Professionals program human individual for the unhuman organism
We are educated by professionals who program us from the earliest times with the doctrine that we must obey professional authority. We are taught that all professionals are experts in their field and they have a monopoly in their field protected by a license and we must never question or doubt the professional opinion of a professional. According to this doctrine civilization exists thanks to professionals.
Human individual is rewarded only if he gives up his individuality
If we are interested in a subject we must never investigate that subject on our own by freely thinking on our own but we must yearn to enter that professional field by giving up our individuality and dedicate ourself in moving up the hierarchy and sacrifice our natural curiosity to serve the objectives of the hierarchy.
The education tells us that after studying the professional language of our chosen profession and after showing our proficiency of it we must obtain our license and practice that profession until we retire. During our practice we must vehemently protect our profession from infringement from outsiders so that our professional authority is not diluted and our monopoly remains firm.
The old European system enforces submission to the unhuman
This is the old European doctrine established to perpetuate the compartmentalized European society where every citizen is taught to know its place and never dare to question the absolute authority of the ruling unhuman organisms.
Professionals exploit confusion and confuse to exploit
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities – the political, the religious, the educational authorities – who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds – their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.
The main objective of education — designed and operated by professionals — is to kill individual curiosity that may lead to the questioning of authority and teach how to find comfort in professional mythology.
Respecting professional authority serves the professional
Respecting professional authority serves the professional classes and helps them perpetuate their monopoly. We on the other hand never look forward to dealing with professionals and we know that whenever we trust a professional we will always be the loser.
Lawyers, medical doctors, church professionals, politicians and physicists are professionals who see their customers as preys to be exploited for their own professional gains. Everyone knows that for a medical doctor a patient is a walking dollar sign.
Academic physics is irrelevant
Physics is apparently different than other professional fields because academic physics is totally irrelevant. No one ever goes to a physicist with a practical problem to be solved. All problems solved by academic physicists are academic.
Of course, if you want to build mass destruction weapons you will have to require the services of physicists but probably you don’t because building mass destruction weapons is not nice and contributes negatively to human well-being.
So academic physics is irrelevant and academic physicists spend their time writing commentary on each other’s commentary on old scholastic topics such as time, space, gravity and cosmos.
Applied physics is evil
The practical side of the physics profession — applied physics — is harmful to the well-being of human individual but physics professionals have been contributing happily to the destruction of humanity and the deterioration of human standard of life more than any other type of professionals. The more a physicist will serve the unhuman organism and deliver weapons to be used against human individual the more he will be marketed as a genius by the marketing arm of the unhuman.
Maybe it is possible to defend destructive and evil physics because it may have some useful side effects at the end. I don’t know. There must be a way to do research without paying such a deadly price for humanity. I cannot justify as easily as physicists can that collaborating with the enemies of humanity hoping that some good may come out of it is good.
Questioning leads to understanding
In order to evaluate physicists’ theories we must question them. I refuse to accept academic physicists’ authority. They are nothing more than licensed practitioners of a legal code called physics. They claim that their authority comes from their knowledge of a language. That’s not the kind of authority that impresses me.
I am not interested in what is already known. I am interested in learning what I don’t know. Learning means questioning, not accepting physics dogma by faith.
Fundamental is simple
I believe that anyone can speculate on fundamental questions as well as physicists because nature is simple.
Archimedes did not know physics. Galileo did not know physics. Newton did not know physics. Yet they contributed nicely to human understanding of nature by using simple methods.
Model meets nature at a single point
If physics claims to model nature then all physics statements must be intelligible to non-physicists. An intelligible statement has a single meaning.
If experiment is asking questions to nature obviously nature will not reply to a question which will have many answers. This is the fundamental rule of experimenting: Ask a well defined single question. Physicists don’t know this fact.
Therefore, what is not intelligible to a non-physicist will not be intelligible to nature either.
What is intelligible to physicists only will be intelligible to physicists only and to no one else, including nature.
And indeed the proprietary professional language physicists use to communicate among themselves is intelligible to no one but to themselves. Nature ignores it.
Yes, nature rejects scholastic and elegant symbolism produced by physicists because model touches nature always on a single point. All superfluous symbolism invented by physicists to practice their scholastic philosophy must be eliminated if any measurement can result from their symbolism. Nature understands only simple proportions.
Measurement compares unit to measured
Measurement compares a unit to what is measured. Measurement is counting. Therefore, elaborate philosophical symbolism physicists call physical theories are never measured.
Nature ignores academic physics
As expected from professionals who are concerned about protecting and perpetuating their monopoly physicists defined this proprietary communication language that they use to build theories to be science and the only true language understood by nature.
Physicists hide information by encoding it in proprietary languages. The same method is used by Microsoft and any corporation to protect their brands.
All professionals profit from knowledge they’ve hidden
Statements with hidden assumptions are intelligible only to professionals but a statement that has only one meaning is intelligible to everybody.
In order to hide information physicists load every statement with as many hidden meanings as possible so that only they can parse it.
No professional can pretend to have authority if what he says is understood by a non-professional. This is the law professionals will never tolerate to be violated. Why do you think physics professionals to be an exception to this law?
Hoarding information wholesale and selling it retail is the oldest one in the book of scholasticism. Physics professionals are masters of this method.
Physics is not suitable to study fundamentals
In order to speculate on fundamental questions we don’t need to understand physicists’ professional language. Fundamental questions cannot be studied by studying high level languages.
Let’s look at LHC, an experiment that will supposedly reveal the most hidden secrets of nature to physicists who will then reveal them to us.
LHC is a black box experiment and we have no hope of ever understanding the processes of LHC.
Furthermore, there is no one physicist who understands how LHC works or how data is reduced. Every physicist knows her little section of the code that his supervisor tells her to work on, and no more.
There are no absolute discontinuities
We are ignorant of physicists’ professional language but as free thinking independent researchers we know that there are no absolute discontinuities in nature.
Therefore, there are no infinitely hard and absolutely indivisible particles.
When physicists claim to observe “elementary building blocks of nature” we know that they are lying or at least repeating professional dogma.
Initial assumptions are independent of models
We don’t need to understand how physicists reduce data to know that they are lying about observing absolute indivisibles.
What is complicated and not intelligible to outsiders is the way physicists reduce data and how they communicate their research. That’s not physics anyway. That’s computer programming and professional bureaucracy.
Nature is definitional
Anyone can evaluate fundamental propositions because fundamental propositions are simple. If a proposition has more than one meaning then it is not simple therefore it is not fundamental.
Physicists as scholastic doctors will always claim to prove their hidden assumptions by their method of data reduction and modeling. This goes as far back as astronomers who owned the Ptolemaic model. They asserted that the Earth must be stationary because their model worked and made good predictions. Physicists assume that nature is particulate and then prove it with their standard model. Nothing much changed in scholasticism since Ptolemy’s time.
A field becomes science when professional practitioners give up their authority on their professional code and accept that their models cannot prove their doctrine.
Academic physics is still at the primitive stage where practitioners prove their assumptions with their models. And they don’t yet realize how silly that is.
Why do physicists conflate academic physics with technology?
And why are physicists so proud of their achievements? They conflate academic physics with technology and take credit for technological advances.
Physicists take credit for new technology based on electricity as if they’ve discovered electricity. They say without physics there would be no computers, no cell phones, no GPS and so on.
Let us note that the science of electricity was discovered and developed by amateurs and not by professional physicists. And today technological advances are achieve by engineers not by academic physicists.
We are living in a world designed by engineers and inventors such as Edison, we are not living in a world designed by academic physicists. Academic physicists are concerned about the properties of the unmeasurable past and the unmeasurable future.
Why this post?
So what’s the point of this article? To demean academic physicists?
No. This is a note to myself:
question professional authority.
What do you think? Is there a grain of truth in what Tim Leary said?