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!”