And it has to do with the rule of the 1%!
Philosophy is often dominated by weaklings. Sometimes, centuries of weaklings. Let’s avert our eyes from the Nazi Heidegger: fools love Heidegger, because fools love Nazi style of thinking. So does those who favor the rule of the few, because Nazi style thinking has to do with fascist thinking, thinking according to a few ideas and a few men (“Jesus”, Constantine, Saint Augustine, Muhammad, etc.)
Perhaps the most prominent example mixing barbarity, philosophy and stupidity is the Christianized Middle Ages: Epicurus wrote 300 books. All were meticulously destroyed by Christians. Only three letters of Epicurus survived… What was Epicurus writing about, why did Christians hated him so much? Atomic theory. The Greeks considered it highly probable, they thought they had experimental proof. They also had mechanical computers and very advanced elements of mathematics and physics which the Christians also eradicated. It requires some effort to go back to barbarity!
The Christians hated atomic theory, which denied the whole transmutation of bread and wine into body and blood of Christ: Christians “thinkers” wrote millions of pages on the divine transmutation, using Plato and Aristotle’s fishy onanistic theories of the universe. (For Plato that there was a realm of pure “forms”, nothing real, and for Aristotle that there were ten categories, including “essence”; Middle Age philosophers used those heavily… ironically my own SQPR re-institute Dark Matter as essence: my DM interacts with matter some, by causing “spontaneous collapse”… but let’s not deviate from the subject at hand…)
The first thing a decadent civilization does, is to spite philosophy, spite the lovers of wisdom: decadence springs from brute force, not wisdom.
Real, deepest physicists were, and are all philosophers:
Inventing new ideas enables to discover the intricate logic of the world. Invention starts with being a friend of wisdom: why is it that I think, what is it that they think they know and take for granted, and why? Is there a more precise, better informed way?
Anti-philosophy of pop scientists is partly a consequence of the success thus domination of the “shut up & calculate” school. Top physicist Feynman, despised the philosophers he knew. But he, himself, was a philosopher, and it showed up even in what he considered a valid reasoning to be (Feynman had a peculiar way of reasoning; same with Einstein, De Broglie, etc.) Feynman’s son became a philosopher. Physics describes no more than 5% world, it needs strong philosophy!
The other reason why pop philosophers and pop scientists are also anti-philosophy? Because their masters, those who pay them and advance their careers, are themselves in the employ of plutocrats and their organizations, who hate wisdom… as it would be lethal to them, and their organizations…
And physics needs stronger, more subtle logic!
It has always been clear to me that, on a cosmic scale, Quantum Theory makes no sense: basically physics as we affect to know it, is local. However, Quantum Theory speaks as it the world was global. This leads to a contradiction, which has surfaced in the prestigious journal Nature for all to see: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06749-8
“Nature News 18 SEPTEMBER 2018
Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists
In a multi-‘cat’ experiment, the textbook interpretation of quantum theory seems to lead to contradictory pictures of reality, physicists claim.”
Logic is ever more subtle. Consider the following cartoon from “Philosophy Matters“, a consortium of US academic philosophers (which at some point told me my smarts made me insufferably obnoxious, or words to this effect):
Cute, first order correct, but subtly wrong!
Actually, if people are already dead, they can’t die anymore. People who don’t breathe could be already dead, thus can’t die. Because one doesn’t die again. Hence the second cartoon should read: people who stop breathing, die. Context: not everything, but most of the thing!
The same goes for partisanship: people love the frenzy of the herd they belong to, and the simplistic logic it leads to.
Actually Trump has ordered the FBI to make a full inquiry. But an investigation, except for the grossest things (crime against humanity), can’t be made correctly 36 years later… Defense is automatically at a disadvantage against false memories. (BTW, Republican Senator Flake, a blonde, after been cornered in an elevator by irate women, called for the FBI inquiry, saying he would vote against Kavanaugh otherwise.)
Cute cartoon. Indeed, Justice has got to be a blonde with pink skin: always was, always will. However cute, not the whole truth, which is much more tragic. Namely it’s far from being only the so-called “Republicans” who smother justice. “Partisanship” is not the solution. The entire legislative system needs a re-think. Towards direct democracy.
“Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”
Right. Let’s seriously investigate the fashion, and age old tradition, in the USA, of getting drunk, especially among young people, damaging their brains, and using alcoholism to get away with the basest behaviors, and habits. This goes both for the accuser and the accused here! (By the way, frazzled by his elder brother dying of alcoholism, Donald Trump does not do drugs, including alcohol.)
One can’t have the better, and progressive civilization needed for planetary survival, when too many brains of the leadership are damaged by drugs. It’s not just a question that their performances are inferior to have they could be, or should be. The mood that drug addiction gives a sense to life brings forth the tendency, the overall mentality, that the mind should be overwhelmed by out-of-this-world modes of operations, which enable the brain to forget reality as it is. And what are the greatest out-of-this-world neurohormonal regimes? All these having to do with violence, fight or flight, and will to power.
OK, those can be correct to use, but only if one knows what one is playing around, and in the full knowledge of the associated causations. And what of those 5%? They relate to the proverbial 1% who own the world. Both are able to do so because common people are tolerant of theories which explain very little, and are impossible to understand: why is gigantic economic equality necessary, how can it be deemed to be compatible with democracy? Well, look at physics: there a theory is called Theory Of Everything, and it explains not even 5%. Similarly modern economics sustains mostly 1% and is just as impossible to understand. They are made to each other, sustain the same mood of mystification!
In the Middle Ages, persons with lots of character, knew all too well that many of the official (Christian) theories were wrong: Beranger de Tour, a church authority, held that reason was god, and thus that the church should obey to reason. The pope was not amused, councils were organized to castigate Berenger, excommunicate him and deprive him of authority. But Berenger held his ground, in spite of the fact heresy could bring the death penalty, until the natural end of his life, in no small part because he was discreetly supported by the ultra powerful Duke of Normandy, a superman in more ways than one.
William the Conqueror was known to hold that the Earth turned around the sun, and mention it during banquets. Heliocentrism, even with the empirical science of the time, was pretty obvious (the small thing, the Earth should turn around the big thing, the Sun, plus, obviously, the Sun didn’t turn around the Moon, thus the Earth-Moon system; the ancient Greeks knew how to measure those distances, using shadows…) William was not afraid to mention it: once, in combat, he vanquished 15 knights. Alone. Mental courage and physical courage are two faces of the same coin.
We need stronger philosophy, the medicine of civilization. Failure of enough of a meta-critical mentality allowed the rule of ideologies which brought us the 1%, thanks to modern economics, and the 5%, thanks to the “shut up and calculate” ideology in physics. “Shut up and calculate” is exactly the ideology defended by Barack Obama in his pseudo-autobiographies, in the service of what he called “navigation” (or how to get to the top).
Just as genes can go across species, moods can go across fields of mental activity. The overall mood of Ionian and Greater Greece and Athens before they got broken by the Peloponnesian War, was one of inquiry, that means, maximum criticism. After that, and while, and because the great fascist regimes of Rome, Carthage and Macedonia grew in power, the spirit of inquiry shrank: Greek mathematics forgot about NON-Euclidean geometry, and concentrated upon Euclidean geometry, which is much more fascist (it has stronger axioms… restricting mental freedom). Amazingly, although Pytheas of Marseilles had computed (accurately!) the size of the Earth, 23 centuries ago, after the great fascism of Macedonia and then Christianized Rome, arose, the very possibility of spherical geometry became a scientific impossibility, so intellectually fascist the minds became, for 2,000 years…
The Aztecs were defeated because, instead of being legalistic like Qin China. they were into mass cannibalism, and Cortes’ 450 men found hundreds of thousands of local allies who were strongly motivated by their desire to escape barbecues. When the Qin empire collapsed, the Han took over, and repeated Qin mentality in detail, this time to last centuries as a giant empire. And much of Qin mentality survives to this day. (All too much, come to think of it… And yes, amazingly, this essay will be read in China’s People Republic… Qin famously practiced censorship of bad philosophy, ordering the destruction of the “100 schools” (it failed), but spared what was viewed as scientifically, legally and historically significant…)
Each civilization has one mood, it pervades all. It evolves in time, not always for the best.
Patrice Ayme
Tags: 1^, 5%, civilization., Moods, Philosophy, Physics
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
October 1, 2018 at 12:34 pm |
I like to say that the Bible is “literally spiritually true”, especially if some of the Apocrypha are included, those that emphasize the heart field, aka “The Field.” Tiller et al. have demonstrated that intention (intentionality?) has a physical dimension, can affect physical objects, can be “imprinted” on physical objects and stored for later transmission into another physical medium. And so on.
So I have come to believe that it is indeed the scientific (“reductionist”, “materialist”) worldview that has ruined our civilization, in a Nazi-like denial of the heart field. Not a day goes by that I don’t wonder at the money-induced lack of empathy of our ruling elites, who self-entitle themselves with manipulable property rights and satanic mechanisms of social control.
This is where the Franks seems to excel, in putting feelings and heartfelt principles first. In a way, the Italians do too, but they have a tendency to get pushy.
Reference: “Life Force: The Scientific Basis,” Claude Swanson, Ph.D. (physics)
Thanks for another stimulating post!
cheers,
b
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 2, 2018 at 9:20 am |
Thanks for the ideas and reference, Benign! Any idea will, ultimately be expressed as a material arrangement, neurobiology and materialists have to hold. Thus inventing a fable is creating a natural object. Now, when thinking of “material” people think of “atoms”, a theory that is 25 centuries old.
However, the 20C and now the 21C have broken the atom, and Quantum Theory has broken all the classical mechanics elaborated by catapulting Roman engineers, Buridan, Leonardo da Vinci (a genuine physicist, although that’s little known), Galileo, Newton and Emilie de Breteuil, Marquise du Châtelet (who discovered and demonstrated energy, no less)… Among others…
Thus “material” ain’t what it used to be.
In my model of Quantum Theory, Dark Matter is the ultimate failure of the atomic model: energy leaks out of QT…
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 3, 2018 at 10:07 pm |
I think the problem is that only too many physicists think along the lines, “I can do difficult maths, but who cares what they mean?” If the maths are difficult enough, most won’t argue with you. I disagree that quantum theory is non-local on a cosmic scale – although to within one wavelength, or one quantum of action, you cannot tell. This non-locality is forced upon us by the advocates that experiments like that of Aspect and this rotating polarisers show deviations from Bell’s inequalities. In my ebook, “Guidance Waves”, I argue that those experiments do nothing of the sort. The experiments are great, and are the best examples of wave article duality that I know, BUT there are not enough true variables to put into Bell’s inequalities. For example, the second detector actually detects exactly the same number of hits as the first, but that is because it is detecting the photon flux. If you want the number of photons entangled with the first, you count only those that arrive within 19 ns, and that is fine, except since every experiment can only detect half the photons, what you have actually done is to use the first detector to define the frame of reference for that experiment, and it always returns a value of 1 (or a half if you normalise that way). Therefore it is not a true variable. What I show is that: (a) there are insufficient variables to put into the inequalities, or (b) the law of conservation of energy/probability is violated, or (c) the associative law of sets is violated (because the calculation violates the derivation of the inequality). To me, I prefer (a). The problem here is that nobody is thinking about what the mathematical argument actually means. So yes, you need more philosophy.
LikeLike
October 4, 2018 at 8:16 am |
Agreed about the psyche of “I do hard math, what could go wrong?” If the math are hard enough, they may even be false, nobody will look, nobody will know…
That Quantum Theory in NONLOCAL, at least at lab and Earth dimensions is experimentally proven… At least so has Common Physics Wisdom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
I also believe in guidance waves (BTW, I never purchased an ebook, that’s why I didn’t read yours… yet. I should.)
However, I believe that the guidance wave machinery is directed by an absolute speed TAU, at least 10^23c… (at least the Inflaton speed of the Big bang, that is…)
The point of the Bell-Bohm (my choice to add Bohm…) inequality is this: knowing spin in X tells spin in Y (as in classical mechanics… conservation angular momentum, sort of). However one can change the spin detection axis in X. That changes the spin outcomes in Y (as it would in classical mechanics). I guess you got to that point too. So we agree the effect of Quantum nonlocality is subtle: nobody has, so far, a 2 sentences description contradicting classical mechanics… The math of the Bell inequality is obscure… (Feynman tried to steal it for himself, BTW… At a time when Bell, although an authority in Europe already, as CERN theoretical director, was unknown in the USA)…
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 1:37 am |
In my opinion, the Bell inequality maths are very simple – in my ebook it takes about 3 lines, I think, of basic set theory. Unless someone can falsify the derivation, or what follows, I am confident the rotating polariser experiment does not show deviations from the inequality, and I show a further thought experiment, in principle able to be done, whereupon you can make the results comply or not comply with the flick of a switch, but it does need to be able to count the emitted photons as well as the detected ones.
I haven’t really analysed the issue of “signal boxes” – so far the descriptions have been too cryptic and too much written in the style of “this must be right so that follows”. Usually, finding flaws requires deep knowledge of exactly what was done, because the people doing this are not fools – they may not be right, but they will only fall over on a subtle point.
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 9:53 am |
Right, the Bell math is set theory. However, it is hiding plenty of implicit loopholes people have been filling in. Ever since. We need a non math, one liner description. To convince the skeptics… (ha ha ha!)
OK, let’s try this. We look at point X and Y, X next to Earth orbit, Y next to Jupiter orbit. From another point Z, we set up a flux of photon pairs, one at a time, one branch to X, one to Y. Changing the spin detection axis in X immediately affects spin detection at Y. I repeat: CHANGING AXIS AT X AFFECTS DETECTION AT Y, INSTANTANEOUSLY.
Some will say: same as in classical mechanics (CM). No.
Indeed:
1) Measure Spin at X direction D —> Spin at Y (QM AND CM), direction D… As KNOWN at X.
2) Measure Spin at Y direction G —> Nothing to do with D (Classical Mechanics); AFFECTED by preliminary measurement at X, direction D (Quantum Mechanics)
THAT is the difference. It is coming from the fact spin measurements in QM are NON commuting operators.
This opens all cans of worms… From the question of distance, simultaneity, QM wave collapse, and the nature of guidance waves (if any)
I am going to write a version following the original EPR (so space and momentum, not spin… Einstein (-Popper), not Bohm…)
LikeLike
October 4, 2018 at 5:06 pm |
Disclosure: I’m not a physicist. Swanson op. cit. reviews Kosyrev’s interesting theory of torsion fields (which Patrice has previously trashed, but I’m mentioning it again anyway), including some experimental results that suggest faster-than-light transmission via these waves. Kosyrev’s essential insight is that order (negentropy) is preserved in the universe so that there is no heat death in the end; it just moves around in pockets. Some of these experiments have been validated by some pretty high-powered people in Russia and China.
It is not inconceivable to me that Western science is ignoring these and other results out of sheer arrogance and enslavement to a misguided “materialistic” reductionism.
I like the idea of guidance waves. There must be stuff going on at the quantum level that is invisible to us. Swanson reviews some of the literature on the power of pure shape to generate energetic effects (e.g., pyramids). But Ian, you seem to be debunking Bell, which would be pretty major.
There is a problem with the Western worldview, that is for sure.
cheers,
b
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 9:13 am |
I am aware of torsion. Elie Cartan, a French mathematician from the Alps, 50 miles from where I writing now, discovered spin (published by 1912). Dirac stumbled on spin in his bold approach to electronic waves as first order PDE… 15 years later.
Gravitation theory, the poorly named Einstein’s General Relativity, as it is, is a slight tweak on Newtonian dynamics (which rests on classical mechanics of BURIDAN-Newton plus the 1/dd gravitation law of that French priest-astronomer Ismael Boulliaud, aka self named Bullialdus (Crater on the Moon!) A very slight tweak: it just incorporates Poincare”s local time, plus the effect of gravitation on local time (gravitation slows clocks),and caps it with Poincare”s gravitational waves to get a nice equation.
No spin, or torsion, anywhere. (Manifolds can have curvature, and or torsion.) Kosyrev spent 20 years in camps, making him a disconnected genius. He didn’t believe in thermonuclear fusion inside stars… Maybe because he didn’t know Quantum Theory…
When De Broglie introduced MATTER WAVES (aka QUANTUM WAVES in my semantics), they were waves dynamic in time and potential, but static in space. Their establishment speed (what I call TAU) was not part of the axiomatics. That Quantum Theory doesn’t work as the ultimate theory MAYBE becoming official (thanks to the recent Nature publication). That was obvious to an ultra small minority of physicists, including De Broglie. The obvious reason is that the COLLAPSE is not in the theory (hence the multiverse aberration).
EPR like effect shows the present theories don’t have all the interactions described in space: the objection there comes from Newton, I have quoted him in the past, about his own gravitation; Laplace fixed the objection of Newton to Newton, by introducing gravitational waves… But Newton’s point remains valid… now for Quantum Theory!)
LikeLike
October 5, 2018 at 5:27 pm |
Not within my competence to comment on that. I still want to hear a physicist refute Dean Radin’s oft-replicated presentiment experiments that show subliminal awareness of future events.
Consciousness would seem to be integral to Quantum Theory despite the contempt many working physicists seem to hold for its contributions… went over this a while ago with Penrose, Hameroff et al.
LikeLike
October 7, 2018 at 8:06 am |
I zero believe in reading the future, as allegedly sorcerers do, although that’s what I do all the time. But I do it in a way I believe, the old fashion way, a way a toddler does it.
Quantum Theory exhibits the atom of consciousness: its all-knowing capability (inside a given Hilbert space). At least that’s what I would say. Consciousness is, first, awareness. Awareness is intrinsic to the Quantum formalism.
LikeLike