Tag Archives: podcast

Episode Twenty Five – Fragment and Pandemonium Interview with Warren Fahy (No Spoilers)

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

This is the non-spoiler version of this episode. If you have read these books, you might want to go to the other version of the podcast here. It has a lot of the same stuff, but without spoiler content removed.

Please note that we cannot be 100% sure that there is not some spoiler we missed in here. 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.

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.

Gaede

Episode Twenty Three – An Interview with Bill Gaede

Play

Today we have an interview with the physicist Bill Gaede. We have not presented the transcript of this in web page form. Instead, you can listen to the audio or download the PDF transcript.

You may have problems with the audio if you hit the play button above after jumping part of the way into the audio. We are not sure what this issue is or how to fix it. You can download the episode or simply play it from the beginning.

Gaede and I discuss the problems in modern physics, some of the many ways in which physics is irrational, the improper conflation of mathematics with physics, his rope model and more.

The problems he mentions are largely centered around the idea that we do not have physicists anymore, we have mathematicians. People that try to describe but not explain how this universe works. But, physics is meant to be about explaining how the universe works!

This is where the rope model comes in. It offers an explanation of light, electromagnetism, gravity and more. Gaede discusses this in some depth in his book “Why God Does Not Exist”.

Please note that the transcript has been edited for grammatical purposes. The contents accurately represent the material, however changes have been made to make it easier to read. So,  it will not exactly match the audio.

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.

You can find out more about Bill Gaede’s idea on his YouTube page. You can also check out his Quora profile to see him answering some physics questions.

brain biases

Episode Twenty Two – Biases, AI and Current Affairs

Play

Today we are talking about inherent biases, AI, time travel and faster than light travel. And then we will go over a shocking legal decision.

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

Click here to download the PDF transcript.

Intro

Metaphysics of Physics is the much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

We are your hosts and guides through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Dwayne Davies, my husband, is the founder, primary content creator and voice for Metaphysics of Physics. I am Ashna and I help out however I can. You can find out more about us on the About page of the website.

You can also find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode twenty-two of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast. Today we are talking about inherent biases, artificial intelligence and parental neglect in the current affairs section.

Inherent Biases

The other day, one of our listeners shared a diagram on Facebook. It purported to show which parts of the brain are responsible for various cognitive biases. This is nonsense for many reasons, but we will explore some of the most obvious ones.

Firstly, this treats cognitive biases as though they were inherent functionalities of the brain. As though the reason we are sometimes guilty of these biases is that neurons in some specific part of our brains are firing.

But this is not how cognitive biases work. It is not as though they are the result of the hard-wired structures of our brain.

brain biases

Lets see if we can find the parts of the brain responsible for other biases? No, I don’t think we can either …

They are the result of a failure to properly reason. When we accuse someone of a cognitive bias, we are essentially saying “Well, what you said is not consistent with reality. You have made an error.”. They are not biases. There is nothing inherent in our brain which makes us more prone to make such errors.

But that is what this chart would like us to believe. That there are some parts of the brain which make us inherently inclined to such errors. But that is not how it works. Such errors are simply the result of improper reasoning or evading to reason at all.

If these so-called biases were indeed localized like this, then why is it relatively easy to avoid these biases? Why is it that the better one learns to think, the least subject they are to such biases? Why is it that highly logical people with sound reasoning skills seldom, if ever, are subject to such biases?

What is the motive behind all of this?

To excuse poor reasoning and to try to avoid the need to overcome the tendency some of us have towards these so-called biases. That way they can be poor thinkers and then blame their brain for being wired that way. And minimize or avoid the need to learn to avoid them by learning to think more rationally.

They want to evade responsibility for being prone to these biases. As though they cannot help it if they have biases built into their brain!

They can help it. By learning to reason properly to avoid such biases. But they would rather not accept the responsibility of learning to properly reason. It can be a long and difficult process. They would rather not do the work.

Learning to reason well involves a lot of practice and study for many of us. Effort some would not rather not make.

Perhaps some of them see little value in learning to reason. Why learn to reason when you can continue to be a poor thinker? And instead, pretend to be a victim of the unfortunate alleged structure of your brain.

This is a form of intellectual cowardice and laziness. And I find this morally reprehensible. It is difficult to imagine anything as immoral as the evasion of the need to learn to think rationally.

We should do our utmost to recognize any flaws in our thinking processes and attempt to learn to avoid them. That is how we become more rational and better able to deal with the world around us. Which is how we lead better and happier lives.

An Interesting Comment on AI

We recently received an interesting comment from one of our audience. It got us thinking and we have an answer you might find interesting. Here is the comment:

One possible way in which AI may emerge is the continual replacement of human parts until there is no longer any organic parts left.

e.g. as of today, I can replace most parts of a human, legs, arms, heart, most organs etc.

On the head I can replace the eyes, ears, nose & some parts of the brain.

As we understand more of what it is to be human, we will be able to replace more of the brain.

Eventually, the “consciousness” part of the brain will be replaced & on that day we will have an artificial AI or artificial human.

So, like organic evolution I think artificial evolution will occur in steps over a significant time period, but significantly less than that required by organic evolution i.e. 1000s of years not millions

Note: Given the expansiveness of the universe the only way humans can explore it is to evolve into artificial bodies since cosmic radiation is lethal to organic life & time travel & FTL travel are an impossibility.

Episode Twenty One: Homeopathy, Lies About Magic Potions

Play

Today we are talking about homeopathy. We will show that it is nonsense, how it is typically sold in a dishonest fashion and what should be done about it.

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

Click here to download the PDF transcript.

Intro

Metaphysics of Physics is the much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

We are your hosts and guides through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Dwayne Davies, my husband, is the founder, primary content creator and voice for Metaphysics of Physics. I am Ashna and I help out however I can. You can find out more about us on the About page of the website.

You can also find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode twenty-one of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast. Today we are talking about homeopathy, how it is fraudulently sold and what should be done about it.

What is Homeopathy?

Homeopathy is based on the principle of “like cures like”. That is, you treat an ailment with something that causes the symptoms of the ailment. So, if you want a homeopathic “treatment” for watery eyes, you start with onion juice. Or, if you want to treat the flu you can apparently use belladonna.

homeopathy
Homeopathy is pseudoscience quackery. It was created by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796.

What homeopaths do is consider the symptoms of a disease. And then try to find natural remedies which cause reactions which look like symptoms of the disease. Things which also seem to cause reactions like the symptoms of the ailment in question. Which they then pretend is the same thing as finding a treatment for the disease.

When asked, a homeopath recently said that what they do is look at a picture of the affected body part and look at the symptoms. And then use stuff which would replicate those symptoms.

So, if a patient has a bee-sting, they might look at a picture of the patient’s foot. And then find something that causes inflammation. They then proceed to try to treat the bee sting with that. And possibly some other things that cause other visible symptoms.

We are not making this up, this is what an actual homeopath has said!

This is clearly non-scientific. Even if belladonna causes some flu-like symptoms, that does not mean that it has any effect against the flu itself or its symptoms.

They are trying to treat an ailment with something that also causes some of the same symptoms.

It does not matter since we know that “like cures like” is nonsense. You do not treat an ailment by exposing patients to the causes of the symptoms of ailment.

Ah, but homeopaths claim that what this does is build up the patient’s immunity to the ailment, or at least its symptoms. In the words of one such charlatan: “Homeopathic remedies aim to stimulate your body to respond to symptoms being experienced”.

No, not really. This is not vaccination we are talking about. This building up of resistance would not work.

But there is one major issue which makes all this invalid. Even if “like for like” cures worked. Even if we bought this nonsense about the remedies stimulating natural responses to symptoms.

What is this issue? It is that the ailment causing substance is not present in the so-called treatment!

Now, some of you may be scratching your head at this. Why did I tell you any of this if the substance in question is not in the treatment? If it is not there, how does the treatment work? What IS in the treatment?

They will use almost anything they think helps. Such as arsenic trioxide Yes, I said arsenic trioxide! About now you are probably wondering whether these people are out to poison people. Or at least make them sick.

Well, apparently, they figured out that giving someone ailment causing substances might be a bad idea. Oddly enough, people do not want to be treated with arsenic compounds!

As we shall see, instead of buying homeopathic nonsense, it is just easier to drink a glass of water.

In that case, how does the medicine work? This is where it becomes completely stupid and devolves into entirely magical, woolly thinking.

What you do is you dilute the substance in a vial of water in a 1:100 ratio. So that for every part of the substance there are 100 parts of water. Or, there is 100 times as much water in the vial as the “active ingredient”.

Now, I say water, but sometimes alcohol is used. And if you are taking pills, then probably most of what you are taking is sugar. But, for now lets just talk about water. You will see that it does not make much difference.

That might not sound that bad. There is still some of the ingredient left. It is just in minute quantities. We are not done yet, not by a long shot. This kind of dilution is not nearly dilute enough to be truly homeopathic!

space

Episode Twenty – Reviewing “A Rational Cosmology”, Part Two

Play

Today are are continuing our discussion of “A Rational Cosmology”. We discuss space and matter and whether of them … matter!

Click here to download the PDF transcript. This episode’s transcript has no illustrations.

Episode Transcript

[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 much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

We are your hosts and guides through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Dwayne Davies, my husband, is the founder, primary content creator and voice for Metaphysics of Physics. I am Ashna and I help out however I can. You can find out more about us on the About page of the website.

You can also find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode twenty of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast and today we are going to continue our discussion of “A Rational Cosmology”, a book we started discussing in episode seventeen of the podcast. You might want to listen to that first. You can find the link to that episode in the transcript.

Today we are going to continue our discussion of the book and spend more time discussing some of the book’s philosophical issues.

We are still on some basic metaphysical issues. In this article, we will discuss space and matter. Why there is no such physical entity as space but there is space as a relationship. Then we move on to the pervasive qualities of matter.

You can find the book at the link provided in the transcript.

Without any further ado, let us get started.

Essay XI: Why There is No Such Thing as Space

This essay starts on page 19. It starts off with this:

“There is no such thing as ‘space.’ In order to be defined as an entity, space would need to meet the first ontological corollary, which states that an entity is the sum of its qualities. In order to pass this test, space must have some qualities in the first place.

But space lacks any qualities whatsoever. ‘Space’ cannot be said to have mass or a finite volume. As previously proved, there is no finite boundary at which “space” officially ends, nor is there a finite shape that “the entirety of space” can be fit into. “

It is true, there is no such physical entity as space. It is a mental entity, a concept used to indicate relationships between positions. When the author says “entity” he is always discussing physical entities. We shall stick to this convention and when we say “entity” this what we are discussing unless we say otherwise.

Is an entity the sum of its qualities? No. That implies that qualities are primary. And that entities are made out of their qualities. Which is not the case. Physical entities exist and that implies that they possess qualities. If that is what the author means, then that is perfectly fine.

What is space?

It is a concept which indicates relationships between positions. What does this mean?

Suppose that we consider a room in our house, say the living room. The living room is that part of the house between the four walls of the living room and between those four walls is some “space”.

The “space” within that room simply indicates relationships between the positions of those four walls. One wall is over here, another wall is over there and the other two are other there and there. In between is all this space. The space essentially refers to the separation between objects. This “space” then forms some area or volume in which you can find things.

space
The space in this room is simply a sum of places.

Space is simply the relationships between boundaries of some kind of container or some otherwise defined set of bounding objects.

So, for instance, you can walk into the living room and say “Well, we have these walls. They are in different positions. There are other positions in between them.”. And the sum of those other positions is the “space” inside the room.

Does this imply that there are no other things in those positions? No. The concept of position only applies to entities and only entities can have a position. There is no position of “a non-entity” or of nothing. Position is a quality and a quality is a quality of something.

Is this space absence of being? Early philosophers tended to think so. But this is not the case. There is no such thing as empty space.

What would empty space refer to? Some kind of “here” where there are no entities. Where nothing exists. But, how can there be any here without something that exists? How can there be any here separate from anything that exists? Unless there is a something there is no here.

Hence, there is no such thing as “empty” space. Or in other words, there is only space where there are things with position. To allege the existence of empty space is to talk about position without entities to have position and is a contradiction in terms.

There is no empty space in outer space! Or anywhere in the vast universe!
There is stuff in all of it!

No, space is not the absence of objects. It is not some backdrop upon which you can lay things that exist. For there to be any space, something must already exist.

Is it a combination of dimensions, as alleged by modern physics? Most certainly not. What would that even mean?

Math-magicians

Episode Nineteen – Math-Magicians and Mad Titans

Play

Today we are going over some of the Bill Gaede video “What is Physics. math-magicians and the genocidal plans of Thanos the Mad Titan.

You can find Bill Gaede’s video here if you want to watch it in advance or watch along with us.

Click here to download the PDF transcript. This episode’s transcript has no illustrations.

Episode Transcript

[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 much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

We are your hosts and guides through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Dwayne Davies, my husband, is the founder, primary content creator and voice for Metaphysics of Physics. I am Ashna and I help out however I can. You can find out more about us on the About page of the website.

You can also find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode nineteen of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast and Today we are going over the Bill Gaede video “What is Physics”.

If you want to know what a math-magician is, you are going to have to keep listening until right before the end of the segment covering the Bill Gaede video.

After that, we will discuss the Thanos bit and you can see how that is relevant.

Let’s start by diving into the video, shall we?

Math-Magicians

Bill Gaede starts off by discussing answers to a question he asked on some internet forum. The question went something like:

“Is Quantum Mechanics irrational and illogical?”

This is a good question. It sure seems that it is irrational and illogical. If you have listened to this show before, followed us on Facebook or read our blog, then you might know that we certainly think quantum mechanics is both irrational and illogical.

math-magicians
Unless you think this is somehow not illogical or irrational …

What kind of answers do you suppose he received to this perfectly valid question?

Well, Mr Gaede states four such answers given to him:

  1. “Why do we, humans, want everything to be logical?”

  2. “It is NOT irrational and illogical … just non-intuitive.”

  3. “Why should human logic and rationality apply to quantum mechanics?”

  4. “It’s man’s comprehension of such phenomenon that is illogical and irrational.”

We have heard all these responses in some form or another several times. And we imagine Gaede has heard them several times since he encountered them in that forum post.

Let us provide my thoughts on these answers.

1) “Why do we, humans, want everything to be logical?”

Not all of us do. Many of us are perfectly happy with illogical answers. Even though illogical answers do not help us understand the world. Even though such answers generally impede our ability to understand the world.

However, many other people do want everything to be logical, certainly when it comes to science. We know that the only answers which are of any use are those which are true. Those which are reached according to valid, well-supported chains of reasoning and which are in agreement with reality. That is, those which are logical.

Damn Aristotle for making us think science could be logical …

What is the alternative? Answers which are not based on sound reasoning and which do not agree with reality? What use are those? If the answer is not true, then it is of no value. Even if it happens to be true, if it is not based on sound reasoning, then we cannot know whether or not it is true and we have no reason to believe that it is.

That is why some of us want our knowledge to be logical. Because we want answers which are true and we want a basis for knowing whether they are true or not.

2) “It is NOT irrational and illogical … just non-intuitive.”

First of all, it is irrational and illogical. What else would you call it? It asserts all sorts of contradictions, impossibilities and mutually exclusive things. Such as particles being in mutually exclusive states, properties not definitively existing unless observed, things magically traveling from A to B without covering any of the intervening space and so forth.

What else would you call something that makes claims which openly defy what we know to be true about reality? For no reason and against all reason. And against reason on purpose!

Don’t believe us that quantum mechanics is irrational on purpose? Well, listen to our discussion of Niels Bohr, one of its founders. And then consider that essentially everyone in the field agrees with him and holds to very similar philosophical premises.

https://metaphysicsofphysics.com/episode-seven-bohrs-philosophy/

So, yes, it is in fact very illogical, which means it is also irrational. And doubly irrational for trying to be illogical and to pretend reality is not what it is.

Bill Gaede

Episode Eighteen – Introducing the Ideas of Bill Gaede

Play

Today we are going to discuss Bill Gaede, his philosophical and scientific ideas and some of the reasons they are important.

Please note that not everything we say here necceasirly represents the views of Bill Gaede and represent our own views. We are presenting his ideas in the wider context of our own knowledge.

Click here to download the PDF transcript. This episode’s transcript has no illustrations.

Episode Transcript

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

Introduction

Metaphysics of Physics is the much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

We are your hosts and guides through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Dwayne Davies, my husband, is the founder, primary content creator and voice for Metaphysics of Physics. I am Ashna and I help out however I can. You can find out more about us on the About page of the website.

You can also find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode eighteen of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast and today we are discussing the works of Bill Gaede and its importance.

Who is Bill Gaede?

Bill Gaede was born n 1952 in Argentina and spent much of his earlier life as an engineer and programmer.

He is, unfortunately, apparently best known for his Cold War industrial espionage conducted while working at AMD (Advanced Micro Devices). It seemed that at the time he sympathized with Communism. As a result, he provided the Cuban government with technical information pertaining to the semiconductor industry.

[Editorial: Unfortunate because his scientific work is much more interesting and this earlier stage of his life seems to encourage people to think he is a crank. Which is isn’t]

He later turned himself over to the CIA. Which lead to him working with the FBI in counter-espionage operations. As a result, he was prosecuted and convicted. I believe he was sentenced to 33 months in prison but only served 3 years. He was later deported.

If you want to know more about this, El Crazy Che on Netflix discusses it.

El Crazy Che Bill Gaede

We have not seen El Crazy Che as of yet, but we hear it is quite good.

If we did not bring this up, someone else would. Let us be clear, we are aware of this stuff. But, as we understand it his political views have changed and he became disillusioned with Communism.

But, more importantly, none of this really has any real impact on his views regarding philosophy of science and his scientific views. Which we are about to get to.

[Editorial: I am not sure how much Gaede considers his work philosophy or whether he would call himself a philosopher of science. But, his criticism of physics and other areas of science is philosophical. So, he does engage in some philosophy of science. So we are calling him a philosopher of science, even if he himself might not do so.]

Starting in the late nineties, he started devoting much of his time to a criticism of modern physics and the development of the Rope Hypothesis. His criticism is largely centered around the fact that modern physics is irrational and does not offer a proper physical interpretation of reality. And is, thus, really not physics. Which is very true. We will see more of these criticisms in this episode and the following ones where we start covering the “What is Physics” video.

This is his work which we are most interested in here on Metaphysics of Physics. He has a lot to say in this area and quite a lot of it is very good. We do not agree with all his conclusions, but the essentials of his arguments against modern physics are all very good and highly worth exploring in detail.

In our view, he is one of the most objective and rational critics and philosophers of science we know of. There is a great deal he says which we have said for a long time. It is extremely impressive to see someone else saying this stuff. Especially given he does not have the philosophical background in Objectivism which we do. It would be impressive even if he did.

It is not easy doing what we and Bill Gaede do. Philosophy is not easy, just ask anyone who does a lot of it. It requires a lot of high-level abstraction and integration. Which you then have to learn how to apply.

thinking

Rational thought s not easy, it can take a lot of time and effort.

Rational philosophy requires a lot of sound ideas, all well integrated into a coherent whole. While rejecting mainstream philosophy and its largely irrational ideas. Usually after having already implicitly accepted many of them. Which requires you to reason your way out of those ideas and to untangle them from your better philosophical ideas.

So anyone with a fair grasp of a decent number of rational philosophical ideas has achieved something rare and difficult. And it is important to recognize this and give people credit for that. Whatever other errors they make or evasions they might be guilty of.

What About His Work?

What do we think of Bill Gaede’s Rope Hypothesis? It is extremely intriguing and as far as we have studied it, it seems entirely plausible. It offers a physical interpretation of a great many things in physics. Such as gravitation, light, electromagnetism and so on. The key word here is physical. It offers an explanation in terms of the actions of physical entities.

But isn’t that what physics already does? No, not modern physics. Not really. It offers non-physical “explanations” for things which in fact explain nothing. For instance, take how General Relativity describes gravity as the curvature of space-time. What is space-time? Blank out, it offers no real explanation.

Does this matter? Does physics need to explain things in terms of physical objects?

Yes! It most certainly does. Since physics is supposed to explain the fundamental nature of the physical world.

[Editorial: It is a shame that I have to point this out. Since physics is all about the study of the physical world!]

A Rational Cosmology

Episode Seventeen – Reviewing “A Rational Cosmology”, Part One

Play

Today we are going to discuss the book “A Rational Cosmology”. This is part one of a series. You can download the book for free here.

Click here to download the PDF transcript. This episode’s transcript has no illustrations.

Episode Transcript

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

Introduction

Metaphysics of Physics is the much needed and 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 to our community.

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.

You can find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.

Hi everyone! This is episode seventeen of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast and I am Ashna, your host and guide through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Thanks for tuning in!

Today we are going to discuss the book “A Rational Cosmology” by Gennady Stolyarov II. This is part one of a series.

What is this book and why are we talking about it? Is it as rational as it claims to be?

All good questions and today we will answer the first two and start to answer whether or not it is as rational as it claims to be.

Okay, so let’s dive in.

What Is This Book About?

Well, the title gives a not so subtle clue. It is a book intended to present a rational cosmology.

A Rational Cosmology
I wonder what the book could be about? Hmm…

Lets quote the author himself:

“As constructive alternatives to these fallacies, A Rational Cosmology presents objective, absolute, rationally grounded views of terms such as universe, matter, volume, space, time, motion, sound, light, forces, fields, and even the higher-order concepts of life, consciousness, and volition. The result is a system verified by ubiquitous observation and common sense, the underpinnings of objective science which demonstrate a knowable, fathomable reality and set the stage for unfettered progress, confidence in reason, and full-scale logical investigation of just about everything existence has to offer.” – http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html

[Editorial: What are “these” fallacies? Well, we will soon provide examples of the kinds of fallacies the author has in mind.]

Before we go further, what is cosmology?

Wikipedia defines cosmology as:

“Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos “world” and -λογία, -logia “study of”) is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.” – Wikipedia article on cosmology.

The universe is simply “the totality of all things that exist. It does not make sense to say it has an origin.

The universe is not a thing that can have an origin. It is simply “all the things that exist”. In no sense does this have an origin. What could be the origin of “everything that exists”?

Something outside of existence? No. Something before anything existed? No.

Nor does “everything that exists” evolve. The concept of change does not apply to the concept “universe”. So, it cannot be said to be evolving.

The concept “universe” is a pretty simple one and there is not a lot to discuss.

In episode three, we discussed the “configuration of the universe”. This simply refers to the various relationships between things that exist. This is the kind of “configuration” cosmology might study.

Suppose that we consider various things like galaxies, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets and the like. This includes most of the things that exist.

galaxy
For instance, did galaxies always exist?

And we then consider the various relationships between them. That combination, on a large-scale, is what we mean.

For instance, existence, in general, seems to be arranged as a series of stars, solar systems, galaxies. And various things in between. That is one “configuration” of existents. It need not be the only “configuration”.

Perhaps before the “Big Bang”, things were arranged in some other configuration. This is the kind of “evolution” cosmology might validly study. Although, “change” would be a better word than “evolution”.

I don’t really think that there is a lot for us to discuss here. At least not on Metaphysics of Physics. This is not an astronomy show. And philosophically speaking, cosmology does not give us much to talk about.