Category Archives: History

9-11-Islamic terrorism

Never Forget The Cause of 9/11 — Islam.

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, icons of New York City, stood tall and proud. Before the Western values of reason and individuality were attacked by Islam.

Before 9/11, the twin towers stood as a symbol of the heights achievable by the efforts of reasoning individuals, who value productivity, self-esteem (ego) and rationality.

A symbol of what is achievable by individuals in a culture that values freedoms and individual rights.

Much like the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of the Western values.

A symbol of the American Dream rooted in every individual’s right to:

“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The American dream that “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” (James Adams, 1931).

February 26, 1993 – Islam Attacks

The first terrorist attack on these values came on February 26, 1993. By an Islamic militant, Ramzi Yousef. Islamic ideology killed six people and injured 1,042 people.  

During the 1998 trial, Yousef condemned the United States for its American Victory over Japan in 1945 and its economic embargo against a rights-violating Cuba.  

You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.

Ramzi Yousef, Wikipedia.

Here Yousef clearly drops context and pretends the military defence of a nation is equivalent to terrorism if it involves the loss of innocent lives.

However, nobody that understands the moral justification of warfare would say such a thing. It is a moral imperative for a moral nation to engage in warfare with enemy nations and to inflict crushing military defeat upon them.

This almost always involves the loss of innocent lives. It is not feasible to expect to be able to win a war against an enemy state without the loss of innocent lives in enemy nations.

However, the extent to which those innocent lives exist is not as great as most people think.

Most tyrants gain power by the consent of the people and thus the population is guilty of making such tyranny possible in the first place.

It is immoral to equate warfare against an enemy state, a war of self-defence with terrorism. To defend your nation against destruction by an enemy state can in no sense be equivalent to terrorism.

You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so-called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.

Ramzi Yousef, Wikipedia

The nuclear bombs dropped upon Japan were an act of heroism.

The alternative was a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have required the destruction of much of Japan and the loss of millions of Japanese lives.

So it is that even the Japanese came to be thankful that the Americans were able to find an alternative to an invasion of Japan that would have virtually destroyed Japan.

We must not judge the morality of a nation by the number of times it goes to war. There are legitimate reasons America may have needed to engage in war in self-defence.

Yes, doing this to Hiroshima was heroism. The alternative was doing this to most major Japanese cities.

One can argue that many of the wars America has been involved in, such as the war in Vietnam or Iraq were not justified in terms of defending American interests but were altruistic campaigns. This is a legitimate reason to condemn America for many of its invasions.

But there is no legitimate reason to condemn America for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were a moral necessity as soon as Japan threatened America’s values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so-called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years. … The Government in its summations and opening statement said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are liars, butchers, and hypocrites.[29]

Ramzi Yousef, Wikipedia

Yousef condemns America for acts of violence and terrorism. He condemns America for acts of war and violence and for inventing terrorism.

Yet, Islam was engaging in religious terrorism long before the United States existed. It certainly did not invent terrorism, but it advocated terrorism long before America existed and long before modern Western culture existed.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses describing war with nonbelievers. Many are quite graphic and describe things such as decapitation of the nonbeliever.

Here are some of them:

As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

Quran 3:56

Seems a clear condemnation of the so called “crime” of non-belief.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter, they shall have a grievous chastisement

Quran 5:33

And then there is this:

“(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore, strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran 8:12

The Quran predates America and modern Western culture. So in what sense did the West invent terrorism? The Quran was clearly advocating terrorism long before America or the modern Western world was.

The truth is that Islam is a death-worshiping cult of widespread genocide.

During the trial of Yousef, Judge Duffy did not morally condemn Islam for it’s death worship. He apologized for Islam and faith.

Islam does not anyone to draw its deranged, murderous Prophet. But Jason has done just that.
Image available under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License.

Duffy did not condemn the sacrifice collection of such cults and religions.

Duffy condemned the ego, the very Western values that had made the twin towers possible!

Ramzi Yousef, you claim to be an Islamic militant. Of all the persons killed or harmed in some way by the World Trade Center bomb, you cannot name one who was against you or your cause. You did not care, just so long as you left dead bodies and people hurt.

Ramzi Yousef, you are not fit to uphold Islam. Your God is death. Your God is not Allah …

You weren’t seeking conversions. The only thing you wanted to do was to cause death. Your God is not Allah. You worship death and destruction. What you do, you do not for Allah; you do it only to satisfy your own twisted sense of ego.

You would have others believe that you are a soldier, but the attacks on civilization for which you stand convicted here were sneak attacks which sought to kill and maim totally innocent people …

You, Ramzi Yousef, came to this country pretending to be an Islamic fundamentalist, but you cared little or nothing for Islam or the faith of the Muslims. Rather, you adored not Allah, but the evil yourself have become. And I must say that as an apostle of evil, you have been most effective.[29]

Judge Duffy, Wikipedia

But we have seen that according to the Quran itself, Yousef was acting entirely consistent with the Quran.

The Quran has many verses like the ones given above. Not one of them says that a true Muslim shall spare a heretic imprisonment or a violent death!

Yousef is acting just as the Quran, as Islam demands. Let us look at another quote:

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward “

Quran 4:95

This verse clearly criticizes peaceful Muslims! It holds those willing to violently strike against the nonbeliever as morally superior to those that refuse to do so!

September 11, 2001 — Islam Attacks Again

On September 11, 2001, the Western values of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were attacked again. This time the twin towers collapsed. 2,192 civilians died. 414 sworn personnel died.  

If only the West did not apologize for its values…

If only America stood firmly and morally behind its victory over Japan in 1945

If only Judge Duffy and America had morally condemned Islamic ideologies as evil…

If only…

Next Page

Karl Popper, falsifiability

Thoughts on Falsifiability and Popper

(Editorial: Please note that in this article on falsifiability, I use the phrases “science”, “sciences” and the like. Unless otherwise noted, I am talking about the “empirical” or “physical” sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology.

And not sciences such as mathematics and philosophy.

However, much of the same logic applies to those other sciences as well.

Also, I am not attacking the idea of falsifying a theory as such. I am discussing Popper’s philosophy of how falsification is the essence of science.)

Falsifiability is a problem to a “central problem” in the philosophy of science developed by Karl Popper. Popper was a philosopher of science and closely associated with the influential Vienna Circle.

According to Popper, the central problem in the philosophy of science is demarcation. The problem of demarcation is that of distinguishing between science and non-science.

In Popper’s own words:

The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’ systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

In other words, the problem of demarcation is how to distinguish between science and what Popper considered to be non-scientific. Things such a metaphysics and logic.

Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as the solution to this problem.

It can be summed up as:

[S]tatements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations.

Hansson, Sven Ove (2008). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). “Science and Pseudo-Science”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.). 4.2 Falsificationism.

Popper accepted the Humean critique of induction and goes further.

We can briefly sum up Hume’s critique of induction with this quote:

From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions. Now it seems evident that, if this conclusion were formed by reason, it would be as perfect at first, and upon one instance, as after ever so long a course of experience. But the case is far otherwise. Nothing so like as eggs; yet no one, on account of this appearing similarity, expects the same taste and relish in all of them.

It is only after a long course of uniform experiments in any kind, that we attain a firm reliance and security with regard to a particular event. Now where is that process of reasoning which, from one instance, draws a conclusion, so different from that which it infers from a hundred instances that are nowise different from that single one? This question I propose as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 4. Sceptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding

Popper agreed with Hume that it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience.

After all, in his view, it is easy to say that all swans are white. But you have no way to know this simply by observation.

All it would take, according to Popper, is a single counter-example to falsify the induction.

Of course, it would be baseless to assume that all swans are white and call that a valid induction. Why would we assume that? That is not how valid inductions works…

…The answer to this problem is: as implied by Hume, we certainly are not justified in reasoning from an instance to the truth of the corresponding law. But to this negative result a second result, equally negative, may be added: we are justified in reasoning from a counter-instance to the falsity of the corresponding universal law (that is, of any law of which it is a counter-instance). Or in other words, from a purely logical point of view, the acceptance of one counter-instance to ‘All swans are white’ implies the falsity of the law ‘All swans are white’ – that law, that is, whose counter-instance we accepted. Induction is logically invalid…

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Ch. 1 “A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems”, Section I: The Problem of Induction p. 27

He, therefore, rejects the validity of induction and insists that science does not use it. Instead, he argues that science consists of problem-solving.

But, in practice, as we shall see, this consists of producing theoretical bowling pins which you then spend your time trying to knock over.

Popper did not understand the importance of induction.

He seemed to equate induction with making an arbitrary generalization from observation and thus making unsupported universal statements.

It is therefore consistent that Popper insisted that you cannot prove a theory true by showing that it agrees with observation.

If you cannot make inductions in science, then you cannot generalize from experimental observation and form conclusions about the phenomena you are studying.

For instance, suppose you are Newton and you have the hypothesis that there is some force which attracts objects towards one another. How might you prove that this is the case?

You might observe the way Mars moves around the Sun. And the way the Moon moves around the Earth. And induce that they have similar behaviours which can be explained by the same inverse square law.

But, according to Popper science does not work by induction.

So, you are not meant to generalize from observations and form generalizations about instances/things you have not observed.

How then are you meant to show that your hypothesis about attractive forces is valid? If you cannot reason from the observed and generalize from observations to general principles, how do you validate your theories?

Well, this indeed means that you have no way to do so. So, yes, if Popper was right about science not using induction, then it would seem reasonable to believe that science cannot show anything to be true.

Induction is not how science works huh? Tell the classical physicists that then. Because Newton and others were masters of induction …

You can, however, according to Popper, disprove a theory by showing that it contradicts with observation. He believed that you can never prove a theory to be true since you might disprove it tomorrow!

So, if you take all this to its logical conclusion, then according to Popper you can never be sure that any given theory is right.

A conclusion Popper seems to have agreed with:

What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all knowledge is human; that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes; that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach.

Karl, Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

Indeed, according to Popper, the quest for any particular nugget of scientific truth is never-ending, further implying we can never hope to find it:

The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 11 Methodological Rules as Conventions

So much for certainty in science then. Or knowing anything.

If we cannot be certain that a theory is true, then how are we to assess the worth of a theory?

Is Falsifiability the Main Criteria to Assess a Theory?

According to the philosopher of science, Richard Dawe, it certainly is an important one.

“Physicists have long relied on a notion advanced by philosopher Karl Popper, that a theory is scientifically valid if it is falsifiable.”

Richard Dawe, “Philosophers Want to Know Why Physicists Believe Theories They Can’t Prove”

Indeed, it is widely accepted that for a theory to be accepted as true, it must be possible to test the theory and show that the theory is falsifiable.

Generally, I do not consider the issue of falsification to be the essential issue when it comes to testing a theory. And this is not widely considered the central issue, not to the extent Popper advocated.

Let us further explore why I do not think this is the central issue Popper makes it out to be.

Yes, a theory needs to be tested. It should be possible to show that the observable facts of reality are consistent with the theory. One needs to demonstrate that the observable facts lead one inexorably to that theory.

One should try to prove that the theory in question and only that theory is the logical implication of the observable facts of reality.

If the theory is not consistent with the facts, it should be possible to show that the theory is false.

It is important to be able to show that a given theory is false. But if a theory is false, then it would be nice if the experiment was designed so that this could be determined.

Take the Michelson-Morley experiment. This was intended to detect the presence of a luminiferous aether. It was so designed that if there was not one, then the experiment would indicate this.

In other words, this experiment was designed so that the existence of the aether could be falsified.

Generally, the focus of science is not on trying to show a theory to be false. Generally, the point is rigorously making observation and seeing what they imply about the validity of the theory.

Vodcast Episode One: The Cause of Modern Physics is Philosophy

Play

Today we are going over quotes that help to show that the cause of the irrationality in modern physics is philosophy.

Click here to download the PDF transcript or read below the video.

You may also listen to or download an audio only version above.

[Note: Please note that this transcript may not exactly match the audio. However, there should be no significant differences.]

Intro

Metaphysics of Physics is the crucial voice of reason in the philosophy of science, rarely found anywhere else in the world today.

We are equipped with the fundamental principles of a rational philosophy that gives us the edge, may make us misfits in the mainstream sciences but also attracts rational minds.

With this show, we are fighting for a more rational world, mostly by looking through the lens of the philosophy of science.

We raise awareness of issues within the philosophy of science and present alternative and rational approaches.

The irrationality of modern physics is the focus of this channel. We have covered topics such as:

The irrationality of Stephen Hawking.The universe and the Big Bang. The philosophy of Niels Bohr. The achievements of Isaac Newton.Optical illusions and the validity of the senses.

If you think that science is about explaining a knowable reality, then this is the channel for you.

If you want to learn more about the irrationality of modern physics, then you are in the right place.

I am your host Ashna. My husband, Dwayne Davies is the primary content creator and your guide through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science.

We will discuss the problems in modern physics and more and how we can live in a more rational world!

Check out our website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

The Show Itself

Hi everyone! Welcome to the first of the Metaphysics of Physics video podcast. Today we are going over quotes that help to show that the cause of the irrationality in modern physics is philosophy.

If you are a long-time fan of Metaphysics of Physics, then you will know that modern physics is full of crazy absurdities. Such as things being particles and waves at the same time. And things not being real unless they are observed. Or the tendency to treat obvious concepts such as that of “dimension” or “time” as though they were physical things. Or that the universe is made from mathematics!

Why do educated people take such nonsense seriously? Is it because reality is as weird as physicists like to believe? And do we just have to accept this?

No! If you examine all these kinds of claims, you will not find any evidence that supports them. All these claims are simply baseless, nonsensical interpretations of experiments and/or mathematical equations. There is never a shred of evidence that supports any of these interpretations.

Ah, but what about all the alleged experimental evidence. Yes, what about it? In no case can it reasonably be interpreted as supporting any such anti-reality position. No experiment ever performed will ever show that reality is not real or that it is unknowable.

If reality was not real, the results of experiments would not be real and they would demonstrate nothing. If reality was unknowable, then you could never learn that by performing experiments that could not reveal that.

Or in other words: you cannot use reality to demonstrate that there is no reality. You cannot claim knowledge that proves that knowledge is impossible.

No experiment will ever show that reality is not real….

Why then do physicists take any of this seriously? It is because of the ideas that physicists have accepted either passively or actively. It is because of the philosophies that those in physics have blindly accepted or have actively embraced. Philosophies which lead them to interpret reality through the twisted lenses of those very philosophies which are hostile to reality and knowledge.

What kind of philosophies might these be? The kind that asserts that what we call reality is an illusion and that we might as well give up trying to understand how it works. Instead, they claim that we should confine ourselves to studying only mathematical appearances. As that is all they believe we shall ever know about.

Today we are going to explore some quotes from physicists. We will start with Niels Bohr and his contemporaries. They started physics down the road of abandoning reality in favor of mathematical appearances. And then we shall turn to more recent physicists who evidently agree with Bohr and his peers.

We shall see that the absurdities of modern physics should come as no surprise. The people inflicting modern physics with these absurdities are simply being consistent with the philosophy of Bohr and the like. The philosophy which dominates science today and which is shaped by the Neo-Kantian philosophies that have dominated our culture for over a hundred years.

Without any further ado, let us look at some of these quotes. And then discuss what kind of philosophical premises motivated them.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Bohr believed that we could never know reality as it is. We can merely develop a pragmatic abstract description consistent with what we observe. Which is merely an illusion, not things as they are.

Gee thanks Bohr, thanks for plunging physics into irrationality…

If we cannot know reality, then one might ask “towards what purpose?” do we have science? Creating science-fiction?

That seems rather pointless to me. But pragmatists would assert that there is some use in describing illusions. If they help us live better lives as we navigate our way around all these illusions.

“Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.” – Niels Bohr.

We are to view things such as an “electron” or a “proton” as abstract descriptions. We should not think that we know anything about what they are. No, we are merely creating abstract descriptions. And then identifying relationships between these abstractions.

After all, if we cannot know reality as it is, and all we have are illusions to work with, then should we not at least try to find out how these illusions are connected? At least then we can learn to live in this world of illusions.

“I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as “objective” and “subjective” are, a great liberation of thought.” – Niels Bohr.

Here Bohr exposes his pragmatism. He does not consider it worthwhile to discuss whether the abstractions he holds so dear are “objective” or “subjective”. He is merely concerned with whether they might prove pragmatically useful.

If we cannot know reality, then what use is it to say whether something is objective or subjective? We can never know. We can only know whether abstractions are useful.

A reasonable person might say that abstractions are only useful if they are objective.

Bohr believed that we cannot know whether something is objective or not, so considers it pointless to consider such things.

“We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.” – Niels Bohr

Bohr enjoyed the fact that so much of the quantum physics he was developing made no sense. He reveled in its frequent contradictions and insisted that different aspects of the same thing could be in a kind of conflict (but were complementary) with each other. Of course, he urged his peers to accept such conflicts!

He was like one of those deranged poets who enjoys constructing rhymes that make no sense. But who nonetheless insists that his poetry is of great depth and significance.

Except he was not merely some poet filling his victim’s ears with an insult to the Muses. He was detaching physics from reality while insisting that physics does not need it. While insisting that instead it needs beautiful descriptions of contradictions!

“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” – Niels Bohr

That sums it all up. According to Bohr, the point of physics is not to learn about the fundamental nature of the physical world. What then is the point of physics?

According to Bohr, it is about whatever we want to say about reality. Without concerning ourselves with things like objectivity, logic or the true nature of things. It is all about “poetry” and the relationships between meaningless abstractions with no connection to an unknowable reality.

Of course, physics is about explaining the real physical world. But according to Bohr we can not know the real world, let alone explain it!

You can read more about the philosophy of Bohr in episode seven of the podcast. There we cover his philosophy in some depth.

Bohr and his disciples had an enormous influence on physics and later physicists. But he was not the only person to assert such things.

For instance, we have this quote from Werner Heisenberg:

Is War a Technological Boon?

People often say that war is a great boon for technological development.

They say that war accelerates the pace of technological development. And that some things might not exist if certain wars had not taken place. But is there any truth to this? Let us take a brief look.

War, or the threat of an upcoming war, is a great incentive to develop military technology.

For instance, during the start of the First World War, aircraft usage in war was relatively limited. The military aircraft that existed was fairly primitive. During the war, there was a rapid development of military aircraft.

Anti-aircraft guns were conceived of before the First World War. However, they underwent significant development in response to the use of aircraft in the war.

There are countless other examples of military technology being developed during times of war. From wire-cutters to code-cracking technology.

So, it is fair to say that wars are a great incentive for the development of military technology.

All sides of a war are frequently trying to develop new technologies. This has the tendency to lead to a technology arms race where the other side is racing to try to develop better still military technology.

So, when it comes to military technology, then war can be a boon to technological development.

Military technology is of course developed in times of peace. We see this all the time. After World War 2, many major powers continued to develop their air forces, develop better artillery forces and to research and develop better tank technology. A great deal of military technological development occurs during peacetime.

War is expensive.

The cost of deploying troops and the like often means less money is available for funding military research. But in peacetime, there is often much more money to spend on military research.

So we cannot say that military technology universally undergoes greater development during times of war. Some forms of military technology do but it is often true that even military technology develops at a faster pace during times of peace.

Yeap, war sure looks expensive to me…

And, what about non-military technology?

Wars tend to impair the development of non-military technologies. Why is this?

War tends to be a very expensive endeavor. It costs a lot of money to deploy troops and military hardware in a timely and effective manner.

Money has to come from somewhere.

Hopefully, the money spent does not exceed a reasonable military budget. However, sometimes war requires more money to be put aside and diverts it from other areas of the economy. We saw this during both World Wars and many wars since then.

During World War II America turned much of its economy over to wartime production. This impacted many industries. They had to tighten their belts so that America could turn a certain amount of its economy over to wartime production. As did many other countries involved in the war.

In some cases, military production takes over a certain amount of production and money.

Wars have to be won. Nobody expects to win wars for free.

This shift in investment means businesses have less money to research technology. It means they have less money to spend producing technology. Some businesses may never have the funds to get their technology off the ground.

Yes, the people making tanks and other military equipment might benefit. But companies like Microsoft lose out. They could have used the money that goes into producing tanks to develop some amazing new software.

Or invested in some genius to create something entirely new.

People tend to look at only the part of the economy that might be benefiting from wartime spending.

They look at the military contractors and industries creating wartime products and see those industries are doing better. They do not consider the fact that for every cent businesses invest in these industries, is one less cent they can invest in other technologies.

We also have to consider that some military technology arose as the result of non-military research. For instance, civilians invented planes which the military then adapted to their own purposes. Likewise, civilians invented automobiles which the military adapted for their purposes.

So then consider that war tends to impede technological development. Then it potentially impedes the development of technology that can be adopted for military purposes.

People like to counter that the computer industry might not exist if not for World War II accelerating the need for computer technology. People argue this about all kinds of technology that creates enormous economic benefit, including nuclear power.

But is it true that without World War II computer technology would not have continued to rapidly progress?

There is no evidence of this. The First World War was a massive incentive to have developed computer technology at a rapid pace.

But there were already massive incentives to do this. There was growing academic interest in computers from mathematicians and many others in academia. Many others were certainly interested in using early computers for scientific purposes.

Businesses had been using computers since the earliest days of computing.

That is not to say computers used for business back then were all that efficient or powerful…

So it seems highly improbable that without the world war, the development of computer technology would have remained stagnant. In fact, it is arguable that it may have developed at a similar or greater pace.

What about nuclear technology? The possibility of nuclear energy was not a foreign concept. It seems reasonable to assume that this would have been sufficient incentive to develop nuclear energy technology.

Wartime led to the research and development of many technologies with non-military applications. But it is highly probable that such research and development would have occurred anyway.

Military research often diverts research funds and personnel away from non-military research. If not for this fact, the same developments might have occurred sooner!

So it seems that overall, war is not such a great boon for non-military technology.

Yes, the pace of military technology frequently accelerates during wartime. But this is far from universally true. It is often easier to afford military research during times of peace, without the immense cost of military deployment to worry about.

And then add the fact that wars tend to direct investment from technological development to war purposes, only some of which will result in the development of technology, largely military technology.

string theory

String Theory: A Misguided Attempt at Unification

String theory is based on the misguided idea that the “great pillars of 20th-century science”; quantum mechanics and relativity can be unified. Unified into one theory that explains the quantum theory and relativity.

This is meant to unify physics and allow us to come up with a unified “Theory of Everything“. Or, at least to come up with a unified theory that can be used to explain most/all of physics. It is believed that with this theory, pretty much every other aspect of physics could be derived.

How do we know that we should try to unify quantum mechanics and relativity?

Even if we assume that these are reasonable theories, how do we know that we can unify them into a good or even coherent theory? Who says such a theory exists?

Many physicists assume that such a theory must exist. However, I see little or no reason to assume that such a theory must exist.

Why do so many believe that it must? Physicists have noticed how successful quantum theory and relativity have been in making astoundingly accurate mathematical predictions. It is rather hard not to. In terms of their powers of mathematically describing relationships, both of these theories are remarkably accurate to very high levels of precision.

And there has certainly been a trend in physics towards increased unification.  For instance, electricity and magnetism were once considered to be separate things until it was discovered that they are very closely related and that the same set of equations describe how they both work.

So, it is widely considered that there is this increasing trend toward unifying lots of different things under one theory, all describable by one set of equations. As done with electromagnetism and as physicists believe they accomplished with space and time.

They now want to unify quantum physics and relativity so that one theory explains both of these. And that can describe both with one set of equations. They assume that this is possible and that such a theory must exist. Must it?

Is it necessarily the case that a single theory explains the things covered by quantum mechanics and gravity?

I am not sure this is necessarily the case. Nor am I sure that it need not be the case. Until such a reasonable candidate for such a theory comes along, I think it is premature to do more than speculate.

Whether or not there is any such theory, we know that it cannot be a combination of quantum theory and relativity. Not as quantum theory and relativity exist as we know them today.

We should ask ourselves if quantum mechanics and relativity are theories that are ready to be unified.

string theory
And should we try unify them into something like this? Yes, this is the sort of thing string theory likes to talk about.

Do quantum mechanics and relativity make any sense?

If not, should we be trying to unify them? Are they coherent theories and if not, should we expect to be able to unify them into a coherent theory?

Relativity claims to unify space, time and gravity all into one neat bundle, all described by one set of equations. I would argue that it does not. I would argue that the physical interpretations of relativity make no sense. You cannot explain how gravity works by treating mathematical concepts such as space and time as though they were physical aspects of the universe.

Sure, it might work as a mathematical method, but we have to keep in mind that it is just a mathematical method and that space and time are only mathematical concepts. We cannot explain how anything works by treating abstractions as physical aspects of the universe.

Quantum theory is also rather nonsensical.

In fact, it largely avoids trying to explain anything and largely denies that subatomic particles have any reality or act in any consistent way with reality while they are not being observed.

Quantum mechanics explains very little in terms of the actions of physical objects. Instead, it is the action of magical entities that are not fully real and act as ghosts that are somehow made mostly real by the process of observation.

I am going to argue that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity is a coherent theory. Sure, the mathematics of both theories has been verified time and time again to match reality with great precision.

The point of physics is not to merely come up with accurate mathematical descriptions of reality.

Does this look like physics to you? Looks like math to me. But, this is about all string theory has to offer.

The point is to help us understand physical reality as it really is. Not to merely describe mathematical appearances.

The problem is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity helps us to understand reality. They provide nonsensical, metaphysically invalid descriptions of appearances but do not describe reality or help us to understand it. In fact, they deny reality any place in physics and merely describe appearances.

They describe impossibilities such as particles that exist in contradictory states. Or objects that have different properties for different observers. This is about as far from a rational attempt to help us understand reality as one could imagine.

Why then should we try to make a unified theory out of these two failed theories? We shouldn’t! These are not coherent theories in the first place, so why should we attempt to come up with a theory that somehow accounts for both theories?

Neither theory works to explain reality, so why account for them at all? That would be like if I took Islam and Hinduism and tried to come up with a Unified Theory of Common Religions in India. Given neither Islam nor Hinduism have any truth to them, all I would end up with is yet another body of ideas without any truth to it.

Sure, one could perhaps take the aspects of quantum theory and relativity that work and come up with another theory. But, that would be a very different theory, at least in terms of its physical interpretations.

Sure, a lot of the math might be familiar, but physics is about physical explanations of how reality works. Not merely mathematical descriptions of how reality works.

This is all string theorists could hope to do. To come up with a body of mathematical equations that somehow unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. By that I mean,  the equations would describe things from relativity and quantum theory.

But that does not provide a physical explanation of how physical reality works.

So, it does not qualify as physics. And that is the problem.

Even if we have a mathematical unification of relativity and quantum theory, we still need a physical unification. And where is that going to come from?

From two fields of physics that have no rational physical interpretations to offer? I do not see how that is possible.

So, in as far as it tries to explain two largely false theories, that string theory is doomed from the start. It is not possible to come up with a coherent theory that starts with two other absurdly false theories as its premises.

This should come as no surprise. If so much of modern physics is nonsensical and anti-reality, why then should we expect string theory to be any better?

Other than this, is string theory of any use to anyone? In upcoming articles on string theory, we will see that it is not. The problems with string theory and its practitioners go far beyond what we have outlined here.

Episode Twenty Five – Fragment and Pandemonium Interview with Warren Fahy

Play

Today we have an interview with Warren Fahy, author of the books Fragment and Pandemonium. We are going to talk about these books as well as about some biology stuff. Should be fun!

Some of you may not know what these books are. Well, Warren is going to tell us all about them in a little bit. But they are science thrillers something along the lines of Jurassic Park.

You can probably gather by the fact that I am interviewing him about these books, that I have read them and probably enjoy them.

Yes, I have read them and I do enjoy them. Fragment and the sequel are amazingly interesting books with some extremely compelling biological theories.

There are some truly terrifying, nightmare creatures in both of them. They make the dinosaurs and monsters in other books seem tame. Dragons? T-Rexes? The critters in these books, such as spigers are much deadlier and scarier.

I also quite like the main cast of characters, but I cannot talk about that very much without spoilers. But two of them are biologists and they may or may not have some fascinating biological ideas, new and old.

Highly recommended. But more than that and as entertaining as the scary monsters are, you might also learn something reading this.

You can find out more about and buy both of these books here:

Fragment
Buy from Amazon

 

Pandemonium
Buy from Amazon

 

If you have not read these books, you might want to go to the non-spoiler version of the podcast here. It has a lot of the same stuff, but with some spoiler content removed.

Please note that we cannot be 100% sure that there is not some spoiler we missed. It might be best to read the books before listening to this podcast!

We have not presented the transcript of this in web page form. Instead, you can listen to the audio or download the PDF transcript.

However, there may be mistakes in the transcript. Any mistakes in transcription represent our own errors or a transcription error we missed.

Click here to download the PDF transcript.

Creating Christ Tjtus

Episode Twenty Four – Creating Christ Archaeology with Warren Fahy

Play

Today we have an interview with Warren Fahy, the co-author of Creating Christ. We have talked about Creating Christ before, when we interviewed the books other author, James Valliant. You can find that interview here.

Today we are focusing on the archeology of Creating Christ, although we will cover a few other issues as well. We cover some stuff that is not covered so much or at all in our previous Creating Christ interview. Meaning that you should definitely listen to this one, even if you have listened to the other one. Or should that be, especially if you have listened to the other one?

What is Creating Christ? Some of you may not know. It is a book that shows the Roman origins of Christianity. Not simply the fact that the Roman Empire morphed into the Catholic Church, but the thesis that the Romans created the religion!

It might sound radical, but the book makes a very compelling case for how this must be true. If you have not read it, you really should. You can get it from Amazon here:

Creating Christ
Buy from Amazon

 

You really should listen to that interview first, as it gives a really in depth coverage of the book. Or, you can read the book first.

Please note that the Amazon Kindle edition is currently not available. As far as I can tell, this may be due to some disgruntled customer complaining about the books technical issues. Which I can assure, having owning a copy of it in Kindle, do not exist!

Apparently one customer complaint can cause items to go under review and be taken off the Kindle marketplace. If so, this policy should change!

I have given them some polite feedback on this. You can too, if you want. But, please be civil. Incivility helps nobody, least of all Creating Christ or its authors!

We have not presented the transcript of this in web page form. Instead, you can listen to the audio or download the PDF transcript.

However, there may be mistakes in the transcript. Any mistakes in transcription represent our own errors or a transcription error we missed.

Click here to download the PDF transcript.