On the Ethos of Rational Science

The Triumph of Achilles 

Why aggression is necessary in intellectual discourse

"I am warlike by nature. To attack is part of my instincts. To be able to be an enemy, to be an enemy — perhaps that presupposes a strong nature... for a philosopher who is warlike challenges even problems to a duel."

- Frederick Nietzsche

Nothing is more irritating and stultifying to the progress of philosophical or scientific inquiry than meekness, humility and *smallness* of the soul of a thinker. We are told to be as neutral as possible in all respects when concerning intellectual ideas-- that any sign of personal investment, passion, and intimacy with your ideas is nothing more than immature bias, and that involving yourself (that is to say, bringing ideas into the fold of your life, incubating yourself within them, and letting them grow as parts of you) is vain, pretentious, and ultimately an impediment to clear and rational thought.

Nothing could be further from the truth!!

It is precisely that cold-bloodedness... that chilly, sterile, disembodied state of intellectualizing... which stagnates discourse and dampens even the desire of solving problems and finding answers. Nothing squashes the pure joy of inquiry more than the pretentious affectation of dispassion. No living soul on Earth can truly engage themselves with its mysteries without some degree of heat rising within them, and those who take on the appearance of disinterestedness worked long and hard on such an actor's front.

So go forth, be wild in your expressions of rationality. Passion is a sign that you care, that you are intimate with the subject, that **you** have something to say. Remember that the passion is for answers, for explanations, for reason and understanding... not for any one particular idea that you hold. Such personal involvement does not limit your capacity for rational thought, but rather, it spurns it on! When a man expresses ideas *as himself*, saying, "Do not mistake me, for THIS is what **I myself** think!" then a much greater degree of prior thought and consideration is warranted, so as to not make a fool of oneself, and a reversal of one's stance can be performed without shame, since in this respect one becomes like a champion boxer who has been bested in the ring... you feel more admiration for the superior argument than anything else.

And on this note, please do us all a favor and never remain silent in the face of idiocy. Even if you cannot make an argument against them, or you have no hopes of convincing them... crude dissent is ALWAYS better than silence. At LEAST let them know you disagree, you need not justify yourself.

For we ought to be a bunch of war-like thinkers. This is the only way we stand any chance against the frozen machine of mathematical science.

Read More

Quantum's Big Disconnect

Quantum's basic assumption is that the universe is composed of tiny, discrete, spherical particles is patently absurd. The architecture of the particle is completely inconsistent with it's behavior in reality, and to account for this, mathematicians have invented the notion that these particles follow rules, instead of architecture.

Gravity, light, magnetism, electricity, chemical bonding, etc. are not enacted simply by virtue of the mechanical form of the objects in question, they are bound to happen by an abstraction- a rule. These rules which are enforced, not by things, but by the concept of enforcement itself ('a' force). Quantum's forms are unextended, disconnected, and thus cannot perform the actions at a distance that we are all so familiar with.

Read More

The Gestalt Effect in Quantum Physics

Are all models of quantum objects illusions?

Whether an intentional illusion or an unconscious cognitive fallacy, it is clear that models of Quantum objects not real objects at all. They are almost always Gestalt reification effects. From the time I first laid eyes on models of the atom in my high school chemistry book, I had an intuitive notion that they weren't realistic. Only recently, however, did I learn the name of the concept they employed: the Gestalt Effect. Not a single quantum "model" depicts an actual object- they are exclusively Gestalt effects.

Examples of Gestalt reification

The Gestalt Effect according to Wikipedia, "is the capability of our brain to generate whole forms, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of global figures instead of just collections of simpler and unrelated elements". It is the combination of multiple, disconnected and unrelated forms into one new whole object. This is also known as "reification" which is converting an abstract concept into an object. Reification is a common problem in modern physics. Abstract concepts such as "wave", "field", "charge", and "force" are routinely converted into concrete objects used to perform the actions of their theory. However, I didn't see until recently how the greatest reification was right before my eyes in the models they show you at the start of any physics or chemistry textbook.

These Objects Don't Really Exist

Source: http://art4.today/objects-dont-really-exist/

I came to this realization when I stumbled upon an art project at art4.today called, "These Objects Don't Really Exist" by Swiss artist Felice Varini.  Being a Scientist interested in objects and existence, I clicked on it. What I found were amazing illusions of objects created by painting disconnected shapes on various surfaces to produce the image of a single object when viewed from the intended perspective. Standing anywhere else destroys the illusion. I found this fascinating and began to research more about this technique, which is when I first discovered Gestalt psychology for myself. After reading over the wikipedia page for Gestalt psych and coming across the section titled, "reification", I finally made the connection to the Quantum models.

Each and every one of the quantum models presented here is a Gestalt illusion.

So we have tiny disconnected spheres and dots forming one "whole object" called the Atom. Then we have a bar magnet surrounded by dotted lines meant to create an illusory object called a "magnetic field". After that is their model of light, a supposed single object composed of wavy lines and straight arrows all surrounding an imaginary axis. Last but not least is, of course, the illusion of an object they call "spacetime" is created with a grid of imaginary lines.

Each and every one of these composed of many disconnected objects and symbols that are meant to be taken together as a single object, just like Felice's art project. However, Felice proves to be a better physicist than artist when he openly admits that his illusions present objects that do not exist. Clearly, he understands the definition of existence better than modern physicists.

In physics, we cannot present multiple entities that are not physically interconnected as if they are a single object. Models in physics are supposed to present the REAL THING as we assume it to be formed in reality. People have confused these illusions with real objects and this has fundamentally impeded our understanding of reality. If we are to communicate Scientific ideas, specifically those concerning physics, we need to be able to construct accurate, realistic models that undergo phenomena consistent with their form. That means a thing must act in accordance with it's shape. A wheel can roll, a spring can bounce, but a group of disconnected spheres can't do anything but fall apart under any stress.

Read More