Saturday, February 18, 2012
Creative Pseudoscience & Skeptical Propaganda
Creative Pseudoscience & Skeptical Propaganda
L. Edgar Otto 02-18-12
Science and philosophy, wisdom, need the room to dream, even the academic freedom to be wrong in one's world view without embarrassment, a freedom much like that of religion in a world with uncertainty and paradox, and the right to chose then exercise the evolution and retreats of their enquiring system. When no particular philosophy stands as any right as an intrinsic necessity what is there along the way to some truth of things but the competition in the market place of ideas and the human heart, justice in the main, working loosely and taking time, tailored to the individual life that cannot be judged only from outside, a matter of balances and sometimes wrong?
The skeptical method of enquiry should not be at odds with the creative as to what anyone accepts and acts on from their place of observation in the world and from their own sense of a mandate to change the world by their observing. While doubt is a good method, a second philosophy, the stepchild of science, thus a top predator establishing mutual respect respect or conflict between allies and enemies- as in all things the judgement by mutual benefit or against the progress that cannot be redeemed by those who would accept the wrong view rejecting everything but their lack of vision, a deterrence is there working against mutual destruction collectively and after the fact of vanishing the individual unto himself might not know the reality or observe the consequences of this cloud of nothingness around their core of reality.
The debate is a matter that strives to win. But it does not matter what the truth or the content of the argument is, only the style of the game. The next level is always a virtual one when we confuse, naturally, what is science or pseudoscience by a host of virtual others like the ghostly idea of virtual particles, the field taken as somehow concrete where life cannot understand or realize a grounding of absolutes, these philosophers come in and out of existence so rapidly it is unlikely they make a difference in what is real.
We can say these are not deep issues in our time as to what in physical reality reaches some so called zero point energy and that itself becomes confused as a relative concept. Without quasicity the grounding of things seems to always have this question of the separation of scale in the background to undermine as some recognize it as a threat to their unified view the technical progress of a materialized science.
That a system moves or things in it can move makes a movable scale where the theme applied in depth to physics or a body of equations can be an infinite but incoherent regress into finer modifications. We can chase the greater accuracy of measure and still not reach it in the paradoxes of Zeno. In or time of the unexpected growth of a virtual world and one we perhaps can show cannot take from another universe because there is no such thing in some view, energy from the depths of the quantum foam for that would be a very fine and small amount of energy even if we could.
Only on the level of the human sentience can a few molecules have such massive global effects, the rise from the very small unto the changes and direction of the whole as this gain against the heartbeat of the fabric of time as space and perhaps its startled and troubled dreams. The mind in this sense is virtual and scaleless, a movable cleft yet a place for the highest and lowest of notes until we cannot hear the music nor see the light anymore, nor feel any source of energy.
In looking for some books on how to use features of this computer in the 000 general section of that decimal system- it is all on line now, the old card catalog, and things are moved so I cannot just casually move through the landscape of the shelves and my memory to find things, none of the books I found were up to date and many obsolete in the accelerated time of this computer age. Giving up resolved to buy new books if I can, taking only some books on languages and Martin Gardner on the subject of this post,
I find a long line at the checkout so I pass time by the lady at the help desk.
"I have found a paradox." I teased her while she was deep into the computer on her desk, "How do I find On Line Card Catalog for Dummy's if I have to search for it in the on line card catalog?" She smiled and looked at things for me most of it in other towns in our shared library system but that seems like such a long wait and the books I added turned out to be hardly useful.
I came from it with the realization I could search it from outside the library just as waiting for hours for work at the job service I am told use the computers in the lobby to search for jobs. I told a councilor there once, after all our kids went to the same elementary school not that long ago.
"I could do that in the coffee shop and as a veteran why did I have to waste an hour checking first with you?"
I asked him what he did there and he said he did not know and would be applying for some other state job soon.
"What, I asked him would help my situation and he said, "It would help if you had a job."
As I left his office I turned back and said to him, "But this is Job Service!"
So, I am of the opinion that learning science benefits from its historical context. But it is not about the drama of the circumstances of an individual character, it is a matter of how unreasonably illogical and unnavigable or shared world can be that if applied to some system of living and enquiring we may find a little more unity and certainty, overall security in our lives, and perhaps true meaning of what wealth means.
For my illustration today I represent, metaphorically, the virtual neutrinos. Of course things are so complex and ghostly it is hard to see how such small effects can be amplified to support a larger system. The hints are there, for example Gardner begins a scathing attack on the long tradition of reflexology and its popularity in its zone forms for the at a distance reduction of pain anywhere in the body from pressure on the feet following the "fanciful" lines of acupuncture.
But does not the patterns of our palm and fingerprints not reflect the deep and ghostly structure of our DNA and genes? How can there be a new physics breakthrough without the paradoxes we find on such frontiers of depth- how can we avoid the temptation and judgement of those who seeing so far work a great scam of philosophy to those willingly desiring truth in the propaganda? This is always the wildness in the exploration of such frontiers.
Much of this is the confusions we get when we think of numbers as only rising to the generalization of the complex plane and beyond that things are at best mere possibilities. Over the usual quantum analogs we have to imagine a deeper ghostly or faery field of vibrations as the descent into the anomalies of this standard style of a logic of design. But after all on the familiar but quantum mystical level it is the uncertainty in time and space that holds up the pressure in stars against the collapse into that mysterious idea of gravity. Or we can feel secure in just the axioms as if they work and as if reality can be so described with the usual Pauli exclusion or ad hoc asymptotic freedom in meshes of higher space. The system of course works on the level that it does.
Maybe we should break down some of our physics concepts, names and principles in the way we break down the idea of generations and the popping into even an isolated existence not in the black holes of anything, any particle of weight and improbability as say a locomotive from a black hole. This whole level of theory is not really about finding new sources of energy nor even of creating things from the fabric of space and time but our widest understanding to date of what the world is- that is the worthwhile product even if it may take millions of years to reach some verification or utility of the concepts- this is justly a glorious yet grand pursuit by what it means to be sentient and human, and an achievement of the awareness of the miracle of it all. We should be as proud of this as the God we imagine says it Good.
If the Diety and space, and the protons, can be a Trinity then why not, albeit abstract and ghostly, any of our cherished physics concepts to which in projected history of science and philosophy we are but babes first learning to see?
It is not enough to suggest several levels of Planck's constant, nor of that generational idea that strikes us as a sort of overkill by Nature in her design- she in her wilds or hysteria is just not reductionist enough in the science or the propaganda when she lathers up the old trusty razor of Ockham - but that is confused induction anyway in a world that is shown now neither induction or deduction alone. In such matter we should show why- not to remain long in developing a system of the world without answering such questions that most certainly will color the totality of our model.
The landscape and the map of the terrain can be confused after all as we comprehend different transformations to higher and lower levels- and we can argue which is the real- what we need to keep in mind is that we should distinguish and discern when such a reality and its representations applies and how if we are to say it is a science.
We have not really gone beyond the local galaxy so can we say for sure what it is like there let alone before the big bang or some other universe or ghostly reality? Could we not imagine something like gravity on different levels, generations, and more that the next level of the laws of such physics would in the same generation be mirrored and even reversed in that space between the atom like galaxies? The general concept of what is the nature of dark matter, the Noir in general and black body opaque.
Oh it is a mystical possibility we can remote view the stars and the inside of atoms despite what Gardner thinks this means for the faithful who are experimenters and theoreticians also in their corner of wisdom and explorations - it is after all the rare Neoplatonic sense of views.
The Energy and entropy may have this sort of quadrupole dialectic from this overview- certainly there is enough entropy in one galaxy to support life there. The overview is from this next higher level of dark physics to which even the new physics seems to fall out like the supposed differences and issues of collapsing into Newtonian physics from the quantum world. The parameters of physics not fundamental should keep this principle in mind even if it does not seem more than trivial background that mathematicians and scientists ignore from the biases of their own system and method at the fulcrum of form and process. For me to beat a dead unicorn it is the third physics, quasics that begins to come closer to the unity of things.
This post does not just come from a few hints of accidental and casual reading nor from some destiny in the path of pursuit (to my knowledge anyway although it sometimes seems so). It comes from my fruitful era of my manuscripts in debate with those like Dawkings on the frontier of meme theory at the time as a form of cultural anthropology. We are still influenced by both the new age generation and those of the skeptical world, right or left wing politically, that engage debate on it. But I have tried to keep a balanced view of things to the point I try to understand by the living of the philosophy presented itself. But do we need to send man into space for the data or as Hoyle thought we could gain much by machines sent- other than we need to settle other worlds, room at least to expand our beachhead on the stars? What good is the view from above of the earth, the thought some think we magically will be so inspired to see if what we see is a small bobbin adrift and lost in a great sea?
I guess that last metaphor describes some of us. But we are the creators of our own drama in the safety of our solitude- for as Nietzsche observed as well the passion in his bouts of creation - "Love is the danger to the lonesome one, Love if it only lives." To love is to be lonely and there is nothing in love not found in lust or lust not found in love. If indeed there is a God as the is the universe and He is sentient (He because he dedicates part of his circuits as an antenna in the hope or wisdom others may be there to receive the message or the seed although He would have a hard time remote viewing the inner workings of Woman as Hawkings seems to suggest perhaps in all seriousness) then He would be the lonesome one of all as the Creator.
* * * * *
If I seem to have repeated myself in parts it was for coherence, what I can get of it and if it can be gotten in repeated experiments and observations. The poet should not in his social art censor himself nor the scientist, but we can expect anger, resentment, resistance and retaliation as the cost of our dreams even if only the hint of words and ideas offered in our considerations by the skeptical scientists are seen only from their shallow souls.
* * * * * *