible Quantum Field!"

And also, near Black Holes, virtual matter and antimatter pairs of units are said to be split by the surrounding Event Horizon, to leave one IN, and the other OUT, consequently, overtime, delivering appreciable Hawking Radiation.

But, my own alternative explanation, for the former case, assuming an undetectable Universal Substrate, is achieved by involving, as crucial part of that Substrate, an undetectable joint-Unit, produced by the mutual-orbiting of the very same two sub-particles as are considered above. And, though these can absorb energy by the promotion of their inner orbit, too much energy will dissociate the union to deliver the two particles - free once again. Yet also, as part of that same stance, an appropriate encounter between two such free-moving, potential partners - of those same kinds - could cause their joint-capturing into a mutually-orbiting pair, and, therefore, become undetectable, apart, of course, from their effect as an energy-supplying Photon.

Indeed, all the Units of the undetectable Universal Substrate are conceived-of in that same, mutually-orbiting-pairs form, so energy can be internally held, and so will be generally available throughout the Substrate, from the promoted orbits of all such Units.

With such ideas, many problems consequently vanish!

And, with regard to the latter case, the suggested undetectable Universal Substrate will be absolutely Everywhere, and will both be affected by, and itself-affect the situations it encounters, including majorly transforming ones, where Substrate perturbations will cause all sorts of very different structural Phases, along with their differing consequent Effects.

E C Stoner Building reflected by Michael C Coldwell

Now, the main purpose of this paper is to compare Virtual Particles (particularly as described in the video above) with the Units of a suggested undetectable Universal Substrate. 

For, the video's presenter describes Virtual Particles as - not being physical, but, instead, being our simplified and idealised mathematical representation of the quantum mechanical behaviour of Fields.

This is clearly the crux!

For, as physicists, we always have to explain things physically. The clue is in the name!

And, the Universal Substrate as defined by this theoretical physicist is entirely physical. The natures of its Units are such as to actually physically supply Fields as useable energy, both held-within and delivered-from, various structural re-organisations of the Substrate's mutually-orbiting-pair type units. Though, these Units, all of which being such mutually orbiting pairs of exactly opposite matter and antimatter Lepton sub-units, deliver either individually or over-local-populations, no obvious means of passive detection, they, nevertheless, are both effecting-of and being affected-by, conducive interlopers within their various different physical Phases or "Fields"


Now, the problem for consensus physicists has always been the clear existence of Wave-like effects when no Substrate capable of producing them is considered to be present.

The infamous Double Slit phenomena caused by, say, moving particles seems to be totally inexplicable.

So, particles were given Wave/Particle Duality to explain such phenomena.

But clearly, another alternative could be to re-instate a Substrate, like the Aether, but for it to be wholly undetectable due to its unique, though still entirely material, composition. 

And, such a Thought Experiment was conducted, and surprisingly solved all the various anomalies of the full set of Double Slit Experiments. Undetectable or not, it would still both affect situations, and itself be affected by occurring phenomena within it.

But, physicists rather liked Totally Empty Space! It greatly simplified, and also made possible, all kinds of experiments - for attaining a vacuum, which was eminently possible, also "delivered" Totally Empty Space too. The presence of such a Substrate, especially as it wasn't detectable, would greatly complicate ALL experiments! For, all the usual perturbations as of other detectable substrates would occur here too.

And, in addition, the initial assumption of Plurality, at the very beginning of Mankind's intellectual concepts, had forced the absolutely essential, pragmatic farming of experimental situations, to greatly simplify, as well as select-for a particular targeted context with a single dominant factor, that would both clearly display, and then allow-the-extraction of that sought-for relation. And this was best achieved by pragmatists, who had learned how to do it effectively over a couple of millenna.

The theoretical physicists thus left it to their experimental colleagues to achieve the appropriate conditions, and, sometimes, to even extract the necessary data! Only then, did the theoreticians move in, armed increasingly with their "solve-all" discipline - Mathematics, to then find-a-form which they could fit-up to the acquired data.

So, with generations of such processes of simplification and idealisation, no-one wanted to reverse direction, and have to holistically juggle with multiple simultaneous varying factors, which had prevented development so completely in the distant past.

And finally, this technique had been justified by the assumption of the Principle of Plurality. which made the so-extracted relation into an eternal Natural Law-which isn't ever true!

Plurality may hold in Ideality, but never in unfettered Reality.

There are also many fundamental areas of Reality, which are still totally unexplained, particularly to do with Charge, Direction and Energy in Fields!

Now, the ever-present, yet never-explained properties of Attraction and Repulsion (usually linked to Charge) are clearly the major problem, for both my alternative explanations, and those based upon Virtual Particles.

They must attempt to provide the bases for a substitute to those non-physical, entirely-formal descriptions, at the very heart of the whole Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

For, that is a very old trick, indeed, and uses not a single causal explanation, but, instead, a whole range of probabilities, including counter-intuitive cases, to smuggle-in outcomes as selections from that range.

NOTE:A related argument is often proffered to counter supposed direction in the Evolution of Living Things, by purely random damage to Genes, certain cases of which, counter-intuitively and by-chance lead to development.

NOTE 2: To counter such "fixes" requires a philosophical discourse upon the opposing Principles of Plurality and Holism, which has been exhaustively pursued elsewhere, but would deflect us here from a more reachable and understandable, yet important objective for this paper.

Now, I will not pretend to be able to fully explain Attraction and Repulsion, but, once given an evident Force and its clear Direction, obviously evident by its affecting of a given entity, but I will deliver a full detailed Field, composed of of physical particles, with every single one containing, both the exactly correct amount of energy along-with-its-direction, sufficient to power the Field Effect at that point onto the affected interloper. and absolutely nothing will be taken from either the usually-supposed cause, or from the affected recipient: for they will both be totally unaffected in their prior-properties, by the actions of the Field! So, the active agent in establishing the Field, and supplying all the requisite energy, and its necessary direction, will be entirely due to the Units of the Universal Substrate alone.

Now, we must compare this with the Quantum Mechanical "explanation" supplied here as the consensus alternative, by this video.

Let us also attempt to deliver that alternative.

It is very different!

It involves an infinite number of possible amounts and directions, which are involved literally everywhere in the assumed Field, and are even simultaneously-present in every single, individual position, but this set includes every single possible option, including both Directions, but unlike this alternative Substrate version, the Copenhagen versions all have no physical container, nor are they specific: they instead are an immaterial infinite set - present everywhere!

And this appears to be an underlying vibrational(?) set of possibilities throughout the Quantum Field.

BUT, a real Physical Explanation can never really be even attempted: the best that can be delivered is a description of a kind of parallel universe, in purely mathematical forms!

In abandoning Explanation, these theoreticians are also abandoning Reality, for a parallel, merely-reflected world of Ideality- the realm of Pure Forms and absolutely nothing else.

Reflections and photography Michael C Coldwell 2019
Reflected World of Pure Forms by Michael C Coldwell

They can use their Mathematics, along with pragmatism - based upon experience - to deliver usable predictions, without any idea of what is actually going on, and why!

This is termed Technology! Science must attempt to actaully explain phenomena.

In working with Mathematics, they are exploring the truly infinite world of Forms available in Ideality, hoping to find appropriate patterns for everything that occurs in Concrete Reality. But, of course, that is impossible, as Reality is holist and consists of many sets of simultaneous factors all acting together, and influencing one another, in many different situations.

But, Physical investigations of these can be, at least partially, uncovered - that is what real investigative experiments are for!

In Ideality, you can't possibly know which of them: so you substitute, mathematically, all possibilities and hope, by a very different kind of experiment, to get enough multi-possible sets to pragmatically confirm, in each case, a particular probabilistic formal model.

But it will deliver useable Predictions ONLY.

It is, of course, an admission of Defeat for their chosen version of "Physics", and will only be ousted by the Creation of a Holist Physics to replace the dead-theoretical-end of current Pluralist Physics.

This article has now been published in SHAPE Journal, Special Issue 64

06 April, 2019

21st Century Marxism: The New Philosophy of Science

With the major Financial Crisis of 2008, its still-present consequences, and the clearly evident incapability of the current system to address them - the also still-remaining inadequacies of current Marxism just have to be addressed and resolved too, if this slump, like the last one, is not also to inexorably lead into another World War.

For, the evident crises in the USA, the UK and even a once seemingly buoyant China, along with the continuing Middle East wars, which all appear irresolvable - merely replacing one conflict with another, while continuing to concentrate ever more Wealth and Power into extremely small sets of Capitalist Elites.

Yet, the essential theoretical re-equipping of the World Working Class falls currently far short of what is necessary to address these situations. For, in spite of the recent long-delayed extentions of Marxism into the now enormous role of Debt worldwide, the absolutely crucial further development of Marxism to effectively deal with Science in general, has still not even been adequately addressed, never mind achieved!

The proof of this is very clearly demonstrated in the still undefeated Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Sub Atomic Physics, along with the ever wilder speculations in Cosmology, and even the drifting of the Life Sciences away from the standard established by Charles Darwin, and towards an importing of the wrong turnings in Physics into Genetics, and many other areas, and away from any possibility of a true Dialectical Approach into the common dead ends of the current totally pluralist approaches.

Indeed, the most debilitating decline has established itself, most damagingly, in Marxist Philosophy, wherein, not only have theorists abandoned applying Marx's methods to the Sciences, but have also even rejected that task conclusively, with a conscious, and openly-admitted return to Hegelian Idealist Dialectics.

It is yet another repetition of an oft-resorted-to retreat, wherein the still unconquered areas in Science, are assumed to be impossible in their current state, so the return to Idealism is considered the only way to an absolutely necessary re-equipment of The Method. That, most certainly, is NOT the way to do it!

But, consider how long it took Marx himself to deal with Capitalist Economics. How much more enormous do you think the full range of Sciences are to completely recast from the situation, after over two millennia of Greek Plurality, and into an as yet still far from complete Dialectical Materialist Revolution in scientific method?

Indeed, what Marxism has always required, in order to deal effectively with that enormous range, has been the successful dedication-to, and adequate developments-of that approach, to also re-equip it generally for the problems we face today.

I have been a professional physicist for almost 60 years, but it took extensive excursions into Mathematics, Computing and even a long period of inter-disciplinary researches into subjects as far apart of Dance and Engineering, Biology and computer controlled test-rigs, followed by a decade of intensive study of Philosophy to finally be in a position to deal effectively with Copenhagen.

It wasn't a return to Idealist Dialectics that was needed, but a real Revolution in Materialist Dialectics.

This vital turn is now complete.

ResearchGate now features my book on this subject: The Real Philosophy of Science

Read it!

18 March, 2019

Issue 64: The Holistic Universe

In this bumper edition we collect together the most important cosmological writings of Marxist philosopher and physicist, Jim Schofield: his work on the nature of the Universe.

In his ongoing application of Dialectical Materialism to the many disciplines of science, Jim has increasingly turned to Holism as the answer to the persistent crisis in Physics. But this ancient philosophical stance isn’t what most people think of when they hear the term “holistic” science.

Reclaiming Holism

Much like the rampant misuse of the word “quantum” by quacks and snake oil salesman the world over, the word “holistic” has been dragged through the dirt for several decades, becoming synonymous with the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, in the minds of many scientists, and in the popular consciousness too, particualrly when it is applied to the field of medicine.

For the team at SHAPE Journal, it is high time this vital word was reclaimed for those who use it deadly seriously. While holism is often used as an exuse by some to abandon analysis and scientific rigour in favour of some questionable belief system - the rational always subtended by the spiritual - the philosophical concept itself, implies no such thing.

The dictionary definition of the term doesn’t suggest this either.

Holistic is posited as the antonym of ‘atomistic’, as the study of wholes rather than parts, or an acknowledgment that parts cannot be understood without reference to the whole (and vice versa), that contexts and the changing relations between entities, are as important as the entities themselves. That holism is oppositional to reductionism doesn’t entail an abandonment of analysis, but a crucial acknowledgment of what analysis actually is; the limitations of all analyses and the necessity for examining the real material contexts in which any findings occur.

To really understand what Holism is, it is important to understand it in terms of its opposite, the currently dominant Priniciple of Plurality, and Jim spends much time explicating the differences between these two philosophical approaches. As he states in What is Holism:

“Plurality saw Reality as being determined by a set of eternal Natural Laws, which simply summed in various mixes and proportions to deliver everything that there is. The task of studying Reality (in all its diverse forms), therefore, had to be to reveal what these Laws were, and any means that could be used to reveal them more clearly was considered a legitimate method for finding such clearly defining things. For, as they were eternal, they could not be changed by context. So, if the context was significantly adjusted to most clearly display a given Law, that would in no way change the sought-for Law. Context would still determine what was seen normally, but merely due to the summing of a set of eternal laws in a given set of proportions.”

This is contrasted with Holism in the same paper:

“This was most carefully defined by The Buddha in India, about the same time as Plurality was being revealed in Greece. And, in a nutshell, it was defined as, “Everything affects everything else” or alternatively as, “Everything is always in constant change!” You can see how very different this premise made the process of understanding Reality. Instead of the pluralist assumption of the addition of FIXED things, there was instead the holist assumption of the mutually-affecting combination of easily changeable and hence constantly CHANGING components.”

Holism is most vitally different in how it sees time rather than space - it’s not just about looking at wholes rather than parts, but looking at changing properties over the assumption and manipulation of fixed laws that we see in all the sciences. Hopefully you can begin to see the relevance of this to Dialectical Materialism and to our understanding of the evolution of the Universe.

The tendency in Physics is to assume the laws that control the Universe have always been the same, but there is no evidential reason to assume this - the flaw is an unspoken philosophical assumption - and it has lead to a very skewed view of Cosmology.

This set of essays begins the task of looking at the Universe and its history holistically - the Universe as an interconnected and evolving Everything.

Mick Schofield
SHAPE Editor

16 March, 2019

The Casimir Effect and Substrate Theory

Explaining "vacuum fluctuations" without quantum field theory

"Any medium supporting oscillations has an analogue of the Casimir effect. For example, beads on a string[3][4] as well as plates submerged in noisy water[5] or gas[6] illustrate the Casimir force" 

(my italics)

The quotation above is significant, even if it is just from Wikipedia! It allows us to consider a very different explanation to the consensus one usually adopted for the actual Casimir Effect, and it allows us to compare them.

The Casimir Effect (between two conducting plates in a vacuum) presents an excellent phenomenon for contrasting Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory with a new alternative account, suggesting the effects of an undetectable Universal Substrate composed of units consisting of mutually-orbiting pairs of Leptons (Substrate Theory) which replicates the idea in the quote in the exact circumstances of the actual Casimir Effect.

Clearly, that quote makes such a comparison absolutely necessary, for it immediately suggests an undetectable medium (though extremely fine-structured perhaps) as potentially delivering exactly what we observe, rather than QTís disembodied ìvaccuum fluctuationsî.

If composed of appropriate Leptons, these joint-units could be completely undetectable (cancelling-out all observable effects), while delivering the necessary properties of such a medium, and possibly also being capable of the propagation of electromagnetic energy, and fluctuations required to deliver the observed Casimir Force.

Such an invisible and connected medium has been fully theoreised by this researcher - termed a Paving and formed from Neutritrons (units composed of the mutual-orbiting of two Leptons - one Electron and one Positron) it presented significant suggestions that, in spite of the neutrality of such joint-units overall, that they could on very-close-approach, produce an affecting oscillating effect of alternating attractions and repulsions created-entirely due to cross-influences between the sub-units in different adjacent Neutritrons, which would loosely-link the joint-units together, to form that Paving, with the involved overall units constantly oscillating about equally spaced positions, and thus enabling a means of EM propagation, due to the demotion of energy from the orbit of one unit, and its promtion to the orbit within the next, immediately adjacent unit, thus delivering a bucket-brigade-transfer, and consequently propagating a quantum of energy, at a fixed speed - giving us C.

A Neutritron

Now, if such an undetectable Substrate permeated the universe, especially as it is composed of oscillating units, it could also be a real alternative to the so-called Quantum Field of empty space. It would, for example, be capable not only of propagating energy, but also of holding and delivering it in appropriately conducive contexts. And the point about the Paving also shows how at tiny separations similar linkages with the orbiting-electrons and relatively static nuclei in the atoms of a sheets of conducting material, would also be possible in the same sort of way.

Now before the vast majority of Physics academics succumb to damaging heart attacks, may I inform them of the alternative explanation of Quantized Electron orbits in atoms?

As soon as even the remote possibility of an undetectable Universal Substrate was suggested, its necessary composition and consequent properties were required. Particularly as the sole composition by Neutritrons had already been able to remove every single one of the anomalies of the full set of Double Slit Experiments, without any recourse whatsoever to the Copenhagen Interpretaion of Quantum Theory.

And, an extension of the Theory of the Universal Substrate composed only of Neutritrons immediately revealed that the devised Paving was by no means a stable form. For fairly low applied energies would dissociate the Paving into individual units, and they could either thereafter act like a released random gas, or be driven by moving energetic interlopers into streams, or even into vortices, and though forms like the latter would usually be temporary - that would not be the case when caused by orbiting Electrons - for the orbits would cause the Electrons to constantly traverse the very-same-route, so the Vortices could be maintained by the returning electrons. And, remarkably, energy could also be passed back to the orbiting electrons by these vortices! For the overall energy available, only certain orbits would be possible: a physical explanation for quantization.

It soon became clear that if appropriate different extra Substrate Units were available, Electrical, Magnetic and even Gravitational fields could all be features of a heterogeneous Substrate. After all, it would explain why the supposed causes of the Fields were never diminished by the energetic actions of those Fields.

Magnetons theorised as part of the Substrate

The required new units appeared to also be possible as mutually orbiting pairs of Leptons, but now with differently sized components, so that Magnetic Dipole Moments would be unavoidable. And the involved Units could both propagate and indeed subtend actual Fields, due to retained energy in the Unitsí internal orbits.

Even the required undetectability could be achieved by equal numbers of mirror-image joint units, which as a ìrandom gasî would be undetectable, but as statically formed areas, associated with their initiators, could easly subtend the appropriate Fields.

Read the rest of this paper on ResearchGate

14 March, 2019

SHAPE blog 10 years old today!

This was our first ever post in March 2009. Expect further celebrations and special issues as we approach the 10 year anniversary of our first issue of SHAPE Journal.

 Once my new website "E Journal" is up and running, I'll post up here the latest news, papers and articles etc. I will also add anything that I think may be of interest to E Journal's readers...

08 March, 2019

Who is to Blame?

Billionaires. Whether we blame them directly, or the system that creates them, they still have to go....

Who do we immediately identify as the perpetrators for our despair?

On studying the evolution of Capitalist Economics today - some 140 years after Karl Marx's magnificent effort to explain it ended with his death - the many major crises, the World Wars and the increasing acceleration of mounting state and personal debt, have elicited various (although always temporary) "solutions", that simply defer, but never solve, the ever-mounting problems with the economy. And these "solutions" constantly construct innumerable extra barriers to ordinary Workers being able to see any kind of solution of their own!

And, the protectors of that System, have compounded the felony, with their Divide-and-Rule policies, involving their loudly apportioning blame to some different, and hence easily-identified, section of the population, as well as diverting the problem, again purely temporarily, by facilitating a vast increase in the Debt Mountain, to finance some kind of apparent alleviation.

In consequence, the real causes of these crises become ever more opaque and impenetrable, and an increasingly worried population begins to look round for identifiable culprits, which, in addition, to the everywhere identified "foreigners" which are blamed (use Brexit and Trump as case studies, if you must), they were also directed to other targets, much-closer-to-home, such as their own personal inadequaces, for example, or those of their spouses! For, a brief check upon the men of their extended family, by financially-harassed wives, could reveal the severely curtailed abilities of them all to provide what is needed for their respective families: "they become the problem, and are told so in no uncertain terms!"

Families are decomposing everywhere! But, in doing so, it only compounds the difficulties, multiplies the problems, and hides the real causes ever more effectively.

These problems are not due to the personal failings of workers. Ordinary people are not to blame.

In the past, the immediate causes-and-consequences used to be much more easily identified, and the solutions were equally obvious: workers were organised in Unions, and could act together in a Strike. In some circumstances a whole Industry could be involved, or even a nation-wide General Strike of all workers.

But successively, every Capitalist downturn was cleverly used by employers and their political allies, to dismantle, bit-by-bit, the power of the Unions, by both exporting jobs abroad, as well as bringing in various Anti-Union Laws, so that today, what jobs are available are low-paid and usually un-organisable by Unions.

The situation is rapidly becoming insurmountable economically.

And, the old ways of fighting against this exploitation no longer work. 

Even the British Labour Party, in spite of its current Left Wing Leadership (AND Party Membership) is being dismantled by the pro-Capitalist Labour MPs in Parliament, who increasingly side with the Tories against their own movement.

The only old way left is agitation in the streets!

Bring the People out in Mass Demonstrations - BUT crucially they must be well-armed with an understanding of what is really wrong, along with a supported programme to end it!

There will be very strong opposition to this but

WE are the MANY


THEY are the FEW

The time has come to go onto the streets

26 February, 2019

Generality, Particularity, Singularity

Performing Sculpture. Small Feathers, 1931, by Alexander Calder

Marx’s Abstractions

and Dialectical Developments

On further listening to David Harvey’s analysis of Marx’s Capital, it becomes important exactly what the necessary kinds of Abstraction are, that are actually being used.

Previously, when revealing the significant and transforming content of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, somewhat earlier in these investigations, the key achievement turned out to be in the wholly new kind of Abstraction that they had developed in their study of shapes, but which, at that time, had also enabled the development of the very first intellectual discipline - Mathematics.

So, once again, within this current discussion on Marx’s Capital, it has to be the kinds-of-abstraction used, as well as both when, and to what extent, they can be effectively employed, that are the most important questions.

Now, Marx wasn’t a scientist, he was a philosopher and historian - and neither is David Harvey, who is a geographer by trade: so neither of them were intimately familiar with the methods and abstractions of ‘hard’ sciences such as Physics, or even their associated disciplines, such as Mathematics. So, they would not be immediately aware of the unavoidable limitations of idealistic Mathematics - for their focussings were very different in their own primary disciplines.

Now, Marx crucially talks about Generalities, Particularities and Singularities as the abstractions concerned with the Laws of Motion of Capital, and how he sees and uses them, turns out to be crucial, and also very revealing when related to their somewhat different uses in Science and Mathematics.

So, once again, I am pressed to use my analogue regarding Multiple-Chemical-Processes, to clarify what is involved. For there, though many active factors are involved (all acting simultaneously), the most frequently naturally- achieved Stability, in this type of system, will always be in an achieved persisting balance between all of these processes, characterised by a certain Dominance, as the apparent underlying determining “Law” of the situation.

And, that would be what Marx calls the Generality of the situation.

But, the other factors involved will vary, and though they cannot dislodge this Dominant Law, they can move it about - somewhat!

They would be the contingent Particularities of the situation.

Finally, something could happen which completely terminates the situation: so this Law ceases to apply!

That would be due to a Singularity of the situation. These are key Abstractions from the situation with different properties and effects.

Now these are necessarily considered somewhat differently in their varieties of use: and though my explanations, that lead to these differences, arise from my always-holistic stance, it is important to note that many other widely current uses, even in Science, are wholly pluralistic in their determining, underlying stance, and hence differ significantly! That is, they take all the laws involved as permanently fixed.

So, Marx’s strictly holistic methods will never be considered by those usually employing entirely pluralist methods - like the majority of both scientists and logicians for example.

Now, in any such, many-law, holistic context, as with both my favoured chemical analogue, and also the ones involved in Capitalist Economics, the simultaneously-acting laws will most certainly NOT interact pluraliatically, for then all would be of the exact same type. Indeed, within holism there will usually be a Generality - delivering the underlying fundamental Law, determined as such by the overall, dominating conditions, but always also (potentially) modified by a whole series of Particularities; which can adjust and vary the Generality. While there will always be, in addition, one or more Singularities, which can, in appropriate circumstances, terminate the Generality completely, by changing the underlying situation. And, there will be different reasons, which causally-determine all these natures, and their roles, in a given situation.

Once again, my revealing analogue can be used to expose all their various determining causes. In that case, the Generality will be described by the basic underlying Law, itself, caused by the relative abundance of its major required resource, more often than not, determined by the circumstances in which it occurs. While, the various Particularities, will never challenge that objective dominance, but could modify it contingently to some extent. Finally, the Singularities are totally independant influences, sometimes from without, that cancel the dominance of the Generality and facilitate its complete replacement.

NOTE: Now, the above constitutes only the briefest start in addressing such Holistic Changes and how we can deal with them, and, as we develop this discription, the significant differences and evident superiority to the consensus Pluralist Approach, will gradually, and excitingly, be revealed. For example, the conundrums and even impasses connected with Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts will be fully explained - particularly via our revealing analogue, which will always include an opposite sub-dominant process, which, in certain circumstances replaces the prior Dominance, without significantly altering the overall Balance and Stability!

But, the very reason for the prior adoption of Plurality as the universal stance in investigating Reality, does have some sort of basis, in the evident relative predominance of long-persisting Stabilities within Reality: indeed Stabilities are frequent and persist for long periods, but can never deliver any significant Qualitative Change.

So, in spite of the always very short durations of Emergences, they are, nevertheles, the sole sources of all Development. And, the apparent “Truths” of Plurality are usually arranged-for, by artificially-constructing and actively-maintaining appropriate Stabilities, to ensure the possibility of applying such Pluralist Laws successfully.

But, of course, such a purely technological approach can never address any of the areas involving qualitative changes and their explanation - and these are evident in by far the widest ranging areas of study. Even Modern Physics and Cosmology have both been brought to existential crises by the limited pluralist appoach, and without a veritable revolution in these areas, they are effectively doomed as sources of Explanation for Reality. .

NOTE: It is interesting to consider Mathematical Singularities alongside Marx’s use of the term. The use of singularities in Mathematics means indisputedly that they are occurring wholly-within a legitimately pluralist context - namely Ideality. But, the infinities possible within Ideality, legitmises the positioning of a found “real” relation upon a graph of infinite possible extention, though for it is only a small locality within that graph, that maps onto a situation in Reality, and the rest of the space included in the graph necessarily constitutes what are, in that context, termed as Singularities - that is as aymptotes to Infinity, or swoops to Zero. They should just be the boundaries-of-Reality, but in idealist Modern Physics are instead suggested as portals to alternative Worlds!

Controller of the Universe, 2007, Damián Ortega

Singularities and Emergences

Now, of course, even the role of Singularities, as so far merely described, can never explain any consequent real development, but only individual qualitative changes: and where they lead is also never-supplied, at such a level of analysis.

What is actually needed is a causal-mechanism for “system-change”, wherein a mutually-affecting collection of many different, and even contradictory, processes actually dismantles the old order, and generates a wholly New System. And, such an event, has a name within this Holist View of Development: it is called an Emergence.

And, it is certainly not a mere fixed-causality, with a given single outcome at all! Indeed, it is not even a consistent, co-ordinating system of coherent, related processes, naturally coalescing into a consequent final outcome. It is, remarkably, a balancing system of contradictory factors, which ordinary Logic would see as merely inhibiting, or even cancelling, one another, and hence leading nowhere!

And, it should be clearly contrasted with such co- ordinated systems, whhich can never lead to real, entirely-original qualitative changes.

An Emergence is always a remarkable Event, which produces purely temporary Stabilities, which almost always involve the same self-restoring balance of contradictory factors, while displaying an apparently resultant Dominance (which, superficially, certainly looks like a pluralist law).

Now, this turns out to be a surprising entity, for though it appears to be, and usually is, a conservative arrangement, ensuring its Status Quo for long periods of time, it can, in certain circumstances, become undermined. And yet, though that cause undermines - in one area of the balance, it mostly restores the situation - in another area, to counter that undermining. Such a contradictory Stability, therefore, includes the wherewithal to correctingly deal with Crises most of the time.

But, if pushed too far, it not only precipitates a wholesale dissociation - a total Collapse - it also always delivers an unexpected outcome. The produced intermediate situation no longer perpetuates anything. New subsytems can now begin to come together, relatively unhindered - though many just as quickly dissociating again in their own Crises. But, finally they come together in a new balance of contradictory factors, which constitures yet another new Stability! And, that new system could never have been predicted from the prior Stability. This is how the Wholly New emerges!

But, how is the necessary variety first produced, and then maintained in any given context? The engine of our Solar System is clearly The Sun, but different parts of a planet, presenting different angles of incidence of the Sun’s Rays at its surface will receive different amounts of heat, and consequent differential heating of the local atmosphere, causing Winds and hence differential evaporation from any liquid water available in seas or lakes.

And as the planet spins, it will also at every point on its surface by alternately be illuminated, and then plunged into darkness, causing differences in heating over time!

So, already, just considering the ‘stable’ Sun and Earth, we get diverse conditions including precipitation and even worldwide small particle distibution, via moving winds. And the more things that are considered, the more variabilities are involved.

The point is, how do they co-exist in some maintained, or regularly repeatable mix? Clearly, conditions can vary enough to promote opposite processes in extreme situations, the results of which can be moved about by winds and currents. Yet, some planets in our Solar System do seem to exhibit restricted ranges of prpocesses, and continuing as such for seemingly vast periods of time. While others, like Earth, seem to be in relatively constant change: which appears to be largely due to Life.

And Life itself must have once been some kind of Emergence: what else could it have been?

So, why no evident Life elsewhere in the Solar System?

We can deal with a variety in conducive circumstances, but what triggers the crucial event that enables everything that can consequently emerge? Clearly, once we abandon the fictional simplicity of a Pluralist World, we find ourselves in a much more complex Reality, requiring a wholly new approach when attempting to understand it.


Clearly, there is still a great deal to yet be addressed, but I feel some brief foray into that waiting world should be addressed here, as a sample of what is to come.

Let us consider Causality!

For, our idea of Causality is significantly distorted by not only the premise of Plurality upon its nature, but also in the consequences of that stance for how we see, explain and use Causality.

The Principle of Plurality has all elements extracted from Reality as permanently-fixed: not only categories and concepts but also extracted Natural Laws too. And, consequently, our tools for dealing with these were obviously also “tailored-to-fit” such fixed entities and relations.

Primarily, if Plurality were true, it would be entirely valid to deliberately restrict, or even “farm” investigated situations to effectively isolate a given relation: for, if that relation were naturally eternal, our manipulations would never affect it: it would remain the same.

Also, we could never effectively use that relation, if we didn’t similarly simplify the context for use, as with “only one Law free to act”, we could easily apply it to achieve predictable ends. And any complex production would have-to-be organised as a series of productions, one for each pluralist Law evidently involved.

We would never attempt to apply them all simultaeously! Yet, of course, simultaneously, is exactly how Reality works with its “Laws”, when left to itself! So, because of our subscription to Plurality, we purposely prohibit, for ourselves, any knowledge whatsoever of how simultaneous “Laws” might actaully affect one another, or even follow particular natural sequences over time.

The natural selection of such sequences is NEVER available to us, as it must have been in totally unfettered Reality. Indeed, Plurality is NOT true in either Reality, or even in Reasoning. In fact, it is only true in Mathematics, because of its simplified relatable abstractions, on which it was constructed. But, they don’t form the abstractions upon which Reality and Reasoning are constructed!

So, in making Plurality the basis where it does not apply misleads what we can do with what we obtain by such means: and, in addition, limits the conditions we can apply them in to severely restricted and unnatural contexts.

This essay is taken from the latest issue of SHAPE Journal called Changing Dialectics

25 February, 2019

Special Issue 63: Changing Dialectics

Cover of SHAPE Journal Special Issue 63 art by Alexander Calder
Changing Dialectics by Jim Schofield

While the giant influence of Karl Marx’s ideas and methods cannot be questioned, his most crucial work remains unfinished. My research seeks to finish what Marx started and finally bring Dialectics to Science, revolutionising both disciplines.

In being able to make any sort of progress in Theory, however, we must never forget exactly who we are, and to what extent we are adequately equipped in this endeavour. And, most crucially of all, how we have to re-create our means intellectually-and-socially simultaneously, to make any real progress.

24 February, 2019

Slums and Skyscrapers

Very much enjoying David Harvey's work at the moment

18 February, 2019

Quantum Electro Dynamics via PBS Space Time

As is becoming a regular feature of my current theoretical work criticising The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its various contemporary developments, I turn first to the young presenters on the PBS SPACE TIME platform of explanatory videos on YouTube - because they do their very best to deliver the consensus theory, warts-and-all, in the clearest and most honest way they can - which is commendable.

They don't actually succeed in convincing me, of course, but they do allow the inquisitive viewer, such as myself, to extract at least some of the key premises involved, in order to attempt to establish a vital alternative to theirs, by revealing both their limitations, as well as, hopefully, defining-and-presenting a better, coherent and comprehensive alternative view.

Certain defining premises are immediately evident:

  • First, that a Description of what occurs is always the objective!

  • Second, that the means used will always be Mathematics!

  • Third, that its real test will always involve Predictions!

  • Finally, that Experiments will confirm their validity!

But, what do these seemingly sound premises actually infer?

  • Descriptions deliver the way things appear, but never "Why they are so?"

  • Mathematics delivers only Ideal(ised) Forms and is unavoidably wholly Pluralist!

  • Predictions deliver possible outcomes without any real Explanation.

  • Experiments always involve a purposely farmed-and-maintained context only.

But, all of these cannot deliver Reality-as-is, but only a tailor-made, subset context, with almost all "supposedly-inessential" things suppressed. And, for it to work, Reality itself would have to be totally pluralist - that is constructed solely of eternal Natural Laws, for such a method to reveal the true components.

And the proof of these criticisms? You have to replicate exactly the conditions of extraction to subsequently enable effective use of such Laws! And, Reality-as-is and totally un-tailored is always Holistic. So, predictions based upon pluralist laws are similarly compromised.

From the very inception of the disciplines involved in that approach, by the Ancient Greeks, flaws were already evident (see Zeno of Elea's Paradoxes), so a parallel and holistic set of Explanations involving Properties, Causes and Effects were also considered essential accompaniments to the purely formal relations.

NOTE:But while descriptions, equations and predictions were always locked together as absolutes, Explanations (being attempts at the Real), never enjoyed that unanimity, because they were never absolute: they were composed of current and temporary Objective Content, so were always being updated or improved, while the contents of the Pluralist extractions were always "absolute"!

So, as long as Understanding was not as important as Use, the pluralist monolith would continue to dominate science. BUT, crucially Pluralistic methods, unavoidably, also always involved Idealisation- for all the data from experiments were used to fit-up Ideal Formal Equations, taken from Pure Mathematics, but as those were, by no means a comprehensive data set: the formula's validity was NOT intrinsic to the whole causing situation, but limited to a defined range alone!

So, Idealism was also imported along with the Formula.

Can you guess what happened to the Mathematics involved, in response to ever wider use in Science?It had to develop enormously in order to continue that defined use value. But, never, it must be emphasized, in delivering an explanatory value! Mathematics can't do that! Unless, that is, you abandon Materialism for Idealism, and consequently believe that the World is the way that it is because of the Mathematics which drive it!

For then, a study of the Purely Formal World of Ideality becomes a study of the sole drivers of Reality.

Are you recognising Modern Physics yet?

Now, developing Mathematics, without in any way compromising its Plurality, which, remember, was what had given it its descriptive power from the outset, really meant doing something you can do in Ideality, which you cant do in Reality. And, that is extending it exponentially, while maintaining its premises absolutely!

This was such a significant turn, so that in my Diagram of the Processes and Productions of Abstraction, the realm of Ideality had to be situated outside-of Reality altogether, which correctly included everything else.

The processes and productions of Ideality were defined as never ever getting validated by references of it to Reality!

So much for the underlying premises, but what about the "Physical Theory" which purports to additionally deliver an explanatory narrative alongside the Mathematics?

Well, the presenter, in addressing the heart of Quantum Electro Dynamics, first presents the classical electro dynamical explanation, involving a spinning, charged ball, only to then, immediately, dismiss that because - "It isn't a ball and it isn't spinning". But, his alternative explanations are incredible!

He imports the old Greek simplification of treating the particle as a Point-of-zero-extension, totally forgetting why that simplifying fiction was so useful, and instead making it an accurate description of the physical world: it isn't!
And, he does all this, while he, at the same time, continues to talk about spinning and/or orbits. along with charges, in other parts of his explanations (very inconsistent). He excuses this contradictory stance by insisting that Sub Atomic Physics is actually A Different World entirely!

Nevertheless, he carries over, with the very same names, concepts from classical Physics like Angular Momentum, and Magnetic Dipole Moments - features from the Classical World, which there are due to extended entities and real spinning or orbiting.

Notice that the pluralist tail now wags the holist dog?

His reasons for abandoning physical explanations are the simplifying abstractions of Plurality which converted the real world into one which could be both manipulated and developed pragmatically - but elsewhere! There IS still a real world in there, currently obscured by Plurality, but definitely requiring a switch to Holism, as the only way to address it.

And, as they certainly wont do that, they have to somehow reflect the main features of a Holist World, within the premises of their Pluralist world - Ideality, but only at the Sub Atomic Level! Now, how can they possibly do that?

They will do it the only way they know how - by extending Mathematics, along with a new concept of the underlying nature of Space itself, which becomes the source of Everything!
Now, if the alternative of Holism is indeed correct, the above wont mean a thing, unless that alternative is thoroughly described and understood, in particular, via its very different mode of Qualitative Development - its Evolution!

Now, this is no small task, and certainly too big to effectively include within this short Review, so here I will limit myself to contrasting it with Plurality.

NOTE: Now, this major task had already begun in this theorist's Theory of Emergences, along with his Theory of the Double Slit Experiments, Truly Natural Selection, and his papers on Abstraction. Finally, the first instalment of the demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is already available as A New Approach to Science.


As distinct from Plurality, Holism does not see Reality as composed entirely of the various summations of multiple, strictly eternal Natural Laws- in other words, all aspects of Reality being produced by mere Complication, and thus legitimately-allowing the usual way we do experiments by targeting, via a selecting-simplification of the context, to a situation with only a particular single and "totally-unaffected" Law clearly evident!

For, instead, Holism takes the entirely-contrary view that all multiple, simultaneous laws always affect one another, to some greater or lesser extent, so that any apparent dominance, for whatever reason, is always only temporary, AND, crucially will be terminated when these cross-influences finally undermine the prior dominance, and a wholly different mix emerges following that former stability.

It explains switches between pertaining laws causally, whereas the best that Plurality can do is to merely switch due to some previously noticed threshold in a given parameter being passed, as yje switch occurred!

In addition, Holism sees the trajectory of Development of Reality qualitativelyin terms of periods of self-maintaining Stabilities, separated by turbulent Interludes of major Qualitative changes, termed Emergencesor Revolutions.

Finally, two things have had to be included in the pluralist Mathematics of Quantum Theory to somehowreflect:-

1. the holist simultaneous presence of multiple mutually-affecting factors, and

2. The presence of an undetectable Universal Substrate delivering propagation and much else within the supposed purely "Empty Space".

Now, Plurality is inadequately-equipped to deliver such things consistently: they neveroccur in a Pluralist World. So, "something-similar", in consequence, had to be devised-and-constructed, via a mix of illegitimate philosophical imports on the one hand, and a crypto-substrate on the other, termed a Field!

Now, such additions would seem to be impossible, but Mankind has been effectively using contradictory concepts for millennia, by means of the pragmatic tenet - "If it works, it is right!", so they couldn't be defeated by the Classical Opposition to Copenhagen, who had been using similar excuses for their own contradictory inclusions for even longer periods of time.

And, of course, they did have an almost infinitely extendible means, and the appropriate philosophic stance, to be able to construct, via a distorted, idealist Mathematics, the Ground to deliver what was needed.

And it isn't by chance that at the heart of that frig was a use of the Wave Equations developed for use in physical media, but here applied to their non-material Field!

And, in addition, illegitimately-modified to deliver not positions (as in the prior use), but merely a full set of probabilities of each and every possible position being possibly currently occupied!

Of course, such a method could never deliver the actual situation at any given moment, but could deliver over-time results, as with the Statistics it was borrowed from!

But, and this is crucial, without further frigs, this system still couldn't suffice - so ever deeper burrowing-into, and even further construction-of, an extended Ideality seemed absolutely necessary!

Feynman had found a purely abstract way, by developing his "Feynman Diagrams" to deliver the required results for each-and-every possible outcome in any given interaction within a Quantum Field, which could then be somehowsummed, over-all-possibilities, to give the actual outcomes. And, as more and more of these diagrams could be included to increase the accuracy of the result, computers had to be involved, which are now enormous, as they get results accurate to ten decimal places.

NOTE: But what are they ralking about?

What exactly are they summing: it is not only reminiscent of an extended Wave in a substrate, but even uses Wave Equations developed originally in those prior studies. And, nevertheless, it can be applied to an effect uypon an individual Particle!

Now, as usual, the presenter does his best to describe all of this, but without causal explanations, what he does, at best, is to also deliver an "accompanying narrative" to what has been found to pragmatically give accurate results.

But, it does imply an extended activity underlying phenomena which he infers is due to Wave/Particle Duality, but which I explain by the presence of an underlying and undetectable Universal Substrate - containing and delivering, by various kinds of propagation, the means to produce the actual physical effects, which are distortedly-reflected by their pluralist, simplified and idealised formal analogues of the Copenhagenist interpretation!

There are many problems with the kind of criticism I am forced to make, because it is never allowed to be a contention between two alternative explanations. For, where I, as a scientist, have to deliver a coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanation, tackling everything physically involved, the contrary position has only the rules of Abstract Mathematics, applied to an almost infinite body of researches in Ideality, PLUS a confusing collection of extractions by pluralist physicists, AND a pragmatic principle that supersedes everything else, namely - "If it works, it is right!"

For, that illegitimate unifier, effectively smoothes-over the impasses and contradictions - "to be dealt with later, when we know enough!" In other words, a pragmatic and useable path through the situation supersedes ALL explanations!

And, their philosophic basis stands out clearly - all explanations are invention anyway!

The essences of reality are purely formal!

The only stance is Idealism!

And, one particular consequent method has to be exposed.

It is to take legitimate spatially distributed and multiple effects, but apply them to a specific locality.

Now, you can do this with the effects of overlapping fields upon a particular location, but they don't have such here. Nevertheless, they are summing multiple influences at a particular location. supposedly due to a summed-over-time(?) oscillating effect at that location.

Remember, these contortions are absolutely necessary, because they are NO LONGER dealing with Reality, but the simplified and idealised, pluralist realm of Ideality.

Interestingly, I, with my Reality-based alternative approach, can legitimately use summations at a specific location due to overlapping, different Fields, all propagating within a Universal Substrate, and it also allows that summation to deliver a vector sum of the differing directions, of the contributing fields, to change the orientation of the Magnetic Dipole Moment in that precise unit of the Substrate.

More to come...

You can see the referenced videos here: