SCIENCE IS FUNNY, - SERIOUSLY!
WARNING: THIS POST MAY ENDANGER YOUR MENTAL HEALTH.
Also, be forewarned that I may discuss some things that could offend you if you are a normal human being.
If you aren’t challenged, confused, irritated or insulted by at least one thing you find in this post, unless you are a fully enlightened being who is one with the universe, in which case, you have no need to read anything, you probably haven’t really understood what I am trying to convey. If you are not able to accept the possibility that some of what you believe may be hogwash, hokum, utter nonsense, and just plain wrong, then you should probably stop right now and read no farther. On the other hand, if you can see anything you might find offensive in this post as a joke, you won’t be as offended. Austrian-born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes!”
You may rest assured that there will be some ideas in this post that you will find incomplete, and/or misleading. This is likely for two reasons: First, I am not infallible and second, I am attempting to communicate certain complex scientific and mathematical ideas using only words. This post, like any other form of verbal communication, is composed of ideas represented by words. The words I’m using here happen to be drawn from a rather loose assortment of words called the English language. But what I am to convey could just as well, or maybe even better, be said in some other language or system of symbols. But anything made up of words is bound to fall short of clearly conveying the complete truth. This is true because words and symbols are finite, and reality is infinite.
Half of the statement “words, numbers and symbols are finite, and reality is infinite” needs no proof: the fact that words, numbers and symbols are finite is self-evident. The other half is disputed by some mainstream scientists who believe that the universe, like their model of it, is finite. I can, in fact, prove that reality is infinite, but it involves the proof of Gӧdel’s incompleteness theorems and, even more difficult (but do-able), it requires proving that reality is a logical system. (That, by the way, is the goal of all serious science.)
Contrary to what you may think, there is no physical world existing ‘out there’ the way physics or any branch of science tries to describe it. Science, as we know it through the fragmented confusion of the current materialistic paradigm, is not about discovering reality, it is about determining what we can say about reality based on the limited information we receive indirectly through the physical senses and extensions of them. We know now that more than 95% of reality is hidden from us. Our symbolic conceptualization of the physical world is really an elaborate abstraction pieced together from information received as physical bits of energy transmitted through neural paths to the brain. Contrary to the impression you may get from reading popular science books and articles, there is no quantum world separate from the world of people, cars and houses. Reality is not comprised of separate dimensions and realms that do not communicate with each other, that’s the reductionist ‘standard model’ that scientists tend to confuse with reality. What we can say about reality in a verbal presentation is more like poetry or wordy, symbolic analogies describing our indirect experience of reality through the physical senses, than it is like anything near an accurate description of reality.
Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist, largely credited with developing the basis of quantum physics as we know it, said: “Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience. In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”
Notice the emphasis is on our experience, not on a pre-existing reality that exists apart from human experience. This suggests that quantum physics, and science in general, if developed by an alien race who experience reality differently, may be quite different. Does this mean that there could be more realities than one? One solution offered by physicists to the puzzling paradoxes between quantum physics and relativity is parallel universes. The only problem is we can never experience more than one of them, at least not through our physical senses.
The afore-mentioned philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein also said: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Putting this together with what Niels Bohr said, we might reason that, if we can’t experience something, we can’t say anything about it. If this were really true, however, millions of pages of scientific, religious and philosophical works we have cluttering the libraries of our universities would never have been written!
In the 1980’s I was hired by a major international company building an industrial city in the Middle East. I was there, first as an environmental planner, and then as an environmental engineer. I learned that the difference between an environmental planner and an environmental engineer for this company was: an environmental planner tells a company what not to do, and an environmental engineer tells them how to deal with the problems that arise after they’ve done it. One weekend, along with the other project managers, I was invited to a wedding feast, where we sat on the floor and ate goat meat and rice. One of the project managers, who happened to be British, asked us to go ‘round the table and tell everyone what languages we spoke. When it came the turn of a young Saudi accountant, he said: “I speak Arabic, French and Italian.” The British gentleman said: “But, what about English? You’re speaking English!”
Sipping from a small cup of heavily spiced green qahwah (coffee) the young man said: “Oh, that’s not a language!”
Now I enjoy poking fun at the British as much as anyone, but I realized that the young man was actually right! Somehow, when members of the Teutonic tribes of Central Europe crossed the English Channel and became British, they forgot how to speak proper German, and abandoned grammar almost altogether. And English has gone even downhill ever since, adopting bits and pieces of Latin-based languages like French and Italian, as well as a smattering of Greek and other languages, especially in the sciences, with the result, some might say liberating result, that the words we use to describe our experiences can be spelled and pronounced almost anyway we like.
In the US, the downhill spiral has accelerated with new words being added to the dictionary almost daily, that were considered to be slang and horribly improper usage only a few decades ago. For example, you will hear TV anchors saying things like “We invited the President and his wife to go with my wife and I to the ceremony. Apparently if you asked this educated person about the dative case, you would get a blank stare. And ‘Sup, Bro, is an accepted social greeting. At the rate we’re going, proper English, if there ever was such a thing, will soon become a dead language like Latin, found only in classic literature in archaic paper books.
Getting back to our scientific description of reality, let’s talk about education for a minute, because what passes for education today brings science and language together, as Mary Poppins would say, “In a most dee-lightful way!” The definition of the word ‘university’ provides a good example of how the English language has deteriorated over time. The word university was originally a Latin word “universitas’, pronounced ‘oony-vairsy-tas, meaning a hallowed place of higher learning where all of the sciences and languages were taught by people who actually knew something about them. Now a store front with a computer in it can be called a university.
In the Western World, universities were first established by the Catholic Church, and everything was written in Latin because the Holy Roman Empire had united with Christianity to make sure everyone was on the same page. The British didn’t object, because they didn’t actually have a language of their own. It was only later that the British pretended that they invented science. Of course, that was hotly debated by the French and the Germans who had a head start on the British because they actually had languages of their own, with well-developed grammar, and thus could learn Latin quicker and easier than the British, who were still trying to turn all of the vowel sounds into diphthongs. For example, A = ah became ay-ie, and U = oo, became ee-oo, etc. Of course, the knowledge of the Arabs, Hindus and Chinese (known in the English of the day as ‘Heathens’) was ignored, even though those Heathens already had advanced understandings of mathematics and science while our European ancestors were still living in caves. Some Greek and Near-Eastern learning was allowed in, because they were located too close to Rome to be totally ignored.
The ego-centric nature of western education, eagerly adopted by Europeans and especially the British, who’ve always imagined that they were superior to any other form of life, is reflected in the myth that what we now know as ‘modern science’ is the apex of understanding on this planet to date. This myth, however, is totally blown away by the existence of remnants of ancient civilizations in stone ruins that reflect science and technologies we still don’t understand today. There are intricately carved, finely detailed massive stone blocks and monuments that we cannot duplicate today, scattered around the world. At Puma punku, in South America, for example, there are many massive H-shaped blocks of very hard rock with intricate holes and channels, designed and fashioned with a precision difficult to replicate today with modern power tools and machinery, that we are told were made by stone-age ancestors of the Indians living there with rocks and animal bones, because that’s all that fits into the current paradigm. Such paradoxes and anomalies, even without the paradoxes between relativity and quantum physics, should make it obvious that we need a new paradigm,
Human imagination can conceive of many ways to explain things that don’t fit our current paradigm, so theories abound, but to date, no paradigm shift since 1935.
Human imagination can conceive of many ways to explain things that don’t fit our current paradigm, so theories abound, but to date, no paradigm shift since 1935.
Imagination is a powerful motivation for change. It appears that yesterday’s science fiction has often become today’s science fact. Examples of this can be found in the writings of Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clark, Ray Bradbury, and others, as well as in sci-fi movies and TV screenplays like Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek. But, because science is never completely correct, the opposite is also true: Some things thought to be scientific fact today will become recognized as science fiction tomorrow. This is what makes science both fun and funny, and renews our child-like fascination with the future and motivates us to learn. There are interesting scientific facts and paradoxes that seem stranger than fiction because of our current level of understanding reality and our misuse of the process of public education. Let me explain:
The word ‘educate’ derived, as you might expect, from Latin, specifically the Latin root, educere, meaning to draw out, has been given just the opposite interpretation in modern times. Education as practiced in our universities has come to mean ‘to put in’ as many facts and figures as possible. This process doesn’t even require a conscious brain, it can be more easily done to a machine. And that’s the definition of artificial intelligence. Computers are capable of storing terabytes of information. But, does the computer understand that information? No, understanding is a feature that must be drawn out of a living, conscious mind.
What happens to most students in modern educational systems is, by definition, artificial intelligence. It is naturally in the mold of the method developed by organized religion for controlling the masses, handily taken over by power-hungry governments. As scientific investigation refuted many of the beliefs held as God-given truths by the church, one after another, governments began to replace the authority of the church, and technology began to replace religious doctrine as the means to control the masses. Politicians and government-paid scientists have replaced the priests as the all-knowing authorities. Legalese, scientific terminology and highly sophisticated forms of abstract mathematics have become the Latin, Greek and Sanskrit of the new priesthood, forming a formidable barrier between the ‘educated’ rulers and the uninitiated masses.
But scientists are not all-knowing enlightened beings, and politicians, well, what can I say, good politicians don’t even recognize the existence of truth as anything other than what they can make you think it is. As one US President famously put it, “It depends on what the meaning of is is.” One of the top scientists of the current paradigm, Stephen Hawking, imagined by some to be today’s Einstein, is a prime example of the modern scientist. His first claim to fame came when, based on the known laws of physics including the theory of relativity, he proved that the universe originated as a mathematical singularity, and in his popular book “A Brief History of Time” (1988) he predicted that we should have a Theory of Everything by the year 2000. His success as a theoretical physicist in spite of his severe physical handicap certainly makes him someone to be admired. But he’s no Einstein. Einstein only had one recognized ‘blunder’ concerning the cosmological constant, and that was not as far off as was thought in the 1950’s, whereas Hawking has recanted or reversed several of his most important pronouncements, including an absolute beginning or end of the universe, and, even the idea that there can be a theory of everything. This underlines his lack of infallibility, but makes me respect him more, because he’s willing to admit his fallacies. On the other hand, he’s certainly not a fully enlightened being, because, like many current mainstream scientists, he professes to be an atheist.
Self-proclaimed atheists are, in my opinion, the most confused and pitifully lost people on the planet. Don’t get me wrong, many vocal believers in God are as crazy as bedbugs, but at least they believe there is something greater and more intelligent than themselves in and behind the physical universe. But atheists have totally missed the real message of enlightened beings like Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Kabir, and yes, even Mohammed, and have rebelled, not against God, but against the limited concepts preached by the followers of the enlightened, and distorted by those who would control the masses for their own personal advancement and wealth.
Mistakenly thinking that the tiny part of reality revealed to them by their physical senses is all there is, they believe that the God spoken about by the spiritual masters can be weighed and measured and put in a box. They rightfully reject the images of a bearded man on a throne, etc., but by throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, atheists have missed the opportunity, granted to us as human beings, by the grace of God, to reach their highest potential. They have condemned themselves to a limited life, ending in the grave; but they will have a great shock and surprise when they are forced to leave the physical body at the end of this life and find out how wrong they were!
Many believers, however loudly they proclaim their beliefs, are no better off than the agnostics. Faith and belief in what the enlightened beings have taught are only stepping stones to real knowledge, and cannot substitute for the understanding that comes through direct contact with the Infinite. But, because of where we are in the evolution of spirit on this planet, the vast majority of humanity is not yet capable of making that direct contact with the Infinite without some help and a lot of personal effort.
The time has finally come, however, to make the jump to a new scientific paradigm. Fortunately, this is easier than the personal jump, because of the natural progression of things with the passage of time. Many sense this and believe it will happen, but it cannot be accomplished just by willing it to happen. The incorrect assumptions of the current materialistic paradigm have to be replaced by the metaphysical bases of a more comprehensive paradigm that will resolve the paradoxes existing in the current reductionist approach and explain facts that lie outside the current paradigm. Unfortunately, as Max Planck said, tenured scientists are rarely convinced of the validity of a new paradigm, and for that reason, “science advances from funeral to funeral”
But I see signs that things are speeding up. The reductionist approach plus inductive and deductive reasoning have served us moderately well, but it’s time to reverse the reductive process, in a sense, and integrate what we know of science and spirituality. Unfortunately, the survival of the human race depends on it.
The process can be illustrated with the following analogy: Today’s scientist is like a child, who finds a finely crafted object, like a watch, but has no experience to relate it to. So the natural instinct is to pull, pry or otherwise force it open to see what’s inside and how it works. Using what’s on hand the child might smash it open with a rock or a hammer, to look at what’s inside. By doing this, the child can see the internal works that make the watch tick and move its hands, but loses the opportunity to benefit from using the watch for the purpose for which it was designed, unless he can figure out how to put it back together. This is not likely to happen unless the child has help. Even if the child is very intelligent, and the mechanism was not damaged beyond repair, there may be missing pieces and most likely missing knowledge that will make it impossible to restore the functionality of the timepiece.
This is what the current state of particle physics is, a brute-force smashing of atoms and elementary particles to see what they’re made of. But when we normalize the data, and develop a truly quantum equivalence unit, we find that there would be no stable atomic structure without something in addition to mass and energy.
What’s missing from the current paradigm is the action of consciousness. Recognizing that new math has been required for every universal paradigm shift, I developed the math needed and published it in my third book “Transcendental Physics. When I recognized the third mass-less, energy-less ‘something’ required for stability as individualized consciousness conveyed through logical patterns of space-time and the primary dimensional matrix of consciousness, we (Dr. Vernon Neppe and I) began to be able to resolve paradoxes and solve problems that have puzzled scientists for decades.
The new math needed for a paradigm shift is never just a rearrangement of known concepts and equations, it encompasses the known math and includes new concepts and new operational procedures. That new mathematics is the Calculus of Distinctions, and the new operational procedures of information conveyance and dimensional extrapolation, described in detail in other peer-reviewed publications and in some detail in these posts. While the concepts are new, and outside the box of the current paradigm, the operational procedures are easy to follow for anyone familiar with basic number theory, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Fermat’s Last Theorem.
Even before we had discovered the TRUE quantum unit and gimmel, the third form, there were a few who saw the vast potential of this new paradigm. One on an on line forum asked “aren’t you afraid some will steal your ideas and claim the new paradigm as their own?” Before I could even think about an answer, another forum participant replied “If you have something truly new, something outside the current paradigm, no one will steal it. You’ll have to shove it down their throats and prove it a thousand times over, and even then, most of the mainstream scientists with vested interested in their own work within the current paradigm will not accept it.” Another commented “Even though your theory comes with its own mathematics, suggesting that it is truly new, almost no one will want to take the time to learn new mathematics. (Expletive deleted), most scientists don’t even really understand the mathematics of relativity and quantum mechanics!”These comments, made after the publication of Transcendental Physics in 2000, have largely proved to be true, with a handful of scientists, including Dr. David Stewart and Dr. Adrian Klein, who are most enthusiastic about our work. But with new discoveries and more puzzling phenomena explained by the new paradigm, on a regular basis, the Triadic Dimensional Vortical distinction Paradigm (TDVP) is gradually gaining more acceptance. Dr. Neppe jokes that we may have to come back 50 years from now to see it fully accepted. I hope it won’t take that long, but I am confident that TDVP, or something very similar, incorporating primary and individual consciousness into the conceptualization and mathematics of our description of reality will be the science of the future.
On the other hand, if I do come back in 50 years to check it out, I know that if TDVP has been generally accepted, the world will be a better place.