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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
Problems
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.
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
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.
