Science, religion and tradition

Science is traditionally contrasted to religion.

Science must be contrasted to tradition. The real enemy of science is tradition.

Tradition conquers scientific knowledge from inside.

Physicists believe as their faith that the traditional derivations that make physics self-consistent also make physics true.

No matter how strong the evidence is against a material nature; academic physics will never question its assumption of the material nature. Tradition has conquered and corrupted science from inside.

Is academic physics a quantitative hard science?

if physics were a quantitative science, mathematics used by physicists should be strictly about manipulation of quantities. But physicists use the equations as vehicle for casuistry filled with qualitative terms. If an equation has more than one interpretation it is casuistry, not a relationship between quantities. This means that if an equation cannot be reduced to a proportionality (all terms in a proportionality are quantities) it is casuistry and sophistry. Therefore, it is clear that physicists corrupted mathematics and turned it into their vehicle of casuistry. The professional ancestors of physicists used Latin as their vehicle of casuistry, today’s scholastic doctors doing business as physicists use Mathematics as their vehicle of casuistry.

The limitless boundaries of physics

In the limits of science, Sabine Hossenfelder, a doctor of philosophy doing business under the trade name of “physicist”, reveals many interesting things about her profession, and since we had nothing better to do this weekend than writing a useless commentary on a useless academic apologia of physics, we wanted to highlight and comment on some of them.

* * *

Sabine wants to enlighten us by revealing to us the limits of science but all we learn from her article is that casuistry in physics has no limits.

Sabine asks

Where are the limits of science?

I reread the article by paying close attention to sentences where the word science occurs and after a painstaking scientific analysis I figured that Sabine uses this absurd definition for science:

science is the absolute true knowledge with error bars

There are other hidden assumptions that Sabine assumes secretly but fails to reveal to us because probably she believes that they are self-evident truths known to all of her readers. Some of these self-evident truths not worth mentioning are these:

– science is practiced only in the academia

– in the academia science is ordered in a hierarchy defined by a scientific hardness coefficient

– physics has the hardness coefficient of 1 and it is the only hard science and therefore physics is the only true science that can reveal true knowledge about the world (but with error bars)

– the rest of all sciences have hardness coefficients which are only a fraction of 1 and they are all soft sciences.

– social sciences are the worst and they are called “softies” and they probably have a hardness coefficient of 0.000001 which can be safely considered to be zero as compared to physics

Considering all these self-evident truths, it seems to me that it is a waste of Sabine’s time to defend physics against softies in such a long apologia of physics.

Furthermore, Sabine is a practitioner of physics — the only hard science with the coefficient of 1 — and therefore Sabine is not a softie. But an investigation of the limits of science is not physics. One cannot talk about “the physics of the limits of science” because science is not a physical quantity and therefore it is outside of the realm of physics. So everything Sabine says here is her opinion and by trying to defend physics as a hard science against the softies Sabine lowers herself into the ranks of softies.

But even though Sabine is not qualified to give professional advice outside of her narrow field of physics where she obtained a license to practice and teach, she is writing with the pretense that her status as a physicist gives her the right to pontificate in every subject on earth as long as she strategically distributes the word science throughout her pontification. There are several words we can use for someone who is projecting her limited professional expertise to realms where she is nothing more than a layman. A charlatan comes to mind, but of course we don’t want to use that word in relation to a practitioner of the hard science of physics with the hardness coefficient of 1.

Physics has the hardness coefficient of 1 but it is still better to be a softie than to be a physicist because a physicist is an underpaid apparatchik in the hierarchy of the Brotherhood of the Vis and does not fit the definition of a free-thinking scientist as used in any field except in physics itself.

A soft scientist, defined as soft by physicists of course, is an academic who practices science with softer doctrines than dogmatic doctrines of physics faith, and consequently is a better scientist because he is open to think for himself and is also a better human being.

The One Straw Revolutıon

Masanobu Fukuoka wrote:

There are two paths of human knowledge — discriminating and non-discriminating**.

[**This is a distinction made by many Oriental philosophers. Discriminating knowledge is derived from the analytic, willful intellect in an attempt to organize experience into a logical framework. Mr. Fukuoka believes that in this process, the individual sets himself apart from nature. It is the "limited scientific truth and judgment" by which Mr. Fukuoka means "the world as perceived and constructed by the human intellect. He considers this perception to be limited to a framework defined by its own assumptions." Non-discriminating knowledge arises without conscious effort on the part of the individual when experience is accepted as it is, without interpretation by the intellect.]

People generally believe that unmistaken recognition of the world is possible through discrimination alone. Therefore, the word “nature” as it is generally spoken, denotes nature as it is perceived by the discriminating intellect.

I deny the empty image of nature as created by the human intellect, and clearly distinguish it from nature itself as experience by non-discriminating understanding. If we eradicate the false conception of nature, I believe the root of the world’s disorder will disappear.

In the West natural science developed from discriminating knowledge; in the East the philosophy of yin-yang and of the I Ching developed from the same source. But scientific truth can never reach absolute truth, and philosophies, after all, are nothing more than interpretations of the world. Nature as grasped by scientific knowledge is a nature which has been destroyed; it is a ghost possessing a skeleton, but no soul. Nature as grasped by philosophical knowledge is a theory created out of human speculation, a ghost with a soul, but no structure.

There is no way in which non-discriminating knowledge can be realized except by direct intuition, but people try to fit it into a familiar framework by calling it “instinct”. It is actually knowledge from an unnamable source. Abandon the discriminating mind and transcend the world of relativity if you want to know the true appearance of nature. From the beginning there is not east or west, no four seasons, and no yin or yang.

Physics: a candidate for science

When we look at sciences such as chemistry and biology, these sciences are based on a well-defined unit of study. Chemistry studies atoms as defined by chemists and biology studies cells as defined by biologists.

Physics studies particles. But there is no well-defined definition of particle in physics. When a physicist writes the word “particle” or uses the symbol “m” standing for “mass” in an equation both are undefined. They can refer to an object which has infinite density and therefore indivisible; or they can refer to a composite object therefore divisible.

Physicists have no standard criteria to evaluate if an object is divisible or not; by default they assume that all objects they supposedly observe are “fundamental building blocks of nature”, that is, infinitely dense indivisibles.

Then, inevitably, the next generation of physicists with new colliders with higher energies prove that what the previous generation called indivisible were divisible and they call their own supposed-indivisibles the true fundamental building blocks of nature.

Physicists meticulously developed this charade into perfection and now they call anything and everything a particle. Some things physicists call particle are

  • state
  • level
  • atom
  • divisible
  • indivisible
  • wave
  • ripple
  • probability
  • bump

and each of these have their anti-particles.

In short, physics is still a “candidate for science” but not a science because practitioners still have absolute authority to define as they wish the fundamental unit of study of their business. As long “particle” remains as casuistry in physics, physics will remain a casuistry and will be a candidate for science but not science.

Rejection of Newton’s atomic materialism leads to a new science

By reverse-engineering Newton’s System of the World and its modern extension called “physics”, we see that Newton built a complicated and absurd structure in order to save his assumption of atomic materialism. The assumptions named force, mass, rectilinear inertia, instantaneous action-at-a-distance are all Newton’s inventions to save his atomic materialist assumption.

As soon as we reject Newton’s assumption of atomic materialism, all of his supporting assumptions disappear from physics.

But atomic materialism is the doctrine that claims that entities of finite density are composed of unit entities of infinite density. When we reject this absurd assumption, we realize that the good concept of density is freed from Newtonian ownership and now we can make density, not matter, as the operational unit of nature; this is densytics, physics without Newtonian branding.

Physics: ENRON of sciences

Physicist Frank Close writes:

Unfortunately, in its raw form, Quantum Field Theory doesn’t make sense — its outputs are physically impossible infinite percentages when they should be something simpler, like the number 1. The kind of physics that the Higgs boson represents seeks to ‘renormalize’ field theory, forcing equations to provide answers that match what we see in the real world.

So, according to a physicist who is an expert in the field, Quantum Field Theory is a bankrupt theory. If QFT were a company it would be ENRON.

If QFT is ENRON, who are physicists?

Physicists are the professional doctors who are doctoring the book of physics. ENRON’s accountants cooked the books of ENRON to make the company look good to its investors; doctors of physics doctor the books of physics to look good to their employees.

No, not exactly. We should give more credit to physicists than that. Physicists cook the books of physics not to look good to their employees, no, physicists cook the books of physics to save their faith; to fit nature to their faith. Like all priests of a cult, physicists care more about their faith than monetary rewards.

Accountants are the bean counters; doctors of physics are the particle counters and it is true that there are more absolutely fundamental indivisible building blocks than there are species of beans. And all these absolutely fundamental indivisible building blocks that physicists discover, you guessed it, turn out to be as divisible as any bean.

Let us now draw our attention to this most incriminating admission of scientific fraud by any physicist ever:

… forcing equations to provide answers…

sounds awfully close to “forcing balance sheets to provide answers…” that the corrupt CEOs want.

The correspondence is perfect: Accountants manipulate one kind of loaded balance and physicists manipulate another kind of loaded balance.

But there is also a big difference. Accountants who cook books go to jail; physicists who cook the books of physics by forcing equations to provide answers to save their faith are celebrated for their great “discoveries”.

Physicists can easily “renormalize” a bankrupt theory of physics with their mathematical sophistry and sleight of hand so that they can divide by zero without appearing to divide by zero. No accountant can do this, can he? Inventing creative solutions to cook books and forcing equations to give results to save their faith… thank god physics is the hardest of hard sciences…

Atomic materialism is the faith of the Cult of Newton and physicists have been cooking the books of physics for a long time to save their faith.

But you might ask, is there a way to regulate corrupt professional physicists the way accountants and bankers are regulated? Well, there is such a regulation, it is called mathematics.

But it is a well-established fact in professional industries that professionals will corrupt any self-regulation rule imposed on them and make it their most powerful tool to continue their corruption. So professional physicists corrupted mathematics to its core in order to use the authority of mathematics to prove their doctrines.

How did this all start?

The professional ancestors of today’s scholastic doctors of philosophy called themselves peripatetic philosophers and they have been busy mixing philosophy and physics for over many centuries. Peripatetics were philosophers with a good philosophy education; physicists are philosophers manque with zero respect for philosophy and are in denial that they are philosophers doing philosophy with equations.

The story is well-known; Galileo realized that physics has become more philosophical speculations than description of nature and his solution was to transfer the scholastic authority of professional doctors to geometry.

By using geometry Galileo eliminated scores of scholastic labels doctors of philosophy had invented to explain motion and cleaned physics from scholastic philosophy.

This worked for a while but then God said “Let Newton be” and corruption in physics became legal again. Newton corrupted geometry to assert his materialist doctrines by using the authority of geometry. Newton inserted pictures into geometric diagrams. . . Newton proved geometric theorems by his authority. . . Newton made use all of his scholastic arsenal to corrupt mathematics to assert his materialist faith. Newton’s disciples the physicists have been copying their master exactly, as usual, and have been corrupting mathematics ever since.

It seems that we now reached another breaking point and even physicists are aware that they have corrupted physics to its mathematical core and some kind of rectification is in order.

How can we clean physics from physicists’ scholastic junk?

Physicists’ equation is the corrupt version of proportionality and the equation is the vehicle physicists use to apply their art of casuistry. If we could enforce that each and every equation physicists write with their branded units and branded constants ultimately reduce to proportionalities that would be a great progress toward rectifying physics. Let’s ask physicists to give up their professional authority over mathematics, like their ancestors did, and stop “forcing equations to provide answers they want” and take an oath to always read an equality sign only as an equality sign.

And let’s eliminate Newtonian branding, that would be a good start too. Physics without Newtonian branding is called densytics.

All professionals are in the business of hiding information and then selling the information they hid as absolute truth. Their business model is to package and sell their hidden doctrines as true laws.

Each professional field has a monopoly and a law for that field and professionals milk the laws they wrote to corrupt the world and enrich themselves.

Physicists are professional doctors of philosophy; they are the ones who wrote the book on how to use scholastic sophistry to corrupt your language. This is why you think that “physics describes the physical world and the physicists are scientists who describe the physical world to us.” Physicists defined nature as “physical” and called themselves “physicists” so you cannot even perceive a definitional nature without an absurd notion called matter.

Physicists enjoy a protected monopoly to legislate nature and their monopoly is protected by the government and the media and schools.

My advice to all accountants working for global corporations: When you are caught cooking the books just tell regulators that you simply “renormalized” the balance sheets. You should not be punished for using the same scientific method used by physicists.

And my advice to physicists: admit that you bankrupted the old science of physics and file for intellectual bankruptcy in the courts of science and start your recovery process as an honest scientist.