10 August, 2019

The Collapse of Capitalism!

Having attended well to all the Critics of Capitalism, and been a committed activist against it all my life, I can only conclude that it will indeed totally collapse.

But, NOT with a Socialist Revolution!

For the task commenced by Karl Marx to theoretically equip the World Working Class to overthrow the bosses and establish Socialism, has all too often been betrayed by both the movement's leaders, and, most especially, their total abandonment of the essential development of empowering Theory required, along with political organisation, which could, and indeed should, by now, be embodied in the Dialectical Materialism, originated by Karl Marx, and initially developed in his critique of the status quo of Capitalist Economics in his revolutionary book, Das Kapital.

The trajectory of struggles since the publication of the Communist Manefesto (1848), have been betrayed sufficiently to leave the global Working Class totally bereft of either the Theory or the Organisations necessary to turn this terminal crisis of Capitalism into a successful Socialist Revolution.

Indeed, as has happened before, the decline has not produced any perspective or any confidence within the Class to see that as a solution, leaving them prone to populist rhetoric and Fascist-Nationalist "solutions" to their woes.

And, make no mistake, that would also be terminal for the planet!

Recall what fascist rulers like Hitler did, and think what such monsters could do now!

Remember, Nuclear Weapons were used by the USA against Japan - TWICE! Would they be used in this inevitable almighty disaster? What do you think?

At the very best, the World will be catapulted into a terrible Dark Age, even if we are not all terminated by such a cataclysm.

There must be no steady decline to oblivion.

Organise to Change things NOW!


Don't merely wait for it to end you.

More on these themes in our forthcoming film Natural Revolution

08 August, 2019

Brexit is about Tax Avoidance

Boris Johnson stands in front of Photoshopped Brexit Bus NHS
BREXIT: Funny how the EU's major Anti Tax Avoidance Directive NEVER comes up in the discourse, isn't it?

Can you honestly watch the likes of Farage, Johnson and the super rich eurosceptic Tory toffs of the ERG and believe they do what they do in the interests of ordinary British citizens?

While there is a left-wing case for Brexit (the fabled Lexit - EU is not remotely socialist after all) the Brexit project has never been a remotely left-wing cause. Since its inception it has been driven by the most right-wing actors in UK parliamentary politics. 

The hidden forces behind Brexit (and much of the current global shift towards right-wing populism) go completely unreported and unanalysed by most of the media. This well-researched answer on Quora comes closer to revealing the economic and material forces at work:

1 Tax avoidance
Throughout Europe, corporate tax avoidance is a colossal problem. The EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (first proposed in 2016, implemented in 2019) seeks to tackle the thriving culture of corporate tax avoidance. It affects numerous major companies in the UK accused of tax avoidance, including several football clubs, retailers, technology firms and the Daily Mail newspaper.
Continuing membership of the EU, or just the single market, would keep the UK aligned with this anti-tax avoidance policy.
This is the plain and simple reason why the Daily Mail and so many leading Brexiteers who happen to be business tycoons suddenly began proclaiming that Britain had to leave the EU, the sooner the better. As soon as the tax-avoidance proposal was announced, and even more so when it was ratified, they set about portraying the EU as the great enemy of Britain, an “undemocratic elite” deliberately causing misery for ordinary Brits.
Sadly, many ordinary Brits fell for it.
But then things didn’t quite work out as planned.
After she became Prime Minister, Theresa May spent a long time working out a pragmatic Brexit deal with the leaders of the EU. When her Withdrawal Agreementfinally came out, however, some Brexiteers were very unhappy with it. Why? Because at the back of the huge document, there in black-and-white was a commitment by the British Government to retain the EU’s code of conduct for business taxation, including the new anti-tax avoidance laws.
May was suddenly a ‘traitor’.
But if another Prime Minister could be found — preferably an unprincipled opportunist who will say and do anything to get the job — perhaps he could convince the people of Britain that it would be best to just tear up May’s deal, blame the EU for something-or-other, and then simply wait for Britain to crash out of the EU with no deal whatsoever.
Then there will be no corporate tax laws for the tax avoiders to worry about.

Read the rest on Quora.

If anyone has any doubt that this is THE political issue driving things globally, have a look at today's news about Trump, US tech giants and tax.

Donald Trump warns no free trade deal if UK taxes tech giants.

What about sovereignty you say? What about taking back control?

Have a close look at who is taking control of what.

07 August, 2019

New SHAPE bookshop

Fantastic lecture from David Harvey

David Harvey deep reading Marx's Capital volume one.

Substrate Theory - Special print edition of SHAPE Journal

There is a fundamental flaw in Physics. Space is not empty.

Substrate Theory can help tackle all the biggest questions in physics, from the Spacetime Continuum to the Uncertainty Principle, from Casimir Effect, Redshift, Time Crystals, Superfluids and Dark Matter, to Virtual Particles and the work of Frank Wilczek.

This special print edition of SHAPE Journal has been produced to mark 10 years of the publication. Collated here in print are two issues (65 and Special 65), originally published in May and June 2019, which collect together key papers on Jim Schofield’s ground-breaking new theory of physics.

20 July, 2019


The Vortex seems to be a very important feature of turbulence within the Substrate - particularly in on-going, constantly repeating situations, such as when associated with orbits. For, in the more usual transient situations, such as linear translational movements, the energy involved soon gets dissipated and lost. But, in those constantly repeating situations, as within the orbits of electrons in atoms, there is a chance, because of the regular return of the electron, that any so-caused Vortex could be regularly maintained by those many returns, and, via energy transfers in both directions, finally even arrive at a balanced situation, and a constant, stable state achieved.

However, in such situations, the vortices only occur if a prior Substrate has been dissociated, all along the orbital path, into individual Units, which are then further affected by the constantly returning electron, to be driven into separate vortices, as a kind of imposed Spin! It matters, of course, what the composing units are made of, and their properties, and finally, just how their imposed Spin will affect them.

Will, for example, a unit with an electrical charge, in such circumstances, produce a magnetic effect, due to the Spin, and deliver that effect along its axis? For, it is said that a spinning charged particle, like an Electron will do exactly that!

Now, also, a translationally moving charged particle, as well as carrying an electrical field along with it, will also produce a magnetic line of force perpendicular to its direction of motion that also moves along with it.

It will depend, of course, upon whether it is spinning or not! But, if it is spinning, the magnetic line of force will be in a single direction, determined by the axis of that spin. Whereas, if the magnetic lines of force emanate in every possible direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle, AND the effect could then NOT possibly be due to the spinning of the particle, but something else.

NOTE: Indeed, an alternative was developed in earlier Universal Substrate Research, by this theorist. involving Magnetons, which certainly delivers all the directions perpendicular to the direction of motion case. These being due to detatched Magnetons from the charged particle's accompanying Electric Field, due to impacts with the Substrate it is passing through, and these are then ejected off, in all sideways directions, as linked magnetic lines of force.

BUT - as the magneton itself has an intrinsic Magnetic Dipole Moment, it too requires an explanation of its properties, which cannot involve itself!


These ideas are consequences of the Holistic Stance in Philosophy, wherein many features are no longer mere sums of eternal Natural Laws (as with the Pluralist Stance), but, on the contrary, due to the simultaneous actions of many different factors, both affecting one another, and even naturally developing into stable balances of contentions, which though long-lasting, are never permanent.

And these are naturally of paramount importance in Holism, as they are the equivalents of the Permanent Stabilities of Plurality, but unlike in that stance, in Holism they are the means by which Qualitative Change occurrs in Natural Development, within short but crucial Emergent Interludes of Change.

Indeed, whereas in Plurality, not oly can Qualitative Change never be truly Explained: it is actually totally prohibited.

Reality is supposedly created solely out of eternal Natural Laws, which simply SUM, delivering only Complication, never the entirely new. Its sleight-of-hand in pretending to deliver Change by mere Quantity into Quality, totally omits any real explanation of how that actually works.

18 July, 2019

Coming soon... Natural Revolution

SHAPE Journal is collaborating with philosopher Jim Schofield and filmmaker Michael C Coldwell to make a documentary film about Marxism, Revolution, Science and Emergence

Practice without Theory: The Retreats in both Science and Marxism

For nearly 60 years I have been a committed Marxist and activist, while also being a professional Physicist. I am therefore equipped better than most to be critical of the evident and damaging declines in both of these absolutely fundamental disciplines. 

These failures have been generated within the hearts of the very organisations which should have been their veritable fountains-of-further-development, which should have fought for each of these crucial intellectual focii to generate the required research, analyses and consequent programmes of action, for the necessary (indeed essential) innovations within these areas, to enable them to equip their adherents to confidently achieve ever greater objectives!

However, such could have ONLY occurred, if, and only if, they continued to develop up to, through and even beyond, their own unavoidable crises and Revolutions - to ascend to wholly New and necessary Levels, capable of transforming Humanity upon this planet, beyond current limitations.

"But, what were you doing?" is likely to be the immediate response from Physicists and Marxists alike, "Why weren't you doing all that?" The right questions, for sure!

Well, I was only 19 years old and in my first term at University when I found myself disagreeing fundamentally with my professors, in my Physics degree studies. Here I met Marxists for the first time too and joined one of the Marxist Parties present in that University, and looked for answers, both within it, and in the University's excellent library, for alternatives to the evident prevailing decline in my studied subject.

I was a continuing student of Physics throughout my life, and in politics read a great deal, including Marx's masterpiece Das Kapital: but, nevertheless, as to The Marxist Analytic Method in politics, and my sought-for alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Physics, I was regularly coming-up empty on both fronts!

Very slowly, I began to realise where the problems lay.

It was in the inadequate Philosophies of the Theorists of the consensus groups in both of these fields!

They weren't the same problems, of course, but they were both, in different ways, embarked upon the wrong tracks. There was no real Theory going on in either discipline.

Sadly, I wasn't initially up to undertaking the tasks in either area, but I persevered in political activism, without myself developing very far, even though I continued to read extensively.

In Physics, I eventually gave it up as a bad job, and in spite of all my qualifications being in the area, I never professionally did Physics again. Instead, I taught Modern Mathematics and even Biology in Schools and Colleges, and latterly, in my afternoons off, did Mathematical Research using the local University's Mainframe Computer, which I taught myself to both program and use. And, in no time, I was also teaching these new-found skills to interested students from my College, ultimately developing one of the first such Computer Sections in the country. Later I was approached to write a Machine-independent Fortran Compiler, which I finally achieved...

It is a long story, but I finally got back into Higher Education, lecturing in Information Technology, and in that role was soon involved in assisting researchers across a wide range of disciplines. And, in that very varied and interdisciplinary work I finally began to see what was wrong with Physics!

I returned to tackling Copenhagen, but now increasingly equipped with ideas directly abstracted from Marx, which I slowly extracted from Das Kapital (by also reading David Harvey's superb analyses of Kapital's volumes I, II and III). The gains made in this work were purely philosophical, and centred upon the inadequacies of the Principle of Plurality which had actually underpinned all the major Intellectual Disciplines, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC. 

For, both Logic and Science had been wrongly assumed to be "just-like Mathematics", as wholly pluralistic- that is composed only of qualitatively-fixed concepts or Natural Laws, which naturally limited both these crucial Disciplines significantly to only maintained Stable Situations.

All real Development was wholly excluded!

A key epiphany came through my research in Motion Studies in the 2000s (the analysis and computerised delivery of accurate Dance Performance - complex creative movements captured dynamically via interactive video recordings and animation) remembering Zeno's crucial, dialectical Paradoxes. Without revolutionary means, neither Continuity nor Descreteness were ever capable of delivering real Movement.

Now 200 years ago, the idealist philosopher Hegel had realised such flaws in Formal Logic. It did not allow qualitative changes of any kind due to the assumed stance of Plurality. Hegel began to address this inadequacy with regard to Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts (such as Continuity and Descreteness) - leading to his Dialectics!

Science and Logic cannot deal with contradiction and its role in change, and consequently considers only Fixed Natural Laws as capable of explaining absolutely Everything - and hence had no solutions to the many anomalies of the perplexing set of Double Slit Experiments, contradictions they "solved" by inventing Wave/Particle Duality, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Unfortunately Hegel had been an idealist philosopher and had never seriously investigated anything beyond Human Thinking. So, his follower, the historian and philosopher, Karl Marx, immediately realised that an extended version of Dialectics also applied to all Development in Concrete Reality too - and revealingly also to the Developments in Human History!

For the first time, it would clearly be possible to address Historical Development, especially in those seemingly-unanalyse-able convulsions of Change termed Revolutions!

Now, all of this was certainly not yet available: no such explanations had yet been revealed! But, Marx knew that the alternative holist stance, concentrating-primarily upon qualitative change, could indeed deliver what the current wholly pluralist Disciplines never could. And, as a professional Historian, Marx knew precisely where to start - with the recently ended French Revolution, which had overthrown the Feudal State, and replaced it with a Capitalist alternative, but one which was definitely NOT delivering the Liberté Egalité et Fraternité that it had promised to those workers who had carried in out.

So, Marx embarked upon the obvious research to reveal the Nature of Capitalist Economics, but only within the very process of establishing the required Holist means to do it! Das Kapital was never merely applying a ready-made method of doing this, as none yet existed at that time, but no one was better equipped to do it: for Marx had already devised Dialectical Materialism as his New Philosophy, but being Holistic, and hence including all Qualitative Change, it meant that a wholly new, as yet undefined Methodology had to be developed, and it would inevitably be far more complex and even more constantly-developing than anything employed previously.

These difficulties are clearly reflected in Marx's work, as in order to deal with these crucial changes, he had to first always establish a "basic" unchanging initial model (a Generality), and then as each dealt-with Phase led to another, he then had to retrace back to see how the new (Particular) Phase affected the initial one.

David Harvey deals with this aspect of Das Capital very well

NOTE: He was effectively involving the cyclical approach defined by The Buddha in his famed Loka Sutta, wherein each Phase, on completion, had to be repeated-from-scratch in the light of what it had produced.

It was a recursive, and indeed truly Holist, method!

So, Marx greatly simplified a Phase, in order to get an initial (General) handle upon it, but then, doing the same thing in the next Phase, he had to repeat, not only that current-Phase-reviewing process, but also to even adjust a prior Phase, due to changes due to a following (Particular) one!

[This is described elsewhere in a paper on Generalities, Particularities and Singularites, by this theorist]

And, many of the overall systems involved were cyclic, so, with all these recursive effects, would all take several circuits to into become settled repeating cycles! Many of the features described in Volume I of Das Kapital, were shown to be modified by subsequent processes, only reveealed in Volume II.

NOTE: Now, if this seems to infer an unavoidably infinite, never-ending sequence of necessary modifications, that would also not be true! For, though at some later and different stage the sequence of recursions would be necessary once again: for each and every set these would always terminate in some sort of "Balanced Result", which could be used effectively, at least for a while.

But, clearly, constant vigilance would still be required, just in case that balance was about to be challenged, precipitating a necessary whole re-assessment.

And, many such effects were never understood by readers brought up throughout their Education by systems which assumed total Plurality throughout. Most Marxists haven't grasped this aspect of Marxism, and Physicists don't even know the problem exists!

Ten Days That Shook the World, by John Reed

Reading "Ten Days that Shook the World" by John Reed, or the "History of the Russian Revolution" by Leon Trotsky, as well as accounts of Lenin's necessary switches at key moments in 1917 - all demonstrate what Real Marxian Dialectics was, in the hands of those who had understood what Marx finally arrived at.

But, it wasn't what I came into contact with during a whole lifetime in professedly Marxist parties!

And certainly, without any application of his method to the Sciences, what was then understood, though vital, would still necessarily be inadequate in many other very important areas.

Now, to finally return to my title for this key paper, namely Practice Without Theory!

These words have great relevance to both Politics and Physics - the current chaos in Sub Atomic Physics is clearly due to that Science's continuous and unspoken subscription to both Plurality and pragmatism - why question the method if it just seems to work?

The Real Philosophy of Science attempts to challenge the clueless scientific consensus and the somnambulant Marxists, by using one to explode the other!

The Real Philosophy of Science by Jim Schofield
A Marxist refutation of Science, which is also a scientific approach to Marxism

The more difficult role is actually presented by the "Marxists", who are still totally unaware of the true nature of Dialectical Materialism when applied to their own area of political practice (let alone Science), and hence are totally ill-equipped to do anything significant politically! 

Activism and political practice without the directing guidance of real theory can never succeed in preparing for a coming Revolution!

21 June, 2019

Special Issue 65: 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.

17 June, 2019

Substrate Theory continues... soon!

Image from Alternating Current by Michael C Coldwell

To celebrate their 10 year anniversary SHAPE Journal's epic series on Jim Schofield's Substrate Theory continues, with the next instalment due to be published in coming days...

Part 1 - The Lepton Substrates - Issue 65 was published last month: a bumper issue which collects all relevant papers documenting the evolution of this new physical theory, from the concept of a new aether of "empty photons" to a whole new look at the standard model, with magnetons made of Taus and Muons to the possibility of Neutrino-based gravity fields. 

Part 2 - Towards the New Physics - Special Issue 65 presents the latest research on this theory, examining how the Universal Substrate can help tackle all the biggest questions in physics today, from the Spacetime Continuum to the Uncertainty Principle, from Casimir Effect, Redshift, Time Crystals, Superfluids and Dark Matter, to Virtual Particles and the work of Frank Wilczek.

Watch this not-so-empty space...

26 May, 2019

Issue 65: The Lepton Substrates

10 years SHAPE Journal presents Substrate Theory vol. 1

SUBSTRATE THEORY I: This issue of SHAPE Journal is the first in a two part bumper edition on Jim Schofield’s Substrate Theory, curated to mark the 10 year anniversary of this publication, and to finally bring together all of the crucial materials for this burgeoning physics.

Both issues feature photography series Alternating Current by Michael C Coldwell

This is a completely new approach to sub-atomic physics that hypothesizes the existence of as as-yet undetectable heterogeneous material substance, filling all of known space. Unlike its distant cousin, James Clerk Maxwell’s Aether Theory, this new Substrate conception can explain all Quantum phenomena, the anomalies of the Double Slit experiments, Wave/Particle Duality and its own strange illusivity.

Without wishing to sound hyperbolic, the ideas contained within these issues are nothing less than a revolution in science - a complete rethinking of contemporary physics from the ground up; commiting to the scrapheap of scientific progress much of the last century’s detour into a realm which we might call Quantum Ideality.

The near-total dominance of Mathematics in the field has lead us further and further away from the material reality we purport to study. The more advanced our technological solutions become, the more convoluted our route to truth, the more self-fulfilling our prophecies.

In Substrate Theory we see a genuine attempt to return physics to materialism, but also to try and explain materially, the many weird and wonderful phenomena we have observed at the Quantum Level. This is no simple return to the halcyon days of simpler classical physics, not a retrograde movement at all, but instead a new gesture towards a truly holistic study of the material universe - a methodology that eschews virtual particles, Quantum Entanglement and all manner of Mathematical constructions, which uniformally fail to explain the material causes of the most basic physical phenomena - gravity, the propagation of light across space, disembodied magnetic and electrical fields.

Saturation (2012) by Michael C Coldwell

While Substrate Theory certainly has the potential to upturn the entire apple cart of modern physics, the pieces of the puzzle still need assembling, even if all the elements have been devised.

This issue begins that process, collecting together various prior publications on the theory, and weaving them together into a coherent narrative. This is a somewhat difficult undertaking as the ideas are always evolving - the goal posts moving.

Our editorial solution to this problem is to split the task into two parts.

In the first installment, The Lepton Substrates, past papers on Substrate Theory are collected together in historical order, with some new editorial pointers mindful of when certain ideas were first published, at what point in the theory’s evolution certain assertions were made, and that some of the original ideas have been necessarily superceded, but are still required here to understand the theory in general.

All the foundation arguments and elements of Substrate Theory are explained and discussed here. From the original notion of ‘Empty Photons’ pervading all space we start to see what these entites might actually be. How pairs of mutually orbiting Lepton particles must be undetectable, but could easily pave ‘empty’ space. What those different Leptons are and how they can carry quanta of energy in orbits, passing them bucket-brigade across the universe. How quantised orbits may have a material explanation in a dialectical relationship between levels of the Substate.

Over the course of The Lepton Substrates the full picture begins to form and the unexplained contradictions of Quantum Theory start to fall like dominoes.

Imaginary Units (2012) by Michael C Coldwell

In the second part of this series, Towards the New Physics, we look beyond the nuts and bolts to the potentials, publishing Jim Schofield’s latest writing on Substrate Theory, which sees how the Universal Substrate can help tackle all the biggest questions in physics, from the Spacetime Continuum to the Uncertainty Principle, from Casimir Effect, Redshift, Time Crystals, Superfluids and Dark Matter, to Virtual Particles and the work of Frank Wilczek.

What becomes increasingly apparent in all this research is that even if this particular model of a Substrate is wrong, the basic premise that one exists is right. It has been the missing premise since 1927 - the invisible elephant in the room of an ever-more esoteric Physics. Substrate Theory explains far too much to be ignored any longer, in a discipline which has all-but abandoned explanation for the most obscure of Mathematical games.

23 May, 2019

Substrate Theory!

Jim Schofield's Substate Theory will be published in coming days!

Part 1 - The Lepton Substrates is now available here

Dominances and Opposites

Natural laws are perhaps better thought of as natural dominances

How Holistic nature of reality both maintains Stabilities 
yet also enables Real Qualitative Change, via Emergences

The initial choice, historically, by a Mankind finally beginning to emerge as an intellectual interpreter of both its World, and of its own existence, was naturally to assume the absolute generality of the Principle of Plurality, rather than the seemingly totally opposite, and much more difficult to implement Principle of Holism. It was, at that crucially emergent moment, a completely unavoidable step, if any sort of progress was then to be made.

But Plurality also simplifyingly insisted upon the fixed, or qualitatively-unchanging-nature of all elemental things and laws, whilst Holism instead rested upon the inevitability of precisely such Qualitative Changes in absolutely everything!

NOTE: Of course, Mankind's initial, primitive Reasoning had also, long before that emergent moment, subscribed to the very same premise, as a basis for beginning to cope with Reality.

And, of course, most things certainly didn't seem to change in their apparently-evident, essential-natures, "all-the-time", but, on the contrary, only in their contributing amounts (their quantities): so the assumption of qualitative constancy was the only place for an initial intellectual study to even begin. Even these could account for some "qualitative changes" in certain circumstances, assumed to be caused by many different contributory things (that were themselves merely changing purely-quantitaively), yet still enoughfor a balance of simultaneous contributions to be changed sufficiently, so that a different involved component, could move into so-called Dominance and flip a situation over into a different mode.

But, it now finally seems likely that the assumption of a Pluralist World may need to be wholly dispensed with, and the alternative assumption of a Holist World, be imported into Science to replace it, in order to tackle its increasingly numerous anomalies and contradictions, generated by that initial premise.

Now, both of these Basic Principles are clearly enabling simplifications, so a mere switch between them cannot alone solve the many epistemological difficulties that have accrued over many millennia.
Some sort of detailed review of what we mean by these apparent alternatives, must be instituted to reveal just in what ways, and how profound, the real differences are.

Plurality, the philosophical assumption underpinning Science, deals solely with qualitatively-fixed relations only, which are usually achieved by extensive and detailed farming of given situations, to remove as many simultaneously acting factors as possible, so as to ideally leave only one, and, thereafter, to continue to hold things "still" - so rigorously, in fact, that only a single relational Law would ideally remain, making its extraction, and subsequent effective use possible.

Holism rejects this conception for its unavoidable distorting of any athus-found Law, always artificially made into an eternally fixed abstraction, which never, as such, occurs naturally in Reality-as-is! The Holist alternative considers that, in every natural situation, there will always be a reasonably extensive set of different contributory factors, all acting together, and, in spite of this, seemingly indefinable complexity, does end up delivering something as an overall end-result, due to all of them doing what they do, BUT together producing a single outcome. And such results can turn out to be very different in totally unconstrained conditions.

The commonest case, in all school science experiments, was always an "overall law", which normally varied along with its multiple component factors. 

Another, and different case, could be a kind of naturally self-maintaining Stability, within which any variation tending to distiurb that Stability, would be immediately countered by an opposing reaction of another, having the very same cause - but always returning the situation back to Stability.

And, in any overall resultant Law, considered holistically, factor changes could flip it from its previous Dominant result to the opposite Sub Dominant outcome - now become the New Dominant.

NOTE: this last point is referred to somewhat early... A long and necessary diversion in establishuing a wholly New Stance, will later in this paper, reveal in full how and why this occurs!

So, the usual result by Mankind was that conditions would be increasingly controlled, enabling a reasonable approximation to an artificial wholesale Stability to be implemented, to purposely facilitate a given required use: so such careful farming of conditions, rapidly became the norm, when both revealing and then applying, assumed-to-be-eternal Laws: but NOT, it must be emphasized, to stop it varying, but, on the contrary, and mistakenly, to supposedly eliminate the effects of other simultaneously-acting laws cumulatively affecting the result by mere quantitative changes in their various contributions.

And, of course the age-old pragmatic tenet still ruled the roost ultimately, with, "If it works, it is right!"

Enabling Technological Use rather than Increased Understanding totally dominated Science.

So, Science developed with that always-distorting premise - that of Plurality, and, therefore, a necessary Use-Methodology, had to be involved to initially rigidly farm the conditions "to ensure that the targeted Law would be-artificially-fixed, and couldn't be "variously-affected", as it would be when occurring in Reality-as-is.

[In addition, it was also wrongly assumed that this fixed version also behaved in exactly the same way in Reality-as-is, and that the differences there were simply due to the summation of all the other, also present and similarly fixed, Laws! Whereas, holistically, all simultaneously present Laws actually modified one another: it wasn't just a simple summed Complication!]

It meant, of course, that the Pragmatic Objectives could always be the sole, aimed-for intension, so the consequent Explanatory Theory, derived from the farmed data so-obtained, was therefore wrong- and not just because of the farmed conditions (as explained above), but also, and crucially, because a Pure Form, from strictly Pluralist Mathematics, was then carefully tailored-to-fit that same already distorted data, so that the achieved formal law, as an Equation, was doubly modified: for it was, in addition, idealist, rather than truly materialist!

And whilever it was only pragmatic results that were required, the Technology involved could indeed deliver the required results, and so the ubiquitous method largely went unquestioned.

Nevertheless, any consequent Theory associated with that equation, would be incorrectly taken as being the required general, natural relation: the Theory, and hence the Explanatory Science so derived would necessarily be incorrect!

And, of course, as physicists delved ever deeper into Reality, the consequent inaccuracies became ever more unavoidable, and increasingly delivered debilitating anomalies in Theory via the assumed premises of Science, which inevitably began to deliver ever more contradictory results.

In addition, the devised solutions, all of which are unavoidably constrained by their basic assumptions, were forced ever deeper into the idealistic hinterlands of Pure Mathematics, in order to seek for the Perfect Forms that could be persuaded to fit!

[Isn't that exactly what Einstein did with Relativity?]

And, that could only lead away from Reality and ever deeper into Ideality, a domain of Pure Form alone, and hence the only true realm of Mathematics, and NOT in the domain of Concrete Reality- which should be the realm of Science!

NOTE: The problem was also that Mathematics had soundly started by merely being a direct Reflection of Reality: so it did contain something of that source. But, it was a distorting mirror because of its in-built and generally-and-intrinsically assumed Plurality.

NOTE: Reality has only three dimensions we can legitimately abstract, while Mathematics can have as many as you like, as long as you maintain the exact "geometric relations" between them all, that had previously been the case for the original three Spatial Dimensions alone, but could even be "philosophically" adjusted to even allow-in the admixture of Probabilities and Wave Theory - as in Copenhagen.....it appears!

And, that infers that the extra Dimensions must concretely exist, for the relations carried over from the Spatial Dimensions have to still hold in exactly the same way: and paradoxically to also NOT exist in our real space, but unseeably elsewhere, yet maintaining the very same inter-Dimensional geometrical relations both with the usual real three, and each other!

Now, as is well known in some areas of academia, ever since Zeno of Elea, certain Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, namely those of Continuity and Descreteness, could lead to nonsense when applied to certain Real World Movements, but his revelations were largely ignored, by using the pragmatic excuse of "If it works, it is right!", and it wasn't until Hegel found a solution, 2,300 years later, in the necessary modifications of their defining premises that many of these were removed.

But, of course, the ongoing problem was Plurality! For, it prohibited qualitative changes from ever occurring in such concepts. Hegel realised that such change had to be included in Reasoning, involving Dialectics as a new Science of Logic.

Now that, of course, is much easier said than done. And also this was being attempted by an idealist, who was exclusively concerned with philosophy as Human Thinking, and arguing! Whereas the required changes were even more important, essential in rescuing all the sciences, from the very same affliction.

Indeed, how would multi-factor situations actually behave, when affected by all their simultaneous and varying contributions, and even more confusingly, mutually modifying one another, as is the main premise of Holism? Just how far would the actual modifications precipitate one another, into ever more changes? Would it not be an infinite process? NO, it would not!

In Plurality, though properties would be fixed, quantitative changes would indeed be potentially infinite! But, changes, in a Holist World, would NOT be merely quantitative, but also qualitative, and such could be in any direction, so they could be either conducive or contending with respect to others - and in a multi-factor system, delivering both kinds of variation - balances at some points would become inevitable... And, never as a fixed and final result, either!

Indeed, the contending and conducive factors would be delivering a Dynamic Balance, wherein constant changes would still be involved, but changes in one could, in such a balance, be countered by opposing changes in other factors! The same disturbing factor could affect different internal factors in opposite ways.

In other words self-maintaining Stabilities, would be the most likely outcomes, some persisting so long as to appear eternal to our timescale. Stabilities which would require very significant disturbances to be fatally undermined, and which would, in such rare circumstances, ultimately totally dissociate the Stability completely.

NOTICE how far we have been transported in this endeavour, away from Pluralist Formal Logic into the dynamism of Holist Reality!

And, even at this most basic level the importance of "opposites" begins to become ever clearer.


The significance of the above ideas was demonstrated to this researcher, when theoretically investigating Pre-Life simultaneous Chemical Reactions, in particularly conducive circumstances on the early Earth.
Interestingly, I did not initally identify any individual chemical processes, with a view to defining-in-detail the ascent to the Origin of Life, via what qualities were involved at each and every step. For, I knew that such a journey would be strewn with unpredictable Emergences, and hence well beyond any theoretical means I could muster to re-construct that long trajectory.

So, I was much more interested in the dynamics involved in a proliferation of different processes, affecting one another, either conducively or contendingly, to produce ever higher levels of sub-systems, systems and super-systems via such creative events always delivering the entirely New, which would never be delivered by the usual pluralist Chemistry, as no chemical process is ever conceived-of in that way: they are all straight-forward processes with logical outcomes confined within Pluralist Science.

So, to consider such situations, holistically, would therefore involve dumping the usual pluralist methods, along with their severely constrained circumstances, producing only the revelation of single pluralist laws as the required outcomes - so, instead, considering whole collections of many simultaneous processes, all acting together, and producing a variety of products, which then, in turn, immediately became actively inolved in the overall system of processes, as a consequently constantly changimg mix, and also changing all the contributing processes, and so, importantly, changing the Contextin which all the involved processes are performing, and all of them changing somewhat along with such a varying Context.

Now, you can see why the outcomes of individual processes - all previously carried out separately in individual farmed pluralistic experiments, would certainly never suffice in determining what happens in these holist and multi-factor circumstances! So, the required focus must consider things very differently, primarily as delivering a Classical Dynamic Holistic Interlude (see The Theory of Emergences (2010) by this author), which will usually end up in a temporary, if long-lasting, Balanced Stability, with measureable overall characteristics, which can all be determined experimentally, (in the old-fashioned "Equilibrium" type experiments of the School Lab), and which will involve ongoing inter-process effects, in process-chains or even process-cycles, and with self-selected and evident Dominances, usually caused by the presence of certain resource abundances, due to current local conditions.

But, the most likely change, thereafter, without too much of a variation in the overall Stability, is usually a seemingly dramatic Switch to deliver an Opposite to the prevailing Dominance. And, believe it or not, such a switch can be explained, and with it the significance of Opposites in Holistic Dialectical situations generally.

Very different this Holist Science malarkey, isn't it!?

Now, the consideration of such a situation and its development will be qualitative rather than quantitative, and systemic rather than productive. For, in such a set of simultaneous processes, they will be not only changing each other's contexts, but also using-up or supplying each other's Resources too.

Connected Worlds - interactive ecosystem installation, New York

So, processes related by the product of one, being the resource for another, will form Chains, amd even occasionally Cycles, the preponderances of available resources due to the current location will also determine which Systems are most successful, or Dominant!

Indeed, there will actually be two sets of processes benefiting from the same abundence.

The first will be those going generally in one particular direction >>

The second will be those generally going in the opposite direction <<

And, with universal competition for the very-same resource, most of both sets will lose out - all except the Dominant one in its direction, and its Opposite (sub dominant) in its contrary direction! 

(Notice there is a seemingly contradictory hierarchy of opposites)


The consequences for current research into the Origin of Life, of ths Holistic Approach, culminated in the Theory of Emergences (2010), which demonstrated once-and-for-all that research to re-create Life from scratch is impossible: and even much worse, that absolutely NONE of the essential interludes in that development will never be reproducable either - as they will all be the results of natural Emergences, the outcomes of which will always be impossible to predict!

A bit of a problem for science, where falsifiable predictions are so vital for proofs!

Capitalism Hits Home: A Movement for Women

Good stuff from Harriet Fraad on the women's movement and capitalism. 

Accumulation by Dispossession

How Modern Capitalism Works: David Harvey strikes again!

27 April, 2019

10 Years of SHAPE Journal

Substrate Theory of Physics

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

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

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

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

Watch this SHAPE.

Here is first part!

26 April, 2019

Copenhagen is Wrong!

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

And now Lee Smolin is on-side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two parallel lines of theoretical research were undertaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

24 April, 2019

Current Praxis: The huge gap between theory and practice

Theory and Practice: To Serve and to Organise

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact us privately via email:

or leave a comment under this post.

14 April, 2019

Special Issue 64: The Limits of Mathematics

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

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

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

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

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