Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Authority or truth?
by martin concoyle
Email: martinconcoyle (nospam) hotmail.com
26 Jan 2013
Since the media confuses authority with truth, ie the public has no valid idea about the determination of truth, scientific truth is not simply a “measurably verifiable” precise description, if this were so then the ideas of Ptolemy would still be our scientific truth, it has to do with practical usefulness, and often a better description has been associated with the idea of simplicity of the description, the ideas of Copernicus were simpler than those of Ptolemy etc.
Abstract for: Geometrization and the mathematical context for the solution of physical stability:
Eg Nuclei, general atoms, molecules, and the solar system etc.
Abstract (originally) for Arxiv.org, but peer review of new ideas within professional publishing excludes new ideas.
This is because:
The authority of the “knowledge basis” for big business (and how it uses knowledge in relation to its creative concerns) is quite carefully guarded.
When someone advocates for a social change and “they are allowed on the media” they always support their claims by saying this is an idea which has been peer-reviewed….,
…., this is sort-of-funny, since the media is all about misrepresenting and lying about the nature of truth. Thus, claiming that the science (and math)…, which form the basis for big business’s narrowly defined creative production interests…., is also about identifying a truth, which the entire public can believe-in, is a naïve vision concerning the tenuous nature of a “precise descriptive truth,” and a set of high-paid (wage-slave) guardians of that “truth.”
In particular, one should be suspicious of a claim of belief in an “absolutely authoritative truth” in regard to science and math, since this is what “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem” warns against, and it is the conclusion of the Copernicus vs. Ptolemy controversy, but that controversy has been spun as a “science vs. religion” conflict, but it really is an “absolutely authoritative dogma” vs. “new ways in which to organize a precise measurable description” conflict, where newness and equality, in regard to free-inquiry, should be challenging a failed authority, and since a described truth always possesses limitations, authority (or its basis in a precise language) should always be challenged.
* eg climate change where there should be no conflict, since all possible identifications of harm to public health or public interest should be a basis for social and business changes. It is allowing the inertia of big business to control society which most opposes new development, or opposes new contexts for creativity. Business profits should be quite subservient to public interest (consent of governed, where everyone owns property equally) since it is the businesses which should be the ones most adaptable to changes, not the public adapting and conforming to business interests, and the (social) inertia associated to business monopolies which come to dominate and destroy the society for the selfish interests of the business monopoly.
It is sad but one finds web-sites which very courageously express news events, along with some of the social structures which are driving these occurrences, but who nonetheless believe the dogmas of their fellow intellectuals, who have been deceived by the overly authoritative dogmas upon which their academic positions depend (where academic positions are often about the careful use of language), for example the knowledge associated to science and math support weapons and communications instruments, whereas economics, as is also the case for evolutionary biology, are languages which appears to be based on measurable patterns, but they are based on indefinable randomness [ie the elementary event spaces of these constructs are not valid, ie they are not composed of stable and calculable events], and thus they cannot describe stable patterns, they are languages which cannot express any meaningful content, ie stable patterns cannot be determined, at best, they express the current ways in which the measurable properties upon which the description is based are organized (by other academics or by big-business), but this is an arbitrary set-up, especially since there are very big-players who can change the game (re-organize the set-up) within a time interval of hours.
Geometrization and the mathematical context for the solution of physical stability: eg.
Nuclei, general atoms, molecules, and the solar system etc.
This relatively new (since 2002), and relatively simple, context of math containment provides the setting for a solution to the problem of finding the math structure for the observed stable material systems which are so fundamental and so prevalent. It also provides a basis for a quantitative structure which is defined on a finite set.
However, these stable physical systems go without any valid math structure (for these systems) in a currently accepted math context of indefinable randomness (eg improperly defined elementary event spaces), non-linearity (quantitative inconsistency and chaos), (global) non-commutativity, or only locally commutative, (eg quantitative inconsistency, eg chaos), where all of these constructs are defined by a contrived descriptive structure of convergence and divergence onto a continuum. Where these math structures are together used to explain (or identify) the (stable) properties of physical systems. But they cannot do this. Rather, such a math context really only applies to physical systems in a chaotic transitioning process (eg reactions in weapons) and for feedback systems (eg guided missiles) whose range of applicability is difficult to define (thus the lack of precision which the media claims fro these systems), and it is a context which applies to quantitative complexity (eg secret codes). But it is also used by the media to create an illusion of expert “mastery” and “expert complexity.” Though, in fact, the academic sciences are (have been) organized by the ruling-class to provide personnel who can adjust the complex instruments needed (or used) by the big business interests.
Though many difficult problems now have solutions (due to the new math context): nuclei, general atoms, molecules, a new way in which to analyze crystals, and the stable solar system, due to these new ideas (expressed in this paper), this means that these relatively new ideas should be dominating the attention of the professional mathematicians and physicists, but they are not. Note: The media can easily deceive the experts, since the experts have had their attention diverted from the main problem of describing the basis for physical stability.
Technical note: Apparently, waves which possess physical properties can be successfully related to solutions by function-space techniques.
Apparently there are stronger social forces involved in an inability of a public, or of an expert-class, “to discern truth.” The strongest social force in the US society is its privately owned and controlled propaganda system, the politicians are an arm of the propaganda system.
The US propaganda system is the sole authoritative voice for all of society, and it is the propaganda system which directs the attention of the expert researchers. These researchers are dependent on a funding process.
However, these same researchers arrogantly claim to be the personifications of the highest cultural attainments in the society (where this arrogance is based on their important role in the propaganda system), nonetheless they have social positions of being both wage-slaves and society’s, so called, top intellects in regard to a religious personality-cult, expressed through the media, so public-worship consolidates their belief in their “far too authoritative” mathematics and physics dogmas, dogmas which have failed to solve the problem of “the cause of physical stability” for nearly 100 years (ie it is a failed dogma), ie the media turns “top intellectualism” and the dogmas upon which such a “measure” of intellectual-talent rests (the “intellectual winners” of the competition whose rules, in the education system, are defined by an, essentially, absolute authority) into a religion, where this is a deep “religious belief” in what the media labels as science [Copernicus would have a more difficult time persuading others to consider an alternative way in which to organize and fashion language within such a current religion (2013) of expert authority, than the difficulties he had in regard to the “authoritative religion” of his time].
The professionals are following their “deep beliefs” as dictated to them by the propaganda system.
Apparently these professionals can rigorously prove properties which are contained in a world of illusion, eg where a description based on randomness also possesses well defined geometric properties, eg particle-collisions (this is an absurdity).
It should be noted that the best interpretation of the Godel’s incompleteness theorem is that precise languages can be very changeable when reduced to the elementary levels of assumption, context, containment, organization, interpretation, etc. Yet the failure to describe the stable underpinnings of physical existence has not been seen as a “crisis of the knowledge” which is being derived from the currently accepted authoritative dogmas of math and physical description.
The inability of the current scientific authority to describe the stable properties of fundamental physical systems is, in fact, a complete and total failure of that authority.
There are other social organizational properties which manage society, and with which one must deal, there is a vast social organization in regard to management of the math and physics (or science) communities, eg managing personality types, similar to the management of personality types in politics and the justice system.
In the new context of containment one uses the most prevalent of the stable geometric patterns identified in the Thurston-Perelman geometrization, namely, the discrete hyperbolic shapes, and the properties that these shapes possess, as identified by Coxeter.
Furthermore the ability to “surround” a “hole” by a closed shape, so that a continuous deformation is limited, ie the “holes” introduce stable properties into the context of the continuity of shape.
The discrete hyperbolic shapes [with component interactions mediated by discrete Euclidean shapes (tori)] are also very rigid shapes with very stable spectral properties.
That the solar system is stable is evidence, which can be interpreted, to prove this new context for mathematical descriptions of the physical world is true, especially, since the professionals have no valid model of stability for any of these many fundamental stable systems.
Note: If one criticizes these ideas based on one’s deep religious belief in the current paradigm, so that the criticism is that the new ideas need to account for (or be consistent with) the current belief structure, then this is analogous to requiring that Copernicus begin with the assumptions of Ptolemy and then prove that Copernicus is correct, this cannot happen, due to the structure of language, ie the new ideas are built on a new language based on:
new interpretations of data,
new ways in which to organize the containing set,
new ways in which to define a derivative operator (as a discrete, locally-linear operator),
And it solves the central fundamental problems which the current paradigm has not been able to solve, yet the experts are oblivious…, oblivious,…. in an analogous manner as the propaganda system continues to express belief in de-regulated free-markets.
Furthermore, there is a need for a valid model for living-systems, living systems are relatively stable and they can demonstrate a capacity for very precise control over their own systems, again this is a stable structure and the new way of organizing math supplies a coherent model for such a system, one would like to say a simple model, but it is a model whose inertial properties exist in at least a 4-dimensional Euclidean metric-space, eg where the system’s stable components exist in a 4-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space (eg 5-space-time), where the model provides a method of “spectral-energy control” between dimensional levels.
Go to scibd.com see mconcoyle
This work is in the public domain