Comment / Share

  Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst


Importance of Philosophy to Mathematics / Physics
Problems of Self Fulfilling Prophecy / Specialisation / Complexity

This is a short essay on why the most simple science theory of reality was never considered until now.

On Simplicity, Necessary Connection, Logic, Truth and Reality

(Deducing the Most Simple Science Theory of Reality)

It is a significant fact that no one ever asked the question;

What is the most simple science theory of reality?

You can confirm this by searching Google for the most simple science theory of reality - no other website on the internet considers this - which is strange given Occam's Razor (principle of simplicity) and Metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) are both fundamental to science.

If you abide by the rules of science (logic from principles = knowledge from senses) you can deduce this for yourselves as there is only one solution, the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.
And from this most simple theoretical foundation (of only one thing existing, Space, with the properties of a wave medium) you can then deduce the fundamentals of modern physics, and also explain and solve the central problems of philosophy and metaphysics (which all relate to necessary connection). There is no opinion involved - it shows that science does work - we just needed the correct (most simple) foundations.

Thus it was premature to claim science does not really work (the logical positivist / social construct view of postmodern science - see Feynman quote below) without having considered this most simple solution.

There is an interesting quote from Albert Einstein on this relationship between physics and philosophy.

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. (Albert Einstein, 1936)

It must be said though, that mathematical physics has failed in the last seventy years, since Einstein wrote this, to solve the problematic contradictions that had arisen.
It seems likely, that by be being taught mathematical physics, physicists are somehow passing on beliefs and particular ways of thinking to successive generations which prevent them from solving these contradictions. This possibility must be considered, and if it is true, it is something that the more isolated philosopher will likely avoid.

Albert Einstein was actually a very good philosopher / metaphysicist as well as being a mathematical physicist (part of the reason for his greatness I think). Thus the following two quotes are very very important (all scientists should read them!)

So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. (Albert Einstein, 1944)I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
(Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944)

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori' ... The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. (Albert Einstein)How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. (Albert Einstein. 'Ernst Mach.' Physikalische Zeitschrift 17 (1916): 101, 102 - A memorial notice for the philosopher, Ernst Mach.)

The Evolution of Complexity in Mathematical Physics

Evolutionary philosophy tells us that evolving systems have a tendency to become more complex over time. Therefore we would expect that since 1915 mathematical physics has evolved into a much more diverse, complex, specialized field of knowledge.
There are some interesting consequences of this natural evolution of complexity.

Complexity and Specialization

As we are producing more and more mathematical relationships, further and further removed from experience, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine which relationships are only mathematically true, and which are also physically true. Hence mathematical physics becomes very difficult to understand, and relate to the physically real world around us (of matter existing in Space).
Further to this, the individual who now studies mathematical physics, must specialize to a much greater degree than they have in the past, to learn one small field of knowledge satisfactorily. This then has the danger, of producing individuals with a narrow focus, and a lack of perspective and understanding about the world in general.

Russell makes note of this in this criticism of Platonists.

It is noteworthy that modern Platonists, with few exceptions, are ignorant of mathematics, in spite of the immense importance that Plato attached to arithmetic and geometry, and the immense influence they had on his philosophy. This is an example of the evils of Specialization: a man must not write on Plato unless he has spent so much of his youth on Greek as to have had no time for the things that Plato thought important. (Bertrand Russell)

It is logical, that this danger of Specialization applies more to the mathematical physicist, than to the natural philosopher, who studies truth wherever it may lead, and is thus naturally a generalist.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

I think there are three strong self fulfilling prophecies in physics that are causing great harm.

a) Mathematical physics is too complex for a simple model to explain.

... and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. ... as I explained in the first lecture, the way we have to describe Nature is generally incomprehensible to us. ... the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. (Richard P. Feynman)

It is obvious that if physicists think this way then they will never discover a new model for the universe. Their evolution of describing light, matter, and the universe, will be limited to the stumbling upon of mathematical relationships which correctly fit experiment. This is not meant to be harsh. The mathematical modeling of the universe is an awesome human achievement, and is the result of many thousands of wonderfully intelligent humans devoting their lives to developing mathematical relationships. It has been a process of evolution, where the survival of a mathematical relationships depends ultimately upon their agreement with experiment. The end result though, is just chaos and confusion - the exact opposite of the true aims of science.

b) Any simple model would have been found by one of the great minds of physics.

Surely all reasonable models for light and matter have been considered?
Certainly Einstein and all the other great physicists of the last century considered all possible models!
And yet is this a valid and logical way to think? History actually shows that it is not. We humans have thousands of beliefs, and some of these are insidious and deceptive, and hinder scientific inquiry. It is very hard to identify these beliefs, because they form the very fabric of how we relate and think.

What we can say with certainty is that ideas come from individual minds, from people. These people are not geniuses who divinely know all things, they are people who study and think. It is the many who create the fame and myth about the few who are famous. Once we discount the myth and follow the evolution of ideas, we see more clearly why individuals thought the way they did, and discovered what they have. We see more clearly the beliefs and biases of their time, and how these things affected the way they thought.
It is true that my physics book contains far more knowledge than Einstein ever had access to, and hence I have this great advantage of knowledge over my predecessors. It is important to appreciate this knowledge, while being aware of the many associated beliefs. To me, as a natural philosopher, this is a major advantage.

Mathematics is the Only Language for Describing Reality

This self fulfilling prophecy applies to the idea that maths is the only language for describing reality, as the following quotes show;

It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme - the quantum theory - which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies - the wave picture and the corpuscular picture." (Werner Heisenberg, 1930)

... the progress of science has itself shown that there can be no pictorial representation of the workings of nature of a kind that would be intelligible to our limited minds. The study of physics has driven us to the positivist conception of physics. We can never understand what events are, but must limit ourselves to describing the pattern of events in mathematical terms: no other aim is possible .... the final harvest will always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae. These will never describe nature itself, but only our observations on nature. (Sir James Jeans, 1942)

Mathematics is the only good metaphysics. (William Thomson Baron Kelvin)

I think Einstein had the correct view.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)

And William Blake states this view rather nicely!

God forbid that Truth should be confined to Mathematical Demonstration! (Blake)

Conclusion: We should always look for the most simple and obvious solution first! None of these arguments against a simple sensible language for describing reality are valid - the quotes are really just opinions without any source of truth.
Similar arguments were expressed about the complexity of life and the existence of ourselves, as proof of divine creation, only to find that Darwin's theory of evolution (a very simple idea) logically explained life in complete satisfaction of scientific principles.

We become what we do

Why is it that the same human could equally become, a tribal savage, a bank manager, the executioner of other humans in the name of war, an artist, a mathematical physicist, a philosopher, ...?

The answer lies with understanding how our brain functions, and how we think.
As a relationship machine, our brain is taught to relate various things. Our nature of thinking, and how we behave, depends largely upon how this thinking machine is taught / programmed.
We can only think about things if we have relationships in the brain which can be accessed and give rise to ideas. If we isolate our brain from a diversity of relationships, if we spend all our time thinking about the same few things, then we find that we become limited in how we think.
The catch is, that we are unable to notice this lack of diversity of thinking, as we do not notice what we do not have.

This is why this wide perspective of natural philosophy is extremely important. That in simply studying mathematics it becomes more true than the things which do actually exist in the space about us. Meaning appears in the mathematics itself, and hence the mathematical physicist’s perception of reality becomes somehow altered to the philosophers. To what degree, and how significant this is, I cannot say, but there is a certain logic to this argument which deserves consideration. The history seems to support this view, as Thomas Kuhn wrote;

Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. ...scientific training is not well designed to produce the man who will easily discover a fresh approach. (Kuhn, 1962)

History shows that we are very easily misled by the beliefs of others, that we are rather herd like in our thinking, and those new to the herd are, initially, more likely to see things differently.

Geoff Haselhurst
Natural Philosopher
(Philosophy of Science, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, Evolution)

Help Humanity

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)

Albert Einstein"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)

Biography: Geoffrey Haselhurst, Philosopher of Science, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, Evolution. Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the fundamental problems of human knowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is Easy to Help!

Just click on the Social Network links below, or copy a nice image or quote you like and share it. We have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. In doing this you will help a new generation of scientists see that there is a simple sensible explanation of physical reality - the source of truth and wisdom, the only cure for the madness of man! Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst (Updated September, 2018)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)

Copyright 1997 - 2018
We support 'Fair Use' of these pages for Academic & Non Commercial use.
You are welcome to use images and text, but please reference them with a link to relevant web page on this site. Thanks!

Creative Commons License