Truth, Celebritism, Fusion Geoengineering 23/10/12

TRUTH A LIE, CELEBRITISM VULGAR, GEOENGINEERING PER FORCE, THERMONUCLEAR.

***

The First Thing About Truth; Digital Truth Is Relative, Quantum Truth, Absolute:

There are theories of truth all over. But the first thing about truth, ought to be, that it is described in a discourse. Yet all and any digital discourse and digital context is incomplete, thus a lie. Why incomplete? Because it’s a finite set of symbols.

Berbers Are Not Arabs, Their Civilization Is Much Older

Can we describe an ocean with five rocks? Of course not.

Can there be truth described by something more general than a digital discourse? The truth of love? The truth of a picture? Yes. Do they boil down to just one principle?

You see, ultimately, the Quantum computes all over, according to the picture. The picture of what is available (to matter wave penetration). That’s precisely why we can’t describe the Quantum right now, well enough. We communicate our thoughts digitally, finitely. Way out? First forget about a monolithic discourse, and about coherence. Quantum says coherence is partial, and when expressed, localized, it decoheres.

***

Celebrity Leadership: Omnipresent, Vulgar.

We are in a world led by… celebrities. The politicians are celebrities, the Nobels are celebrities, the writers, the musicians…

CEOs in the USA are much taller than in Europe (even when comparing to countries where the average size of the Europeans is actually greater). This means the appearance of greatness (as measured in inches) is a more dominant criterion in the USA. That fact extends to most American politicians.

An important part of the leadership of the USA is determined by what beautiful trophies they make, just like prized fish. They are all lined up like dead fish on a plutocrat’s deck.

So how does a celebrity think? A celebrity is crowd founded. A celebrity will tend to think according to what will make him or her thrive, as a celebrity. That means according with what is looking favorably upon by the masses. In other words, “the common people, multitude, crowd, throng”. In Latin: the vulgus.

That means that celebrity thinking is intrinsically vulgar.

***

Celebritism Is A Form Of Fascism:

And it shows! Ultimately, celebretism appeals to the fascist instinct. The crowd follows the leader, and surrenders its mind to the mind of the leader. In a prehistoric troop, that means 50 people thinking according to the one.

In other words, 1/50 of normal human intelligence is in charge: war can be engaged.

Nowadays, that can mean 1,300,000,000 people thinking according to the one.

In other words, 1/1,300,000,000 normal human intelligence is in charge: the most grotesque war can be engaged (see Hitler and his Germans who engaged a war, just because they were sure to lose it!)

This adoration of celebrities is enforced by metaprinciples pervading culture and society. For example the Brits are vassals of some plutocrats they venerate, the so called “Royals”. In particular, they do not have allodial  control of real estate property (they don’t know what it means, so they feel OK). In particular, when obvious abuse occur, such as Tony Blair making 50 million in a year (an obvious payback by plutocrats), they just shrug. Or Tony Blair doing exactly what godfather Murdoch told him to do about Iraq (they had complicated personal relationship) is also resolved by shrugging.

It shows up in a personal way. A famous celebrity at the BBC was abusing children (at least 20 and counting). But he met heads of states, the Pope, was knighted, revered… A 14 year girl meets him, in BBC set-up. Within seconds he sexually abuses her. Now a mature adult, she  said she could not do a thing, because he was a celebrity, and she was nothing.

Celebrities such as Carter, Clinton, Summers, Buffet, have abused entire nations. And then there are those families or institutions which are famous, when they should be infamous. The Royals, the Bushes, Esso, IBM, Thyssen… They hide in plain sight, naked in their gross obscenity of immense riches acquired with filth galore. But, if one is in the West, one can say this only about Putin (and the KGB, which used to be the NKVD, and is now the FSB, Just as Standard OIl of New Jersey, after being one of many Hitler’s best friends, became Esso,and now Exxon…).

The problem is celebritism itself, a form of intellectual fascism, enable by the fact that thinking by oneself requires lots of energy. And that the passions that allow to resist Crowd Founding are taught, systematically, as those shall be resisted. Starting with anger. And pride. And resisting herding and goose stepping.  

Just as people become celebrities, some ideas become celebrities too.

In many European countries, people will tell you, one ids more free, childless. But it’s a bit like claiming one is more free as a mussel. True in a sense, but…

***

In Defense Of Procreation:

Some people who have no children say they want to stay free, keep on pleasing themselves with such passions as travelling (more of a European thing: Americans tend to not take vacations before retirement).

And yet, is there a better pleasure than enjoying parenting a good child? Is there a more mind opening travel?

What childless people who have no studied the situation exhaustively do not know is that having a child makes one travels in hormonal dimensions one did not have before. It’s not just about seeing a new landscape, just like a thousand landscape before. It’s not just about landing on a new planet.

It’s about experiencing a new universe, unimagined before.

When life extension becomes a reality, having children will more rare, and thus become much more of a luxury.

***

No Civilization, But Civilization:

Some have talked about the clash of civilizations. But, in the grander scheme of things, there is only one civilization.

In particular, attempts at cutting the Indo-European area in two pieces are not wrong but ignorant. The distinction between “Orient” and “Occident” was something Rome invented, and Rome used, and Rome rejected. Those who think very independent of the west to use are just aping the Romans, unbeknownst to themselves…

I represented the Tifinagh alphabet in the beginning. It’s basically twice older than Arabic (which was also derived from the Phoenician alphabet). North African genes were analyzed. They were found to be mostly the same as those found in (the rest of)… Europe.

We count in 60 minutes hours, because base 60 was useful for the tremendous astronomical computations in Mesopotamia to determine the seasons, planting, and the floods of the great rivers. that at least a millennium before Rome.

There is an astounding prolongation of systems of thought throughout the ages. actually, for about 10,000 years, civilization has proven to be a continual construction, an initial condition onto itself (in the differential equation sense).

One can argue that aside from the central, Middle World civilization, there were three other centers: China, Black Africa, and the Americas. The only one that was truly independent of the rest was the American civilization, and it was devastated.

***

Demand What?

Economists love to talk about “demand“, as if it were a well defined concept.

However, what are we supposed to demand? More Korean cars? More Korean TVs? More smart phones made in China? If we talk about demanding more health care, or more education, the process is more complicated. And can we demand less investment and stimulus in financial derivatives, and less hopeless spending in Afghanistan?

In a world where choice is, in an important geophysical and biological sense shrinking, demand has to be made more demanding. 

We have to demand an inhabitable planet, with the creature comforts it used to have, even very recently.

***

Gloo Gloo And Geoengineering Will Not Work Without Thermonuclear Reactors:

As the planet is shocked into a high CO2 world, strange things are happening. For example Antarctic sea ice has been spreading, which is counter-intuitive (since Arctic ice is shrinking so fast, it’s imaginable there will be none within five summers!)

Antarctica sea ice has spread due to higher winds caused by warming. That (part of) Antarctica is cooling is not true in my opinion. Snowfall is augmenting, as it is in the Himalaya, but that is to be expected from warming.

Antarctica is already melting, and, ultimately, sea level will rise 70 meters, drowning the capitals of finance supreme, a sort of justice.

Because of non linear effects it all could go very fast. And no geoengineering short of thermonuclear reactors (to freeze the CO2), or a nuclear winter (soon to be fetched), will change anything… If one keeps on refusing putting giant taxes on burning fossils…

What I am saying is that other suggested “geo-engineering” will not work.

And think about it: geo-engineering on Mars looks insurmountable, with present technology. So why should it be easier on Earth?

The analogy is smarter than it looks: the total mass of the medium to be changed on Mars is a tenuous atmosphere. The equivalent system on earth is made of the Earth’s atmosphere, plus its oceans. This is roughly 60 earth atmosphere. However the atmosphere of Mars is 25 teratonnes. The atmosphere of Earth is 5,148 teratonnes, 200 times more. So, multiplying this by 60, or, at least fifty (if one restricts to the volume affected by Earth’s greatest sea currents), one sees that influencing the terrestrial atmosphere-thalassosphere requires an effort 10,000 greater on Earth than Mars.  

So there is no way out, but mitigation. That is, conservation.

Why thermonuclear reactors? Because controlled thermonuclear fusion will provide us with giant amounts of energy, very cheaply (once it’s fully mastered, which will take a while, even after the first generations of civilian thermonuclear reactors come on line, as they will use primitive, not super clean fusion. Whatever we do with geoengineering, it will require giant amounts of energy.

For Mars, it will help to crash comets (they are full of solid water) onto the planet. A few comets crashed into the icecaps (my idea) would release much water, and much CO2. More bang for the buck. Those soft (H2O + CO2 ice is elastic) collisions would warm and humidify the planet quickly, through non linear amplification (95% 0f Mars’ air is CO2 so the planet enjoys a strong greenhouse, which is much greater when it’s inclined 40 degrees on the elliptic, as happens sometimes).

Deviating comets in large numbers will require significant energy. That’s an energy that we absolutely do not have now: for the impacts to work best, they will have to come over the icecaps at shallow angle and low speed. that can be done, only after deviating the comets considerably. We are talking nuclear tugs here.

  For Earth, what I am thinking of is that condensating the CO2 out of the air will require giant refrigeration (or massive industrial weathering of special rocks), but, meanwhile, we could separate the heating of atmosphere and oceans from the melting of the icecaps by protecting them. That would allow to separate the heating problem from much of the rising seas problem.  Whatever we do in the way of geoengineering, even covering ice with reflecting substances, all over Greenland and Antarctica, will require huge energy. And that energy will have to be cheap for the thing to be feasible.

And that, my friends, is enough of the truth to see that we need much more advanced technology, if we demand survival for the young ones we happen to know, and the positive values we hold dear…  

***

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , ,

14 Responses to “Truth, Celebritism, Fusion Geoengineering 23/10/12”

  1. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice:
    Re: “digital context is incomplete, thus a lie. Why incomplete? Because it’s a finite set of symbols.”
    How about a small alphabet describing poetry or an epic? Or the genetic code with only 4 letters instructing all life forms? Is the digital alphabet really limited in expressing any thought or beauty?
    Partha

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Partha: Any piece of poetry, even an haiku, can be seen, understood, thought of, felt, caressed, or sung in many ways. Now the genetic code is still something else. First it’s far from being fully understood (I don’t believe the junk about junk DNA, for example, and there are now good indications for that…). And then there is epigenetics (which is meta relative to conventional genetics). And also I believe all this genetic stuff is just part of more general inherited geometry (prions an example; but there is also lots of geometric structure inside bacteria, in my opinion not DNA controlled, that we are just discovering, like 100 little factoroes inside).

      Ultimately, biology is part of Quantum Nano. That means it’s intrinsically C infinity geometric. Not digital (DNA is like a digital skeleton). Digital is just a consequence of C infinity dynamics. Anybody who studies the foundations of Quantum Physics can see this. It’s not commented about because it’s of no practical interest right now… Except for PHILOSOPHY. (And conventional philosophers know about as much Quantum Physics as the average monkey! ;-)!)
      PA

      Like

  2. EugenR Says:

    I have only two remarks to your article, one is about the truth,;

    There are two kinds of “TRUTH” in this world, one published in the communistic-fascistic or some other despotic ideology fliers and the other one that hurts.

    And the second one, about the people who flock together to follow the celebrities;

    People, who ask themselves, where their preferences lay on the scale of being happy, if their life is managed and coordinated by others, to the type who manage their own life and sometimes even the life of the others. Those who will be capable to give truthful answer to this question where they are in this scale, will be probably content with what they are.
    Their answers will also place them among those, who prefer to be coordinated and managed by others, or those who want to manage their own life by themselves. .

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: I was initially thinking about theories of truth as found in logic, mathematical logic, or among philosophers who study societal or so called “criterial” truth. people such as Quines, Foucault, countless mathematical philosophers, etc. Curiously nobody is focused on the practicality that all and any discourse is finite.I used related arguments to say there was a largest number (a grave and impudent violation of 25 centuries of Very Serious mathematics in general, and Euclid, in particular).
      It’s related to the deepest fact about the Quantum, namely that it fills up space instantaneously, an apparently infinite task, but then it coalesces finitely (as total available energy is finite)… This is as deep as it gets…

      What you seem to be saying is that some are happy to be followers, because they like to hurt less. I agree that’s a problem with many currents of philosophy and religion. After all, Nietzsche (correctly) called Christianism a slave religion….But it made most people happy…
      PA

      Like

      • EugenR Says:

        To speak about truth, without to take in account the consequences of believing in THEE TRUTH, the only and sole truth, this is what bothers me most.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Eugen: I do not understand what you want to say. Personally I am saying a number of things, among which:
          1) Truth depends upon the medium (no pun intended) used to express it. Whenever a discourse is used, any discourse and its context cannot pin down, in general, a precise outcome. The fundamental reason is the contrast between the classical picture in physics, and the quantum picture.

          2) Truth can also be conveyed by, say, a picture. Or, more precisely, a lab set-up, as in the experience in Quantum Physics.

          You seem to say that societal consequences ought to be used to determine truth (no doubt useful). That would pertain just to proposed social truths (as when Hitler claimed his proposed truths would help the Germans; a rough analysis would have shown that the consequence of such suggested “truths” would have entailled a world war, and that this would have cost millions of German dead… So Hitler’s “truths” could not be true…). Is it what you are thinking of?
          PA

          Like

          • EugenR Says:

            I would like to differentiate between evidence and truth. When you are speaking about science, it is about evidence. On the other hand belief in any dogma, be it social theory or religion, is all about truth.

            Then you have intentional lies, these are the celebrities, with their P.R. and Marketing experts, you rightly put them to this category.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Eugen: “We hold these truths to be self evident...” as the USA Constitution has it… Evident, ex-videre, what comes out from seeing it.Truth one cannot see…I don’t know what that is.
            PA

            Like

  3. Old Geezer Says:

    “From a multitude of tongues come the truth” – Judge Learned Hand.

    You have to find the truth for yourself, by yourself.

    No one is going to tell it to you.

    Not even Walter Cronkite.

    “And that’s the way it is.”

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Judge Learned Hand was smart! Yes many discourses can be used to describe the truth. The problem then is that not one logos does it. Many truths have got to die, so that a better truth may be born…
      PA

      Like

  4. Old Geezer Pilot Says:

    Geoengineering is a concept whose time may have come. And without nukes.

    There is a point in space, between the sun and earth, called the LaGrange point, at which an object will have zero acceleration either way. And, since it is far away from the earth, a reasonable sized metalized foil disc could throw a mighty shadow upon us, causing a mild decrease in the solar insolation.

    Just one of many tricks science has up its sleeve.

    The planet is warming. No one can stop it, even if we were to cease all burning of fossil fuels today. The die is cast. We must use our brains to keep this fragile planet liveable.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Old Geezer Pilot: using the Lagrange point to shade the light would necessitate giant amounts of energy to install massive industry on the moon, fabricate, lift, translate. That means so called “nukes”. Thermonuclear fusion is roughly three million times more energetic by mass than the most powerful chemical we have (highly compressed hydrogen). U235 fission, nearly a million times. The later could be used for indirect nuclear engines, accelerating, say, Xenon…

      Any scheme to shade the planet would go against solar energy on earth, so would be self defeating. I still pretend that freezing CO2 is the only reasonable alternative. “Reason” being a relative thing here. Carbon Capture & Storage makes no energetic sense (supposing it’s at all possible… in more than a few very special places!… as it already is, in this half dozen places, each a different thing, only one of them, in France a deliberate thermo-generation, plus burial 4,500 meters down in an old gaz field)

      From the thermodynamical balance point of view, my point is that geoengineering will require giant amounts of energy (that’s why I brandish Martian geoengineering, a much easier thing…but still very hard…). So nuclear. BTW, CERN, which makes anti-matter, does, thanks to U235 in the six dozen nuclear plants in the area. When electricity gets expensive, in winter, the LHC closes down… Antimatter has the highest energy density, about 150 million the most energetic chemicals…
      PA

      Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: I was thinking the quotient of the might of nuclear process to chemicals, is that the strength of man relative to that of a bee… turning away from nuclear, for this civilization, would be as when Antiquity turned awa from steam… to embrace slavery…
      PA

      Like

  5. Tangled Network of Civilization | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] people who are the direct descendants of one of the oldest civilization fight for that, and their 3,200 year old Tifinagh alphabet. They need help. We did not give it to them. In no small reason because we obey […]

    Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: