The Myth of Science

The Myth of Science

Science is mostly indirection, denotation, symbol, the “Intentionality of Use”, it is abstraction, it is like astronomy - observation, measurement, construction of some mental model with some possible predictions and the loop continues (notice how most modern science deals with things that are ever more far away, remote, both in size and distance and energy levels, we observe items that are “billions of kilometers away”, we observe events at very high “particle accelerator” energy levels, etc.). The mental model is a mathematical - logical - and/or somehow language expressed model, something that our mind can contain, that gives us the illusion of control, the illusion that we can contain within our mind and the model and relationships occupying our mind large complex ensembles of chunks of Matter interacting and playing out and configuring itself according to random internal contrasting forces.

Hence the myth of the “Unification of the Forces of Physics” in a few short tidy “equations” (except that, when you have to really use them for real calculations of real ensembles of chunks of Matter, like protein folding, you must execute trillions of calculations on computers hoping that the results can be mapped to reality since the differential equations expressing the forces rarely have “exact solutions”, then in what sense are the forces “unified” ?) so that they can be contained in our mind and give us a feeling of being on top of them.

But even more interestingly, science is kind of like trying to compress information in less space, how to find the master patterns that can summarize a lot of apparently different events, how to say more with less words. Only that something is always lost in the compression, there are always some details that just get canceled or simply ignored never telling us the whole story. But science is mostly a short story, only so much can be said in the end: try to predict the exact shape of the next wave on the shore.

But an even greater limitation of our science is that it always finds a one to one correspondence of reality to some mental narrative, to some language, to a sequence of symbols whether they are expressing a concept in language or expressing quantative relationships between various measurements (that is chopping up reality into distinct pieces and measuring these pieces and then relating them to other pieces through possible additions, subtractions, multiplications, even though the equations and symbols make you think that something more is going on, all the equations are just how measurements are associated to other measurements according to a more or less long combination of additions and subtractions and multiplications as in the “numerical models” of physical systems on supercomputers) no matter what. If we perceive it, we invent it, we create it, we automatically find the relation because the relation is the perception from the outset, it is already given and assigned by how we are designed.

But this finding the correspondence is mostly forcing a correspondence, is inventing a correspondence even when there is none (may be the case of quantum mechanics with all of its vagueness), as if we format and/or translate reality according to our mind - brain, according to how our sense organs and mind have delimited reality in distinct chunks of events, extensions, sensations, all carved out according to arbitrary pain/pleasure circuits and arbitrarily imposed “target programs” in our mind - brain - body like “avoid pain” and “last as long as possible”, etc. by the way that huge random fluke of Natural Evolution “Designed” us.

So we already know from the outset, from the get go, that any future science, formulas, discoveries will always be simply relationships that our mind can “relate to”, will just be a new combination of symbols that more closely map and translate and format reality according to our mind - brain, and much more subtly according to our culture, our “Intentionality of Use” of the results (build new models ? simulate them on computers ? build new contraptions ? build new devices (ipads?) to sell - which means new behaviors as in Man is the Infinitely Programmable Machine ?), our interaction and relation with Matter outside of us, etc.

But change the design of the mind, the sense organs, the interactions these have with “outside Matter - Reality” (?), and we get a completely new and different science for a completely new and different world.

One question would be, is there a one to one correspondence between the narrative (in symbols, equations, concepts) of the “old world” formatted by the old clunker brain and the new world formatted by a new Man Brain ? Maybe, maybe not, but this is not observable, you would need some third brain containing both brains to “objectively measure” and say this, but how can any objectivity exist if it always depends on the random design of the observer ? So no matter how many different brain designs a containing brain has, it will never be objective, but completely subjective, a completely subjective - fluke - random contraption that thinks that it is interacting with some kind of “objective external reality”, when in all truth it is simply interacting with itself, its own decodings and encodings of reality, its own narrative and mental models and symbols of reality, but nothing else.

Therefore the universe just subjectively thinks itself into existence and then disappears, it is a virtual particle that exists and doesn’t exist at the same time, a pure contradiction, there is no one to one correspondence between reality and our mental models, only sense organ inputs encoded and then formatted and translated - decoded into a narrative of the world our mind is always telling itself: we are simply Matter talking to itself and making it all up.

An interesting thing that brought me to think this up is what happens when a star collapses and becomes a “neutron star”. We can’t really touch one or manipulate one or interact with one given how far away it is and how remote it is compared to us (as in Man is the Measure of All ?) : but we create mental models of what we think happens simply extrapolating what we know at the energy levels we already know. But there may be new laws of physics, new phase transitions, new rules of the game just like when quantum mechanics had to be invented to deal with atoms that we are unaware of. Or there may even be no longer any rules of the game at all (after all, isn’t predicting “black holes” a way of declaring that rules and laws of physics don’t operate anymore ?), but given that most of the Matter of the universe is either in “neutron stars”, “black holes”, “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” it appears that our planet and Man with all of his “Nature” is an extremely rare configuration of Matter, is really a total fluke - random invention, therefore totally fake, more fake than any virtual reality (or just as fake) we invent and make up.

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/09/seeing-stars.html

What if there are no relationships to discover when a star collapses into a neutron star ? What if the relationships exist but are non mathematical (whatever that could mean or maybe it could mean nothing ?) ? What if they are a mix of mathematical, language, concept based and something else ? What if the relationships are expressed in terms that our thought system - logic - mathematics and language cannot encode in any way (therefore change the design of Man Brains, put new wild symbols, signals, chemicals and circuits in the Man brain) ? Or what if they are mathematical but have trillions of terms (who thinks that Nature, as independent from us (the assumption of an “external, objective universe” implies total independence from us) should always choose something small and comfortable and tidy like a few equations, just to please our mind ?) ? Or what if the relationships can be expressed in symbols that have metaphysical meanings and very vague and abstract relationships and meanings ? There is no end to what can be invented as “science”. What if the relationships have more symbols than particles in the universe and are denotations of denotations, an infinite amount of indirections, and what if they contain infinities but the infinities are correct “but our mind is wrong”, what if we can invent very complex concepts - abstractions - contraptions metaphysical - artistic and not, logical and not and assign that as the “science” and as the “truth” ? What if the goal is to find as many wrong relationships as possible, do the exact opposite of unifying theories, explode them, find as many unrelated items as possible, make believe it is all unrelated, force them to be unrelated, lie, deceive, make it all up, win, you win, force the fact that you win, win anyways, win no matter what, you win.

What if the logic is not based on numbers but some intermediate entity between a number and a word, if 1 is a number and 666 is a word what is 345 ? or if they are mathematical but imply new mathematical - logic operations that we can’t imagine that are not addition or subtraction or anything else we know and use (Integrals, Series, you name it) but an infinite array of new symbols doing things that are outside of our mind structure and so on, invent new entities, abstractions, especially things that don’t exist, nay, can’t exist, invent impossible things, the more impossible the better, the more insane the better, go for it man, you can do it, go for it.

AN APE MAN

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/09/seeing-stars.html

Modified new Man brains is just a subset of a more general situation: that of a configuration of a chunk of Matter (M1) interacting, relating and exchanging events with another chunk of Matter (M2) and these chunks perceiving the events in terms of an Experience, in terms of some form of consciousness. So a chunk of matter acting as an Observer (M1) senses and obtains inputs and furnishes outputs to another chunk of Matter (M2) acting as the “Objective External Reality Observed” as the External System and the encoding and decoding and formatting of the Information received and furnished to the imaginary and simply arbitrarily delimited External System is implemented by a third chunk of Matter (M3) acting as the Brain, the Mind, the Processor or something like that (precision is useless when talking about such abstractions…).

As in Brain ↔ Decoder ↔ Reality

M1 ↔ M3 ↔ M2

But these can be exchanged, the external reality becomes the brain (M1 becomes M2, M2 becomes M1) or the external reality becomes the decoder M3, so M2 becomes M3 (decodes the former brain hence becoming the new modified brain or the brain becomes the perceiving chunk of matter) or any other combination and so on.

M2 ↔ M3 ↔ M1

M3 ↔ M2 ↔ M1

and so on.

But since the delimitations and definitions and assignments of what perceives what is arbitrary, can be any possible combination of Matter then anything goes, anything can perceive anything (the world as perceived by a shirt using a car as a processor - as a “neural circuit”) and since most Matter is in Stars and is in planet cores as metallic hydrogen, then why not create pure Photon brains perceiving Metallic Hydrogen in Jupiter’s core and using the earth’s ocean as the decoder and so on. So all possible combinations can be constructed, all possible observers and systems defined, and all other pieces of Matter can be the brains or “modified minds” and such.

But this shows us the real size of the universe, it is a combinational size, all possible delimitations of Matter as associated to other delimitations and you can mix and change the observer and system, and even an event can be the observer, or a million years of events (a lifetime ?) as compared to all else, so the combinations are never ending, the perceptions and experiences never ending, but all a pure fluke, just a pebble, a 100 % completely subjective chunk of Matter talking to another chunk (since it is a totally arbitrary configuration of Matter as assigned as the Mind, Decoder and External System, even “external and internal, self and not self” is arbitrarily defined, they are all variables, etc.). They can mix and merge and explode in millions of other entities as extrapolated if 1 is mind and 400 is external system, what is 233 and so on, millions of concepts, entities, definitions, minds, perceptions, millions of new universes with new laws of physics defined by Matter interacting and talking to itself…

THE APE

From:

kunstler.com/blog/2011/12/the-co … mbles.html

An interesting relationship that exists is the Mass to Information Relationship, similar to the conversion of Mass into Energy, How much Mass can be “converted” into Information ? But mostly Information Relationships, hence point like Interaction in space and time, point like single Instantaneous Information Relationships that essentially define all experience, all reality, the universe, as the Observer is the Universe, and the instantaneous Information Interaction, Information Relationship, the exchange of Signals in a point like moment in time and space of Matter with itself creates the entire experience of existence and reality even though it “seems” to flow in time, and it “seems” to have extension in space, even though it “seems” to be external and confirmed with bits of memory that produce a guideline and interpretation of the experience. Every moment and Information Relationship is in essence a new big bang, a new universe with new laws of physics, disconnected form anything else, just existing for a fleeting moment in space and time, but hence not existing at all, since a point like moment in a point like space has zero extension, hence does not exist at all.

Anyways we can imagine a formula that transforms Mass into Information, I = Y * M, so all Mass is transformed into Information Relationships, experiences, so then, just as the Internet itself suggests, all extension that is not useful, “functional” to the Interaction is done away with, you no longer need large chunks of Matter that don’t “do anything anymore”, like cars and highways, and motors and skyscrapers, you just need information, and information reactions and interactions, you need less and less Matter to create lives, you do away with all of those things that are “useless”, the extension in space and time of everything you see that is not contributing to the Information Relationship: all the rocks, the mountains, hey even little pebbles, but as a limit of the Mass to Information transformation, almost everything is no longer “functional” and can be converted…

Anyways, any conversion factor can be used, but then anything can be invented for Y, it doesn’t have to be “not absurd”, who cares, invent anything…just like any formulas can be invented and assigned true and even formulas with words, the more “non sense” it makes the truer and more real it is like the “square root of word is time multiplied mountain”, etc, just go on and invent it, do it man, do it…

Like I once heard say, God is Dead, Marx is Dead, Freud is Dead and I am not feeling too well myself, so can be said with all possible interpretations and decodifications of the Present Economic Crisis: Capitalism is Dead, Free Market is Dead, Socialism is Dead, Communism is Dead and I am not feeling too well myself…

I think you might like this book http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Physical-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/069102524X

It basically covers your main ideas, or the ideas of who started the blog. And I, personally, don’t think that the correspondence theory of truth is viable, to a great extent. Certainly viable in our everyday world, like my walking out into the street and all that stuff.

You’re link shares no relation to anything that you’ve posted. Find a new link. Here’s the first paragraph:

I see no relation to what you’ve posted, at all!

“You’re link shares no relation to anything that you’ve posted.”

There is no relation to anything I post with anything else I post, even the same sentence is all disjoint, what I wanted to say never is what I wanted to say, because I don’t know what I want to say, what I say has no relation to anything, it is a huge disjoint, incomprehensible chaotic mess and that is how I like it.

Now unless you are like Jesus, the King of the Jews tht just wants to fight, add something constructive to the debates…

How can someone add something constructive to the debates when there’s no debate? And I don’t see how anyone can debate with you when you admit that your posts, and especially each of your sentences, are disjointed. Third, I want to read the article from which you kept posting, but the article shares nothing with what you’ve said.