Look at the world with the unit of organism. This view follows from the view of matterless world Organism Organisms & generalize & simplify & eliminate scholastic chaff theorems or statements or propositions & definitions For instance I propose something like 1. Physicists are the direct professional descendents of Peripatetic philosophers What do we have here We have the physicists Who are they? We need to define them? Why are we writing about them? Why are we writing about the professionals instead of the subject matter? Because professionals corrupt the subject matter. This can be another proposition Definition of physicist Then we have professional + The fact that physicists are professionals are important + Scientific revolution was a revolution against the professionals Why professionals are anti-science Then we have Peripatetic philosophers Who are they? They are Doctors of Philosophy Who are Doctors of Philosophy and why are they the anti-science What are givens and what are we trying to prove What happens if assume that these are true and correct Assume that physicists are the direct professional descendents of Peripatetic philosophers Then you would think that they behave exactly like Peripatetic philosophers Can we extract every possible idea and organize the ideas On the one hand we have the physicists They own topics and questions and answers that are supposed to belong to humanity If they tell them this they refuse to accept it Physicists themselves are victims of the system The authority lies with the legal system called physics This legal system has the authority Absolute authority Physicists learn this system They respect this system They enforce this legal system The subjects that entered this system are closed for independent questioning So here is another proposition The questions and answers coded in the legal language of physics is closed for independent investigations Physicists will deny this fact Force is encoded in physics and it is closed for independent investigation Physicists say be our guest go ahead and investigate force independently So I go ahead and investigate force What do I get Is this because I am dumb that I cannot resolve this issue the best I could do is to realize that force is the universal unit of physics that converts disparate physical quantities and make physics consistent Just like money But I ask the question does force exist in nature This simple question has no answer in physics Or so many answers that What is force? is a meaningless question in physics. To this I say that force is protected and it is closed And why can’t I prove with an experiment if force exists or not Because axioms cannot be proven by experiment Force is an axiom Only professional liars called physicists claim to measure their axiom What kind of experiment that would be Physicists say that the Cavendish experiment is such an experiment But it is not Cavendish assumed force. He did not design his experiment to measure force Then I say that force in physics was never measured in a scientific experiment designed to measure force There is a political issue here Force is the fundamental physical quantity and physicists protect force by polemics I doubt that physicists will ever be convinced that what is called the Cavendish experiment conducted by first years physics students does not measure the Newtonian force But the whole thing is legal There is the G Physicists invented a unit and called a constant of nature and called it the Newtonian constant of force Nothing of the sort But its name is Newton’s constant of force so students measure the oscillations of a pendulum set up in the factory to oscillate with a period P that when they plug into the known formulas gives the known value of G and physicists claim that with such a fakery and fraud physics student observed and measured Newton’s force So how do you fight such a religion And this is religion Force is the faith of this religion and the Cavendish experiment is a miracle of this religion No says the physicist. Students really measure the force. They have the authority. They don’t have to say anything more. Physicists assert we say Cavendish experiment measures force therefore the Cavendish experiment measures force. Anyone who questions our Cavendish experiment is a crackpot. What ugly chauvenistic people these physicists are This is the same problem faced by Galileo Galileo chose to eliminate scholastic labels of Doctors of Philosophy by using geometry So this is another major topic Doctors of Philosophy say that just like Galileo they believe that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics and as true heirs of Galileo’s they still use mathematics to read the book of nature This is a lie. Physicists are the direct descendents of the enemies of Galileo. They are not the heirs to Galileo. Look at what they call mathematics. If Galileo came to world today he would have recognized physicists’ mathematics as the Latin of the Peripatetic philosophers Why? How do we know? Galileo did not use what physicists call mathematics. What is it anyway? Physicists’ mathematics is prose written in symbols that look like mathematical symbols. What physicists call mathematics is Mathematin. Galileo used geometry. Geometry is not prose. You cannot do philosophy with geometry. But you can do all kinds of polemics with Mathematin. And physicists do. Mathematin is legal. Geometry is not legal So when I look at Christian Fundamentalist Creationism and Physical Cosmology I see that both are about claims made by a professional class who claim to know the origin of the universe? What is the difference? As far as I know there is no difference. Why is Christian Creationism is religion but Physical Cosmology is not religion but science? I think that Christian Creationism is at least sincere because all they say is that their book got it right. Fine. If you believe that you’d be happy. But physicists say that Christian Creationism is religion but physical cosmology is science. Why is it science? Is it science because it is called physical cosmology? But we know that names are irrelevant. Physicists are collaborators of states and content producers for the media. Their speculations gain authority as they rotate in an endless loop between academia and the media. It’s like the accelerators. As a theory goes around the academia-media loop it gains more and more authority. Big Bang has been around for over 50 years and it is as solid a theory as there is. It’s all fake. But it has authority. But I believe that there is enough people who see that Big Bang is the official religion of the states. It is as religion as creationism. But worse. Because it claims to be science. http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ All we have to do is to look at the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. Granted Big Bang is now as solid as any religion and a rational criticism of Big Bang will have no effect on it. States sponsor ongoing research on Big Bang. Fundings flood from the states to physics departments to solidify Big Bang as the state religion. What can reason do against this professional collaborators of unhuman organisms against humans. Nothing. But we can still write what we think. If Big Bang is one of the topics it needs to be written about The problem is the same why nothing changes even though there are outsiders who question Big Bang? The answer is Thales and Galileo. The unhuman organisms are stronger than individuals. Unhuman organisms who exploit humans with the help of their collaborators the professional class use science as one of their major tool of exploitation. They have the money. They pay the professionals to design and create a cosmogonic brand and package and market it to the consumers. Simple as that. A scientific questioning of the strong brand of Big Bang is as useless and futile as questioning iPhone. The fight is not in scientific territory. Big Bang is a commodity. A commodity that became such a solid brand as Big Bang cannot be removed by scientific arguments. This is not defeatism. Big Bang must be classified as mythology or secular religion. The fight is between branded global book religions such as Christianity and their creation myths and the global hidden religion of humanity the Newtonism and its creation myth the Big Bang. Science has nothing to do in this debate. Why is Big Bang mythology. It may not be. It is charlatanism. Big Bang is based on a linear extrapolation from 50 to 13 billion years. This is not a scientific extropolation. This is beyond absurd. Absurd has more respactibility than such a charlatanism. The other minor detail physicists ignore is that observing galaxies to expand will never lead to the conclusion that they were once a point that was the origin of the universe. Physicists have no answer to these absurd assumptions. What to make of this statement by a Doctor of Philosophy? The universe is a big place, uniform on large scales Is this like an understatement? Or is there a deep philosophical meaning here that I am missing? This doctor states that the universe is a big place. The more I think about this the more I fail to understand what it means or what it is supposed to mean. Is it a tautology? The universe is a big place. Is it a joke? Maybe this line is uttered with a sarcastic tone, “you know, dear audience, the universe is a big place, he he he.” But whatever it is universe is a big place is circular. I realize that circular reasoning is legal in physics. In fact circular reasoning is one of the arguments used by physicists that can be and should be considered very rigorous. We should be thankful to physicists who use simple circular reasoning to prove their point and save us from some other and uglier forms of polemical reasoning that they are so famously fond of using. The universe is a big place means that this doctor of philosophy knows how big the universe is. Of course he doesn’t know that. He does not know that the universe is uniform at large scales. He has no idea how big the universe is. But he is in possession of the famous Big Bang trope and even more famous universe-cosmos trope. These tropes enjoy power of physical law and can be used to prove any point the physicist wants to make. In this case he uses them to prove that universe is a large place. Try to argue rationally with someone who has doctoral authority and uses his authority to prove that universe is a large place by using legal tropes. People in various altered states of reality. . . nice observation The way I understand it in our society one’s state of reality is defined by one’s attitude toward money. People who fail to make money the fundamental constant of their lives inevitably fall into altered states of reality. There is an escape. Actually two. Or even may be three allowed and legal escapes that society provides to people who want to live by ignoring money. One is religious order, one is academia and the other is the military I guess. By entering these orders you give up a lot. In a way it is like cats. You give up some natural liberties of your species to these unhuman organisms in return for security and the promise of doing research that you want. My feeling is that, like people aspiring to be actors and actresses, the fail rate is very high. I believe only very few get to do research that they paid such a high price to obtain. The time that were supposed to be theirs is always postponed to the next professional rank and sometimes never comes. I am talking about the academia not religion. If one does not want to attach himself to a professional hierarchy but wants to do research and ignore money then one realizes that society does not want such free floating individuals. They are the homeless people and the people in various altered states of reality that you see in university towns.
We know best what does not exist. But the notion of god comes from marketing. Religion is a method to program humans. The method is as old as the oldest mythologies. Probably existed before the written word.
I don’t think I ever believed, but I really did enjoy the sense of belonging and kinship that I found there.
The same belonging and kinship can be found in fans of sports clubs or even in facebook. We don’t need to experience the cosmogonic baggage of religion to feel connected. What makes us feel good is marketing. We can only perceive abstract things visualized by a symbol. You can apply your rational skepticism to prove that a sports club does not exist and you would be right. In this sense it is better to enjoy then to question.
I don’t believe in any god, or gods. . . . I mean this in the sense that there is absolutely no reason to believe deities exist and therefore I reject even their possibility of existence.
Deities may not exist but they fulfill a purpose in daily life. The way humans are designed they cannot perceive without a model. Deities is a particular set of models for humans to identify with. (This is the reason why you felt belonged in your Lutheran community.) Different religious components such as rituals, ceremonies, cosmogony and rules and laws that regulate how to live are all different parts that are added to the core faith later. The cosmogonic part of Christianity was developed in Alexanderia I believe in the 3rd or 5th century. The philosophical component, as in Aristotelianism, was developed by Peripatetic philosophers. Yet, marketers of religions conflate all of these into one branded package.
I have to act on the best available evidence and since any god that would interact with the universe would leave traces, including one which did nothing more than create it.
I don’t understand this sentence. For a believer everything observed is evidence of creation by a god.
Yet belief persists in our society. There seems to be a pathological need to believe.
Belief is not pathological. It is natural. Nothing will happen without trust. When you make a contract with someone else you must believe that he will hold his side of the deal. Society works on trust and belief.
The reason is that a belief in an idea has no bearing on the truth of an idea.
I think this is debatable. You believe that ideas have an absolute truth/untruth value that we can know. I disagree. On the contrary, believing in god makes god to exist. Think about money. There is nothing called money. Money is not the paper you exchange. It’s not the electronic signals that you transfer in Paypal. It’s nothing. It exists solely as a standard which has various appearances. It exists because every human being agrees contractually that money is the universal unit of exchange. This way, any item, tangible or intangible, compatible or incompatible can be translated into money and exchanged easily. God is something like that, it exists because people believe in it.
If you wish to seek further evidence for the existence or non-existence of god, science or rational reasoning cannot help you. The type of evidence will not be scientific evidence because god by definition is an absolute entity. Science cannot reveal god and science cannot disprove god.
Nor does the popularity of religion lend any credence to the many variants of its ‘truths’. This begs the question of ‘why’ religion exists.
Religion exists for marketing reasons. Religion is the easiest way to program humans. Human character is such that no individual would ever do something that another human orders him to do. But if that human individual is indoctrinated in believing in the existence of superhuman deities and fears them then the programmers will tell human individual what to do through gods and he will do it.
Like pretty much every other behavioral feature, curiosity is the end result of a long series of evolutionary accidents which shaped our nature.
Yes, curiosity may have created god. Also, curiosity is a defining property of humans but the education system controlled by the programmers of humans make sure that human curiosity is eradicated and humans are turned into consumer drones unquestioningly obeying the programmers’ orders.
Ours is the most highly developed consciousness on the planet and it is only fitting that we take curiosity to an extreme.
Taking curiosity to the extreme leads to the fox/hedgehog paradox. Curiosity must be focused to be useful. Intelligence is to know how much you can ignore, not how much you know.
Wanting to answer questions such as ‘how did we get here?’ or ‘why are we here?’, what I will call ‘the Burning Questions’, are a natural by-product of this characteristic.
This seems to me an acquired characteristic of humans, not an innate characteristic. Because to ask these questions you need a theoretical language system, like the written word, and then you need to have the leisure to ask and ponder theoretical questions. Raising of these questions coincided in history with the rising of a leisure class in antique Greece. If, as has been the case for the majority of humanity, the entirety of your day is taken up by work to feed your family then “how did we get here?” “Why are we here?” are irrelevant academic questions. There is only one burning question for 85 per cent of humanity: Where is the next meal coming from?
Religion, in my view, is nothing more than an accident of behavioral evolution – rationalization of the fruits of our premature curiosity satisfaction taken to an extreme.
I believe this alludes to personal and humane religion or a religion of a small group or a clan. It may describe the state of religion before the book religions incorporated themselves into giant marketing organisms that feed on humanity. The individual shaman of the clan became the incorporated shamans (physicists?) as clans incorporated into huge city states.
And this is where religion has its roots. It offered a way to answer the questions which are still front-and-center in our psyche.
Yes, I agree. Religion offers ready-made answers to cosmogonic questions. We no longer sew our own clothes. Or make our own transportation vehicle. Or buy raw material to bake bread daily. Religion is like that, a ready-made answer to academic burning questions. Consumers buy their life-long answers from a global purveyor of burning answers nicely packaged as a recipe for happy living and don’t ever worry about cosmogonic questions again. I think that’s a good solution. Why do you object to it?
Considering that human lifetime is limited we must by necessity suspend our rationalism and take the word of the professional marketers at least in some major areas. You apply scientific skepticism to religion but as far as I can see not to law. You take law as given. You take political system as given. You take big pharma as given. You take physics as given. As individuals we just don’t have the time to question every marketing pun and trope and polemical monopoly. And the Unhuman Organism makes sure that humans remain divided. I am sure you realize that one of the fundamental objectives of religion is to keep humans divided so that they cannot combine forces and figure out the burning questions in a rational way. Religion is not about god, it is about keeping humanity forever divided.
Today, religions have evolved (and are continuing to evolve) into more sophisticated forms, as evidenced by the regimented structures of the world’s most popular religions.
The reason for this is that religious brands are hierarchical and bureaucratic organisms. They must grow in order to continue to exist. And after they reach their critical size they divide into two like organisms and a new similar organism is created.
In other words, gods were born out of our ignorance and nothing has changed.
I think the god of brand religions is a sophisticated marketing construct. It is a good marketing vehicle. Consider the highly effective Catholic iconography developed by the best painters of Europe starting from the earliest times. That’s sophisticated marketing that cost a bundle to the Church. But the Church knows marketing. It is about marketing. Their god was not born out of ignorance but it was created by sophisticated marketers, like Paul, whose global book tour established the Bible as the Book. This is where Newtonism comes in. Newtonism is the modern state-sponsored religion that replaced Christianity as the state-sponsored religion.
Even Newton, arguably the greatest scientific mind that we can name, demonstrated this ignorance.
How do you argue that Newton was the greatest scientific mind that ever existed? The evidence suggests just the opposite. Newton is a deity and I invite you to apply your scientific skepticism to this deity as well and see if you continue to believe the propaganda that deified Newton as the Moses of Mechanics. You can start by reading Halley’s Ode to Newton that starts the Principia to see the deification process in action.
. . . in his great opus, the Principia, God appears nowhere . . .
As you mention below this statement is not true. Newton’s zeroeth law says that God created a Newtonian world. God is in the foundation of the Principia.
That is, until he could not solve the many-body problem of the motion of the planets. Try as he might, he could not find an analytical solution which would accurately describe the solar system.
Another myth. Newton worked with proportions not with equations. A concept of analytical solution makes no sense in the context of Principia.
And also Newton only computed about half a dozen astronomical quantities and he never tried to “describe the solar system” accurately. He projected his few calculations to the entire universe by fiat and by polemics by calling his force universal. Physicists still believe Newtonian creation by fiat. I also like to mention that Principia is a brand and it makes no sense to criticize it. It’s futile.
Well, if he, the Great Newton . . .
Newton was the greatest marketing genius ever lived, that’s true, he was a shrewd politician, true, and it is also true that he was the greatest anti-science ever lived.
. . . could not figure it out, no one could and it had to be because of the Great Designer! Putting his arrogance aside, to Newton God was all about Newton.
I agree. As Huygens pointed out Newton intended Newton’s force to be Newton’s soul that permeated the universe.
So you too realize that Newton was a propagandist, a self-promoter and a sophisticated marketer who established his own brand of the system of the world as the standard nature.
NASA gets along just fine by calculating the trajectories of probes to other planets solving the equations numerically with an unimaginable precision.
I agree totally. NASA is not using Newtonian dynamics to compute orbits which obviates Newtonism but they still project in their websites that Newton’s laws rule.
Many more modern names, like those of Albert Einstein and Paul Davies lend no credence to God’s existence
But these are the opinions of these writers. The fact that Einstein knew how to manipulate mathematical symbols does not give him the authority to pontificate about the existence of god. On this subject his opinion is as good as yours or mine or anybody else’s.
Einstein’s concept of God seems to spring from his own prejudice and not from any hard data.
If you define god as the ultimate designer there will never be scientific evidence or hard data for or against. If we confine ourselves to science we must accept that we cannot know absolutes and ultimates.
When viewed through the lens of skepticism, both God and Religion fall apart.
Brand religions and their gods fulfill very well what they are suppose to achieve. They are living organisms.
In turn, I will be looking at specific aspects of the concept of God – philosophical arguments of its existence, the necessity of religion for morality, religion benefits society – and why they are all demonstrably wrong.
Well, thanks I’ll read that next.
Note: I also tried to draw a map of this comment here. It turns out that God and religion are linked by marketing. I thought that was interesting.
A correct physical law
can never be removed, it is correct in its domain of validity. It can only be expanded.
A look at the physical law page at Wikipedia proves that the concept of physical law is not well-defined. Physicists may think that they know intuitively what a physical law is. I would go even further and claim that only physicists can know what a physical law is. Only physicists can know what a physical law is because physicists are the ones who define physical laws. They say they discover physical laws. The question whether physical laws are discovered or defined turned out to be a deep philosophical issue. Physicists who work on string theory believe that string theory is a physical law and they’ve discovered it. My article about whether or not Leonard Susskind discovered string theory remains the most popular post.
In practice, though, any legal physics statement is a physical law, since it is legal. Their domain of validity may vary but they are physical laws in their domain. The more famous ones will get special treatment by the media because they are more famous. Just like physicists, physical laws too, are important and have authority in proportion to their fame.
Most physicists do not bother to distinguish between law, model, theory, belief, policy, procedure, scenario, principle, hypothesis, conjecture and mechanics and fit. If it is legal to call a theory a law, as it seems that it is, physicists will call a theory a law and they will mean mechanics or a fit. And when physicists say physical law they mean natural law. There is no evidence that a law of physics is necessarily a law of nature. Or that nature is legal, as opposed to rational. I personally believe that it is the religious point of view that ascribes laws to nature. Science does not legislate nature, religion does.
The most famous physical law in physics is Newton’s definition of force, the physical law of all physical laws, the one and only, F=ma. If F=ma is a physical law then physical law means a definition. We’ve discovered yet another physics pun!
All physicists, without exception, consider Newton’s double definition of force and mass to be a law of nature. Definition is pun for law and physics is pun for nature so in physicists’ head a physical law translates into a law of nature. Physicists give scholasticism a bad name.
As everyone knows, except physicists, F=ma is a definition. Force has no other meaning, it is a definition. Force is Newton’s name for two parts of Kepler’s rule.
Unlike physicists, I distinguish between 1) a definition that has become a law by professional consensus of physicists 2) a theory and 3) a law of symmetry. What physicists call symmetry is a proportionality or a rule.
So in physics language, force is not a law because it is a definition, but Kepler’s rule is a law, because it is a proportionality, or symmetry. It would be a miracle though to expect physicists to stop calling Kepler’s rule Newton’s laws because that’s a 300 years old bureaucratic habit. Such a habit cannot be broken. And that’s a law of nature and law of physics and law of society all combined into one.
So you see that a law is a habit. Because, by definition, we observe habits in nature, ie. repetitions, and give them a name and then measure an aspect of the repetition and try to find a pattern. If we find a pattern physicists call it a law, we call it a rule. Physicists call it a symmetry because something remains constant while something else changes. We call it a proportonality because in an equality of ratios while ratios change proportionality stays constant. Physicists go even further and define a unit as a proportionality constant and secretly reify it and call it the true proportionality constant and therefore a true constant of nature of their true law of nature. Because they are professionals. They get paid do discoverdefine things.
Therefore, the habit of calling Kepler’s rule Newton’s law is a physical law of nature just like F=ma itself. In fact more so. Physicists will obey this physical law and keep calling Kepler’s rule Newton’s law until Newtonism vanishes from the face of the Earth and for that we may have to wait until the cooling of the sun or for LHC to produce a catastrophic black hole.
Prometheus incurred the wrath of the Olympian gods by giving the secret of fire to men. As punishment Zeus condemned him to be chained to a rock by the seashore. That’s what happens when you piss off the Powers That Be; you get pecked to within an inch of death, without ever being allowed to actually die.
Unhuman organisms 2000 years ago were already sophisticated enough to know how to program humans. They knew that humans are programmed through entertainment told to them through branded humans who looked like idealized versions of themselves. With the advent of monotheism the mythological gods were replaced by celebrities of today who program consumers through movies and advertisement. In ancient Miletus the two biggest structures were the theater and the temple.
1. Why are the programmers and their client still unidentified
I am wondering then why don’t humans see that there is a species of unhuman organisms who have been programming humans in order to enslave them? These are live organisms who exist in their own kingdom. Where do they fit in the taxonomy of life on earth? I propose that they should be classified as legal-born humanoid organisms. What do you think?
2. Newtonian worldview has been designed to serve unhuman organisms
One reason humans have failed to recognize this kingdom so far may be the Newtonian atomic materialist point of view with which we are taught to perceive the world. According to the Newtonian doctrine only what is material can be alive. Consequently humans in general fail to perceive unhuman or humanoid organisms as live entities who do not have material bodies even though they may recognize various appearances of the unhumanity as an enemy of humanity. In the 19th century Europe Romantic poets liked to view Prometheus as a rebel who
resisted all forms of institutional tyranny epitomized by Zeus — church, monarch, and patriarch. They drew comparisons between Prometheus and the spirit of the French Revolution, Christ, Milton’s Satan, and the divinely inspired poet or artist.
These humans were able to recognize various appearances of the unhuman organism e.g., the church, as exerting “institutional tyranny” on humans but they failed to recognize it as a live organism.
We can say that humans are at a stage similar to the time before the discovery of the micro world made of invisible organisms as a kingdom who prayed on human body. These humanoid organisms also pray on humans and are also invisible but invisible because they live on the other extreme scale, that is, they are too big and abstract to be visible. They are invisible because they are at a scale that no one human sense can perceive them as one organism or as a living entity. But eventually they will be recognized.
What kind of visualization mechanism do we need to use to make them visible? The only way we can make them visible is to label them, the way we make anything visible. So we make a corporation visible by its logo. We recognize a sports team by its colors. We perceive a religion by its symbols and by its human figurehead.
What is the symbol of the Unhuman Organism? I don’t know but we need to change our Newtonian dogma of atomic materialism and ignore its logical consequence of material-spiritual duality and look at the world as operational and not matterful.
3. Who are the present day collaborators of unhumanity against humanity
The Prometheus story is not about the fire but
about imparting secret knowledge to the masses. That knowledge had to be secret to maintain the status quo, the divinely ordained hierarchy. People are supposed to know their place. How else can the gods continue to rule and enjoy their place of privilege?
But is this true? Was this story written by the marketing department of the Olympian Gods and sent to humanity? No. The story was written here on Earth by professional scribes in the service of rulers who wanted to program and control human individual.
Physicists of today are in the service of the present day rulers actively helping them to program humans. Physicists are also one of the major collaborators of unhumanity whose actions cause death and unhappiness in human societies all around the world.
“. . . You shall not sell your soul to unhumanity!”
Slides for this post here (work in progress).
- People sued LHC authorities for potential harm to the universe.
- People sued Darwinism for potential harm to their ego.
- And now a U.S. senator filed a lawsuit against God to grab some headlines.
The case against god was dismissed by Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk because “the Divine Defendant cannot be served notice because of his unlisted home address.”
I think that the legal realm is a perfect platform to ruminate on philosophy.
In this case we have three different types of organisms:
1. The human individual
a bodily organism with the ability to produce written word
2. The court
an unhuman organism without body that has the ability to produce written word
3. The god
an undefined organism that prefers to communicate with its constituency through a professional class called god’s earthly contractors or professional doctors of theology. God concept may have been the original singularity invented by professional doctors.
Human = Body + written word
The court = Human – Body
God = Infinite / zero = Singularity
We are also faced with this philosophical question:
If an entity has no known address can it influence the earth?
In physics it can. All physicists have to do is to label god Dark Glow and define its physical properties as unseen but not unfelt. This new dark physical quantity will manifest itself from outside the observable universe just like Dark Flow and will have measurable effects on earth.
Physicists’ method to explain anything unknown and unknowable is always the same: 1) Have a catchy name for a new physical quantity candidate 2) issue a press release 3) dig some evidence for it from the white noise called WMAP.
Therefore, the laws of physics allow an unseen but not unfelt Dark Glow. But you have to make sure not to say the word “god” to physicists so that they don’t feel threatened and under attack.
The organisma view of the world views the world in terms of love. The world is not matterful as physicists assume but the world is operational. So how can we analyze this situation?
For god to have influence on earth god does not need to exist. Only organisms called humans need to love god. And this is what Christianity says. Or maybe not. Christianity says that God exists absolutely. Similar to the Copenhagen interpretation in Christianity loving god makes it manifest.
But from the organisma point of view there is no paradox. The love of god has been causing all kinds of havoc on earth for a long time. Therefore, god need not exist to cause physical change on earth.
We are not reasoning via slogans and legal entities and ideologies here. We apply the organisma view of the world to the problem and see what we can deduce.
Legal systems including the law, religion and physics are unable to resolve a question like this because it’s outside their realm. Legal professionals cannot look at a question as a question to be solved. They must fit it into their immense legal system first to own the question and then assert a legal solution. But our organisma view transcends the legal and unifies nature and eliminates the professional priestly class, or the middlemen.
By ignoring the legal authority of physics and assuming a matterless and operational world which manifests itself as love we were able to solve a problem that physics could not solve.
Newton made use of this creative love. Newton knew that if he defined a quantity called force and if he made it attractive enough so that his disciples loved it unquestioningly, force will become a true physical quantity. And this is what happened.
Sean Carroll comes very close in this post to vindicating an outsider’s view of physics profession and physics professionals. But he falls short of applying scientific reasoning to the profession itself since he is an insider, the way a cosmologist cannot know the cosmos, so let me help.
Here are the numbers. Universities spew out twice as much physics PhD as there are jobs for them. Are you now wondering why physicists are the lowest paid professionals in the world? A physicist studies Newton’s laws and earns a starting salary of less than $30,000 if he can find a job. A law student studies Roman law for a few years and earns a starting salary of over $160,000. Law firms fight among each other to grab each and every graduate. After all both are law students. If you like law why go into Newtonian law. Just study corporate law and be rich.
In any case, physicists themselves are the victim of the professional physics propaganda that is perpetuated in the media about heroic theoretical discoveries by physicists. They are recruited into the profession by this propaganda. Behind the glamorous facade there is the ugly physics hierarchy as strict as the Vatican and the military. This hierarchy is like the famous Higgs field but as the physics student swims upwards in this hierarchy she gains not mass but authority. After two decades of learning a useless legal language called physics the doctoral candidate gets his license to practice and starts looking for a job to do data reduction or at best to work on some obscure topic defined and paid for by the military. What happened to the promised fundamentally heroic discoveries? They don’t exist. So the disillusioned physicist after two decades of studying legal Newtonist religion in all its incarnations and becoming a secular priest of Newtonism becomes a chauvinist bureaucrat defending Newton’s 18th century religious ideologies as science.
The picture of scholastic physics described here by an insider under the guise of giving advice reveals that physics is another name of the old hierarchical bureaucracy called scholasticism. The advice to the new members of this bureaucracy is simple: if you want to advance in this hierarchy you must conform.
Physicists are employed by the scholastic corporation and they must abide by company rules. The corporation outlives any physicist and no physicist can change the corporation. If they do not conform physicists will be out and unemployed.
Also take a look at this table showing the similarities between physics and the Church.
What Dr. Carroll proves in this post is that physics is an organism. He recognizes that there is a bureaucracy and there is a hierarchy. Physicists are professionals who must move up the hierarchy continuously or drop out. How? He doesn’t say. I’ll tell you. The currency of academic physics hierarchy is authority.
Physics is not structured like minor-league/intercollegiate-sports system. Physics is structured like the military and the Catholic church.
Law, the medicine, the military, the church and physics are hierarchical bureaucracies based on an absolute respect to rank and seniority. Anyone who even thinks of questioning authority is pushed out of the brotherhood. Excommunication in physics is as real as excommunication in the church. Science on the other hand is defined as questioning authority.
Any climber in the hierarchy who reaches academic bottlenecks with less authority appropriate for her rank and seniority will be told as Dr. Carroll nicely put it “you have passed your sell-by date, no more jobs for you.” Just like in the military.
I am glad that now there is a verification by an insider that physics is a rotten unhuman organism feeding on human intelligence.
Why is this relevant?
- Proposition: Similar organisms behave the same way
If the physics profession has an architecture which is identical to the architecture of the Catholic church, that is, a hierarchical bureaucracy based on sanctity of rank and authority then both practitioners will behave exactly the same. And they do, as I’ve written yesterday.
Compared to Hollywood Academic physics is fringe entertainment.
So, physicists who are reading this what do you think?
Looking at these pictures of the macroscopic world sent me into a soul searching mood. There is an interesting invisible world out there waiting to be discovered. And here I am writing blog posts criticizing the penultimate oldest profession in the world. I am talking about the scholastic corporation that employs physicists. This corporation will continue to exist infinitely and will never be aware of the meaning of my articles decomposing in the eternity of Google. So what is the point of criticizing this ancient corporation?
When you look at the photographs of the micro realm you see that there is a world that exist in that realm. We don’t see it but it is there. As humans we learned about that world relatively recently. The study and criticism of the profession of physics taught me that there is a similar super macro world, the world of corporations. I call them Unhuman Organisms or maybe Giant Humanoid Organisms. Humanoid because these organisms are not burdened with human body but they are purely human because they are capable of producing written word, the defining characteristic of humans.
These unhuman organisms are masters of humans. Humans are like domesticated animals of these organisms. (Don Miguel Ruiz talks about human domestication on page 8 of The Four Agreements) The recognition of the existence of these humanoid organisms as live beings, although without body, is possible only when you deny the atomic materialist ideology of physics and see the world as made of contractual existence. The world is operational and not matterful. And this result follows from a scientific criticism of physics.
Physics is not an organism. Physics is a science.
To define physics as science does not say much. Science is another word for knowledge. It is true that physics is a type of knowledge.
The word physics has many meanings.
- The name of a profession
- The name of the professional code studied by the professionals
- Physics is used by physicists as a synonym for science
- It may be used as a synonym for “property” as in the “physics of stars.”
My post was about the professional code called physics. I believe that physics code can be seen as an organism. Probably, physics is an organism similar to this:
1. Physics is a living system
Physics is living because it grows continuously. It is a system because it is consistent. Physics is made of units called physical quantities and rules that allow the study of relationships between physical quantities.
2. Physics reacts to stimuli
For instance, if you divide by zero, it gives an error message.
3. Physics is capable of reproduction
Just like living cells it reproduces by division, i.e. Newtonian physics, relativistic physics and stringy physics, etc.
4. Physics continually grows
This is proved by the length of physics education which gets longer and longer but teaches less in a given semester.
5. Physics maintains itself as a stable whole
The core of physics did not change for centuries. Post-Newtonian physicists developed the content of the Principia into a sophisticated system of algorithms or mechanics and this mechanics is like the faith of the profession and maintains it as a stable whole.
According to Wikipedia an organism is a living system capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth and maintenance as a stable whole. So, I’ve shown that physics is an organism.
- How does unhuman rule humans
- Knowledge divide
- The oldest profession in the service of rulers
- Unhuman organism does not have a heart
- Unhuman versus human
- Humans are divided
- Religion/science duality
- Free science free humans