# Line explains the dots

In sections V and VI of the Discours de métaphysique, Leibniz discusses the crucial question of how we can distinguish a world which can be explained by science from one that cannot. How do we tell whether something we observe in the world around us is subject to some scientific law or just patternless and random? Imagine, Leibniz says, that someone has splattered a piece of paper with ink spots, determining in this manner a finite set of points on the page. Leibniz observes that, even though the points were splattered randomly, there will always be a mathematical curve that passes through this finite set of points. Indeed, many good ways to do this are now known. For example, what is called “Lagrangian interpolation” will do.

Observation is always a dot. We fit a line to it and we call line a theory that explains the observations.

# How to philosophize with a physics equation

Given two physical quantities a and and a constant c with proper units, every physics equation apparently looks like this:

$a = bc$

But, if you write the hidden terms explicitly every physics equation in truth looks like this:

$a =\equiv \propto bc$

Consider the most famous equation in physics

$E = mc^2$

The above equation appears to state an equality because it uses the equality sign to relate the terms of an expression. But in physics no symbol can have just one meaning and the equality sign is no exception.

So the above equation can be read as an equality but it is not an equality, it is a sophisticated tool of casuistry called a “physics equation” which is a unique tool physicists invented to philosophize without appearing to philosophize. So

$E = mc^2$

in fact contains the hidden symbols of equivalence, identity, proportionality and definition, among others:

$E =\equiv \propto mc^2$

It is very easy to prove this. A physicist would usually read this equation as “E equals m c squared”. If you ask “why is there a speed of light term in this equation?” The same physicist will say, “c is there just to make the units work, this equation really states the equivalence of energy and mass”.

There you go, physicist writes his physics equation with an equality symbol and reads it with the hidden equivalence symbol. Physicists have scholastic magic vision that lets them see hidden symbols that you and I cannot see.

If you ask more questions the same physicist will also say that “E is proportional to m and c is the proportionality constant”.

If you call more physicists into this discussion one of them will eventually read this same equation as a definition of energy in terms of mass or the other way around.

Same is true for the other famous double definition in physics:

$F =\equiv \propto ma$

In general, a physicist can read any given equation case by case as an equality, a proportionality, an identity, an equivalence or any combinations of these to assert his authority.

In physics the meaning of an equation can only be parsed by knowing who said it.

Every physics equation can only be parsed by applying to it the necessary scholastic authority of a physicist. Physics is casuistry. Physicists are master casuists who ply their casuistry by using their corrupt version of the equality sign.

How can this be? Is this how science works?

Physics is defined by physicists as science, therefore, this must be how science works:

science is the authoritative interpretation of polemical symbols that look like mathematical symbols to prove physics doctrines by using the authority of mathematics as false witness.

If physicists make their career by legislating nature with their supernatural and absurd equations supported with casuistry, lawyers make their career by using the same scientific method used by physicists to interpret case by case the law of the land. If one lawyer argues the letter of the law the other will argue the spirit of the law and they will fight over how to define each symbol to best benefit their case; at the end the judge will accept as true the definition of the lawyer who has the most authority hired by the party with most money.

Physics is a mathematical science so physicists argue the meanings of mathematical symbols they did not write on the equation. Professionals discussing hidden meanings of hidden symbols. . . mmm. . . this sounds familiar. . . yes, this was how scholastic philosophers have been practicing their trade for thousands of years.

Now it all makes sense. These professional doctors who do business as physicists are really scholastic doctors of philosophy doctoring mathematics and philosophy and physics and diligently corrupting human knowledge to further their career.

Anyone who reads the equality sign in the same expression with seven different ways and claims all of them are true is a charlatan.

So, next time a physicist starts talking about how mathematically precise his physics is, let’s tell him what he is doing is not mathematics but charlatanism practiced with his casuistic equation.

The most famous equation of physics

$E =\equiv \propto mc^2$

is not a mathematical expression, it is a physics equation. Physics equation is the crooked timber of physics;  or was it the loaded balance of physics? In either case, the physics equation is the scholastic vehicle physicists use to practice their art of casuistry. Physics equation  exposes physicists as what they really are — scholastic doctors of philosophy actively corrupting human knowledge by abusing their academic authority.

# It’ll never work

It’ll never work!

Mathematics is inadequate to describe the universe, since mathematics is an abstraction from natural phenomena. Also, mathematics may predict things which don’t exist, or are impossible in nature. – Ludovico delle Colombe [Criticizing Galileo (paraphrased).]

Ludovico delle Colombe got it right. Mathematics is as good as any other abstraction invented to define nature.

# What is left if you take math out of physics?

Newton was privy to the knowledge that his brethren the professional doctors of philosophy and theology made their careers by taking simple knowledge and corrupting it into incomprehensibility. Newton wrote that the primitive religion was

easily understood by the meanest people, and was handed down simplicity until men skilled in the learning of heathens Cabbalists and Schoolmen corrupted it with metaphysics, straining the scriptures from a moral to a metaphysical sense and thereby making it unintelligible.

Newton’s disciples the physicists the current representatives of the most learned doctors have been practicing the same corruption under the guise of physics.

Right after Newton’s quote the author added:

p.s. One thing that is of interest. One of the things that kept the Western Scholars from deciphering the Egyptian language is the belief that the figures were symbols with mystical definitions. However, as time progressed by the late 19th century this was seen to be false by German Scholars who completely decoded the temple script.

I don’t know why this is mentioned after Newton’s condemnation of professional doctors as the anti-science but in a way it makes sense.

The legal hieroglyphyics produced by academic physicists had been marketed as “symbols with physical referents,” however, as time progressed by the late 21st century this was seen to be false by historians who realized that “physical” simply meant as a pun and they were able to decipher completely the academic physics hieroglyphics by removing puns and physics promptly disappeared leaving behind nothing but the mathematical framework.

Physics turned out to be puns and labels added to mathematical framework by doctors of physics!

Historians were amazed that so much academic physics careers have been made in the 20th and early 21st century by “men skilled in the learning of Cabbalists and Schoolmen,” that is, by the Newtonian doctors of philosophy calling themselves physicists just by keeping busy writing commentary on each other’s puns.

The more scholasticism changes the more it stays the same.

# Would you like your physical eschatology hot or cold?

dop is the new dot

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket in the 21st century

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

mark does not know the totality

5. Poetical eschatology

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

7. Eschatology is shamanism

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality

9. Science does not apply to eschatology

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism

cargo cult physics

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy predictions

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?

new and improved big bang

military-state-media complex

1. Eschatology belongs to theology ^

Doctors of Theology owned eschatology for millennia. They cleverly justified their sacred text by prophesizing the end of the world and by defining the beginning of the world.

Eventually, though, their professional racket has become transparent to their constituency who realized that Doctors of Theology were making up stories about the unknowable future and unknowable past and then proving their sacred text with their stories presented as true prophesies and then proving their prophesies with their sacred text.

These professional scoundrels have developed a proprietary complex language to hide their circular and vaporous reasoning. They kept their constituency ignorant and postured as absolute authority on the unknowable and made a nice living full of leisure at the expense of their constituency.

As civilians, we’ve known this professional racket at least since the time of Galileo.

Then how come, Mark of Cosmic Variance is shamelessly pushing the same professional racket as if it were science?

dop is the new dot

All the elements of the theological racket is with us again but this time around practiced by Doctors of Philosophy.

There are only two differences:

Instead of being a Doctor of Theology Mark is a Doctor of Philosophy. But that makes no difference. All professional doctors are in the same crooked business.

The other difference is that Mark does not use a sacred book with a supposed supernatural author as his authority. The reason is that in our era cosmology and eschatology are controlled by global states and the military. The Church has been out of the academic mythmaking business for a long time now. Newton made sure of that.

2. Pushing the old scholastic racket^

How can a professional doctor find enough authority in himself to push the old scholastic racket as science in the 21st century? Have citizens of the world fallen into the same kind of ignorant apathy as the previous victims of professional doctors, namely, peasants of the European Middle Ages and believe doctors’ every word without question?

No, but Doctors make sure that they get intelligent quadratically while civilians get intelligent linearly. They pocket the difference as authority. Not surprising, because they are the ones who control how much we can know. They control the distribution channels and make sure that knowledge flows only one way. This allows them to monetize the knowledge they’ve been hiding from humanity.

3. Physical eschatology^

Since the Middle Ages important changes have occurred in eschatology. Today academic tradition requires that a theory must be associated with an observational database. Doctor Mark of Cosmic Variance has a powerful ally in NASA who supplies the observational database for his eschatological speculations. Today we have physical eschatology.

We know that physicists have discovered the long sought after physical philosopher’s stone of the semantic kind and use it to transmutate any word into a physical quantity. Therefore, the old theological eschatology becomes a science just by calling it physical eschatology. At least, this is what Doctor Mark wants us to believe.

science excludes eschatology

In truth, there can be no scientific eschatology or cosmology. This is what makes cosmologists and eschatologists like Mark charlatans, scientific frauds and liars.

regulate physics

If physics were a regulated industry with strict rules of practice Mark’s license would have been revoked. After all a medical doctor who practices today medicine as it was known in the European Middle Ages would be disgraced and pushed out of the profession. Mark is practicing the old eschatology and calling it science. You decide if this is a breach of contract as a scientist.

there are no maps of totality

The only evidence Mark has for calling his eschatology science is his claim that his eschatological theory is associated with a database of white noise he calls Cosmic Background Radiation.

Mark fits his eschatological speculations into this white noise by using standard data reduction techniques. And since he called this white noise “cosmic” he pretends that this database is a map of totality.

There is nothing more than a linguistic association here. A local radiation does not become a map of totality by calling it “cosmic.”

Physics is done with hidden puns. Here Mark uses local-cosmic pun to justify his eschatology.

4. Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions^

Mark’s reasoning is full of hidden assumptions that he is not telling us. For instance Mark assumes that because the distance between a few observed galaxies have been diminishing therefore the entire universe must have been a point at some time.

This is fraud. This is fraudulent reasoning. Not faulty but fraudulent reasoning.

So why is it that this professional eschatologist is not exposed as a scientific fraud?

Who can expose shamans who practice observational eschatology as frauds? At present no one. Eschatologists who are physicists are the judge and the jury when it comes to eschatological speculations.

proof by hidden assumption is no proof

So Mark’s conclusion that the universe was denser because the distance between galaxies are diminishing does not hold. The hidden assumption he is making is that observed galaxies constitute the entirety of the universe. This is a lie.

This is the same lie Mark’s professional ancestors the previous Doctors of Eschatology told their constituency. Basically, they said “trust us, we are telling you the truth” while brandishing their sacred book.

Mark is perpetuating the same lie but he is brandishing NASA’s white noise as his false witness.

mark does not know totality

The following quote is a big lie because Mark does not know the totality.

Mark has no license to model totality in its totality.

But the fact that Mark does not know the totality is not a problem for Mark — lack of knowledge has never been a problem for professional eschatologists — and he goes on assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is not telling us that he is assuming the totality. He is telling us that he knows totality by inductive scientific reasoning. Can there be a greater scientific fraud?

To claim that you know something you don’t know is a lie. When a professional in a position of authority lies about his professional activities his license to practice must be revoked. And if physics were to be a regulated industry Mark’s — and all eschatologists’ – license would have been revoked.

5. Poetical eschatology^

After citing Robert Frost’s poem Fire and Ice Mark explains us the reference:

This is typically a reference to the question of whether the [totality] will recollapse, forcing all its contents into smaller and smaller volumes, increasing the pressure and the temperature. . .

In this quote Mark claims to know the volume, pressure and temperature of the totality and claims that he has modeled totality successfully.

How does Mark know the volume and pressure of the totality? What evidence does he have?

None. None whatsoever.

As Mark and all physicists admit they do not know the totality. All physicists, cosmologists and eschatologists of all types, no matter what species of eschatology they promote, agree that they do not know the totality.

There is no ifs or buts about their ignorance of totality. There is no ambiguity that Mark and his eschatologist friends do not know the totality.

Eschatologists have never known the totality and they still do not know the totality.

But in the above quote Mark asserts that he knows physical properties of the totality such as its volume, pressure and temperature.

6. Mark tries to establish a fake theoretical basis for Big Bang^

This is another blatant lie:

Physicists arrive at this [eschatological speculation called the Big Bang] by first making observations [in the observable universe] today and understanding how these are described by well-established theories of gravity and particle physics.

Now Mark is making the false claim that his theories, ie, Einstein’s equations, “know” the properties of totality.

Mark claimed first that as a professional eschatologist he knew the properties of the totality and now he is trying to legitimate his speculations by invoking the authority of mathematics.

mathematics does not know properties of the totality

No known theory or equation ever written by a physicist, cosmologist or an eschatologist know about the totality.

So we see that this is the same doctoral racket that Mark’s professional ancestors used. They legitimized their eschatology by using their sacred book as false witness. Mark too is using his sacred book — Einstein’s equations — as false witness to legitimate his eschatology.

Both the sacred book of Mark’s ancestors and Einstein’s equations are definitions that know nothing about the totality. Einstein in a show of deep mysticism claimed to have known the radius of totality by an application of his equations and his disciples continue the tradition.

7. Eschatology is shamanism^

Anybody who claims to know as a revelation from a higher authority — whether that authority is god or equations — is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

Anybody who claims to compute, derive, observe or know through whatever means whatsoever the properties of the totality is a shaman, a charlatan and a scientific fraud.

There is no escaping this fact.

Totality is unknowable and therefore eschatologists cannot have access to a higher authority who knows the properties of totality. It doesn’t matter if they claim god as their higher authority or a language they have invented such as mathematics.

I hope that readers recognize this age old doctoral racket nowadays perpetuated by Doctors of Philosophy the physicists and call their bluff.

8. No known physics can reveal the properties of totality^

What about particle physics that Mark mentions to support his eschatology? He claims to use well-established particle physics boilerplate to reveal the properties of totality. This is a lie too.

Mark is lying again because the first assumptions he made about knowing the volume and density of totality is false.

Immutable fact: Mark knows nothing about totality.

Any and all attempts to associate particle physics with the totality starts and stops at NASA’s white noise map. NASA’s white noise map is not a map of totality.

This is another professional lie.

9. Science does not apply to eschatology^

Here Mark explains to us the scientific method observational eschatologists use to prove their speculations, namely, the Big Bang.

We then extrapolate back in time to infer what the early [totality] must have been like. . . .

Is this a scientific extrapolation or is it a cargo cult extrapolation? How can we tell?

Anyone who deduces from an observation of local galaxies that totality is expanding is a fool and a liar. No matter how much he extrapolates, Mark will never arrive at the early totality.

Again Mark is assuming that he knows the totality.

Mark is assuming that the galaxies that he observed constitutes the totality. This is not true.

10. No passage from local to total except through charlatanism^

So Mark observed a few galaxies for a few years then he concluded that the totality must be expanding.

As a professional eschatologist Mark enjoys 5000 years of accumulated authority of the oldest professional class called the scribes. He gets to fool humanity with this silly putty extrapolation by asserting his eschatological authority that comes with his association with the Scholastic Corporation.

cargo cult physics

Mark’s description of scientific method is really the scientific method of cargo cultists who have taken over the academic physics.

Because he is using the words “extrapolate,” “infer,” “test,” “theory,” “predictions” “observations” Mark pretends that what he is doing is science. This is exactly what cargo cult means.

Using scientific sounding buzzwords to conduct cargo cult activities such as extrapolating from local to total and justifying them by own doctoral authority is practicing cargo cult physics.

11. Eschatologists call their prophesy prediction^

So far Mark claimed that he developed an eschatological speculation called the Big Bang and he offered mathematics as false witness, and now he is saying that he makes predictions about the properties of totality and then verifies that his proposed theory predicts them.

You recognize the same circular reasoning Mark’s ancestors used to prove their definitions with their sacred book.

First of all note that physics is an unregulated professional industry full of crooked professionals. What do crooked professionals do?

They introduce whatever fake ad hoc parameters needed to save their theory. If the Big Bang fails to explain observation X, no problem, here comes the shaman Guth with his inflation and the Big Bang is saved.

This is charlatanism.

But more fundamentally, as we have seen, every assumption made by Mark about totality is faked.

Irreversible fact: Mark does not know the totality but assumes it.

So when Mark says that he is testing his eschatological theory about the totality by observations he is lying. He is just adding new lies to save his old lies.

12. An eschatological speculation cannot be tested^

This methodology . . .

We have shown that his methodology is the cargo cult. Eschatology has never been science and still is not. Science has nothing to say about the origin or end of the totality.

. . . works remarkably well and has provided us with an extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent understanding of the [totality.]

This is a lie. Mark does not know the totality. He does not have an “extremely well tested, self-consistent and coherent” model of totality.

13. How do eschatologists get away with scientific fraud?^

How can Mark get away by claiming that he modeled the totality while he admits that he does not know the totality? I believe this happens for two reasons.

First, general public wants to believe.

The old brand religions lost their authority on cosmogonic model building. Doctors of Philosophy have taken over this department of the Scholastic Corporation. In the consumer society cosmological theories are commodities packaged as any other consumer item.

new and improved big bang

Every cosmological season a new and improved version of famous brands such as the Big Bang are repackaged with new labels: “NEW! 10% MORE ABSURD!” “COOL OR HOT! NEW BIG BANG! BELIEVE NOW!” “EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN: 9 OUT OF 10 PHYSICISTS RECOMMEND BIG BANG TO SAVE YOUR SOUL!”

military-state-media complex

And second, as I mentioned above, Mark is in the payroll of the Scholastic Corporation who does its business with the military-state-media complex. This association gives Mark an unrivaled authority to cosmologize.

No other professional class, not even lawyers, can challenge Mark’s professional lies. The fact that all professional eschatologists repeat the same lies does not make their lies truth.

Physicists who practice eschatology are the judge and the jury. In other words, physics is pre-scientific cargo cult.

# Proper Lorentz transformations

In this article Sabine Hossenfelder describes Lorentz transformations in an alternative fashion. Instead of the usual “rockets and spaceships sending light signals” she offers a more mathematical approach. Besides that the article reveals

1) how physicists reason and

2) how physics itself is the greatest obstacle to clear reasoning.

Let’s take a look.

In the introduction she states that Lorentz transformations of Special Relativity

allow observers with different constant velocities to compare their measurements.

This may be the legal physics interpretation but in reality Lorentz transformations is a mathematical formulation that keeps lengths and angles constant as one coordinate convention is transformed into another coordinate convention. It’s all about mathematics of transformations of coordinate systems. In any case this is not the real reason why Special Relativity is so popular with physicists. Lorentz transformations exist not to allow imaginary observers to compare measurements but to allow scholastic doctors of physics to write commentary on the two oldest scholastic forms called space and time. And also on their relatively new form called spacetime.

The article is a good proof of how physicists use mathematical symbolism to discuss old philosophical forms. Instead of Latin they use Mathematin.

There are six sections in the article:

1. Introduction
2. Tensors
3. Scalar product
4. Lorentz transformations
5. Kinematics
6. What is c?

Notice that sections 2 through 5 are about mathematical methods. They constitute a good introduction to linear algebra. Sections 2 through 5 have zero physics content.

More generally, the physics rubric Special Relativity contains two distinct and independent sections:

1. mathematics
2. philosophy

Physicists call writing philosophical commentary on perennial scholastic forms by associating them with mathematical symbolism physics. In this particular case physics consists of writing commentary on philosophical properties of space and time in the language of Mathematin. We clearly see how this is done in this article.

The section called kinematics pretends to include some semantic physics because the words “particle” and “time” are mentioned. Note that physicists first corrupted the meaning of the word time by merging it into one of the coordinate axes but then realized that they still needed that original time that they’ve corrupted so they called the same original time that they’ve corrupted “proper time.”

• time t becomes proper time tau

Therefore, Proper Lorentz Transformations:

Laws of physics are invariant under transformation of physical quantities from one alphabet to another.

Incredible polemics. So section 5 is more properly called Polemics, not Kinematics.

If we only read the introduction and jump to section 6 called “what is c” we wouldn’t lose any physical substance that may be present in the article. Why? Because mathematics of Special Relativity exists solely to witness philosophical commentary.

What is c? is a question which is identical to the question What is meter?

What is c? == What is meter?

What is meter? is not a deeply philosophical question. In fact it has no philosophical content.

• What is a conventional unit? is not a fundamental physical question.

A conventional unit is a definition. There is nothing to debate or comment on a definition of a unit. If you don’t like the unit meter please go ahead and use another unit of length, such as inches, or go ahead and use any unit you please to define.

Meter is defined by the speed of light:

As explained in the article

since time has different units than length, to be able to describe space and time as elements of one space-time we have to multiply time by a constant of dimension length/time, i.e. a velocity.

Physicists multiply c = m/s with s to make it one of the coordinates

so

Note how physicists confuse themselves because they’ve reified meter and second into philosophical space and philosophical time.

Here’s how the authority of mathematics is used to justify philosophical ideology:

However, note that in the derivation that got us here, there was no mentioning of light whatsoever.

Indeed. c as the speed of light is a non-functioning vestige of Einsteinian philosophy that was turned into a cargo cult fetish by physicists. I am pleased to see that there is at least one physicist with guts to question old SR dogma without fearing that she will be dubbed a crackpot. She is going in the right direction toward realizing that c is a physics fetish.

But a priori, arguing from symmetry principles in Minkowski-space as I did here, the constant c has nothing to do with light.

But, as yet she does not realize that c is just a conventional unit. This unit has been reified by physicists so long ago that today’s physicists no longer see it as a conventional unit.

Btw, note that c is indeed a constant. If you want to fiddle around with that, you’ll have to mess up at least one step in this derivation.

c is a constant because it is kept constant. It is kept constant because it is a conventional unit. It’s conventional because everyone agreed that it is a conventional unit. It is officially conventional because NIST officially defined meter in terms of the speed of light.

All the philosophical cargo cult baggage dumped by Einstein on c, time and space can be eliminated from physics. And I believe that Sabine Hossenfelder is in a good position to question these old physical dogma.

# Physics and semantics

1. What’s wrong with semantics?

One of the most powerful scientific arguments physicists use to dismiss non-legal physics is to say “That’s just semantics.” In physics lingo this means

you have just stepped out of legal physics and if you continue to challenge legal physics with scientific skepticism I’ll call you a crackpot, so you’d better stop and listen to what I teach and learn legal physics, the only true science.

Semantics as defined in physics is similar to two other words — philosophy and metaphysics — and refer to the opinions of an unlicensed person on topics owned by physicists. These are propaganda words invented by physicists to defend their monopoly on human reason. But what is wrong with semantics?

2. Don’t confuse semantics with polemics

Looking at physics at the fundamental mathematical level I see that physics is semantics.

Physicists confuse, probably intentionally, semantics with polemics which means

the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.

Indeed physicists view legal physics to be true beyond reproach. Otherwise physics would not work. Note that there are always legal open questions that physicists can work on but they cannot doubt the absolute veracity of legal physics and remain in the profession. Consequently, physicists will not tolerate any kind of scientific skepticism toward their profession from outsiders.

Semantics, on the other hand, is the “study of meaning in communication.”

3. If physics is meaningful it must be semantics

Unless physicists claim that physics is meaningless then physics must be semantics. The idea that academic physics may be meaningless and absurd or at least allows meaninglessness and absurd should not be dismissed out of hand. But let’s assume that physics is meaningful.

First we posit that physicists who have an absolute monopoly to define new terms with new meanings in the realm of physics have conveniently defined semantics to mean physics in the context of physics:

meaning = physics

So when they say “physics of a problem” physicists mean “the meaning of a problem.” Any meaning physicists will call physics.

4 . Mathematics has no meaning

Let’s look at a mathematical expression:

$E=\int&space;p&space;\:&space;dp$

Since this is a mathematical expression we have no idea what symbols E and p mean but we can manipulate it according to mathematical rules. In mathematics symbols are meaningless only rules exist. Mathematical reasoning

is formal in the sense that the meaning of propositions forms no part of the investigation. The sole concern of mathematics is the inference of proposition from proposition. The justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy. The business of mathematics is simply to follow the rule. In this sense all mathematical reasoning is necessary, namely, it has followed the rule.

In mathematics symbols E and p have no meaning and the integral and equality signs are operational and dp is an integration unit.

Therefore, physicists must give meaning to these symbols if physics is to have a meaning different than mathematics. And the process of giving meaning to symbols is called semantics. Physicists call this process of giving meaning to mathematical symbols physics, ie. they defined semantics as physics.

Calling E, say, electric field, is semantics. The mathematical symbol E is given the meaning “electric field.”

4. Physical quantity and experiment are semantic operators

Physical quantity

In physics a symbol is endowed with meaning through physical quantities. Physical quantity is really about semantics because it is a unit with a number and has nothing to do with being physical or not. The adjective physical in front of quantity is a political symbol. So, again,

the justification of the rules of inference in any branch of mathematics is not properly part of mathematics: it is the business of experience or of philosophy.

And it is also the business of physics. And indeed physics is philosophy because it deals with meaning. But physicists consider semantics, philosophy and metaphysics to be all suspect endeavors because they are ultimately about questioning legal physics.

Experiment

What about the question of experiment, the interface between physics and nature? According to physicists they are not semanticists but experimental scientists who are merely modelling nature objectively by way of experiments. In reality, professional physicists themselves are the interface between nature and physics because they have authority over experiment, e.g., Coulomb experiment.

That physical laws are based on experiments is a professional propaganda. Physics is first semantic then experimental. Experiment in physics is an alternative way to endow symbols with meaning. So either a physical quantity or an experiment can give meaning to a symbol. In either case physics is semantics.

The unit of physics is physical quantity and a physical quantity does not have to have a correspondence in nature. The sign called physical quantity does not need to have a signified but it must be consistent with legal physics, that’s the only requirement.

Physical quantity can be, and most are, arbitrary definitions in agreement with the rest of physics. And in most cases a physical experiment is a definition with an oscillator.

5. Physicists are semantic philosophers who deny being semantic philosophers

Mathematical symbols do not have meaning, physicists give them meaning, usually by reifying them. But physics does not have mathematical rigor because physicists do not respect mathematical meanings of the operators, they endow them too with their own “physical” meanings. So the fundamental operator of physical equation, the equality sign, has at least four different meanings and it is not a mathematical but a polemical sign.

6. How come physics works? If it is semantics it should not work!

What works is not physics. Physics is just a rubric of a vast collection of different semantic fields. What works are “mechanics” that physicists painstakingly fit into observations one paper at a time. It would be really strange if physics did not work. By definition, all physics “theories” are models that are fit into observations. Therefore, by definition, they work. In other words, physics works because it is semantics. All these mechanics contain free parameters, semantic elements (quantity is meaning too), that fit the model to observations.

There is only one way we can know nature. We fit a database of observations into a model. And this is done through semantics. So the method of physics is right. The propaganda of physics is wrong.

It is also known that there is no essential difference between the semantics of natural languages like English and formal languages like mathematics. Physicists abuse this fact as well. What physicists do is to use the authority of mathematics to justify ideology.

What is unscientific is to try to project physics as an “objective” science that transcends ordinary meaning and reveals absolute truths about nature. In other words, religion.

# The great cosmology wars

The ongoing academic turf wars between physicists and creationists is marketed by the media as a war between science and religion. Physicists represent science and creationists represent religion. Physicists and creationists fight for the right to cosmogologize. Both sides argue that their cosmogonic scenario is the true scenario. Physicists are the incumbents so the media treats them as “scientists” who own the “scientific” scenarios that have been designed after a rigorous analysis of cosmogonic observations and then tested by expensive missions organized by NASA.

This science is a strange science. Physicists’ science allows all kinds of miracles that physicists transformed into physical physical quantities by making use of the authority of mathematics.

 physicists creationists science religion true cosmology true cosmology incumbents challengers sponsored by NASA sponsored by private sector and church? allows miracles allows miracles legitimizes miracles by authority of mathematics legitimizes miracles by authority of a book mathematics will prove any miracle as well as any sacred book any sacred book will prove any miracle as well as mathematics

Already we see that these two groups use similar methods of arguments. One legitimizes miracles by sacred symbols collected in a book and the other by mathematical symbols of their own invention.

If mathematics had the power to prove what it modelled that would indeed have made mathematics a useful and authoritative tool to prove things. But mathematics has no such power. Mathematics is a language that can prove whatever you put into it. It can prove the world is stationary and it can also prove the world is in motion. It can prove the world is commutative and it can prove that the world is non-commutative. That mathematics has the power and the authority to legitimate physicists’ absurd scenarios is one of the greatest lies told by physicists.

Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is indeed unreasonable. It is not the mathematics that is effective, it is the free parameters that physicists are free to include to save any theory.

Cosmogony by definition is outside of science. To claim that there are cosmogonic observations is nothing more than charlatanism. And proving absurd cosmogonic scenarios with cosmogonic observations is beyond charlatanism.

# Physical semantics

I noticed that physicists use the word physical as an adjective to modify many different types of words. I was curious to understand how physical modifies the words it is applied to as an adjective. It appears that physical is like a physical operator: it maps a non-physical word into physics:

$P\rightarrow&space;W=PW$

Physical takes a plain word W and it transforms it into a property of physics. PW is a new word, not a modified W. For instance, adjectives small and large may change the scale of the word but physical changes its meaning and effectively creates a new word. Since physics is immune to semantic arguments from non-physicists I am not worried that this article will cause any kind of harm to physics. Just for my own understanding.

I noticed that the most important difference is with quantity and physical quantity.

Quantity and physical quantity

There is a fundamental difference between quantity and physical quantity. Physics assumes as an unstated truth that what is measured is physical:

measured=physical

This is not true. The pun that what is measured is necessarily physical is a professional propaganda.

Measurement is defined like this:

measured quantity = a unit – measured multiple of the unit

There is no other way to measure and there is nothing in measurement that says that what is measured is physical or not physical . Therefore what is measured is quantity not physical quantity.

Meaning and physical meaning

Physical meaning is

physics that is hidden behind a mathematical construction.

There is something called physics and this thing is hidden behind a mathematical construction. This sounds a lot like mysticism to me. I thought that physics was a mathematical science and not metamathematical mysticism. The prototypical hidden meaning hidden behind a mathematical construction gracing physics has been the occult, i.e., hidden Newtonian force. As I understand it, physical meaning is not related to measurement, it is an interpretation of the hidden.

Reasoning and physical reasoning

Reasoning without the “physical” is rationalism. As rational scientists we treat the mathematical framework as a mathematical framework and do not assume that there is hidden “physics” in mathematics. In mathematics we look for mathematical objects, like patterns. Physical reasoning on the other hand assumes that nature is physical therefore there must be hidden physics behind the mathematics and looks for them. And finds them. How? By labeling mathematical patterns with colorful labels and calling them physical fields, physical particles, physical forces and physical anything. Therefore, if physical semantics is practiced by physicists it is legal physics. The world is only semantically physical.

Model and physical model

In this case model is called physical because it is a model that explains physical nature. So nature is physical pun again.

Theory and physical theory

Physical theories have hidden physics in them. Where are they? Again you can find them in colorful labels. A proportionality constant may be called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” and because it is called “Newton’s universal constant of gravity” a proportionality constant is assumed to be a physical constant of nature. All these suggest that what physicists mean by physics is “label mechanics.” Or more correctly “legal labels mechanics.”

Observable and physical observable

Physical observable is a physics term of art. What is measured is not an observable what is measured is distance.

Law and physical law

Law legislate society. Physical law legislates nature.

Commentary and physical commentary

Personally I see nothing wrong that physicists fit measurements into an elaborate legal system called mechanics, pardon me, physical mechanics, because this is how nature works. Standard is the thing. As Buckminster Fuller said

There are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle . . .

I would say “in pure definition” because the world is definitional. The world is physical only by definition. It’s not surprising that physicists’ Standard Model explains observations well. It is a fit to observations in which various mathematical patterns are labeled by physicists with ideological labels. Standard Model is a definition. If physicists dropped their search for hidden physics and saved phenomena with mathematics then physics will look more like a science. Shut up and fit, as Max Tegmark would say. But this is impossible. In physics Newton’s words are sacred. Newton decreed in the Principia that his disciples shall search for hidden qualities in nature by studying motion. This is the physical program Newton ordered his disciples to continue to do until the second coming of the Kingdom of Science. Don’t hold your breath. A bureaucratic habit can never be changed. And looking for hidden physics in nature is a strong physical habit of a huge bureaucracy. It will never change.