Issue 33 of Shape: The Logic of Change

Read the issue

This short set of papers by no means comprises a definitive
statement of the Modern Logic of Change that it purports
to deal with. They arose as a separated series of brief
explanatory contributions to various different research
areas, and hence, in their intended contexts both assumed
that context, and in addition each had a fairly limited remit
as to their objectives.

Nevertheless, on inspection of these clearly-philosophical
contributions, it became clear that they could indeed be
put together as a brief, if varied, introduction to what is
evidently becoming an extremely valuable approach to
Developmental Change.

Though there are some references to other areas of study, I
have modified the parts that would be meaningless outside
of the context for which they were originally produced.
Therefore, hopefully, these essays will indicate the path
that is currently being constructed – a Holist approach to
Science with an appropriate and useable methodology.

Ecce Habilis

Ecce Habilis by Jim Schofield

The Electromagnetic Effects of the Neutritron

If this is the form of the neutritron, then even though overall it will have a zero net charge (like the atom), it will also have a zero net matter (unlike the atom)!

But, that will certainly NOT be the case in close proximity to the joint particle – that is locally!

So clearly in any interactions with other entities, which are physically positioned, so as to definitely be in close proximity, these will certainly be determined by very local conditions indeed!

Let us therefore consider the following image, which superimposes the fields of the two component particles upon their mutual orbit and the surrounding area, as viewed from a position perpendicular to the plane of that orbit.

Clearly, when seen in this way, very close to the joint particle, hardly anywhere is neutral, on either electrical or magnetic criteria. The intended colours for the two fields will, ultimately, in the final version, be RED for the positive electrostatic field, and BLUE for the negative field. In both the strength of the field will be evident from the depth of colour.

We will then clearly see strong electrostatic fields in the close vicinity of each of the sub particles.

And, as these fields overlap, they will neutralise.

Now the decreasing strength of the fields are indicated by the increasing paleness of the colours involved. And where the two fields cancel out completely (particularly in the line between the particles) the zero positions are shown as black dots.

In addition, of course, such a diagram can only present a snapshot instant of a continually changing situation, for as they orbit all fields will be changing continually in all static positions, so that overall there will be NO residual field effects over time – they will average out to zero.

Now, it is extremely revealing to consider the effect upon a static single point (depicted here using the black circle near x). For, due to its shown position it will of course be subject to a strong positive field. But now we have to follow the changes in the field at this point, as the two sub particles move round as they orbit one another.

Let us assume that the rotation is taking place in an anticlockwise direction, so that the orbiting particles approach new positions at z and w. Clearly the positive charge upon our stationary position near x will decline until it reaches ZERO, where the two fields exactly cancel out. Then, as the rotation continues until the moving particles reach y and x, the effect on our position will have risen to a maximum negative value.

Clearly, over a complete cycle this point will suffer a classical complete cycle of oscillation of the field, over time, resulting in the following pattern. 

Now, of course, we still have to consider the unavoidable magnetic effects of the moving charges, which are essential to Maxwell’s formal representation of a disembodied electromagnetic radiation. So, could these necessary components occur too?

Considering our very simple diagram, we have a problem! For, both a single electron and a single positron orbiting together will again cancel their magnetic effects overall.

But, once more concentrating our attention, as with the electrostatics, on the effects during a single cycle of rotation at x, it becomes clear that there will be a magnetic fields, at a maximum at the beginning, which will decline first to ZERO then rise to a maximum in the opposite direction after half a cycle. The N and S magnetic effects will also be reversed, via a midpoint where thery exactly cancel out.

It is becoming clear that the magnetic effects at x will also oscillate, as did the electrostatic effects, but at right angles to the plane of the orbit.

Now, if all this is true, we can see why Maxwell’s purely formal encapsulation of electromagnetic radiation did indeed fit the bill in many circumstances. But rather than the overall effect, it would be in contrast be delivering oscillation effects at local levels. (See the full electrostatic and magnetic trace below).

Now, let us consider the alternatives physically!

Theory One: Electromagnetic radiation is a purely disembodied-yet-energetic oscillation of nothing, which which can hold and propagate energy over otherwise entirely Empty Space!

Theory Two: There is NO disembodied E-M radiation, but there is a joint particle with these E-M properties, which can propagate them either by movement of the receptacle particle, or by passing it on bucket-brigade fashion across a universe-wide undetectable paving of these units.

Now, of course, put like that the choice is surely “no contest”, but the failure to find any such paving, or even explain how such a vast structure could ever have come into existence always condemned such a suggestion as untenable.

Clearly, such a theory demands many as yet unrevealed things about Reality, whereas the other merely attributes all the necessary properties to Empty Space itself – that is to Nothing!

Now, though the new alternative does, in fact, work out nicely for propagation, that is certainly NOT the case with a single electron orbit within an atom. For the reversal of the magnetic component in the delivered propagation within its cycle of oscillation, seems to be impossible to generate directly via such an origin in the atom!

But, this might not be such a problem, if a prior-existing paving unit, with mutually orbiting particles of opposite charge receive merely a gobbet of energy at a given frequency. For the already existing, receiving structure would determine how than energy was internally distributed. Thereafter, both to other such units in propagation and finally given up to something else, the required full Maxwell form would be the quantum being dealt with, NOT as a wave in a medium, but as a pair of mutually orbiting particles with a receptacle-per-quantum.

So, it is merely energy at a given frequency transferred from the promoted electron orbit in the atoms to a paving propagation elsewhere.

Slavoj Žižek - The Safe and Useful Rebel?

What happens when the writer adopts the vocabulary of the consensus in his society?

It is usually explained as being an attempt to speak in a language everyone can understand – presumably to win him or her to a better and more profound standpoint. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t! Instead, it is bound to pull the writer into the “currently dominant” standpoint, where such definitions have been developed over centuries to fit what basic assumptions and explanations were readily available, and indeed, in common use.

And, the question has to be asked, “Who would have been in a position to both formulate and disseminate such concepts?"

Is it the man in the street? Definitely not!

It will always be the products of those in power: those will have the education to be able to express such things, and the wherewithall to be able to disseminate them through their “owned” organs of information.

Any radical motive cannot be easily maintained in such circumstances, and the prophet, in seeking resonances with an alien readership, and in order to get into print, can very easily become the apologist!

The contradictions in meaning between any revolutionary criticisms and the acceptance of the status quo, can never be resolved, as the words used only make any kind of sense in their currently employed meanings: and who is it that will be doing the using? The dominant standpoint within a society that produced the current meanings of that vocabulary will unavoidably be those of the people in charge, and NOT the mass of the population, who for most of their history couldn’t even read, never mind write!

So, the “radical Marxist”, attempting to make a living in the highest institutions of learning must explain things using the accepted vocabulary of those who will make up the vast majority of his colleagues, though couched in the occasional words that seem to be revolutionary (but aren’t!)

Slavoj ŽiŽek seems to be the perfect example of this!

On reading the Introduction to his book In Defense of Lost Causes, he manages to set the stage for this long book, by excusing the “failures” of revolutionaries, and he does it by revealing their clear good intentions. He even calls their “evident virtues” – idealism – a quality of trying to achieve a better world. But rather than the usual advice to therefore, “Give up now you’ll never do it”, he alternatively says that unavoidable failure is really the best that anyone can ever do!

Isn’t that stimulating?

“NO!” And, if you think that, you are right!

Here is the absolutely-guaranteed, safe revolutionary for you!

Does this self appointed prophet not know what Idealism really is? And it has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist revolutionaries. They are nothing if they are not the most realist operators in the world! Real philosophical Idealism is the direct opposite to Materialism, and Marxists are avowedly materialists! They commit to an entirely materialist standpoint, which takes Matter as primary, and attempts to explain things in terms of the entities present, their properties and their inter-relationships.

And, in case anyone is assuming that these Marxists see everything in purely mechanistic terms – the exact opposite is the case! Their standpoint is the only one that can both deal with real qualitative change, and is also essentially multi-disciplinary!

Indeed, these two philosophical words have very different meanings to what ŽiŽek attaches to them: and his meanings are those of the ruling classes, NOT those of committed revolutionaries.

Instead of the idealism of the status quo defenders, revolutionaries see Idealism as a standpoint that has the whole of reality determined entirely by eternal abstract laws, which can be totally encapsulated in purely formal equations. Contrast this with ŽiŽek’s chosen interpretation as a yearning for something better. And, if he were to be consistent with his chosen language, he would also use materialism to mean chasing after material gain, wealth and position. Not even remotely similar are they?

And yet, such very different meanings were considered crucial by real Marxists. Not only Marx and Engels, but also Lenin took this position, and wrote an important book entitled Materialism and Empirio Criticism to counter an idealist trend within the Bolshevik Party (led, I believe, by Lunacharsky, who after the Revolution became the Minister for Education in the Revolutionary Government)

So ŽiŽek’s introduction establishes an amazing position!

One side of it has already been established above in his choice of language, and the second must be his breathtaking apology for the catastrophes following the Russian Revolution, which he, along with the enemies of that revolution, sees as inevitable, but in his case somehow excusable too!

WHAT?

His "inevitable consequence" was no such thing, for it took Stalin many years, a World context of active hostility, and even military interventions by 14 capitalist powers, and, in addition, there was an externally, as well as internally wealth-sponsored Civil War, with the Royalists and Capitalist attempting to overthrow the Revolutionary Regime.

And, even then for Stalin to complete his proposed transformation, internal dedicated revolutionaries had to be successively removed, imprisoned and executed, or even pursued and assassinated (as was Trotsky) to achieve this supposedly “inevitable result”

It’s an odd kind of inevitability is it not? It’s a bit like the opposite of damning Stalin with faint praise to excuse this traitor to the revolution, both in Russia and worldwide!

Let us put our self professed revolutionary Marxist in his proper context!

You can picture a dinner party in London (say) where the “radical” ŽiŽek had been invited to entertain the gathering where various very comfortable academics could “discuss” ŽiŽek’s ideas without any rancour, and with conclusions such as, “All Revolutions are bound to fail!” and “Their idealism simply doesn’t match with Reality”, not to mention, “The inherent greed and insufficiency of people guarantees ultimate failure.” And, such a group beating up ŽiŽek with their mutually agreed vocabulary, could go home to their own comfortable beds, and sleep peacefully!

And such a description is certainly accurate, for this writer was similarly invited to such a Dinner Party for the same reasons, and with a similar bunch of invitees. The only difference was, that I didn’t speak their language, and if anything they went home worried to death!

Also, watching a discussion programme on TV yesterday, a wholly similar social situation was evident. And in a similar way to how I have described the certain treatment of ŽiŽek, with a similar Aunt Sally as he, it was clear that no matter what were the professed affiliations of the participants they all used exactly the same language, and just as effectively tidied away as ineffectual, idealist and bound-to-fail were all revolutionary threats.

Yet somehow major interventions, or their possibility, were constantly coming up in response to the Arab Spring, and you have to ask, which side they would be on when it came to resolving the situation!

P.S. And this is only in response to ŽiŽek ‘s Introduction!

Addendum

Once more into the breech, dear friends!

For, on thinking about ŽiŽek’s lead-in to In Defense of Lost Causes, I felt that I should do the same with the introduction to his book On Belief.

And it was indeed the right decision. For, he analyses the debate occurring in 2000 on US TV in which clerics from the Jewish, Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist faiths discussed religion and Heaven. The Baptist explained that many “good people” would most certainly end up in Hell, as they hadn’t committed themselves to Christ during their lives.

And such an unwavering “principle”, ŽiŽek likened to that shown by Lenin in his revolutionary activities in Russia, and in his “re-casting” of Marx’s position with respect to political tasks.

[Clearly this academic philosopher is scared to death by such intransigence!]

But, of course, such a supposed resonance, could only be found by a modern “opponent” of Liberal Capitalist compromise, and was totally disregarding of the actual political natures of these two completely opposite men. For it handily coupled the two extremes as essentially similar in their steadfast positions. It is, of course, total and completely irresponsible rubbish, and sees them both as steadfast in their “beliefs”!

And, to thereafter promote himself, as ŽiŽek does, as being on the same side as Lenin, is total nonsense. As Trotsky said when describing such people as ŽiŽek – “They wear the yellow jacket of rebellion, but are still fast asleep in their beds when the factory gates are receiving workers in their thousands”. That would be anathema to someone like ŽiŽek: he is an informed faker, and no revolutionary!

Even mentioning Lenin’s name in a book about belief soils Lenin’s real and significant contributions, and effectively demotes a revolutionary commitment to merely another kind of “idealist” belief! Clearly, this analyser of Society is no Marxist at all, and certainly no revolutionary.

He, though, takes, along with all the enemies of that revolution, a position in opposition to Liberal Capitalism and compromise, which will resonate very well with the Right in US politics.

What a remarkable stance, it is so full of contradictions, it is no wonder he is visibly in constant, jerking agitation when he speaks, but it will certainly get readers. For if he (even if only apparently) took a Leninist Bolshevik stance, he would be crucified as are all such dangerous outsiders, so he wisely appeals to all sorts of people, and he does it from an evidently impotent, yet “clever radical” standpoint. Can you guess which side he will be on when the time comes?

I vividly remember innumerable avowedly “marxist” tendencies in the UK, when the troubles escalated in Northern Ireland, they all supported the sending of troops “to defend the republican Catholics” against the then rampant unionist mobs.

But, whom were they used against?

Any Marxist would know that immediately!

That betrayal, more than any number of written treatises, revealed their real position. Only one tendency opposed the sending of troops and they were the nearest thing to revolutionary Marxists at that time. And I know this because I was in that tendency!

Language and Plurality: The Disabling of Science

A quote from Wittgenstein made it clear that you cannot enter any specialism unless you know its language.

This was pointed out to me, in response to my damning critique of the self-professed Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who’s implicit, but unstated, position on revolution, revealed a very different kind of person.  For, I had made it clear, in that critique, that the very language and assumptions he used in defining his “radicalism” was absolutely nothing to do with either revolution or Marxism, and clearly everything to do with his position and milieu in the Universities in the capitalist world.

Yet, that criticism of mine wasn’t an appropriate example of a similar standpoint to Wittgenstein’s, for though mine is based upon a holistic philosophical standpoint, a working class origin and a lifetime in revolutionary politics, Wittgenstein’s was just as clearly based upon the usual pluralist philosophical standpoint, and it also implicitly justified, as absolutely essential, the identified set of different languages as unavoidable in the various different specialist disciplines. Indeed, it implied that the only way that investigations could ever be conducted, by specialists, was by first isolating, and then thoroughly simplifying a particular area of interest, and only then applying an analytic method to it. And, such an analysis would be meaningless, unless what is so revealed would definitely be unchanged from when it also occurred in totally unfettered Reality.

Indeed, that crucial assumption is embodied in the famed Principle of Plurality - often alternatively stated as the separability from context of all relations extracted by such means.

But, that assumption just isn’t true! You simply cannot assume that!

And, to prove my point, no one can apply relations found by such methods and apply them with confidence in a totally unfettered environment! They have to reconstruct the exact same and essential context, from which they were able to originally extract their “eternal” relation, in order to successfully employ it towards some sound and predictable outcome.

Now, how does this modify Wittgenstein’s statement?

It confirms that all such walled-off, and purposely “farmed” areas, as with all others from very similarly arranged situations, will inevitably generate their own “local lingo”. How could it be otherwise? In Wittgenstein’s mouth, such a statement is surely a consequence of a pluralist position, and a pluralist methodology. It is nothing to do with socially determined language in a Class Society.

Now, Wittgenstein may have considered that to make judgements in any specialist area (that would be of any real value) you would have to have studied it sufficiently to know what is meant by the terms other experts will use, and that is certainly true! But, you cannot ignore the effect of the pluralist filtering, which can only isolate specialisms, one from another, due to such a universally applied method. And, it therefore makes almost impossible, any more general realisations that occur between many very different areas of study. For, instead, this universally adopted method crucially encases each extraction with its own ideally-tailored context, and is therefore and unavoidably, a locally-determined knowledge.

Indeed, it usually amounts to a set of such situations, and their relations, that are sufficiently close in their required contexts, to be taken as a coherent subject, but still walled off completely from the rest of Reality. Indeed, the specialisations just get more and more restricting as new entities and their properties and relations are discovered. New specialisms seem to grow around particular investigative means.

The most glaring example of this being in Sub Atomic Physics, where the almost total reliance of investigators on High Speed Accelerators, or more properly, Colliders, have produced a remarkable walled-off World, so odd, that it is said to have its own unique laws, and even its own and very different Philosophy to the rest of Science – and, of course, its own language!

Now, if these criticisms are considered to have some merit, the usual and necessary response must be to ask “What is the alternative?" The so-called pluralist methodology has not only allowed a vastly extended knowledge of Reality, but crucially, it is entirely useable to required and valuable ends. What can possibly replace it with at least a similar efficacy, if not something clearly better?”

Well, these are certainly valid points to make, for the alternative standpoint to Plurality, is Holism. And its main tenet is that you cannot separate out a relation from its context without changing it or indeed, sometimes even destroying it altogether! Holism has all things affecting, and, to some extent, actually determining, all real behaviours.

Plurality actually “solved” that difficulty by isolation and comprehensive tailoring in order to make such extractions, and then replicating such ideal conditions in order to be able to effectively use the relations so achieved. What on earth can be done if we turn our backs upon such a powerful and useable method, and instead, somehow, attempt to directly study Reality-as-is?

The criticism is that any strictly holist approach is bound to confront us with unfathomable, simultaneous complexity, and hence the impossibility of making any explanatory progress at all! But, such a criticism only holds if Reality is some complex mechanism making any kind of analysis totally impossible. But, that is not the case!

Indeed, in spite of its “everything included” tenet, that does not stop coherent overall behaviours emerging from the melee. In spite of its complexity, it does not ever become totally chaotic, or indeed wholly unpredictable. And the reason for this is that in these all-things-included interactions, there are always systems and sub-systems that can, and indeed do, become dominant.

But they are never permanent!

Indeed, in most situations, though a period of relative stability can become established, so that conditions, for a time, can seem to be unchanging, and particularly important relations can be so frequently glimpsed, that stability is clearly a kind of active balance, and what is glimpsed comes and goes. It is that suggestion of an underlying eternal element that caused investigators to establish their tailor-made Domains of Investigation, and extract their presumed “eternal“ relations. But, without this artificially imposed stability, such temporary interludes will always subside and the situation will regularly, for its own fleeting interlude, become a different one.

Clearly, what the pluralist approach does, is it attempts to “freeze” a varying situation, then simplify it until its dominant relation is clearly and permanently displayed, and can be effectively extracted.

“So, what is the problem?”, I hear in a chorus of cries, “Isn’t the pluralist approach vindicated?”

Well no, I’m afraid it isn’t!

For it is totally unable to deal with the qualitative changes that will definitely terminate that prior wobbling Stability, and cause it quite naturally to turn into something else no longer dominated by that prior extracted relation.

Plurality is a method for dealing with Stability only, and it also erroneously extrapolates its findings by considering them to be eternal.

Major flaws, I think you will agree!

Let us be clear, it only allows a "hopscotch" type of Science, where only isolated stabilities can be subject to analysis, BUT not a single transition to a new, natural and consequent situation is included! You have no option but to “hop” onto the next stability (and its consequent rules) without any understanding of why it had to occur!

Important? I should say so!

For example, a pluralist approach will never, ever in a million years, discover and understand the Origin of Life on Earth, or its Evolution. It will merely provide a few stepping stones towards (and away from) such transformations. Without any real understanding of the actual changing dynamics involved.

Yet, the disabling of Science by Plurality amounts to far more than that. For, the proliferation of ever narrower defined specialisms is inevitable, and even more significant, the transitions in Reality between these ever dwindling footholds, is totally prevented from ever being properly addressed, as long as that standpoint and method continues to hold sway.

The exemplar for the only possible future, pluralist development is demonstrated already by Computer Simulations.

In these totally pluralist models of unfettered situations the situation is removed from its natural holistic nature, and is replaced by an invented situation wherein multiple, eternal relations are all acting both simultaneously, but also separately. And, the actually existing problem of dynamic transitions is simply stepped over by evidentially established Switches. When a certain “key parameter” passes an established threshold value, the program is written so that it merely switches out one relation to be replaced by another, both of which were laws of the usual pluralist type, but rather than any sort of real dynamic transition, we model it with a simple switch-over that being the only way the pluralist standpoint can attempt to deal with a holist Reality.

Plurality deals only with Stability, and even then, very inadequately, as Mankind delves ever deeper into its newly revealed entities, causes and processes.

For Reality is not, as it is assumed, monolithic! It, on the contrary, consists of distinct and qualitatively different Levels, which are not mere hierarchies with a straight-through causality from bottom to top, but a system of superstructures, each of which is established by creative and indeed revolutionary Emergences.

The Origin of Life on Earth is the Key Exemplar!

Let me attempt to make this crucial point as clear as possible.

You can never reduce Life entirely to some new arrangement of separated pre-Life elements. For, an Emergence of this stature isn’t just a new turning in an entirely predictable development, but a Revolution, which can only occur when prefaced by a terminal crisis in the prior stability, which then precipitates a wholesale collapse into something resembling Chaos, but which is then followed by a remarkably creative period entirely holist in its nature that creates the entirely New via a myriad of simultaneous and mutually modifying processes to transform their own natures and context top down!

The new Level is not just a foamy product on the surface of a once calm, and now stormy, sea, but a wholly new Level that has significantly changed its own causing context.

How could that ever be analysed in a pluralist way?

Yet, it can still be disregarded as absolutely unnecessary because of the pragmatic effectiveness of pluralistic extractions, when used in production, and that, I’m afraid, is much more damaging it at first appears.

Like Formal Logic, the current pluralist-based Sciences really only deal with things which do not change into something else. It stops the actual dynamic of real qualitative developmental changes, by an approach assuming, or even purposely guaranteeing stability. It turns its back upon real qualitative changes, and attempts to transform what occurs in those indisputable interludes of significant qualitative change into descrete-state situations, with signals of when to switch. The actual beauty and power of emergent interludes is swept under the carpet, and replaced by non-explanatory rules-of-thumb.

It is therefore a major and damaging retreat, and in fact transforms what we proudly call Science – the attempt to get ever better explanations of all aspects of Reality, into mere Technology – the effective use to produce easily organised results!

Science is gradually shunted out, to be replaced by useable discoveries and methods of employing them.

Indeed, the attempt to explain things in a certain areas are not only abandoned, but actually banned as “self-kid”, as is increasingly the case in Sub Atomic Physics, which has transformed itself into a branch of Mathematics, and has left Reality behind to explore the much more conducive delights in the seemingly universal laws available in the World of Pure Form alone – Ideality!

New Special Issue: The Holist Revolution

 

This collection of papers might be the most siginifcant contribution in the work towards a holist approach to all the sciences. It advances what Hegel set as his primary goal, which was to develop a ‘Logic of Change’ to take over where Formal Logic had always failed - during interludes of significant qualitative change.

Even 200 years ago Hegel had identified crises in many disciplines where the prior assumptions and principles on which they were based, had run out of steam, and were beginning to come apart at the seams. He, in particular, recognised the appearance of what he termed Dichotomous Pairs - which were principles that though effective in certain areas, were in fact, mutually contradictory, and could therefore never be unified into a single principle covering both. Indeed, though crises may be considered to be typically of short duration, Hegel realised that such situations could persist for very long periods. Man learned to switch between the Dichotomous Pairs to use whichever principle worked in a given situation.

Hegel argued that by such methods, real understanding had been brought to a halt, and that any solution gained by such switching was merely pragmatic and needed to be transcended. He insisted they should be addressed with a view to revealing, criticising and ultimately replacing the assumptions on which they were based, resolving the impasse to a new level. This was Dialectical Reasoning, and the transcending to a new level was termed an Emergence.

The papers in this issue attempt to outline these methods in eight different disciplines, occasionally being profound enough to demolish the older methods of analysis and attempted understanding, for a more comprehensive approach that covers not only periods of stability, but crucially, the transforming interludes that we term Emergences.


Read issue

To Serve and to STRIKE!

There is a great deal bandied about these days concerning the duty to serve.

Currently, the Tory Government is considering a new Law to jail people in the caring services, who “wilfully neglect” any patients in their care.

It is, of course, a major attempt to blame the servers for a quite evident decline in the quality of services during this particularly parlous current state of Capitalism, and, of course, the cuts meant to remedy the situation. You would think from the rhetoric that they, the Tories, are doing all they can to “serve” the community, but are being traitorously let down by the “soon-to-be-criminal” actions of our professional carers.

But surely, we have to ask, “In considering the provision of services to the mass of the people in general, we need to define who is best equipped to provide them, and why?”

Of course, to answer this we must first ask, “Can a service be provided effectively on the basis of delivering that service having to generate a worthwhile profit?"

Note: A profit is not wages! Over and above the payment of wages to those delivering the service, there is an added margin, paid to the owners of the facilities, which is The Profit!

The proponents of the Capitalist System do not only insist that it can, but they actually also say that it is the only effective way of doing it. Are they right? 

 

The crucial imperative in a capitalist system is that it is financed by people with large financial resources, who will invest the necessary wherewithall to allow businesses to be set up to provide various services, but only if they get both a regular dividend on their investment, and in addition can sell that investment for a different kind of profit too.

Clearly, the motivations of these crucial investors are by no means a philanthropic desire to “serve” society. It is a group of people who already possess quite considerable resources, but who ideally want those to provide a substantial income, without reducing their extractable initial investment, and without them having to actually do anything, apart from observing their investment carefully to ensure its profitability.

They are scarcely imbued with ”service to the community”!

They may interpret a current excitement or concern in the population as likely to produce a sufficient demand to allow investments in those areas to deliver what they are exclusively interested in – unearned income in as large amounts as possible, while still maintaining the value of their original investment for return when they think fit.

Some time ago I decided to look into the question as to how these people came to have such large disposable wealth, that they could then invest in the capitalist way. And it turned out that the main way had always been Theft! My researches turned into a rather long paper on the SHAPE Blog entitled Primitive Accumulation, and it was to become the most accessed SHAPE paper in the last five years.

Not one single capitalist accumulated their wealth by either saving earned wages, or by just making things and selling them. It always was, and still is, impossible to accumulate the vast sums involved by such means.

And, there is another kind of stealing, which is regarded as entirely legal.

It is acquiring what you know to be valuable, from people who are unaware of that value, by paying ridiculously low amounts to the owners, and then selling what you have acquired at something like its true value.

[Unsurprisingly, when negotiating to buy such things, they still force down the price as far as they can. Is that not stealing? Yet, it is not only regarded as entirely legal, but also both very clever and meritorious. So, “dishonest trading“ is a very good method too!]

“Conning the ignorant” is generally considered to be “good business”, and when coupled with bribes and “transactions of mutual benefit”, can also fleece public organisations in the very same way.

So, quite apart from explaining where investable capital was acquired, this investigation also demonstrated how very inappropriate such people are to provide services for the general population. They couldn’t be more in appropriate!

And, of course, to do it without a problem, you have to cultivate an extremely low opinion of the people you are conning. So these “dealers” are scarcely the group of people likely to conscientiously serve the community, are they?

Indeed, they also can have zero grasp of what services should be, and how much they should cost ordinary people. That is never really a major consideration, “For these are the people we con everyday for our wealth and status. Our only really important consideration must be how lucrative will an investment in such an undertaking be!”

Not quite the same is it?

They will be concerned... but it will be, “How can we organise it so that the return on our investment is satisfactory – that is – will it be big enough!”

No! No! No! No! No!

You can never trust such people to provide a Service!

They may deliver something passable to initially secure the deal, but as soon as possible it will be modified with the only important principle taking over “How do we milk this for maximum profit?”

Now, you may well wonder how they get away with it, but once such a division of society has been established, with all the wealth and influence on one side, and everyone else on the other, how can things be changed? Well, initially they certainly couldn’t! No one had the wherewithall to counter the power of the wealthy. For they not only owned the businesses, but also the means of disseminating the News. 

They quickly gained owning-possession of the newspapers, and then later, the Radio stations and even the Television stations too, so the public were only told what the owners wanted them to be told.

Making a difference seemed impossible!

But, who actually produced everything? Surely, that was what ordinary people did for a wage? And, if they didn’t produce, the owners would find themselves in dire straights. Investors would sell their shares in the affected company, and the value of the company and of the investments within it would plummet!

So, workers slowly began to build defensive organisations to counter the power of the rich. They first built Unions and then political parties.

How do you think the Labour Party got its name?

By acting together, pooling their meagre resources, but most of all by using the power of the Strike! 

They could withdraw their labour – refuse to work, and stop anyone else from stepping in and doing their jobs. The picketed Strike was born and was breathtakingly effective!

Yet, how would these same people be in service jobs?

They were certainly fully aware of the vast majority of the people they would have to serve. Before the Welfare State they did ALL the Service of ordinary people, and they did it for nothing!

In my street I had half a dozen “Mams” (or “Aunties” as they were called). If any family had some sort of calamity, people were round immediately asking what they could do.

Do you even have to ask who make the very best people in service jobs?

It is surely obvious.

And these are the very same people who went on Strike, who put out fires, and protected us from the criminal classes (who were NOT workers, by the way, but the lower end of the owning class, who were still accumulating in the original way by straight theft)

Indeed, perhaps the reason for the title of this paper is becoming clear. For, in providing an appropriate service, you have to fully appreciate what service should involve, when thinking about those being served. While being ready to strike when defending yourself against those who are usually in charge of such provision.

Yet, the Tories love to contrast these as incompatible opposites – claiming that workers strike because they ignore the service requirements that will be lost by such actions. But, of course, the real ignorers of those needing to be served are those who only see them as a means of making ever-larger profits.

Non Empty Nothingness?

On reading about a new experiment, carried out by a team at Chalmers University, concerning the “contents of Empty Space”, I expected to get more evidence for my own speculations upon the very same subject, but instead ended up with many more questions than answers.

We were informed that Empty Space – the complete and total vacuum, is not empty, but teeming with many different particles popping-in-and-out of existence, both into and from, “something”. Clearly, that “something” is important, but in this account the narrative slips from talking about virtual particles to virtual photons (as if they are the same thing). Now, the reasons for these “names” is that they are constantly appearing and disappearing as their “actual mode of existence” so the observers involved prefer to call them virtual.

But clearly, what they are when they are not virtual particles is important. And similarly, what they are when they are not virtual photons is important too!

One assumes that, in spite of their switch in appellation, they are talking about the same things – that is “virtual particles” and “virtual photons” are the two forms in an oscillation, which is either one between visible and invisible modes, or a “substrate” sensitive to the slightest variation in available energy. Either way, we can no longer stay with the total emptiness idea, but will have to explain the nature and causes of such a substrate and its seemingly constant variability.

This seems to be borne out by the identification of the real photons that are the final result of the experiment, as being recognised as such by their lacking of any perceivable mass.

Let us attempt to clarify what they are talking about, before we address their remarkable experiment.

The “known” oscillating in and out of existence of these particle/photons is seen as something very different from Pair Production and Pair Annihilation in high energy Accelerators, where a pair of actual particles – an electron and a positron are seemingly produced from a very high energy photon, and its opposite – the vanishing of an electron and a positron into a high energy photon. The difference with the phenomenon, being considered at Chalmers, is what appears seems to be a pair of photons, which immediately vanish again.

The vagueness in this published account seems to call these entities sometimes virtual photons and sometimes virtual particles, but their experimental apparatus seems to involve a way of interfering with this oscillation to result in the production of a pair of real photons.

NOTE: I can only assume that they only add the adjective “virtual” as they are shame-faced about the conversions to and from matter that would be involved with actual photons and particles.

The only way this writer has been able to make sense of similar phenomena (elsewhere) has been to consider a mutually-orbiting pair, consisting of one electron and one positron. The virtue of this union is twofold.

First, it will have no net electrical charge – the positive charge of the positron will cancel out with the negative charge of the electron.

And second, it will have no apparent matter as equal amounts of matter and antimatter will again cancel each other out.

In addition, such an “invisible” particle will be able to hold a quantum of energy via the promotion of the mutual orbits, and easily pass that energy from one such particle to another.

This joint particle – the positronium or neutritron, becomes an invisible receptacle for a quantum of electromagnetic energy – and when in such a state becomes a Photon!

Now, whether this particular hypothesis is correct or not, isn’t the most important thing here. What is surely crucial is the possibility of something like such particles actually existing!

And as the positronium has indeed been observed at Fermilab (though of infinitesimal duration in such conditions) that certainly adds weight to the idea that a stable form could indeed be possible.

As soon as such particles are brought into situations such as Pair Production and Pair Annihilation, (and maybe even these new phenomena - usually called the Dynamic Casimir Effect, the “seeming magic” dissolves away, and we instead have the possibility of real explanations for the inexplicable anomalies.

The bringing in of such kinds of particles as the actual content of Empty Space, finally explained the anomalous Double Slit Experiments without difficulty.

The crucial concept was to treat Empty Space as non-empty, and consisting of a “Paving” or “substrate” of just such particles. As soon as such a substrate was included, the puzzling phenomena of these experiments were explicable.

Now clearly, there are still many questions about such a suggestion, for though it can explain certain phenomena, it still does not make it true. And, to cope with the establishment of electrostatic and magnetic fields in a similar kind of substrate, it demanded other, different particles to be involved, though the final explanation was the best yet.

To have such a substrate or paving, the components of it must be relatively unaffected by both Gravity and electrostatic charges, and hence how they got to be universally present literally everywhere has to be explained. And, how they inter-related with one another to deliver an actually” effecting” paving will require explanation too

Now, it is also interesting how both the Chalmers Experiment and Yves Couder’s remarkable experiment managed to get their produced phenomena by the inclusion of an imposed vibration. In Couder’s case it was of a liquid silicone substrate in a tray, upon which all the phenomena occurred. While a Chalmers it was their vibrating mirror”.

Clearly, in both cases, it was these vibrations that imported the necessary kind and amount of energy to bring about the given phenomena.

While, in this theorist’s Theory of the Double Slit, the only possible source for what was happening in these experiments (and in subsequent successful efforts to explain the energy embodied in electrostatic fields), always ended up with it coming from the substrate and NOT from the supposedly causing Charge.

If these inferences can be taken together, we can see Empty Space as not only non-empty, but also a system of receptacles for energy – a system, maybe undetectable, but capable of remarkable things – Action-at-a-Distance, Energetic Fields and even the Propagation of electrostatic energy across the Universe.

Plumbing the Depths?

The amazing diversity of modern cosmological theories reveal the almost infinite variety possible when Reality is replaced by Ideality as the stage for all phenomena.

In New Scientist (2935), a short article by Lisa Grossman, entitled Cosmic Baby Snaps at Bubbly Birth, various theorists construct their contributions to “explain” unevenness in the current Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which they attempt to encapsulate into purely formal patterns alone. And, with that, we immediately leave the restricting confines of concrete Reality for the unlimited expanses of the purely Formal – that is the place where the “essences of everything”, that always deliver entirely alone today’s “explanations”, actually solely dwell – the World of Pure Forms alone that we call Ideality!

With every discovery, today’s scientists immediately put chalk-to-blackboard and find-a-form that will fit the newly obtained data.

It is the current method of explaining things by form alone, and it delivers Absolute Truths rather than old-fashioned, explanatory hypotheses, for in Ideality all forms are absolute, that is its strength (and, of course, also its weakness).

There is, of course, a seemingly physical language that is always used, with apparently physical forces, entities and their properties, but they are all secondary embellishments to the real nitty-gritty – the primary Forms involved, which actually drive Reality!

Let us relate just a few tasty morsels made available by such methods, as outlined in Lisa Grossman’s account! There is, before everything else, a Metaverse (prior to our and all other Universes), in which bubbles arise (like air-bubbles in a boiling liquid), each of which will then become a new Universe. BUT, wait for it, the densities of these universes (remember they are bubble-shaped) will be less than that of the producing Metaverse, so .the fabric of spacetime within them will inevitably be saddle-shaped.

Have you got that?

NO? Well, never mind, if you are a modern physicist, you will stop worrying as soon as a form-that-fits is put into your hands (or even one you have put together for yourself).

Oh, by the way, do not consider what will happen if the bubbles collide, for you would get absolutely nothing from such an event. The bubbles will all be expanding at the Speed of Light, so nothing from that boundary could possibly get back to anyone within that Universe, and, if it could, it would get “all mixed up” with the Big Bang data, and would be impossible to disentangle.

Aren’t you exalted by all these theories?

If your answer is, “NO!”, then you are right!

But, if your answer is “YES!”, may your God help you!

Tories!!

When watching discussions on the television, and being told that “both sides of the argument” have been adequately covered, I cannot help getting very angry indeed.

For that is absolutely never the case!

For the problem supposedly “being addressed” is always, yes absolutely always, diverted into some area of prejudice, or alternatively some dishonest, supposedly moral imperative, which means, and is intended to assure, that those who need to be adequately informed are being misled to a significant and deliberate extent. The real issues are never addressed!

Indeed, when some millionaire starts talking about charity, public spiritedness, and concern for the future of our country, he is clearly lying!

Why? It is because he is not one of us: he is a TORY.

Do you think he earned his millions? Of course he didn’t! You earned them for him!

All their wealth was created by ordinary people, going to work every day, but never getting the real value of their contributions. That almost always goes to the owners! And when the profits aren’t flowing as they would like, they will sack “unproductive workers” wholesale, and then denounce them for lazily living off the State!

And when some scapegoat is selected to hive off (via totally proved misdemeanours) the antagonism of the people. These denizens of the public-good denounce their erstwhile colleagues for ”overstepping the mark”, “mis-selling", or “not giving sufficient information”.

Now these sound more like hapless errors than what they really are, for not only were they doing what they did on purpose, but also the very denouncers do exactly the same sort of things all the time. They are just much better at hiding it all, AND, crucially, not getting caught!

You must have noticed how comfortably even these proved sinners “land upon their feet”, and not only get well-paid sinecures somewhere or other, but remain as part of the same milieu – the Owners Of The Country!

Even the description “for the benefit of the country” doesn’t mean for the majority of the population, it means for Capitalism, and for “WE” (meaning the Tories) that run this show, and make our fortunes.

They "believe" that without their own increasing wealth, there would be no crumbs from their tables to sustain the proletariat (or “Plebs” as they are sometimes called!)

Literally nowhere in the Mass Media is there a contrary view.

And, all newspapers, from Local to National, are pro-capitalist. The very best that you can expect is a liberal, or moralist criticism of behaviours, but never a tirade against the Economic System that rewards such dishonesty!

All TV stations are also pro-capitalist, and, of course, owned by millionaires.

Such an imbalance of literally many thousands to one, in delivering so-called News, means that the public is massively and purposefully misinformed.

And, newspapers like the SUN pander to racism and prejudice, while doing what they can to make even more money out of peddling both “naked ladies” and lies - all for he benefit of their men in politics, and behind them, the owners of this country. Have you not noticed the clone-like nature of all the UK's political leaders - Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and even Milliband? And they are all very similar concoctions, are they not? And, they are each and every one PRO-CAPITALIST!

Interestingly, it was a Labour Government, which helped to rescue Capitalism in 2008. Yet the Tories talk about that as typical of Labour’s waste of National Resources. Yet, if Brown and Co. had not persuaded world leaders to do likewise, then Capitalism would have been finished.

I feel that every News Programme should have another superimposed commentator (as they do for the deaf), but this one representing the rest of us – constantly pointing out, “But, he’s a TORY, He doesn’t give a damn for ordinary working people, He is lying, as usual", and other such valuable additions.

Issue 32 of Shape: Rethinking Physics

Dear Physics Student, You do PLURALIST Science. You “farm” Reality in order to “reveal” and then extract what you assume to be eternal laws. But Reality is not Pluralistic, it is Holisitic.

What do you know about the Science that addresses the Origin of Life and Evolution? The Life Histories of Stars? Revolutions in Society? Are you a real Materialist? What came first, The Laws of Physics or Matter?

Did you know that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is the biggest retreat back to Idealism in the history of Science? Have you seen the non-Copenhagen explanation of the Double Slit Experiments?

Are you being sold a pup?

We invite you to read our Journal, a philosophic monthly published online. All papers are published with free and open access to all. Its editors are Physics graduates who have both worked at professorial levels in Universities, but crucially Shape Journal rejects the current consensus position in Physics, the position you are currently being taught as fact. It rejects the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Shape Journal has published original work on new theories on everything from the Double Slit Experiment, the Shape of the Universe, the Propagation of EM Radiation and on Emergence. Shape Journal welcomes debate on all these issues and more. Please join in this vital discussion, if only because you feel the need to shoot us down!

Read the issue

Issue on "Rethinking Physics" Coming Soon...

On the 1st of October SHAPE Journal will be publishing a new Issue for Physics Students, offering some alternatives to the current consensus position within the discipline... Watch this space!

100,000 Visitors

Science Holism Abstraction Philosophy Emergence
 

www.e-journal.org.uk/shape

Infinity...

Not a Transcending Vision, but a Form-Only feature?

The problem with the idea of Infinity is that we quantify some measurable aspect of Reality, and then conceptually extend the possible numbers involved forever: we simultaneously make them infinite but reducing!

But, Reality doesn’t do that! We do!

And, in each such “area”, we assume there is a real aspect of Reality, and after being able to successfully use such locally, we immediately extend them well beyond such real-world limits.

We are intensely unhappy about any sudden terminations! But, we do know that at some point, we must set aside our extracted little piece of the World, or else the multiplicity of factors could overwhelm our attempts at control and use of such things. And, we do it by employing the idea of infinity.

For this, though in one sense, it goes on forever, in another all influences that we may be concerned with, will undoubtedly reduce – and in inverse proportion to that extension, until they are effectively negligible. Anything divided by infinity is zero!

So, at the same time, as making our feature of study both universal and eternal, we also have a pragmatic limit, and both of these are inherent in this concept of infinity.

The “awe and wonder” that Amanda Gefter describes in her article The Infinity Illusion, in New Scientist (2930), is when she (and us) turn this pragmatic frig into something real! But it is a handy trick!

All areas that we define are not infinite, but our basic approach to properties is that they never end (once you have such a thing it seems impossible to terminate it, and such Continuity with negligibility requires something like infinity to deliver practical and usable limits).

Long, long ago Zeno of Elea knew that both of our basic concepts of Continuity and Descreteness were actually “necessary, man-made constructs”, but no one would believe him!

Mankind had arrived at these two contradictory simplifications, and would merely switch from one to the other, in order to cope with different problems.

So, he composed a series of Paradoxes to show that these were NOT features of Reality itself, but our own constructs. And, via these carefully thought-out narratives he proved it! Yet, he didn’t, and couldn’t, replace them: he merely revealed their origins and limitations.

The two most interesting of his Paradoxes were Achilles and the Tortoise and The Arrow.

In the first he demonstrated how, by a particular way of considering things, Achilles could never catch the Tortoise, because an infinite sequence of steps would be necessary, and could not possibly end up with a very simple and small finite result. And, in the second Paradox, by yet another “indisputable” process showed that a fired Arrow could not possibly move through the air.

Yet, the constructs and simplifications shown to be paradoxical by Zeno are those by which we deal with Reality most of the time: it is just that neither are totally true, they are merely handy devices that work in many, many situations.

But, Amanda Gefter’s following short paragraph reveals why Mankind, like the Greeks when they ignored Zeno, still doesn’t understand what it constructs.

She says:- “Trouble is, once unleashed, these infinities are wild, unruly beasts. They blow up the equations with which physicists attempt to explain nature’s fundamentals. They obstruct a unified view of the forces that shape the Cosmos. Worst of all, they add infinities to the explosive mixture that made up the infant Universe, and they prevent us from making scientific predictions at all”

Now, I quote this in full, because within it are the assumptions that cause the problems. In fact, it is packed full of them! Can you extract them, or will you be satisfied with what seems (so far at least) to be her catchall culprit – Infinity?

The generated, important difficulties are deemed to boil down to a single question - “Can we do away with Infinity?”

Quite soon in the article, she arrives at Cantor, who concentrated upon handling infinities, but in attempting to fit them ever more tidily into a consistent, coherent and comprehensive Mathematics, elicited chaos among mathematicians [especially, Kroenecker, who in opposing Cantor insisted that only the counting numbers meant anything]

The following mentioned difficulties, encountered by physicists, were all put down to the sins of the concept of Infinity. But, of course, such a simplistic solution gets nowhere near why such concepts occur, and why we stick to them like glue.

Then we get the suggestion; “There’s something very basic that we’re assuming that is just wrong!” [A quote from Max Tegmark].

Well, yes! I cannot disagree with this statement!

But, it is not just Infinity! The following statement that - “Inflation will stretch spacetime only until something snaps!”, though itself full of assumptions, does at least suggest that real situations and their generated laws do in fact end, and are replaced with something else! Just banning infinity is no solution.

We have to fully understand both periods of Stability and their intervening episodes of Significant Qualitative Change: we have to see how the entirely New emerges.

And, of course, both the mathematicians and the physicists cannot do that! They have both become prisoners of their assumptions and consequent methods. It is amazing just how poor these people are as philosophers.

They “blinker” their way through the easy Stabilities, until they inevitably bang into totally inexplicable Emergences.

Another quote also has possibilities – “If infinity is such an essential part of Mathematics, the language we use to describe the world, how can we get rid of it?”

Again, this reveals another aspect – not only, “What is Mathematics?”, but also, “What relation does it have to Reality?”

In merely “describing” things, is it omitting something crucial?

Following this various suggestions are revealed, which seem to eliminate infinities in various mathematical forms, but what is not mentioned is how Mathematics always idealises relations, originally taken from Reality, but in carefully “farmed” situations, and then perfected or idealised to become independent of any particular context: they become purely formal truths!

Real aspects are purposely and directly isolated and then extracted, so as to be represented by totally general and formal equations, and this is the problem!

It is not infinity (as an isolated and added concept) that causes problems but the much deeper Principle of Plurality, which not only says that perfect forms can be extracted from Reality, but that as such they are both true and wholly separable – that is totally independent of any context in which they appear.

Now, this is very important indeed!

For various elements of Mathematics are without any doubt “idealised bricks” - kind of Mathematical Lego Units, from which everything is supposed to be constructed.

And just like a Lego-building-brick can be made into a Lego building - which is clearly NOT a real building - these are purely formal units, and are certainly NOT the building bricks of Reality. They are not even real! They are purified patterns, removed from the Reality which displays them. Indeed, just like a Lego Set can allow you to construct an unreal, but look-alike world, so Mathematics does the same with its own formal units. Yet what is constructed is never Reality, it is a purely formal construction in a parallel man-made, look-alike World of Pure Form alone – Ideality.

Some of the conclusions of the mathematicians, mentioned in Gefter’s article, prove conclusively that they are nowhere near addressing the real problems. For there is the claim that, “There is a largest number! Start at 1 and keep on counting, and eventually you will hit a number that you cannot exceed”, we are told.

NOTE: But, of course, they are wrong, for that counting of something real will always run out of things to count, as the idea of Number itself is a formalism, and in its realm – that of Ideality it can go on forever.

So, the error is evident - these people mix up the nature of the World of Pure Form alone, Mathematics, with the very different World of Reality. They are, as they must be, always doing their Mathematics entirely within Ideality, but because they see it as “Reality” they switch about, both importing situations from Reality into Ideality, and vice versa. Indeed, it is in the latter imports that by far the most damage is done!

The real problem is that what you are counting is never totally independent of its contexts, and will always, at some point, cease to continue to exist as such.

So, in Reality you are never in a situation that continues forever exactly the same, and extends infinitely, and hence would allow an infinite count. Yet, of course, in Ideality, without the constraints of the Real World, you could indeed, go on forever.

We exit to that perfect World as soon as we can so that we can manipulate and develop features in a simplified and constant environment. Indeed, all extractions from experiment in the Real World are here funnelled down into a smaller number of Formal Types – the very same equations can be derived for a number of totally unconnected phenomena that display the same form when “given the necessary treatment”!

In the Real World, you could indeed count neurons within a living organism until every last one had been included, but what matters is not analysable meaningfully, purely in terms of those units anyway. It is in their organisation that the wholly new emerges.

In any area, if you are to traverse the limits you have to leave Ideality, and study Reality itself.

Mathematics has ZERO explanations!

At best it can deliver only forms, which, for a while pertain, but such are, even then, still only formal descriptions.

[See the Review of A Certain Ambiguity posted upon the SHAPE Blog by this author]

The excuses for this new Mathematics are even more ridiculous. Instead of depending upon Ideality – the World of Pure Form alone, they fall back upon a machine – the computer, which will certainly always have a biggest number simply due to the limits of its construction

Needless-to-say, we end up, once again, with the quantum as the answer to everything.

“Why don’t we just accept what Quantum Mechanics is telling us, rather than imposing our prejudices upon the Universe?”

Wow! And if you think that is a bit rich, how about – “Our conception of et Theory represents the discovery of a truth that is far beyond the physical Universe”.

Well, yes it is: but it is still only in the World of Pure Form alone! Haven’t they heard of the calamities found by Bertrand Russell, concerned with Set Theory and the debilitating limitations established by Gödel and Turing?

So, does this article tackle the real problems?

Of course not!

None of the arguing sides included in it even understand the problems. It reminds me of the fight at Solvay in 1927, when Bohr and Heisenberg defeated Einstein, and instituted the, still continuing, dominance of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Sub Atomic Physics. Any criticisms of this take one side or the other, but they were both wrong! Even Einstein put mathematical form at the very basis of Reality, and in spite of the battle over Sub Atomic Physics, NO solution was possible because both sides were constrained by the same incorrect assumptions about the primacy of Form.

At best they could only agree to differ!

New Special Issue: The Evolution of Matter

This rather long and meandering paper, though originally intended merely as an argument for the existence of the Evolution of all Matter (as well as Living Things), rather rapidly had to address a wholly new, Holistic standpoint for scientific investigation and explanation, and thus was inevitably diverted into delivering at least some important contributions to that area. For the usual standpoint in Science is NOT holistic, but pluralistic, and though perfectly suitable in areas in equilibrium, is entirely unsuitable for dealing with systems in qualitative change. Now, as it very quickly became a rather extended piece, it could not be allowed to deal fully with all aspects so generated by this alternative stance. So, they have been somewhat truncated, with the suggestion, for those requiring a more comprehensive treatment, to address the much fuller accounts published in the 50 issues of SHAPE Journal on the Internet by this author.

Read it here

A Diagram from the issue:

Contemplating The Precipice

Dealing with Holisitc Complexity

To say the least, my current deliberations are getting more than a little ”hairy”, and I feel that I am skating upon very thin ice. For, in chasing the basic conundrums of Modern Physics, it has become very clear what had always been avoided, to a significant extent, and were now almost totally ignored, were the actual explanations of phenomena. And, this had been achieved by taking the much easier, alternative path of merely describing, and then formulating the purely quantitative data from phenomena into deemed-to-be essential equations.

But, this route can no longer be followed, and I am forced into uniquely tight corners, by the inherent contradictions generated by the one-sided, and indeed, the aberrant and misleading methodology that is usually employed.

For, in attempting to base yourself on past achievements (in which you can have no choice), you invariably find yourself constantly seeking causal sequences of explanation, yet always hitting the premature termination of each uncompleted series, and having to attempt to “do it for yourself”!

For example, my professor, many years ago, at Leeds University was world famous for his “Stoner’s Sub Groups”, but in my efforts in attempting to integrate atoms into a non-empty background, I had then, unavoidably, to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation’s probabilistic methods in terms of an actual filling or substrate of Empty Space, actively interacting with a nucleus-electron system within an atom.

The “usually necessary”, almost total isolation of investigated subsystems, and the consequent separate theories and equations, invariably meant that many transitions could not possibly be included. And changes of system always meant the abandonment of one theory and equation for another. You rummaged about in the “bag of solutions” to find a form that fitted, and the causes of the transitions were never properly addressed.

So returning to Stoner’s Sub Groups, I reckoned that my earlier suggestion of the actual existence of a space-filling paving might be relevant within an atom, and an explanation of Stoner’s discovery might well throw important light upon what was happening concretely inside an atom with its own internal substrate.

I reckoned that such a substrate, as I had postulated for my Theory of the Double Slit, would, in this particular set of circumstances, have to not only surround the atom, but also exist within it too!

If this were the case, the orbiting electron would have to negotiate through the internal substrate, as it attempted to respond to the electrostatic relationship between the electron and its nucleus.

After all, I have never understood how the demotion of the orbit of an electron in an atom (with its clearly physically caused electrostatic and magnetic properties due to a concrete set of circumstances), could transform the energy released into a wholly disembodied form that maintained complex electrostatic and magnetic properties in an infinite oscillation. The question, surely, had to be , “How?”

But, elsewhere, in attempting to explain Fields in a vacuum, surrounding a charged particle, and the effect of the “field” on any other interloping charged entities, if I had also to deal with action-at-a-distance, and I was forced to again define a substrate that could articulate all these effects.

NOTE: as you can see, each thing led to another. And, if a genuine causal chain (which is always assumed to be there) was to be found, and itself explained, you quickly zoom off to you know not where.

One thing incessantly led to another, and I found myself having to explain Stoner’s Sub Groups in terms of the inter-relation of orbits, fields and substrates within an atom.

So, as you can see, the imperatives involved are Real Physics, and not just the usual, formal descriptions, but I have to admit to frequently becoming swamped by what appeared to be “infinite regress”.

But, that is, of course, unavoidable, and was why for hundreds of years pluralist-based Science has dominated. For, it tidily avoided such precipitous routes!

The advantages, of pluralist assumptions, are that all such causal sequences are unnecessary for effective use of a single equation in its appropriate Domain. You could isolate! And, such considerations were sidelined as “theoretical” or even “academic”, and Science motored “ahead” with its small “steps in isolation”.

“Can we use it now?”, was the insistent cry. “I don’t want to know “Why?”, all I need is ”How?”

So, as soon as you decide to take the holist route, the endemic pluralist simplifications of past Physics no longer deliver the crucial essences of Reality, but are merely pragmatic simplifications, and manipulations of “the appropriate ground”.

The fact that these simplifications also were effective in revealing dominant factors, and hence facilitating “situation farming”, made accelerated (though aberrant) paths very easy to construct and follow, while everything else was ignored. And, the justification, the Principle of Plurality, made this methodology “sound”, as all extractions were deemed to be “separable”, and hence independent of context.

In addition, the collection of individual relations was sufficient for most practical applications, and the crucial drive towards inclusive, and indeed, ever more comprehensive theories was abandoned, with a measure of “justification”.

But, the Principle of Holism (the opposite of the Principle of Plurality) is that you cannot do that!

You can simplify, but NOT to reveal Essence, but only to reveal the more dominant contributions, and then in a purely formal, idealised and usually entirely quantitative form of relations - Equations. And, of course, such procedures are fine in limited and controlled contexts: the dominant factors can be made to work “almost alone” and in an idealised form. But, such an approach makes the important transitions from one qualitative situation to another impossible to address in an explanatory way.

“This happens when that threshold is passed”, is NOT an explanation. It is a placeholder for a missing explanation!

Causality becomes increasingly impossible, for each and every local truth has been found by actually removing what in unfettered Reality takes the situation to a very different set of phenomena.

The dynamic of a rich and changing Reality has been surgically removed, and replaced by only a series of artificially “true” snapshots of what was really going on.

Current Science is no longer the philosophic standpoint, from which the meaning of Reality-as-is can be addressed, but instead an equation-led, pragmatic bag of practical, unchanging equations!

It is increasingly breathtaking just how much is never explained, and how eclectic are even the very best of scientists. Without a qualm, such scientists will put aside one theory and pick up another, better-fitting one, and leave any explanation for the caused transition completely unaddressed.

Now clearly, such tasks are not individual, and limited in their content: they are too complex for one person to deal with. If ever there was a form of investigation that MUST be addressed socially, it is the current Crisis in Physics. There has to be too many balls in the air for a single juggler to cope with. You need a team, and a trained and integrated team at that.

Modern Physics is dying fast, and the present ideas and paradigms are simply not up to the tasks presented in the current era.