# Beware of the professional

Professionals program human individual for the unhuman organism

We are educated by professionals who program us from the earliest times with the doctrine that we must obey professional authority. We are taught that all professionals are experts in their field and they have a monopoly in their field protected by a license and we must never question or doubt the professional opinion of a professional. According to this doctrine civilization exists thanks to professionals.

Human individual is rewarded only if he gives up his individuality

If we are interested in a subject we must never investigate that subject on our own by freely thinking on our own but we must yearn to enter that professional field by giving up our individuality and dedicate ourself in moving up the hierarchy and sacrifice our natural curiosity to serve the objectives of the hierarchy.

The education tells us that after studying the professional language of our chosen profession and after showing our proficiency of it we must obtain our license and practice that profession until we retire. During our practice we must vehemently protect our profession from infringement from outsiders so that our professional authority is not diluted and our monopoly remains firm.

The old European system enforces submission to the unhuman

This is the old European doctrine established to perpetuate the compartmentalized European society where every citizen is taught to know its place and never dare to question the absolute authority of the ruling unhuman organisms.

Professionals exploit confusion and confuse to exploit

Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities – the political, the religious, the educational authorities – who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds – their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.

The main objective of education — designed and operated by professionals — is to kill individual curiosity that may lead to the questioning of authority and teach how to find comfort in professional mythology.

Respecting professional authority serves the professional

Respecting professional authority serves the professional classes and helps them perpetuate their monopoly. We on the other hand never look forward to dealing with professionals and we know that whenever we trust a professional we will always be the loser.

Lawyers, medical doctors, church professionals, politicians and physicists are professionals who see their customers as preys to be exploited for their own professional gains. Everyone knows that for a medical doctor a patient is a walking dollar sign.

Physics is apparently different than other professional fields because academic physics is totally irrelevant. No one ever goes to a physicist with a practical problem to be solved. All problems solved by academic physicists are academic.

Of course, if you want to build mass destruction weapons you will have to require the services of physicists but probably you don’t because building mass destruction weapons is not nice and contributes negatively to human well-being.

So academic physics is irrelevant and academic physicists spend their time writing commentary on each other’s commentary on old scholastic topics such as time, space, gravity and cosmos.

Applied physics is evil

The practical side of the physics profession — applied physics — is harmful to the well-being of human individual but physics professionals have been contributing happily to the destruction of humanity and the deterioration of human standard of life more than any other type of professionals. The more a physicist will serve the unhuman organism and deliver weapons to be used against human individual the more he will be marketed as a genius by the marketing arm of the unhuman.

Maybe it is possible to defend destructive and evil physics because it may have some useful side effects at the end. I don’t know. There must be a way to do research without paying such a deadly price for humanity. I cannot justify as easily as physicists can that collaborating with the enemies of humanity hoping that some good may come out of it is good.

In order to evaluate physicists’ theories we must question them. I refuse to accept academic physicists’ authority. They are nothing more than licensed practitioners of a legal code called physics. They claim that their authority comes from their knowledge of a language. That’s not the kind of authority that impresses me.

I am not interested in what is already known. I am interested in learning what I don’t know. Learning means questioning, not accepting physics dogma by faith.

Fundamental is simple

I believe that anyone can speculate on fundamental questions as well as physicists because nature is simple.

Archimedes did not know physics. Galileo did not know physics. Newton did not know physics. Yet they contributed nicely to human understanding of nature by using simple methods.

Model meets nature at a single point

If physics claims to model nature then all physics statements must be intelligible to non-physicists. An intelligible statement has a single meaning.

If experiment is asking questions to nature obviously nature will not reply to a question which will have many answers. This is the fundamental rule of experimenting: Ask a well defined single question. Physicists don’t know this fact.

Therefore, what is not intelligible to a non-physicist will not be intelligible to nature either.

What is intelligible to physicists only will be intelligible to physicists only and to no one else, including nature.

And indeed the proprietary professional language physicists use to communicate among themselves is intelligible to no one but to themselves. Nature ignores it.

Yes, nature rejects scholastic and elegant symbolism produced by physicists because model touches nature always on a single point. All superfluous symbolism invented by physicists to practice their scholastic philosophy must be eliminated if any measurement can result from their symbolism. Nature understands only simple proportions.

Measurement compares unit to measured

Measurement compares a unit to what is measured. Measurement is counting. Therefore, elaborate philosophical symbolism physicists call physical theories are never measured.

As expected from professionals who are concerned about protecting and perpetuating their monopoly physicists defined this proprietary communication language that they use to build theories to be science and the only true language understood by nature.

Physicists hide information by encoding it in proprietary languages. The same method is used by Microsoft and any corporation to protect their brands.

All professionals profit from knowledge they’ve hidden

Statements with hidden assumptions are intelligible only to professionals but a statement that has only one meaning is intelligible to everybody.

In order to hide information physicists load every statement with as many hidden meanings as possible so that only they can parse it.

No professional can pretend to have authority if what he says is understood by a non-professional. This is the law professionals will never tolerate to be violated. Why do you think physics professionals to be an exception to this law?

Hoarding information wholesale and selling it retail is the oldest one in the book of scholasticism. Physics professionals are masters of this method.

Physics is not suitable to study fundamentals

In order to speculate on fundamental questions we don’t need to understand physicists’ professional language. Fundamental questions cannot be studied by studying high level languages.

Let’s look at LHC, an experiment that will supposedly reveal the most hidden secrets of nature to physicists who will then reveal them to us.

LHC is a black box experiment and we have no hope of ever understanding the processes of LHC.

Furthermore, there is no one physicist who understands how LHC works or how data is reduced. Every physicist knows her little section of the code that his supervisor tells her to work on, and no more.

There are no absolute discontinuities

We are ignorant of physicists’ professional language but as free thinking independent researchers we know that there are no absolute discontinuities in nature.

Therefore, there are no infinitely hard and absolutely indivisible particles.

When physicists claim to observe “elementary building blocks of nature” we know that they are lying or at least repeating professional dogma.

Initial assumptions are independent of models

We don’t need to understand how physicists reduce data to know that they are lying about observing absolute indivisibles.

What is complicated and not intelligible to outsiders is the way physicists reduce data and how they communicate their research. That’s not physics anyway. That’s computer programming and professional bureaucracy.

Nature is definitional

Anyone can evaluate fundamental propositions because fundamental propositions are simple. If a proposition has more than one meaning then it is not simple therefore it is not fundamental.

Physicists as scholastic doctors will always claim to prove their hidden assumptions by their method of data reduction and modeling. This goes as far back as astronomers who owned the Ptolemaic model. They asserted that the Earth must be stationary because their model worked and made good predictions. Physicists assume that nature is particulate and then prove it with their standard model. Nothing much changed in scholasticism since Ptolemy’s time.

A field becomes science when professional practitioners give up their authority on their professional code and accept that their models cannot prove their doctrine.

Academic physics is still at the primitive stage where practitioners prove their assumptions with their models. And they don’t yet realize how silly that is.

Why do physicists conflate academic physics with technology?

And why are physicists so proud of their achievements? They conflate academic physics with technology and take credit for technological advances.

Physicists take credit for new technology based on electricity as if they’ve discovered electricity. They say without physics there would be no computers, no cell phones, no GPS and so on.

Let us note that the science of electricity was discovered and developed by amateurs and not by professional physicists. And today technological advances are achieve by engineers not by academic physicists.

We are living in a world designed by engineers and inventors such as Edison, we are not living in a world designed by academic physicists. Academic physicists are concerned about the properties of the unmeasurable past and the unmeasurable future.

Why this post?

No. This is a note to myself:

question professional authority.

What do you think? Is there a grain of truth in what Tim Leary said?

# Semantics sharks of cosmos

In physics today cosmos is used as a synonym for universe and totality. So, both universe and cosmos are used as semantic illusions for totality. In a sentence like the one below we can see how physicists use this pun as an Implicit Cosmological Principle to make the unjustified assumption that local is total:

What the universe would look like if rotational invariance were violated during inflation — if there were a preferred direction in space, which left some imprint on the cosmological perturbations that currently show up as large-scale structure and temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.

Here’s a list I’ve made to expose the pun layers in this sentence. There are two fundamental puns: cosmos-universe-totality and model-modelled.

1. [T-0] = [totality]
2. [U-1] = [universe]  = [T-0]
3. [U-2] = [universe]  = [T-0] - [X-0]
4. [U-3] = [universe]  = [T-0] = [T-0] - [X-0]
5. [C-1] = [cosmos]    = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
6. [S-1] = [space]     = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
7. [S-1] = [structure] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
8. [C-R] = [CMBR]      = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]

Despite all these puns — 18 out of 44 words are punny — there are only two, and only two distinct quantities here, model and modeled.

Numbers 1. to 7. are model and modeled. Number 8 is the CMBR and it’s model and modelled combined into one as an observed white noise.

Let’s simplify the list:

1. [T-0]
2. [U-1] = [T-0]
3. [U-2] = [T-0] - [X-0]
4. [U-3] = [T-0] = [T-0] - [X-0]
5. [C-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
6. [S-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
7. [S-1] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]
8. [C-R] = [T-0] = [U-2] = [U-3]

Totality [T-0]

[T-0] is totality.

The three universe puns [U-1] [U-2] [U-3]

1. [U-1] is universe used by physicists as a pun for totality. So, universe, universe as a whole, totality are all legal physical puns.

2. [U-2] is universe again but now it’s defined as the

observable universe = [T-0] minus [X-0].

[X-0] is the never observable, the ultimate, genuine, true and immaculate dark that was never stained with physical polemics. The region [X-0] is eternally unreachable and incorruptible by physicists‘ polemical sophistry. No matter what they claim physicists do not know this region and they never will.

Without knowing [X-0] physicists cannot claim to know the origin of totality. No amount of hidden puns will reveal to physicists the origin of totality. Therefore, Big Bang is a cosmogonic mythology or charlatanism, depending on how charitable you want to be towards physicists. So, [X-0] is the forever unknown.

Totality = not totality

3. [U-3] is again the word universe but this time it is defined simultaneously as the totality and [U-2]. In other words physicists defined totality and not totality to be the same thing:

[T-0] = [T-0] – [X-0]

This is fraud. It is fraud because totality does not equal not-totality. Totality does not equal the observable universe.

As long as physicists insist on knowing what they do not know they will remain in the same level of scientific integrity as card sharks and magicians. (My apologies to card sharks who practice in an honest and well regarded industry.)

In the original sentence whenever the words, cosmic, cosmological, universe and space occur they are loaded with the Implicit Cosmological Principle and they are meaningless words even by physics standards.

• Physicists are semantics sharks.
• Cosmology is fraud.

The fraud is successfully hidden as hidden assumptions in legal puns of physics. But it is there. If it weren’t hidden cosmology wouldn’t be fraud.

# Zeus’ physical theory of lightning

I’ve proposed a new method to rate physical scenarios designed by physicists. My goal was to free physics from the philosophical choke hold of the notion of falsifiability and institute a quantitative method based on the ratio of database to model. In order to test the method Spyros asked me to apply it to Zeus’ lightning theory. Here’s my answer.

So we want to evaluate a theory that says that lightning is caused by Zeus. And we want to know if we can find its nth nature.

Theory: Zeus is the cause of lightning

I observe that this is not a very precise theory. There is no database of measurements that this theory is trying to model. The stated natural event, lightning, is nothing more than a repetition observed in nature and classified under the rubric “lightning.”

We need to know what are measurable quantities and what we actually measure so that we can take their ratio.

$\textup{nth&space;nature}=\frac{n}{N}$

where N is the number of columns in the database and n is the number of columns in the model.

Zeus’ lightning coil

It is known that Tesla stole Zeus’ lightning coil and gave it to humans as a gift. Struck a second time by a Promethean thief who stole his trade secrets Zeus condemned Tesla to a never ending obscurity and this is the reason why Tesla never gets the scientific credit that he deserves.

First, we know that Zeus plays with his lightning coil only when it rains. This is proved by observations. When there are no Zeus clouds around there is no lightning so this observation eliminates the “Will of Zeus paradox” inherent in this theory. Zeus is classical, deterministic and predictable because lightning activities of Zeus are scientifically correlated to rain. We could have explained away the Will of Zeus paradox by the standard physics method of compounding a paradox with another paradox e.g., by associating it legally with the EPR paradox or by choosing a suitable version of the Mach principle, but there is no need to be so rigorous at this point.

Thus, our problem is reduced to the trivial problem of computing the parameters of Tesla coil for lightning. We then use the mathematical theory of probability to predict where lightning will occur.

Zeus theory of lightning is a good physical theory

It is very mathematical. It uses known legal physics. It makes real predictions. It is based on observations. It has all the properties of a good physical theory. Can currently accepted physics theory predict lightning better than Zeus theory of lightning?

Physics harbors shamans

In case you think physics has advanced much in the direction of science since the times when people believed anthropomorphic gods caused natural phenomena you may be only partially right. First of all cosmology is in the process of legalizing once again the totally unscientific anthropocentric reasoning, I guess you will agree on this. A large percentage of physicists occupy themselves with shamanistic activities and physics in general still uses absolute causes as explanation of natural phenomena.

When physicists say gravity is caused by a mathematical object called a tensor what do they do? When they reify coordinates into space and time, what do they do? They endow mathematical symbolism with active natural qualities that it does not possess. This is not anthropomorphism proper — I don’t know what the name should be — but it is still an explanation of natural phenomena with an abstraction that does not have natural properties to cause a natural event.

A mathematical object explains gravity as much as the mythological object Zeus explains lightning. The process is the same.

Science saves appearances, it does not look for hidden underlying causes. If you look for hidden causes you may find Zeus’ hand throwing lightning or God’s hand adjusting gravity, as Newton reported. Ernst Mach:

Physicists have nothing to seek “beyond the appearances.” Whether philosophers will always find it necessary to affirm something real … whose relations may only be recognized in the wholly abstract form of equations, may be left entirely for the philosophers to decide. Hopefully, physicists of the 20th century will not let their investigations be disturbed by such meddling!

Academic physicists of the 21th century have become polemical philosophers and mythmakers discussing ultimate hidden causes beyond physics.

Physics still uses anthropomorphic causes

Furthermore, the anthropomorphic mythologizing process is still used in physics but instead of starting from an anthropomorphic deity such as Zeus, physicists start from a human being, called Newton, and gradually deify him and then attribute natural phenomena to the deified Newton.

Mythmaking process goes like this:

1. Notice a repetition in nature
2. Assign a word to the repetition
3. Define the assigned word as the cause of the repetition
4. Anthropomorphize the causal word by sculpting it
5. Attribute human actions to the anthropomorphized label.

This is explanation by definition packaged as mythology.

Now assume the 5th step is not an anthropomorphized label Zeus but a historical being, Newton:

5. Historical Newton
4. Deified Newton
3. Force as cause associated with deified Newton
2. Force as universal cause
1. Whatever observation

This process too is the anthropomorphic mythmaking and explanation by definition. Physicists deified Newton and made his defined force the universal cause. Whatever is observed is caused by force. But I admit that physics is moving towards science since physicists no longer explain all with their deity Newton, they also deified Einstein, and some things fall into the domain of Einstein. So mythological pantheon of physics is scientifically increasing. I don’t deny that the rituals and ceremonies of derivations with which these mythological gods are made to save natural phenomena are very elaborate and require the services of a priestly class called physicists.

Comparison of pre-scientific people with us

Please note that it is very easy to be a scientist and produce scientific speculations when we know that Zeus is not in the sky throwing darts of lightning. People who believed that Zeus was the cause of lightning were as far removed from an understanding of the earth’s atmosphere as we are from an understanding of the origin of the universe. We are in a pre-scientific state regarding the Big Bang. Today, the same professional class produce the same mythological nonsense interpreting the hidden and the unknowable for consumers and market it as science. They’ve become more sophisticated, that’s all. Do you think we are better than pre-scientific people when it comes to believing in absurd nonsense marketed as science by arrogant shamans like Guths and Susskinds of the world? I just want to note that these people are physicists.

Theory or opinion

On further reflection, I think that “Zeus is the cause of lightning” is not a theory. It’s an opinionated guess. In order to find the nth nature of a theory we need a database and a model that models the database. Here there is no quantitative database to model. So this is not a theory but a baseless opinion and its nth nature is undefined. As I wrote in the original article

any theory that cannot calculate its nth nature is not a theory at all, it is somebody’s opinion.

So, in this case my proposition holds. But I think there is more work to do and in any case falsifiability needs to be replaced with scientific criteria.

# 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.

# Ministry of natural truth

Physicists say that there are physical phenomena that physics explains very well. Unless you explain those as well with an alternative method don’t criticize our physics.

Proposition 1

A given observational database saved by a physical theory can be saved equally well by a computer simulation that contains no physical parameters.

Saving databases is not something that strictly belongs to physics. This is mathematics. Practical astronomy too saves databases to extreme precision. Trigonometric expansions predict astronomical motions better than any physics theory. How much physics are there in a trigonometric expansion? None. Zero. Not asymptotically zero. But absolutely zero. Numerical integration saves observations even better.

Objection! There is a lot of physics in trigonometric expansions, e.g., in Fourier series. Fourier was a physicist, therefore, Fourier series is a physical expansion.

Objection overruled! Curve fitting expansions physicists use are physical because physicists label the coefficients of their Fourier transforms with colorful names and call them physical and then assert that because they are called physical they are natural.

The question is this:

If there are more than one model saving the same database with equal precision can we know which one is the true and correct one?

If proposition 1 is true we cannot.

From the measurement and experimental point of view we cannot know if the simulation or if the physics theory is the representation of true nature. Since we cannot know this we cannot assert that there is something called true nature that physicists have been discovering. Physicists cannot know if nature is physical. They must assume it.

If we remain rational scientists bound by measurement and experiment we cannot know which model is the true one. Measurement and experiment say they are equally true. Only pragmatism will decide. In practice people will use 1) what is available 2) what is cheaper 3) what saves them time 4) what gives them what they want.

But physicists will always assert by their professional authority that true nature is modeled with the latest and most fashionable legal physics theory that they happen to be working on. From academic physics point of view the legal physics representation of observations is the true and genuine and correct and universal one that explains the underlying physical mystery. In physics latest is the truest.

Here we have another pun:

Universal

In physics universal means that a physical quantity is accepted universally by every physicist. As usual physicists projected a professional agreement onto nature as a property of nature! Can we ever hope to escape the infinite semantic potential created by semantic theorists called physicists? As long as physical quantity will remain a free parameter, we can’t.

But we can ask how come physics claims to be a quantitative science based on measurement and experiment but at this most fundamental level disregards measurement and experiment? Quantitative reasoning says that both models are equal. Why is it that in deciding between two models physicists overrule quantitative reasoning by their professional legal ideology?

Silly question.

Proposition 2

Any and every simulation is a physical simulation.

How? Let’s program a pure simulation with no physical terms whatsoever in it and run it. Let’s observe that our simulation with absolute zero physical content saves the given observations perfectly well. And let’s call a friendly physicist and ask. Look, good simulation. No physical parameters. What gives? He’ll say No way. Can’t be. If the subject is a legal physics subject, like orbits, particles, electromagnetism . . . what not, your simulation will be physical by definition even if it contains no physical parameters. Wow! This is great science. How do you do it? Easy. Notice that your file name is wrong. Yours is a physical simulation but your file name does not reflect that. It must be renamed “A physical simulation.” And voila! Everything is in order and legal now. Science is saved. From now on to eternity your simulation will remain a physical theory.

Commentary

Physicists enjoy two thousand years old authority of the scholastic corporation. Do you think they won’t be able to transmutate a simulation into a physical theory? Awesome! But is it science? Of course, it is science. Remember physics is science. Is nature. Is truth. Physics is the Ministry of Truth of Nature.