Socialist Society: How we could live...

The objective is surely a society serving the needs of its People, and certainly not the ever-growing power and luxuries for a small group of the Super rich. For now, and increasingly, it is becoming Credit with ever-climbing interest rates that is replacing adequate wages, and which is certainly never the way to deliver either a productive or a fair society. It replaces earned capabilities, with heavy and onerous responsibilities: it replaces confidence and energy, with ever mounting difficulties and uncertainties.

Capitalism is not a planned, nor is it an adequate system! It has crises every few years, and calamitous, decade-long Slumps, and even World Wars - all to serve moneyed investors with ever bigger Profits.

Yet, such a system is not inevitable! In fact, it took a series of popular Revolutions to terminate its Feudalist predecessor, carried out with the universally supported slogans of:

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

The role of revolution in establishing capitalism as the dominant system is often overlooked

...but, even with its success, these revolutions ultimately only greatly empowered a particular small section of the new Society - the owners of Land, Property and Wealth. And, whilever that systemic inequality remains, so will the continued rule of the rich!

A Society for all-its-people has to be very different indeed to Capitalism: for privilege and inequality guarantees a divided and unstable social system.

The lessons of the 20th century must be learned or we will all perish!

But, let us be absolutely clear what it is, at this time, that we desperately need. Instead of just the profit motive determining everything else, we must start with what the People need in order to live, and will work in order to achieve. And, to effectively deliver that, we must have the means to determine those needs locally, then nationally, and finally globally! For only then can we have a Planned Economy- supplying what is actually required to everyone that needs it.

And, clearly, that cannot only be about sustenance, resources and the wherewithal to achieve and distribute it all, but also the essential services to facilitate it too - such as Shops and Stores, Education and Health Services, as well as Leisure facilities, and adequate support for all those in need of extra help.

In this new world the "entrepreneur" is no longer the Hero, but the Enemy - shown to be a parasite rather than a creative.

Policies will have to be socially arrived-at, and then cooperatively delivered.

Democracy must exist at every level of Society, and always be superior to individual power: even elected representatives will be subject to instant recall and replacement if they fail those that they represent.

And, what could be achieved by all of this?

Without the profit motive governing everything, our cities may begin to look very different.

The congenital instability of Capitalism would have to be terminated! The benefits of invention and new technology would be available to all. All industry would be addressed to the needs of Society, including protecting our environment. No one would be rich enough to buy privilege or own the means of production or the means of communication. All Education would be free to all. All Health Services would be free to all. All Stately Homes will be converted into precious Communal Facilities, such as Schools, Hospices, Colleges, Research Centres, Sports Centres, Retirement Homes and many more. High Quality Council Houses would be the main form of Public Housing. Public Transport would be both cheap and sufficient everywhere. A great increase in both City and Country Parks would be instituted; and participation in the Arts made available to all!

And to safeguard all of this:-

The Banks would be Nationalised! As would all the major nationwide Services such as Electricity, Gas, Water, Railways, Air Transport and Roads.

But though planned nationally, they would be run Democratically, and not by an unaccountable  central bureaucracy. 

Socialism?

Rule by the People and for the People?

What about Democracy in the Workplace?

Can we really have Democracy when the workers in a workplace have absolutely no say in what they do there? Should the "bottom line" of profit for an owner totally and always outweigh the needs and interests of the workforce?

It certainly depends upon who owns the business! To make any real change they would surely have to be socially-owned.

Now, of course, the status quo is usually argued-for very differently. For, management insists that only those who now make the decisions are the only ones competent to do so: while the workforce just don't know enough to even be involved. And, when no one is informing the workforce, or even making available the necessary knowledge, that may well be true.

So clearly, as with Political Democracy, so must it also be with so-called Democracy-at-Work! All information must always be made fully available for everybody to be involved to have access and discuss what they are attempting to achieve. And, sufficient resources to overcome any advantage to the privileged, must be fully available to the workforce too.

Currently, the workforce is always totally deprived of such information. But, if full access, along with requisite time, were allocated to such information, the workers, being intimately involved throughout their worktime, will soon learn to handle it, and crucially, with very different objectives to either owners or managers. Indeed, it will amount to a revolution in the efficiency and creativeness of both the work processes and their organisation. How could it be otherwise - the motivations involved will be very different!

Prof. Richard Wolff and his colleagues have written and spoken at length about the need for democracy at work. 

Just compare a Steam Railway Charity run by unpaid, and fully-involved enthusiasts, with the current chaos in our de-nationalised, run-for-profit rail services in Britain today.

What we are talking about, has never been fully achieved anywhere! For, in spite of the clear advantages of Socialised State Planning in Russia and China, after their Revolutions, the workplace was still relatively unchanged from prior Capitalist organisation. For the managers were appointed by the central government. There was NO Democracy-in-the-Workplace!

Clearly, "Socialism" is not what they actually had in those countries, and it was easy for a privileged bureaucracy to emerge, who did not put the working conditions, or the opinions of the workers, high on their agendas at all, and absolutely never delivered any decision making into the hands of the workforce themselves.

Indeed, Democracy-in-the-Workplace would not only transform that institution, but also significantly transform the Working Class involved, because they will, themselves, not only make the crucial decisions in what they are involved with every single day, but they will also discuss and even argue with their workmates, as to what policies the company should be employing. Instead of being excluded from the decision-making that affects their lives, and the wherewithal to make those decisions, they should instead be fully involved in both, and will therefore learn by their successes and their mistakes.

Socialism has to involve real Democracy at every level, in a Society in which Inequality and Privilege have been permanently terminated.

Indeed, the whole approach to the education of the working class, whether they are to be skilled or unskilled, absolutely must transcend mere work-based training and crucially disseminate critical thinking and real Understanding too!

I have worked in every level of Education from Schools, Further Education Colleges and Universities, and even in teaching unemployed youth computer programming, via Youth Training. And, from that wide experience, it soon became clear that the usual separate approaches did not deliver.

A New Holistic Iterative Method?

Henry Moore in his studio. The best artists seem to use a form of Holist Iteration as an investigative method.

Prelude:

What absolutely must be included here as the basis of a determined Holistic Stance, is to replace the most often assumed yet always-significantly-misleading consequences of the usually unconscious Pluralist Stance in all our methods.

And, that inevitably means removing any assumption of eternal Natural Laws, and instead, recognising the alternative of a whole set of multiple, mutually-affecting factors, which are not only changed individually by their accompaying-context, but reciprocally by also modifying that context too.

Permanently-fixed, natural kaws were an historically- necessary simplification, in order to even begin to understand Reality. Clearly, Plurality was an attempt to adjust Reality to get a handle on it - to get approximate values, from a simplified law.

But now, we absolutely must adopt new techniques to better reflect the true interconnected nature of Reality - one of these must be Iteration.


Iterative Methods:

There is a key problem in attempting, as I do, to develop an Iterative Method, from a measured data sequence alone, especially if we attempt to do it without any assumed form of model, for a relation supposedly- connecting those data points, as has always been the case in the usually-employed iteration techniques. For, without some sort of model, there seemed to be no way of reflecting the nature of the factors that cause the trajectory revealed in those data.

Now, in dealing with this situation, it is essential that several things have to be made absolutely clear about the usual iterative methods.

They always use an Ideal Form, taken directly from Mathematics, as a basis, which had then been fitted- up to those data, by multiple substitutions of them into it, to give a set of simultaneous equations, in the constants of the general form, which can then be solved. The result is still the same general Form, but persuaded- to-approximate to Reality, BUT only within-the-range from which those data were taken.

They then “re-structure” that equation geometrically- upon-a-graph into a set of iterative-forms. Now, such a re-structuring involves a major geometrical and transformative use, because, it isn’t merely a manipulation of the ideal equation. It is actually the use of that formula in geometrically-finding a consequent set-of-forms - one for each variable, that can use a single-known-point, and substitute from it into these derived iterative forms to find another single point, and, thereafter, further points, with each one derived from its predecessor.

And, the iterative forms so derived never change!

Being based upon Geometry-in-Graphs, they are unavoidably pluralistic: for the separation of variables into distinct directional dimensions, necessarily excludes any mutual influences they might have upon one another. So these iterarive forms also perpetuate Plurality.

They are fixed, but their repeated-use always gives new points, but always some distance from the “known” point used, so that the action moves rapidly across the whole range of the “driving” function’s possibility space (along with the usual drift as with all such iterative techniques).

Remember, absolutely nothing new has been added to the original source equation, only-the-means-used to access the sequence of generated points, delivered one-at- a-time. And if, as I am convinced, that original formula is NOT the deliverer of the sequence, but a simplified and idealised approximation, then all its short-comings MUST inevitably be carried over into the iterative forms derived from it, and added to by the effects of iteration itself!

Now, the reader is certain to ask why do these forms sometimes deliver things closer to Reality than the original source formulae? It is indeed an important question!

But, as the only significant change, in the actual plotting, has been the zigzagging-about the whole range of that ideal function, then that, plus the iterative drift, must be what is adding something extra, which can reveal something that was not there in the original idealised equation.

But, that method can surely only be some sort of purely- pragmatic trick. It certainly isn’t here taking us ever- closer to a definitive set of actually occurring situations, but just others in similar-but-different positions, in well- scattered general areas. They are certainly not due to the real physical causes (which are never even mentioned, never mind considered, but only due to our chosen strictly formal methods).

Clearly, though pragmatically, it is also only when our purposes can be at least partially fulfilled by such frigs, that we will use them. But, if our purpose is instead to better understand WHY things behave as they do, then it can only mislead us away from that valid, and indeed, absolutely necessary intention.

Let me re-emphasize, there is the important point that current iterative methods are always pluralistic – just like the original equation from which the iterative forms were derived, it assumes the same additively-arrived-at formal “cause”! And, such will be, for the very same reasons, significantly misleading.

But no Real World phenomenon is driven by a single factor: the general situation will always include many different factors, and crucially, if a holist stance is taken, instead of a pluralist one, then these factors will all affect and, indeed, change, one another to some extent.

Absolutely no other factors are included in the usual iterative methodology – it uses only ONE. So, what should be down to the hidden mutual affects of all the other factors involved, is here due instead to a rigged-up version of the usual method.

And, here it isn’t the actual-contributions, but something- else that may deliver something “similar”.

The Alternative:

So, it is suggested that we address these problems, instead, through the use of Recursion, in addition to the use of real points, and absolutely none of the usual pluralist and iterative methods of the past.

With each new measurement, we start by using Difference Methods (or something similar) to reveal what powers of variables are appropriate in the most general polynomial Model. Then use our data again, but now in the usual way to find the still unknown constants of that model.

So far, this sounds like something already used in the past, but there is a significant twist! We do not stick with that form throughout.

So, instead, we now recursively do the steps all over again, including the next measurement made, and repeat the full set of processes, not only with this, but thereafter with every single new additional measurement made.

What will happen is an evolving form, changing with each new addition.

Exactly what the most general form would be, may begin with the assumption of a polynomial. But, if the evidence is against that model, we could add further non-polynomial terms. The crux of the method then becomes the comparison of a predicted location with the real measured one, and a subsequent judgement as to what changes in the adjusted general form might be required.

The original idea for this method was conceived of as the measurements being taken as the body in question was moving (as if we were the riders on a rocket in Space). But, of course, a full, extended set could be achieved, before any fitting up was attempted, and in some complex circumstances, where many dominant influences could regularly come-and-go, for then this method will come into its own.

Indeed, the processes of the method could be carried out completely after the Event, and once sufficient had been processed to get some sort of form, all subsequent positions could be associated with its own version of the form. Also, each new, as yet unprocessed position would be predicted from the current version of the form.

Studying the varying forms could tell us more about the changing-real-influences affecting an overall form, than one that is both always simplified and idealised.

Postscript:

Now, the reader must appreciate that what is being attempted here is entirely new!

First, it rejects Plurality as the current basis for such pragmatic manipulations.

Second, it is attempting to indirectly include aspects of Reality that are usually excluded.

Third, it is purposely recursive, as in the Buddhist Loka Sutta, as a means of constantly checking upon its own validity.

It will most certainly NOT be the last word in this area: it will take some time to break ourselves from “If it works, it is right!” - the credo of the farmed situations that perpetuate Pluralist Science.

This paper was published as part of Issue 62 of SHAPE Journal entitled The Whole and the Part.

Issue 62: The Whole and the Part

Read the latest issue of SHAPE Journal on The Whole and the Part: a loose collection of recent papers aiming to develop a nascent Science of Holism, by looking closer at the crucial oppositions involved: Plurality and Holism, the Whole and the Part.

The Whole and the Part

The Hermeneutic Cycle

Thought for Today

Bringing Holism into the Methods of Science

Why Holist Science and Iteration?

A New Holistic Iterative Method

Plurality & Holism, Mathematics & Reality

Multi-variable Relations

Dialectical Emergence

Socialism!

Rule by the People and for the People = Real Democracy!

Capitalism is not rule by the people, it is rule by the rich. 

It goes to war only to safeguard their Wealth.

The Working Class are sent to their injury and death to maintain or extend the dominance of their rulers. And, yet it never benefits the People.

Capitalism still has its regular Depressions and Major Slumps as in 1929-1940 and 2008-now, and it is always the People who suffer.

Yet, the current Slump, as usual, delivers for the Bosses the very best circumstances for reversing what gains the Working Class have made, and even promises the rich a return to their good-old-days of rule, and the old debased standards of life for the majority of the People. This makes them easier to exploit and makes greater Wealth for the Bosses.

Employment is UP, but only at lower wages and in insecure jobs.

But, what was it that the Working Class expected? What was this "Socialism" that they aspired to?They constitute the vast majority, and produce all of the Nation's Goods, Wealth and Services.

And, they do have the Vote.

If their needs and wants were paramount, the World would be very different indeed! Not a single Stately Home would still be occupied by the rich: they would ALL be used where they are needed most, for the old, and the ill, and for the young too! The enormous magnificent landscapes, surrounding those Stately Homes, would be for the People, in Leisure, Recreation and Sport, and even for Housing.

Making the rich even richer, would have to be totally terminated and reversed! Why should anyone have such Wealth, Privilege and Power?

You may well ask how the current imbalance was able to establish itself in spite of "Democracy"? It's an excellent question! So, here are a few more:-

• Is this Democracy independent of Wealth?

• Are the means of informing the People independent of Wealth?

• Can the Electorate sack their MP for not serving them?

• Are the largest Political Parties independent of Wealth?

I think you know the answers! So, do we have Real Democracy? You know the answer to that too!

Whilever Wealth can always intervene effectively, there will never be Real Democracy. The name for the only truly Democratic System which has been strived for, for centuries, and something we have so far failed to achieve, is Socialism.

To append what we currently have with the description of it being a Democracy, is not just a bad joke, it is a downright lie.

Chris Hedges: "Democracy has become a facade"

Hedges may not be a real socialist, but he hits a few nails on the head in this speech

Haunting Henry Moore

The different meanings of "socialism"

Richard Wolff strikes again! Have a look at the last third of the video for a debate on socialism, what it means to different people, and what it has meant historically. 

Fellow Prisoners by John Berger

A great piece, by the late great Berger.

You can read it here too.

Real Remembrance

As the Tories and their clerics continued to celebrate the First World War on Sunday, only one moment reflected its real Truth and Horror.

(Two of my uncles perished in that mangle of mud and blood, and it killed my illiterate Grandma when she heard.)

That moment was the tribute to Sassoon and Owen on Sky Arts. And their words simply must scream SHAME on our horrendous Ruling Class, who never gave a damn about the Working Class soldiers they condemned to death, and still don't.

Here's some real remembrance.

Dulce et Decorum Est 

BY WILFRED OWEN

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

A Crucial Turning Point

Turning Point by Philip Johnson

When major redefinitions are both necessary and difficult

After almost a decade, as a full time writer upon Science and Philosophy, it was becoming increasingly clear that the wherewithal to fully address all the regularly-occurring, and clearly-evident problems, was still not yet sufficiently defined to enable me to "Make the Necessary Turn!". I had published almost 1,000 papers, and written a further 1,700, and most were sound in reasoning. But the core objective, which had gradually become clear, was still far from having been coherently presented as an integrated whole.

It would have to include a total demolishing of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, in Sub Atomic Physics, and also a much wider-ranging definition of a fundamentally different philosophical Stance, which would have to be Holistic.

The difficulty was, and still is, that literally all intellectual disciplines since the Ancient Greeks have been entirely Pluralistic, and have become intrinsically imbued in all the available and acceptable methodologies for all of my professional career in Universities in three different countries. Indeed, I had usually succeeded in academia largely because I could do the pluralistic stuff, and would still unavoidably commence any new problem via the old ways first.

But, so many attempts have come-to-a-stop resulting in classic Hegelian contradictions, and their unavoidable impasses, that I had to attempt to take his Dialectical Logic much further than Hegel had ever managed to do, and even Marx had not developed his Dialectical Materialism deeply-and-profoundly enough to tackle many Scientific Conceptions and Reasoning, such as occur in Mathematics and every single one of the Sciences.

As a competent mathematician, I naturally read Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts, but they did not help, so I had to begin to address the problems myself.

I soon began to unearth holistic truths within my usual professional researches into providing Computing assistance to a wide range of professionals studying in many very different disciplines. The Key Revelations finally occurred in addressing real, complex and expressive movements in Dance, in order to enable both the teaching of accurate Performance, as well as that of Choreography too. And, ultimately, I devised the first effective way of successfully delivering what the Dance expert required, with appropriate Access-and-Control, using computer controlled Multimedia of recorded resources.

Surprisingly, the main problems were caused in the very same way that both Zeno and Hegel himself had noted in dealing with Movement, and the latter had even begun to understand, and then concentrated upon, but, with him being an idealist, the sort of impasses I came up against were not what he would ever have encountered, never mind tackled.

Though this work certainly greatly enabled my necessary assault upon the required Philosophy to address Reality-as-is, there was still another major problem to do with the premises underlying any Coherent, consistent and comprehensive methodology in pursuing such a path.

The problem resided in the omission of an absolutely vital premise in Physics!

Towards the end of the 19th century, Michelson and Morley had conducted an experiment which "proved" that there was NO Universal Substrate involved in the propagation of light - no Ether, as it was then called, and a whole significant branch of Physics based upon the assumption that such a Substrate existed was dropped as untenable.

It most certainly couldn't be detected, but the formulae based upon assuming that it did still worked.

Maxwell's theoretical aether

Indeed, James Clerk Maxwell had devised his brilliant set of Electromagnetic Equations developed upon his now-discredited Model of the Ether, so I had to re-institute the Universal Substrate as an existing, but currently undetectable entity, and applying that concept alone, to all the Double Slit Experiments, enabled me to dispense entirely with all anomalies of those experiments, and all the assumptions of Copenhagen that had been devised to deal with them altogether.

But, that wasn't all that was required! There just wasn't a useable Holistic Methodology in Science at all. There was, however, a kind of holistic stance, but applied with a pluralistic Logic.

Clearly, I should explain.

Science, since the Ancient Greeks, had been an Amalgam of several contradictory stances, but always using the still-agreed-to basic tenet of Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", those involved in dealing with such things, simply switched between stances, until they found one which worked.

So, a "holist-component", within this approach, attempted to explain phenomena entirely in terms of the known properties of the components involved (it was that aspect which persuaded me to become a physicist). But, also severely modifying that sound stance, was the universally adopted Principle of Plurality. which insisted that all causative Laws were wholly independent of one another: they were fixed- everything could be explained merely in terms of the summations of eternal Natural Laws.

So, clearly, this severely disabled that stance from effectively coping with a clearly holistic and developing Reality. And, finally, those laws could be "correctly-encapsulated" in the Perfect Formal Equations of Mathematics - which is, of course, Idealism!

Now, believe it or not, this Amalgam was considered to be "The Scientific Method". It was neither consistent nor coherent, but it appeared to be "Comprehensive" due solely to the ubiquitous Pragmatic Tenet.

And Holism without Plurality and Pragmatism seemed to be totally impossible to apply, as its tenet was "Everything affects everything else!": and the key unanswered question was "How?" Just how, and in what ways, did the many affecting factors change one another?

Hegel called his solution to a complex changing reality, Dialectics, but he was only concerned with Thinking. Marx recast it as Dialectical Materialism, but never comprehensively addressed Science.

And, here's the rub, not only did Science need Dialectical Materialism, BUT Dialectical Materialism also needed Science.

And all this still had to be systematically addressed. Literally nothing had been done!

So here goes.......

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and an Undetectable Substrate

This short piece does not stand alone!

It represents a very late, yet crucial, stage in a major philosophical and physical critical assault upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, but from a steadfastly materialist standpoint, involving a very different philosophical position, and also the inclusion of a currently undetectable, yet fully-defined and explained Universal Substrate. All the technical questions have been dealt with elsewhere, but there still remains one last piece of the jigsaw -

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!

The purpose of this essay is to debunk Heisenberg's excuse for the Copenhagen stance, which dispenses with the Classical assumptions about Reality, but only within the special Sub Atomic Realm, where he insists determinism no longer applies, and only an assumption of indeterminism allows Mankind to deal with the phenomena we find there.

And, consequently, in such circumstances, NO Causal Explanations were possible, and the only methods capable of delivering anything useable were Statistics and Probability.

But, this opponent of Copenhagen, having already managed to theoretically explain many currently "physically-inexplicable phenomena", by assuming the universal presence of a currently existing, yet passively-undetectable Substrate, which can be, both affected-by and affecting-of, any encountered physical entities, and thereafter, even widening that body of explanations, both extensively and successfully - it suddenly struck me how-and-why the Copenhagenists get away with their entirely formal descriptions.

The reason is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle coversfor the incorrect omission of the Universal Substrate as an absolutely crucial premise, within the Sub Atomic Realm in Physics!

What does the Copenhagen Interpretation smuggle in to even make a formal description possible?

It is, of course a Wave Equation!

And, where do such equations usually apply?

They apply to phenomena in Media!

Certainly, the presence of such a Universal Substrate cannot currently be detected, so, in spite of its omission causing innumerable problems, it was still dropped permanently as a necessary premise.

Now, local incidents can cause non-local (extended) effects in such substrates! And, in addition, such effects can then affect not only local entities, but also by propagating to wide areas of the substrate, hence affect more distant entities.

They can even affect the very entities which originally caused them - in reflected-and-recursive interactions, as in the Double Slit Experiments, and in various kinds of resonance.

There is new evidence to consider from current Very Low Temperature Physics - soon to be imminently extended to Gravity-Free conditions in the Space Laboratory in orbit around the Earth - plus it is also abundantly clear from my own researches into Substrates (composed of undetectable joint-particles) that these are not only several in number, but also diverse in their achievable aggregate Phases, presenting very different conditions and possible phenomena to traversing interlopers.

How on earth do you deal with such influences with NO detectable substrate?

Physically, you can't!

So what did they do?

By using forms derived from Mathematics, and previously used with phenomena in observable substrates, you can, with difficulty, also FIT-UP-TO real data just such such formulae, even with no detectable Substrate, BUT never deterministically!

All sorts of workarounds are necessary, both formally and philosophically, to achieve, and then use, these formulae. The formal tricks are no problem, as scientists have been using such rigs throughout their History. But, the philosophical contrivances are more difficult, so the New View would have to take on Philosophy - a very well established discipline! They had to remove, "physically", the bases assumed by the philosophers. And, this was achieved via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - for "At the bottommost levels determinism no longer holds, indeed, a kind of indeterminism holds instead."

Plurality strikes again!

The very principle, which, along with Pragmatism, allowed all the many contradictorily-established disciplines to exist simultaneously, was again brought to bear in this incredible anachronism.

Now, quite apart from the assertions being made here, the whole Philosophical Basis, for the usual range of intellectual disciplines, has already been established by this philosopher-physicist, in his analysis and description of the whole trajectory of intellectual development of Mankind, from their Hunter/Gatherer beginnings, to the present time, which have made various past and present Amalgams of contradictory premises appear "legitimate" via that usual banker premise of Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", which, of course, does no such thing, though it can deliver a workable basis for technological gains and productions.

Indeed, Philosophy itself is also one of these disciplines, whereas it should be the measureof them all, and provide the means for dismantling such false separations of disciplines, intellectually at least.

But, the Amalgam of contradictory premises underpinning all the Sciences, was unavoidably adopted, historically, as the only way Mankind had discovered to Control-and-Use many contradictory aspects of Reality to their benefit. It was suggested, initially, by Abstraction, which allowed some sort of discussion of things, achieved by both simplifying and naming them, and with the increasing socialisation of Human beings via the Neolithic Revolution, and the change in their mode of Life, primarily to staying in one place and Farming. For, then Abstraction began to be used in Descriptions, by simplifying observed shapes into Perfect Forms, and studying those in place of their naturally occurring sources: they began to idealiseas well as simplify, and both of these greatly increased what could be done in studying them, and what might be done with them.

From this we arrive at Euclidian Geometry, and the developable power of its Theorems and Proofs. This became a kind of standard for all other intellectual disciplines, and in particular, for Formal Logic, and therefore all the others in which Reasoning was applied too.

But the Mathematics into which Euclidian Geometry grew, was also entirely pluralistic - in that all entities involved were assumed to be separable, and always exactly the same - that is totally unchanging qualitatively - indeed they were considered to be eternal!

All of these disciplines were hamstrung by this totally false limitation.

Now, this imposition of Plurality onto all of these disciplines, including their common Lingua Franca - Formal Reasoning, made absolutely certain that they would always be limited to situations in which nothing ever changed in any profound or qualitative way, so when applied to anything real, it would necessarily only apply to stable situtations involving such things. So, anything involving real development, would necessarily be totally excluded.

This was a crippling restriction, so when Science began to be developed upon the exact same basis, such a Principle implied that no Natural Law (which would necessarily be eternal) would be affected by any changed context. And this tenet both severely handicapped, and yet also enabled a warped-version of Science for many centuries!

It hamstrung it by banning all Qualitative Change to any extracted Laws.

And, it enabled a version of it, as long as the severely-constrained Context, necessarily arranged for to get such Laws extracted in the first place, was identically replicated for its subsequent effective use.

In addition, this also meant that though such "eternal Laws" could be effectively and productively used, they were not those acting in allcircumstances, but only those in the single contexts that alone validated its use. What is generally termed Classical Physics, was actually entirely so crippled, that it should have been termed PluralistPhysics, usable only in very limited constrained circumstances, so that any supposedly General Theory based upon that Law, would always be wrong. And, thus all findings would be both simplified, and also idealised, by taking a pluralist mathematical formula, and fitting it up to the data collected from that pluralist single situation.

Theoretically, as in generating an explanation, that formula would also be wrong: it could be legitimately be used pragmatically, but never theoretically. Indeed, a thorough-going analysis of such a "Law", would reveal it as an illegitimate Amalgam of a Materialist Stance, along with an Idealist stance, and one crippled by Plurality, so would be useless for both explanation and use within any normal natural situation.

And crucially, this was the Physics that failed to cope with Quantized Phenomena: it neither would, nor ever could, cope with such phenomena adequately in any method of experiment in a real world - which also included an undetectable Universal Substrate.

The perpetrators of the Copenhagen Interpretation did not even know of its built-in disabilities - so they kept all the errors of Plurality, and decided instead to throw out Explanation as totally impossible, due to the Sub Atomic Realm being a different world, changed by the Principle of Uncertainty formulated by Werner Heisenberg.

Werner Heisenberg at the blackboard

Clearly, the usual assumptions were indeed adequate above a certain size of the participating components being studied. But, according to Heisenberg, once that size was left behind, and a World of the extremely small was entered, the rules changed dramatically! We had entered the World of Quantum Physics, where things just behaved very differently. Below that level, things became indeterminate - acting within a range of possibilities, and the old determinate Physics could no longer be used.

Indeed, a particular Wave Equation actually delivered that range, but in a very odd way! It delivered only the probabilities of a particle being in each of the whole range of locations covered by that Equation. BUT, we already have detailed knowledge of such phenomena! Long ago, scientists conquered similar situations when they were happening within an affected and effecting visible Substrate. Some material interloper could both disturb, and, in special circumstances, be recursively affected by that disturbance.

Could such methods be appropriate in this area too?

The assumption of a currently undetectable Universal Substrate was included, theoretically, in every single one of the Double Slit Experiments, and every single anomaly was physically explained without any recourse to Heisenberg or the Copenhagen Interpretation whatsoever. It seems that, as with so many of the strange anomalies of the Quantum world, and the subsequent ‘idealisation’ of Physics, this crucial missing premise is to blame.

This paper has been recently published in my new book The Real Philosophy of Science

The Real Philosophy of Science

A complete rethinking of the Philosophy of Science is now vital. As climate change accelerates and capitalism slowly dies around us, it is no longer hyperbolic to state that human civilization now hangs in the balance. For the positivist consensus, salvation must come from science and its greater capacity to understand these problems and proffer vital solutions. Unfortunately for us all, and unbeknownst to most, science is in dire straights too. As it stands, contemporary science is not equipped to deal with these profound qualitative changes, or even its own shortcomings and failings. Physics, for example, has been undergoing a secret existential crisis for an entire century.

For the last ten years, physicist and philosopher Jim Schofield, has been publishing new theories and damning critiques of the scientific consensus in SHAPE Journal. His polemical writing largely rejects the epistemology of science as it is usually conceived, and instead poses a dialectical view of scientific history, its impasses and mistakes, and our flawed methods and assumptions.

The Real Philosophy of Science is Jim Schofield’s first full-length book on the subject, but it is long overdue. Many hundreds of papers have been published by the author. Included in this vast body of work is a final refutation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, alternative explanations for all of the anomalies of the Double Slit experiments, an extension of Charles Darwin’s theories to look at how they might apply to the evolution of reality in general, and the Theory of Emergences, which shows how Marx’s ideas apply beyond the social realm – to the revolutions which happen in nature. For Jim Schofield, it is only through real Marxist intervention in science, and scientific rethinking of Marx, that we can transcend the hidden impasses that now plague human thinking, and set the course of civilisation back on track.

This is my new book The Real Philosophy of Science. It's currently available from Smashwords and it should soon hit all major eBook distribution platforms.

The Real and the Ideal

How does The Real differ from The Ideal?

Though I doubt anyone disputes that the Ideal Forms of Mathematics are not the same as their counterparts in Reality, there is, however, a widespread belief that those Ideal Versions are still the really essential parts of a much messier and hard to cope with Reality.

And, this contradiction is surprisingly re-enforced (when it should be undermined) by the very carefully selected, and even more carefully farmed situations deemed absolutely necessary for meaningful study. For, the usual subsequent post-experimental-processes do nothing to dispel that illusion. In fact, they can even contribute to it greatly!

Take the careful fitting of a General Pure Form, taken from studies in Abstract Mathematics, to data from an experiment, which has then been subject to the Method of Differences to point towards a particular General Form, and then have that so-identified form fitted-up to sets of experimental data by substituting them into the General Form to produce a series of simultaneous equations, which when solved deliver the previously unknown constants in the general form as actual numeric values.

For, even this fitted-up-form, though it can be used very effectively, within a defined range, will never be as effective outside of that range! Indeed, it then merely produces total failures in the form of asymptotes and zeros (Singularities), which are NO reflection of Reality at all, but merely proofs of the limitations, and even total failure, of the formulae so gained.

Mathematical Singularity 

The closeness of the carefully adjusted General Formulae to real data, particularly in the hands of mere users of those formulae, unavoidably persuades them that they have the essence-of-the-situation in their hands, via that clearly valuable formula, and more generally that all situations are likely to be similarly served by other close-fitting encapsulations. It is, therefore, no wonder that such users (technicians rather than originators) will have a different attitude to those who struggled long and hard to finally achieve those results. The classically distinct standpoints of technicians, and following them, the general public, would see things differently to the actually involved, investigating scientists!

Now, such differences are, perhaps surprisingly, also extended to other scientists working in different fields, when they consider areas with which they are unfamiliar. The widely believed stance soon becomes that the formulae used DO indeed encapsulate the essence in their applied-to areas.

But, it just isn't true- and frequently confounds both outsiders and insiders alike, when results widely different from those predicted by the supposedly-appropriate formulae, are encountered.

And, the reasons are more than mere inaccuracy!

They are never exactly-the-same, for they describe different Worlds.

The maths-based forms are merely adjusted-but-fixed versions of forms from Ideality - the World of Pure Fixed Forms alone, while the actual relations in Reality are due to varying resultant situations happening in an holistic real concrete World, due to physical composite causes of many contributing factors - nothing of which could possibly be available in the pure, fixed forms of Abstract Ideality.

Yet, the mistaken slide into treating such formulae as the determining causes rather than clever, pragmatic tricks, has significant consequences outside of the Stabilities within which they are close to what happens. And, of course, absolutely everything isn't limited to such Stable situations, indeed, all Development and Qualitative Change is impossible in such circumstances.

So, as Hegel correctly insisted upon, some 200 years ago, the premises of not only Mathematics, but of Formal Logic too, would have to be radically modified to enable Mankind to tackle any of the important questions of Developmental Change. Absolutely none of that kind of relation even exists in Ideality!

And, though for centuries (or even millennia) the above described ideas and methodology did suffice, the time was sure to happen when Mankind couldn't continue to "hold things still" both to investigate them, and then to use them. For, such a purely technological approach is predicated upon achieving particular objectives only.

The more profound and far-reaching objective of getting closer to Understanding aspects of Reality, is not well-served by such objectives and methods. The crucial premise behind those technological methods is the Principle of Plurality, which insists upon only fixed ideas and laws as the bases of everything. But, the required premise, to enable Understanding of Real World phenomena, has to be the Principle of Holism, which insists that "Everything affects everything else!", and hence rejects both Mathematics and Formal Logic as being inadequate to dealing with Qualitative Change.

Now, this is definitely a Revolutionary Change, requiring a significant change in the very bases of both ideas and methods, and is nowhere near as easy as the approach that has both sufficed and dominated for literally millennia!

In spite of the major contributions of both Hegel and Marx, the changes in philosophical stance and methodology has still not been fully addressed. Indeed, their conception of Dialectics has never, until now, been applied in Physics: and that is not only to the detriment of Physics, but also to the detriment of Dialectics too! What Hegel and Marx were able to contribute in their respective areas, was not enough to establish all the changes necessary to complete the Revolution!

It will only be in the defeat of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory that the necessary developments will be made.

A New Path to Socialism?

Having been an advocate of Socialism all my adult life, and a dedicated and active participant in various professedly Marxist Parties, it is clear that the central objective of the Movement, which generated such means, has never been universally guided to success, by those intended organisations-of-change. Indeed, in spite of the vital theoretical contributions of Karl Marx, and the significant success of the Russian Revolution, the expected ultimate global triumph of Socialism over Capitalism has not been achieved.

And, as the future under Capitalism seems to be driving remorselessly towards an even greater calamity than the two World Wars of the 20th century, a solution to the causes of failure of the Socialist Movement has become absolutely imperative.

The generally-supposed banker methods have been proved to be ultimately counter-productive.

 

Indeed, the top-down organisation of the Socialist State, even when achieved via a successful and popular revolution, can never do it! For, it is always prone to the rise and increasing power of a centralised Bureaucracy: and, in the end, the ordinary Working People become just as powerless as those within Capitalism.

Yet, the remarkable undoubted achievements of Russia and China, after their successful revolutions, have proven the superiority of a Planned Economy: the swift developments of the Soviet Union, only to then be vastly exceeded by those of the Peoples Republic of China, clearly demonstrate that!

But, replacing the Capitalist owners with Bureaucratic directors never delivered Socialism for the People.

And, the reasons reside in the misunderstood true nature of Real Democracy! Neither Parliamentary Democracy under Capitalism, nor the Bureaucratic "Democracy" under Stalinism, can deliver True Democracy - a society run by the People. For, no matter how the Representatives of the People are first selected as possible candidates, and then voted into office - it is always achieved without:

1. Sufficient information to enable the right selection

2. Sufficient recall controls over the People's Representatives

3. Regular and sufficient interrogative access to them

But, how could all that be appropriately organised?

It should primarily be organised within the People's Workplaces and Living Constituencies, and it would need to be kept informed by an adequate and totally Free Press.

Indeed, the Principles of Democracy must be insisted-upon and instituted, not only in the organisation of local, district and national representative bodies of the State, but even within the political parties and policy-making bodies within the Populace.

And, these latter demands are also absolutely crucial!

For, there is a "leadership myth", which is always used to oppose such demands. It implies that you cannot trust the judgement of ordinary people to make decisions in their own best interests. You are, instead, supposed to find the right leader, who understands such things better than you, and get him or her to make such important decisions "on behalf of the People".

No, definitely NOT! 

The Leader might well be chosen because of an evident grasp of the most important issues (or perhaps not!). But, the policies pursued must always be those voted upon, by the majority. 

And, sometimes those decisions will be wrong! 

But how else will the populace learn and become competent at managing their own destiny? With the leadership principle, the bad decisions are always some other individual's fault! No-one ever learns it is their fault!

With True Democracy, there has also to be True Responsibility.

Decisions must be those of the majority, and implemented by the organisation and even by a leader who doesn't agree with them. For if that leader believes it will lead to a major set back, he must resign the leadership, and form a contrary faction arguing for a change in policy. Indeed, sometimes, that disagreeing leader should still march at the front of his differently-convinced members, and be defeated along with them!

That is exactly what happened in Russia in 1917 in what are termed the "July Days". In spite of totally disagreeing with the Kronstadters, who had marched into Petrograd, armed to the teeth, determined to arrest the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik leaders argued against it - it was much too soon. But, the Kronstadters would not be dissuaded, so Trotsky, who knew it was a major mistake, nevertheless marched with them, at their head, to the Winter Palace. 

It did indeed fail, and Trotsky was put in jail. 

But, the lesson was learned, and in October it was the Kronstadters, when called upon to do the same thing by Lenin, knew who to trust, and did the job. For, with that Responsibility, the people begin to understand more and more!

The preparing of the People for True Democracy has to be the primary purpose of socialists: for without that, all actions will eventually end in failure, and could lead to calamitous outcomes! Consider the rise of Fascism in many countries following the First World War and the Global Slump beginning in 1929, if you doubt it.

Let us seriously consider Democracy in the Workplace!

Both the Capitalist Workplace and those in the Soviet Union were NOT democratic: all decision were taken by managers or owners, and even in the Socialist State they were appointed by the central Government. Even there, the Workers were considered to be incapable of making the important decisions And, it was true: how could it be otherwise? You don't get born with such capabilities you are either taught them or you learn by experience! And, without the regular experience of making such decisions, you would indeed get them wrong, and never be in a position to take responsibility for them, and correct them.

There is a Workplace Democracy that takes all this into account! It is a version of a Workers Co-operative Company, where it is wholly owned and managed by the Workforce alone. And it is, therefore, part of the job, every single week, to come together to discuss problems and make decisions. Everyone is involved and the decisions of the majority are implemented by the management, who are both hired and fired by the workforce. The workers in such a company learn from their mistakes and their increasing number of successes.

Finally, the effect of the super-rich in society, whatever their political status, has to be addressed, for the current role of this group totally distorts any democratic features that actually exist, and in ways which completely negate their supposed-to-be intended purposes. For, prodigious disposable wealth can fairly easily be used to steer things to the detriment of the majority of the population and in the interests of a powerful few.

And, by far the most important of these is in the delivery of news and information to ordinary citizens, primarily via who own and run the Media, and how they select and deliver what they consider to be important.

For, what is important to billionaire owners will never be the same as what is vital to the majority of the population, and particularly the poor - the workforce exploited by those very owners. And, to take the case of the United Kingdom, at the present time, literally all the nationwide newspapers, and all the TV channels are clearly biased news-wise towards the requirements of the rich.

And, using the excuse of terrorist or even paedophile postings, even the organisers of the facilities on the web are being noticeably reduced for anti-establishment positions.

And, in the USA, where politics is majorly influenced by contributions to "election funds" and the like, staying as an elected representative can be greatly influenced by how much particular candidates, or even supporters of the same policies can spend across the media, and even the way they vote can be influenced by substantial contributions to "expenses".

Only effective policies addressing all of these aspects can deliver justice in political activity now, and help to maintain political objectives when electoral successes finally come.

The amassing of wealth, influence and power in few hands must not only cease, but be decisively dismantled and stopped from ever happening again!

Socialism will never be possible whilever the rich maintain their total dominance!

But neither will it be possible while power is held in so few hands - whoever's hands they may be.

Nader blames YOU!

Ralph Nader, in a recent public meeting in Washington D.C, including, among his audience, a surprising number of very similar-to-himself past agitators, started his contribution with a liberal criticism of the current American political and corporate systems, basically from the standpoint of the US Constitution, and the Rights with which it had "endowed The People", and, by means of which, only a tiny fraction of the population could (and, indeed, in the past did) right the wrongs, first by concerted agitation, and, thereafter, via the usual legal systems of democracy, to get laws changed to complete the job.

It was an echo from the past, and an inaccurate one too! For, it effectively gave all the credit to small groups of people, like himself, who stood up and fought politically for Justice. But, that wasn't the full story at all!

He never mentioned the Socialist and Communist parties, who, along with the vastly growing Trade Unions, had forced Roosevelt to concede to their demands "OR ELSE!"in the depth of the 1930s Depression. That alone set the tone in which the small groups of liberal "do gooders" could then, for a time, effectively "act for the people". It had never before been the case, before that near-revolution, nor was it the case since that justified "Fear-of-the-People" had subsided, following the Second World War, and the gradual re-establishment of the total dominance of Corporate Capitalism.

Nader didn't mention Capitalism once!

No, it was never liberals like Nader who re-established our rights, but the Working Class in conscious political action, and with a Socialist leadership who knew what they had to do and why! And, it was that leadership that had been attacked and destroyed in the McCarthyite Witch-Hunts that had deprived the Working Class of that vital guidance, and which instead allowed the re-establishment of their own dominance, as of old.

So, Nader's admonishment of the Middle Class liberals for their reticence in fighting injustices was a sure revelation that he would never fight the real enemy and cause of both inequality and environmental destruction - The Capitalist System - in its unavoidable lunge to the Right in response to the major and still unresolved recession of 2008.

Once again it could only be addressed by a dedicated Socialist and genuinely anti-Capitalist leadership of an increasingly rebellious Working Class.