Noam Chomsky's Philosophy

Noam Chomsky's intellectual approach (and what it lacks)

After watching the latest video from Noam Chomsky on YouTube - another wide-ranging philosophical contribution upon Human Thinking and Understanding, with its relation to our changing Conceptions of Reality - it became increasingly clear that, to him, this was NOT the development of various different attempts to both formulate accurate accounts describing that Reality, only in the common form of an increasingly competent, developed Language, but also never, as a revealing critique of its current contexts of different Social Organisations, involving ideas for its necessary improvement.

In his dealing with the relations between that Thinking, and the Reality it was attempting to describe, he only considers the internal relations and inadequacies of such Thinking, as the only possible-and-effective means of in any way addressing our world.

It was a wholly intellectual approach!

However, in spite of great historical breadth and an increasing intellectual depth, he also insisted upon what he saw as its intrinsic and sometimes unavoidable failures, as well as its seemingly built-in limitations.

But, Chomsky is neither a Scientist nor an Artisan of any kind: he only contributed conceptions concerned solely with Thinking-as-such, without involving any concrete means of, not only testing his ideas in Reality, but also, as Mankind had always done, not finding solutions in any consequent, concrete interactions within that Reality-as-is!

And, towards his conclusion, it also became clear that he was exclusively describing the imposed, if diverse, stances of various sections of the Ruling Class, as the only possible, as well as unavoidable-and-natural consequences of the processes involved, in only that developing system, over time.

He considered it as the sole engine of all development. He is clearly an Idealist!

So, in spite of his apparently "leftist" reputation, he had literally nothing-to-say about what had occurred in Socialist Thinking, throughout his extensive and detailed contribution. It, overall, reflected the dominant Liberal/Left Stance, most clearly exemplified in US politics, and, consequently-and-crucially also had absolutely nothing to say about real Social Alternatives, or amazingly, even intellectually about the major Pluralist/Holist diversions in Human Thinking within the last 2,500 years!

He was, therefore, wholly preoccupied with only what he saw to be both the only real means of progress, as well as the Natural and unavoidable limitations of that same Human Thinking: and consequently-but-inadvertantly, went on to demonstrate that very same limitation, even in his own analysis, dictated by his chosen-and-privileged ideas of intellectuals ONLY!

Noam Chomsky on Natural Law

At no point, did he ever address the Idealism and Materialism aspects of Philosophy, and, in particular, had zero to say upon the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx, and its role in the Major Social Revolutions of the 20th century. Nor, of course, did he trace the declines, both in historical gains, and within its own self-defeating short-comings, in the hands of its Theoretical developments and Political Organisational Forms.

Frankly, by his contribution in this event, you would think that he had given an extremely comprehensive account, but that was very far from the Truth. Indeed, the actual significant interactions of openly Marxist Parties in the active motivation of the Masses, into effective political action, including their damaged successes in the largely still-feudal countries, such as Russia and China, and their universal failures in the advanced Capitalist Countries of the West.

And, of course, absolutely NO acknowledgement of the fact that Dialectical Materialism was never ever comprehensively extended beyond the area of Capitalist Economics - including absolutely no such attempt to develop that key methodology across the whole range of Sciences, or absolutely crucially into either Philosophy or Language - so that consequently, it had nothing to say upon the reactionary developments in Sub Atomic Physics, and no absolutely essential and transforming contributions in Biology - particularly concerning the study of Evolution.

It was clear that throughout this presentation, Chomsky was NOT explaining his position to ordinary working people - for his whole approach was aimed at privileged middle class intellectuals, like himself, as the language he used totally betrayed his target audience, very clearly indeed!

And, I have myself suffered from exactly that type of deliberate exclusion - for though I have worked as a professional educator all my adult life, my paternal Grandmother could neither read nor write, and my Father (her son) was always an unskilled labourer. Throughout my successful career, I always refused to ape "my betters", and kept my Northern Working Class accent! So, I was usually treated as someone, who wouldn't understand the intricacies of Real Intellectual Argument, until I deigned to join in and prove the theses of "my self-assumed betters" wrong!

The method always employed in such Public Lectures (and Discussions) always uses the Names or Titles of Arguments, rather than explaining their actual contents, so that, unless you are constantly involved in such ideas with all of your time, you would not know what they meant, and your consequent "lack of understanding" would invariably be put down to your stupidity. And so, to terminate any possible explanations from me, the deliverer would show great surprise at one's ignorance of such essential Titles!

My own education, concentrating primarily upon Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, of course suffered from the same "Intellectualism", as I am here describing with Chomsky. But my Working Class background indelibly imprinted by my upbringing and status, always impelled me to attempt to transcend its clear limitations. Initially this broadened my interests to include, first Painting, and then Sculpture, and finally Computing - and slowly, in particular, due to the way I was treated in my chosen career. I was first a schoolteacher among my own Social Class, and then later in a Grammar School (educating the children of the Middle Class), after which I spent 10 years in a Further Education College teaching mature Working Class students how to program computers, along with the very best skill training Engineers for Local Industries.

I finally, after many rejections, I got a post in Higher Education, but it was only possible by attempting to get such a post abroad. I got a job in a Polytechnic in Hong Kong, where I was soon promoted to Senior Lecturer. And returning home to the UK on completion of my contract, I got a similar post in Glasgow in Scotland, where within 2 years, I was promoted to Principle Lecturer.

I decided to terminate my teaching, and concentrated instead solely upon devising and producing tailor-made Computer Software aids for researchers across the whole range of disciplines, which significantly adjusted my conceptions of Theory: as I had to help deliver exactly what my Discipline Expert Required!

And during the 1980s, many important Programmes and published research Papers were produced.

Finally, in a Director of Computing role, first in Bedford and finally in London University, I worked with an exceptional teacher of Dance Performance and Choreography, to deliver the Control and Flexibility she required, in using recorded footage of exemplar performances, that was subsequently used all over the world.

This career was sadly terminated early due to ill health, but working entirely from home I continued producing original research and software tools, and when this became impossible due to my failing eyesight, I worked with my son, Michael, who by then was a PhD, and a lecturer in Leeds University, to attempt to tackle the inadequacies of Intellectualism in Philosophy!

SHAPE Journal was my attempt to tackle Philosophy differently... 

This undertaking has taken me 14 years, 12 of these publishing over 150 issues of SHAPE Journal and this blog, involving over 1,000 separate papers. The initial project was to tackle the mess descended into within Modern Sub Atomic Physics, particularly addressing the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and the Modern Version of Cosmology, arising from the Copenhagen Stance. And latterly an extension of Dialectical Materialism in dealing with Modern Science...

Now, I will not even try, at this stage, to "correct" Chomsky's claims on the impossibility of explaining Effective Causal Explanations, which is the universal cornerstone of all his diverse arguments about the Impossibility of Real Understanding - because, in his particular restricted presentation of that problem, he was correct! 

But, in spite of his seemingly comprehensive arguments, he omitted (or more likely was totally unaware of) the effect of the alternative to his universally Pluralistic intellectual stance, in all the means that he referred to in his otherwise comprehensive treatment. And that was because, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution, almost 2,500 years ago, the only way literally ANY consistent and effective Rationality was considered possible, was by limiting the experiences involved to solely pluralist situations - which did NOT allow any real Qualitative changes, and, hence, would, if rigorously implemented, profoundly limit all relations to fixed exclusively quantitative Laws, so the Rationality involved could never ever explain the real Essence of an Evolving Reality, which is therefore definitely limited to both Constant Laws, and only episodic, and always inexplicable Qualitative Changes - NEVER involving significantly any reasons for those changes.

And, to ever address explicitly such changes, situations would have to be Holistic - as was defined at the same time as the Greek Intellectual Revolution, but wholly separately, by The Buddha, many thousands of miles away in India!

Now, neither subsequent Western Plurality nor Eastern Holism, ever dealt comprehensively-and-explicably with a qualitatively developing World, and Mankind's uses of their consequent ideas to understand Actual Development does not yet exist!

For, Reality does not conform completely, with either of these simplifications of it, mainly because, in both cases, the occurrence of the many, clearly obvious Stabilities, were never understood correctly!

Plurality, in fact, made Stability the basis of Everything! Whereas Holism failed to understand their persisting occurrences, completely, making Constant Change its credo! And Mankind, for a very long period indeed, could countenance no other method, when relying exclusively upon a Single Conformity occurring straight-through all possibilities.

The idea of an actually-existing Hierarchy of different Rationalities, at different Levels, as well as the actual causal connections occurring between those apparently independent Levels, were for a long period, totally outside of any such considered possibilities - until thinkers like Karl Marx and Charles Darwin began to reveal irrefutable evidence of such important natural transitions, simultaneously with innumerable contradictory components, strongly keeping situations as they were over long periods of time!

How can you even approach these questions without reference to Marx and Darwin?

Indeed, Contradiction was considered an absolute anathema!

And until Contradiction was properly understood (outside of the formalisms of Logic), such changes would certainly remain wholly inexplicable - and so they are inexplicable to Chomsky! In the universally-applied Mathematical Rationality, all Contradiction was dismissed as impossible, and therefore revealing an error of Logic! And, it wasn't until Mankind's breadth of Study was extended well beyond the Strictly Local, in both Time and Space, that such things could no longer be avoided.

Nevertheless, most "theorists" had developed their theories separated from the Real World, and instead as a wholly cerebral exercise, and so could never personally implement any of their then necessary experiments, so to even carry them out they had to employ skilled artisans and engineers, to achieve behaving systems for them.Yet, their both avid and universal subscription to the Principle of Plurality, could not be lightly dumped, as it did successfully "legitimise" the reliable Production of manufactured goods, both solved-and-delivered by those artisans and workers, and especially for the leisured intellectuals, who were never involved successfully in such activities anyway, and so didn't consider whether they were legitimate or not - but only that they delivered the objects and services that they required.

Yet, an ever-growing army of artisans and engineers, whose credo pragmatic credo was "If it works, it is right!", were increasingly rejecting the intellectual, theoretical stances of the scientists, and, in particular, the incredible-but-necessary theoretical assumptions of Modern Sub Atomic Theory, and always instead trusted their own Pragmatic arrangements and understandings, at which they were the consummate masters, and were always relied upon by those theorists, to make their experiments fit their way-out theories!

You may well wonder how this arrangement ever worked out, until, that is, you see the kind of Mathematics that the theorists always resorted to, to make it fit. For that Discipline, being wholly Pluralistic, naturally extended well beyond Reality-as-is, and well-into Ideality, so when the technicians were setting up the required experiment, they too could do the Maths, so they would physically organise the experiment to artificially deliver exactly what the Pluralist Theory predicted!

It was an unhappy coalition, as far as the pragmatists were concerned, and they increasingly began to look elsewhere for Real Theory. This situation has led, in Physics, to what is termed The Electric Universe alternative! And while this alternative was compromised by its Pragmatism, it has certainly challenged the conformist position in both Sub Atomic Physics and Cosmology, with valuable and demanding alternatives!

You can read more about the pros and cons of this in the latest issue of SHAPE journal:

A New Kind of Science?

... 

A Critique of - and Alternative to - Stephen Wolfram's

 "New Kind of Science"

With his computer software products of the last 30 years - solely based upon Cellular Automata - Stephen Wolfram builds, by very simple rules, certain surprisingly complex patterns. He compares them with the Binary 1s and 0s in Computing Machine Code where they are used to emulate a whole range of complex systems, that he and the Computing community have developed to a remarkable degree. But here, involving only Black and White identical squares, which via the "Wolfram Language", he has suggested a further, "more basic-and-abstract" set of Software developments, which, he insists, transcend all the anomalies-and-contradictions of the two currently dominant theories in Physics, such as those delivered by both Relativity Theories on the one hand, and Quantum Theories, on the other.

For, he insists that the far-more-basic study of all the results involved in his new kind of simple abstracted elements, are very different from those currently subscribed-to in those "Fundamental Theories" mentioned above. And, to that same end, he has also produced a "Wolfram-based" piece of software, incorporating, in addition, an extensive Knowledge Base, and possible direct access to its solutions, when posed with obviously relevant questions typed into it.

BUT, (and this is most important) he nowhere in his "New Science" addresses any of the causes inherent in those usually Subscribed-to-Areas of Theory and Knowledge, which have always been wholly dependant, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution, absolutely solely upon the artificial Rationality of Mathematics.

This foundation was possible due to an invention I have dubbed Simplified Relational Abstractions.

These abstractions were very effective, and have been used ever since, but they are true only in the relationships between Fixed Pure Forms, that always exist only in Forever Fixed Relations to one another (Laws or Rules), and therefore could alone be used, via Theorems and their Proofs, using that unique Mathematical Rationality, which, in order to work at all, just had to conform exactly to The Principle of Plurality.

But Plurality was not, and never can be true, of literally all other Reasoning, which instead must conform to the Principle of Holism, in which all "Laws" or "Rules" eventually vary, and such qualitative changes have to be the sole-means of Rationality, used in tracing out the only possible qualitative changes. Purely quantitative changes can never deal with such areas, and they will definitely include both General Reasoning, and ALL of The Sciences too, for all natural reality evolves and changes over time unless we try and stop it doing so. 

Now, though Plurality can-and-will approximate to Reality within Effectively Stabilised Situations, they are never, as is usually assumed - The Natural Norm of Reality. They are instead actually only temporary, if occasionally very long-lasting interludes, which will always terminate as the nexus of mutually-supporting-factors, are ultimately always and naturally successfully challenged. All Real Qualitative Development simply MUST, and indeed WILL, only conform to Holism.

At the same time as the Ancient Greeks were settling upon Plurality as the means for studying reality, in India - majorly influenced by The Buddha - they were settling instead upon Holism, as the rational Basis of all Reasoning, AND crucially all Development too! But, of course, both of these conceptions were, at that time, inadequately defined, as Mankind was, in both cases, breaking wholly new ground, and as with all such "Incomplete Understanding", it will always turn out to be less-than-sufficient, to include all the relevant factors.

Indeed, a crucial tenet of Modern 21st Century Holism, stresses the unavoidable multifarious basis of all Reality-as-is, as being inevitably composed of many different-yet-simultaneous factors - all of which do NOT just SUM, but actually affect one-another continually and qualitatively.

So, Causality in Fixed-Law Plurality, and hence also in Wolfram's identically philosophically-based stance, all fixed Rules are either ON or OFF, and can only Quantitatively SUM, when acting simultaneously with other Pluralist Laws. 

However, in Holism which more accurately represents how physical reality behaves, a huge variety of interactions are possible - all of which can change-each-other in various ways. While overall - taking all of them together, actually produce a range of diverse, consequent Phases, depending upon the weights, but also crucially the kinds, of the influences involved. The crucial thing about Plurality, is that the Laws cannot change qualitatively, and, as such, remain fixed no matter what the containing circumstances are.

But, the same cases within Holism, because of their mutually modifying effects, infer an almost continuous variation in how they all act: including, once changed, how they then react-back-upon what changed them, and, indeed, change that too, in consequence! You are bound, therefore, to get both Recursion, and even the ultimate appearance of the Wholly New: where it WILL, in such circumstances, also be the Emergence of total Novelty - real Qualitative Development is therefore not only possible, but inevitable - and this is reflected in the dynamic reality we observe.

Now, additionally, there will also be actual contention- indeed sometimes all the way to processes producing the Direct Opposites of other processes. And the amount of such opposition, will vary in various ways from effectively Ignorable in one direction, all the way to Total Cancellation, with neither process NOT having any effect, on to the Total Dominance of one over the other (and all states in between these distinctive Phases). And Recursion will also guarantee that the many modifying Effects will "in sum" create constant variations in literally everything, though itself will be adjusted by the sizes of the differently-acting Opposites.

Now, in such a melée, it seems inevitable that very long-lasting Stabilities could, and occasionally would, be totally impossible, but that turns out to be incorrect! Indeed, when the above relations, all acting together, work themselves out, a kind of Balanced Stability is achieved, with the diametrically opposite processes controlling groups of situations into constantly varying, yet effectively "constant" results by a built-in entire controlling into a "Negating Balance of Opposites", which whenever an unbalancing commences, quite mechanistically also varies what will change it back in the opposite direction: though all such operations occur over very short time-spans.

Interestingly, these "Balanced Stabilities" are NEVER permanent, and in rare Crisis Situations, can and indeed do, carry on into overall avalanches of collapses of all the Balanced Stabilities into a total Dissolution of the overall System of them, into what appears to be Total Chaos! The name usually applied to these situations when we observe them in society, is a Revolution, but similar patterns are observable in natural development too - and its following resolution into a New System of balanced stabilities, if such occurs, is termed philosophically, an Emergence.

Stephen Wolfram

Now, all of these criticisms of Plurality, also apply equally well to Wolfram's new alternative Science: so it is certainly no solution to the myriad problems associated with the Pluralist Stance - the well-beloved mathematical view - and the crisis it has precipitated in Physics.

So, now, we must begin to adequately equip a genuinely New Kind of Science - based resolutely in a New Holism - as the old historical version of holistic thinking is, as yet, ill-equipped for the necessary task of solving Science's philosophical inadequacies. 

We dealt with some possible new Holistic approaches in the last issue of SHAPE Journal - Circles, Spirals and Helices

Now, both the problems, and the virtues, of the Holist Stance arise from its maximal variability! For, without any Stable Waystations being available within its Reasoning, all Explanations get turned into different seemingly Infinite Regressions. So, there have to be both Processes and consequent achieveable Waystation States, wherein reasonably "long-lasting Interludes of Relative Stability are achievable, where in, in some cases at least, the old pluralist methods could still be used within the achieved Temporary Stabilities. BUT, it could never extend to predicting those States' guaranteed terminations, and, crucially, what they would then be replaced by. Indeed, ALL Qualitatuive Changes are totally beyond Plurality!

So, even in the best of circumstances, the actual trajectory of all Development is always unavoidably due to a kind of ever-present Blind Holism - it can never describe exactly what you will get in such Holistic Changes! But, Reality is never in a single Universe-wide State. It is inevitably structured as a Hierarchy of Levels, and within those Levels of Further separate Localities - all ruled by Holism, but everywhere attaining temporary interludes of Stability - both achieved, maintained and ultimately terminated along with its temporarily "stable states".

Let us begin to investigate just how these are achieved!

Here again we must approach "Circles, Spirals and Helices", because it is never in single instances that qualitatively changed Compositions, and, therefore caused flips to alternate States, are thereby achieved: it can only happen in constantly repeated Cycles of Processes, which, alone, can over-time dramatically change compositions, and hence ultimately precipitate Wholly New Outcomes. Indeed, such changes, initially, have negligible effects: but, nevertheless, they will be affecting many different simultaneous processes - to different extents - until the whole system flips-over into a series of different modes, each of which, either settle into a self-adjusted relatively stable state, or precipitate an overall collapse into a major Qualitative Change!

The Cyclic Nature of the System, both "steadies the boat", in one sense, by briefly returning to previous conditions, but also ensures Cumulative Build-Ups, that take the System to Wholly New Circumstances. The multi-factor nature of these Cyclic Systems is governed by the multiple simultaneous interactions, which can both steady things, or alternatively build-up to destructive proportions.

It is the former of these two alternatives that usually dominates, and ensures that the situation remains stable most of the time - look at the cyclical stabilities of atoms, metabolic pathways, ecosystems, orbits in planetary systems and the fusion reactions in stars. These recurrent stabilities throughout nature allow us to use Plurality and Mathematics to understand their forms, but we understand nothing about their underlying dynamics, lifespans or origins. 

These cyclical stabilities boil down to the unavoidable Causal Dominance of Diametrical Opposites: for ONLY these can oppose their opposites, entirely cancel their effects, and maybe even precipitate their individual domination or even demise!

Now, these latter paragraphs reflect the very different Nature of Holistic interactions. They not only differ from the usual Pluralistic Causality, but can actually take different consequent and even diametrically opposite paths. So, there is a great deal more to it, than I have inferred here.

Holistic Rationality is still in its infancy, and that also means that Holistic Science (especially in subjects like Physics), is practically non-existent! We see its origins in the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx, both in History and in Capitalist Economics, but even that took Marx the rest of his life to just begin the process, AND even in those areas it has to be constantly updated with new study, for nothing we discover is fixed like in Mathematics, everything constantly evolves!


ASIDE:

I cannot let this important passage pass, without describing its relationship to "Balanced Stabilities". For these are the Holistic Equivalents of all the Supposedly Basic, and potentially-permanent Stabilities in Plurality.

But, of course, they are in fact the very Opposite of Basic, and are, somehow, actively-maintained as Stable (presumably via the cumulative effects of processes in Repeating Cycles), which usually effectively eliminate all destructive contributions by the ever increasing successes of Pairs of Diametrical Opposites, not only selectively eliminating all others, but also, settling into whole sets of Balanced Pairs of opposites, acting as self-adjusting maintainers of the achieved Overall Stability.

Now, the switches, from absolutely NO causally-explained Qualitative changes, as in all Pluralist Science, is still not universally accepted, as most scientists actually recognise such changes, but either totally fail to explain what causes them, and/or just signal-and-describe, rather than explain, the occurrence of such changes, by merely noting-when the exceeding of a previously observed and thereafter known threshold occurs, and the consequent switching to a different behaviour then happens, without any explanation for that change in the Science.

Clearly, this tells us nothing: but such was the established norm, with the various behaviours considered to be adequately described by mathematical equations - that have been fitted-up to measured values from experiments, and both dominated by, and sufficient for, Effective Pragmatic Use (or Technology) only, but often with little or no explanation of Reality (or Science).

The "use-tail" therefore always wagged the "explanatory dog"!

And with the dexterity of Human Hands, tool-making and the development of our intelligence, even that had been sufficient to transform their World and Lives truly significantly! With the gains of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, Humanity would continue to do so for still more millennia.

But a New Approach (as yet undefined) was even then, clamouring-at-the-Door! It was the need for a deeper Understanding of our world, and therefore Real Explanation of its mysterious and dynamic nature. Now there had been many failed attempts to do this in human history, via Magic, Chance, Religion or even the Plans of Great or Wise Leaders, but what was already becoming possible were the emerging means of investigating aspects of Reality - in order to really Understand them - not the Technology which took over, but Science itself!

But the steadfast commitment to Plurality was already deflecting attention, even then, into only Fixed Laws limited to constrained contexts: and the vast majority of Causal Systems were not Pluralistic at all! So what began to be discovered were individual Laws, within rigidly-maintained circumstances, but never how those limitations and their necessarily Fixed Laws could be transcended, which was still causally unknown!

Two millennia ago, The Buddha was already developing an alternative approach, which later became known as Holism: and slowly the dynamics of Natural Qualitative Change began to be attempted to be addressed by human beings - but still not yet via a developed System of proven ideas, though, initially, at least, by continuing re-assessments and occasional profound Thought - and always available for improvement.

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2017/06/oh-my-gosh-its-covered-in-rule-30s/

But, in Science, that approach was minimally developed because of the Pluralist Myth that absolutely everything can be adequately addressed by Fixed Laws alone. They most certainly cant!And, what is almost entirely undeveloped in Physics, for example, are the Dynamical Emergences of Qualitative Changes, as causally explained phenomena.

Yet that is absolutely imperative, if Science is to form a basis for most Reliable Understanding: and we must start with how they work within recurring processes as in Cycles, as in Orbits and in Spins.

With the one-off occurrence of an effect, qualitative changes are likely to be small and soon swamped by a cascade of other very different ones. But, in constantly repeated, seemingly-identical cycles, such changes can, and indeed often do, accumulate into an ever growing Effect, which can ultimately become dominant, and flip the whole situation into a different mode! Now, such things can literally never happen with Fixed Pluralist Singly-happening Laws: but, with collections of multiple, different and simultaneous Holistic sets of Laws, particularly in repeated Cycles, they could be very likely indeed.

But, such changes within an Holistic set of laws can do several very different things! They can establish temporary Stabilities for long periods. Aberrations can cause the total collapse of such a Stability. Cycles can selectively eliminate aberrations in Systems. They can allow Qualitative Changes in Real Development. 

And, as the common form of "Stability" in a Holistic World, it is only ever temporarily delivered within a Balanced Stability of many laws - linked Laws primarily in Balanced Pairs of Diametrical Opposites, such aberrations though similarly ineffectual singly, are on the contrary, within constantly repeated Cycles, highly likely to grow, for though normally singly eliminated by the self-adusting Pairs, which can usually overcome a single aberration, they will, on the contrary, be highly susceptible within constantly repeated identical Cycles, so such aberrations can then accumulate over many repeats, which can in some circumstances even precipitate a complete dissolution of the system - not only of single Balanced Pairs, but could, along with others, dissociate an entire Balanced Stability.

In an Holistic situation Formal Logic doesn't hold! 

But it is still Causal!

Many simultaneous causes contend!

You have to reveal The Whole Mix!

But, notice that, because any diametrical opposites will mutually-cancel, they will not be easily eliminated: on the other hand, less related and thereby balanced-and-maintained components, will instead be selectively-eliminated over the constant, successive repeats of the ongoing Cycles - to leave only the more retainable content over time!


ASIDE:

The Nature of Modern Holism, not appreciated until very recently, now involves very different dynamic scenarios to those of the usual Pluralist Stance, because the simultaneous interactions of multiple contending and modifying factors, are now seen to involve a whole range of different outcomes, that were wholly inconceivable previously in Plurality.

Indeed, even The Tetralemma, as mentioned in the writings of many Buddhist Philosophers, that listed the 4 conceivable judgements, that cover all the possible applicabilities of such ideas - indeed that they can be

True

or Untrue,

both True & Untrue,

or neither True or Untrue

- instead of being only absolutely unexplained Descriptions, are now each capable of being covered by a series of rational explanations for the first time.

And the initial places these began to become possible were in changing contents and ultimately outcomes of constantly repeated Cycles!

Now, this development has already precipitated an alternative to the usual Pluralist Theories dominating current Cosmology: as they have led to a rejection of the usual Theories particularly concerned with the Origin and Subsequent Development of the Whole Universe. Indeed, all sorts of extensions to Reality are referred-to, in compiling current explanations in this significant area of ideas, actually taking most of them well beyond Reality and Deep into the heart of Ideality!

Yet, the sort of possibilities now being revealed concerning Natural Electricity and Magnetism, are not only providing a fully-explicable "Non-Big-Bang" beginning to Everything, and thereby not only providing an alternative initial primarily Electromagnetic Origin, but also delivering the best chance, today for a Nuclear Fusion means of providing Electricity in the near Future, with the efforts of Eric Lerner and his Fusion Focus team in New Jersey, USA!

So, a major New Intellectual Revolution is at least nigh, if not already underway, which will change literally every aspect of our Philosophy and Culture, if carried-through to completion, or their ultimate demise if not.

Now this paper commenced with the proposed alternative deep mathematical abstractions of Stephen Wolfram, but in taking this new Holistic Route to Understanding has expounded the real way forwards, while also demonstrating the truly vast, indeed Infinite extent of Ideality, that seduces with its detail, but nevertheless leads Mankind only into the Swamps of Myth!

There is a New Kind of Science on the way, but it isn't Wolfram's.

Science must break free of Mathematics and Pluralist thinking to deal head-on with the dynamic, evolving, material and Holist Universe we actually inhabit, for the first time.

Special Issue 69: Redefining Philosophy II

Read Special Issue 69 of SHAPE Journal here

Special Issue 69 of SHAPE Journal is a continuation of the series called Redefining Philosophy. This research attempts to complete the unfinished task of Karl Marx, and redefine philosophy as both Materialist and Holist - in other words, grounded in the ever-changing and interconnected real world that surrounds us.

Special Issue 68: Redefining Philosophy

Read the latest issue of the SHAPE Journal

Redefining Philosophy? 

You would think after two and a half millennia that a Universally-Agreed-Basis for Philosophy would by now be well established, but that is not only far from being the case, it is also inevitably so!

So, let us reveal the unavoidable trajectory of Mankind’s Intellectual Development into a real perspective. Rational Thinking of any developable kind is at most 2,500 years old, in an overall hominid historical Trajectory of several million years. Man began to try to think rationally in the last 0.0005% of that time, leaving 99.9995% when they didn’t, and indeed couldn’t think rationally at all.

And, of course, the actually-occurring tempos of that development have certainly not been embodied in a constant upwards climb: for sometimes progress was at zero for long periods. Sometimes things went backwards.

For 2,300 years after the Greek Intellectual Revolution it was fatally damaged by an assumption that few philosphers recognise - the hidden assumption of Plurality. This assumed that all relations, properties and Laws are fixed qualitatively and separable from one another.

Only in the early 19th century did Hegel, the German Idealist Philosopher, attempt for the first time to integrate Qualitative Change into General Reasoning.

But even that was not universally accepted.

Indeed, it couldn’t be, whilever Philosophy remained idealist: for the solution could not come from Thinking itself, but in the our understanding of Concrete Reality. Only with the extension and vast further development of those ideas, which Hegel termed as Dialectics, was the possibility of a breakthrough even possible.

And, when it was attempted by Marx in the limited area of Capitalist Economics, it took him the rest of his life to address that single discipline, And in doing so, he was developing the stance as much as applying it.

Qualitative development was in everything, and every significant area of study, such as Science, would have to not only receive the same sort of attention as Economics, but would also be as much another voyage of discovery, very much more complex and unknown than Economics had been for Marx.

And in the the 140 years since Marx’s death, this task wasn’r even attempted. It has taken this Theorist and Philosopher over 10 years to lay the most basic of foundations.

But they have been remarkable!

To even begin the process, a wholly new approach had to be researched which produced the wholly new. For all Qualitative Change must produce the wholly new.

In all reasoning previously established using Fixed Laws and Pluralist Logic, the rationality involved, when it could be used, produced actual results - and the same ones every time it was used, and whoever used it! But Qualitative Changes are Dialectical, produced in what used to be seen as impossible developments, for which they were termed Emergences.

To grasp what an Emergence actually is, we must compare it to one of the previous pluralistic Laws, all of which have predictable outcomes.

The outcome from an Emergence, on the other hand, is NEVER predictable prior to its commencement, Indeed, you have to be an exceptional Dialectician to even predict the next phase of such a transformation, and only when the final result is imminent, can the culmination of a completed Emergence be guessed at.

So clearly the revolution in Premises and Bases required here will be very different from the prior Pluralist Methods.

The classical Qualitative changes involved in an Emergence start with a Stability, the destruction of which originally appears to be totally impossible, but which is then threatened by a whole series of crises, which usually, but ultimately, would cascade down into a total dissolution of the Stability, towards what seemed to be impending doom, but could, and often did, begin via series of crises attempt to build towards a new, and finally achieved self-sustaining Stability!

The new philosophical approach would have to reflect all of that too, in order to deliver an understanding of Real Development.

Issue 66: Holistic Materialism I

Read Issue 66

This is the first in a special two part series entitled Holistic Materialism. These issues constitute a set of loosely related papers by Marxist theorist Jim Schofield concerning his philosophy of science, and his application of Holism and Dialectical Materialism to the sciences, especially particle physics. This has been a historical and epistemological project as much as it has been a philosophical and scientific one. In order to understand the mistakes and impasses we are presented with in science today, it is imperative to go back and have some understanding of how knowledge and philosophy have evolved over human history.

But what exactly is Holistic Materialism? Holism is a word that means different things to different people, a seemingly vague term that is often abused and misused - ‘holistic medicine’ for example covers all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense no empricial researcher would care to be associated with. However Holism as a philosophical concept refers to something quite specific, and for Jim Schofield it is encapsualted in its opposition to the Pluralist position (not to be confused with pluralism), which sees all entities and laws as separable - capable of being isolated and studied in isolation - but more importantly, that this separability will somehow unlock the truth of how things in reality work. Essentially it is the philosophy of reductionism and this underpins almost all contemporary scientific research. Jim Schofield’s work is a unique critique of the hidden assumptions which underpin all science.

This is not the first time the term Holistic Materialism has been used, however. We see it linked to biology and 19th century naturalists in the writing of Ernst Mayr.

“The discovery of the similarity between dialectical materialism and the thinking of the naturalists is not new. Several authors have called attention to it, particularly Allen... He starts quite rightly: “The process of natural selection is as dialectical a process one could find in nature.” Allen thought that the dialectic viewpoint of the naturalists had been lost between 1890 and 1950... Allen asserts that the “holistic materialism” of the naturalists had failed to incorporate two important dialectical views. First “the notion that the internal change within a system is the result specifically of the interaction of opposing forces or tendencies within the system itself.”

The Roots of Dialectical Materialism (Mayer, 1997)

In the work of Schofield we see this kind of holist view of natural systems but very much informed by the dialectics of Karl Marx. It is not enough to see the interconnected-ness of things but realise how natural dominances emerge, to the point of seeming universal, and also how these dominances can come crashing down as their internal contradictions finally play out. It is in these crucial events that we see the Emergence of the wholly new. In these papers we see how Pluralist science prohibits access to this fundamental feature of reality, and that while those 19th naturalists may have hinted at the way forward, holist science is something new.

Special Issue 65: Towards the New Physics

Substrate Theory Part 2: 

Towards the New Physics

by Jim Schofield

Part 2 of our special anniversary series on Substrate Theory is finally here!

This selection of papers constitute more recent additions to this burgeoning new Physics and many of these have never been published before.

Increasingly, I no longer feel like a lone voice in this. Other physicists are starting to move in this direction - Lee Smolin and Frank Wilczek are joining a growing group of dissenters in mainstream Physics, unhappy with its infinite descent into the Idealist wormhole, away from materialism and realism.

This series is a significant celebration of both the Journal’s (and its principle theorist’s) 10 years spent in theoretically addressing the current ever-deepening crisis in Modern Physics. This is represented by the now consensus position embodied in the premises of this subject as they are brought together in The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, which has steadfastly taken Physics away from physical Explanation of reality, and instead towards a wholly idealist stance, that assigns full causality only to the set of formal equations, primarily derived from High Speed Accelerator Experiments, primarily conducted at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

My hypothesis is that Copenhagen was almost universally instituted throughout Sub Atomic Physics, as a set of formal tricks for dealing with a missing / hidden Substrate - papering over the cracks of the waves in nothing.

Elsewhere, in my book The Real Philosophy of Science, these philosophical problems have been tackled, but here we must also tackle physically the very real possibility of an undetectable Universal Substrate - look at why it might have escaped detection and how we might finally prove its existence.

The Mystery of Pair Production explained!

The new physics of Substrate Theory

Find out more about these ideas in The Lepton Substrates

Frank Wilczek and the Universal Substrate

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!

A Mirror of Reality

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"



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

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!

Special Issue 63: Changing Dialectics

Changing Dialectics by Jim Schofield

Read Special 63

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.

Issue 63: The Dialectics of Natural Selection

The Dialectics of Natural Selection

-

This edition re-issues my work on Truly Natural Selection, on its 10 year anniversary, alongside some more recent contributions to this vital subject.

This series of papers extends Natural Selection beyond the Living World and into Reality in general.

It sees all “complication” not just as a summation of Parts, but as a necessary development of things, involving wholly new features, when it is usually, and correctly, renamed Evolution.

Where with Life we have the mechanisms of qualitative change as variation based on mutation, plus selection via competition, this more general form drives change via selection between competing chemical processes, and the significant transformation of context.

Fitness to survive, reproduce and prosper in the form which drives Evolution, is replaced in the more basic form by advantage to conducive, complementary processes and the successive transformation of the underlying situations entirely without Life being either present or necessary.

This view of Reality runs entirely counter to the famed Second Law of Thermodynamics, and therefore, requires physical explanation. We can do this in terms of context, whereas the Second Law is a product of interludes of maximally constrained stability, while competitive advances-in-order occur in quite different situations of unconstrained, maximum opportunity. And these alternating phases turn out to be the natural features of systems driven in cycles of any kind. The pattern of longer periods of relative stability, interspersed with short interludes of radical, qualitative change, is, in fact, the norm in the trajectories of such systems.

And the Key Events in these processes are the revolutionary episodes, which we call Emergences. Clearly, the most significant and undeniable of these has to be that which produced the very first Living Things. And this Event alone confirms that Selection in some form must have preceded Life! It was the source of Life on Earth.

Many important fallacies are addressed in these papers, including the usual mathematical definition of Probability, and its false use as a Cause of Life. And, most crucially, we address the concept of competition involving mutually conducive and mutually contending chemical processes, which are necessary for Selection in these circumstances.

The crux has to be the revolutionary Events called Emergences, which had clearly already occurred throughout the history of Reality, prior to the Emergence of Life, and which are generally ignored by most current Science.

-

Truly Natural Selection extrapolates Darwin’s Natural Selection backwards into non-living systems, and the competition between simultaneously acting processes, involving both the consumption of resources, and the generation of consequent products.

Such active systems would invariably transform their own bases, and rampant positive feedback situations would always dwindle as necessary resources were used up, while other processes could accelerate due to the adequate production of their resources by other processes. Now, apart from such relatively independent processes, there will always be other relations between simultaneous processes, all the way from necessary sequences of dependant processes to either mutually- supporting, conducive processes, and at the opposite extreme mutually-contending and opposing processes.

So, even in such non-living mixes, the processes would directly effect one another and a kind of competition would most certainly ensue. And along with these, there would also invariably be the ever-present, one-way, Second Law of Thermodynamics type processes which would seemingly prosper on a wide range of products and effectively parasitically benefit from all available productive processes.

These ideas, in a totally holist way, were developed to extend concepts originally thought to be confined only to the Evolution of Life, first to its actual Origin, and thereafter to the whole spectrum of developments that have occurred ever since the start of the Universe.

And these ideas finally became a cornerstone of my Theory of Emergences, and a new dialectical view of selection and change in nature.

Read issue 63