24 January, 2021

Special Issue 71: Enter the Microverse!


Enter the Microverse by Jim Schofield

Special Issue 71 of SHAPE Journal

This edition looks at our latest Physics research and continues this publication’s ongoing critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - and the general consensus within this Science, that the dynamic physical Universe we inhabit can be reduced to Mathematics for study. This issue argues for a re-examination of the materialist Microverse, rather than the idealist Multiverse. Philosopher Jim Schofield argues for the use of Analogistic Models, rather than Mathematical Abstractions, in a new Holistic Physics, influenced by the research of Yves Couder, Eric Lerner and Karl Marx - to stop stabilising reality in order to study its forms. Instability is the real key to understanding...

The Pluralist Limitations

in Modern Sub Atomic Physics

Though the limitations imposed by the Pluralist Stance is a reucrring feature of my criticisms of Current Science, it isn't always realised just how profoundly damaging it is.

And the main reason is, that there is so much of a many-layered superstructure overlying and effectively hiding these mistakes, that they are easily omitted from the general foundations upon which discussions are based.

By far the most insulating of these is the undoubted power of the "enriching" role of Mathematics, upon the Reality it is assumed to accurately represent, which is significantly mistaken, not primarily because it is LESS than true Reality, but because initially, at least, it appears to contain vastly MORE - and of a coherent, consistent, and frequently very beautiful nature within what we term Ideality - and particularly those aspects of the World which conform only to forever Fixed Laws.

And, what underpins that mistake, is the fact that within always-temporary interludes within Reality (both temporally and spatially) those relations DO indeed fit the actual circumstances perfectly - but ONLY while the necessary fixing conditions are maintained.

It certainly didn't help that Mankind soon learned to artificially achieve-and-maintain such stabilities for himself, both in investigative experiments, and also-and-necessarily in directed Productions - FOR Mankind wrongly assumed that they were revealing the actual underlying relations, hidden beneath a collection of other simultaneous and non-mutually-interfering relations.

But in doing so we also assumed the total independence of all those relations - NOT affecting one another, but merely summing somehow, and thereby hiding the assumed pristine fixed relations underneath.

Unfortunately for Physics, this is certainly NOT the case!

It would be so, if-and-only-if, Reality were Pluralist in nature, but it isn't: it is Holist.

And the proof of this is that "all development" can be shown to happen via holistic inter-relations, and NEVER due to mere collections of Fixed Laws.

But, what is it that Ideality has to offer that can't be derived from holistic Reality? It is true, for everything which involves Pure Forms, and the complexities possible thereby - and that "richness" again intervenes, because though certain complexities are Real and due to holistic interactions, they can also be occasionally approximally-approached by wholly pluralist complexities - BUT never causally and interpretably, as is possible only in Reality.

Now, this distortion of the Sciences, and ever more generally applied to Logic, it is still universally dealt-with, based upon the assumption of Plurality throughout: so there is absolutely NO general realisation of the unavoidable distortions so unavoidably produced. And, the misconceptions are merely guaranteed, as being what is attempted to be understood, and so gets further and further away from everyday Reasoning. And consequently seen as the norm in such a specialist area as Sub Atomic Theory, so cannot but be also dominated by the Plurality, always employed throughout that specialist area. And, of course, being distantly separated from everyday Common Sense Logic, it cannot but be thought about in terms of Mathematical (pluralist) Equations, so that further investigations will ONLY be via mathematical means, and hence well hidden behind Equations and the usually allowable Pluralist Manipulations, as the easiest and reliable means of delving any deeper into that invisible World.

But, of course, it can only be carried-out pluralistically, using only easy to achieve manipulations of their Algebraic Forms, and consequently assuming that what comes out of such manipulations readily reflects Reality-as-is - when that is NOT the case at all!

If the totally dominating developments are exclusively Pluralist and Mathematical, they will NOT be the correct Physical Truth involved, but a purely rationally formalist development of those incorrectly attached Forms: and by the addition of more of the same kind of assumptions, will inevitably lead the search, ever further away from Reality-as-is - though occasionally, and always for the wrong reasons, arriving in a place where we can convince ourselves that it is an exist-able situation in the Real World, when that isn't the case at all.

So, let us begin to demolish Plurality from top to bottom!

First, as all pluralist relations are eternally Fixed Laws, they, at best, will be viable only within a Descrete artificially organised Range of Applicability. For outside of that Range, each will be totally wrong!

Neither could it self-transform into what describes the situation outside of that range: for its variables are only changeable quantitatively, and being beyond its existence limits, it will no longer exist within the Fixed Law. It may vanish altogether to be replaced by something else! For, even if it continues to exist within a New Relation, it will be differently related to wholly New other variables.

Indeed, pluralist-dedicated investigators, often use the passing of a Threshold Value to signal the demise of the relation, and the consequent dominance of another different, but as yet unknown one.

And, one such cannot transform itself into any following Forms: for they are eternal Forms only.

Indeed, though we associate them with situations and processes, they ONLY deliver the performance of, and relations between, fixed Forms, and absolutely nothing else.

Indeed, such a mathematical approach cannot be called "a Theory", because, though it directly relates variables in descrete interludes of purely quantitative changes, it says NOTHING about the crucial transitions of qualitative change involved.

Unless, you are an idealist and believe the numeric laws magically drive Reality, and merely knowing what will happen and when, is Understanding Reality! It isn't! 

You also have to know "Why?"

23 January, 2021

The Death of Mathematics

The Future of Science and Philosophy

Following the Demise of Mathematics


The Lingua Franca of Reality

I have been a Scientist and Philosopher for sixty years now - but I fell-out with my primary subjects and evident mathematical abilities when I was just 18 years old, in my very first term at University (studying for a degree in Modern Physics). And that was already the second profound setback in my, by then, very short life.

I had first, while still at School, settled upon Mathematics, as the key to Understanding the World, as I turned out to be a natural in seeing and using its Theorems and Proofs, and was always top of my A stream Classes in the Grammar School that I then attended, from my prior Elementary School. For I alone, had managed to pass my Scholarship to enable me to attend - which surprised everybody, both in my family of unskilled labourers, the teachers at my initial school, and even those I was taught by at the Grammar School. In spite of being top of my classes throughout my whole education there, and ultimately obtaining a record 7 "A" and "S" Level Passes by the age of 18. Indeed, the one constant comment upon every single one of my School Reports was "promising". And, having been pressed to take those 7 Sixth-Form courses and exams, my achieved marks were not what I would have achieved, if I had taken just 3, as did everyone else.

But though while still at school I was initially-at-least satisfied with Mathematics as a general Lingua Franca, it was very soon found wanting in my increasing commitment to Physics, because instead of merely formal relations to phenomena, Physics also delivered Explanations for them, too - it was possible to also understand Why things behaved as they did, and luckily all my Science teachers thought the same.

So, though I continued to excel in Mathematics, it was Physics that held the promise of a continuing expansion of my understanding of the world! So, I only applied to take a Physics degree at the Universities I applied to, in the late 1950s. 

Hence, I was devastated when in my very first term at University, literally no explanations were forthcoming whatsoever: the sole purpose of study was to arrive at a mathematical formula that fitted the acquired evidence.

And questions weren't allowed: it was assumed that if you asked for an explanation, you couldn't follow the Maths!

So, the only access to staff that was available, were the postgraduate demonstrators who helped with experiments, but they were the worst, and would get angry at my insistence upon explanations. They were all involved in the NEW Physics, a subject totally dominated by Mathematics - explanation was banned!

Clearly because of my abilities in Mathematics I could do what was increasingly demanded, just as my educators were less and less competent at the explanatory side! I who, contradictory to my tutors probably the best at handling their version of Mathematics, was also the most critical of the way they were doing it.

I had taken up Painting, when I was 16, so I joined the University Art Society, and by the end of the Academic year I was running it as its secretary. But I couldn't be satisfied with what I was doing in Physics at all, so, I spent a great deal of time in the magnificent Brotherton Library within Leeds University, seeking an alternative to what I was being given within my course. I found nothing at first, until I slightly widened my criteria, after which I found a book entitled Materialism and Empirio Criticism- which was a trenchant philosophical critique of Henri Poinaré and Ernst Mach - who originally developed the Positivist Empirio Criticism, which later became the Basis for Modern Physics!

The book answered their mistakes philosophically, but not physically, so I decided to trace his sources - the writer of the book was Vladimir Iliych Ulianov (more commonly known as Lenin - the Marxist who later was to lead the successful Russian Revolution in 1917). The philosophic stance involved followed Karl Marx's criticisms of Pluralist Philosophy within Social Phenomena (usually termed Marxism, but more properly termed Dialectical Materialism).

But neither Marx, nor anyone else, had ever applied the new philosophic stance comprehensively to The Sciences! I knew what had to be done: I had to undertake that task, but aged just 19, I simply did not even know how to start - so I joined the Communist Party and afterwards a series of other purportedly Marxist Parties, but I never found a single person who could help.

I turned to other things over the years, becoming first a Sculptor, and then a System Software Expert, and in that capacity finally returning to Higher Education, with a series of posts in three countries - but it was in my expertise in designing tailor-made Software Aids to High Level Researchers, followed by a final career as a Writer, that I finally knew sufficient to do the job myself!

It certainly wasn't straightforward, though, as a universally-subscribed-to major limitation upon all experimental investigations, permanently terminated the study of Reality-as-is, for, instead, the major distortion of only ever taking data from entirely artificially-produced Pluralist Contexts, and also, over two millennia, finding it imperative to have to implement diverse tricks and workarounds, to try and circumvent the unavoidable short-comings of maintaining such an entirely and mistaken and consequently strictly Pluralist approach, especially when it came to using the inevitably distorted Laws, in every single form of consequent Production.

For, in making successfull the pragmatic production of particular outcomes, meant that what had to be arranged-for, and carried through successfully, was NOT involving Reality-as-is, but instead entirely by achieving predictable outcomes within an artficially-constructed-and-maintained Pluralistic Context! While those arrangements did deliver what was required, it was absolutely always achieved entirely within separate unique, artificial situations, that were always different in each and every case.

And this made it impossible to get Generally True Laws, as each-  and every one only worked in its own tailor-made Pluralist situation.

Consequently, NO Everywhere-Applicable-Law was available: and, in addition, NO purely-manipulative-substitutions between different laws were possible! Indeed, the whole set of Formal manipulations - the mathematical transformations of supposedly Scientific Formulae were totally illegitimate, as being the case in Reality-as-is. Consequently, the whole usual systems were illegitimate, and all purely on-paper manipulations were simply wrong!

In actual Real World production, every Law was forced to have its own tailor-made artificial context (technology): and complex situations had to be transformed into a series of entirely separate experiments to even be able to achieve a required overall result. Hence, all cerebral investigations were impossible to he legitimately carried out, and Real Theory was impossible!

And, the reason, for all this, was the Pluralist Myth of Stability as the Natural State, which was always, in fact, an unnaturally-maintained "Stability"! For, in Holistic Reality-as-is, all stabilities are naturally-and temporarily-maintained, as "Balanced Stabilities". So, the Pluralist assumptions are never true and actual "Balanced Stabilities" turn out to be naturally-selected bundles, consisting of balanced-diametrically-opposite processes, so selected for as to be self-maintaining, by means of equal and opposite processes in the bundle, one of which, that with anotherhaving the same external initiator, will always counter the errant process. And then, to compound the overall Effect, the various bundles involved perform, in the same way, by their mixes of cancelling opposites.

As soon as the artificially Fixed World and the Fixed Laws of Plurality are replaced by a multiply-simultaneous factor Holist World, the evident Interludes of apparently stable natures of the natural stabilities of Plurality cease to exist, and Hierarchies of Systems and Subsystems governed by opposites come into the reckoning in far more complex ways. This is why a dialectical logic is needed rather than a formal one.

Now, in such a short paper as this, a comprehensive set of explanations is, of course, impossible! The very fact that it hasn't been attempted in two and a half millennia illustrates the difficulties involved. But this work  is now, finally, securely underway,  and will indeed result in an even larger Intellectual Revolution than did the Greek contribution in the 5th century BC. 

But if Mathematics can no longer be seen as the language of nature, how should we approach it going forward, and what will ultimately replace it as our primary means of understanding?


17 January, 2021

A New Kind of Science?


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

 "New Kind of Science"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Wolfram

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

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

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

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

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

Let us begin to investigate just how these are achieved!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In an Holistic situation Formal Logic doesn't hold! 

But it is still Causal!

Many simultaneous causes contend!

You have to reveal The Whole Mix!

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


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

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


or Untrue,

both True & Untrue,

or neither True or Untrue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 January, 2021

The Problem with Classroom Physics

Semi-Pluralist Science: 

Schoolroom Physics

Having watched a video from the USA supposedly presenting the very best of Schoolroom Demonstration Experiments in Physics, I immediately recognised exactly the kinds of experiment that was done in my own own school as a boy, when I first started studying the subject.

For, I am now able to see why my efforts, and that of my fellow pupils', in those unavoidably delivered circumstances, were, (despite my being proven as excellent at the theory) all so poor when it came to experiments, and also why some of my fellows students did so well in that area.

For, whereas I did exactly as I was told, and consequently got the poor results, in fact, all of these poorly-equipped investigators should have affected everybody, yet at least some of my fellow students "looked up the expected answers", or asked previous year students, to see what they should be getting, and made damn sure they got something like that themselves! But, I was convinced by the Theory, and expected invaluable confirmation in the "proving experiments", so when they didn't, I accepted that I was a lousy experimenter!

And, it didn't get much better, as an undergraduate at University. For, once again, I was a top student at Physics Theory, but "poor" in experimental work! Nevertheless, I still usually ended up top, particularly in Mathematics, which did seem to conform exactly with Real World applications.

And it is only now, a lifetime later, that I can clearly see what was amiss...

Even in Higher Education, most of my peers had quickly learned to cheat, for the Experiments were both too badly conceived-of, and even set-up, to ever give correct answers. So, while I misguidedly struggled to find "The Truth", in what I believed to be the true scientific way, my fellows just wanted the right answers and got them by other means.

Sadly, these experiences put me off Experimental Physics, though I continued to excel at Theory: and I consequently had many rows with the postgraduate "demonstrators" who were supposed to aid undergraduates with their experiments. And, as they were the only real contacts between the Staff and the students, my stock with the powers that be in the department was soon declining rapidly...

And it is only now that I know why!

The reason was that the Pluralistic Mathematics intimately-involved in both in how the experiments were conceived-of and carried out, and even in the so-called Theory that we were taught, were mutually gelled-together, as well as possible, between the two, but only if "correctly" carried out "perfectly" on the experimental side. But, neither side actually delivered Reality-as-is at all!

The crudity of the Experiments meant that the matching with results became increasingly difficult, and even often impossible to obtain, and if and when they did, it was NEVER the sought for Truth, but an approximation based squarely upon an assumption of permanently Fixed Laws.


Indeed, this major error, over many years, had separated those involved, into those delivering Experiments, and the Theorists who interpreted them, into two very uncomfortable groups of bedfellows, who, nevertheless, were indispensable to one another - precisely because of their very different priorities in maintaining a simplifying fiction.

So, by my fellow students cheating, the true inadequacies of the Experiments were masked, and, consequently, literally no-one was comprehensively adequately trained in all aspects of Experimental work. Indeed, if by some prior good teacher of experimental work, a particular student actually got exactly what the experiment could deliver, it would, nevertheless, be marked as wrong, because it would still NOT exactly match with the "Theory"!

Let us see why such a scenario was wholly unavoidable.

Ever since the Greeks, the Results of Experiments were always treated totally pluralistically! All were aimed for particular Laws, that were assumed to be naturally forever FIXED.

Nature was falsely assumed to work only via such eternally Fixed Laws. 

But the real unfettered world is not fixed in such a way, and to get anywhere even reasonably near to that situation, the rigid control-and-maintainance of the constitution of the Experiment would have to be absolutely perfect: and that, of course, was almost impossible to achieve without great expense and sufficient time being allocated to ensuring that supposed "perfection".

And, needless-to-say, that didn't ever happen with entirely student-run lab experiments!

By the way, in Professional Science contexts, the experimenters and practical product deliverers were Technologists rather than Scientists, while the theorist interpreters of the resulting data were the actual Scientists.

Any Fixed Laws, extracted in such experiments, were never generally applicable either: they would only behave as such if the Applying situation was totally identical to the Extracting one - the complete control of these environments is technology!

Modern physics is impossible without advanced technology

So, in other words, the true guardians and implementers of the aimed-for Pluralist Science were ONLY EVER the Technologists.

The scientists, on the other hand, were initially holists, seeking Natural Laws, which in that Real World of multiple simultaneous and mutually-affecting Laws, were impossible to extraxt as such, without a radical pruning and thereafter continued rigid control of the situation: and that could NEVER reveal the same Law, as applied in Reality-as-is.

For the Laws did not just SUM: they changed one another in various different qualitative ways! So the Laws in Experiments were DIFFERENT to those Laws in Reality-as-is!

A FIXED Law as was evident in a perfect Pluralist Experiment, actually never existed as such anywhere in Reality-as-is!

Now, for Science-in-General, and even in the professional World of scientific endeavour, a further totally-mistaken assumption was made. It was assumed that the Fixed Law extracted, by these methods, was the natural, underlying Law present in absolutely ALL relevant situations, usually along with others, all of them being of the very same type. They just combined somehow to deliver Reality-as-is. And, this belief was embodied in the universally-accepted Principle of Plurality.

What that meant, was that absolutely NO Qualitative Changes could ever occur, by the action of Natural Laws: all real Development and even Evolution were put down solely to mere Complication alone.. And this is clearly wrong!

So, why was it adopted so emphatically?

You have to remember exactly-when it was first achieved, and what a remarkable Revolution it precipitated within Mathematics! For, it was first implemented, as such, in Ancient Greece, almost 2,500 years ago, in what later became known as Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter and equally legitmately extended to the whole of Mathematics - as it then was. For, the use of a wholly new kind of Abstraction had been involved that only referred to Relationships, and consequently had, for the first time ever in Human History, enabled the sound construction of a whole new Intellectual Discipline, by using these Revealing Abstract relations, via a totally reliable New Rationality.

Indeed, the Revolution was incorrectly-assumed to encompass Absolutely Everything: and was immediately, and wrongly, applied to both General Reasoning and all the emerging Sciences too.

Now, to further explain that more general use, we have to consider the special situation of Stability: for, in the Rationality of Mathematics, it was also validly applicable in Stable Situations of all kinds, as long as they remained as such! And Mankind had long been "holding-things-still", while they used them, for a very long period prior to the gains in Mathematics! So, the extension was obvious, and, as long as the Stability was maintained, it remained a valid application.

But, an intellectual Rule that only worked in special pragmatic situations was NO GOOD for valid-and-comprehensive explanations, even if it was adequate pragmatically: in other words, it was OK for Technology, NOT for real exploratory Science!

So, these two stances for dealing with the very same things, naturally drifted apart, and pragmatic problems were solved by technicians, while the scientists persevered, under increasing difficulties, with the consequent pluralist Theory!

Now, Experiments increasingly were set up "to work" by necessarily-attendant technicians, while the scientists carried out the Experiments and attempted to fornulate the "Fixed Natural Law" supposedly involved. But they usually got somewhat different results, each and every time they carried out the "supposedly very-same" Experiment. Now, it was always put down to "randomly-varying conditions", so that by taking averages over several runs, the underlying "Fixed" Law might be extracted.

But there isn't such a Fixed Law! The real World is holistic, wherein many simultaneously-acting Laws, both modify each of them AND the overall final effect too! And, that variability in results would be an average of all those, still making some sort of contribution, BUT by randomly varying as would always be cancelled by averaging, but "all-in-its-own-single-way" for each and every as yet still not-completely-removed contributor.

Sum the achieved average would NOT be of a fixed underlying Law, with randomly varying context, but, instead, an average of the involved and still-acting remnants of the supposedly-removed natural and multiple, usually accompanying contributions.

Which is why, in the title of this paper, I termed it "Semi-pluralist"!

And, which, at best, delivers only a poor approximation to an actually non-existant supposedly Fixed Law anyway!

Clearly, to conquer Reality, in all circumstances - absolutely essential if the many anomalies and crises, currently totally inaccessible outside of the artificially-fixed version, are also to be fully dealt with, what they simply must be tackled with a comprehensive knowledge of the Real Holistic possibilities.

A Holistic Version of Science must how be both unearthed and systematically developed!

Maybe one day we'll see holistic experiments in school Science labs...