Should we abandon science now?

[Mojowatcher]

Inconsistencies in the world of science of the totalitarian keepers
So, even if the expanding universe idea is no longer consistent with the recent discovery of the so-called accelerating expansion of the universe and the missing shadows, the keepers are bent on abandoning the most proven theory of science quantum mechanics instead of the erroneous ideas of the big bang and expansion. In addition, there are also inconsistencies in this old conceptual framework of approach in the viewing the universe.

As mentioned in previously, the key ideas and concepts of the keepers are inconsistent for they have a double standard in viewing the universe. They tell us that common sense is no longer reliable in science and that we should view the counterintuitive events as explained by relativity and quantum theories. Yet whenever the situation is not in accordance to the doctrine of creation of their old conceptual framework of approach they don’t apply it and so, the double standards of the old conceptual framework of approach.

For example, according to the keepers, because it always makes sense to start from the beginning, which is actually common sense, we should view the universe in the traditional old way in accordance to the basic doctrine of creation of the oldest vision that it started off with a big bang, and is expanding like an inflating balloon. So, therefore, there is a double standard in their so-called method of viewing the very large structure of the universe and the extremely tiny sub particles of the atom.

This simply means that if it is not in accord with the basic doctrine of creation of the oldest vision, any idea for that matter should be discarded. For instance, in the very large structure of the universe even if the acceleration of the universe is a cosmic motion meaning we are being suck up by a supermassive region of space that is full of matter, the keepers equated it with expansion to fit their idea of an eternal expansion specified by general relativity.

And in the extremely tiny sub particles of the very small world of the atom one of the quantum events shows that the universe doesn’t care if there is a beginning or end in time because it doesn’t have a sense of time we should just ignore it because it is not in accord with the basic doctrine of creation. And so they discarded it for it is not in accord with the basic doctrine of creation of the oldest vision and it doesn’t make sense to them because it is actually a counterfactual events.

Moreover, before the great conceptual revolutions so-called no one rules the world of science, meaning no particular vision or conceptual framework of approach by any camp whatsoever was adopted as a standard conceptual framework of approach but after the 5th stage of the intellectual struggle the doctrine of creation of the keepers of the oldest vision was adopted as the standard conceptual framework of approach for science. Clearly, these are evidences that they have fully abandoned now the reason why science was invented for the sake of their devotions to their doctrine of creation.

[Mojowatcher]

The Suppression of the New Theory of Knowledge is a disquieting fact.
It is very clear also that the new theory of knowledge or the third vision is excluded and discarded in the intellectual struggle by the greatest physicists and keepers of the two competing visions of the last century. To me, the deliberate effort to deflect and or prettify its image in public is a new kind of intellectual suppression for it has destructive consequences lest it becomes apparent that is a code word in a top secret race among the keepers to build the ultimate weapon of massive destruction.

So, if it has shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions, it is mainly because of these fundamental changes that were successfully implemented by the ruling totalitarian keepers. Hence, it is very clear there was a clear motivation of the initiative that was unleashed to intertwine the basic doctrine of creation into the realms of science. Any approach other than the two competing visions are suppressed or discarded such as the new theory of knowledge. And so, the new cosmic approach will highly likely be rejected by the keepers because its three key ideas are based on the fundamental law of reality of nature, dialectics, and the new theory of knowledge.

If some said that science ceased to be interested in the quest for new knowledge for the betterment of humans and its survival it is mainly because the keepers are devoted to proving the doctrine of one particular vision. But if some said that science lost its innocence with the spectacular results of the atom bomb and other weapons of mass destructions it is mainly because the keepers of the two competing visions that rule the world of science are comfortable in serving the interests of the ruling elites.

If more and more people shy away from science it is mainly because it ceased to be the exercise of wisdom, and its technology has become closely linked to the irrational exercise of power. Apparently, the ultimate goal of both the keepers of the two competing visions isn’t only to serve comfortably the ruling class but as partners. Thus, my fears about reductionism as the top secret code word of a top secret race among the top scientists of the keepers to build an ultimate weapon of mass destructions is not entirely unfounded. It will ensure their leverage in their desires to be partners in controlling the world for their own advantage and economic interests.

[Mojowatcher]

Couple of double whammies inflicted to the intellectual struggle? So, in firmly re-establishing the old conceptual framework of approach that is entirely based on the basic doctrine of creation of the oldest vision Einstein hasn’t only inflicted a double whammy but a couple of double whammies with respect to the intellectual struggle.

First, the ruling keepers have completely abandoned the real central issue of survival for the sake of proving the doctrine of creation.

Second, it firmly established an idea that is rooted out of the basic doctrine of creation that chained the mind to the traditional way of looking at the world.
Third, it has revived a new arena of petty sectarian clash.

Fourth, it ceased to be interested in the quest for new knowledge but proving how the universe started off. Fifth, it has destructed the intellectual struggle.

Sixth, although there is brave talk of free inquiry by the ruling keepers of the two competing visions but in reality that is limited only to the technical solutions and not about the old fundamental conceptual framework of approach of the keepers.

Seventh, whether the defenders of modern creation and the philosophical materialists’ scientists admit it or not but just the same the entanglement with creation put an end to the positive assertion of a positive opinion.

So, therefore, in practice and in reality the mechanical philosophical materialists’ scientists in the world of science were completely subjugated by the surreptitious philosophical idealist in the person of Einstein even if they don’t admit it and are disseminating that there is seemingly a competition between the two old and obsolete conceptual approaches.

[Mojowatcher]

Who will protect the idea of free inquiry now?
To question their expanding universe idea is tantamount to questioning their personal beliefs because they are completely entangled with creation. In my historical chart, their totalitarian rule has a parallel in the history of the great intellectual suppressions of the erroneous doctrines of Aristotle that were unquestionably adopted by the Christian successors of Aristotle. As we all know now, the erroneous doctrines setback the human enterprise development for more than 2000ys until Galileo defied them.

Actually, creationism can be put to rest now if the keepers can appreciate laboratory observations of the quantum events: causes and effects occur simultaneously or causes can precede effects and vice versa. To me, this is a concrete material basis that the universe doesn’t really care how it started off because in the first place it doesn’t have any sense of time whatsoever. Clearly, the idea of a beginning of time isn’t only a great confusion but a big deflection to the real central issue of survival.

It is difficult for me to accept that the real central issue is the beginning of time when the constant brutal reminders of Mother Nature such as asteroid impacts, mega tsunamis, earthquakes, climate change and so on endangers the survival of the human species is a reality. At any rate, because the real central issue now was changed by the ruling keepers of the oldest vision in the world of science from the survival of humans to the beginning of time means that the keepers of the old vision don’t have to assert a positive opinion anymore. If so, attempting to change that would be taken as a personal thing. Thus, any effort to overthrow the erroneous framework of approach that was firmly adopted by the baffling keepers will certainly face the consequences of being suppressed, such as the new cosmic approach being presented here.

Because the basic doctrine of creation of the keepers of the oldest was already incorporated in a scientific theory the no-boundary proposal in cosmology and the new theory of knowledge are very uncomfortable ideas to the ruling keepers for it implies a personal matter. They cannot simply abandon the confusion because it will mean abandoning their basic doctrine of creation. And, therefore, being an uncomfortable and uncompromising idea, the new theory of knowledge, the new cosmic approach, and this paper is a test of the idea of free inquiry.

So, if some said that it is the standard practice in religion and politics to suppress uncomfortable ideas, sad to say, that is no longer valid in the world of science today. And if yesterday science is the bastion of free inquiry today it is the bastion of the totalitarian keepers of the two seemingly irreconcilable visions. The question that remains is: who will protect the idea of free inquiry now from the totalitarian regime of the keepers?

[Mojowatcher]

The Intellectual debate on which is more dominant is a deflection
To better understand why they decidedly rejected the new theory of knowledge in favor of the two old and obsolete conceptual tools, we have to know their real intents and purposes. As we all know, these tools are devised and used by both the keepers of the two seemingly irreconcilable visions to find and prove which is more dominant in nature to engage anyone to the enticing but irrelevant issue in order to deflect anyone to the real central issue of survival.

The intellectual debate of an irrelevant issue will give anyone the satisfaction of identifying to either of the two visions even as it drags and deflect anyone to confusion on why science was even invented in the first place. The keepers of the oldest vision uphold the old myth of creation, while the defenders of creation uphold the modern scientific myth of creation.

Even as they don’t have to assert a positive opinion, nevertheless, it is not the real central issue as it is being conveyed by the keepers. So, accident or no-accident is not the question for it is a deflection. At any rate, they have done a good job for their respective doctrines.

Because of this irrelevant preoccupation in proving which is more dominant between the two competing conceptual tools the philosophical materialist scientists are deflected. And because they discarded the new theory of knowledge, accordingly, they are unable to see the total situation. As a matter of fact, many are still hoodwinked with the so-called rethinking of the world of the grand keeper of the oldest vision in the world of science.

As I have shown above the two conventional tools cannot detect confusion, much less, identify and resolve the new contradictions and conflicts that stuck science in such a dreary state. The succeeding generations of the keepers have consistently shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions to the new contradictions because of confusion, deflection and the destruction that their predecessors created in the world of science.

[Mojowatcher]

The priests have an excuse for being but the physicists. The job of the physicists is to find the ultimate reality and not to find what the priests wishes nature to be.

It is not difficult to see why more and more people tend to shy away from science. The priests seemed to have all the answers for the people. Whether it is the natural or supernatural the priests knows them all because they are serious in studying and understanding all the Orders of Knowledge that the physicists knows nothing about.

As we all know, the defenders of the oldest vision are not only expert in theology, astronomy, cosmology, politics, economics, finance, philosophical idealism and philosophical materialism but on the new theory of knowledge. That’s if they aren’t disappointed with their particular religions. In that case, a pathfinder can seek the alternate path to correct knowledge or spiritual path to enlightenment, whichever is preferable.

The priests have an excuse for being the defenders of the old vision because that’s their job but the physicists have no excuse for being their keepers. For what is the point of inventing science if we are only after proving the beginning of time? Thus, it is also imperative that the overconfident, ignorant, and mechanical philosophical materialist scientists who have totally discarded it before should study and learn its merits now. That’s if they want to catch up and know what is really going on.

Some said that if the physicists freed the mind the priests chained it. That was valid before Einstein. The reality is that after unleashing the primary weapon of destruction the keepers of the oldest vision actually chained the mind with the basic doctrine of creation. And so, in reality, it’s the priests now who are actually the defenders of the keepers of the oldest vision in the world of science.

In reality there is no fundamental contradiction between the two keepers of philosophical idealism and the mechanical philosophical materialism. Of course, there are still physicists who are not keepers of the oldest vision but just the same they are also the defenders of the scientific myth of creation for they ignore the new theory of knowledge up to now.

The keepers of the old vision upholds the old myth of creation and the other relatively new keepers who belonged to mechanical philosophical materialism upholds that their modern scientific myth of big bang creation is superior because it is testable by experiments. But just the same they are both fully devoted to the basic doctrine of creation.

At any rate, more and more people are finding the reality of the overused doctrine of the oldest vision, thus, the dissemination of the ancient alien astronaut’s theory of the so-called alternative scientists. But they have to deal with the counterpoint of the philosophical materialists scientists first people theory. Any rate, the first step to that is the acceptance of former’s theory by the chief defender of the oldest vision.

[Mojowatcher]

Passing the authority?
But in view of the recent astronomical observations (the great shocker) plus the new revolutionary math, string theory and the multiverse notion) it appears the keepers of the oldest vision have no choice but to pass the authority to the defenders of creation and not to anyone else. This implies that if the keepers of the old vision are dislodged or overthrown with the validation of the new theories such as the string theory and the multiverse notion, then we can expect a new kind of ruler that slightly differ from the current keeper of the old vision. I have no doubt they can forcefully fit the dark energy idea to their ideas of creation. They have done it before and they can do it again. But just the same they are keepers of creation.

Because they don’t know exactly what it is yet, thus, they dubbed it dark energy. It’s actually the first working hypothesis of the so-called accelerating expansion of the universe. If the first step was the big bang to establish the idea of expansion of the universe, the dark energy is the first step to the cycle of big bangs hypothesis of the multiverse notion.

The expanding universe idea was rooted of the field equation of general relativity, that a nearly empty space necessarily expands is one the great conceptual revolutions so-called of the last century that we have associated with Edwin Hubble. In reality, Hubble knew exactly what is expected when he catalogued the moving away (receding) of far away galaxies from our Milky Way galaxy. It is not really difficult to understand inflation in cosmology (the so-called concept of the expanding universe of the keepers of creation).

According to the experimenters who discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe so-called they determined the outward velocities of galaxies from the shift of visible spectral lines to longer wavelengths (so-called redshifts). “Though often ascribed to the Doppler Effect—the phenomenon responsible for changing the pitch of a passing train whistles or car horn—the cosmological redshift is more correctly thought of as a result of the ongoing expansion of the universe, which stretches the wavelength of light passing between galaxies.” That’s according to the experimenters who discovered the great shocker of 1998 who have equated unquestionably the expansion with the redshifts.

“Emissions (of light) from more distant objects, having travelled for a greater time, become more redshifted than radiation from nearer sources.” Those were the exact words also of the report of the experimenters. Although the redshifts indicates the receding (moving away) of the far galaxies from our Milky Way galaxy, according to the experimenters, “it is correctly thought as an ongoing expansion”, thus, the conclusion it is an expanding universe. Of course, we are aware that according to this idea only the far galaxies are receding (moving) away from our own Milky Way galaxy. As we know, the theorists of the keepers of the oldest vision argued that if one is situated in any of the far away galaxies in our universe they would also observe the same redshifts or the recession of galaxies from their own vantage point, thus, the so-called idea of expansion came about.

Of course, the argument of the keepers of the old vision is based on the assumption that there is only one big bang that occurred in the past and, therefore, the assumption that there is only one expanding universe idea. This means that if you have a wrong assumption it can lead to wrong conclusions too as in the ideas of the single big bang and expanding universe or as in cosmic motion, which the ruling keepers equated to expansion.

[Frank_Macky]

The Suppression of the New Theory of Knowledge is a disquieting fact.
It is very clear also that the new theory of knowledge or the third vision is excluded and discarded in the intellectual struggle by the greatest physicists and keepers of the two competing visions of the last century. To me, the deliberate effort to deflect and or prettify its image in public is a new kind of intellectual suppression for it has destructive consequences lest it becomes apparent that is a code word in a top secret race among the keepers to build the ultimate weapon of massive destruction.

If there is anyone here doing the suppressing, it's YOU!

You have probably spent over ten thousand words yakking on already about this so-called NCA and have yet to explain exactly what this "new theory of knowledge" is other than it having something to do with "dialectics".

The issues raised were tantalizing and I found many valid, but ultimately they are just teasers and nothing new of substance has been given the slightest hint of yet by you after over 200 posts...

[paenggoy]

Correct and I fully agree with you, thus, I said the intellectual struggle cannot be separated from the economic struggle. As pointed out in my article Dark Shadows, even as the keepers in the world of science have shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions to what stuck them for over a century now with the two so-called competing visions, the promoters of the monopolistic capitalist system have likewise shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions on the capitalist crisis.

Some said that the global capitalist system is prone to crises and collapses. What are your views in this regard? I am not an economist so can you please elaborate on this issue? Thank you.

The current system is not sustainable because it requires continuous economic growth in a world with finite resources. Because of the same system, which involves competition, whatever technology is used to make production more efficient increase resource consumption, which in turn contributes to pollution and environmental damage which decreases resource availability.

With that, collapse is inevitable no matter what vision or intellectual movement is enabled.

[greenapple6000]

Anyway, there is one important issue that greenapple6000 pointed in the Big Bang thread that I haven't touch because of mys skeds at the time.

This is concerning evidence presented in courts of law and the comparisons he made as regards evidences presented in science. I fully agree with his observations that whether in science or in courts unfortunate mistakes can happen.

But the issue being discussed is about the evidence of asteroid impacts. I am fully convinced that the evidences presented are 100 percent true that not only the planet Earth and its satellite Moon but the other planets as well were impacted. In fact, the latest was the Tonguska impact in Russia in the early 20th century. I don't have the details now but will post them here as soon as I get them.

Sorry for the lateness.

The issue of the subject is not about asteroid impacts, rather, the mass extinction. If you think the demise of the dinos are attributed solely to asteroid impacts, I beg to disagree. There are many catastrophic events that can cause mass extinction, namely, a supernova event.

When a nearby star collapses, it explodes into a supernova. This supernova will produce unimaginable amount of cosmic radiation which can deplete the Earth's atmosphere. The cosmic radiation will then react chemically with the atmosphere converting nitrogen and oxygen into nitrogen oxides. This will also totally strip away the ozone layer. You now have a setup of an extreme mass extinction as breathable air and the protective ozone slowly depletes. Without the layer, every exposed life on earth will be bombarded with solar and cosmic radiation at full strength. Without an atmosphere, expect the temperature to rise considerably to unbearable temperatures. As breathable air thins out, every living thing will die of asphyxiation. No living thing can survive this catastrophe.

The Sun also poses another danger as it can blast solar flares a thousand times stronger, frying everything on earth to crisp. You also have volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis that have the ability to wipe out civilizations like Pompeii and submerge land masses under water like Atlantis which I believe was the probable cause of the massive global deluge.

So, you see, always reserve a certain skepticism when dealing with past events millions of years ago as there are many possibilities.

[Mojowatcher]

The New Theory of Knowledge
The following was taken from the Big Bang Disproved Thread and is intended for the people who missed it.

I firmly believe that the endeavors of science have no business whatsoever in one’s personal belief and faith. There is actually nothing wrong in believing or having faith for so long as you’re not entangled with them especially when attempting to understand our universe.

I firmly believe also that the different views on many subjects aren’t only a manifestation of the reality of the fundamental law of contradictions but realities in life. As a matter of fact, without the contradictions of ideas we have no philosophy or physics and so I am fully devoted to protecting the idea of free inquiry.

However, because this is an attempt to study the full spectrum of reality to understand the universe and why the keepers are stuck and, so, we can set aside our beliefs for now. For the issue at hand isn’t only about the dreary state of paralysis of the fundamental discipline of physics but one of survival of the human species. So, let me put it this way.

Warning: Reading my postings is a sure way to catch up to the new era in science and physics, the new era of clarity and purpose. You can easily grasp the key old ideas of physics and cosmology as well as the new ones with the new cosmic approach. You can even become a philosopher too, if you like. But the ideas that I have been unleashing are entirely new; they can unchain your mind from the dogma of the totalitarian keepers of the two competing visions and could get you out of entanglement!

As an aid to confusion, it is worthwhile to mention that whether we like or not or aren’t aware of it we tend to identify ourselves with either of the two competing visions because of the conscious effort and relentless suppression of the new or third vision (new world vision).

Yes, you are correct in asking that if it is really a far better new world vision than the two then how come the keepers ignore it. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the crux of the matter of the keepers why they are stuck. They are allergic to it because it is a clear and present danger to their authority.

In theology, they are referred to as the Orders of Knowledge. But, in philosophy, they refer to the two competing visions as philosophical idealism (aka western philosophy) and philosophical materialism. The third or new world vision is also known as the new theory of knowledge aka dialectical philosophical materialism as distinct from the purely mechanical or vulgar philosophical materialism.

In epistemology, they are referred to as doctrines of development, thus, the third vision is actually known as the new theory of knowledge. It is a far better doctrine of development (from non-knowledge to knowledge) for it doesn’t merely prepares you mentally from being led to confusion but its new power tool is effective in quickly clarifying the issues. (Let’s skip for awhile the remaining question on where correct ideas really come from.)

Some writers refer to them simply as the two competing visions but in the world of science they are the two standard and conventional conceptual tools: determinism and probabilism. The former is usually referred to by its proponents when they assert the positive opinion that there-are-no-accident even as their opponents, the latter, regard that there are accidents in nature.

Some refer to the latter as the theory of chance or randomness. Most writers I encountered refer to them simply as two competing visions because they are actually the derivatives or variance of the two great camps of philosophy.

Largely not known is that the great basic question that split philosophy into two great camps is about the relationship between Spirit and Nature. Those who answered that Spirit is primary belong to the camp of philosophical idealism and those who answered that Nature is primary belong to the camp of the various schools of philosophical materialism.

Indeed this basic question is what actually generated the key ideas in philosophy and physics. However, according to the new theory of knowledge any other use of the two competing visions leads to creation. That’s because it is always linked to religion, thus, eventually confusion.

We know now that both the keepers of the two seemingly irreconcilable visions decidedly rejected the new theory of knowledge aka dialectical philosophical materialism because they were fully devoted to their respective basic doctrines of creations of the two so-called competing visions.

We also know now that there is no essential difference between the two seemingly irreconcilable visions because they both uphold creation. However, the initiatives of Albert Einstein have firmly re-established the rule of these two old and obsolete conceptual frameworks of approaches, which he brilliantly concealed in his greatest scientific work but more particularly, the former.

The oldest vision (philosophical idealism) upholds the oldest myth of creation based on the sacred texts of the Bible. The relatively new vision (mechanical philosophical materialism) upholds the scientific myth of creation of the big bang, the first working hypothesis of the expanding universe idea.

In other words, the two so-called competing visions are still the accepted conventional approaches in explaining our material world. If we take our point of departure the great Ionian Awakening led by Thales of Miletus we are still stage one instead of stage six now.

Even as particles holds sway, however, because of the initiative of Einstein in firmly re-establishing the basic doctrine of creation of the oldest vision we haven’t been able to move on, thus, science is said to be stuck. That’s if we consider the intellectual struggle to understand the universe as an ongoing struggle. Because if we don’t then we might as well be priests and pastors instead of physicists because the former is well informed if not an expert on practically all matters.

If you are a scientist and not armed with the new theory of knowledge you might lose your focus in identifying the real issues as the keepers of the two competing visions are in the world of science now. In any case, and provided you get familiarized with its key ideas, the modified new theory of knowledge or new cosmic approach (NCA) should prevent you from being entangled with creation and led to confusion.

However, if you are one of its devotees you can even be surreptitious about it as the grand keeper of the oldest vision who was incidentally the greatest physicist of the last century. But be sure you’re not entangled with your system of beliefs for otherwise you could succumb to irrationality unless you’re a genius like Einstein. But even then that could increase the divisive petty sectarian clashes instead of putting a stop to it.

As we know now, his great initiative that was successfully concealed in his general relativity revived a new arena of petty sectarian clash that destructs the intellectual struggle. And I am attempting to stop it because the human species is more than ever endangered than 50ys ago.

Although it is generally recognized that success eluded him, the reality is that he was very successful with his initiative in intertwining the basic doctrine of creation not only in scientific theories but chaining the mind, thus, firmly re-establishing the basic doctrines of creations of the ruling keepers.

According to the myopic sectarian view, the issue of success depends entirely on what camp you identify yourself.

If you identify yourself with the oldest vision he was successful. But if you identify yourself with the progressive sections of the mechanical philosophical materialists, he wasn’t.

In other words, the new theory, which I incorporated now in the newly devised cosmic approach, prepares you also mentally from the tendency of identifying to either of the two competing visions.

However, even if you’re aware of the new theory you could be deflected, too, as I was, with the so-called alternative science. If you’re not paying attention you wouldn’t even notice that many of the ideas that are being disseminated these days, more particularly on the cable TV, have been in existence in the last century, thus, you could be led to confusion and deflection, too, as I was before.

Hence, this new phenomenon and the latest observations were accounted for in the revised new theory of knowledge also known now as the modified new dialectics or the new cosmic approach.

For instance, the new phenomenon previously mentioned above have actually troubled me for a while because I wasn’t aware that creationism has evolved into a new level now. Although they claimed that they are the new alternative scientists the reality is that their respective stories are recycled. They aren’t entirely new because they have been around in the last century already.

[Mojowatcher]

greenApple, thanks! Your advise is well noted. Yes, you are correct the issue is mass extinction. I was merely pointing out the recognition by some that the mass extinction of dinos was due to asteroid impacts. I think it is probable.

Anyway, to add to your plausible suggestion that supernova can likewise cause mass extinction is another mind boggling phenomena of the merging of galaxies or universes if you like. It may or may not cause mass extinctions but something else beyond imagination.

Thanks again for sharing your views. It becomes part, more or less, of a baseline I am trying to find out with the interested readers of this thread.

[Mojowatcher]

If you recall we have briefly discussed the Twin Paradox and Grandfather Paradox in relativity physics. That was mojowatcher meeting Einstein.

Largely not known is that particle physics has likewise paradoxical ideas, such as Zeno’s Achilles and the Tortoise paradox, which lead us to the Banach-Tarski Paradox. Yes, you may call this mojowatcher meeting particle physics.

So, to illustrate determinism and probabilism in a new light I shall attempt to present the paradoxical ideas of Zeno, such as the Zeno quantum effect and anti quantum effect and so on. I think this article will help in clarifying the Keeper Paradox and why dialectics is totally ignored up to now.

Please standby for a new article I am still writing for the thread: Should we abandone science now?

Zeno meets mojowatcher in the new era of science

[Mojowatcher]

Zeno meets mojowatcher’s Keeper Paradox in the new era of science
At last we note that the paradoxical idea of timeless universe, defended by Zeno and Parmenides at ancient times, is still alive in quantum gravity” wrote Z.K. Silagadze. Of course, like him we will not refute Zeno.

As previously mentioned in my posts, Plato told us that Zeno deserved to be called the inventor of dialectics for his paradoxes. So, to illustrate the new meaning of dialectics and why it is still discarded by modern philosophers and mainstream scientists it is worthwhile to mention the work of the same. We will review only some unexpected encounters of Zeno with modern science to show that his paradoxes are still much relevant, particularly the new theory of knowledge.

As previously mentioned, if the relativity physicists have the Twin Paradox and Grandfather Paradox, the particle physicists likewise has the paradoxes of Zeno to emphasize the discoveries of relativity principle and the quantum theory, respectively. These paradoxes are so entertaining that we tend to forget why they are brought up in studying the dialectical process of the development of ideas.

As we know now, the Twin paradox is only a paradox if you have absolute time at the back of your head. The Grandfather Paradox is only a paradox if you equate time as a location. As pointed out, time is not a location like Manila and New York. Time travel is a fantasy. Space travel is reality. Time doesn’t flow, and doesn’t pass: we pass.

The Keeper Paradox
We also know now that the Keeper Paradox is only a paradox if you have at the back of your head the two seemingly competing visions and their two derivative power tools, deterministic rather than probabilistic. But with the New Cosmic Approach, NCA, we now have dialectics as the third option. The NCA is an entirely new framework of approach that is consistent, coherent, and comprehensive for the new era of clarity and purpose in science.


It is a good thing that Silagadze finally noted the relevance of Zeno. It should answer also why I said, “Because of the conscious efforts to suppress it the new generation of theorists like Silagadze were deprived of the new power tool of the new theory of knowledge in identifying the principal and secondary contradictions with respect to the intellectual struggle”. So, even as keepers of the two seemingly competing visions that rule the world of science are themselves entangled with creation, thus, they cannot see the Keeper Paradox. Therefore, they are incapacitated to identify the principal contradiction in our intellectual struggle to understand the universe.

It is hope that this article should clear the meaning of the new theory of knowledge in our present times not only because it resolved the great basic question that split philosophy into two great camps but as shown it is the key to identifying the nature of the contradictions and conflicts of fundamental physics. As pointed out, the new theory of knowledge or dialectical philosophical materialism is distinctly superior and far better than the mechanical or vulgar philosophical materialism.

This article begins with a brief biography of Zeno of Elea followed by his famous paradoxes of motion. We will reflect on the continuity of space and time that lead us to Banach and Tarski and to their celebrated paradoxical example in the Bible. I feel that the most artistic example mentioned in the Banach-Tarski paradox can draw the attention of some misled scientists in this site. As previously mentioned, I am trying to stop the petty sectarian clash revived by Albert Einstein.

Of course, as pointed out by Z.K. Silagadze of the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia, although very counterintuitive it (Banach-Tarski paradox) is in fact not a paradox at all but a strict mathematical theorem. In addition, he also pointed out that quantum mechanics brings another flavour in Zeno paradoxes.

Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects are really paradoxical but now experimental facts. The supertasks and bifurcated supertasks and the concept of localization that leads us to Newton and Wigner and to interesting phenomenon of quantum revivals are discussed briefly. In other words, this is an adaptation of the work of Silagadze.

Zeno of Elea
“No one has ever touched Zeno without refuting him, and every century thinks it worthwhile to refute him”. Therefore it seems that refuting Zeno is eternal and unchanging affair in complete accord with the Eleatic philosophy. According to this philosophy all appearances of multiplicity, change, and motion are mere illusions. Interestingly, and true enough, just as Silagadze’s former USSR, the foundation of the Eleatic philosophical school was preceded by turbulent events in drastic contrast with its teaching of the unique, eternal, and unchanging universe.

The Eleatic school was founded by Xenophanes (born circa 570 BC), a wandering exile from his native city of Colophone in Ionia. Before finally joining the colony at Elea, he lived in Sicily and then in Catana. The Elea colony itself was founded by a group of Ionian Greeks which seize the site from the native Oenotrians. Earlier, these Ionian Greeks were expelled from their native city of Phocaea by the Persian army.

[Mojowatcher]

Having lost their homes, they sailed to the Corsica island and invaded it after a awful sea battle with the Carthaginians and Etruscans, just to drive once again into the sea as refugees after ten years later (in 545 BC) their rivals regained the island. We can just wonder about psychological influence of these events on the Eleatic school’s belief in permanent and unalterable universe. Zeno himself had experienced all treacherous vicissitudes of life. Diogenes Laertius describes him as the very courageous man:

“He, wishing to put an end to the power of Nearches, the tyrant (some, however, call the tyrant Diomedon), was arrested, as we are informed by Heraclides, in his abridgment of Satyrus. And when he was examined, as to his accomplices, and as to the arms he was taking to Lipara, he named all the friends of the tyrant as his accomplices, wishing to make him feel himself alone.

And then, after he had mentioned some names, he said that he wished to whisper something privately to the tyrant; and when he came near him he bit him, and would not leave his hold till he was stabbed. And the same thing happened to Aristogiton, the tyrant slayer. But Demetrius, in his treatise on People of the same Name, says that it was his nose that he bit off.

Moreover, Antisthenes, in his Successions, says that after he had given him information against his friends, he was asked by the tyrant if there was anyone else. And he replied, ”Yes, you ordered the destruction of the city.” And that he also said to the bystanders”, I marvel at your cowardice, if you submit to be slaves to the tyrant out of fear of such pains as I am now enduring.”

And at last he bit off his tongue and spit it at him; and the citizens immediately rushed forward, and slew the tyrant with stones. And this is the account that is given by almost every one”. Although this account of Zeno’s heroic deeds and torture at the hands of the tyrant is generally considered as unreliable, Zeno after all is famous not for his brevity but for his paradoxes, thus, Plato said he invented dialectics.

Zeno’s paradoxes of motion
Zeno was a disciple of Parmenides, the most illustrious representative of the Eleatic philosophy. According to Parmenides, many things taken for granted, such as motion, change, and plurality, are simply illusions and the reality is in fact an absolute, unchanging oneness. Of course, nothing contradicts more to our common sense experience than this belief.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Parmenides’ views were ridiculed by contemporaries (and not only). In his “youthful effort” Zeno elaborated a number of paradoxes in order to defend the system of Parmenides and attack the common conceptions of things. The four most famous of these paradoxes deny the reality of motion. The Dichotomy paradox, for example, states that it is impossible to cover any distance:

• There is no motion, because that which is moved must arrive at the middle before it arrives at the end, and so on ad infinitum.

According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic after hearing this argument from Zeno’s followers silently stood up and walked, so pointing out that it is a matter of the most common experience that things in fact do move. This answer, very clever and effective
perhaps, is unfortunately completely misleading, because it is not the apparent motion what Zeno questions but how this motion is logically possible. And the Diogenes’s answer does not enlighten us at all in this respect:

A bearded sage once said that there’s no motion.
His silent colleague simply strolled before him, --
How could he answer better?! -- all adored him!
And praised his wise reply with great devotion.
But men, this is enchanting! -- let me interject,
For me, another grand occurrence comes to play:
The sun rotates around us every single day,
And yet, the headstrong Galileo was correct.

Silagadze asked: But what is paradoxical in Zeno’s arguments? Let us take a closer look. According to Zeno, any movement can be subdivided into infinite number of ever decreasing steps. But Silagadze says, “This is not by itself paradoxical, if we assume infinite divisibility of space and time. What is paradoxical is an ability to perform infinite number of subtasks in a finite time – to perform a supertask.

Any movement seems to be a supertask according to Zeno and it is by no means obvious that it is ever possible to perform infinite number of actions in a finite time. Our intuition tells us just the contrary – that it is a clear impossibility for finite beings to manage any supertask. In the case of Dichotomy it is even not clear how the movement can begin at all because there is no first step to be taken.

Aristotle tried to resolve this situation by distinguishing potential and actual infinities: “To the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible; if they are potential, it is possible”. But Aristotle’s answer is not much better than Diogenes’. It is incomplete. In fact, it is doubly incomplete.

According to this view, Zeno’s infinite subdivision of a motion is purely mathematical; it is merely the action of imagination. But even if we accept Aristotle’s position it is desirable to show that in mathematics we have tools to handle infinities in a logically coherent way. In fact, no such tools were at Aristotle’s disposal and they were only germinated after two thousand years when the notion of limit emerged. Calculus was developed and Georg Cantor created his set theory.

We can say that Dichotomy is not mathematically paradoxical today. Either classical or non-standard analysis can supply sufficient machinery to deal with both the Dichotomy and its more famous counterpart, the Achilles and the tortoise paradox:

• The slower will never be overtaken by the quicker, for that which is pursuing must first reach the point from which that which is fleeing started, so that the slower must always be some distance ahead.

This latter paradox is more impressively formulated in terms of two bodies but in fact it is a symmetric counterpart of the Dichotomy and has a variant involving only one moving body: “To reach a given point, a body in motion must first traverse half of the distance, then half of what remains, half of this latter, and so on ad infinitum, and again the goal can never be reached”. Therefore, if the Dichotomy wonders how the motion can begin as there is no first step; the Achilles makes it equally problematic the end of the motion because there is no last step.

Modern mathematics partly completes Aristotle’s argument and provides a coherent mathematical picture of motion. But all this mathematical developments, although very wonderful, do not answer the main question implicit in Aristotle’s rebuttal of Zeno: how the real motion actually takes place and whether its present day mathematical image still corresponds to reality at the most fundamental level.

Zeno meets Banach and Tarski Paradox
In this scenario, Silagadze use the example of the infinite divisibility of space and time. He told us that, “This infinite divisibility is in fact paradoxical, even though the modern mathematics has no trouble to deal with this infinite divisibility. The following explains his view points.

Zeno’s argument shows that any spatial or temporal interval contains unaccountably many points. Nevertheless, a moving body manages to traverse all these points in a finite time. Let us consider any division of the interval into non-empty pairwise mutually exclusive
subintervals (that is any pair of them have no common points).

Then there exists at least one set N that contains one and only one point from each of the subintervals. Indeed, a moving point body enters into a given subinterval sooner or later while traversing the initial interval and will remain into this subinterval for some amount of time.

We can take any point the moving body occupies during this time interval as an element of N. All this seems very natural and self-evident, and so does its natural generalization, the axiom of choice:

• If M is any collection of pairwise mutually exclusive, non-empty sets P, there exists at least one set N that contains one and only one element from each of the sets P of the collection M.

[Mojowatcher]

If one may choose an element from each of the sets P of M, the set N can evidently be formed – hence the name of the axiom. Now this innocently looking “self-evident” axiom leads to the most paradoxical result in the mathematics, the Banach-Tarski theorem, which is so contrary to our intuition that is better known as the Banach-Tarski Paradox. The most artistic presentation of this paradox can be found in the Bible:

“As he went ashore he saw a great throng; and he had compassion on them, and healed their sick. When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said: ”This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves”. Jesus said: ”They need not go away; you give them something to eat”. They said to him: ”We have only five loaves here and two fish”.

And he said: ”Bring them here to me”. Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And
they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children”. In the more formal language the Banach-Tarski theorem states that
• in any euclidean space of dimension n > 2, any two arbitrary bounded sets are equivalent by finite decomposition provided they contain interior points.

Blumenthal, L. M. A Paradox, a Paradox, a Most Ingenious Paradox; Amer. Math.
Monthly 1940, Vol. 47, pp. 346-353.
Runde, V. The Banach-Tarski paradox or What mathematics and miracles have in
common; π in the Sky 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 13-15.
http://ru.arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0202309

This theorem opens, for example, the door to the following mathematical alchemy : a ball of the size of orange can be divided into a finite number of pieces which can be reassembled by using merely translations and rotations to yield a solid ball whose diameter
is larger than the size of the solar system. Of course a real orange cannot be chopped in such a way because atoms and molecules constitute a limit of divisibility of any chemical substance and the pieces required in the Banach-Tarski theorem are so irregular that they are nonmeasurable and the concept of volume (Lebesgue measure) does not make sense for them.

But does space-time itself also have a limit of divisibility? It is yet an open question. The comprehensive discussion of the Banach-Tarski theorem is given in and for an elementary approach with a full proof of the theorem see, Wagon, S. The Banach-Tarski Paradox; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1993, and Stromberg, K. The Banach-Tarski paradox; Amer. Math. Monthly 1979, Vol. 86, pp.151-161.

One can question whether paradoxical counter-intuitive decompositions like the ones implied by the Banach-Tarski theorem are of any use in physics. Surprisingly, there were several attempts in this direction.Pitowsky was the first (to our knowledge) to consider a certain extension of the concept of probability to nonmeasurable sets in connection with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell’s inequalities. Pitowsky, I. Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell Paradoxes; Phys. Rev.Lett. 1982, Vol. 48, pp. 1299-1302; 1768; Vol. 49, p. 1216. Pitowsky, I. Deterministic model of spin and statistics; Phys. Rev. D 1983, Vol. 27, pp. 2316-2326.

Another examples can be traced through, Svozil, K., & Neufeld, N. ’Linear’ chaos via paradoxical set decompositions; Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 1996, Vol. 7(5), pp. 785-793, and Augenstein, B. W. Links Between Physics and Set Theory; Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 1996, Vol. 7(11), pp. 1761-1798.

One cannot blame the axiom of choice as the only culprit of such paradoxical mathematical results. Even without the use of this axiom one can argue that there is some truth in the proverb that the world is small, because the results proved in, Dougherty, R., & Foreman, M. Banach-Tarski Decompositions Using Sets with the Property of Baire; Journal of the American Mathematical Society 1994, Vol.7(1), pp.75-124, entirely constructively, without the axiom of choice, imply that there is a finite collection of disjoint open subsets of the sun that fill the whole sun without holes of positive radius and that nevertheless can be rearranged by rigid motions to fit inside a pea and remain disjoint.

Maybe the the Banach-Tarski theorem and analogous paradoxical decompositions will appear a bit less paradoxical if we realize that the Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox illustrates that any two intervals contain the same number of points regardless their length. Indeed, during their race Achilles and the Tortoise cover desperately different intervals. Nevertheless one can arrange a one-to-one correspondence between points of these intervals because for
every point A from the Achilles’ track there is only one point B on the track of tortoise, which the tortoise occupied at the same instant of time when Achilles occupied A.

In fact, as Cantor proved in 1877, there is a one-to-one correspondence of points on the interval
[0, 1] and points in a square, or in any n-dimensional space. Cantor himself was surprised at his own discovery and wrote to Dedekind, “I see it, but I don’t believe it!” See O’Connor, J. J., & Robertson, E. F. Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor;
http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac....ns/Cantor.html

[Mojowatcher]

Zeno meets quantum mechanics
Despite some paradoxical flavour, the infinite divisibility of real space-time, although unwarranted at yet, is mathematically coherent. But Zeno’s paradoxes contain some other physical premises also that deserve careful consideration. The Achilles and the tortoise
Paradox, for example, assumes some observation procedure:
• check the positions of the contenders in the race.
• check again when Achilles reached the position the tortoise occupied at previous step.
• repeat the previous instruction until Achilles catch the tortoise (and this is an infinite
loop because he never does).

Calculus teach us that the above observational process covers only finite interval of time in spite of its infinitely many steps. And during this time interval the tortoise will be indeedalways ahead of Achilles. The observational procedure Zeno is offering simply does not allow us to check the contenders positions later when Achilles overtake the tortoise. So, does that mean the Paradox is solved? The answer is no.

Zeno’s procedure implicitly assumes an ability to perform position measurements. Therefore two questions remain: whether it is possible to perform infinitely frequent measurements taken for granted by Zeno, and how the race will be affected by back-reaction from these measurements. The world is quantum mechanical after all and the measurement process is rather subtle thing in quantum mechanics.
Peres, A. Zeno paradox in quantum theory; Am. J. Phys. 1980, Vol. 48, pp. 931-932.
Wallace, D. Simple computer model for the quantum Zeno effect; Phys. Rev. A 2001,
Vol. 63, 022109.
Misra, B., & Sudarshan, E. C. G. The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory; J. Math.
Phys. 1977, Vol. 18, pp. 756763.
Home, D., & Whitaker, M. A. B. A Conceptual Analysis of Quantum Zeno; Paradox,
Measurement, and Experiment; Annals of Physics 1997, Vol. 258, pp. 237-285.
Bokulich, A. Quantum measurements and supertasks; International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2003, Vol. 17, pp. 127-136.

The main conclusion of Z.K. Silagadze paper is that physics is beautiful. Undoubtedly his observations are realities. For example, he said that “Questions aroused two and half millennium ago and scrutinized many times are still not exhausted”. Zeno’s paradoxes deal with fundamental aspects of reality like localization, motion, space, and time. New and unexpected facets of these notions come into sight from time to time and every century finds it worthwhile to return to Zeno over and over.

Zeno meets the new theory of knowledge
According to him, “The process of approaching to the ultimate resolution of Zeno’s paradoxes seems endless and our understanding of the surrounding world is still incomplete and fragmentary”. Clearly, he is not aware that the Zeno’s paradoxes belong to the camp of philosophical materialism, and that the contradictions between the two seemingly competing visions have already been resolved with the new theory of knowledge of the mid 19th century great intellectual revolutions This was already explained previously in my postings on the unfinished symphony.

“Nevertheless”, he believe that, “There is something great in astronomy, in physics, in all the Natural sciences that allows the human being to look beyond its present place and to arrive
at some understanding of what goes on beyond the insignificant meanness of Spirit that so often pervades our existence”. He likewise mentioned of the reality of Nature but again it is very clear he missed the relationships between the two, which split philosophy into two great camps. That Zeno’s paradoxes are part and parcel of Nature, of a new type of philosophical materialism, the dialectical philosophical materialism. Thus, he said, “There is a Nature; there is a Cosmos; and we walk towards the understanding of it all.

Instead of being a dialectical philosophical materialist scientist, he prefers to be a romanticist philosopher for asking: Is it not wonderful? And to this, his answers are: There are many charms in the profession; as many charms as in love provided, of course, that they are not in the service of mercantile aims”. Yet, his last words are so revealing, they discount the new power tool of the new theory of knowledge called dialectics.

Zeno meets the Keeper Paradox
Clearly, the keepers are still entangled with creation that they cannot see the reality of the Keeper Paradox. So, if the intellectual struggle is stuck with the two so-called competing visions it is mainly because the keepers were completely entangled with creation. So, therefore, for those who believe that science was invented for our survival and wants to move and advance it to the next stage mojowatcher says that it is imperative to re-affirm our commitment to it. If it is not deterministic or probabilistic, it’s definitely dialectics. Your call!!

Partial List of References
[1] Whitehead, A.N. Essays in Science and Philosophy; Philosophical Library: New York,
1948; p. 87.
[2] Brown, K., Reflections on Relativity; pp. 210 - 216.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
[3] Diogenes Laertius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, translated by
C.D. Yonge; Henry G. Bohn: London, 1853;
http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diog...no-eleatic.htm
[4] O’Connor, J. J., & Robertson, E. F. Zeno of Elea;
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/∼...athematicians/ Zeno of Elea.html
[5] Burnet, J. Early Greek Philosophy; Black: London, 1930.
[6] Makin, S. Zeno of Elea; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Routledge: London,
1998; Vol. 9, pp. 843-853.
[7] Fairbanks, A. The First Philosophers of Greece; K. Paul, Trench, Trubner: London,
1898; p. 112.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/zeno.htm
[8] Cajori, F. History of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion; Amer. Math. Monthly 1915, Vol.
22, pp. 1-6; 39-47; 77-82; 109-115; 143-149; 179-186; 215-220; 253-258; 292-297.
[9] Grunbaum, A. Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes; George Allen and Unwin Ltd.:
London, 1968.
[10] Salmon, W. C. Zeno’s Paradoxes; Bobbs Merrill: New York, 1970.
[11] Huggett, N. Zeno’s Paradoxes; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.);

[PgUp]

Well, governments have sponsored education to protect the environment not understanding that science is the key to development rather than the cause of the problems.

When we use the term development, it is all about change or advancement in technology. Technological changes may constitute picking up where some have fortunately or successfully left off. Innovative progress meanwhile may sometimes be about making dreams come true, where what is impossible for many has become a working reality due to discovery or innovation. Unfortunately, environmental advocacy works like a police of technology and science. It penalizes or abandoned science in the make belief that things were better off in the absence of technology and responsibility, where carefree freedom is really scientific carelessness and customary ignorance.

[PgUp]

The world is currently a victim of the environmental movement, which got agendas written by an undisclosed group of STRANGERS in an effort to politically reign overall. Thus, without many understanding it, the One-World government has already been setup and via this movement, the written policies or agendas are being implemented by governments the world over, "religiously" and unquestioned. All have been pushed back into the dark ages, which explain the deep financial issues that cloud societies today since the Dark Ages too got no monetary system to speak of but barter trading. The modern world is being trashed systematically by destruction of commerce under the guise of saving the economy by overprinting of money that enriches a few under conditions of royalty payments. The overall effect of this problem is widespread slavery or feudalism.

[paenggoy]

Well, governments have sponsored education to protect the environment not understanding that science is the key to development rather than the cause of the problems.

Actually, it's the other way round. As Gatto puts it, the purpose of public education is to promote consumer spending.

Also, subjects about the environment are part of science subjects, and protection of such is also based on science.

When we use the term development, it is all about change or advancement in technology. Technological changes may constitute picking up where some have fortunately or successfully left off. Innovative progress meanwhile may sometimes be about making dreams come true, where what is impossible for many has become a working reality due to discovery or innovation. Unfortunately, environmental advocacy works like a police of technology and science. It penalizes or abandoned science in the make belief that things were better off in the absence of technology and responsibility, where carefree freedom is really scientific carelessness and customary ignorance.

Technology can also be used to decrease pollution, which makes "environmental advocacy" dependent on the same.