Here is a golfer hitting a “drive” on a nice day at a fine golf course. What’s not to love? When I was in High School, I was on the golf team to the extent that it did not interfere with my work schedule in the coal mines. Posted on 04/18/2019 5:20:21 PM PDT by vannrox
One of the reasons why humans are handicapped in our understanding of reality is because of our reliance on the “scientific method”. It is a system based on observation. The problem with this method is that our understanding of reality is corrupted by the limits imposed by observation. Indeed, as well well know, it is the perception of the observer that changes our reality.
This is a well understood rule. If you the reader, don’t “get it”, then you need to study quantum mechanics 101. For in the last two decades the entire foundation of our understanding of reality has been turned on it’s head.
Now, this is a problem. As we have successfully harnessed observed scientific laws to create machines and build up a civilization into the technological age. How can our understanding of reality be so wrong? Let’s take a look at this.
Our society, and our technology has been built up over the last few centuries based on the application of the fundamentals of Newtonian Physical law. He have airplanes that fly in the sky, rockets that fly to the moon, buildings that tower into the heavens, and elevators that carry us skyward. How can all that be wrong?
I am reminded of an event while I was in High School. I was a member of the school Golf team. I wasn’t that good at it, but it did allow me to get out and socialize with my friends. Now, one day we had a Golf coach come over and help us with our drives. This is where you take a wooden club and try to hit the ball as far as possible, in the direction you intend, without having any deviation from it’s trajectory. It sounds easy, but it wasn’t. Not really.
Here is a golfer hitting a “drive” on a nice day at a fine golf course. What’s not to love? When I was in High School, I was on the golf team to the extent that it did not interfere with my work schedule in the coal mines.
He came up to me and watched me swing. He stood beside me for about ten minutes watching me. Then he pulled me aside.
He told me that while my stance, my swing, my movements could hit the ball reasonably well, that was the extent of it. He told me that I had plateaued. I was doing the best that I could using the technique that I was utilizing. I could go no further.
As I tried to hit the ball harder, as I tried to focus better, as I tried to ease into my swing, I could never improve. I was at my limits.
He then taught me that I did not need to hit the ball so hard to get the distance. He told me that that everything was in how I swung, and how I moved. He radically changed my entire posture, and my swing. It was completely different than anything that I was doing previously.
Here is an illustration of what is known as the “two plane” golf swing. There are other techniques as well. The point is that to advance and move forward you have to use different techniques to improve your mastery of something.
And, you know what?
I hit the ball better, the balls traveled further, and stayed on course without deviation. There were no “hooks”, and no “slices”. Everything was perfect. he was correct. i could only go so far with my (now, admittedly) crude application of my driving stance.
Science and technology is like that. Newtonian physics can only take us so far. To really master our reality, we need to fully understand and master our universe and the laws that control it. We need to look at how things work beyond the limits of our observation.
To prove that Newtonian Physics does not represent the reality that we inhabit, let’s look at four paradoxes that clearly illustrate these limitations…
“The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics -- perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought.”
--Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia (1965)
Unknown to most students of the sciences, the laws inherent in Newtonian Physics are not imputable and fixed (…though they are most certainly taught that in school.). That is because many of them are derived empirically.
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
We treat them as fixed and imputable, but that is a genuine disservice to mankind. For they are not.
They are still just and only theories that best fit the observed phenomena of the observed physical universe. We need to remember this. They were all derived through empirical observation and calculated accordingly. This can lead to a great deal of problems, and is perhaps one of the reasons why FTL (faster than light travel) has been so problematic in implementation.
Since Einstein, physicists have been working on a theory of everything (TOE). Logic dictates that for a true TOE, the TOE must be able to propose from first principles, why conservation of mass-energy and conservation of momentum hold. If these theories cannot, they cannot be TOEs.
Unfortunately all existing TOEs have these conservation laws as their starting axioms, and therefore, are not true TOEs. The importance of this requirement is that if we cannot explain why conservation of momentum is true, like Einstein did with LFT, how do we know how to apply this in developing interstellar propulsion engines?
We need to treat them as they really are, and recognize from whence they were derived. Let’s just look at one of these “rigid and immutable” laws that the entire foundation of science has been built upon. Let’s look at the second law of Thermodynamics.
“The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship.”
-Robert Heinlein in: Time Enough for Love: the lives of Lazarus Long; a novel , (1973), p. 366
The second law of thermodynamics states that whenever energy is transformed from one form to another form, entropy increases and energy decreases. (In other words: over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a horizontal plane, but not in a vertical plane due to the force of gravity.)
For example, density and pressure do not even out in a vertical plane, and nor does temperature because gravity acts on individual molecules, and this means molecular kinetic energy interchanges with gravitational potential energy in free path motion between collisions.
Reality is a bitter pill to swallow. many people have invested their entire education, and careers all on a certain belief and theory. Often when it starts to fall apart or unravel with latest knowledge and experimentation, the statists fight the revisions. They do not want their carefully constructed illusions shattered.
Everyone needs to recognize the foundations for this law. It is derived through experimental observation and not mathematical proof. (Surprise!) The second law of thermodynamics is empirical. It has no fully satisfactory theoretical proof.
This being the case, its absolute validity depends upon its continued experimental verification in all the thermodynamic regimes; all of them.
To this end, over the years, physical processes involving broken symmetries have been standard touchstones by which its validity has been tested. Each time this “immutable” law has been challenged; paradoxes have cropped up; and immediately ignored. The problems that we have so discovered suddenly become ignored. It is as if they do not matter.
This is disingenuous.
As the paradoxes point towards directions that we need to resolve so we can better understand the nature of the universe around us. It is how we learn. It is how we grow, and expand our science. The thing is, it’s not just one or two “small” paradoxes, but multiple paradoxes that shatter the fundamental bedrock of the Newtonian belief structure.
Let’s look at four such paradoxes.
In each paradox, the (task directed) “universe” consists of an infinite isothermal heat bath in which is immersed a blackbody cavity. Within each cavity, steady-state, non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes create spontaneous asymmetric momentum fluxes which are harnessed to do steady-state work.
If one demands the first law of thermodynamics be satisfied by these systems, then apparent contradictions with the second law of thermodynamics result.
The reader should not be too overwhelmed by the unfamiliar terminology. All of this is standard engineering fare for the initiated. This is how engineers talk and communicate to each other. We establish a basic “playing field” from which we can build and create our particular state for discussion.
So, if you want to disparage my contention that MWI exists, and that transports have been available to egress for the last fifty some years, then show me how my argument is facetious. Prove to me that Newtonian Physics can be used to prove that quantum Physics does not apply on the macro scale. Solve these paradoxes.
The reader should recognize that none of this is new.
I am not the first person to “discover” these paradoxes, nor am I the first to address them. Indeed, there have been many laboratory experiments and numerical simulations that have corroborated theoretical predictions and have failed to resolve the paradoxes in favor of the second law. Many tests, and many theories, but no solutions.
To this point, it can be shown that a broken symmetry in each of these four systems’ thermodynamic properties allows asymmetric momentum fluxes to arise spontaneously, and that these fluxes can be harnessed to perform work utilizing a second broken symmetry in each system’s geometry.
We can show… that a broken symmetry…in each of these examples… thermodynamic properties… allow… asymmetric momentum fluxes… to occur, and…thus work can be observed occurring.
Paradoxes should never be discounted, as they are critically important in understanding how the universe works around us. I argue the point that by illuminating the characteristics shared by these paradoxes, it is hoped that their resolution can and will be expedited.
The reader might think that asymmetries such as these are thermodynamically forbidden and that each system must relax to an equilibrium characterized by spatial homogeneity.
This is not the case.
In fact, “equilibrium” does not at all forbid spatial gradients so long as they are steady-state ones. For example, the asymmetric momentum fluxes to be introduced shortly (in this post) in Systems II, III, and IV are no more than steady-state pressure gradients. Equilibrium (steady-state) pressure gradients are quite ubiquitous in nature.
Temperature-Pressure Profiles of Brown Dwarfs and Giant Planets, with Gas Equilibrium and Condensation Curves for Several Major Species.
For instance, they are standard features of gravitationally-bound, isothermal, static atmospheres on idealized planets. In a uniform gravitational field, one can write the gas pressure as a function of vertical height, z, as p(z)= poexp[-mg(z-zo)/kT], where m is the mass of the gas molecule, kT is the thermal energy, g is the local gravitational acceleration, and pois a fiduciary pressure.
Clearly, this atmosphere possesses a vertical pressure gradient at equilibrium. Similarly, the pressure gradients in Systems II-IV are steady-state structures, but unlike the atmospheric gradient which is static and due to a static potential gradient (gravity),these pressure gradients are dynamically maintained by the continuous effluxes from two surfaces having different activities toward the cavity gas. Furthermore, these pressure gradients can do work.
Let’s look at the four paradoxes and briefly review them;
There is, it seems to us,
At best, only a limited value
In the knowledge derived from experience.
The knowledge imposes a pattern, and falsifies,
For the pattern is new in every moment
And every moment is a new and shocking
Valuation of all we have been. - T.S.Eliot, “East Coker”
http://www.iam-spirit.com/articles/article/2925041/43156.htm
“Consciousness is the singular for which there is no plural,” wrote the scientist Erwin Schroedinger. Schroedinger, famous for his theoretical disappearing cat, was one of the pioneers of quantum science.
Lately, I’ve been contemplating the idea, if I understand it correctly (I am emphatically NOT a scientist), that things in a quantum Universe are essentially wavicles — potentially, at least, in several places at once, achieving locality only when observed. Only when we focus on them do they show up in a specific place called here.
The essential principle is that there is an observer consciousness that is the overriding force in the world, that we all live in that consciousness and that it reveals itself through each of us. It is only when it acts as us that the quantum wave of all things collapses and it settles into an “objective” reality, all other possibilities being discarded in this experience.
Well, isn’t God like that? God is everywhere. God is Omnipresent. “There is no spot where God is not,” as we often say in New Thought. Yet when we go into treatment and focus on a specific aspect or quality of God, it shows up right here. The nonlocal becomes local, as the scientists say, the only difference being that it is also simultaneously local to everyone else and in different ways.
Ultimately, of course, the observer and the observed are the same thing, but the Universe is set up in such a way as to be able to observe itself. Were it not set up in this way, it could never collapse the wave of potential and nothing would then occur, according to Dr. Amit Goswami, one of the scientists featured in the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know?”. There would be no choices made, thus there would be no resulting actions. The continued unfolding of the blessings of God requires an observation and an observed to interact and get the show on the road.
In his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, Dr. Goswami produces a scientific case for the idea that consciousness drives what manifests in the world. He makes his case by means of quantum physics, but the ideas he discusses comport closely with New Thought.
Goswami defines consciousness as “the ground of being (original, self-contained, and constitutive of all things) that manifests as the subject that chooses, and experiences what it chooses, as it self-reflectively collapses the quantum wave function in the presence of brain-mind awareness.”
The idea that consciousness is “original, self-contained, and constitutive of all things” and that it “manifests as the subject that chooses and experiences what it chooses” will be quite familiar to New Thoughters. This is quintessential New Thought philosophy.
Goswami discusses the quantum wave — the existence of objects in a field of potentiality — and the experiments that have shown that particles such as photons, even when separated by massive distances, can “communicate” and act in the same way instantly, defying the theorem that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. These particles have been shown to be able to be in more than one place simultaneously, until observed, at which time, a choice having been made, they collapse their quantum wave and concretize into a given state which is perceived.
Does the same thing happen for people? An experiment in which people who had established a mental bond were locked in metal boxes and one was stimulated to test his response showed that the other partner responded in essentially the same way, showing that these quantum properties apply also to macro objects such as people.
This is why that which is known anywhere in consciousness is known everywhere in consciousness. That is why treatment (scientific prayer) said anywhere works right where the person is who is being prayed for.
According to Goswami, Rene Descartes got it slightly wrong when he wrote “Cogito, ergo sum.” (”I think, therefore I am.”) It should be “opto, ergo sum” (”I choose, therefore I am.”)
In New Thought, we say that it is all about choices. We are always at choice, and the choices we make determine what happens in our lives. It’s not what we want, but what we choose. Our choices are revealed by our expectations. When our choices don’t work for us anymore, in the words of A Course in Miracles, we simply “Choose Once Again.” As we make new choices, new circumstances follow. The formless shows up in new forms, the nonlocal takes on new locality.
The process of creation is a quantum event continually unfolding as and through you. Will you choose to direct it and make your life what you desire it to be?
Since my retirement from a lifelong engineering position from HP in 2001, I have mostly been involved with physics. My experience has taught me that MANY things we accept as truth are, at best short sighted, and at worst completely wrong. These day, I accept nothing as truth unless I can prove it myself. Everything else is suspect...
I like how the second paragraph sends you off to learn quantum physics before you move on paragraph 3.
You noticed that.
tl;dr
The civilization we enjoy is powered by the scientific method. If it isn’t good enough for you, move to Borneo or come up with something better.
the laws inherent in Newtonian Physics are not imputable
Had to stop at the golf references - I hate golf.
Biggest problem with reality is that so many refuse to accept or see it....
“I think, therefore I am.”
Thank you. So he created an artificial division in the laws and theories of physics and used it to claim that nothing is real.
The ultimate test for the validity of our imaginings is in the questions: 1. Do we actually understand our own babblings; and 2. Where do our imaginings take us?
So let’s test ourselves using the conclusions of this article. The author state that the limitations of time and distance, and those of “reality world-lines...don’t exist” according to the pertinent aspects of the article’s conclusions.
In short—where do we find ourselves once we accept these conclusions? The answer seems obvious. We’re in the same place we’ve been since history began, and the article is found to have no real meaning.
Thank you for this beautiful post.
It was only the Ego's perception of torture and death. Remember, the Ego is not your friend and keeps the illusion alive.
Thanks vannrox.
Adj. 1. imputable - capable of being assigned or credited to; "punctuation errors ascribable to careless proofreading"; "the cancellation of the concert was due to the rain"; "the oversight was not imputable to him"
Anyone else notice . . .
Oh yeah. Made a difficult read even more-so. That’s because of the poster’s use of the html PRE command to differentiate the sentence. A better command would be the FONT command.
I know what it means to impute, and what imputable means. He was talking about being not subject to change, which is more appropriately designated “immutable”. I was reading in context, unless he has some esoteric application for the word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.