There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. – Hamlet (1.5.167-8), W.Shakespeare.
Plato liked democracy as much as Sir Roger Penrose likes quantum mechanics. By saving the distance in time, they both know perfectly that they are systems that work, but it scares them how quickly things degenerate when materialism takes over our minds.
Materialism arose from the triumph of reason over superstition during the social revolutions of the eighteenth century and is fundamentally based on the fact that the only reality is the material one, so metaphysics, things like “I think therefore I am” by Descartes were expelled from science with God and all the demons. It has turned out to be a risky swerve: mental creations like human rights have came flying out the window and are about to come off from the vehicle. After nonsenses such as fission energy or nonevents such as molecular physics, some disillusioned are resuming the subject; After all, nothing should be left out of observation and experimentation, so that apparently they are trying to recover an idea already outlined by Plato himself, a way of approaching the problem of consciousness, the idea of death, that of God and those things forbidden by skeptics; The proposal is that consciousness is not contained in the brain, but like the magnetism of a magnet, it covers the whole body and extends beyond, blending invisibly with other fields, ultimately forming a single field that vibrates and fluctuates throughout the entire universe. The concept of field is not a recent idea, it is not an invention of quantum physics, it was coined by Faraday.
Materialism is wounded, at least in academic circles, in such a way that material reality is no longer the fundamental, the essential issue; the being, the matter are just lumps of a gigantic energy shake, put it in some way. Quantum fields make up space-time and are not made of anything and it is the matter what is made of fields. Skepticism is reasonable, as long as there is no experiment corroborating a theory; this is not the case. The approach, the new perspective derives from the fact that the particles that make up the matter are not sterile beads, or spherical marbles that rotate … they lack definite form. An electron has a life much more complicated than we think, it interacts, it shares information, it has social life so to speak and the group of friends of its social network covers the whole universe. Scientists call it quantum entanglement, it was predicted mathematically and has been experimentally proven at different times. Two particles, two electrons for example, coming from the same source, share links regardless of the distance that separates them; Einstein considered it rather spooky.
But it is so, any change by which one of the electrons can be affected is instantly manifested in the other; it is what actually annoyed Einstein, that the process was apparently faster than light. Two of the experiments were carried out at great distances, one was carried out on the earth’s surface and the other between a satellite and the earth, with the same result, suggesting that both distance and time are irrelevant, so it is not absurd to think that the field of information would not be subdued to the tyranny of the speed of light and therefore there are realities beyond what we consider real. The existence of a medium that somehow links all minds, all data, all the information of the universe, may sound very Borg-style, hive minds and such, but nothing of that, It is not that individuality is futile, quite the contrary, it is very important that the vision that each living being has of the world from its capabilities and particular circumstance, must be as different as possible from that of the rest, because the field of information is enriched with the variety of perspectives. On the other hand, it must always be remembered that paraphrasing a staunch materialist like Feynman, in matters of this nature, believing or to trust is not what is important, it is necessary to doubt. To wonder ultimately and be open to other possibilities.
The problem that researchers is that they are accustomed to seek answers with instruments based on the known electromagnetic spectrum, without really knowing the limits of this electromagnetic spectrum, therefore perhaps they are unable to detect subtleties such as the alleged field of Information, so we still have to tiptoe over this whole matter of consciousness. Paradoxically the concept is an idea that somehow the corporations, governments and others are already exploiting, creating profiles, classifying, performing statistics and planning strategies with the help of the internet, for purposes similar to those that led to the construction of atomic bombs.
Things are more or less real from the material point of view, depending on the degree of interaction with the Higgs field, however particles like photons, ie light, ignore Higgs and his field completely, they are immaterial particles, nonexistent from the strictly materialistic point of view and there they are, like the neutrinos we do not even see. According to the second principle of thermodynamics, one of the most sacred laws, theoretically the information cannot be lost, more rare things have been seen, well, the evidence that the information is preserved seems to be so overwhelming that it has made to change the way of thinking of Stephen Hawking and I mention him not because he is a great scientist, which he certainly is, but because his recalcitrant stubbornness seemed to be proverbial.
It is curious that the ancestral corpus of the whole Eastern philosophy supports this particular holistic point of view that underlies inside of quantum mechanics; The observer is no different from the one observed …
Against the general mainstream, Sir Roger Penrose does not believe that artificial intelligence is possible in the near future, in his opinion, consciousness is a non-computational process that is beyond the current state of physics.
It is possible that science ends up turning materialism into a sort of cult, given the cryptic of its discourse, full of enigmatic dogmas in the form of mathematical axioms. Liberal technocrats say no, that it is impossible, but the fact is that they are already treating it like a religion in the economic ground. The profane in the matter should have something to work with, not simply tell us that the universe is the word which goes after immeasurable and existence is an irrelevant accident without purpose; that makes us seem insignificant, we need to know at least why we are in this picture. Yes, I already know the positivist message that says that each one must find his purpose in life, and it would be cool if it was not because, in competitive societies, someone must always lose for another to win. David Bohm believed that in order to avoid the extinction, we must first change the way we use our heads, learn to do it with real common sense, with collective sense… in his opinion, as well as that of many, humanity unconsciously conspires against itself, Because it clings to certain toxic aspects of this civilization, which definitely in essence is the result of fear and violence.
In quantum mechanics, he elaborated a theory in which he calls the universe “the order explained or unfolded” and argued that there is an “implicit or folded” order that we cannot perceive, from which at the moment of the Big Bang, arose the explicit order, the observable. May Bohm forgive me, but it strikes me the parallelism of this theory, with the ancient Heliopolitan cosmogony, which claimed that the god Ra who represents life, arose by an “unfolding” of Atum, the primordial whole. The ancient Egyptians seem to have intuited something. The brain, that prodigious machine, is part of the explained order, not as the consciousness that it not exist according to the majority since it cannot be measured; under Bohm the consciousness does not necessarily have to be in the brain and consequently, perhaps subsists. Most of gurus of the materialist religion profoundly detest this idea, Death is death, period. Stephen Hawking however thinks that the information of an entire galaxy somehow remains on the borders of its inner black hole. In any case, here I leave this surprising experiment that illustrates the theory of the “implicit order”:
At the present moment the authorities in physics are reasonably content because they have managed to assemble in a single formula, the explanation of each and every one of the phenomena that until now we are able to perceive either with our senses or with the appropriate artifacts, from the Cosmic and gigantic to the incredibly tiny, integrating all the known forces and particles on which they exert their action ie; Gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, matter and the Higgs field:
This formula is of course partial, since it does not include yet dark matter, nor does the repulsive energy, which it doesn’t mean disgusting, but it is confusing calling it “dark” too; either way this unification allows us to suspect that perhaps all these different things, in the same way that occurs with electricity and magnetism, are only different manifestations of the same thing. David Bohm, as well as Einstein, Bohr, the old guard, even Feynman in a way, thought that from mathematical algorithms it was possible to draw meaningful sociological or existential conclusions, he dared to do teleology, which is not the same as theology, although it is equally ill-seen, but it seems that biologists and cosmologists are more likely to do so than current theoretical physicists, who are much more myopic, since their only methods of observation are mathematics, although however they can predict things, a remarkable property of maths. Basically Bohm proposed that since the universe in the subatomic ground is an amalgam of closely intertwined particle fields, it was therefore a mistake to look at things as differentiated parts rather than as an evolving “whole”. Therefore we should start to see the world in a different way, in accordance with the essential nature of reality, beginning by understanding that frontiers do not protect anyone, against pollution or plagues, for example; Religions create division, economic inequalities generate conflicts, competitive sports exalt the idea of confrontation … there is a confused accumulation of factors that divide man and society and which feed the idea of fragmentation, to the detriment of cohesion and coherence. He was not naive, what happens is that he was aware of the current scientific and technological potential: there is no purpose or objective beyond the reach of humanity if it was willing to dialogue, to collaborate, and all those kind of goodist (sic) things, so unpopular now. I could not avoid inserting here the monologue of Louis CK, “if god came back to the Earth”:
An interesting appreciation of the many that can be found in his book “the totality and the implicate order” arises from the ethymology of the Latin word medire, which shares the same root as “cure”, herefrom medicine and moderation, meaning that in its origin the concept of measurement was much broader, and then with the commercial habit of counting for example, the routine ended up banalizing it:
Protagoras said: ‘Man is the measure of all things’, emphasizing that the measure is not a reality outside the man nor exists independently of him. But many of those who were already in the habit of considering everything superficially also applied this way of thinking to what Protagoras had said. Thus, they derived the consequence that the measure was something arbitrary and subject to the capricious choice or to the taste of each individual. Naturally, they thus overlooked the fact that the measure is a way of observing that it has to conform to the whole of the reality in which one lives … () … This way of observing can only arise correctly when a man works with seriousness and honesty, placing truth and reality first, rather than their own whims or desires.
Apparently Einstein went so far as to say that if anyone could go beyond quantum physics, that was David Joseph Bohm.
Several ancient cultures dispute for the fact of having invented the number zero, a necessary tool for mathematics to work. The thing went well until some disciples of Pythagoras, who as a geometer was a fanatic of the whole numbers, discovered the existence of irrational numbers, with an infinite number of decimals, something very crazy for the time; people died due to it. Later, Newton managed to lift an image of a mechanical universe that remained standing until Einstein began to shake it. The not so modern quantum mechanics now comes to dynamite the idea of emptiness, of zero, of nothing, by the hands of researchers like David Tong, as shown in this short video:
David Bohm would surely have loved it. The truth is that Einstein’s relativity explains only the sensitive universe and has little or nothing to do with reality which our limited senses cannot perceive, that of which we are all made; The fluctuating subatomic universe, saturated, filled with electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum fields, each composed of particles that follow rules different from those of classical physics … that is why quantum mechanics was invented. It’s nothing unusual, it happened with the zero, Newton had to invent the calculus …
Heisenberg demonstrated conclusively the validity of quantum mechanics with its famous uncertainty principle: in the macroscopic world, there is nothing that prevents knowing the position and momentum (which is a value to the direction and velocity) of a ball in movement for instance; in the microscopic world of the Plank scale, this is not as such; When the position is calculated with a very low degree of indetermination, that is to say, the more accurate is the position’s measurement, the particle’s momentum value becomes highly imprecise and vice versa:
Professor Walter Lewin explains it masterfully in this video, where he first exposes how unfortunate is the image we all have of the atom with its electrons orbiting around the nucleus in a solar system way, and in the end demonstrates with an experiment the mathematical predictions of Heisenberg. The video is long but worth it, in any case, it’s a fact that the behavior of electrons within any chip is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics; which means, that it works, although no one knows very well why.
Like all previous researchers, the present ones are also having problems to prove their theories by means of experiments, but they are on it, apparently they have already found the way to avoid the annoying principle of Heisenberg, without violating it. One of the fattest problems is that normal binary processors go wrong when they have to work with astronomical numbers; hence they are willing to build quantum processors. Andrew Pontzen explains it briefly:
However, it is possible that the biggest problem is that there are too many theories derived from quantum mechanics, many of which are incompatible with each other, so some think that perhaps a simpler way of explaining observations might be found. Terry Rudolph says that we may have to forget the anthropocentric vision that our primate senses have created from reality, in order to really understand it; and to illustrate it, he shows how something like this happened to the astronomers before Galileo, who were forced to design a complex system of geometrical juggling, pretty nice-looking actually, so that the measurements might fit the observations and the prescriptions of religion, which required the earth to be in the center of the solar system … and of the whole universe in fact:
Before Galileo After Galileo
Andrew Pontzen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA&t=2s
Walter Lewin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeK0DV329mU
Terry Rudolph https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGZDhQoR9E#t=3770.221
People with lots of money have gathered at DAVOS 2017 to tell us in a show of transparency that they are filling their pockets, and that from now on they intend to continue doing so. They have put it on YouTube under the heading ” Global economy outlook“. They have also said that in the near future they want to eliminate the working class with the help of technology, although they have not said what will happen to the middle class. They have not mentioned the Syrian war or any of the ongoing conflicts, nor have they of course dealt with climate change in any way. It is not reproachable, it must be said, it was not in the script. Here a short video caption as a summary:
Christine Lagarde was there for the IMF, impassive as a first generation automaton, verbalizing figures and percentages based on “models” that showed that everything is going very well. Then there was Wolfgang Schauble, for the Bundesbank, with a lamentable aspect and in a wheelchair talking without saying anything. A smiling Haruiko Kuroda from the Bank of Japan obviated the Fuckushima disaster that apparently had no impact at all on the Japanese economy and also Philip Hammond for Great Britain defended the virtues that would bring to the international community the scission of his country from the international community, Larry Fink on behalf of the “private sector” joked openly that his country, the United States, was the most indebted in the world. But of course, everyone was perfectly in agreement that politics, not to mention democracy and migratory crises, mentioned as if they were flocks of birds, were the problem. Although they may well be qualified as followers of the Antichrist, or kids, it is not in that way, apparently they are adult human beings, so equals and as differents as each of us, just they are much better paid.
There is a video of the Royal Institution dealing with Chaos Theory, dark matter and economics, where a theoretical physicist, Andrew Pontzen, gives the opinion that the economy deserves to physicists, I have subtitled it because it is for laughing in order to not crying.