portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

education | human & civil rights

Scientific revolutions: can lead to social revolutions

(or scientific revolutions can exist only after social revolutions, so as to make it clear how the propaganda system is manipulated, and even the experts are duped by this manipulation)

Godel's incompleteness theorem is about the limitations in regard to the practical usefulness of precise (measurable) language, and it requires that the development of precise, practically useful descriptive knowledge exist in an equal society, wherein equal free-inquiry exists. This is the idea of equality which is the fundamental teaching of all religions, ie equality related to both the development of knowledge and the relation of knowledge to practical creativity, and to new contexts for practical creativity.
Descriptive and measurably verifiable knowledge develops at the (elementary) level of assumption, context, interpretation, etc, and only (small) adjustments to existing uses of language are related to an overly authoritative context which is narrowly defined and it is a descriptive language which is held rigidly fixed, so as to become so complicated it is practically useless.

The propaganda system is considered by the public to be, "the single, and only trusted, voice of an absolute truth" which is provided to the public by (the intellectual authorities, who work for) the owners of society through the media, ie the instruments of communication within the society, which are controlled by the owners of society, and which are used to set-up and determine institutional and societal goals, so that the "absolute truth," which is so expressed by the media, is the truth which best fits, in regard to serving the (business) interests of the owners of society. Ownership, business, knowledge, and practical creativity, as well as deceptive use of language, are the main forces of society which are used by the owners of society to control society.
Where it should be noted that business and economics is not about the quantitative structure of money being governed by quantitative rules about the economy (since the large players in the game can make the economic rules invalid by how the large players use their money), but rather economics is the arbitrary social-institutional set-up, in regard to the culture's knowledge, and how it is used in the practically creative processes (which are narrowly defined by the owners of society so as to maintain their social power) within society. Thus, the communication system is used to maintain the social power of the owners of society, and to control the language and the thoughts of the public, so that their beliefs and actions will be channeled and used to maintain the interests of the owners of society.

The owners of society have been able to manipulate social institutions so that the owners of society effectively play the role of God within society.
(This was done mostly through their absolute control over the propaganda system (ie society's communication system) and because politics is a subset of the propaganda system, so politicians are "vetted (chosen)" by business interest)
This was also do-able because of the corruption of religion, a corruption which characterizes the Protestant relation to Calvinism, where Calvinism is about discerning that a person has "a relation to God" (and that a person is virtuous) primarily if they prosper in the material world.
The owners of society are, in fact, the hidden-hand, which is defined by A Smith in his descriptions of capitalist-economics, but the deception is formed so that the hidden hand in economics is the hand-of-God, a God who controls economics (and their wage-slave minions).
That is, (macroscopic) economics is not a reliable quantitative descriptive structure which can be used to determine cause-and-effect. This is because there exist the owners of society, who have enough wealth and institutional influence so that they can control markets in an arbitrary manner, ie they play God, and they represent the hidden-hand of God within economics, the hidden-hand which is supposed to cause economics "to work" based on quantitative economic laws, this is a derivative of Calvinist thought. That is, this is all a bunch of baloney because economics is controlled by the owners of society, ie the ruling class, the bankers and oilmen who the military serves. Note that the standing-army is the backbone of the effective tyrannical emperor-bankers who rule society, just as was done in the Roman-Empire.

There is a relation in the language of the propaganda system in which (so that) "materialism" is linked to:
1. Calvinism, and to
2. Darwin's evolution (see below), and to
3. A Smith's descriptions of economics, as well as to
4. Marx's, amusing belief in a, "help-the-public oligarchic economic system,"
where Marx's system of oligarchy is incorrectly attributed to be about social-collectivism. This viewpoint is incorrect since the nature of western civilization, at least since the Roman-Empire, has been defined as a collectivism, a collectivism which is forced onto western civilization by the extreme violence of either emperors, or now (2013) bankers.
Note: The history of a slight amount of equal-freedom of the British-US society, supposedly, related to the Magna Charta, has been toppled by both the extreme violence of Empire and the wresting of science-freedom (the freedom to re-define technical language) by an overly dogmatic and authoritarian science and math professional community, which is associated with professional university science and math institutions, as well as being related to the need of the owners of society to have their important technical instruments adjusted and maintained (by the professional scientists).
The development of new science has, mostly, come from the margins of the academic system.
Note that new ideas about science and math interferes with the stability of investments in regard to technical activities (eg for corporations based on a given technology).

Thus "if" one sees that "what is being done by institutions is failing" then one has to oppose the authoritative commands of the propaganda system, and subsequently use new ways in which to "build and use language" so as to describe a new structure for language within which the failure, in regard to what is currently being done, can be stopped, within both the propaganda system, and within the society's (academic) institutions.
In particular, technology is failing to develop new contexts within which practical creativity can expand.

So if one sees that the current way in which society's institutions are being used is destroying the earth, by a form of poisoning of the environment (and thus the earth will not be able to sustain the life-forms which now exist upon it), then one needs to provide and alternative set (an alternative descriptive construct) in regard to how society should be organized.
For example, the use of oil by society is poisoning the earth and though the current knowledge of physics and math can provide clean relatively-cheap renewable energies, these energy sources are not developed, but the current knowledge of physics and math cannot provide to society a more economical (cheap), clean energy source based on new ideas about math and science,
where science and math have dogmatic ideas concerning what is assumed and how the descriptive language is organized, in regard to:
1. Reduction to smaller components, and assume both
2. Randomness, and
3. Non-linearity,
which have been the dominant ideas in the intellectual communities of science and math for over 100 years.

If... ., one sees that the institutions of math and science are failing in that both
(1) the descriptions of fundamental stable physical systems cannot describe to sufficient precision the observed properties of these fundamental systems (listed above), and
(2) the currently used descriptive constructs are not remotely related to the further development of practical (technical) creativity,
... , Then... , one needs to provide and alternative set (an alternative descriptive construct) in regard to how the descriptive constructs of both math and science should be organized.

But to be able to provide a new construct ... , and to begin a dialog based on the acknowledged failures of current practices in regard to social and (technical) ways in which language is organized... , one needs to deal with the propaganda system.

The saying about free-speech, provided by the propaganda system, in the US society is... ,
One can personally have free-speech if one owns a significant part of the propaganda system,
... ., but to acquire an expensive part of the communication system one must gain one's money by adjusting one's viewpoints to be consistent with the absolute truths proclaimed by the media (this must be done in order to make money). Thus, in order to get rich one must be rewarded within the context of the given absolute truth of the propaganda system, ie the same truth which defines business interests in which investment is allowed, and after being rewarded, so that one becomes rich, then one has lost touch with alternative ideas (which one wanted to express in the first place), and one can be sure that it is easier to continue one's success by remaining consistent with the authoritative dogmas of the "owners of society."
That is, authority is defined by the (very narrowly defined and highly controlled), so called, free-market, but this identifies an even more narrow a definition of authority than was the definition of authority determined by the Catholic Church in the age of Copernicus. This current practice of determining narrow authority within society is really an expression of Calvinism, where "a person having 'grace with God'" is determined by worldly successes of the person (one cannot help but see the hand of JD Rockefeller in this conniving propaganda maneuver), ie success in business (in Calvinism, worldly success shows that a person has self-evident virtues in the eyes of God, ie this was believed by the New England Protestantism, at least from the 1600's to the 1700's, but it is also the (hidden) theme of the propaganda system today (2013) and is the real basis for the "moral authority" of the right, where the political-right are the political factions which support the owners of society).

Because both
(1) science and math are failing to develop a new context for practical creativity, and
(2) that because of the way business is done today, namely, the earth is being irreparably damaged, by it being poisoned, and this is done because it (burning oil and poisoning the earth) provides the owners of society with great profits based on the resources which they currently control, and thus it allows them to continue to control society,
... , so that the society needs to be re-configured.

One way in which to do this, to help both problems, is to have law is based on equality (and not property-rights and minority rule, ie the basis of law in the Roman-Empire). This idea of equality is immediately (and wrongly) categorized as a society in which the people are required to believe-in a collective society, however, this is wrong (both the ideas of A Smith and K Marx express ideas about the oligarchical structure of society imposed by Roman civilization, where oligarchy is based on society having a collectivist social structure), consider the fact that the propaganda system remains so narrow, in regard to "what it allows to be expressed within society," and thus the propaganda system defines a society which is a collective-society, which focuses on a narrow range of ideas, and this means that such a society is not an equal society, ie it is not now (2013) a society of equal individual creators.
This might be a societal law, that "a society can only be considered to be an equal-society if its people are allowed to be independent, equal creators."

A retort which the propaganda system would provide, in regard to the idea of "a society of equals," is that society is based on the survival-of-the-fittest (apparently where food and water are scarce, a viewpoint which is not true "in general") and that people naturally form into hierarchies based on their own natural unequal abilities.
But inequality, in regard to ability, can only be measured in regard to a narrow definition of what a valid human activity should be. However, the development of knowledge requires that narrow definitions be allowed to be changed, ie that narrow definitions are not to be allowed to define a rigid authoritative context.
One sees that each individual should define what has value in their own lives, and not forced to personally value "what the-owners-of-society value."
A narrowly defined, and fixed, set of ideas is used to determine a system of extermination of both thought and life based on arbitrary high-value, ie the value defined by the emperor (the value defined by the investments which banks make).
But the high-value concerning the idea of survival-of-the-fittest is claimed to be a property identified by science, as a "law of biology."
However, mutation and survival-of-the-fittest, ie the basis of Darwinian evolution, is not a descriptive structure which can actually describe the way in which life-forms, and the characteristics of life-forms, come into being, ie the simple systems cannot be shown to develop into more complex systems based on mutation and survival-of-the-fittest.
This is a failing of this "type of math-construct," a math-construct which is based on "what is best described as indefinable randomness," ie it is a failed math-construct which is a result of defining probability in an improperly manner. Where it needs to be noted that "probability based descriptions" must be based on fixed sets of stable events, not on events which are unstable,... ., and not on events which cannot be defined (or identified).

"How can complicated constructs be defined by constructs of simple patterns without an implied reason to seek a state of "being a different construct" (ie the simple functions "as is," so "why should the simple seek to be different?")?" The claimed answer is mutation and competition for scarce resources. But mutations statistically are destructive, thus mutations lead to simpler systems, while new complex systems of a new life-form require internal intent in order to be driven towards such complexity, and not driven by acquisitiveness and brutal battle, in a context which begins within a similar simple context (see below for a more mathematical explanatory context).
The only way in which evolution makes sense is if things began in their most complicated context, in regard to DNA structure, and then destructive mutations allowed for complexity to develop, but the complexity would have to be driven by intent, not randomness.

In the current authoritarian propaganda-system, or "style of social communication," where only authorities and important personalities are allowed to express ideas within the media (ie publications and broadcasting, etc), and the public is to be "taught by the university authorities" so as to only be allowed to express narrow dogmas which support the interests of the owners of society.
This is not a valid model of knowledge.
The professional scientist is a social construct used to control knowledge, so that knowledge will only be used to support the interests of the owners of society (the professional scientist, mainly adjusts the instruments, which are used to support the interests of the owners of society), and the relation of the authority of professional scientists to teaching and subsequently related to a narrow vision of practical creativity, and it results in a narrow focus of science.
It might be noted that experts are people who do not believe in themselves (they do not believe in their own ability to discern truth) rather they believe in, and follow, institutional authority.
Note: In the age of Copernicus the Catholic Church was the only institution which was allowed to discern truth, today truth is primarily determined by the owners of society, ie the materially successful people, where material success is the basis for believing in the superiority of these people, ie a Calvinistic (and very materialistic) viewpoint about "how a society determines personal-worth."

Science and math are failing (too),
The nature of physical science

Assume that an observable pattern of material (or energy) is in a quantitative and geometric containment space, and the physical system exists in a descriptive (containment-set) context where measuring is reliable and patterns are stable (or, at least, some of the most fundamental patterns are stable).

However, in physical science,
Observable properties (qualities) are "no longer" related to a
... ., precisely determined (geometric)-(material-position) descriptive containment-set whose patterns are reliably measurable, and which are used to describe stable (controllable) and observable patterns.

This is because, in the descriptions of physical systems, it is now (2013) assumed by an overly authoritative science and math (institution, eg universities) that,


Existence is the reduction of physically observed properties to indefinably-random, local, spectral-particle-point events in space and time (the domain space of a "reduced to a point and observed" measurable property) influenced by system-defined measurable properties (or operators acting on wave-functions), apparently, defined in bounded regions of the domain space.
In this context, measurable properties, (or, equivalently, operators acting on function-spaces), are most intuitively defined by their actions on sets of harmonic functions, where these sets of harmonic functions can, be taken together to represent a physical system, whose fundamental observable properties are random, and where these harmonic functions have the form of waves, f(x,t)=Ae^i(Et-px), upon which local linear operators can act, so as to represent (or determine, after they operate on the quantum system's wave-function) a set of measurable properties, so that the measured-values of these properties are spectral-values (in regard to the spectral properties which the (partial) differential equations of quantum physics defines, and which these sets of operators might define).
(ie Quantum Physics and particle-physics)
However, in this descriptive context
the stable observed events cannot be calculated by this method for general (quantum) systems, whose properties this method is trying to describe,
because the events (or observed patterns) themselves are unstable (which is definitely true in particle-physics)
so either way... , either incalculable eigenvalues, or trying to determine probabilities of a system's spectral properties based on unstable patterns... , this precise descriptive construct of a probability related description of measured eigenvalues for the system does not have a proper definition (ie is not well-defined) in the context of these math constructs associated with the "reduction of a material system to random particle-spectral events in space and time," and thus this context cannot be used to identify valid measures of probability, for these (always assumed to be) reduced random events (which are defined as local spectral-particle events).
Note: This is also the basic, and invalid, math structure of indefinable randomness upon which Darwin's evolution is also based, ie observed properties (in the fossil record) of new complex subsystems introduced to new life-forms are not calculable, and the probabilities are based on unstable (simple) events, ie both the mutations and the events of survival-of-the-fittest, do not define stable patterns upon which a probability can be based in a valid manner. The probabilities of an organism developing along a particular path of evolutionary development cannot be calculated in a reliable context.


Existence is assumed to be about non-linear, local, (supposedly) measurable properties of space and time... ,
(the geometric measures defined on the domain space of a system, or pattern, which, supposedly, possesses a measurable property)... ,
... , influenced by system-defined measurable (material-geometric)-(energetic) properties. This is about trying to identify measurable, stable patterns, observed for physical systems, based on math methods defined on unstable and non-measurable math-patterns.
In classical physics there is the differential equation of F=ma, where a is acceleration, and a is related to spatial displacements, and where F is (quite often) a force-field, so that the force-field is a 2nd-order differential-form (ie a function related to local geometric-measures) which is determinable as a solution to a differential equation if this differential-form has been differentiated two-times by an exterior derivative (and its dual), ie a second-order partial differential equation, and then related, by the partial differential equation, to the geometric distribution of charges (or masses) and currents in the domain-space of the force-field solution function, ie in space-time (or space and time). This equation can (most) often be a non-linear equation, while the only useful and controllable solution functions (to these types of inertial-force-field equations) are related to linear, continuously commutative (independent in each local coordinate direction), and metric-invariant context for solution functions to a classical system's partial differential equation.
Whereas in general relativity a 2nd-order partial differential equation, is defined in regard to a connection, so as to define, in regard to the containing (curvilinear) coordinates, a non-commutative local operator relation (though diagonalizable at a single point), which acts on a metric-function (or metric-2nd-order-tensor) and then (this differential equation defined on the metric-function) is related, by the partial differential equation, to the geometric distribution of either masses and/or energy-density distribution of the system in the domain-space of the force-field (solution) function, ie in space-time (or space and time).
[Note: According to E Noether's symmetry relations, inertia is to be defined in Euclidean space, while energy is to be defined in a hyperbolic metric-space, ie (equivalently) a space-time metric-space, where it should also be noted that the energy-time symmetry relation of Emily Noether is the (real) basis for the Einstein relation of "mass equals energy."]
Once the metric-function is solved (found), by solving this non-linear partial differential equation, then the dynamics of the system's energy-distribution-inertia properties are supposed to be determined by the containing coordinate system's geodesics, ie not by F=ma, rather inertia follows geodesics.
However, since this is non-linear these general systems cannot be solved (nor controlled).
That is, it is a descriptive context which has no practical value in regard to practical creativity.
It should also be noted that, one wants to stay in the metric-invariant context, and not base physical description on general (non-linear) metric-functions.
(ie this is the descriptive context of General Relativity and the (above mentioned, in a previous paragraph) set of non-linear systems of classical physics)

However, very stable properties are observed for the fundamental systems, where these fundamental systems, in turn, provide the building-blocks for our experience, where in our experience, "measuring is reliable," where the fundamental stable physical systems are: nuclei, general atoms, molecules, crystals, and the solar system, etc, and where none of these systems has a valid description which is based on physical law so that the descriptions are sufficiently precise, in regard to some of the very precise, stable properties which many of these systems are observed to possess.

That is, science and math are failing.

Either one accepts the language of the authoritative institutions, in which case only traditional (institutional) authority is considered to be correct,
Ones sees that "what is being done, ie what language is being used" is wrong, ie the authoritative language is not valid, and thus one must present an alternative set of ideas.

Are precise descriptions containable in a measurably reliable geometric (or event containing) context, so that the descriptions are based on stable patterns?

In order to understand both stability of material systems, and to have these systems be contained within a reliably-measurable descriptive context, in regard to the domain space (or domain metric-space), one can consider an array of many hyperbolic metric-spaces (but whose inertial properties are relatable to a Euclidean space), modeled as discrete hyperbolic shapes (ie following the "time is related to energy" properties, determined by E Noether's symmetries), which possess both many-sizes and many-dimensions... ,
[ultimately, all, contained in an 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space, so as to define a finite set of both subspaces and spectra]
... , so that both material and space are the same type of thing. Namely, they are both hyperbolic metric-space constructs, but they identify different adjacent dimensional levels, while force-fields and inertial properties are defined in, yet, a higher-dimensional metric-space, which is adjacent to the material-containing metric-space.
That is, material is no longer modeled as a constant (or as a spectral-massive-point), but now is geometric. However, material-interactions are not (in the new descriptive construct) contained in the material-containing metric-space, but rather the material-interaction is defined in yet a higher-dimensional metric-space, which is adjacent (in regard to dimension) to the material-containing metric-space.
Nonetheless, material-interactions are also (still) defined as (partial) differential equations defined on metric-spaces, as is true for both classical physics and quantum physics (and particle-physics), but the metric-spaces are metric-invariant, and the stable shapes (of both material and metric-spaces) are linear and continuously commutative.
Thus, either the partial differential equations related to material interactions... , or the shape of space... , acts on the material components contained in a metric-space-shape... , and the number of material components within a metric-space can vary depending on the size of the metric-space-shape and the relation that the material components (which are contained in the metric-space) have to the structure, eg spectral-flow-structure (or, equivalently, sub-face structure of the shape's fundamental domain), of the containing metric-space. That is, there may only be enough material components to occupy the spectral-orbits which exist in the metric-space, or there may be many material components which can condense to form what are essentially independent-free material bodies, which can be related to the elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic second order partial differential equations, which identify the local measurable structure of material interactions, and its geometric relation of spatial displacement [or discrete velocity change] which exists between the local measurable properties and the fiber group {which causes the discrete changes, which, in turn, are defined in discrete time intervals}.

Note: Particle-physics is both indefinably random and non-linear, ie it is a descriptive structure with a very limited range of practical use, and it seems to only be useful in regard to determining the cross-sections of elementary-particles, ie cross-sections are related to determining probabilities of particle-collisions, and thus related to the rates of nuclear reactions (used in bombs).

The new context for physical description can easily account for the stability of material systems, as well as the structure of complex material-interactions, eg material component collisions, which, mysteriously, result in new stable systems, depending on both energy and resonances, but it is a description which can also account for the apparent random properties which small systems are observed to possess, as well as the point-like properties of their observed interactions.

That is, the new descriptive structure is consistent with observed properties of material systems contained in metric-space so as to account for both randomness and stability, and it is a new context which possesses relations with widely diverse new math constructs, related to the widely diverse properties of:
1. material-systems,
2. angular-momentum,
3. life,
4. mind,
5. religion,
6. cosmology, and
7. it identifies a new context for practical creativity.

That is, the new descriptive language both transcends the idea of materialism, and it contains the material-world as a proper subset.

Furthermore, it identifies a context in which "the shape of space" defines envelopes of orbital-spectral stability, ie the context of general relativity, wherein the shapes of interest, in regard to these envelopes of orbital stability, have the properties of being: linear, continuously-commutative, and metric-invariant; so that it is a context which can be related to angular momentum, ie it provides general relativity with a practically-useful context, wherein the often expressed idea of (non-linear) worm-holes, associated with general relativity, are now relatable to the linear, continuously commutative, and metric-invariant structures of angular momentum structure of very large and higher-dimensional shapes of metric-spaces, ie related to the toral-components of these very stable discrete hyperbolic shapes of these metric-spaces.

NO! 18.Jun.2013 05:02

Mike Novack

Godel's incompleteness theorem is about limitations of axiomatic systems above a certain level of "complexity" (those that have sufficient complexity to "map" arithmetic).

Not about natural language which is neither a "formal language" nor an axiomatic system. You have no reason whatsoever to assume that Godel's Theorem applies to any natural language. Natural languages are indeed "complex" in a different sense and clearly/obviously inconsistent (several classes of jokes are based upon the ambiguity of a natural language.

It isn't by anything internal to the language that you understand that these are different sorts of expressions (differing in how they are or are not ambiguous)

"The children are ready to eat."
"The pies are ready to eat."
"The chickens are ready to eat."