Indeterministic propaganda against reality

Blog 20160727 Indeterministic propaganda against reality

Words mean a lot in the philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism (aka science and religion). The regressive shift in physics that occurred at the beginning of the 20^th century continues on its merry way with steadfast support from the popular press. Both New Scientist and The Atlantic have just produced some feverish broadsides against an independent reality by using the old quantum bromide.

Readers know that the First Assumption of Science is materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). The opposing, indeterministic assumption, of course, is immaterialism, which is what Einstein used when he proposed that gravitational and magnetic fields were “immaterial.” True to his pre-1920 aether denial, these fields were empty space, with nothing in them to provide the collisions that produced the effects per Newton's Second Law of Motion. The “attraction” hypothesis still in use by regressive physicists also must have something to carry out the attraction, although to no one has ever proposed what it is—short of “curved empty space” or miracle. Immaterialism also is assumed in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanical Theory (QMT), which is partly responsible for its much-lamented “weirdness.”

The biggest screamer is this cover display by New Scientist, the most regular propagandist for regressive physics:

It gets a bit subdued in the actual title to the article being pushed:

“Collapse: Has quantum theory’s greatest mystery been solved?

Our best theory of reality says things only become real when we look at them. Understanding how the universe came to be requires a better explanation”

You bet. The regressives’ “best theory of reality” is all mucked up. Of course, being based on the wrong fundamental assumption, the conundrum will not be solved by any “collapse,” “expansion,” or anything else. That is because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to which all this refers correctly states that both the position and the motion of a particle cannot be known at the same time. It has nothing to do with what is real or not. It is simply an observation that one cannot perform measurements on microcosms without using a detector. Detectors require collisions for their operation. Any collision with a microcosm causes its position to be shifted and its motion to be increased or decreased. This is not particularly noticeable or significant for most microcosms that are large. Small microcosms, however, tend to get more obviously involved with infinity.

HUP sounded the death knell for finite universal causality, the assumption used in classical mechanics. With matter being infinitely subdividable, a new assumption was necessary: infinite universal causality, which we have defined simply as causality. Just because reality has this infinite quality, does not mean that there is no reality or that its existence depends on our observing it. Microcosms contain an infinity of submicrocosms within and without. Per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), there is no possibility of determining a finite number of causes for any effect.

The particles being studied in QMT are bathed in a sea of still-smaller particles (aether, etc.) in motion, which make it impossible to detect particle positions and motions with the perfect precision demanded of classical mechanics. By definition, regressive physicists do not use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Their hoped for certainty can never be realized, making immaterialism a logical possibility for indeterministic physicists and philosophers alike. Back in April, Prof. Hoffman, son of a preacher man, got to push the solipsistic propaganda when he was interviewed by The Atlantic: The Case Against Reality.

You might not want to read the whole thing. Here is a sample of Hoffman’s solipsistic view:

“I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain!”

Astrology and the long road to education

Blog 20160720 Astrology and the long road to education

The educational status of humanity can be measured in many ways. Jerry Coyne, the evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago has discussed the great difficulty he has teaching students about evolution. That is because most of them arrive at college having been thoroughly indoctrinated in its opposite: creationism. He first has to dispel that view to make any headway in teaching his courses. Our campaign to rid the world of relativity and the Big Bang Theory faces a similar problem.

While Professor Coyne’s students may not be prepared for college, many of our “students” seem not to be prepared for science. The scientific worldview is based on univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Indeterminism, the opposing view, takes many forms, but mostly it relies on unbridled imagination without regard to reality. In science, we rely on imagination too, but we are proud of our ability to “bridle” it. That is what we do with our "Ten Assumptions of Science," which provide the foundation for all our work. I am always aghast when “scientists” present ideas directly opposed to those assumptions even after they have become aware of them. How could anyone believe in “matterless motion” or the explosion of something out of nothing?

Of course, believers in such stuff have a different, opposing “bridle” that I call “indeterminism.” Like religion itself, astrology is not logical—unless you use indeterminism as its foundation. As I have said many times, the evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty. Logical or not, that is sufficient to enlist an army to protect your tribe, state, or nation. The propaganda engendering that is everywhere, at sporting events, billboards, newspapers, and the internet. The belief in astrology seems to feed on the same thought patterns, with nary a newspaper failing to present such nonsense as if it were true. That fact alone shows that we have a long way to go before our populace reaches even a modest level of education. Here is a link to “The Pseudoscience of Astrology,” a wonderfully succinct article in LinkedIn that should get more circulation. As scientists, we may not be allowed to criticize religions in public institutions, but maybe we can get somewhere by criticizing astrology. The essay is written by Reginald V. Finley, who interviewed me about the book right after "The Scientific Worldview" came out.

You might think that astrology is only harmless entertainment, but I beg to differ. It actually is an important part of indeterministic propaganda. We all have only so many microseconds to live. Why waste any of them on useless BS?

How to avoid cranky add-ons to theory

Blog 20160713 How to avoid cranky add-ons to theory

Eventually, every theory reaches its explanatory end. That is because the universe is infinite and no statement about it or even a tiny portion of it can be completely definitive. In these days of regressive physics and cosmogony, we face all manner of fanciful and “cranky” add-ons. Well-meaning reformists hope to save relativity and cosmogony by attempting to devise theoretical additions that will solve their inherent intractable contradictions. As I have mentioned previously, this is not unusual, because that is essentially how science works. To do science, we must be on the lookout for contradictions. That is where cutting-edge science is done.

For instance, if meteorologists predict that it will snow tomorrow and it does not, they will have a contradiction to resolve. Since nature is not contradictory, they will have to review their observations and calculations to see what went wrong. Thus if those calculations totally ignored wind speed, it would be a simple matter of including it next time. Of course, there are an infinite number of reasons for such a failure in prediction to occur. Some of the “add-ons” to meteorological theory have become so sophisticated that the arrival of a snowstorm sometimes can be predicted within a minute or two. We seldom need one-second precision, so at that point we may consider the theory to be complete—until it is not. The macrocosm is always in motion, so a theory that works today may not work as well tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.

The approach described above is the “ordinary science” of Kuhn.[1] It normally does not involve “cranky” or “fanciful” add-ons. However, during the anarchic period common to prerevolutionary times, things can get quite interesting, if not crazy. Right now, there probably are thousands of cosmogonists trying to figure out what “dark energy” and “dark matter” are. And, of course, there are said to be over 8,000 dissidents hard at work attempting to fix the contradictions in relativity and quantum mechanics.[2] As I mentioned in the previous Blog, we are about to suffer through a few decades of futility along those lines before relativity and the Big Bang Theory come tumbling down.

So, how do we avoid cranky add-ons to theory? The answer is quite simple: Stick fast to "The Ten Assumptions of Science."[3] And, as I have said many times, if you do not like those fundamental assumptions, discover your own, following Collingwood’s[4] criteria of course. At the present moment, one of the most important of these assumptions is the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). That assumption alone resolves the majority of today’s vexing contradictions. With this one assumption, we can rule out many cranky and fanciful claims promoted by regressives and reformists alike:

1.    That the universe is finite.

2.    That the universe is expanding.

3.    That light is a particle.

4.    That aether does not exist.

5.    That energy exists.

6.    That there are more than three dimensions.

7.    That matterless motion is possible.

8.    That finite particles exist.

Those are only a few of the outrageous claims still being made today. If you included any one of them in your attempt to resolve any part of the current regressive mess, you are sure to fail.

There are many add-ons to theory that may not appear to use any of the above but still might be considered fanciful. For example, meteorologist Alfred Wegner started the plate tectonics revolution in geology by emphasizing the fit between the coasts of Africa and South America.[5] That certainly was considered “cranky” at the time—it was not accepted for half a century. Actually, the objections to it were cranky, being based on the indeterministic assumption that there could be matter without motion—a contradiction of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).

So how can we spot a truly cranky add-on to theory? Generally speaking, cranky add-ons tend to be elaborate violations of Occam’s Razor—the principle that the simplest solution is the most desirable and the most likely to be correct. Here is an example:

Light is known to have mostly T-waves, which are commonly a property of solids, such as iron or rocks. Sound is known to have P-waves, which are commonly a property of gases. If one treats light as purely a wave phenomenon, which it is, then one has a problem: How could the aether transmit motion as a T-wave?

The cranky way to resolve this is to insist that aether is nonetheless a solid. Various reformists have imagined aether to be a mesh-like fabric that acts like a solid. The geometries of these imagined fabrics can get supremely elaborate. The more highly structured they become, the more unlikely they are to actually exist. In addition, like the “fixed” aether of long ago, these attempts at portraying solidity essentially are violations of inseparability. There can be no fixity for aether particles, just like there was no fixity for the biological microcosms influenced by evolution and the continents influenced by plate tectonics.

The not-so cranky way of resolving the T-wave problem for light is quite simple: The aether particles responsible for the transmission must be vortices. Vortices are common at large scales, with the solar system, the Milky Way, and other mature galaxies being obvious examples. It is then a small step to hypothesize that aether particles, too, must be vortices. Collisions between the relatively spherical nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air are likely to produce the direct fore and aft motions responsible for the L-wave transmission of sound. On the other hand, collisions between disc-shaped aether particles are likely to produce the sideways motions mostly responsible for the T-wave transmission of light. This hypothetical speculation resolves the problem with a slight change in particle shape, for which there is plenty of evidence among larger microcosms. It also does not violate the principle that all microcosms in the infinite universe are constantly moving with respect to all other microcosms.

---

[1] Kuhn, T.S., 1996, The structure of scientific revolutions (3 ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 212 p.

[2]de Climont, Jean, 2016, The worldwide list of dissident scientists [https://books.google.fr/books?id=KnzBDjnGIgYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=climont+dissident&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=climont%20dissident&f=true].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].

[4] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.

[5] Wegener, Alfred, 1912 [2011], The Origin of Continents and Oceans: New York, NY, Dover Publications, 272 p.