Skip to content

The New Low of the Mainstream Media

As if we had not seen enough new lows from the mainstream media this past few years with continuously pumping us full of fear with daily (now admitted to be) exaggerated death tolls of people with Covid not of Covid, and telling us to trust billionaires, actors, and sports starts as if they are medical experts, the events of the past few weeks, with daily news presenters in the US trying to stoke racial hatred and incite violence and a mistrial, even stalking the jury of the infamous Rittenhouse trial, we reached a final culmination in an inevitable attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Innocent people ran over by a black individual with a history of crime and much posting of hatred of white people on his social media, who has ran over and killed some and injured many in a community with an almost 90% white population. They are now scrambling to hide his social media and any accurate information about this individual, and they will probably try to frame a false narrative along the lines that this individual was merely trying to flee the scene of some crime, but anyone unfortunate enough to have seen the raw footage of this event will know differently, as he is seen purposely to swerve in order to run over as many people as possible.

This was an inevitable consequence sooner or later of the delusional and divisive narratives that have been pushed by the mainstream media on these kinds of issues. When you create a nightmare scenario and paint people into a position of hopelessness and despair as eternal victims against a system rigged to persecute them at every turn, and engage in massive levels of blatant lying in your media coverage to paint a person who shot and killed two white people when he was running away from them, lying on the ground and being kicked by them, and also having a gun pointed at him. When through all of this obviousness of a case of self defence, you gaslight people daily and from many angles from many “independent” news channels perpetually that something different to this happened, even harassing the jury of the case and getting banned from accessing the courtroom, as in the case of NBC/MSNBC,.. when you do all this and label this person as a white supremacist, shamelessly with no evidence or even suggestion that this is part of the case, you create a false reality and false expectations in people. That disconnect from reality leads to mental illness and ultimately to hideous actions such as that at Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Do not expect them to change, they are paid well to serve evil, mindless, divisive and demonic agendas, you need to change yourself and turn off to all of these mainstream media sources and stop feeding them in any way, and actively opposing their agendas and anyone mindlessly and passively absorbing their lies whenever you are unfortunate enough to be in a situation where their propaganda is blaring out in your surroundings. No one is going to help you or me out of this nightmare, we have to lever ourselves out of it.

Book Review: Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks, John Earman

Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic SpacetimesBangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes by John Earman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

For the earlier chapters it is worth this rating. Some good detail into the philosophical issues at the foundation of solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations in relation to the emergence of naked singularities and closed time curves that can raise issues for our notions of causality. It shows how there is no clearly accepted rationale for how to distinguish a “reasonable” solution to those equations from an “unreasonable” one, only some tentative efforts and principles and conjectures, such as claims of cosmic censorship to dispense of naked singularities, and Penrose’s weyl conjecture or the standard models proposed early inflationary expansion of the universe.

However, all have their own difficulties and are often motivated not by clear rationales and more by ad hoc attempts to only be left with the Einstein Field Equation solutions you wanted to be left with. However in later chapters, he tends to presume a resolution was reached in these early chapters that was never reached allowing him to have an extra confidence in general relativity than he can have in the correctness of quantum theory for instance. Earman seems keen to deflate the problem of singularities, but this was by no means achieved and instead of blaming philosophers of science for not having explored this topic enough, the fault may lay with general relativity itself as having problems, which seems to be the only option Earman is totally unable to countenance. If all we are going to do in philosophy and physics is try to defend one theory then we are dealing more with an epicycle style model of reality than the empirical reality itself, and I dont personally think that in a philosophical attempt even general relativity should be held as sacrosanct and above some, at least, tentative criticisms.

If his goal was to show that the problems in general relativity can be deflated he did not show this, but why would that be anyone’s goal anyway? Surely the goal is to better understand the physical reality of the universe, and ensure our theories don’t sway away from a solid grounding in physical reality. If our theories lead to paradoxes and science fiction style scenarios, it may not be these paradoxes and scenarios that are to blame, and need to be deflated, it is surely more likely to be a problem in the theory that gave rise to them.

View all my reviews

General Relativity – A Singular Misconception

It is often assumed that general relativity provides a deterministic view of reality, and this is often contrasted to the indeterminacy within Quantum Theory. But I think this is a largely misguided popular misconception.

A bit of historical appreciation for starters here is important. For Einstein himself was not keen on the singularities that emerged in some solutions to the Einstein Field Equations in his day, and aimed to extract them. As they were suggestive of an error, in his mind, because they created places within space-time where the laws of physics don’t hold and in fact break down. This would be undermining of his own hopes at a unified field theory. However, with the findings of Penrose and Hawking, we now know that singularities are common features of solutions to the field equations.

To my mind a conclusion to draw from this is that our theory is either wrong or limited in some areas, and that we have these areas of indeterminacy at or around singularities, like in quantum theory where we have indeterminacy at the Planck scale. Instead, the mainstream popular understanding of science seems to have drawn the conclusion from this of applying a new kind of god of the gaps approach, by taking these unexplained parts of the general theory to represent real things in our basic ontology, and these have been given the name black holes.

I think it is dangerous to just assign reality status to what is really an area of ignorance, it would be better and wiser to accept a limitation to our theory and our way of modelling reality. Particularly, when you add on to this the fact that certain solutions of the field equations can lead to paradoxical closed time loops, as shown by Godel and later by others. Normally, when we hit a paradox the response is to accept there is a limitation or error in our theory. Yet with general relativity it seems instead of admit this we have decided to postulate the reality of paradoxical things to plug up the singularity holes in our theory in order to keep the illusion that our theory is watertight.

Looking at this even from another angle, general relativity is claimed to be symmetrical theory, in which time is not the same as it was for Newton. But without Newtons notion of time it is hard to formulate a consistent and coherent notion even of causality itself!

So the more you look into this stuff the more you realise that general relativity is far from the clear cut deterministic structure it is made out to be. In reality, it is more like a patchwork of models and theories that we can for the most part get away with in pasting it onto a fair enough correspondence with reality. The affine connection means that it is only locally that we really know of space-time in any clear cut determinate way. Globally we have issues of deciding how to allow for black hole singularities, issues of cosmic censorship, issues of run away expansion of the universe and issues of if we even mean anything by time and causality anymore in a theory that has manifolds, affine connections and space-time events, rather than pieces of matter in space, changing over time.

The results within a given solution to Einstein’s field equations may well be fully determinate, but there are infinite solutions to these equations and some lead to paradoxical situations, so we should be clear here that perhaps the theory is limited, and stop trying to pretend the theory is complete by postulating more and more entities like gods of the gaps. It seemed to start with black holes, then it has continued with dark matter, dark energy, inflation, all things with very limited evidence supporting them which have only been postulated under the assumption that general relativity is 100% correct about reality, rather than making what to me seems the much more reasonable hypothesis that general relativity is not quite 100% correct (It is only a model of reality we created after all) and is breaking down in some of these singularities and paradoxical solutions we come across.

Time will tell, but I am reading some interesting books right now on this very subject, and intend to get to the bottom of this whole issue, because we need always to distinguish our models of reality from the reality itself, this is the ever present danger we all face, but must avoid for the sake of realism and philosophical rectitude.

Reference Materials:

Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Michael Friedman

Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks, John Earman

Stopping the Rot at the Core of Our Society

The rot has been set into place in our society through bitterness and resentment. A sense pervades our being through education and work that we are being cheated of our value and joy in life. The education system works to disempower us by informing us we live in a universe of mostly empty space in which everything is accelerating away from us at high speeds. And that we live on a planet that is being made dirty and swiftly uninhabitable by our very presence. Add to this, they educate us, that we only emerged through a random series of accidents and arbitrary collisions and explosions, and so we cannot take any credit for existing either. We are just replaceable numbers with no distinctive marks of being. Nothing to take pride, joy or find meaning in. We are then asked disingenuously to marvel still at this universe when the rug has been pulled from under our feet and as we are falling to the ground confused and lost.

No, this system will not do and must be brought to an end. I imagine many lost nihilists, materialists and social justice types in the teenage and early 20 years come from out of this educational malaise I have just described with no meaningful orientation offered to them in the real world, thanks to a false scientific education system being inculcated into them, not out of an interest in humility and truth, but out of an arrogant desire for predictability and control. And as a result they become pushed to desperate lashing out measures to try and show their life can have some meaning. They cannot find it in reality, so they find it by joining fringe groups where they are insulated from reality.

At the next stage you have the working world, where, despite the ugly wealth of the rich elite people accelerating away from the rest of us, and despite the fact that men and women now are in the workplace, and despite all the instituting of technologies to make production more efficient, we are still expected to slave away at the same kind of hours of work, for less gain and less prospects. Smaller chance of affording a home, kids or a family. And in work where we have little chance to leave without being left in no mans land, because the number of independent means of employment open to us shrinks all the time. On top of all this we were all told to get off to university, and given free support to go there with no practical appreciation of longer term career and job prospects.

At the end of it all we are left in the lurch, and the bitterness and resentment builds up and infects through all our micro relationships, ultimately the whole of our society, and we are left with something like what we see today.

For the first time I see the beginnings of a practical way out of this quagmire. We must let go of our petty polarised grievances, inculcated in us, by a small elite via their whipping boy media outlets. Let go of our bitterness, and get together to work at insisting upon a 4 hour working day. This latter was a hopeful project at one time of Bertrand Russell, along with some other things we are now seeing instituted such as increased UN world government control, and a desire to control birth rates and the human population. If we are to contribute constructively once more in our society, we must feel it is also giving some freedom back to us and not merely encroaching and taking from us all the time. Naturally, people who want to work longer hours, to earn more and potentially to earn enough for projects like affording a home and raising a family, then they can still be free to do this, but if only 4 hours working day is mandatory this will allow other people to pursue a productive working life alongside creative pursuits in their free time without forever feeling harangued by a system trying to push them to pursue materialistic idols of wealth and more, more, more, that they simply have no interest in. What they want is a life without bitterness, a life without a feeling they are being always controlled by others rather than empowered, to flourish in a self circumscribed domain.

These are some of my thoughts, and I think they represent a reasonable negotiation between free citizens and their communities and institutions, if we want to stop the rot that is threatening to decay the core of our societies and our being by stretching us beyond breaking point in ludicrous caricatured polarised positions that are worthy only of internet trolls, not of serious reasonable human beings.

Book Review: Ray Fleming, The 100 Greatest Lies in Physics

The 100 Greatest Lies in PhysicsThe 100 Greatest Lies in Physics by Ray Fleming
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If one ignores the dogmatic confidence at times of this author, still this book raises a fascinating question for me, what if the whole basis of modern physics is founded on lies? There are genuine areas where the physics is far from being as clearly decided as it has been made to seem in the popular science books and the mainstream accounts. Paradoxes of singularities, proliferations of fictional extra dimensions and extra particles, science fiction accounts of a multiverse, wormholes and virtual particles such as Tachyons.

Many of these things have emerged out of what could turn out to be one big mistake in the early 20th century, which was to take general relativity as describing curved empty space. From this all the madness has followed of big bangs, inflationary universes, and inconsistencies between quantum theory and relativistic physics. Perhaps, then, we should stop and think what if there is an alternate way to envisage these phenomena. A more popular approach among even some top physicists is to attempt a purely relational understanding of space and time. A project not achieved by Einstein’s efforts, but in fact ultimately abandoned in his scheme, despite common claims to the contrary. We can see these attempts in some of the works of Lee Smolin and Julian Barbour, for example. Another approach is to move towards a process view of reality or to a view of seeing things as all interconnected, which is more popular in the alternative areas of thought, as in Ervin Laszlo’s work and also in some mainstream physicists such as Carlo Rovelli.

In contrast to both of these directions, this book suggests that if space as being empty leads to paradox we simply must rejuvenate the idea of the Aether, of a plenum, filling physical reality. It is an ambitious suggestion, but this book does a good job making a strong case for this perspective, and it fits well with and shows understanding of some of the living areas of controversy in physics that have also been spotlighted by others, such as Roger Penrose and Paul Dirac in the past. This books offers a fresh perspective on physics, albeit a complicated one at times, that can reward the effort to understand it, alongside offering a damning condemnation of some of the institutionalised dogmas of mainstream physics that are hurting its reputation as a subject interested in deeper truth more than keeping up appearances.

View all my reviews

Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien ContactDimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact by Jacques F. Vallée
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A worthwhile read full of interesting contact stories and well considered intelligent explanations for them. The craft may not merely be the presumed “nuts and bolts” technology of an alien civilisation from a distant planet. In fact they may not be this at all. They may be a merely mythical guide to our future spiritual evolution, a sign of yearning for a lost contact with a more deeper purposeful sense of reality, or they may be interdimensional informational contacts that transcend our typical physical block world of space and time in ways we find hard to express being stuck within the conceptual prison of a blinkered, narrowed down, and purely localised environment of space and time.

The metaphor I find most resonant in this work is this idea of the contact and alien phenomenon as like a thermostatic valve controlling and balancing the spiritual and consciousness level of humanity, between fear and trust, love and hate, ensuring that we continue on a healthy path, connected to, and respecting, a surrounding reality always slightly beyond our full rational grip, instead of being disconnected from it in some of the ways modern science has unfortunately prescribed for us.

View all my reviews

Philosophical Frauds, Partisan Fools and Confidence Tricksters

Some of the reasons philosophy has fallen into disrepute as a creditable intellectual exercise are encapsulated in the above phrases as I will now explain.

A genuine thinker, as we are aware of from the times of Socrates, is someone who is prepared to question any of his premises and accept that perhaps at the end of the day he does not know anything for sure. In contrast the academic philosopher of the 20th century, and perhaps, but hopefully not so much anymore, in the 21st century, sees it as his purpose to dogmatically commit to some set of premises and spend the rest of his career as a partisan member of the premises this philosophical school of thought believes in, engaging in various convoluted logical attempts to defraud its listeners and audience with the certainty of its premises with a combination of tricks of distraction away from the weaknesses in their basic premises alongside exhibiting a misplaced confidence in these same premises.

The insight came to me today while reading a scientists account of quantum theory alongside a philosophers account. The scientist, David Bohm, illustrating tentativeness in his ontological commitments and full awareness of the limitations of some of his premises when taken to the extreme. While, the philosopher, who will go unnamed, partly to not make this a personal attack, but also as it could apply to most academic philosophers in the way they argue most subjects these days unfortunately, illustrates a desire to commit to an ontological position with no awareness of the limitations of some of his premises and sees his whole purpose to be to use all the logical and rhetorical means at his disposal to convince us to believe in the same groundless premises that he does.

True philosophising here has been illustrated by the scientist, and it is a shame that many philosophers devalue what should be the core of their practice, namely genuine critical thinking, in favour of playing favourites with partisan schools of thought and getting caught up in thoughtless petty arguments and never-ending technical debates and trench warfare with other partisan schools of thought to try and win a futile ego battle, while refusing to take a moment to genuinely self reflect on the weaknesses and limitations of their own premises.

So the next time a philosopher tells you he has a watertight philosophical argument or seems convinced of some ontological premises and proceeds to try and bamboozle you with a stream of logical and rhetorical devices, know that he is most likely abusing his trade to do something that couldn’t be much further from the kind of well considered and honest critical thinking that Socrates once laid out all that time ago for the philosophical discipline.

Book Review: Science and the Akashic Field, Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of EverythingScience and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything by Ervin Laszlo
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

There is a lot good about the way this book is organised and presented. And the quality of the information provided is up to date with recent developments in science at the time of writing. Accurate analogies are formed between current science and a more field based approach to reality, and some of the arguments particularly in the area of biology are very nuanced and hard to criticise.

In the area of quantum physics an interesting perspective is presented but too often it feels to me like he is sharing others ideas without a proper acknowledgement of this fact. This whole idea of an informational perspective in quantum theory is actually to a large extent in line with the accepted model, the problem, now as always, has been how this can be made consistent with general relativity. I don’t feel the depth of some of these more technical problems is truly appreciated, certainly not to the same level as physicists and thinkers such as Roger Penrose, Julian Barbour and Lee Smolin.

To talk of consciousness and panpsychism as features inherent in reality is a kind of way to sidestep the measurement problem in quantum theory rather than solving it to my mind. Or certainly, if this view is going to be taken up, one is going to have to reject many other features of the mainstream physics model of curved space, black holes and general relativity. Unless one wants this informational field to be a purely ghostly mental entity akin to Descartes dualist cogito with no influence on physical reality.

The issue is that if there is a pervading field, of any kind with any physical effect, this will be a form of ether, and to defend this requires many modifications of the Einsteinian paradigm which is premised on the absence of ether and the reality instead of curved empty space and time. These questions are not addressed, and the philosophical perspective on consciousness I dont really feel gets very deep into the problems involved in that area.

However, as I said, the ideas in relation to biology I found to be the most up to date, relevant and fascinating for this kind of perspective, compared to the standard and outdated Darwinian dogma. Lets hope more and more can bring these ideas into common acceptance so we can move past some of the delusions that evolution by purely random genetic mutations of isolated selfish beings can account for any of the intricate evolutionary symbiosis we actually see between species. Quantum theory applied to biology and epigenetics take us way beyond this perspective already, and it would be good to see this frontier science more reflected in everyday peoples attitudes towards and understanding of science, rather than the usual ideological cold view of scientific reality that is expounded thoughtlessly by many.

View all my reviews

Dirac’s Sea of Particles

In Chapter 24 of the Road to Reality Roger Penrose gives a concise explanation of the emergence of quantum field theory.

The story revolves around Paul Dirac. In order to account relativistically for quantum particles there is a requirement for the existence of various anti-particles and virtual particles. The electron must have a positron, for example, and all the forces must be transmitted by particles also, electromagnetism by photons, Nuclear force by gluons, etc.

The reason for this requirement I think is, on the basic level, two fold:

Firstly, time must be treated on the same footing as the spatial dimensions in order to combine the quantum theory with relativity. And this requires a reimagining of certain fundamental quantities such as energy and mass.

Secondly, reality is to be constrained by conservation principles and treated as a closed system where energy cannot emerge from nothing or disappear into nothing. As a result, each particle is balanced out by proposed anti-particles.

The final picture that emerges is the Dirac sea, where it is argued the reason electrons do not spontaneously get emitted from an atom below their basic positive level is because of a dirac sea of positrons occupying all the space on the mirror side of the physical universe of forces. This dirac sea is used to explain the stability of electrons in their orbits of atoms at the lowest energy levels.

Now, I need to clarify and look into this much more granted, but it raises an interesting question based on other stuff that I have read:

Could this dirac sea be equivalent to the zero point field, or ether, of energy proposed by some competing theories that don’t rely on the requirement of energy conservation for the universe as a whole, due to treating it as an open system not a closed system? If so, perhaps this could be an avenue to save us from some quite arbitrary introduction of countless new particles, that seem to keep being required to balance out the energy of the other particles. Not to mention the requirements for dark energy and dark matter.

Could all this arbitrary scaffolding be removed simply by acknowledging we live in an open universe on the fundamental level, in which processes are fundamental, not particles, and in which there is no need to restrict ourselves to a perspective or frame of reference of closing some box around the universe in order to isolate particulate entities. Is this a case of something I have been arguing in various ways for a long time, that we have been confusing our model/replica/limited copy of reality with the reality itself?

Time, and more study, will tell.

Road to Reality – Point-like Atoms vs Quantum “Stuff”

What is a quantum entity, and how do we reconcile it with the framework of space and time which is designed for atomic, point-like entities?

This could turn out to be the unsolvable conundrum of a certain paradigm in physics, from which we will only be able to extricate ourselves by questioning aspects of this paradigm.

I read back on the work of Bertrand Russell in the early 20th century before the quantum revolution and see how sure people were of some sort of atomic picture of the small scale things. Then I look at what has happened since, and see how it has blown apart these hopes of surety.

I now find myself reading through the sections on the quantum particle and quantum theory algebra in Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality and see a great attempt to face this conundrum head on, where most scientists seem to prefer to hide in the quantum formalism and ignore some of its metaphysical implications, while most non-scientists prefer to rush to simplistic airy fairy metaphysical conclusions.

If this situation is to be addressed as a real problem in a real world, we have to be clear about what we are presuming reality to be and not take anything for granted. Penrose attempts this refusal to jump to conclusions in this work of his and it is a much appreciated effort.