Sabine the philosopher

In this article Learned Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder compares academic philosophers with academic physicists. She assumes secretly a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and she secretly assumes an idealized image of physicists as perfect scientists who never ever define a symbol in their equations multiple times. (The opposite is actually true. I dare Sabine to come up with one legal physics equation where all symbols are uniquely defined.) Then she arrogantly attacks philosophers as idiots who argue with “empty words”. Sabine’s problem is really with philosophers who dare to write on subjects physicists claim ownership. We are supposed to believe that this academic turf wars between two types of Learned Doctors is a scientific issue.

This stereotype of philosopher as scholastic sophist was invented by Newton. Why did Newton define philosophers as anti-science even though he himself was a Doctor of Philosophy? Well, of course, to define himself and his followers as true scientists.

How did Newton define philosophers?

When Newton entered Cambridge as a student the place like all educational institutions in Europe was ruled by Doctors of Theology. Their professional cousin, Doctor of Philosophy who were known as Peripatetics, were not as powerful as they are today. Sabine has in mind this cartoon stereotype of hair splitting peripatetic philosopher and uses it as her straw man. She is referring to a cartoon stereotype of philosopher invented by Newton and his disciples to glorify themselves and their profession. Sabine is trying to sell us this physics propaganda as history.

What is the historical fact?

Newton successfully combined philosophy and mathematics for the first time under the cover of the same book and created a new academic field called natural philosophy which morphed into physics in the nineteenth century.

Newton and his disciples and his successors are Doctors of Philosophy by profession. These Learned Doctors are nothing more than corrupt academics and professional sophists. They don’t even deserve the title of philosopher. Physicists are more like slick lawyers than philosophers.

After Newton’s successful coup to replace Aristotle with himself as the new master of the European scholasticism they defined Doctors of Philosophy they supposedly replaced during the scientific revolution as the anti-science who spent their time writing commentary with empty words.

And Newtonians defined themselves as scientists who did not deal with casuistry and sophistry but worked only with quantities expressed in mathematical symbols. We all know this claim is bogus. Newton and his disciples defined themselves as true scientists who modeled nature with the precise language of mathematics while continuing their philosophizing by using the authority of mathematics.

Today, these Learned Doctors corrupted even mathematics and turned it into their vehicle of sophistry and casuistry. Sabine is still trying to fool us into believing that academic physics is a quantitative science.

Newton also initiated the academic turf wars between DOT and DOP because Newtonians grabbed the right to philosophize on cosmogony and cosmology from the ownership of DOT. Today your creation mythologies are designed and served to you by DOP. The more important academic turf war is not between philosophers and physicists but between DOP and DOT. These two types of Learned Doctors are still fighting the same war with each other for the soul of recruits to fill their classrooms. In our time, mostly due to Newton’s authority and because Newtonism has become the state religion, education is ruled by DOP. Don’t forget DOP and DOT are teachers, they both want to increase their market share.

Sabine Hossenfelder like all academic physicists is a philosopher by profession and practices philosophy with the language of mathematics. She is the modern representative of scholastic philosopher Newton branded as the anti-science.

Newton and his disciples are the Doctors of Philosophy; they have always been DOP; DOP are philosophical sophists who spend their time inventing creation mythologies for the rulers who pay them through grants channeled through schools where DOPs are perched. That’s why Sabine is still trying to sell us the same physics propaganda she learned from Newton. She thinks that by insulting philosophers as wordsmiths she is elevating herself and physicists to the level of scientists. DOP invented the art of sophistry and doublespeak and physicists are DOP; physicists are expert sophists. Sabine and academic physicists are philosophical sophists and charlatans doing business as physicists. Not to mention that physicists build all the mass destruction weapons in the world. What a despicable people these physicists are!

Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?

A.O. Tell is a theoretical physicist and this is how he answers the question Why do physicists believe that particles are pointlike?

Elementary particles don’t really have a shape or a size, these are emergent qualities that stem from interactions between particles.

physics is the study of shapeless and sizeless qualities.

So much for the physicists’ claim that physics is a quantitative hard science. I guess physicists study qualities quantitatively.

According to A.O. Tell

particle physics is the study of formless and sizeless emergent qualities that emerge from the interaction between formless and sizeless emergent qualities.

The study of the physical properties of shapeless and sizeless non-physical qualities is called academic scholasticism. Physicists reduced the old science of physics into academic scholasticism and turned it into sciencelike shamanism.

Physicists represent a particle as a mathematical point but endow that mathematical point with physical properties.

Just like their professional ancestors who called themselves “Peripatetics”, physicists are Doctors of Philosophy who are in the business of corrupting mathematics and physics to further their academic career.

Hidden Philosophical Foundations of Physics

Physicists claim to reveal the deepest hidden secrets of the universe but will never reveal the secret philosophical assumptions in the foundations of physics. Physicists will never let us know that their “physical” universe is a product of their secret assumptions. Instead, physicists claim that they discover properties of the world by conducting experiments. This is one of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

* * *

Is a professional physicist qualified to write as an expert on a philosophical subject?

I have in mind this philosophical discourse written by Matt Strassler, an academic physicist.

Here are a few of the attributes defining an academic physicist:

$\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Learned&space;Doctor&space;of&space;Philosophy}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Professor&space;of&space;Secrets}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Defender&space;of&space;the&space;Faith}&space;\\\textup{academic&space;physicist&space;=&space;Doctor&space;of&space;Casuistry}$

* * *

Is Strassler a qualified professional to write a philosophical commentary on one of the oldest philosophical topics, namely, the indivisible?

The answer is No. Even Strassler admits in his Rutgers website that he is an expert only in three academic fields: Particle physics, Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. Philosophy is not in this list.

Strassler is not a qualified professional who can lecture us as an expert on the indivisibility of the electron because the indivisibility is not a physics problem.

The question of indivisibility is a philosophical problem; it is not a problem that can be investigated or resolved by an application of legal physics equations. Here “philosophical” simply means “free of physics”.

Strassler is licensed to practice legal physics only on a very narrow field of academic physics; outside that narrow field Strassler is a layman like everybody else. He has no scientific authority outside his narrow specialty.

Furthermore, Strassler may call himself a “physicist” and define “physicist” as a synonym with “scientist” but he is really in the business of monetizing his absurdly long investment of time to learn the archaic methods of legal physics. The traditional method that Learned Doctors of all types have been using to monetize their academic learning is called the Professional Racket. What is Professional Racket? You know it very well, the method is used by all professional classes: Hide information wholesale, sell it retail:

Professional Racket == Hide information wholesale sell it retail

That’s why Learned Doctors are also called Professors of Secrets: they claim to “discover” knowledge they’ve hidden and sell it as absolute truth.

* * *

Did Strassler study philosophy during his long physics education? No. On the contrary, he was indoctrinated to despise philosophy and history. For Strassler, physics sits above all other academic fields and physicists have the academic authority to overrule historical facts.

Strassler’s education consisted of learning how to shuffle legal physics equations and learning how to reduce data by using antiquated statistical methods canonized in the legal physics code. In academic physics “reducing data” means using statistical sophistry on some white noise to suggest statistical exceptions that will be said to prove a theoretical physics scenario sponsored by a global power using academic physics as a cover for its military research.

* * *

Strassler is a fish in the legal sea of physics; the world outside the legal sea of physics does not exist for him. Unfortunately for us Strassler has the academic authority to enforce that the universe is limited to his sea of physics and that his sea of physics is the whole universe. This is yet another deception trademarked by Learned Doctors. These charlatans are masters of defining what they know as the only true knowledge. These charlatans don’t know the entirety of the universe, so they defined what they know as the entire universe.

* * *

These are Strassler’s true areas of expertise:

– Shuffling legal physics equations
– Reducing data by statistical methods
– Teaching elementary physics to new recruits
– Saving the doctrine by casuistry

None of which gives him expertise to discuss philosophical topics. As a physicist Strassler enjoys the absolute authority to define new words and redefine and corrupt existing words. It is a simple matter for him to define his casuistry to be “physics”. And so he does. Strassler claims to decide the question of the indivisibility of the electron by physical arguments while all he does is sophistry.

* * *

Strassler’s philosophical commentary on the divisibility of the electron is nothing more than propaganda in the service of the doctrine.

Therefore, not only Strassler is not qualified to write about a philosophical topic (which simply means a topic outside of legal physics) but he is incapable of analyzing properly a philosophical problem without corrupting it and turning it into casuistic, self-serving physics propaganda. This is proved by the article we referred to. We will expose Strassler’s polemical sophistry and casuistry by looking at his commentary sentence by sentence.

But how can Strassler get away with calling such blatant ideological physics propaganda a scientific argument? The answer is very clear. There is no independent authority in academic physics to check, inspect, audit, examine or supervise Strassler’s writings. He is a self-anointed Learned Doctor of Philosophy who claims to have absolute authority in everything he writes about, no matter what the subject is.

Strassler writes a philosophical commentary on a philosophical topic and presents it as physics. The deception is clear: Strassler claims that because he calls himself a physicist, and he defined the word “physicist” to be a synonym for the word “scientist”, everything he writes no matter what, must be considered scientific discourse.

But the contrary is actually true.

Nothing Strassler writes in the name of physics can pass the test of scientific logic, simply because Strassler is not bound by the scientific logic (i.e., Aristotelian logic) but he practices the legal logic of physics. Legal logic is the old art of casuistry based on the authoritative assertion that all contradictory meanings of a loaded word are true and false, case by case, as needed. The professional casuist decides which meaning is true in what context.

In legal logic there are no contradictions. For Strassler contradiction does not exist, that is why he can combine contradictory words such as “point particle” and use each of the contradictory terms casuistically and claim both meanings are true when he says so. That’s why he can call a wave a particle and write long casuistic polemics to justify why a wave is a particle… and why a wave is not a particle when Strassler says so.

* * *

The funny thing is that Strassler is a philosopher by profession. His professional title is Doctor of Philosophy. His professional ancestors are the Doctors of Philosophy who would not look through Galileo’s telescope. But Strassler is a “philosopher” in the worst sense of the word; he is a polemical sophist serving the brotherhood of physics.

Strassler is the personification of sophistry: He is a philosopher who denies that he is a philosopher but makes his living by philosophizing and calls his philosophizing physics!

* * *

Strassler’s writings are worth analyzing only because his writings are perfect specimens of casuistry and sophistry. Strassler’s posts read like material out of Aristotle’ On Sophistical Refutations. But there is nothing so special about Strassler’s writings, the same casuistry and sophistry is routinely used by all physicists. Here’s another good example. So what we say here applies to all academic physicists, not only to Strassler. He is more visible than the others and he’s been laying the groundwork to start a career as a Professor of Secrets to reveal the hidden secrets of the world supposedly by shuffling physics equations. This is the deception that needs to be exposed.

# # #

The Particle at the End of the Universe

This book by a professional Learned Doctor of Philosophy doing business as “physicist” is a shameless physics propaganda and a masterful specimen of scholastic sophistry pretending to be scientific discourse.

The entire book is a series of deceptions invented to perpetuate physics mythology.  To start with, the author himself admits that the title of his book is a deception because what he is talking about (Higgs particle) is not a particle and whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the end of the universe. The publisher chose the title to sell as many books as possible by sensationalizing the latest physics public relation campaign branded as “Higgs particle”.

The subtitle of the book tells us that the book is about How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World. What a lie! A better subtitle is: How the huge hierarchical bureaucracy of physics negotiates the official party line for a new amendment to the Standard Model.

Buy this book and learn how physics and professional Learned Doctors such as Sean Carroll are spreading misinformation and propaganda to embellish the existing physics mythology by programming your perception of nature with misinformation and propaganda.

General Relativity and GPS: A long standing physics fable

Note to the editors of Wall Street Journal who forgot to fact check a physicist’s lies:

Sean Carroll wrote referring to General Relativity:

Because of gravity, clocks tick a bit more slowly near the surface of the Earth than they do in outer space. (This esoteric fact is of crucial importance to the functioning of the Global Positioning System, which compares local time with that of orbiting satellites.)

Dear editors: Mr. Carroll knows no more about the “functioning of the Global Positioning System” then you and I. He has not seen any of the operational source code used in GPS and he is not privy to any government or private proprietary source code proving that the functioning of GPS is dependent on General Relativity.

Mr. Carroll is an academic physicist and he is posturing as if he knows it all but in fact he is just repeating a physics fable. Next time make sure you fact check any claims Mr. Carroll makes which does not fall within his narrow specialty which is teaching introductory physics.

The originator of the physics fable that without General Relativity GPS will fail is a physicist called Neil Ashby. He made this claim referring to his work for the government and his claims cannot be verified and never were because they were classified. There are credible engineers (not dogmatic physicists selling a physics theory) who worked on the development of the GPS who claim that General Relativity has nothing to do with GPS. You can find all this online or read the comments here.

Mr. Carroll has no credibility as a scientist because he is repeating fables and hearsay and he will never admit that he is spreading falsehoods by abusing his academic authority. I suggest that you add a disclaimer to this article saying that the opinions Mr. Carroll presents here are his own opinions as a writer and layman regarding anything that falls outside his narrow specialty.

I challenge Mr. Carroll to come clean and publish here the GPS source code that he has seen (not some theoretical propaganda from a general relativity textbook) that contains General Relativistic corrections which are not just the nth term in an expansion that was branded as a relativistic term by some physicist.

What is Higgs boson and why do we want to find it?

“What is Higgs boson, and why do we want to find it?”

If physicists were honest scientists they would have answered:

“We are priests of the cult of Newton doing business as physicists. God revealed to our prophet Newton that in the beginning he created a Newtonian world according to Newton’s Zeroth Law. This law is not usually revealed to outsiders but for the priviledge of joining you over the proposed free bottle of vintage Champagne here’s Newton’s Zeroth law God revealed to Newton as told by Newton:

God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles.

Our Standard Model is a great theory that explains all of our observations perfectly but it is wrong in one important respect, namely, it violates the sacred authority of our Prophet Newton by wrongly telling us that particles that we observe do not have mass.

God told our Prophet Newton that he created “massy” particles; Standard Model tells us that our particles are not massy. Physics is an experimental science therefore we must uphold God’s authority with an experiment so we built a 4 billion dollar machine to save Newton’s authority.

To make our complicated mathematical sophistry as simple as possible for you to understand here’s in layman’s term why we need Higgs: our great Standard Model errs big time by predicting that we are living in a matterless world where the unit of nature is not some absurdity we call absolutely indivisible matter with an infinitely hard surface but density. This is an unacceptable challenge to our Prophet Newton’s authority, after all physics is a hard science based on sound scientific and mathematical principles as expressed in Newton’s Zeroth law supported by God’s authority. Can there be a stronger scientific evidence than God’s authority claimed by a self-anointed false prophet?

To save our Prophet Newton’s sacred scientific authority against this uncalled for attack by our own Standard Model we built a 4 billion dollar machine as the greatest temple of the cult of Newton to coax the Higgs to give our beloved massless particles mass and put the world in order again.”

Physics defines our perception of nature

Do you agree with this statement?

Physics defines our perception of nature

Or more generally,

Physics defines our perception

If it is true that physics defines our perception, it follows that

1. our perception is learned, not innate
2. there is no one true perception
3. there is no true nature

therefore,

nature appears to us the way we define it or, nature is an illusion

Who teaches us how to perceive nature?

We learn to perceive nature as material; materialism is the doctrine of physics.

Who teaches us this doctrine of materialism? First our parents then our teachers when we are sent to school.

School teachers indoctrinate students with Newtonian materialism.

School teaches us that Isaac Newton discovered the true laws of the true nature and the true nature is  made of matter and obeys Newton’s laws. In short, school teaches us that

nature = matter

and matter is set into motion by an occult force discovered by Newton.

School teaches us the Newtonian doctrine of atomic materialism as the unquestionable true description of nature; we learn that nature is material and forceful and obeys Newton’s laws. Teachers do not tell us that this is just one of the infinite number of possible world views.

The occult doctrines of this British Doctor of Philosophy (a scholastic Learned Doctor) who died over 300 years ago still define our perception of nature not because it describes the true nature (which does not exist) but because Newton’s disciples who nowadays call themselves physicists perpetuate Newton’s doctrine of atomic materialism as the true nature.

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

R.I.P. Particle physics

Matt Strassler is a “particle” physicist and he writes:

what we call particles are not really particles but ripples…

and

in physics today, all of the things we call particles are actually little ripples in corresponding fields. They are like little waves…

[Note: December 9, 2012 -- It turns out that what Matt Strassler calls "ripples" are "probability waves", that is, mathematical fiction. Sorry for believing Matt Strassler's deception. See this post for more.]

Therefore, this is an indisputable physical fact confirmed by respectable “particle” physicists:

There are no particles in nature; there are only ripples.

For centuries physicists told us that a particle is a spherical ball with a finite radius and they kept finding these particles in physics experiments.

Now physicists are telling us that there are no particles but only ripples.

That’s fine.

In a science, if an established doctrine is contradicted by repeated observations, the practitioners would drop that concept and replace it with the new one. But physics is not a science; physics is a legal profession that uses casuistry as its fundamental tool of discovery.

Therefore, the legal canon of physics can never be wrong and can never be proven wrong by new discoveries. If  official legal physics says nature is made of elementary indivisible particles, this cannot be changed by contradicting experiments.

So what physics operatives to do? They do what all Learned Doctors do when faced with observations contradicting their doctrine. They corrupt the meaning of the word particle to keep particle in physics and in their professional title. Physicists corrupt the words contradicting their doctrines by loading it with new meanings so that they can interpret it case by case. This is called casuistry and it is the oldest method in the book of academic scholasticism.

Will particle physicists listen to the call of nature and change their professional title to Ripple Physicists? Not a chance. The stakes are high. Big governments fund physicists to discover new particles not new ripples. So this is the reason why physicists choose charlatanism and sophistry and casuistry to keep particle in physics while corrupting its meaning. Yet another proof that physicists are the modern representatives of the old scholastic profession.

Axes of nature

The focus of physics is motion.

But motion is a limited case of change. To limit nature to motion by ignoring change and then claim to explain nature in its entirety by motion, and specifically, as motion on the axes of a coordinate frame, is arrogant ignorance of nature.

Physics accepts motion but denies change.

Why?

Physics is based on the doctrine of atomic materialism and atomic materialism explains nature with infinitely dense units that move but do not change.

Physics at its very core embraces the supernatural over natural.

Physics can only describe nature by casuistry and sophistry.

Unification explained

To understand why physicists are so obsessed with “unification” we need to understand what physics is. To understand what physics is we need to ignore the marketing image that physics projects to the world and see through it and identify the real face of physics.

Physics is the study of physics.

A physic is a Physical Quantity. A Physical Quantity is a number with a unit. Therefore, physicists can define any word they want as a physical quantity. All it is required for a physicist to define a new physical quantity is to have enough rank and authority. That’s all.

What confuses outsiders is that physicists corrupted the way we perceive nature by defining “physical” to mean “natural”. So people think that a Physical Quantity must be a “natural” quantity. But there is no such requirement.

A Physical Quantity is a physic and a physic is any number with a unit.

A physicist with enough rank and authority can define any word as a Physical Quantity and publish it in an official organ of physics such as Physical Review Letters and delve into market-making activities to create a market for his new Physical Quantity so that with each repetition in official organs of physics this new Physical Quantity becomes a well-branded physical quantity that can be marketed in bestsellers as the latest wonder of “nature.”

The most common method to create new physical quantities is to load a new meaning to an existing physical quantity. For instance, a physicist will define “nothing” as “something” and then use some off-the-shelf quantum mechanical equations to write a book creating the universe from nothing. This is the oldest trick in the book of academic scholaticism.

This is not surprising when you realize that the professional title of a physicist is a Doctor of Philosophy.

A physicist is a scholastic doctor of philosophy.

Doctors of Philosophy have been in charge of defining new languages and new words in order to corrupt human language for thousands of years. These most vicious strain of Learned Doctors are the collaborators of the unhuman organisms such as flag states, logo corporations and pennant schools. These organisms treat human individual as their pets and slaves and they use physicists as their agents to control the human individual. Doctor means teacher and teaching is how the human individual is programmed.

Doctors of Philosophy get their paycheck and academic authority from schools. But they sell the acedemic content they produce to Big Publishers to earn fame because in the academia fame earns them much more academic authority points than publishing in official organs of physics.

Doctors of Philosophy always adapt to new conditions in society to project themselves as the defenders and producers of true knowledge. A physicist is a direct professional descendant of the Peripatetic Doctors of Philosophy. The only difference is that a physicist is a Newtonian Doctor of Philosophy who corrupts your mind in the name of the cult of Newton, not in the name of Aristotle. The name of the school changed, the profession stayed the same.

The Latin of physics is the legal language expressed in the form of corrupt mathematics; the unit of this scholastic language is the equation which is the most powerful tool of sophistry ever invented by Learned Doctors of any type.

Therefore physics is a self-consistent system of units that studies Physical Quantities that may or may not be natural; and physics is practiced by Doctors of Philosophy who vehemently reject that they are philosophers but write commentary on the oldest scholastic philosophical subjects such Gravity, Space, Time, Creation and Nothing.

Physicists defined these old scholastic philosophical subjects to be “physical” and they philosophize on them by using their tool of casuistry they call the equation.

Unification is big business because physics studies physics, not nature. Physicists work to conform physics to itself. This is the only way a physicist can move up the ranks of physics brotherhood.

So unification of physics is a very important process in physics but it has nothing to do with nature. We must learn to reject “physics is nature” pun that physicists invented to corrupt our perception of nature.