PSI Blog 20240624 Irrationality for Instilling and Enforcing Loyalty
Is war possible without irrationality?
The Phantom Horseman,1870-93 by Sir John Gilbert (d.1897).
Credit: Birmingham Museums Trust.
Thanks to Bill Wesley for this great response. It helps
us understand the current state of theoretical physics and its irrational promotion
of the Big Bang Theory.
“If we look at any social group there are nearly always
aspects of religion in the core thesis that unites the group. The group
insiders support each other in believing something that the group outsiders
find impossible to believe, such that the irrational assertions made by the
group canon are absolutely necessary to group identity since rational beliefs
cross territorial lines so are shared by different groups. Rational beliefs cannot
serve as a test of group loyalty like irrational beliefs can.
The irrational core belief is usually signaled by
adherence to cultural practices associated with that particular belief, so
everything from clothing to diet to the arts to language are regulated to
signal adherence to the irrational core beliefs to other group members and to
outsiders.
This tribal aspect of human nature runs counter to the
needs of science; thus, science runs counter to the social needs of the human
animal which are dependent on FASHION. [GB: Bill, I normally think of fashion
as being relatively frivolous. I think it goes much deeper than that. As I have
mentioned before, I believe the evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill
and enforce loyalty. This was absolutely necessary for tribal defense whenever
conflicts over scarce resources occurred. In other words, without loyalty war
would be impossible.]
That means the social need for the irrational, the
mythical, and the magical usually predominate over the needs of science for the
rational, the objective, and the practical.
This means that the more the big bang is falsified the
more attractive it becomes as a loyalty test to go ahead and espouse it anyway,
as the big bang’s utility to science decreases, its social utility increases. [GB:
This is an interesting observation in tune with Bill Mitchell’s suggestion over
30 years ago that the Big Bang Theorists amounted to being a cult just like the
ones found among religions.[1]
Even then, he was able to list 18 problems that would have led to the rejection
of any truly scientific theory. As you and I have been saying all along, the
durability of the Big Bang Theory is social, not scientific.]
As science the big bang is a very poor choice but also as
ART the big bang is a poor choice, the universe is described as being
"born" with no explanation what so ever, it is described as
undergoing a heat death and the concept of entropy is hijacked and reformulated
to support this claim.
It’s claimed that asking what caused the big bang is a pseudo-scientific
question. Thus anyone who asks is defined as engaging in pseudo-science.
On an emotional level the big bang is a depressing
formulation for the universe that is much the same as creationism without
mention of God, thus it is even LESS rational than creationism since at least
creationism attempts to explain what the first cause of a big bang might have
been by attributing the infinite and eternal to God as a first cause.
An infinite and eternal universe does not need to explain
a first cause, it was never created and is never destroyed so we need not waste
time and intellect looking to make the impossible possible.
The infinite eternal universe is also inspiring as art,
we need not try to cover over ugly flaws and impossible contortions, we can
just stick to the evidence which suggests that the universe already has eternal
life, an inspiring prospect.
By adopting a rational stance, we cannot be tested for
group loyalty because for that we would need to submit to faith in the
irrational canon of the mainstream cosmology club simply because that's what
the current insiders have all done, independent minded scientists are not
really welcome.
Science does not wear a uniform and is not well served by
collective effort; this is why nearly all major innovation emerges from
individuals and not from collectives." [GB: That does seem to be the case, with
Newton and Einstein being good examples. Neither of them did much collaboration
with others, which is common among those performing Kuhn’s “ordinary science” today.
Most of the papers I have been reviewing lately seem to have at least a half
dozen or a dozen authors. A recent paper claiming to confirm General Relativity
Theory even had over 1000 authors.[2]
Despite, or because of that huge number, none of them had the temerity to
mention that the “gravitational waves” they detected were simply shock waves traveling
through the aether at the speed of light as confirmed by a second paper.[3]
None mentioned the data amounted to a falsification of Newton’s gravitational
attraction hypothesis and that it had nothing to do with gravitation. Bill, all
this is part of the “irrationality” you mentioned as the buttress for the Big
Bang Theory. When the fundamental assumptions of scientific philosophy conflict
with the irrational needs of society, the assumptions are bound to lose.
I might also mention that the current ominous surge toward irrationality is merely a prelude to the world-wide acceptance of fascism and the wars, big and small, that will accompany the destruction of “traditional values” along with the demise of the "Last Creation Myth" and the regressive physics that supports it.]
PSI Blog 20240624
Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you
can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your
questions.
[1] Mitchel, W.C., 1994, The cult of the big bang: Was
there a bang? Carson City, NV, Cosmic Sense Books, 240 p.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment