Once upon a time I believed in science as a creative process. Nowadays I doubt it to be more than contemporary religion. To illustrate this, I will present a typical “discussion” as it unfolds when I try being creative in relation to a scientific thinker. This is not to “out” someone in particular, because in my experience, this attitude or belief system is the norm. I have seen it almost without exception in every response I get when questioning the established pattern of thinking. Exactly the same thing happens when I’m stupid enough to question any religious truth so this is not to critisize the scientific community. It is to highlight the mind’s default function of hiding itself in the process of expressing itself. My mind is in this respect just like yours. All minds are alike, whether we know it or not. The trick is to know that, from a “Me”-perspective, there is no knowledge but My Knowledge, and that inevitably excludes the knowing of Me.
Me: I suggest “energy” is caused by “force” and force being what spins and rotates. We can detect a “what” which appears to “spin”, but that’s the effect caused by some other “what”. I maintain that the latter is not accessible to observation. The vortices in condensates has that force at their zero point origo. I for one cannot imagine something external to their perimeters that causes that spin. If we trap them by applying energy, with laser beams for example, the effect can be momentarily decreased, but without external manipulation they seem to self-generate the quality of spin. Force does this, not energy. And the higher rate of spin, the more potential energy is there.
Scientist: I’d be inclined to suggest that that doesn’t really sound like physics. Forces and energy are related (and forces can at least be directly measured), but there’s no particular implication that force ’causes’ energy… For instance, spin is angular momentum, which is naturally conserved… it’s not ‘self generating’… in the absence of external forces, a spinning object will simply keep spinning… it requires an application of force to change the spin… but even in the absence of any force it spins… and thus has energy… not potential energy, but rotational kinetic energy… the faster it spins the more kinetic energy it has, because it’s ‘moving’ faster… We can apply a force to make it spin faster, and thus add energy… but we can also apply a force to make it spin more slowly, and thus lose energy… the force is responsible for the energy change, but in what sense can it actually ’cause’ the energy?
I should add, of course, Niklas, that the intuition is on the right track… spin is a key concept in modern physics, yet often overlooked… There’s a reason that Planck’s constant describes a fundamental unit of spin… and there are clear links between spin and energy and force interactions… which is why it’s worth learning to use the concepts properly…
And that’s it. The scientist assumes I have not attended high school physics or bothered to google wikipedia for “force” and “energy”. Or Scientist believes me to actually have read about it, but tells me not to question what is in the textbook. I am considered
This is why I never thrived in the “proper” educational system. I listened and learned ok, but then I had the stomach to say “But what if..”, and that is not allowed if you are not already a “proper” authority. Only they have the right to be creative, to destroy and rebuild. Of course they are frowned upon and considered “out of line”, but they are at least not labelled “stupid” or “lazy”, perhaps “disobediant”. The last being the very essence of their work so I guess they take that as credit.
Now, did Scientist read my words “properly”? Did s/he even attempt to understand what I was pointing to? From the response, it seems not to be the case. I explicitly write force and energy as “force” and “energy” in a feeble attempt at openly admitting my use of these concepts are not the proper usage. To me it seems totally obvious that I am suggesting a redefinition of force, but to Scientist I’m just ignorant of what force really is. I’m directed to the textbook.
My fault is of “not sounding like physics”. That is, I do not speak in the words of the textbook. Religious people say the same thing. They have their scriptures to obey, just as science have theirs.
“Forces can at least be measured”. Is that so? In that case, reality is correctly defined by means of our measurements. If we measure “force” then Force it is.That’s a very convenient and useful approach. The preacher says – If we experience “god”, God it is. But Scientist believes inderect measurements are more valid than direct experience while Preacher holds the opposite to be correct. Either way, both Force and God are believed to be of physical properties and existing as matters of fact.
Since I am obviously is questioning these ideas, I write:
“I maintain that the latter is not accessible to observation”.
What I’m trying to say is that an ultimate cause is not possible to observe, regardless of calling it “God” or “Force”. If it is not itself caused, it will not change from being observed. An ultimate cause cannot possibly exchange information with an observer of any kind. Why not? Because it is the cause of information to exists in the first place, that’s why. You cannot investigate gasoline by means of fire. Fire will not penetrate or manipulate gasoline. If you enter the lab filled with gasoline fumes, I suggest you do not light a match in order to observe the fumes in better light. What happens is that “fire” causes “fumes” to ignite, but where there is fire, there are no fumes to investigate. There is no border condition where fire causes gasoline to become fire. Either it burns or it doesn’t. There’s no state of gasoline as “slightly burning”. Ok, so we keep asking;
What caused the fire – a match did.
What caused the match to burn – I did.
What caused you to light the match – my decision to light the match.
…and soon enough, we’re stuck in the dead end of “free will” or perhaps in the suggested quark/gluon-soup. Either option is equally hopeless. When this happens, and because we humans fear not-knowing more than anything else, there are some available escape routes.
Religion: It is all about God.
Good enough Science: We will never know, that’s all.
Creative Science: It is all about us to keep working on it..
Philosophy: It is all about defining “ultimate” and “cause” correctly.
Hinduism: It is all about the Supreme Lord residing in Everything.
Zen: It is all about knowing who is asking the question?
Advaita: It is This, not “about” this.
Animism: It is all about Mother Nature.
Mathematics: It is all about information.
Homer Simpson: What’s all this about?
New Age: It is all about Love.
Ignorasmus: This is just pretentious mumbo-jumbo.
Nihilist: Who fuckin’ cares?
Then there is the option to avoid having an opinion or belief. Instead of having the courage to stand up for any of the above, you can appear as knowledgable by picking on those who do make a statement. This is the go to-response we find among the skeptics. Their answer to the most fundamental questions is always to point out why others are wrong, without providing a reasonable alternative. This is almost like accepting the position of Good Enough Science, that “we will never know”. The particular thing with skeptics is that they seem obsessed with finding an answer anyway. Good Enough Scientists need not argue and attack any particular position or belief. They just turn their back on the question and keep doing what they believe is possible and of use. Skeptics won’t do that. Deep inside they really want to know, but their conviction that definite knowledge is impossible makes them angry and frustrated. Therefore they mock those who suggest they have found a fundamental answer to all questions.
in the absence of external forces, a spinning object will simply keep spinning
So Scientist explicitly acknowledge and agree to what I am suggesting. S/he confirms that a spinning object will keep spinning all by itself, but to the scientific mind, this has no further implications. It does not turn on the lights, if you will.
there’s no particular implication that force ’causes’ energy…
To me it implies that this kind of thinking inevitably leads to contradictions. Like saying the spinning object “just keeps spinning” while denying that spin is self-generated. So if nothing makes it spin, and it does not spin by itself, a curious scientist would ask –
What the heck is going on here? We cannot have a physical event like “spin” without at least trying to understand what causes this observation. We must know. We will know. Let’s investigate!
Characterizing singularities by the 𝐶 -point index. Spin lines representing the local orientation of the major axis of the spin ellipse are plotted over the condensate phase.
From: Singular atom optics with spinor Bose–Einstein condensates
Azure Hansen, Justin T. Schultz, and Nicholas P. Bigelow, Optica,Vol. 3, Issue 4,pp. 355-361
My note: This is a picture of “spin”, not of a “spinor”.
That’s the Spirit of Knowledge I’m looking for. The readers of the Bible do not know physics correctly, or they keep themselves blindfolded to protect their flawed interpretations of the basics in the book. They will maintain that the cause of spin is a Prime Mover, a One Deity that creates spin. They refuse to acknowledge the vast ocean of spinning zero points as having anything to do with creation and universal operation. They want One creator, so that’s what they get.
Scientific mind on the other hand refuses to see that there is a prime motion i.e. spin in everything existing. Or rather, it observes this unconditioned and thus fundamental property of existence, but maintain that this observation has “no further implications”.
To the eternal question – what makes all this happen, the religious mind says “God”. If you ask a scientific mind, it is likely to say “We don’t care to find out because that’s for religion and philosophy to deal with”.
Then the scientific community is concerned with signs of the public opinion having too little trust in science and worse, tending to increased interest in spirituality.
One concern with including non-empirical arguments in Bayesian confirmation theory, Dawid acknowledged in his talk, is “that it opens the floodgates to abandoning all scientific principles.” One can come up with all kinds of non-empirical virtues when arguing in favor of a pet idea. “Clearly the risk is there, and clearly one has to be careful about this kind of reasoning,” Dawid said. “But acknowledging that non-empirical confirmation is part of science, and has been part of science for quite some time, provides a better basis for having that discussion than pretending that it wasn’t there, and only implicitly using it, and then saying I haven’t done it. Once it’s out in the open, one can discuss the pros and cons of those arguments within a specific context.”
Here’s the deal: Religion has this pet idea that there is a creator that causes our empirical observations to happen, to even exist. Some religious folks call the cause “God”, but the implied cause goes by many names e.g. Buddha nature, Vishnu, The Force etc. All believers in an ultimate cause have their own label on it, but they all agree there is a cause for all of existence as it is and evolves/changes. The scientific response to that pet theory is that such a cause is irrelevant to science for as long as it is indeed beyond empirical detection. As such, the cause is just a matter of speculation and blind faith. But the fear of “all kinds of non-empirical virtues” to come up is clearly misguided. If you look closely to all the diverse expressions of spiritual beliefs, they have one thing in common – the belief in something that is more fundamental than what can be detected by means of empirical investigation. Where they may differ some is how to deal with the concequenses following this basic assumption. But that is all about cultural and momentary opinions regarding “correct behavior”. That is the lesser law invented and applied by humans. The bigger law concerning reality as a universal fact is what we’re dealing with here. It is not about how many goats are allowed to graze on the northern hill.
Am I the only one seeing that science already have observed what religion call God? Can’t you see that God has has been revealed for decades now?
Is it so hard to see that the only thing keeping religion and science apart is the nature of human mind and its strong tendency to believe its content to be My Understanding?
Until we are forced to realize what we are, religion will keep saying God is the ultimate answer, so science knows nothing of truth, while science keeps saying that knowing “God” has no particular implications because it is just spin anyway.
Or a lattice
Or next weeks interesting hypothesis
I see no other way out of this ridiculous Catch 22 than to trust evolution having its way with us. We did not design, cause or evolve ourselves you know…or do you? I realized this by “knowing who it is asking the question”, and I consider that event a quirk of evolution. It happens to a lot of people and it is not the pleasent and joyful experience as is generally believed. You must pray for a good sense of humor to counter the hurt and sorrow that comes with watching us kill ourselves in the blind belief we are making progress. You want to stop this lunacy, but you are constantly stopped from doing it.
Everyone is waiting for their particular saviour and bringer of light. Scientists wait for the next Einstein or Newton. Christians wait for the second coming of Jesus. Buddhists wait for Maitreya. They all share the belief and faith in a particular individual who will reveal the ultimate truth to us. They are all true believers of separation and relation.
Few are able to realize that what they believe to be One is actually Many, and what they believe to be Many is actually One.
The One Creator is in reality Many Creators which are Discrete and Untouchable.
The Many Creations are in reality One Creation which is Continous and Touchable.
The Many Discretes are untouchable simply because they are discrete. But you will never hear a scientist saying this, because that would imply a definite limit of scientific method. I have repeatedly argued that an entity that is defined as discrete can never be observed as it is, which is what science call its eigenstate. As soon as an experimental instrument interacts (measures) something that is by definition discrete, its eigenstate becomes an unsererstate as related to the instrument of measurement. But science wants to eat the cake while keeping it. First it claims reality to be, on the most fundamental level, discrete and thus separate entities or “quanta”. Then it claims to have knowledge of this quanta by means of interacting with it. No wonder quantum physics has a measurement problem which has “generated a multitude of responses“.
But the effect of these discrete untouchables is indeed possible to measure. It is in fact Everything, including the scientist, the instruments and the event of measuring. One such effect is me sitting here writing this, another effect was Einstein as seemingly “causing” the theory of General Relativity by “thinking”. But as we know, no event or object measured or experienced is totally separate from its environment. The general rule is very simple:
If it can be observed, it is not discrete and separate but continuus and connected.
If it cannot be observed, but only inferred, it is discret and disconnected.
But you will never hear a preacher of Genesis saying that existence as we know it is One continuus field/ensamble of connected forms. S/he will deny that because the Bible says One creator created many particular things, in particular meaning Man (as separate from Nature). That’s of course to read the Bible from Ego’s inherently separate perspective. But that’s how they misunderstand it.
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
- Creation is of a quality that will evolve, not of finite and perfectly defined quantities.
- Creation is not one directional but an interactive process.
If the spinor of the spin causes the effect of energy/matter, then this effect will in turn affect how spin operates as integrated units in the bigger context of cause and effect. That’s why the authors/scientists inform the reader of God as also being us on a functional level. They are not telling us The God made every form of creation to be exactly as we see it today. Instead they say “God is the cause of creating a unified whole/holy existence where the God, as a sort of Singularity, become Gods of its own/one creation.
But who the hell am I to believe I can shed light over what has been in the darkness for millenia? Of course the reader will conclude what I already know i.e. that I know nothing of this. The only difference is between the “I know nothing” and the “I know nothing”.
That little difference makes all of the difference.
But You will never get this.