Social comment, especially concerning math and physics
Are there stable patterns within existence? or Does everything "swim" in a context of indefinable randomness, where intent is upheld by extreme violence and intellectual arrogance?
If an educational institution is seeking employees, then one must consider that... .. the state of education seems to show that the personal of educational institutions, either as administrators of... , or as authorities within... ., these people in educational institutions are failing in regard to the knowledge and creativity of society as a whole (because these institutions serve the forces of monopolistic domination over society, and these monopolies are being supported by educational institutions).
The current structure in which knowledge is related to (very narrowly defined) creativity has destroyed: knowledge, education, and creativity within society, because knowledge is only being related to the narrow interests of big businesses, eg military, oil, and banking.
There are fundamental, stable, definitive physical systems which exist at all size scales which do not have valid descriptions resulting from applying , so called, physical law in regard to using this physical law to identify (calculate) these well defined properties of material systems.
There is a new descriptive context based on partitioning an 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space by means of very stable circle-spaces, or discrete hyperbolic shapes, where these stable shapes model a metric-space associated to particular subspaces associated with the different dimensional levels, and by this model the stable properties of fundamental physical systems can be identified, as well as developing relatively simple ideas about life-forms and to model the system organization which allows the description of the control that life possess over itself.
Yet this type of creative effort is marginalized, due to intellectual arrogance and dogmatic authority whose basis emanates from the social forces of monopolistic socio-economic institutions (the military, oil, and banking) which limit both knowledge and creativity within society, so as to strangle (and destroy) the society itself. [The desire to serve the monopolies that dominate society emanates from the social position of people as wage-slaves seeking high salaries and seeking the prestige of a highly-valued institution.] The entire culture must serve the narrow interests of these monopolies, and this is effectively enforced by the justice system (wage-slavery is enforced by the department of justice based on property rights).
Education (or knowledge and knowledge's relation to creativity) should not be about focusing on a handful of very technical (or very secretive) instruments for the purpose of using these instruments to uphold the very selfish monopolistic and socially domineering business interests.
Today's math and science university departments focus on descriptive structures based on indefinable randomness (where elementary events are unstable) and non-linearity (a quantitatively inconsistent descriptive context) as well as a continuum (which is simply "too big" of a set, so that words and patterns lose their meaning) so as to relate these poorly defined math patterns to feedback systems with limited range of purpose (so as to guide a drone or a missile to be used in war), or to design a nuclear bomb, also one must mention the "risk fiasco" where apparently "so called, deep MIT mathematicians" were used to calculate investment risks (where the failures of these calculations were directly related to the 2008 economic collapse). That is, these (believed to be, rigorous) risk calculations were not true, so as to result in the lose of trillions of dollars.
A risk calculation, where the elementary events are not stable, cannot hope to be all that realistic of a model (since the question is, "Is counting well-defined?").
A distinguishable property is not a valid basis for the definition of probabilities (eg the events of a valid elementary event space must be stable and well defined, not simply identifiable).
Randomness and indefinable randomness cannot be used to describe the stable properties of fundamental physical systems, as is now being attempted.
In a continuum, if one can define a value by a convergence process then it will fit into a continuum, ie a continuum allows too many types of quantities defined upon itself, eg randomness and geometry can co-exist in the same descriptive context within a continuum.
Patterns do not exist in an abstract condition, they depend on a context and within that context patterns need to be stable and well-defined. Sets which are "too big" allow incompatible patterns, supposedly, within the same context.
This is an issue about whether descriptive and precise words have meaning, but meaning is related to stable well-defined patterns in a context, where the context is relatable to practical creative actions.
Creativity results from people who are equal and who are seeking changes, most notably changes in knowledge and its relation to new contexts for creativity.
Whereas, fixed authority is about holding social patterns fixed so as to sustain monopolistic, socially domineering business interests.
Equality is for creativity while inequality is about fixed structures and the extreme violence which is needed to maintain such inequality.
Learners need to be equal free-inquirers, and when one lives in a society where the propaganda system is the sole voice of authority and that single voice supports fixed monopolistic socio-economic interests, then the learning institutions become based on dogmatic authority and are characterized by arrogant intellectualism, which leads to social failure and to the failures of knowledge.
Creativity cannot be defined in terms of strumming a guitar, manipulating society by a controlled use of icons of social value (allowed by the single-authoritative-voice model of the media, ie propaganda system), or working on math patterns which are not capable of describing a stable set of patterns.
The military oil banking business interests should not be the primary (only) social forces defining the single voice of authority (of the media that they own) for a free and equal society. Human creativity is much more diverse.
The correct interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem is that if one cannot create "what one wants" by using the existing precise language, then invent a new language, within which new contexts of creativity can emerge.
Education should not be about defining psychological types such as "autism with capacity to use language" ie obsessive personality types who are competitive but not reflective nor are they particularly curious, so as to work on a small set of complicated instruments which are used by the ruling class (ie military, oil, banking interests) in a fixed way, associated to maintaining society in a fixed way of organizing a society so that the society is required to use the products produced by the monopolies.
People are fundamentally both equal "seekers of knowledge" and equal creators, so education is about (descriptive, measurable, and build-able) knowledge and the relation that knowledge has to creativity and the creative context.
Creativity is best related to a precise language which is closely related to the elementary language structure of assumption, axiom context interpretations and organization of a containment set. Stating elementary properties for a new language allows creativity to be accessible to many people.
The best example might be Faraday who developed the language of electromagnetism and while he invented this language he also developed technology and the use of the ideas of electromagnetism.
In regard to Faraday's creative actions it should be noted that the working aspect of today's, so called, highly technical society is all centered around the development of the ideas related to electromagnetism, while the undefined randomness associated to quantum description has not led to any technical development based on the information gained from quantum description, eg the properties of transistors were determined experimentally and then coupled to classical systems. Particle-physics is only related to rates of nuclear reactions. This is another example of how big business directs knowledge's relation to creativity within our society, where erroneously calculating the "investment risks" for banks (where these calculations were based on institutionally determined truths about math) is, yet, another example.
That is, this is about the law of the US society, in fact, being based on equality (because of the historic significance of the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed American law was to be based on equality) and law not being based on property rights and minority rule.
That is, are humans wage-slaves or are they equal creators?
If one believes that we are unequal then "who, or what, is allowed to define the context in which value is determined?" It "should be" science and math, but where science and math are defined by their relationship to creating precise languages at elementary levels (of assumption and defining contexts for interpretations), and more importantly, whether a descriptive language is related to practical creativity, but this essentially means the existence of stable patterns and "in math" patterns are defined as geometries, while numbers are about measuring.
Why should one believe that randomness (or limited contexts of feedback) be a basis for stable patterns?
The observed stable properties of physical systems: nuclei, general atoms, molecules, crystals, the solar system, dark matter (motions of stars in galaxies) etc. all go without a valid description based on what is supposed to be physical law.
The descriptions of these stable systems require stable math patterns to both describe these stable systems and to allow for the stable measurable context within which these systems are observed. But such a simple idea, which makes so much sense, is carefully ignored by society and the institutions, which so scrupulously serve the narrow interests of big business
Today's education institutions should take a broader view of knowledge and creativity so as to not define knowledge as a process of fine-tuning the instruments which are of most importance to the ruling class.
That is, the society needs to be out-side the oppression of wage-slavery, and monopolistic domination negated, and this can be accomplished (or remedied) by practical technical creativity.
Teaching needs to be based on equal free-inquiry and not be based on narrow dogmatic authority. Authority is not truth, yet, today, "educational institutions" are not distinguishing between authority and truth. Since the reader must also be confused, let me inform you; truth needs to be related to practical development, and remember the ideas of Ptolemy were measurably verified (measurable verification can often be irrelevant, in regard to determining truth).
If your institution wants to become a valid institution of knowledge which is relevant to widely diverse viewpoint concerning creativity, then perhaps your institution should try to get independent creative types to be your bosses.
To further develop the use of stable circle-spaces in a many dimensional context to describe the observed stable properties of physical (eg nuclei) and living systems.
On the other hand the extreme violence of our culture, where this violence emanates from the protection of the interests of the owners of society, has allowed a propaganda system to mold society, where the propaganda system only allows the interests of the monopolistic big business interests to be expressed. The affect of this, is that, both social organization has become very stable and fixed but also the language (which the public uses in its institutions) is also stable and fixed, leading to a context of stability upon which (basically, ill-defined) statistics can be applied, as long as the stable social context stays fixed.
The social context is held fixed by extreme violence, and the terrorism of the counterinsurgency tactics which the (highly militarized) justice system applies to the public, in order to defend the national security interests of maintaining the power of the powerful, and the fixed social structure upon which the power of the powerful is based, eg requiring that people continue to use oil and not use thermal solar energy.
In other words, independent creativity and the development of knowledge, different from the knowledge used by the monopolistic business interests, is not to be allowed. This is the basis for the ludicrous demand for "peer review," in what is supposed to be an equal society.
A review of assumptions and contexts so that these basic ideas can identify the creative or knowledge intent of a person expressing ideas should be done, but then publication should be organized around the different types of assumptions and contexts and interpretations.
Thus, the creationists could publish, but placed into their narrow category for the people who are interested in those types of ideas.
That is, science and math publishing should be open, but placed in categories of assumptions and contexts and creative intent, but math patterns seem to mainly be the patterns of geometry, and geometrization seems to say, geometric patterns should focus on the very stable discrete hyperbolic shapes, if one wants to actually be expressing valid math science, measurable, stable (or actual) patterns, which might have practical applicability.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article